DHS Needs to Improve Its 

Oversight of Misconduct 

and Discipline 

June 17, 2019 

OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS
 

DHS Needs to Improve Its 

Oversight of Misconduct and Discipline
 

June 17, 2019 

Why We Did 

This Audit 

We conducted this 

department-wide audit to 

determine whether the 

Department of Homeland 

Security has sufficient 

processes and procedures 

to address conduct issues. 

This report presents our 

findings on DHS oversight 

and the results of our 

employee survey. 

What We 

Recommend 

We made eight 

recommendations to 

ensure effective 

Department oversight of 

efforts to address conduct 

issues. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 981-6000, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov 

What We Found 

DHS does not have sufficient policies and procedures 

to address employee misconduct. Specifically, the 

Department’s policy does not include procedures for 

reporting allegations of misconduct, clear and specific 

supervisor roles and expectations, or clearly defined 

key discipline terms. These deficiencies occurred 

because DHS’ Employee Relations office has limited 

staff, who do not believe they are responsible for 

managing the allegation process. DHS also does not 

effectively manage the misconduct program 

throughout the Department, lacking data monitoring 

and metrics to gauge program performance. Without 

oversight through defined policies and program 

management, DHS cannot make informed decisions to 

improve the program and ensure all components 

manage the misconduct process consistently. 

Additionally, this shortcoming could lead to costly 

litigation due to inappropriate or unenforceable 

disciplinary determinations. 

We distributed a survey to identify how DHS 

employees perceive the Department’s disciplinary 

process. Although the results of the employee survey 

were overall favorable, respondents identified areas of 

weakness, including negative perceptions of senior 

leaders’ behavior and the need for more employee 

relations training for supervisors. Given the survey 

results and the lack of sufficient policies and 

procedures, the Department cannot ensure it treats 

all employees equally or that components have 

properly addressed or referred all misconduct 

allegations. 

DHS Response 

DHS concurred with all eight of our recommendations 

and has begun taking corrective action to address 

them. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-48 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

-XQH

MEMORANDUM FOR: Randolph D. Alles 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Management 

FROM: Jennifer L. Costello 

Acting Inspector General 

SUBJECT:	 DHS Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Misconduct and 

Discipline 

Attached for your action is our final report, DHS Needs to Improve Its Oversight 

of Misconduct and Discipline. We incorporated the formal comments provided by 

DHS Management Directorate. 

The report contains eight recommendations aimed at improving the overall 

effectiveness of Management Directorate and Office of the Chief Human Capital 

Officer oversight of the misconduct program within DHS and its components. 

Your office concurred with eight recommendations. Based on information 

provided in your response to the draft report, we consider recommendations 5 

and 6 open and unresolved. As prescribed by the Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 077-01, Follow-Up and Resolutions for the Office of Inspector 

General Report Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of this 

memorandum, please provide our office with a written response that includes 

your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action plan, and (3) target 

completion date for each recommendation. Also, please include responsible 

parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to inform us about 

the current status of the recommendation. Until your response is received and 

evaluated, the recommendations will be considered open and unresolved. 

Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we 

consider recommendations 1 through 4 and recommendations 7 and 8 open 

and resolved. Once your office has fully implemented the recommendations, 

please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may 

close the recommendations. The memorandum should be accompanied by 

evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions and of the disposition 

of any monetary amounts. 

Please send your response or closure request to 

OIGAuditsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov. 

Department of Homeland Security 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will 

provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will 

post the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Sondra McCauley, 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 981-6000. 

Attachment 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

Background .................................................................................................... 1 

Results of Audit .............................................................................................. 2 

Department Has Insufficient Policies and Procedures ............................ 3 

DHS Does Not Effectively Manage Misconduct ....................................... 6 

DHS Employee Survey Results............................................................... 9 

Recommendations......................................................................................... 13 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 18 

Appendix B: DHS Comments to the Draft Report ................................. 22 

Appendix C: DHS OIG, GAO, and other DHS and Component 

 Misconduct Reports ......................................................... 28 

Appendix D: DHS Operational and Support Components ..................... 30 

Appendix E:OIG Analysis of DHS Employee Survey Results ................ 31 

Appendix F: Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report ........... 62 

Appendix G: Report Distribution .......................................................... 63 

Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DNDO Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

HR human resources 

HRMS Human Resources Management and Services 

I&A Office of Intelligence & Analysis 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
 

IG Act Inspector General Act of 1978
 

NPPD National Protection and Programs Directorate 

OCHCO Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 

OIG Office of Inspector General
 

OPM U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

S&T Science and Technology Directorate 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
 

USSS United States Secret Service 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

Within the Department of Homeland Security, managers, supervisors, and 

designees are responsible for assessing the conduct of employees and providing 

assistance, feedback, and corrective action. The U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) describes misconduct generally as the failure to follow 

workplace rules. Examples of misconduct include being absent without leave, 

improper use of a government-issued credit card, and sleeping on the job. Once 

an allegation of misconduct has occurred, components will gather the facts and 

determine whether to administer disciplinary or adverse action to correct 

behavior. Conduct standards are critical to maintaining the public’s confidence 

in the integrity of the Federal government. 

Between 2012 and 2016, seven Office of Inspector 

General (OIG), two Government Accountability 

Office (GAO), and three internal Department or 

component reports identified issues related to 

DHS and component misconduct or disciplinary 

programs. (See appendix C.) Although DHS has 

no department-wide misconduct allegation data, 

the Joint Intake Center for U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received more 

than 16,368 allegations of misconduct and other 

reportable information in fiscal year 2014 alone.1 

Human Capital Policy and Programs’ Employee 

Relations (Employee Relations) within the Office 

of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) 

assumed the responsibility for developing and 

administering policy and overseeing the 

disciplinary and adverse action program across 

DHS. Components have the decision-making authority on the type of 

disciplinary action to administer. Components may decide to reassign, demote, 

suspend, remove, furlough, detail, transfer, separate, or reduce the pay of 

employees. (See appendix D.) However, these decisions are subject to the 

oversight, direction, and the DHS policies issued by the Chief Human Capital 

Officer. 

OPM Definitions 

Discipline: Measures 

intended to correct misconduct 

and encourage employee 

conduct in compliance with the 

standards of conduct, policies, 

goals, work procedures, and 

office practices of the agency. 

Adverse Action: Action taken 

against an employee for 

reasons such as poor 

attendance or inappropriate 

behavior, and includes 

suspensions without pay, 

reductions in grade or pay, 

furloughs of 30 days or less, 

and removal. 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management 

1 Department of Homeland Security, Investigation of DHS Employee Corruption Cases, Fiscal 

Year 2015 Report to Congress, November 23, 2015 (jointly issued by DHS OIG, ICE, and CBP) 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-19-48 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

In November 2016, Employee Relations issued its first directive and 

implementing instruction, Discipline and Adverse Actions Program, Directive 

250-09. The directive established department-wide guidance for administering 

discipline and adverse actions in accordance with the OPM regulatory 

framework for processing discipline and adverse actions within the Federal 

government. 

In addition, DHS Management Directive 0810.1, The Office of Inspector General, 

assigns DHS OIG the responsibility to receive and investigate certain categories 

of allegations of misconduct or fraud. DHS OIG may decide to initiate an 

investigation or refer the allegation to the component for review. The categories 

of allegations that require referral to OIG include: 

x criminal misconduct allegations against a DHS employee; 

x misconduct allegations against employees at the GS-15 level or higher; 

and 

x visa fraud allegations by DHS employees working in the visa issuance 

process. 

Our objective was to determine whether the Department has sufficient 

processes and procedures to address employee misconduct. This report 

addresses the Department’s oversight of DHS components’ disciplinary 

processes. This report also contains results of our survey on DHS employees’ 

perception of the disciplinary process. We previously issued reports on the 

Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Federal Air Marshal Service2 

and the Department’s support component3 processes for reporting and 

addressing misconduct. 

Results of Audit 

The Department does not have sufficient policies and procedures to address 

employee misconduct. Specifically, the Department’s policy does not include 

procedures for reporting allegations of misconduct, clear and specific 

supervisor roles and expectations, or clearly defined key discipline terms used 

across the components. These deficiencies occurred because the Employee 

Relations office has limited staffing to perform these functions and staff do not 

believe they are responsible for managing the allegation process. DHS also does 

not effectively manage the misconduct program throughout the Department, 

2 The Federal Air Marshal Service Has Sufficient Policies and Procedures for Addressing 

Misconduct, OIG-17-104, September 13, 2017 

3 DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and Procedures to Address 

Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

lacking data monitoring and metrics to gauge program performance. Without 

oversight through defined policies and program management, DHS cannot 

make informed decisions to improve the program and ensure all components 

manage the misconduct process consistently. Additionally, this shortcoming 

could lead to costly litigation due to inappropriate or unenforceable disciplinary 

determinations. 

We distributed a survey to identify how DHS employees perceive the 

Department’s disciplinary process. Although the results of our employee survey 

were overall favorable, respondents identified areas of weakness, including 

negative perceptions of senior leaders’ behavior and the need for more 

disciplinary training for supervisors. Given the survey results and the lack of 

sufficient policies and procedures, the Department cannot ensure it treats all 

employees equally or that components have properly addressed or referred all 

misconduct allegations. 

Department Has Insufficient Policies and Procedures 

The Department does not have sufficient policies and procedures to address 

misconduct. Specifically, Directive 250-09, Discipline and Adverse Actions 

Program (Policy) does not include procedures for reporting allegations of 

misconduct or clearly define key discipline terms used across the components. 

Employee Relations’ staff do not oversee the misconduct process because they 

do not believe they are responsible for overseeing allegations. Further, they 

believe other aspects of the disciplinary process are already defined or 

unimportant. Without comprehensive department-wide procedures, DHS 

cannot ensure all components address allegations properly or administer 

disciplinary actions consistently. Additionally, this could lead to costly 

litigation from inappropriate or unenforceable discipline. 

DHS Has Not Established Comprehensive Guidance for the Misconduct 

Process 

The Department has not created a comprehensive policy that includes 

guidance for the entire misconduct process — from allegations of misconduct 

to disciplinary procedures. There are multiple offices and processes for 

managing allegations of misconduct at DHS. The Chief Human Capital Officer 

is responsible for establishing and administering department-wide human 

resources policy and procedures. The Chief Human Capital Officer also 

oversees and directs component disciplinary actions. However, the Policy does 

not define misconduct, how to report allegations of misconduct, or to whom 

allegations should be reported. Employee Relations also does not require 

components to report allegation data and has analyzed Department discipline 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-19-48 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

data once. Periodic collection and analysis of this information is necessary for 

Employee Relations to carry out its oversight functions. Instead, the Policy 

focuses on the disciplinary process and a table of offenses and penalties. 

Employee Relations does not oversee the allegation process because, according 

to staff, it is not part of the formal disciplinary process and is therefore outside 

of Employee Relations’ area of responsibility. Rather, Employee Relations staff 

believe OIG is responsible for overseeing misconduct allegations. In actuality, 

OIG and DHS components have some overlapping responsibilities in this area. 

The Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act) authorizes OIG to receive and 

investigate complaints of waste, fraud, and abuse, including complaints of 

misconduct by Department employees.4 Under the IG Act, OIG also oversees 

internal investigations performed by DHS components with investigative 

authority to ensure that those components comply with generally accepted 

investigative practices.5 OIG does not have sole responsibility for investigating 

and overseeing allegations of misconduct. Although DHS Management Directive 

0810.1 identifies categories of allegations that DHS and its components must 

report immediately to OIG, OIG can refer any allegation in those categories 

back to the appropriate component, should it decide not to investigate. 

Management Directive 0810.1 also describes categories of allegations for which 

DHS components must open administrative investigations and provide notice of 

the investigations to OIG within 5 days. For these categories of allegations, the 

DHS component controls the investigation, unless the OIG notifies DHS or the 

relevant component of its intent to assume control of the investigation. 

The authority granted to OIG in the IG Act and reaffirmed in Management 

Directive 0810.1 does not eliminate the Department’s responsibility to oversee 

its misconduct process. However, because the Department has not created a 

comprehensive policy that includes guidance for the entire misconduct process, 

it cannot ensure that components have addressed or referred all misconduct 

allegations to the appropriate offices. 

DHS’ Policy Does Not Include Critical Definitions 

Employee Relations has not defined critical discipline terms in the Policy. 

Although the Policy includes definitions for days, furlough, indefinite 

suspension, and suspension, it only refers to, but does not define, discipline or 

4 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) App. 3, §§ 4, 7. Additionally, OIG has the duty and 

responsibility to, among other things, conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and 

investigations, and recommend policies for other activities carried out by the Department for 

the purpose of preventing and detecting fraud and abuse. 

5 5 U.S.C. App. 3, § 8I(e) 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

progressive discipline. Further, Employee Relations has neither defined 

alternative discipline nor covered the parameters for using it, even though four 

components implement or address alternative discipline. Additionally, OPM 

and the Merit Systems Protection Board support guidance to establish 

alternative discipline policies and understand the legal complexities.6 Table 1 

illustrates gaps in DHS guidance and component policies. 

Table 1. Inclusion of Key Definitions and Concepts in DHS and Component Policies 

DHS TSA USCIS* USCG† CBP FEMA ICE USSS‡ 

Progressive 

Discipline } z } z } z } z

Discipline } } z z z z z z

Alternative 

Discipline  ́ } z }  ́ z  ́  ́

Table Key: 

} Undefined, but referred to as a practice 

z Defined 

 ́ Undefined 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of DHS and component policies 

Note: * U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; † United States Coast Guard; 

‡ United States Secret Service 

DHS’ Policy lacks critical definitions, because, according to Employee Relations 

officials, additional definitions were not important or are already included in 

Federal regulations. Officials also believe supervisor performance standards 

provide guidance and expectations. The standards require supervisors to 

address conduct in a timely and appropriate manner and promptly address 

allegations with appropriate action. However, the Department’s Policy does not 

give supervisors guidance or clarify expectations such as “timely,” 

“appropriate,” and “promptly.” These terms are vague and supervisors may 

interpret them inconsistently. Without department-wide procedures, DHS 

cannot ensure supervisors administer disciplinary actions consistently and 

may leave itself vulnerable to costly litigation over inappropriate disciplinary 

action or unenforceable agreements. 

6 Alternative Discipline: Creative Solutions for Agencies to Effectively Address Employee 

Misconduct, Merit Systems Protection Board, July 2008. The Merit Systems Protection Board is 

an independent, quasi-judicial agency that adjudicates individual employee appeals and 

conduct non-partisan studies on merit and effective management of the Federal workforce. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

DHS Does Not Effectively Manage Misconduct 

The Department does not oversee components to ensure they are addressing 

misconduct. Specifically, DHS does not ensure component policies comply with 

Department policy, does not collect allegation data or monitor misconduct 

data, and has not created performance measures, goals, or objectives to assess 

the program’s effectiveness. As a result, DHS cannot make informed decisions 

and may be missing opportunities to improve the program. 

DHS Has Not Ensured Component Policies Comply with Department 

Policy 

The Department’s Policy allows each component to develop and administer its 

own policy; however, Employee Relations has not ensured the components’ 

existing disciplinary policies are consistent with the Department’s policy. 

During the course of our audit, components provided more than 90 conduct 

and discipline-related policies. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 

emphasizes the importance of coordinating department-wide policy 

development to promote quality and consistency across components.7 Further, 

according to internal control standards, agencies benefit from procedures to 

continually reassess and improve guidance processes and documents.8 

In November 2016, when DHS issued its Policy (Directive 250-09, Discipline 

and Adverse Actions Program), Employee Relations had no plans to monitor or 

evaluate components’ policies. According to Employee Relations officials, they 

assumed the new policy was broad enough that all existing component policies 

should already comply. Without monitoring and evaluating component 

guidance, DHS cannot assess whether components are applying the guidance 

in its Policy consistently. 

DHS Does Not Collect or Monitor Components’ Misconduct Data 

The Department does not collect or monitor the components’ data to 

understand the number of allegations, types of misconduct reported, or trends 

across the Department. According to GAO, Federal agencies should design 

their controls to include continual monitoring built into operations. Monitoring 

may include automated tools, which can increase objectivity and efficiency by 

electronically compiling evaluations. To ensure the Department and its 

components are addressing misconduct and for effective oversight and 

7 National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, Public Law 114-328, § 1902, 130 Stat. 2670 

(amending the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107−296, 116 Stat. 2135, by adding 

“Sec. 709. Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans”) 

8 Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G, September 2014 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-19-48 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

informed decisions, Employee Relations should know the number of allegations 

per component, the types of allegations reported, and if appropriate, the 

disciplinary action administered. The Department does not have a system to 

collect or track misconduct information, nor does it have a process to review 

component allegations to ensure components responded appropriately when 

determining whether to apply discipline. Employee Relations personnel stated 

that their office collects some information regarding discipline and adverse 

actions through a yearly data call, but must manually compile responses to 

prepare a department-wide response. This process is inefficient for Employee 

Relations’ limited staff of three people, and the data the office reports to 

stakeholders is susceptible to human error. 

In a previous report on DHS support components, we noted the Human 

Resources Management and Services (HRMS) office within OCHCO had not 

tracked allegations or properly referred all cases to OIG.9 If the Department had 

better data and oversight of the process, DHS could have potentially discovered 

and addressed these problems more proactively. 

Employee Relations has not identified trends in disciplinary actions taken 

throughout the Department. Failing to monitor component data impedes the 

Department’s ability to identify and address trends in employee misconduct, as 

well as oversee components’ efforts to address misconduct. Trend analysis of 

disciplinary data could provide insight on training issues or help mitigate 

systemic misconduct issues. 

The Department has not analyzed trends to determine whether misconduct 

issues are systemic. Identifying systemic issues and their causes would allow 

the Department to develop and apply corrective actions that could improve 

department-wide program effectiveness. For example, DHS has not analyzed 

trends for the numerous issues cited in reports on DHS’ conduct and discipline 

programs. (See appendix C.) Further, in a 2015 DHS Human Resources 

Management Evaluation, OPM recommended that the Department consider 

consolidating human capital accountability reports to inform OCHCO program 

managers of any overarching themes across the components. However, during 

our audit, Employee Relations officials said they did not believe conducting 

these types of analysis would provide useful results. By not analyzing trends, 

DHS is missing opportunities to identify potential problems and mitigate 

problems before they become repetitive and costly. 

9 DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and Procedures to Address 

Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018. OCHCO’s Human Resources Management and 

Services provides human capital services to most DHS support components. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OCHCO Has Not Defined Responsibilities for the Employee Relations 

Office 

Although Employee Relations assumed the responsibility for administering the 

discipline and adverse action policy for DHS, OCHCO has not provided 

Employee Relations with specific roles and responsibilities. During the audit, 

Employee Relations officials could not provide any written document outlining 

the office’s objectives. Instead, they described their primary oversight activities 

as: 

x reviewing and commenting on draft legislation; 

x discussing changes in law and OPM guidance with components (e.g., 

National Defense Authorization Act of 2017); 

x liaising between OPM and Congress; and 

x responding to congressional requests. 

In addition, Employee Relations has not developed standard operating 

procedures and has not reported any performance metrics to OCHCO for its 

operational activities. Employee Relations officials said much of what they do is 

respond to congressional requests and these ad hoc activities make it difficult 

to create standard operating procedures or measure results. 

According to internal control standards, establishing goals and objectives 

ensures an agency meets its mission, strategic plan, and goals so it can assess 

performance. Without defined objectives, performance metrics, and standard 

operating procedures, and with limited Employee Relations officials, DHS risks 

operational inconsistencies and losing important organizational knowledge. 

DHS Has Not Measured the Effectiveness of Its Disciplinary Program 

Employee Relations has not established performance measures or goals to 

assess the effectiveness of the Department’s disciplinary program. According to 

the Department’s Policy, the Chief Human Capital Officer must regularly 

evaluate the Department’s disciplinary and adverse actions program. We 

requested documentation showing how the office complies with the Policy by 

assessing the Department’s effectiveness, but the office could not provide any 

measures or reports documenting how it has evaluated the program. 

The OCHCO Accountability Office conducts human capital audits, including a 

review of a sample of disciplinary denials of within grade increases, reductions 

in grade, and removal cases as part of a high-level review of all types of human 

relations activity. The audits, however, do not evaluate the effectiveness or 

efficiency of components’ disciplinary programs. OPM requires these human 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

capital audits, and an OPM official suggested that human capital auditing 

should also review specific issue areas, such as the timeliness of misconduct 

investigations. 

An October 2014 Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute report, 

Measuring for Results: Key Concepts for Understanding the Performance of DHS 

Programs and Activities, noted that measuring program results can drive 

program improvements. By not evaluating its performance, DHS cannot make 

informed decisions and may be missing opportunities to improve the program. 

DHS Employee Survey Results 

We conducted a department-wide survey of civilian employees to establish a 

baseline of employee views for elements of conduct and discipline. We sent 

192,495 survey invitations to DHS employees and received 54,108 anonymous 

responses, a 28 percent response rate. Appendix E contains a complete list of 

survey questions and a compilation of responses. Our analysis showed 

favorable results for a majority of questions, but room for improvement on 

perceptions of senior leader conduct and discipline and greater need for 

supervisor training on this topic. DHS should review the survey results for 

opportunities to encourage better operation as a single entity and to promote 

consistency among components through policy and oversight. 

Our analysis showed favorable results to 59 percent of questions.10 For 

example, knowledge of workplace rules and standards of conduct, including 

reporting misconduct, is a key component of conduct and discipline, which we 

addressed in Questions 7 to 21. Failure to uphold standards can affect 

employees’ or DHS’ ability to accomplish their work. Out of 54,108 

respondents: 

x 92 percent knew what types of behavior are considered misconduct in 

the workplace; 11 

x 81 percent knew where to find standards of conduct or other policies on 

10 We define a “favorable” result as a response to a question in which 50 percent or more of 

respondents selected “agree” or “strongly” agree,” or 50 percent or more selected “yes” to a yes 

or no question, except for Questions 10, 33, and 54. For Questions 10, 33, and 54, we defined 

a “favorable” result as a response in which 50 percent or more of respondents selected 

“disagree” or “strongly disagree.” We excluded demographic and profile questions, and 

questions for which the outcome was neither positive nor negative (e.g., Questions 11, 20, 24, 

and 32). See appendix E for a complete list of survey questions and responses. 

11 Question 14: 49,662 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

x

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

workplace behavior;12 and 

71 percent would report if they suspected that a co-worker or supervisor 

was engaged in misconduct.13 

However, a number of results highlight problems with how respondents view 

conduct and discipline of senior leaders. Setting the tone at the top 

demonstrates a commitment to integrity while minimizing fraud and improving 

morale. Out of 54,108 respondents, 45 percent did not agree that employees at 

all levels are held accountable for conduct at their component.14 Components 

with the largest number of respondents who did not agree include: 

x 53 percent of TSA respondents (7,614 out of 14,419) 

x 47 percent of CBP respondents (7,504 out of 16,003) 

x 47 percent of ICE respondents (2,484 out of 5,241) 

In addition to concerns about employee accountability, 49 percent of 

respondents felt that senior leaders at their components were less likely to be 

disciplined for violating workplace rules, regulations, or standards of conduct 

than other employees.15 For example, 58 percent of TSA respondents felt that 

component senior leaders were less likely to be disciplined.16 In January 2018, 

we issued a report confirming that TSA senior leaders deviated from standard 

policy and practice in a number of key respects indicating that a Senior 

Executive Service employee received unusually favorable treatment in the 

resolution of a disciplinary matter.17 

At the DHS support components,18 40 percent of respondents felt that their 

senior leaders were less likely to be disciplined for violating workplace rules, 

regulations, or standards of conduct than other employees.19 In our report on 

OCHCO’s services, we noted the lack of internal controls at HRMS, which was 

12 Question 15: 43,940 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E.
 13 Question 19: 38,267 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E.
 14 Question 9: 24,379 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E.
 15 Question 10: 26,569 of 54,108. See appendix E.
 16 Question 10: 8,330 of 14,419 TSA respondents. See appendix E.
 17 OIG-18-35, TSA’s Handling of the 2015 Disciplinary Matter Involving a TSES Employee 

(Redacted), January 8, 2018
 18 We define DHS support components as those components serviced by HRMS. This grouping
 

includes respondents who identified being from: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), Management Directorate, Directorate for Science and
 

Technology (S&T), and respondents who selected “Other Headquarters Components.”
 19 Question 10: 846 of 2,117. See appendix E. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

unable to produce any disciplinary case files or records on Senior Executive 

Service employees.20 

Our survey contained a question demonstrating that the behavior of senior 

leaders affects respondents’ behavior at work. Across the Department, 45 

percent of respondents’ behavior was affected by how senior leaders behave at 

work.21 DHS should evaluate why many respondents felt that senior leaders 

were less likely to be disciplined for violating workplace results, regulations, or 

standards of conduct than other employees. It should also evaluate why so 

many respondents did not report that employees at all levels are held 

accountable for conduct at their component and why, at certain components 

like TSA, CBP, and ICE, the negative response rate for this survey question was 

higher than the Department’s overall response rate. Finally, DHS should review 

how both of these issues may potentially affect employee behavior. 

In addition to evaluating perceptions of senior leaders, DHS should examine its 

supervisory training on conduct and discipline. Receiving proper training helps 

supervisors understand their responsibility and authority to address 

misconduct. Supervisors who mishandle misconduct issues may have 

problems implementing discipline or have disciplinary decisions overturned. 

Supervisor and specialist22 respondents also indicated a need for additional 

supervisor training on handling misconduct issues. At DHS, 50 percent (6,112 

of 12,190) of supervisor respondents said that they need more training on how 

to handle misconduct and take disciplinary actions.23 As shown in table 2, 

supervisors at some components responded with even higher rates. 

20 DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and Procedures to Address 

Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018 

21 Question 11: 24,252 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E. 

22 We defined specialists as respondents who identified themselves as currently working in 

human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility, or other similar office and 

responded that they handle disciplinary actions. (Question 43; see appendix E.) 

23 Question 11; see appendix E. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 Table 2. Supervisors and Specialists Respondents Need More Training 

Percentage 

who agreed 

and strongly 

agreed 

Number of 

respondents 

who agreed 

and strongly 

agreed 

Total number of 

respondents 

who answered 

this question 

Q33. I need more training on how to handle misconduct and take disciplinary 

actions. (Questions for Supervisors) * 

DHS 50% 6,112 12,190 

CBP 58% 2,318 4,029 

ICE 51% 476 940 

HRMS-Serviced 

Support Components 

51% 218 428 

Q54. I need more training on misconduct and disciplinary actions. (Questions 

for Specialists) 

DHS 46% 635 1,367 

* We highlighted select components with the highest percentage of respondents who agreed
 

or strongly agreed. These components are a partial subset of the total number of DHS
 

respondents.
 

Source: Excerpt from survey results; see appendix E.
 

We asked specialists whether supervisors were adequately trained in 

disciplinary actions.24 Of 1,367 specialist respondents, only 32 percent agreed 

that supervisors were adequately trained in disciplinary actions. Specialist 

respondents also reported that they needed more training on misconduct and 

disciplinary actions.25 DHS should evaluate why responses about training 

needs are inconsistent. DHS should also evaluate the content and frequency of 

its training to supervisors on misconduct and discipline to ensure they 

understand how to identify and address misconduct without risking having 

their decisions overturned. 

All chief human capital officers have a statutory responsibility to “identif[y] best 

practices and benchmarking studies.”26 The DHS Chief Human Capital Officer 

should consider using these results as it studies positive results about 

standards of conduct. The results could also aid in addressing negative 

perceptions about conduct and discipline of senior leaders and the training 

needs of supervisors. 

24 Question 56; see appendix E. 

25 Question 54; see appendix E. 

26 5 U.S.C. §1402(a)(5) 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-19-48
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Under Secretary for Management 

designate or establish an entity with sufficient size and authority to oversee the 

Department’s entire misconduct process from allegations to disciplinary 

actions. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the Under Secretary for Management 

ensure the designated entity implement a formal reporting process, with 

documented procedures for handling and reporting all misconduct allegations. 

Recommendation 3: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer revise 

the DHS Discipline and Adverse Actions Program directive and instruction to 

provide comprehensive guidance, including definitions for key misconduct 

terms and the use of alternative discipline. 

Recommendation 4: We recommend the Under Secretary for Management 

require that the designated misconduct oversight entity conduct a 

comprehensive assessment of components’ policies to establish a baseline for 

handling allegations and disciplinary actions that promotes quality and 

consistency across components. 

Recommendation 5: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer work 

with the Under Secretary for Management to require the designated 

misconduct oversight entity: 

a.	 identify all offices that receive misconduct allegations or identify potential 

misconduct; and 

b. establish a system of record and process to routinely capture, manage, 

and monitor components’ management of misconduct. 

Recommendation 6: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer 

establish objectives and performance metrics for the Employee Relations office 

and implement written standard operating procedures defining the office’s 

responsibilities. 

Recommendation 7: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer develop 

and implement a process to assess the effectiveness of the Department’s 

disciplinary program. The process should include documented procedures, 

measurable goals, and periodic trend analyses. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13	 OIG-19-48 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation 8: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer work 

with the Under Secretary for Management to evaluate survey responses and 

develop a corrective action plan to address unfavorable results. 

DHS Comments and OIG Analysis 

DHS concurred with all eight of our report recommendations. We incorporated 

the Department’s comments, responses to our recommendations, and our 

analysis with the applicable recommendations in the report. We also included a 

copy of the management comments in their entirety in appendix B. DHS also 

provided technical comments to our draft report, and we revised the report 

where appropriate. 

In its comments to the report, DHS expressed concern that implementing the 

report recommendations could have the unintended consequence of 

transferring some of OIG’s investigative oversight authority to the Chief Human 

Capital Officer. For example, DHS expressed concern that implementing our 

recommendation could require the Chief Human Capital Officer to oversee OIG 

investigations referred to OIG pursuant to DHS Management Directive 0810.1. 

DHS does not believe that this transfer of authority is appropriate. 

We are not recommending that the Chief Human Capital Officer oversee OIG 

activity, as OIG is independent from the Department and not subject to the 

Chief Human Capital Officer’s authority. Rather, our recommendations relate 

to providing oversight of allegations and investigations for which the 

Department is responsible, including: 

x referral of allegations or complaints to OIG; 

x administrative inquiries or investigations for categories of allegations 

that DHS components must open under Management Directive 0810.1; 

x allegations referred back to DHS components by OIG; and 

x administrative action undertaken as a result of DHS and OIG 

investigations, including those involving senior leaders. 

The Department also stated that our audit did not demonstrably prove that the 

Department’s misconduct process is ineffective. We believe the Department 

bears the responsibility for demonstrating that it has managed misconduct 

effectively through performance measures, which it has not done and cannot 

do without data and oversight. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 1: Concur. The Deputy Under Secretary 

for Management will convene a working group of representatives from the 

OCHCO, Office of the Chief Security Officer, Office of General Counsel, and 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Component investigative offices to determine what enhancements can be made 

to the entirety of the misconduct allegation, investigation, and disciplinary 

process. Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2020. 

OIG Analysis: We consider DHS’ actions responsive to the intent of this 

recommendation. We consider this recommendation resolved and open. The 

recommendation will remain open until DHS establishes and assigns an entity 

to provide oversight for the Department’s misconduct process. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 2: Concur. The working group that the 

Deputy Under Secretary for Management convenes will document reporting 

processes and procedures for handling and reporting misconduct allegations. 

Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2020. 

OIG Analysis: We consider DHS’ actions responsive to the intent of this 

recommendation. We consider this recommendation resolved and open, 

pending implementation of a formal reporting process and review of the 

documented procedures for handling and reporting all misconduct allegations. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 3: Concur. DHS will update Directive 

250-09, “Discipline and Adverse Actions Program,” to include additional 

definitions. The Department noted that the current directive and instruction 

comport with OPM policies and procedures for taking adverse action. 

Estimated Completion Date: September 30, 2019. 

OIG Analysis: The Department maintains that its policy complies with 

statutory and government-wide regulations for taking adverse action. However, 

it has also acknowledged that components are empowered to establish more 

specific disciplinary policies. Our audit confirmed that components have done 

so in key areas. The Department is also responsible for providing a unified 

policy in order to encourage consistency among components and offer 

additional guidance about the Department’s intended disciplinary approach. 

We consider this recommendation resolved and open, pending completion and 

receipt of a revised, comprehensive directive and instruction, including key 

definitions. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 4: Concur. DHS responded that the 

OCHCO has not been designated to oversee the processes that various 

investigative offices use to handle allegations of misconduct. DHS stated that 

the working group established under the Deputy Under Secretary for 

Management in response to Recommendation 1 will also examine whether 

additional policies are necessary for handling allegations of misconduct. 

Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2020. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Analysis: In response to DHS’ comments to our draft report, we revised 

this recommendation to be directed to the Deputy Under Secretary for 

Management. We consider this recommendation resolved and open. The 

recommendation will remain open until DHS provides documentation of the 

assessment of component policies for handling allegations to promote quality 

and consistency across components. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 5: Concur. According to the Department, 

OCHCO is developing a case tracking system that will track disciplinary and 

adverse actions across all components and will develop a reporting process to 

capture, manage, and monitor component’s management of discipline and 

adverse action. Estimated Completion Date: March 31, 2022. 

OIG Analysis: Although DHS has described a system that tracks disciplinary 

actions, this system should also capture allegations of misconduct. Without 

misconduct allegation data, the Department cannot provide oversight or 

conduct trend analysis to determine whether components are effectively 

addressing substantiated allegations through the disciplinary program. We 

consider this recommendation unresolved and open, pending implementation 

of a new case management system and a new documented, formal reporting 

process with procedures for handling and reporting all misconduct allegations. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 6: Concur. According to DHS, OCHCO 

developed a standard operating procedure following our audit, which DHS 

provided to OIG in response to our draft. The Department also maintains that 

OCHCO has employee performance plans. DHS requested closure of this 

recommendation. 

OIG Analysis: The Employee Relations Office’s standard operating procedure is 

an important improvement and responsive to the intent of part of our 

recommendation. However, DHS has not provided its objectives and 

performance metrics for the Employee Relations office. While employee 

performance plans are important tools to evaluate individual performance, they 

are not a substitute for developing specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, 

and timely performance goals for the Employee Relations office. We consider 

this recommendation unresolved and open. This recommendation will remain 

open until we receive the Employee Relations office develops and implement 

performance goals that it will report to its management. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 7: Concur. According to DHS, OCHCO 

has established a yearly review of disciplinary and adverse action trends. It 

provided documentation of its first two assessments produced in 2017 and 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

2018, which it distributed to components through its Human Capital 

Leadership Council. DHS requested closure of this recommendation. 

OIG Analysis: We reviewed the Department’s August 2017 assessment 

covering fiscal years 2013-2016 during the course of our audit and did not find 

that it provided a trend analysis. However, the Department’s March 2018 

assessment of fiscal year 2017 is an improvement, containing trend analysis 

and observations about changes from prior years. The assessment also 

included recommendations with timeframes for implementation. Although the 

Department has requested closure of this recommendation, it has not provided 

documented procedures on how this analysis should be conducted, who should 

conduct it, how often it should be conducted, and who should review it. We 

consider this recommendation resolved and open, pending documentation of 

the Department’s process for completing the analysis. 

DHS Response to Recommendation 8: Concur. The Chief Human Capital 

Officer will review survey responses and develop a corrective action plan to 

address unfavorable results. Estimated Completion Date: October 31, 2019. 

OIG Analysis: The Department’s corrective action is responsive to the 

recommendation. The recommendation will remain open and resolved until the 

Department provides evidence to support that corrective actions are completed. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The DHS Office of Inspector General was established by the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002 (Public Law 107−296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 

1978. 

The objective of this department-wide audit of conduct and discipline was to 

determine whether DHS and its components have sufficient processes and 

procedures to address conduct issues. To address the audit objective, the team 

developed three sub-objectives to target its work: 

x the Department’s oversight of the components’ disciplinary process; 

x the Department and the components’ process for reporting and 

addressing misconduct; and 

x how the disciplinary process is perceived by employees at all levels 

across the Department. 

To address the first sub-objective, we reviewed and analyzed Federal laws and 

regulations, guidance, and reports, including guidance from the Merit System 

Protection Board and the Office of Personnel Management. We reviewed DHS 

policies and procedures to determine any effort to establish and provide 

guidance on the DHS disciplinary process. We also analyzed other relevant 

DHS policies and procedures for handling conduct, including: 

x DHS Management Directive 0810.1, The Office of Inspector General; 

x DHS Management Directive 250-09, Discipline and Adverse Actions 

Program; 

x DHS Instruction No. 250-09-001, Discipline and Adverse Actions 

Program; and 

x the CHCO HRMS Employee Relations standard operating procedures. 

We interviewed officials from the Office of Personnel Management and DHS 

officials from the: 

x Office of the Chief Financial Officer; 

x Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer; 

x Office of the Chief Information Officer; 

x Office of the Chief Security Officer; 

x Office of General Counsel; 

x DHS Privacy Office; and 

x Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We interviewed officials with TSA Federal Air Marshal Service and TSA 

Headquarters. We judgmentally selected supervisors using a variety of criteria 

from the S&T; I&A; and Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. We also 

examined allegation and disciplinary case file reviews to determine whether 

HRMS and components followed Federal and DHS requirements and policy. We 

selected the top five most common types of misconduct allegation categories in 

FYs 2014–2016 at TSA Federal Air Marshal Service and the DHS support 

components. For each type of misconduct allegation, we randomly selected five 

judgmental case files/samples using a random number generator. 

The team used GAO’s standards for internal control to assess the program, 

with specific focus on the following standards: 

x	 Objectives in specific terms, clearly defining what is to be achieved, who 

is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and timeframes for achievement, 

with objectives in alignment with the organization’s mission, strategic 

plan, and performance goals. 

x	 Objectives that are measurable so that performance toward achieving 

them can be assessed. 

x	 Management documentation of policies for each unit in its area of 

responsibility and with the appropriate level of detail to allow 

management to effectively monitor activity. 

x	 Documentation that provides a means to retain organizational knowledge 

and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel, 

as well as a means to communicate the knowledge as needed to external 

parties, such as external audits. 

x	 Importance of periodically reviewing policies for continued relevance and 

effectiveness in addressing related risks. 

We addressed the second sub-objective in two separate reports: 

x The Federal Air Marshal Service Has Sufficient Policies and Procedures for 

Addressing Misconduct, OIG-17-104, September 13, 2017 

x DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and 

Procedures to Address Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018 

To address the third sub-objective, we conducted interviews and sought 

responses to a department-wide survey. We sent the survey to all DHS 

employees (excluding contractors and active military). The team consulted DHS 

OCHCO regarding Union Notifications. To establish our survey population, we 

requested and relied upon employee rosters from the National Finance Center 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19	 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

for each component. The team developed survey questions for three subsets of 

employees: 

x employees, 

x supervisors/managers, and 

x employee relations and human resources (HR) specialists. 

OPM research psychologists reviewed our survey methodology and questions 

for bias prior to issuance. We used a web-based survey software approved by 

DHS Office of Privacy and the Chief Information Security Officers at DHS and 

OIG. 

We issued 192,495 surveys between June 29, 2017, and July 14, 2017. We 

received 54,108 completed surveys for a response rate of 28.11 percent. 

We assumed employees answered the survey candidly and correctly, including 

their component identification. Upon receiving the results, we categorized 

component responses. We compiled results from components with fewer than 

3,000 responses into one grouping to protect respondent anonymity. 

Respondents categorized in the “Components with <3,000 Respondents” are 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), National Protection 

and Programs Directorate (NPPD), U.S. Secret Service (USSS), and U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) civilians. We also grouped responses from Management 

Directorate, DNDO, S&T, I&A, and respondents who selected “other 

Headquarters components” under “HRMS-Serviced Support Component 

Respondents,” because employees from these components all receive human 

resources services from DHS OCHCO. 

We reported complete responses. During our analysis of survey results, we 

discovered that seven questions contained an error. As such, the survey added 

one to three responses for each question that we were unable to correct. These 

questions are noted in a footnote in appendix E. 

We were unable to conduct data reliability testing of SurveyMonkey data, 

because the survey responses were anonymous. We reviewed the data and 

performed limited testing for completeness and errors. During our review, we 

discovered that some non-supervisors and non-HR specialists were provided 

some questions in those sections. We were able to eliminate this error by using 

two control questions. For the supervisory section, we only reported instances 

when the respondents replied they were supervisors or executives for question 

5 and answered yes to question 29. For HR specialists, we reported responses 

when respondents indicated yes, they worked in a human resources, employee 

relations, professional responsibility or other similar office, and also that their 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-19-48 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

work includes handling disciplinary decisions. We used a Rating Scale or Likert 

Scale for some questions. SurveyMonkey automatically calculated a weighted 

average based on a 1-to-5 Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree response scale; the 

answer choices “do not know/no basis to judge,” “I don’t know,” and “I do not 

know” were not factored into calculating the rating average. Lastly, we note 

that the reported percentages may not always add up to 100 percent due to 

rounding errors. 

We conducted this performance audit between March 2016 and March 2018 

pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to 

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 upon our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

DHS Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

DHS OIG, GAO, and other DHS and Component Misconduct

Reports 

Author/Report 

Number 

Component 

Reviewed 

Title Date 

OIG-12-28 TSA Allegations of Misconduct and 

Illegal Discrimination and 

Retaliation in the Federal Air 

Marshal Service 

January 

2012 

OIG-12-96 TSA Review of Allegations of 

Misconduct and 

Mismanagement Within TSA’s 

Office of Global Strategies 

July 2012 

OIG-13-05 TSA Personnel Security and 

Internal Control at TSA's 

Legacy Transportation Threat 

Assessment and Credentialing 

Office 

October 

2012 

GAO-13-59 CBP Border Security: Additional 

Actions Needed to Strengthen 

CBP Efforts to Mitigate Risk of 

Employee Corruption and 

Misconduct 

December 

2012 

OIG-13-24 USSS Adequacy of USSS’ Internal 

Investigation of Alleged 

Misconduct in Cartagena, 

Colombia 

January 

2013 

Professionalism 

Reinforcement 

Working Group 

USSS A Report to U.S. Secret Service 

(USSS) Director Mark Sullivan 

February 

2013 

GAO-13-624 TSA Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) Could 

Strengthen Monitoring of 

Allegations of Employee 

Misconduct 

July 2013 

OIG-14-20 USSS Adequacy of USSS' Efforts To 

Identify, Mitigate, and Address 

Instances of Misconduct and 

Inappropriate BehaviorRedacted 

December 

2013 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OIG-15-04-IQO FLETC Oversight Review of the 

Department of Homeland 

Security Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center 

Office of Professional 

Responsibility 

October 

2014 

OIG-15-108-IQO NPPD Oversight Review of the 

National Protection and 

Programs Directorate, Internal 

Affairs Division 

June 2015 

Pivotal Practices 

Consulting LLC 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Complaints and 

Discipline Systems Review 

January 

2016 

Report by a Panel 

of the National 

Academy of 

Public 

Administration 

for the U.S. 

Secret Service 

USSS Review of Organizational 

Change Efforts 

October 

2016 

Source: OIG analysis of GAO, OIG, and component reports 

www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-19-48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

DHS Operational and Support Components 

DHS Operational Components 

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection 

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration 

Services 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

U.S. Immigration & Customs 

Enforcement 

U.S. Secret Service 

Transportation Security 

Administration 

DHS Support Components 

Management Directorate Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Intelligence & Analysis 

Science & Technology 

Directorate 

National Protection & Programs 

Directorate 

Office of Public Affairs 

Office of the Inspector General 

Office of Operations Coordinator 

Citizenship & Immigration 

Services Ombudsman 

Office of Policy 

Office of the General Counsel 

Office of Health Affairs 

Office of Partnership & 

Engagement 

Privacy Office 

Office for Civil Rights & Civil 

Liberties 

Domestic Nuclear Detection 

Office 

Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers Office of the Executive Secretary 

Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer 

Source: OIG analysis 

www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-19-48 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E OIG Analysis of DHS Employee Survey Results Questions 1 through 28 were answered by all respondents. 

Q1. Component (For other support components not listed, please select "Other Headquarters Com

Answer Choices Resp

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)28 11.57U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 4.05U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 29.58Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 0.12Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 8.60Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) 1.03U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 9.69Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) 0.46Management Directorate (MGMT) 1.01National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 2.21Science & Technology (S&T) 0.42U.S. Secret Service (USSS) 2.73Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 26.65Other Headquarters Components Total DHS Respondents 

1.90

27 Throughout this appendix, response percentages for each question may not always add up to 100 percent due to rou28 In our original survey, we used informal names for components. For clarity, we listed the components by full title an

appendix. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 Q2. Time in Agency 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

Com

wit

Resp

Less than 1 year 3.92% 2120 5.08% 318 1.69% 270 8.68% 404 0.31% 16 4.70% 678 4.65% 1-4 years 14.84% 8027 28.52% 1785 8.34% 1335 22.43% 1044 9.22% 483 13.74% 1981 17.405-10 years 31.07% 16812 28.67% 1794 32.03% 5125 30.96% 1441 36.20% 1897 29.75% 4290 25.8011-15 years 27.92% 15105 15.18% 950 24.22% 3876 23.93% 1114 20.19% 1058 46.61% 6720 17.8916-20 years 10.79% 5838 9.67% 605 16.13% 2582 6.51% 303 16.81% 881 4.76% 687 12.8021-25 years 5.01% 2713 5.58% 349 8.29% 1327 4.30% 200 8.99% 471 0.23% 33 5.34% Greater than 25 years 6.46% 3493 7.30% 457 9.30% 1488 3.20% 149 8.30% 435 0.21% 30 16.12Q3. Where is your work location 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS 

Headquarterslevel office 22.15% 11987 26.73% 1673 Field Office 77.85% 42121 73.27% 4585 

CBP FEMA ICE 

14.95% 2392 39.81% 1853 

60.19% 2802 

16.24% 851 

85.05% 13611 83.76% 4390 

Q4. Are you a law enforcement officer? 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS 

Yes 32.53% 17600 5.85% 366 No 67.47% 36508 94.15% 5892 

CBP FEMA ICE 

67.46% 10795 0.64% 30 

99.36% 4625 

62.87% 3295 

32.54% 5208 37.13% 1946 

TSA 

Compo

with <

Respon

11.26% 1623 39.00% 88.74% 12796 61.00% 

TSA 

Compo

with <3

Respon

9.52% 1373 28.07% 

90.48% 13046 71.93% 

29 All instances noted as “Components with <3,000 Respondents” includes respondents who identified being from USC

USSS. 

30 All instances noted as “Support Components” in this appendix reference specifically HRMS-Serviced Support Compo

respondents who identified being from: DNDO, I&A, Management Directorate, S&T, and respondents who selected “OtComponents.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q5. Supervisory Status 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

Compo

with <3

Respon

Non-supervisory 76.39% 41333 81.40% 5094 73.75% 11802 74.61% 3473 81.45% 4269 75.05% 10821 77.84% Supervisory 22.34% 12087 17.58% 1100 25.48% 4077 24.49% 1140 17.25% 904 23.20% 3345 20.79% Executive 1.27% 688 1.02% 64 0.77% 124 0.90% 42 1.30% 68 1.75% 253 1.37% 

Q6. Do you work in human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility, or other sim

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS 

Yes 9.70% 5248 10.99% 688 No 90.30% 48860 89.01% 5570 

CBP FEMA ICE 

9.32% 1491 13.10% 610 

86.90% 4045 

8.93% 468 

90.68% 14512 91.07% 4773 

TSA 

Compo

with <3

Respon

8.31% 1198 9.36% 

91.69% 13221 90.64% 

Q7. My Component’s senior leaders communicate their expectations about standards of conduct to 

Strongly 

disagree Disagree 

Neither agree 

nor disagree Agree Strongly agree 

Do not know / 

no basis to 

judge 

USCIS 4.35% 272 8.79% 550 12.11% 758 42.94% 2687 29.59% 1852 2.22% 139 CBP 6.62% 1059 12.55% 2009 13.58% 2173 44.12% 7060 22.04% 3527 1.09% 175 FEMA 5.54% 258 11.19% 521 14.50% 675 44.43% 2068 21.74% 1012 2.60% 121 ICE 6.85% 359 13.03% 683 15.13% 793 41.96% 2199 21.43% 1123 1.60% 84 TSA 8.37% 1207 13.31% 1919 14.36% 2070 44.11% 6360 19.07% 2749 0.79% 114 Components with <3,000 Respondents 6.20% 336 10.47% 567 12.43% 673 39.69% 2149 29.94% 1621 1.27% 69 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 8.03% 170 12.71% 269 16.20% 343 39.96% 846 21.02% 445 2.08% 44 Total DHS Respondents 6.77% 3661 12.05% 6518 13.83% 7485 43.19% 23369 22.79% 12329 1.38% 746 

31 For rating scale or Likert Scale questions throughout the survey, SurveyMonkey automatically calculated a weighted 

Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree response scale. Answer choices “do not know / no basis to judge,” “I don’t know,” anfactored into calculating the rating average. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q8. My Component’s senior leaders model behavior that is consistent with our standards of condu

Do not kno

Neither agree no basis t

Strongly disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 6.57% 411 9.84% 616 14.22% 890 33.62% 2104 30.17% 1888 5.58% 3CBP 13.13% 2101 18.20% 2913 16.98% 2717 30.83% 4934 16.58% 2654 4.27% 6FEMA 8.36% 389 11.49% 535 17.06% 794 35.75% 1664 21.42% 997 5.93% 2ICE 12.04% 631 15.30% 802 17.57% 921 30.15% 1580 18.68% 979 6.26% 3TSA 16.86% 2431 21.45% 3093 17.31% 2496 27.37% 3947 13.84% 1996 3.16% 4Components with <3,000 Respondents 12.30% 666 14.11% 764 14.18% 768 28.99% 1570 26.09% 1413 4.32% 2HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 10.44% 221 12.90% 273 17.24% 365 31.88% 675 23.10% 489 4.44% Total DHS Respondents 12.66% 6850 16.63% 8996 16.54% 8951 30.45% 16474 19.25% 10416 4.47% 2

Q9. In my Component, employees at all levels are held accountable for their conduct. 

Do not kno

Neither agree no basis 

Strongly disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 11.30% 707 19.34% 1210 15.60% 976 29.05% 1818 17.79% 1113 6.94% CBP 19.61% 3138 27.28% 4366 14.93% 2390 23.47% 3756 11.67% 1867 3.04% FEMA 14.20% 661 23.74% 1105 16.13% 751 27.58% 1284 12.29% 572 6.06% ICE 21.14% 1108 26.25% 1376 14.29% 749 22.40% 1174 11.70% 613 4.22% TSA 24.31% 3505 28.50% 4109 13.79% 1988 21.08% 3040 9.66% 1393 2.66% Components with <3,000 Respondents 18.61% 1008 23.79% 1288 13.92% 754 24.12% 1306 15.22% 824 4.34% HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 15.68% 332 22.01% 466 16.44% 348 25.08% 531 13.98% 296 6.80% Total DHS Respondents 19.33% 10459 25.73% 13920 14.70% 7956 23.86% 12909 12.34% 6678 4.04% 2

www.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q10. Senior leaders in my Component are less likely to be disciplined for violating workplace rules

Do not know / 

Strongly Neither agree no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 7.19% 450 16.20% 1014 21.33% 1335 19.48% 1219 15.56% 974 20.23% 1266 

standards of conduct than other employees. 

CBP 5.80% 928 12.81% 2050 18.47% 2955 25.28% 4045 26.78% 4285 10.87% 1740 FEMA 5.84% 272 13.98% 651 23.31% 1085 21.68% 1009 17.08% 795 18.11% 843 ICE 5.25% 275 12.88% 675 20.21% 1059 23.43% 1228 24.79% 1299 13.45% 705 TSA 5.92% 854 10.78% 1554 16.94% 2443 26.01% 3750 31.76% 4580 8.59% 1238 Components with <3,000 Respondents 7.44% 403 15.16% 821 18.12% 981 22.68% 1228 24.21% 1311 12.39% 671 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 7.56% 160 14.74% 312 20.08% 425 20.83% 441 19.13% 405 17.67% 374 Total DHS Respondents 6.18% 3342 13.08% 7077 19.00% 10283 23.88% 12920 25.23% 13649 12.64% 6837 

Q11. The behavior of my senior leaders affects how I behave at work. 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 11.70% 732 17.27% 1081 19.69% 1232 27.79% 1739 21.30% 1333 2.25% 141 CBP 15.13% 2422 21.27% 3404 19.33% 3094 24.60% 3936 18.25% 2921 1.41% 226 FEMA 10.27% 478 19.72% 918 19.68% 916 28.87% 1344 19.01% 885 2.45% 114 ICE 13.81% 724 21.92% 1149 20.82% 1091 24.59% 1289 16.68% 874 2.18% 114 TSA 12.22% 1762 20.31% 2928 20.74% 2990 24.84% 3582 20.71% 2986 1.19% 171 Components with <3,000 Respondents 13.78% 746 20.78% 1125 21.83% 1182 24.41% 1322 17.69% 958 1.51% 82 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 12.23% 259 15.92% 337 19.27% 408 29.95% 634 21.21% 449 1.42% 30 Total DHS Respondents 13.16% 7123 20.22% 10942 20.17% 10913 25.59% 13846 19.23% 10406 1.62% 878 

www.oig.dhs.gov 35 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q12. My supervisor keeps me informed of workplace rules, regulations, and standards of conduct.

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 3.08% 193 7.24% 453 11.70% 732 43.96% 2751 33.48% 2095 0.54% 34 CBP 4.30% 688 10.00% 1601 14.22% 2276 48.40% 7745 22.86% 3658 0.22% 35 FEMA 4.21% 196 9.52% 443 12.74% 593 46.25% 2153 26.77% 1246 0.54% 25 ICE 5.34% 280 10.91% 572 15.13% 793 45.85% 2403 22.34% 1171 0.42% 22 TSA 4.83% 696 9.72% 1402 13.29% 1916 48.51% 6994 23.44% 3380 0.21% 31 Components with <3,000 Respondents 4.23% 229 8.81% 477 13.24% 717 43.99% 2382 29.31% 1587 0.42% 23 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 5.10% 108 9.59% 203 14.03% 297 44.92% 951 25.98% 550 0.38% 8 Total DHS Respondents 4.42% 2390 9.52% 5151 13.54% 7324 46.90% 25379 25.30% 13687 0.33% 178 

Q13. I am held accountable for my behavior in the workplace. 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 0.78% 49 1.53% 96 5.80% 363 45.16% 2826 45.05% 2819 1.68% 105 CBP 1.46% 233 3.11% 498 7.82% 1252 48.28% 7726 38.12% 6100 1.21% 194 FEMA 1.18% 55 2.66% 124 7.63% 355 49.19% 2290 37.57% 1749 1.76% 82 ICE 1.66% 87 3.11% 163 8.41% 441 49.21% 2579 35.91% 1882 1.70% 89 TSA 0.98% 142 1.69% 243 6.05% 873 48.72% 7025 41.72% 6016 0.83% 120 Components with <3,000 Respondents 1.27% 69 2.03% 110 7.26% 393 46.78% 2533 41.16% 2229 1.50% 81 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 1.42% 30 1.84% 39 7.94% 168 48.75% 1032 38.31% 811 1.75% 37 Total DHS Respondents 1.23% 665 2.35% 1273 7.11% 3845 48.07% 26011 39.93% 21606 1.31% 708 

32 SurveyMonkey confirmed that their calculations caused one additional respondent to be added to this question in er

www.oig.dhs.gov 36 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q14. I know what types of behavior are considered misconduct in my workplace.33 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 1.02% 64 2.19% 137 3.88% 243 43.06% 2695 49.44% 3094 0.40% 25 CBP 1.16% 185 1.85% 296 3.77% 603 46.51% 7443 46.58% 7454 0.14% 23 FEMA 1.27% 59 2.84% 132 4.32% 201 46.64% 2171 44.49% 2071 0.45% 21 ICE 1.58% 83 2.54% 133 4.39% 230 46.99% 2463 44.23% 2318 0.27% 14 TSA 1.86% 268 2.80% 404 4.36% 628 45.63% 6579 45.12% 6506 0.24% 34 Components with <3,000 Respondents 1.59% 86 2.42% 131 4.10% 222 42.38% 2295 49.38% 2674 0.13% 7 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 1.70% 36 2.88% 61 5.24% 111 45.63% 966 44.07% 933 0.47% 10 Total DHS Respondents 1.44% 781 2.39% 1294 4.14% 2238 45.49% 24612 46.30% 25050 0.25% 134 

 Q15. I know where to find standards of conduct or other policies on workplace behavior. 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 1.77% 111 9.33% 584 8.93% 559 45.97% 2877 33.06% 2069 0.93% 58 CBP 1.95% 312 7.75% 1240 7.94% 1270 47.59% 7616 34.27% 5485 0.51% 81 FEMA 2.73% 127 11.08% 516 9.62% 448 47.15% 2195 28.46% 1325 0.95% 44 ICE 2.65% 139 10.21% 535 9.04% 474 49.30% 2584 28.12% 1474 0.67% 35 TSA 2.13% 307 5.16% 744 6.06% 874 49.64% 7157 36.68% 5289 0.33% 48 Components with <3,000 Respondents 2.62% 142 8.13% 440 8.66% 469 46.17% 2500 33.85% 1833 0.57% 31 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 3.31% 70 12.52% 265 10.72% 227 46.39% 982 26.17% 554 0.90% 19 Total DHS Respondents 2.23% 1208 7.99% 4324 7.99% 4321 47.89% 25911 33.32% 18029 0.58% 316 

33 SurveyMonkey confirmed that their calculations caused one additional respondent to be added to this question in er

www.oig.dhs.gov 37 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q16. I can report misconduct to my supervisor without fear of retaliation. 

Do not know / 

Strongly Neither agree no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 8.98% 562 9.20% 576 13.04% 816 31.67% 1982 31.94% 1999 5.16% 323 CBP 12.27% 1964 12.40% 1984 15.32% 2452 32.33% 5173 23.58% 3774 4.10% 656 FEMA 12.37% 576 11.36% 529 15.45% 719 33.32% 1551 22.69% 1056 4.81% 224 ICE 14.21% 745 11.51% 603 13.18% 691 31.81% 1667 25.19% 1320 4.10% 215 TSA 17.30% 2494 15.36% 2215 16.01% 2309 28.68% 4135 19.78% 2852 2.87% 414 Components with <3,000 Respondents 12.45% 674 11.25% 609 13.55% 734 30.08% 1629 28.07% 1520 4.60% 249 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 11.48% 243 11.20% 237 13.04% 276 31.84% 674 26.92% 570 5.53% 117 Total DHS Respondents 13.41% 7258 12.48% 6753 14.78% 7997 31.07% 16811 24.19% 13091 4.06% 2198 

Q17. I am confident my supervisor would take appropriate action to correct misconduct in the wormatter who committed the offense. 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 9.99% 625 11.06% 692 15.21% 952 30.44% 1905 28.28% 1770 5.02% 314 CBP 15.62% 2500 17.50% 2800 17.20% 2753 28.16% 4507 18.35% 2936 3.17% 507 FEMA 13.36% 622 15.02% 699 17.14% 798 30.89% 1438 19.16% 892 4.43% 206 ICE 16.22% 850 15.00% 786 15.21% 797 28.62% 1500 21.48% 1126 3.47% 182 TSA 18.51% 2669 19.12% 2757 17.93% 2585 25.71% 3707 16.50% 2379 2.23% 322 Components with <3,000 Respondents 14.24% 771 13.35% 723 15.05% 815 28.55% 1546 24.71% 1338 4.10% 222 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 12.28% 260 14.55% 308 14.93% 316 30.28% 641 23.76% 503 4.20% 89 Total DHS Respondents 15.33% 8297 16.20% 8765 16.66% 9016 28.17% 15244 20.23% 10944 3.40% 184

www.oig.dhs.gov 38 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q18. I am confident my supervisor would handle an employee misconduct allegation discreetly and 

Do not know / 

Strongly Neither agree no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 7.49% 469 7.99% 500 14.19% 888 33.99% 2127 32.33% 2023 4.01% 251 CBP 12.63% 2021 13.19% 2110 17.34% 2775 32.49% 5200 21.08% 3374 3.27% 523 FEMA 10.61% 494 9.88% 460 16.41% 764 36.13% 1682 23.18% 1079 3.78% 176 ICE 13.34% 699 10.86% 569 15.00% 786 32.82% 1720 24.54% 1286 3.45% 181 TSA 15.07% 2173 14.47% 2086 18.16% 2619 31.43% 4532 18.59% 2680 2.28% 329 Components with <3,000 Respondents 11.23% 608 9.77% 529 14.57% 789 32.71% 1771 27.74% 1502 3.99% 216 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 9.83% 208 10.68% 226 14.74% 312 33.02% 699 27.54% 583 4.20% 89 Total DHS Respondents 12.33% 6672 11.98% 6480 16.51% 8933 32.77% 17731 23.15% 12527 3.26% 176

Q19. If you suspected that a co-worker or supervisor was engaged in misconduct, would you repor

Maybe, depending on

Yes, always the circumstances No Total

USCIS 70.76% 4428 27.05% 1693 2.19% 137 6258CBP 77.52% 12406 20.81% 3331 1.66% 266 16003 FEMA 58.47% 2722 37.74% 1757 3.78% 176 4655 ICE 72.89% 3820 24.08% 1262 3.03% 159 5241 TSA 70.48% 10162 26.80% 3864 2.73% 393 14419 Components with <3,000 Respondents 61.92% 3353 34.87% 1888 3.21% 174 5415 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 65.00% 1376 32.12% 680 2.88% 61 2117 Total DHS Respondents 70.72% 38267 26.75% 14475 2.52% 1366 54108 

www.oig.dhs.gov 39 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q20. What deters you from reporting misconduct? (select all that apply)34 35 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

I do not want to get involved 22.31% 3560 26.68% 492 23.23% 842 20.05% 391 23.29% 334 21.27% 911 1I do not want to get anyone in trouble 14.39% 2297 18.87% 348 14.48% 525 13.90% 271 15.90% 228 13.38% 573 1I fear that my peers will retaliate against me 31.55% 5035 29.93% 552 33.54% 1216 27.03% 527 35.08% 503 34.80% 1491 2I fear that my supervisor will retaliate 44.15% 7046 35.95% 663 44.44% 1611 38.00% 741 47.84% 686 52.31% 2241 3against me It is not my responsibility 4.06% 648 3.58% 66 4.03% 146 5.03% 98 3.77% 54 3.52% 151 I do not believe that any action would be taken to address the 56.14% 8960 48.64% 897 58.46% 2119 53.03% 1034 61.30% 879 59.62% 2554 5situation. I have raised similar issues before and do not want to go through 22.78% 3635 19.36% 357 23.70% 859 19.23% 375 23.50% 337 27.17% 1164 1the process again. I do not know 5.29% 845 5.69% 105 4.97% 180 6.87% 134 3.77% 54 4.25% 182 N/A – I would always report misconduct no matter the 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 circumstances Other (please specify) 29.17% 4656 29.93% 552 29.93% 1085 29.59% 577 29.15% 418 27.03% 1158 3

34 For all questions in this appendix that are marked “select all that apply,” percentages will total more than 100 perce

could select multiple answers. 

35 Throughout the survey, some questions will have a smaller number of responses because for some questions, depen

some employees are moved to another question. For example, this question only appeared to respondents who selected 

on the circumstances” to Question 19. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 40 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q21. Where would you report misconduct? (Select all that apply) 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

My direct supervisor 79.45% 42990 83.35% 5216 78.30% 12531 80.15% 3731 76.82% 4026 79.32% 11437 Another supervisor other than my direct supervisor 27.73% 15005 27.02% 1691 31.71% 5075 19.08% 888 21.39% 1121 32.10% 4628 The manager above my direct supervisor 41.27% 22333 43.75% 2738 37.94% 6071 37.12% 1728 32.23% 1689 50.47% 7277 DHS Office of Inspector General 33.62% 18192 38.41% 2404 38.23% 6118 25.11% 1169 44.02% 2307 26.50% 3821 My Component's Human Capital, Human Resources, or Employee Relations Office 12.64% 6837 12.27% 768 6.31% 1009 21.89% 1019 7.25% 380 15.87% 2288 My Component's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office 19.63% 10619 19.14% 1198 16.65% 2664 27.02% 1258 20.70% 1085 19.18% 2766 My Component's Ombudsman 6.93% 3752 3.85% 241 1.62% 260 4.02% 187 1.41% 74 16.33% 2354 My Component's Internal Affairs, Inspections, or Office of Professional Responsibility 28.32% 15322 18.49% 1157 45.53% 7286 9.26% 431 47.13% 2470 18.57% 2678 DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 9.07% 4905 6.68% 418 5.64% 903 9.28% 432 7.08% 371 13.95% 2011 I do not know 2.37% 1282 2.14% 134 1.95% 312 3.46% 161 2.16% 113 2.49% 359 I would never report misconduct 0.44% 239 0.61% 38 0.25% 40 0.45% 21 0.57% 30 0.42% 60 Other (please specify) 9.80% 5302 8.72% 546 11.87% 1900 9.22% 429 10.28% 539 8.16% 1177 

www.oig.dhs.gov 41 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q22. Have you personally observed misconduct in your workplace in the last 3 years? 

Other (please 

Yes No I do not know specify) Total

USCIS 31.75% 1987 59.16% 3702 9.09% 569 0.00% 0 6258CBP 33.50% 5361 57.58% 9215 8.92% 1427 0.00% 0 16003 FEMA 41.78% 1945 49.50% 2304 8.72% 406 0.00% 0 4655 ICE 32.67% 1712 58.56% 3069 8.78% 460 0.00% 0 5241 TSA 48.89% 7049 42.70% 6157 8.41% 1213 0.00% 0 14419 Components with <3,000 Respondents 35.51% 1923 56.92% 3082 7.57% 410 0.00% 0 5415 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 35.29% 747 55.69% 1179 9.02% 191 0.00% 0 2117 Total DHS Respondents 38.30% 20724 53.06% 28708 8.64% 4676 0.00% 0 54108

 Q23. How many times have you observed misconduct in the last three years? 

I have not 

observed 

1 time 2 times 3 times 4 or more times misconduct I do not know 

USCIS 14.31% 289 16.09% 325 12.62% 255 41.49% 838 0.00% 0 15.50% 313 CBP 9.40% 508 13.06% 706 10.01% 541 46.88% 2535 0.00% 0 20.66% 111FEMA 10.69% 209 16.06% 314 11.46% 224 45.78% 895 0.00% 0 16.01% 313 ICE 9.63% 166 12.83% 221 10.50% 181 48.64% 838 0.00% 0 18.40% 317 TSA 6.69% 474 11.22% 795 9.47% 671 52.01% 3685 0.00% 0 20.61% 146Components with <3,000 Respondents 10.16% 197 14.54% 282 11.45% 222 46.52% 902 0.00% 0 17.33% 336 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 11.13% 84 15.76% 119 11.66% 88 43.97% 332 0.00% 0 17.48% 132 Total DHS Respondents 9.23% 1927 13.23% 2762 10.45% 2182 48.00% 10025 0.00% 0 19.10% 398

www.oig.dhs.gov 42 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q24. Have you been disciplined for misconduct in the last three years? 

Yes No I do not know Total 

USCIS 3.10% 194 96.02% 6009 0.88% 55 6258 CBP 5.96% 953 92.85% 14859 1.19% 191 16003 FEMA 2.30% 107 96.69% 4501 1.01% 47 4655 ICE 5.61% 294 93.74% 4913 0.65% 34 5241 TSA 9.40% 1355 89.25% 12869 1.35% 195 14419 Components with <3,000 Respondents 3.43% 186 96.01% 5199 0.55% 30 5415 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 3.50% 74 95.61% 2024 0.90% 19 2117 Total DHS Respondents 5.85% 3163 93.10% 50374 1.06% 571 54108 

Q25. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor clearly informed me of his or her dissabehavior. 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge Tota

USCIS 22.11% 44 13.07% 26 13.07% 26 33.67% 67 14.57% 29 3.52% 7 199 CBP 19.67% 189 15.71% 151 13.94% 134 32.78% 315 16.02% 154 1.87% 18 961 FEMA 15.60% 17 14.68% 16 9.17% 10 34.86% 38 22.94% 25 2.75% 3 109 ICE 27.12% 80 15.25% 45 12.88% 38 25.76% 76 16.95% 50 2.03% 6 295 TSA 19.91% 272 15.01% 205 14.35% 196 35.29% 482 13.62% 186 1.83% 25 1366 Components with <3,000 Respondents 25.93% 49 12.70% 24 11.11% 21 30.16% 57 17.46% 33 2.65% 5 189 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 9.46% 7 18.92% 14 14.86% 11 28.38% 21 20.27% 15 8.11% 6 74 Total DHS Respondents 20.61% 658 15.06% 481 13.65% 436 33.07% 1056 15.41% 492 2.19% 70 3193 

www.oig.dhs.gov 43 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q26. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor provided suggestions on how to improbehavior. 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge Tot

USCIS 26.63% 53 15.08% 30 16.58% 33 24.62% 49 14.57% 29 2.51% 5 199 CBP 28.10% 270 18.52% 178 13.42% 129 25.81% 248 11.65% 112 2.50% 24 961 FEMA 21.10% 23 18.35% 20 14.68% 16 31.19% 34 12.84% 14 1.83% 2 109 ICE 35.93% 106 15.25% 45 14.24% 42 23.05% 68 10.17% 30 1.36% 4 295 TSA 25.40% 347 20.50% 280 15.37% 210 28.33% 387 8.42% 115 1.98% 27 1366 Components with <3,000 Respondents 34.92% 66 19.05% 36 14.29% 27 18.52% 35 11.11% 21 2.12% 4 189 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 24.32% 18 14.86% 11 16.22% 12 22.97% 17 13.51% 10 8.11% 6 74 Total DHS Respondents 27.65% 883 18.79% 600 14.69% 469 26.24% 838 10.37% 331 2.25% 72 3193 

Q27. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor gave me the opportunity to correct the 

Do not 

know / no 

Strongly Neither agree basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge Tot

USCIS 31.16% 62 15.08% 30 15.58% 31 21.11% 42 13.07% 26 4.02% 8 199 CBP 31.22% 300 17.38% 167 15.71% 151 21.85% 210 11.45% 110 2.39% 23 961 FEMA 30.28% 33 17.43% 19 10.09% 11 22.94% 25 17.43% 19 1.83% 2 109 ICE 39.32% 116 16.61% 49 15.25% 45 14.58% 43 12.20% 36 2.03% 6 295 TSA 32.72% 447 18.37% 251 15.45% 211 22.91% 313 7.76% 106 2.78% 38 136Components with <3,000 Respondents 44.44% 84 14.81% 28 8.47% 16 19.05% 36 11.11% 21 2.12% 4 189 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 31.08% 23 14.86% 11 14.86% 11 17.57% 13 13.51% 10 8.11% 6 74 Total DHS Respondents 33.35% 1065 17.38% 555 14.91% 476 21.36% 682 10.27% 328 2.72% 87 319

www.oig.dhs.gov 44 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q28. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor imposed discipline in a discreet mann

Do not know 

Neither agree / no basis to 

Strongly disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge Tota

USCIS 24.62% 49 10.55% 21 19.60% 39 27.64% 55 12.06% 24 5.53% 11 199 CBP 25.39% 244 14.46% 139 14.98% 144 30.28% 291 12.90% 124 1.98% 19 961 FEMA 29.36% 32 13.76% 15 15.60% 17 23.85% 26 14.68% 16 2.75% 3 109 ICE 35.25% 104 11.86% 35 11.19% 33 25.42% 75 14.58% 43 1.69% 5 295 TSA 26.57% 363 14.71% 201 16.98% 232 30.97% 423 9.08% 124 1.68% 23 1366 Components with <3,000 Respondents 31.75% 60 10.05% 19 16.93% 32 24.34% 46 13.76% 26 3.17% 6 189 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 24.32% 18 14.86% 11 13.51% 10 27.03% 20 14.86% 11 5.41% 4 74 Total DHS Respondents 27.25% 870 13.81% 441 15.88% 507 29.31% 936 11.53% 368 2.22% 71 3193 

Data for Questions 29 through 42 only show respondents who answered that they are a supeQuestion 5 and answered yes to Question 29. Q29. Just to confirm, do you currently supervise other Federal employees? Yes No Total 

USCIS 100.00% 1126 0.00% 0 1126CBP 100.00% 4029 0.00% 0 4029 FEMA 100.00% 1086 0.00% 0 1086 ICE 100.00% 940 0.00% 0 940 TSA 100.00% 3451 0.00% 0 3451 Components with <3,000 Respondents 100.00% 1130 0.00% 0 1130 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 100.00% 428 0.00% 0 428 Total DHS Respondents 100.00% 12190 0.00% 0 12190 

www.oig.dhs.gov 45 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q30. I hold employees accountable for their behavior in the workplace. 

Sometimes, 

depending on the 

Yes, always circumstances No Total 

USCIS 93.69% 1055 6.04% 68 0.27% 3 1126 CBP 92.50% 3727 7.32% 295 0.17% 7 4029 FEMA 94.11% 1022 5.71% 62 0.18% 2 1086 ICE 92.77% 872 7.13% 67 0.11% 1 940 TSA 94.49% 3261 5.42% 187 0.09% 3 3451 Components with <3,000 Respondents 93.98% 1062 5.84% 66 0.18% 2 1130 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 94.63% 405 5.37% 23 0.00% 0 428 Total DHS Respondents 93.55% 11404 6.30% 768 0.15% 18 12190 

Q31. Do you know where to go to get policies and procedures on disciplinary actions? 

Yes No Total

USCIS 93.34% 1051 6.66% 75 1126CBP 96.00% 3868 4.00% 161 4029 FEMA 91.71% 996 8.29% 90 1086 ICE 94.57% 889 5.43% 51 940 TSA 97.62% 3369 2.38% 82 3451 Components with <3,000 Respondents 95.40% 1078 4.60% 52 1130 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 90.65% 388 9.35% 40 428 Total DHS Respondents 95.48% 11639 4.52% 551 12190 

www.oig.dhs.gov 46 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q32. When was the last time you received training on misconduct and how to take disciplinary act

I have never 

received training 

Within the last 3 or more years on misconduct or 

year 1 to 2 years ago ago disciplinary actions I do not know Total

USCIS 69.09% 778 17.67% 199 5.60% 63 3.37% 38 4.26% 48 1126CBP 43.24% 1742 25.29% 1019 20.97% 845 5.61% 226 4.89% 197 4029 FEMA 50.74% 551 23.94% 260 9.21% 100 11.79% 128 4.33% 47 1086 ICE 54.47% 512 22.02% 207 14.79% 139 4.68% 44 4.04% 38 940 TSA 49.93% 1723 21.85% 754 13.45% 464 9.94% 343 4.84% 167 3451 Components with <3,000 Respondents 48.67% 550 25.66% 290 11.33% 128 9.20% 104 5.13% 58 1130 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 36.21% 155 25.23% 108 17.29% 74 11.92% 51 9.35% 40 428 Total DHS Respondents 49.31% 6011 23.27% 2837 14.87% 1813 7.66% 934 4.88% 595 12190 

Q33. I need more training on how to handle misconduct and take disciplinary actions. 

Strongly Neither agree I do not 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree know 

USCIS 7.28% 82 19.63% 221 28.51% 321 33.93% 382 9.95% 112 0.71% 8 CBP 4.34% 175 15.79% 636 22.19% 894 39.39% 1587 18.14% 731 0.15% 6 FEMA 4.70% 51 21.92% 238 26.70% 290 34.81% 378 11.69% 127 0.18% 2 ICE 5.74% 54 21.06% 198 22.55% 212 35.43% 333 15.21% 143 0.00% 0 TSA 6.00% 207 20.43% 705 26.22% 905 33.00% 1139 14.11% 487 0.23% 8 Components with <3,000 Respondents 8.14% 92 25.84% 292 23.54% 266 32.65% 369 9.38% 106 0.44% 5 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 4.91% 21 19.39% 83 24.53% 105 37.38% 160 13.55% 58 0.23% 1 Total DHS Respondents 5.59% 682 19.47% 2373 24.55% 2993 35.67% 4348 14.47% 1764 0.25% 30 

www.oig.dhs.gov 47 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q34. Employees have reported suspected misconduct to me. 

Yes No Total 

44.32% 499 55.68% 627 1126 

CBP 54.63% 2201 45.37% 1828 4029 FEMA 51.01% 554 48.99% 532 1086 ICE 49.36% 464 50.64% 476 940 TSA 72.12% 2489 27.88% 962 3451 Components with <3,000 Respondents 45.66% 516 54.34% 614 1130 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 44.16% 189 55.84% 239 428 Total DHS Respondents 56.70% 6912 43.30% 5278 12190 USCIS 

Q35. How many times have employees reported suspected misconduct to you in the last three year

Componen

Total DHS with <3,00

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Responden

1 time 19.26% 1340 27.47% 139 21.65% 479 20.72% 115 23.23% 108 13.61% 341 21.26% 2 times 22.85% 1590 27.47% 139 22.65% 501 28.29% 157 23.44% 109 18.83% 472 31.61% 3 times 11.41% 794 13.04% 66 12.07% 267 12.43% 69 10.97% 51 10.26% 257 10.54% 4 or more times 29.71% 2067 20.95% 106 25.90% 573 26.49% 147 23.23% 108 38.79% 972 22.99% I have not received any reports 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% I do not know 16.76% 1166 11.07% 56 17.72% 392 12.07% 67 19.14% 89 18.52% 464 13.60% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 48 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q36. I am aware of the types of disciplinary actions I can initiate. 

Strongly Neither agree nor I don't 

disagree Disagree disagree Agree Strongly agree know 

USCIS 1.33% 15 6.22% 70 11.28% 127 59.24% 667 20.96% 236 0.98% 11 CBP 1.66% 67 4.84% 195 8.74% 352 62.75% 2528 21.62% 871 0.40% 16 FEMA 2.30% 25 7.73% 84 11.51% 125 59.48% 646 18.14% 197 0.83% 9 ICE 1.81% 17 6.38% 60 8.83% 83 63.30% 595 19.04% 179 0.64% 6 TSA 1.94% 67 4.52% 156 8.64% 298 56.97% 1966 27.41% 946 0.52% 18 Components with <3,000 Respondents 0.97% 11 5.40% 61 9.91% 112 58.32% 659 24.96% 282 0.44% 5 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 1.17% 5 8.64% 37 12.38% 53 58.64% 251 17.76% 76 1.40% 6 Total DHS Respondents 1.70% 207 5.44% 663 9.43% 1150 59.98% 7312 22.86% 2787 0.58% 71 

 Q37. Have you taken disciplinary action? 

Yes No Total 

USCIS 44.67% 503 55.33% 623 1126 CBP 63.32% 2551 36.68% 1478 4029 FEMA 51.66% 561 48.34% 525 1086 ICE 58.30% 548 41.70% 392 940 TSA 74.36% 2566 25.64% 885 3451 Components with <3,000 Respondents 54.51% 616 45.49% 514 1130 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 49.30% 211 50.70% 217 428 Total DHS Respondents 61.99% 7556 38.01% 4634 12190 

www.oig.dhs.gov 49 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q38. Please indicate which actions you have taken for misconduct. (Select all that apply.) 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

Com

with 

Resp

Verbal Counseling 91.99% 6967 90.32% 457 94.32% 2410 92.17% 518 93.25% 511 89.79% 2312 91.4Letter of Counseling 78.99% 5983 75.69% 383 79.02% 2019 62.99% 354 75.36% 413 86.80% 2235 70.3Letter of Reprimand 53.82% 4076 39.72% 201 49.75% 1271 40.75% 229 46.17% 253 68.50% 1764 44.8Suspension 34.49% 2612 32.02% 162 25.95% 663 24.02% 135 34.49% 189 47.46% 1222 32.5Demotion 6.09% 461 6.92% 35 3.76% 96 1.96% 11 4.93% 27 10.37% 267 3.24Removal 24.35% 1844 26.09% 132 14.52% 371 28.47% 160 22.81% 125 32.93% 848 26.2Other (please specify) 8.65% 655 9.88% 50 8.38% 214 12.63% 71 8.76% 48 7.88% 203 7.94

Q39. For which of the following disciplinary actions do you consult human resources, employee re

Total DHS 

Respondents 

other similar office? (Select all that apply) Com

with 

USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Resp

Verbal Counseling 34.99% 2645 50.00% 252 38.65% 986 53.48% 300 48.18% 264 18.10% 465 42.05Letter of Counseling 67.02% 5067 83.53% 421 68.37% 1744 72.19% 405 75.00% 411 56.64% 1455 75.32Letter of Reprimand 82.54% 6240 84.92% 428 82.28% 2099 79.50% 446 84.12% 461 82.06% 2108 85.71Suspension 78.11% 5905 81.75% 412 75.42% 1924 72.01% 404 78.28% 429 81.20% 2086 79.71Demotion 63.92% 4832 74.21% 374 61.82% 1577 58.65% 329 65.51% 359 63.92% 1642 66.56Removal 71.75% 5424 79.56% 401 67.35% 1718 71.84% 403 70.99% 389 73.69% 1893 74.68None of the above 3.37% 255 2.58% 13 3.06% 78 2.50% 14 2.55% 14 4.59% 118 1.95% I do not know 1.64% 122 0.79% 4 1.96% 50 1.96% 11 1.28% 7 1.83% 47 0.49% All of the above 0.00% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 50 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q40. Does your immediate supervisor support your efforts to take disciplinary actions when warra

Sometimes, depends I do not know / 

Yes, always No 

on the circumstances basis to judge 

USCIS 52.49% 591 21.76% 245 2.93% 33 22.82% CBP 50.88% 2050 29.64% 1194 5.24% 211 14.25% FEMA 45.30% 492 26.61% 289 4.51% 49 23.57% ICE 51.49% 484 23.72% 223 5.85% 55 18.94% TSA 52.27% 1804 33.99% 1173 5.07% 175 8.66% Components with <3,000 Respondents 53.54% 605 21.77% 246 3.72% 42 20.97% HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 45.09% 193 21.73% 93 5.14% 22 28.04% Total DHS Respondents 51.02% 6219 28.41% 3463 4.82% 587 15.76% 

Q41. What actions have you taken with employees in lieu of discipline? (Select all that apply) 

DHS USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

Allowed employees to resign with no indication of disciplinary action on their record 7.33% 894 6.22% 70 4.49% 181 8.20% 89 6.81% 64 10.95% 378 Detailed employees to other positions or offices 5.45% 664 4.88% 55 5.53% 223 7.64% 83 6.17% 58 4.09% 141 Relieved employees of certain responsibilities 18.15% 2212 14.83% 167 17.72% 714 24.49% 266 17.98% 169 16.69% 576 Relieved employees of supervisory duties 4.39% 535 4.26% 48 3.25% 131 6.26% 68 2.87% 27 5.59% 193 Transferred employees to other positions at same grade 4.19% 511 5.24% 59 3.75% 151 7.09% 77 5.96% 56 2.67% 92 I have not taken any actions in lieu of discipline 65.90% 8033 68.03% 766 69.02% 2781 56.91% 618 68.62% 645 64.71% 2233 I have not needed to take disciplinary action 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Other (please specify) 11.96% 1458 14.21% 160 11.44% 461 13.54% 147 9.68% 91 12.23% 422 

www.oig.dhs.gov 51 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q42. Have you wanted to take disciplinary action but chose not to because . . . (Select all that app

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

C

w

R

I was fearful of an employee grievance 4.50% 548 4.88% 55 4.47% 180 6.72% 73 6.81% 64 2.61% 90 5I was fearful of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint 5.52% 673 3.91% 44 5.41% 218 9.48% 103 7.66% 72 3.94% 136 5I did not want to offend the employee 0.64% 78 0.53% 6 0.69% 28 1.38% 15 0.21% 2 0.41% 14 0I feared retaliation by the employee 4.44% 541 4.17% 47 3.82% 154 7.37% 80 4.68% 44 3.97% 137 4I lacked knowledge of the disciplinary process 5.51% 672 3.37% 38 6.90% 278 5.52% 60 4.68% 44 5.13% 177 4I thought the case would be settled anyway because similar actions were settled in the past 4.51% 550 2.58% 29 6.40% 258 4.14% 45 5.96% 56 3.68% 127 2It took time away from other duties 4.03% 491 3.46% 39 4.05% 163 5.25% 57 5.74% 54 2.64% 91 5Management mitigated (decreased the penalty) on similar actions in the past 14.75% 1798 9.15% 103 16.65% 671 9.12% 99 13.40% 126 19.21% 663 8I did not believe management would support my efforts 17.78% 2167 13.23% 149 19.36% 780 18.51% 201 19.36% 182 17.99% 621 1The employee was a good performer 5.33% 650 2.13% 24 6.70% 270 3.68% 40 4.04% 38 6.46% 223 3Not applicable - I have not wanted to take disciplinary action -OR- I have always chosen to take disciplinary action 61.27% 7469 69.36% 781 58.35% 2351 61.33% 666 64.15% 603 57.95% 2000 6Other (please specify) 10.40% 1268 10.83% 122 11.22% 452 10.50% 114 9.36% 88 10.66% 368 8

www.oig.dhs.gov 52 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

office. Does your work include handling disciplinary actions? Yes No Total 

USCIS 

Data for Questions 43 through 58 only show respondents who answered affirmatively in Quecurrently work in human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility or other responded yes, they handle disciplinary actions to Question 43. Q43. You indicated that you work in a human resources, employee relations, professional respons

100.00% 178 0.00% 0 178

CBP 100.00% 387 0.00% 0 387FEMA 100.00% 138 0.00% 0 138ICE 100.00% 115 0.00% 0 115TSA 100.00% 391 0.00% 0 391Components with <3,000Respondents 100.00% 111 0.00% 0 111HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 100.00% 47 0.00% 0 47 Total DHS Respondents 100.00% 1367 0.00% 0 1367

www.oig.dhs.gov 53 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q44. What factors deter supervisors in your servicing area from disciplining employees? (Select all 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

Cases will be settled anyway 15.73% 215 11.24% 20 25.06% 97 12.32% 17 24.35% 28 8.70% 34 Lack of support from management 34.97% 478 29.21% 52 34.88% 135 44.93% 62 33.04% 38 35.81% 140 Reluctance to deal with potential equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints 38.33% 524 32.02% 57 36.18% 140 51.45% 71 46.09% 53 35.29% 138 Reluctance to deal with potential grievances 40.16% 549 35.96% 64 44.44% 172 44.93% 62 44.35% 51 33.50% 131 The disciplinary process is too time-consuming 36.06% 493 35.39% 63 36.69% 142 29.71% 41 33.04% 38 38.36% 150 None of the above 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 I do not know 25.31% 346 30.90% 55 26.61% 103 20.29% 28 26.96% 31 22.51% 88 Other (please specify) 21.87% 299 20.79% 37 22.22% 86 15.22% 21 17.39% 20 24.04% 94 

Q45. Does your component have a Table of Penalties? 

Yes No I do not know Total 

56.74% 101 2.25% 4 41.01% 73 178 

CBP 85.53% 331 1.29% 5 13.18% 51 387 FEMA 19.57% 27 23.91% 33 56.52% 78 138 ICE 85.22% 98 3.48% 4 11.30% 13 115 TSA 88.24% 345 2.56% 10 9.21% 36 391 Components with <3,000 Respondents 59.46% 66 8.11% 9 32.43% 36 111 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 46.81% 22 8.51% 4 44.68% 21 47 Total DHS Respondents 72.42% 990 5.05% 69 22.53% 308 1367 USCIS 

www.oig.dhs.gov 54 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q46. My component’s Table of Penalties provides sufficient guidance on charge selection.36 

Strongly Neither agree Strongly I don't Weighte

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree agree know Total Averag

USCIS 3.96% 4 4.95% 5 13.86% 14 41.58% 42 33.66% 34 1.98% 2 101 3.98 CBP 2.11% 7 10.24% 34 9.04% 30 53.01% 176 23.80% 79 1.81% 6 332 3.88 FEMA 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 22.22% 6 59.26% 16 11.11% 3 3.70% 1 27 3.77 ICE 3.06% 3 5.10% 5 14.29% 14 52.04% 51 24.49% 24 1.02% 1 98 3.91 TSA 2.02% 7 7.20% 25 8.36% 29 57.35% 199 23.63% 82 1.44% 5 347 3.95 Components with <3,000 Respondents 3.03% 2 3.03% 2 12.12% 8 53.03% 35 24.24% 16 4.55% 3 66 3.97 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 0.00% 0 9.09% 2 9.09% 2 77.27% 17 0.00% 0 4.55% 1 22 3.71 Total DHS Respondents 2.42% 24 7.35% 73 10.37% 103 53.98% 536 23.97% 238 1.91% 19 993 3.91 

Q47. My component’s Table of Penalties provides a list of charges that is specific enough. 

Strongly Neither agree 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree I don't know 

USCIS 3.96% 4 5.94% 6 18.81% 19 40.59% 41 27.72% 28 2.97% 3 CBP 1.81% 6 13.86% 46 9.94% 33 50.60% 168 21.99% 73 1.81% 6 FEMA 3.70% 1 3.70% 1 37.04% 10 40.74% 11 11.11% 3 3.70% 1 ICE 5.10% 5 1.02% 1 16.33% 16 58.16% 57 19.39% 19 0.00% 0 TSA 1.73% 6 7.49% 26 8.36% 29 60.52% 210 20.75% 72 1.15% 4 Components with <3,000 Respondents 1.52% 1 4.55% 3 12.12% 8 56.06% 37 21.21% 14 4.55% 3 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 0.00% 0 13.64% 3 9.09% 2 72.73% 16 0.00% 0 4.55% 1 Total DHS Respondents 2.32% 23 8.66% 86 11.78% 117 54.38% 540 21.05% 209 1.81% 18 

36 SurveyMonkey confirmed that an error caused three additional respondents to be added to Questions 46–50. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 55 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q48. My component’s Table of Penalties provides sufficient guidance on penalty selection. 

Strongly Neither agree nor 

disagree Disagree disagree Agree Strongly agree I don't know 

USCIS 3.96% 4 12.87% 13 15.84% 16 36.63% 37 26.73% 27 3.96% 4 CBP 2.11% 7 11.75% 39 13.25% 44 49.40% 164 21.99% 73 1.51% 5 FEMA 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 29.63% 8 51.85% 14 11.11% 3 3.70% 1 ICE 3.06% 3 8.16% 8 14.29% 14 54.08% 53 20.41% 20 0.00% 0 TSA 2.31% 8 8.93% 31 10.37% 36 55.91% 194 21.33% 74 1.15% 4 Components with <3,000 Respondents 3.03% 2 3.03% 2 18.18% 12 48.48% 32 21.21% 14 6.06% 4 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 0.00% 0 13.64% 3 9.09% 2 72.73% 16 0.00% 0 4.55% 1 Total DHS Respondents 2.52% 25 9.67% 96 13.29% 132 51.36% 510 21.25% 211 1.91% 19 

Q49. My component’s Table of Penalties contains adequate guidance on progressiveness of penalti

Strongly Neither agree 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree I don't know 

USCIS 4.95% 5 11.88% 12 11.88% 12 39.60% 40 29.70% 30 1.98% 2 CBP 2.71% 9 13.55% 45 10.84% 36 48.49% 161 22.59% 75 1.81% 6 FEMA 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 22.22% 6 59.26% 16 11.11% 3 3.70% 1 ICE 4.08% 4 4.08% 4 11.22% 11 61.22% 60 19.39% 19 0.00% 0 TSA 3.17% 11 11.24% 39 10.66% 37 54.47% 189 19.02% 66 1.44% 5 Components with <3,000 Respondents 6.06% 4 3.03% 2 13.64% 9 51.52% 34 21.21% 14 4.55% 3 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 0.00% 0 13.64% 3 18.18% 4 63.64% 14 0.00% 0 4.55% 1 Total DHS Respondents 3.42% 34 10.57% 105 11.58% 115 51.76% 514 20.85% 207 1.81% 18 

www.oig.dhs.gov 56 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q50. My component’s Table of Penalties contains a range of penalties that is appropriate. 

Strongly Neither agree 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree I don't know 

USCIS 3.96% 4 12.87% 13 13.86% 14 39.60% 40 27.72% 28 1.98% 2 CBP 2.11% 7 10.54% 35 12.35% 41 51.81% 172 21.69% 72 1.51% 5 FEMA 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 25.93% 7 55.56% 15 11.11% 3 3.70% 1 ICE 6.12% 6 7.14% 7 12.24% 12 57.14% 56 17.35% 17 0.00% 0 TSA 2.31% 8 4.32% 15 10.09% 35 60.81% 211 21.04% 73 1.44% 5 Components with <3,000 Respondents 3.03% 2 4.55% 3 15.15% 10 48.48% 32 22.73% 15 6.06% 4 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 0.00% 0 13.64% 3 18.18% 4 63.64% 14 0.00% 0 4.55% 1 Total DHS Respondents 2.82% 28 7.65% 76 12.39% 123 54.38% 540 20.95% 208 1.81% 18 

Q51. In general, who selects the initial penalty in a disciplinary action related to misconduct? (Sele

Com

Total DHS wit

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Res

The employee's first-line supervisor 32.87% 448 25.84% 46 19.74% 76 48.55% 67 15.79% 18 44.87% 175 45.The employee's secondline supervisor 15.92% 217 11.24% 20 18.44% 71 10.14% 14 17.54% 20 18.97% 74 13.A specialist like myself in human resources, employee relations, or other similar office 13.13% 179 11.80% 21 18.70% 72 13.77% 19 7.89% 9 11.79% 46 4.5I do not know 15.11% 206 20.79% 37 15.32% 59 18.84% 26 19.30% 22 8.46% 33 18.Other (please specify) 22.96% 313 30.34% 54 27.79% 107 8.70% 12 39.47% 45 15.90% 62 18.

www.oig.dhs.gov 57 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q52. Which of the following scenarios describes how letters regarding disciplinary actions are prepapply) 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

Human Resources (HR), Employee Relations (ER), or other similar office provides a template letter for supervisors to complete 33.50% 458 24.16% 43 33.33% 129 32.61% 45 26.96% 31 41.69% 163 3HR, ER, or similar office writes letters based on the facts given by the supervisors Supervisors prepare letters and send them to HR, ER, or similar office to review 

41.26% 36.28% 

564 496 

37.64% 28.09% 

67 50 

51.94% 25.58% 

201 

99 

34.06% 35.51% 

47 49 

43.48% 24.35% 

50 28 

34.53% 58.06% 

135 227 

32

Supervisors do not involve HR, ER, or other similar office in the process I do not know Other (please specify) 

3.29% 

15.95% 

7.83% 

45 

218 107 

3.93% 

24.16% 

8.99% 

7 

43 16 

2.07% 

15.76% 

6.46% 

8 

61 25 

5.80% 

24.64% 

2.90% 

8 

34 

4 

1.74% 

20.87% 11.30% 

2 

24 13 

4.09% 5.63% 8.18% 

16 22 32 

11

www.oig.dhs.gov 58 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q53. When was the last time you attended training on misconduct and disciplinary actions? 

Within the last year 1 to 2 years ago 3 or more years ago Never I do not kn

USCIS 55.06% 98 15.17% 27 12.36% 22 9.55% 17 7.87% CBP 39.79% 154 18.60% 72 18.60% 72 13.70% 53 9.30% FEMA 50.00% 69 19.57% 27 7.97% 11 18.12% 25 4.35% ICE 50.43% 58 19.13% 22 14.78% 17 13.91% 16 1.74% TSA 50.64% 198 17.65% 69 17.65% 69 9.72% 38 4.35% Components with <3,000 Respondents 32.43% 36 21.62% 24 18.92% 21 20.72% 23 6.31% HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 44.68% 21 21.28% 10 14.89% 7 10.64% 5 8.51% Total DHS Respondents 46.38% 634 18.36% 251 16.02% 219 12.95% 177 6.29% 

Q54. I need more training on misconduct and disciplinary actions. 

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 12.36% 22 14.04% 25 32.58% 58 27.53% 49 12.36% 22 1.12% 2 CBP 8.79% 34 19.12% 74 19.64% 76 32.56% 126 18.60% 72 1.29% 5 FEMA 7.25% 10 15.22% 21 25.36% 35 41.30% 57 10.87% 15 0.00% 0 ICE 9.57% 11 29.57% 34 23.48% 27 20.87% 24 15.65% 18 0.87% 1 TSA 5.12% 20 20.46% 80 26.09% 102 30.95% 121 16.88% 66 0.51% 2 Components with <3,000 Respondents 8.11% 9 25.23% 28 23.42% 26 34.23% 38 8.11% 9 0.90% 1 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 10.64% 5 17.02% 8 29.79% 14 25.53% 12 12.77% 6 4.26% 2 Total DHS Respondents 8.12% 111 19.75% 270 24.73% 338 31.24% 427 15.22% 208 0.95% 13 

www.oig.dhs.gov 59 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q55. My office has sufficient staff to assist management with disciplinary actions in a timely mann

Do not know 

Strongly Neither agree / no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

USCIS 4.49% 8 12.92% 23 18.54% 33 44.38% 79 15.17% 27 4.49% 8 CBP 14.47% 56 19.64% 76 16.02% 62 32.82% 127 10.85% 42 6.20% 24 FEMA 6.52% 9 10.87% 15 21.01% 29 50.72% 70 7.97% 11 2.90% 4 ICE 10.43% 12 12.17% 14 19.13% 22 36.52% 42 16.52% 19 5.22% 6 TSA 14.83% 58 22.51% 88 16.62% 65 34.27% 134 9.46% 37 2.30% 9 Components with <3,000 Respondents 14.41% 16 19.82% 22 16.22% 18 33.33% 37 11.71% 13 4.50% 5 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 8.51% 4 10.64% 5 14.89% 7 55.32% 26 4.26% 2 6.38% 3 Total DHS Respondents 11.92% 163 17.78% 243 17.26% 236 37.67% 515 11.05% 151 4.32% 59 

Q56. Supervisors are adequately trained in disciplinary actions. 

Do not know / 

Strongly Neither agree no basis to 

disagree Disagree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree judge 

10.11% 18 16.85% 30 29.21% 52 26.40% 47 7.87% 14 9.55% 17 

CBP 15.76% 61 31.01% 120 17.57% 68 23.51% 91 6.46% 25 5.68% 22 FEMA 12.32% 17 20.29% 28 28.26% 39 31.16% 43 4.35% 6 3.62% 5 ICE 13.04% 15 24.35% 28 19.13% 22 30.43% 35 4.35% 5 8.70% 10 TSA 16.37% 64 30.18% 118 22.51% 88 24.55% 96 4.60% 18 1.79% 7 Components with <3,000 Respondents 9.91% 11 19.82% 22 20.72% 23 34.23% 38 6.31% 7 9.01% 10 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 14.89% 7 21.28% 10 29.79% 14 25.53% 12 2.13% 1 6.38% 3 Total DHS Respondents 14.12% 193 26.04% 356 22.38% 306 26.48% 362 5.56% 76 5.41% 74 USCIS 

www.oig.dhs.gov 60 OIG-19
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Q57. Do your component's senior leaders support your efforts to recommend or take disciplinary a

Sometimes, depends I do not know / no 

Yes, always on the circumstances No basis to judge 

USCIS 33.15% 59 28.65% 51 12.92% 23 25.28% 45 CBP 32.82% 127 36.43% 141 8.01% 31 22.74% 88 FEMA 25.36% 35 39.13% 54 11.59% 16 23.91% 33 ICE 31.30% 36 25.22% 29 13.04% 15 30.43% 35 TSA 32.23% 126 42.97% 168 10.49% 41 14.32% 56 Components with <3,000 Respondents 28.83% 32 33.33% 37 12.61% 14 25.23% 28 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 23.40% 11 36.17% 17 10.64% 5 29.79% 14 Total DHS Respondents 31.16% 426 36.36% 497 10.61% 145 21.87% 299 

Q58. What actions have been taken with employees in lieu of discipline? (Select all that apply) 

Total DHS 

Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 

Employees were allowed to resign with no indication of disciplinary action on their record 41.11% 562 33.15% 59 41.09% 159 31.88% 44 42.61% 49 48.34% 189 Employees were detailed to other positions or offices 29.41% 402 24.72% 44 33.85% 131 35.51% 49 37.39% 43 19.44% 76 Employees were relieved of certain responsibilities 32.99% 451 31.46% 56 36.43% 141 29.71% 41 34.78% 40 28.64% 112 Employees were relieved of supervisory duties 26.34% 360 28.09% 50 29.46% 114 22.46% 31 25.22% 29 23.53% 92 Employees were transferred to other positions at same grade 25.24% 345 24.72% 44 26.87% 104 28.26% 39 29.57% 34 17.90% 70 I am not aware of any actions taken in lieu of discipline 34.97% 478 38.20% 68 35.40% 137 34.78% 48 32.17% 37 35.29% 138 None of the above 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 I do not know 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Other (please specify) 12.58% 172 11.80% 21 13.18% 51 10.87% 15 12.17% 14 11.00% 43 

www.oig.dhs.gov 61 OIG-19
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix F 

Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report 

The Office of Audits contributors to this report are: 

Christine Haynes, Director 

Anne Mattingly, Audit Manager 

Michael Staver, Audit Manager 

Heidi Einsweiler, Analyst in Charge 

Philip Emswiler, Analyst in Charge 

Tessa Clement, Program Analyst 

Jeanette Hyatt, Auditor 

Kathleen Hyland, Auditor 

Nancy Pergolizzi, Auditor 

Kendra Starkus, Program Analyst 

M. Faizul Islam, Ph.D., Statistician 

Kelly Herberger, Supervisory Communications and Policy Analyst 

Lindsey Koch, Communications Analyst 

Dana Barnett, Independent Referencer 

Connie Tan, Independent Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 62 OIG-19-48 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Management 

Chief Human Capital Officer 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

www.oig.dhs.gov 63 OIG-19-48 
Additional Information and Copies 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: 

www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General 

Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click 

on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at 

(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305