DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND 

SECURITY

Taking Further Action 

to Better Determine 

Causes of Morale 

Problems Would 

Assist in Targeting 

Action Plans

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2012

GAO-12-940

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-940, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2012

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Taking Further Action to Better Determine Causes 

of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting 

Action Plans

Why GAO Did This Study

DHS is the third largest cabinet-level 

department in the federal government, 

employing more than 200,000 staff in a 

broad range of jobs. Since it began 

operations in 2003, DHS employees 

have reported having low job 

satisfaction. DHS employee concerns 

about job satisfaction are one example 

of the challenges the department faces

implementing its missions. GAO has

designated the implementation and 

transformation of DHS as a high risk

area, including its management of 

human capital, because it represents 

an enormous and complex undertaking 

that will require time to achieve in an 

effective and efficient manner. GAO 

was asked to examine: (1) how DHS’s 

employee morale compared with that 

of other federal employees, and (2) the 

extent to which DHS and selected 

components have determined the root 

causes of employee morale, and 

developed action plans to improve 

morale. To address these objectives, 

GAO analyzed survey evaluations, 

focus group reports, and DHS and 

component action planning documents, 

and interviewed officials from DHS and 

four components, selected based on 

workforce size, among other things. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS examine

its root cause analysis efforts and add 

the following, where absent: 

comparisons of demographic groups, 

benchmarking, and linkage of root 

cause findings to action plans; and 

establish clear and measurable metrics

of action plan success. DHS concurred 

with our recommendations.

What GAO Found

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees reported having lower 

average morale than the average for the rest of the federal government, but 

morale varied across components and employee groups within the department. 

Data from the 2011 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)—a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of 

whether and to what extent conditions characterizing successful organizations 

are present in their agencies—showed that DHS employees had 4.5 percentage 

points lower job satisfaction and 7.0 percentage points lower engagement in their 

work overall. Engagement is the extent to which employees are immersed in their 

work and spending extra effort on job performance. Moreover, within most 

demographic groups available for comparison, DHS employees scored lower on 

average satisfaction and engagement than the average for the rest of the federal 

government. For example, within most pay categories DHS employees reported 

lower satisfaction and engagement than non-DHS employees in the same pay 

groups. Levels of satisfaction and engagement varied across components, with 

some components reporting scores above the non-DHS averages. Several 

components with lower morale, such as Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), made up a substantial 

share of FEVS respondents at DHS, and accounted for a significant portion of 

the overall difference between the department and other agencies. In addition, 

components that were created with the department or shortly thereafter tended to 

have lower morale than components that previously existed. Job satisfaction and 

engagement varied within components as well. For example, employees in TSA’s

Federal Security Director staff reported higher satisfaction (by 13 percentage 

points) and engagement (by 14 percentage points) than TSA’s airport security 

screeners. 

DHS has taken steps to determine the root causes of employee morale problems 

and implemented corrective actions, but it could strengthen its survey analyses

and metrics for action plan success. To understand morale problems, DHS and 

selected components took steps, such as implementing an exit survey and 

routinely analyzing FEVS results. Components GAO selected for review—ICE, 

TSA, the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Protection—conducted varying 

levels of analyses regarding the root causes of morale to understand leading 

issues that may relate to morale. DHS and the selected components planned 

actions to improve FEVS scores based on analyses of survey results, but GAO 

found that these efforts could be enhanced. Specifically, 2011 DHS-wide survey 

analyses did not include evaluations of demographic group differences on 

morale-related issues, the Coast Guard did not perform benchmarking analyses, 

and it was not evident from documentation the extent to which DHS and its 

components used root cause analyses in their action planning. Without these 

elements, DHS risks not being able to address the underlying concerns of its 

varied employee population. In addition, GAO found that despite having broad 

performance metrics in place to track and assess DHS employee morale on an 

agency-wide level, DHS does not have specific metrics within the action plans 

that are consistently clear and measurable. As a result, DHS’s ability to assess 

its efforts to address employee morale problems and determine if changes 

should be made to ensure progress toward achieving its goals is limited. 

View GAO-12-940. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Letter 1 

Background 5

DHS Employees Reported Lower Morale than the Rest of the 

Federal Government, but Morale Varied across DHS 

Components and Employee Groups 7

DHS Took Steps to Determine Root Causes of Morale Problems 

and Implemented Corrective Actions, but Could Strengthen Its 

Efforts 17

Conclusion 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Statistical Analysis of Employee Morale at Department of Homeland 

Security and Other Agencies 37

Appendix II Scope and Methodology 58

Appendix III DHS and Selected Component Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes 

of Morale Problems 61

Appendix IV Selected Components’ Data Sources for Evaluating Morale, Other 

than the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 68

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 71

Appendix VI Comments from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 73

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 74

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Tables

Table 1: 2011 FEVS Job Satisfaction and Engagement Scores by 

DHS Component (Sorted by Job Satisfaction Index Score) 11

Table 2: DHS-wide and Component Action Plan Goals and 

Examples of Low-Scoring FEVS Topics Addressed through 

such Goals 25

Table 3: DHS-Wide and Selected Components’ Action Planning 

Steps 29

Table 4: Examples of DHS-Wide and Selected Components’ 

Measures of Success 31

Table 5: DHS and Non-DHS Employee Engagement Index by 

Demographic Group for the 2011 FEVS 41

Table 6: Model Estimates of Employee Engagement Index at DHS 

and Other Agencies Using the 2011 FEVS 44

Table 7: OPM Employee Morale Index by DHS Component and 

Offices Using the 2011 FEVS 52

Table 8: Morale at Preexisting and Recently Created Components 

of DHS Using the 2011 FEVS 55

Table 9: Model Estimates of the Difference in Engagement and Job 

Satisfaction between Employees in DHS Components and 

Non-DHS Agencies Based on the 2011 FEVS 56

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Satisfied DHS Employees Compared with 

Governmentwide Averages, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011 8

Figure 2: OPM Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement Indexes 

in the 2011 FEVS, for Selected Categories of DHS and 

Non-DHS Employees 10

Figure 3: Satisfaction and Engagement by TSA Employee Group, 

2011 13

Figure 4: The Extent to Which OCHCO, TSA, CBP, ICE, and the 

Coast Guard Incorporated Recommended Factors in 

Analyzing 2011 FEVS Results 20

Figure 5: OPM’s Six Steps for Action Planning to Improve FEVS 

Scores 28

Figure 6: Engagement Index Scores by Supervisory Status and 

Tenure, for DHS and Non-DHS Employees 47

Figure 7: Satisfaction Index Scores by Supervisory Status and 

Tenure, for DHS and Non-DHS Employees 49
Page iii GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Figure 8: DHS’s 2011 Component Comparison Based on Four 

HCAAF Indexes 63

Figure 9: DHS HCAAF Scores since 2006 64

Abbreviations

AES Annual Employee Survey

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

DHS Department of Homeland Security

EE employee engagement

EEESC Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

FOCS Federal Organizational Climate Survey

GS General Schedule

HCAAF Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework

I&A Intelligence and Analysis

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

JS job satisfaction

MGMT Management Directorate

MVP Most Valuable Perspective

NPPD National Protection and Programs Directorate

OAS Organizational Assessment Survey

OCHCO Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OS Office of the Secretary

S&T Science and Technology

TSA Transportation Security Administration

USSS U.S. Secret Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 28, 2012

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul

Chairman

The Honorable William R. Keating

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Investigations, and Management 

House of Representatives

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the third largest cabinetlevel department in the federal government, employing more than 

200,000 staff in a broad range of jobs, including aviation and border 

security, emergency response, cybersecurity analysis, and chemical 

facility inspection. The DHS workforce is situated throughout the nation, 

carrying out activities in support of DHS’s mission to (1) prevent terrorism 

and enhance security, (2) secure and manage the nation’s borders, (3) 

enforce and administer immigration laws, (4) safeguard and secure 

cyberspace, (5) ensure resilience from disasters, and (6) provide 

essential support to national and economic security.

Since it began operations in 2003, DHS employees have reported having 

low job satisfaction. In 2011, for example, DHS’s scores on the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

(FEVS)—a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to 

what extent conditions characterizing successful organizations are 

present in their agency—and the Partnership for Public Service’s (the 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Partnership) rankings of the Best Places to Work in the federal 

government, were generally low.1

DHS employee concerns about job satisfaction are one example of the 

challenges the department faces in implementing its missions. In January 

2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as 

high risk, including its management of human capital, because it 

represented an enormous and complex undertaking that would require 

time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner, and it has remained 

on our high-risk list since that time.2 Improving human capital 

management is a DHS priority, reflected through several DHS-wide 

strategy documents. In June 2012, DHS provided us with its updated 

Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management (Integrated Strategy), 

which identified activities to improve employee job satisfaction scores, 

among other things. In addition, DHS has issued various other strategies 

and plans for its human capital activities and functions, such as a human 

capital strategic plan for fiscal years 2009 through 2013,3

 

1

OPM, the central human resources agency for the federal government, has conducted

the FEVS every year since 2010. Prior to 2010, OPM conducted the survey during even 

numbered years, beginning in 2004. The most recent survey sample of 2011 included 

employees from 29 major federal agencies, as well as 54 independent federal 

organizations. The survey results represent a snapshot in time of the perceptions of the 

federal workforce. In 2012 the FEVS will be implemented as a census, rather than a 

sample-based survey, in an effort to gather the opinions of the entire federal workforce. 

According to the Partnership, the Best Places to Work ranking is based on employee 

responses to the following three FEVS assessment items: (1) I recommend my 

organization as a good place to work. (2) Considering everything, how satisfied are you 

with your job? (3) Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?

and a workforce 

strategy for fiscal years 2011 through 2016, which contains the 

2

In determining whether a government program is high risk, we consider whether it 

involves national significance, a management function that is key to performance and 

accountability, or whether there is an inherent or systematic problem, among other things. 

Our prior work has identified four high-risk areas for which DHS has primary or significant 

responsibilities: (1) Implementing and Transforming DHS, (2) The National Flood 

Insurance Program, (3) Protecting the Federal Government’s Information Systems and the 

Nation’s Critical Infrastructure, and (4) Establishing Effective Mechanisms for Sharing 

Terrorism-Related Information to Protect the Homeland. GAO, Department of Homeland 

Security: Progress Made in Implementation and Transformation of Management 

Functions, but More Work Remains, GAO-10-911T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2010).

3

DHS, Human Capital Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2009-2013 (Washington, D.C.).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

department’s workforce goals, objectives, and performance measures for 

human capital management.4

We have previously reported that successful organizations empower and 

involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a frontline 

perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of 

organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and morale.5

In light of the critical nature of DHS’s mission to protect the security and 

economy of our nation and the importance of attracting and retaining 

engaged and satisfied DHS employees to perform its work, you asked us 

to assess DHS’s efforts to address employee morale.6

• How does DHS’s employee morale compare with that of other federal 

government employees?

Thus, this report 

addresses the following questions:

• To what extent have DHS and selected components determined the 

root causes of employee morale and developed action plans to 

improve morale?

To address these questions, we analyzed survey evaluations for the 2011 

FEVS, focus group reports from 2007, and DHS and selected component 

2011 action planning documents and compared the documents with OPM 

and Partnership guidance. We also interviewed officials from DHS’s 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), and human capital 

officials from four components—U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA), and U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). We 

selected these four DHS components based on their workforce size and 

how their 2011 Job Satisfaction and Engagement Index scores compared 

 

4

DHS, Workforce Strategy for Fiscal Year 2011-2016 (Washington, D.C.).

5

GAO, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120

(Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

6

For the purposes of this report, we define employee morale as being characterized by job 

satisfaction and employee engagement, both of which are measured in OPM’S FEVS. The 

job satisfaction index, composed of seven FEVS questions such as “my work gives me a 

feeling of personal accomplishment,” indicates the extent to which employees are satisfied 

with their jobs and various aspects thereof. The Engagement Index, composed of 15 

FEVS questions, indicates the extent to which employees are immersed in the content of 

the job and energized to spend extra effort in job performance.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

with the non-DHS average.7

To compare DHS’s employee morale with that of other federal 

government employees, we analyzed the 2011 FEVS results and 

reviewed OPM survey results issued since 2004, the first full year in 

which survey data are available. During the course of our analysis, we 

interviewed knowledgeable agency officials, reviewed relevant 

documentation, tested data for errors, and determined that the FEVS data 

are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. As part of this 

analysis, we compared 2011 DHS and non-DHS job satisfaction and 

engagement score results by several categories of employees, such as 

supervisory status, pay grade, and age. We also compared satisfaction 

and engagement scores within the selected components by employee 

group, where possible. For example, within TSA, we compared 

satisfaction and engagement scores reported by Transportation Security 

Officers, Federal Security Director staff, headquarters staff, and Federal 

Air Marshals.

The components selected had scores both 

above, below, and similar to the average. In addition, we interviewed 

representatives of employee groups within the four selected components 

to gather employee perspectives on drivers of morale. Details of the 

selected component index scores, and their statistical significance, are 

reported in appendix I.

To determine the extent to which DHS and the selected components 

identified the root causes of employee morale and developed action plans 

for improvements, we reviewed agency analysis results, interviewed 

agency human capital officials and representatives of employee groups, 

and evaluated action plans for improving morale. We also compared DHS 

and selected components’ morale root cause analyses and related action 

plans with available guidance for such efforts.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 through 

September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

 

7

Throughout this report, non-DHS refers to all federal employee FEVS responses outside 

of DHS.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix II 

contains more detailed information about our scope and methodology.

Federal employees are routinely surveyed through OPM’s administration 

of the FEVS, which is administered to collect data on federal employees’ 

perceptions about how effectively agencies are managing their 

workforces. The FEVS is a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of 

whether, and to what extent, conditions that characterize successful 

organizations are present in their agencies, according to OPM.8 This 

survey was administered for the first time in 2002 and then repeated in 

2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, and April through June 2012.9

To guide governmentwide efforts to support agency mission results with 

human capital strategies and in response to the Chief Human Capital 

Officers Act of 2002,

The survey 

provides general indicators of how well the federal government is 

managing its human resources management systems. It also serves as a 

tool for OPM to assess individual agencies and their progress on strategic 

management of human capital, and gives senior managers employee 

perspectives on agency management. Specifically, the survey includes 

categories of questions asking employees for their perspectives on their 

work experience, work unit, agency, supervisor, leadership, and 

satisfaction. OPM intends for agency managers to use the findings to 

develop policies and action plans for improving agency performance. In 

2011, OPM provided a summary of FEVS findings to DHS. In that report, 

OPM summarized DHS’s survey results relative to governmentwide 

averages and provided positive and negative response levels for each 

survey question. Also included in the report was action planning guidance 

for using FEVS results to improve human capital management.

10

 

8

OPM, 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Empowering Employees, Inspiring 

Change, Department of Homeland Security, Agency Management Report. (Washington, 

D.C.). 

OPM created the Human Capital Assessment and 

Accountability Framework (HCAAF). Agencies are evaluated by OPM on 

their progress in meeting HCAAF standards in areas such as talent 

9

Data for the 2012 FEVS will not be available until November 2012 and thus are not relied 

upon for this report. 

10Pub. L. No. 107-295, § 1304, 116 Stat. 2315, 2289 (2002) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 

1103(c)).

Background 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

management, which is focused on agencies having quality people with 

the appropriate competencies in mission-critical activities. The FEVS job 

satisfaction index is one of the metrics used by OPM to assess whether 

agencies are effectively managing the talent management system. The 

FEVS provides one source of information for evaluating success on other 

HCAAF standards as well by measuring responses to groups of FEVS 

questions for four indices. The four index measures are: Leadership and 

Knowledge Management; Results-Oriented Performance Culture; Talent 

Management; and Job Satisfaction. In addition, in 2011, OPM added an 

index to measure employee engagement, which OPM defines as the 

extent to which an employee is immersed in the content of the job and 

energized to spend extra effort in job performance.

DHS’s OCHCO is responsible for implementing policies and programs to 

recruit, hire, train and retain DHS’s workforce. As the department-wide 

unit responsible for human capital issues within DHS, OCHCO provides 

OPM with a DHS-wide action plan every other year, with the next plan 

due in January 2013. OCHCO also provides guidance and oversight to 

the DHS components related to morale issues. For example, OCHCO 

provides a survey analysis and action planning tool that the components 

must use in response to FEVS results to develop action plans for 

improving employees’ positive scores.11 These plans are to state 

objectives and identify actions to be taken in response to survey results. 

OCHCO also has provided oversight by reviewing and providing feedback 

on component action plans.

 

11OCHCO’s authority for requiring components to use the action planning tool is based on 

DHS’s Human Capital Line of Business Integration and Management Directive, issued in 

2004.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Data from the 2011 FEVS show that DHS employees have lower average 

levels of job satisfaction and engagement overall and across most 

demographic groups available for comparison, such as pay grade, when 

compared with the average for the rest of the federal government. Levels 

of satisfaction and engagement vary across components, with some 

components reporting satisfaction or engagement above the average for 

the rest of the government. Similarly, these measures of morale vary 

within components as well, with some employee groups reporting higher 

morale than other groups within the same component.

As shown in figure 1, DHS employees generally reported improvements 

in job satisfaction index levels since 2006 that narrowed the gap between 

DHS and the governmentwide average.12 However, employees continue 

to indicate less satisfaction than the governmentwide average.13

Partnership analysis of FEVS data also indicates consistent levels of low 

employee satisfaction relative to other federal agencies. Similar to its 

2011 ranking, 31st of 33 federal agencies, the Partnership ranked DHS 

28th of 32 in 2010, 28th of 30 in 2009, and 29th of 30 in 2007 in the Best 

Places to Work ranking on overall scores for employee satisfaction and 

commitment.14

 

12Two thousand six is the first year in which job satisfaction index data were made 

available and can be compared between DHS and the rest of the federal government.

13For the purposes of our report, we list governmentwide averages in some instances, 

which include DHS. In other instances where we were able to make statistical 

adjustments, we report non-DHS averages, which exclude DHS.

14Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for the Study of Public Policy 

Implementation at the American University School of Public Affairs, The Best Places to 

Work in the Federal Government. The Partnership for Public Service’s ranking cited here 

is composed of large agencies, defined as agencies with more than 2,000 full-time 

permanent employees. 

DHS Employees 

Reported Lower 

Morale than the Rest 

of the Federal 

Government, but 

Morale Varied across 

DHS Components and 

Employee Groups

DHS Employees as a 

Whole Reported Lower 

Satisfaction and 

Engagement According to 

Several Measures
 

Page 8 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Figure 1: Percentage of Satisfied DHS Employees Compared with Governmentwide 

Averages, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011

Note: Because the FEVS was not administered each year, the job satisfaction index and DHS versus 

governmentwide averages are available only for 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011.

Our analyses of 2011 FEVS results also indicate that average DHS-wide 

employee satisfaction and engagement scores were consistently lower 

when compared with average non-DHS employee scores in the same 

demographic groups. As shown in figure 2, comparisons of DHS with 

non-DHS employees by supervisory status, pay group, and tenure 

indicate that satisfaction and engagement are lower across many of the 

DHS groups where statistically significant differences are evident.15

 

15Because statistical significance is a function of two things—the size of the difference and 

the size of the sampled groups being compared—the biggest differences are not always 

the differences that are significant. 

For 

example, across pay categories DHS satisfaction and engagement were 

lower than the scores for the same non-DHS employee pay groups, with 

the exception of senior executives, senior leaders, employees with less 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

than 1 year of tenure, and General Schedule pay grades 1-6.16 Similarly, 

job satisfaction and engagement scores for DHS management and nonmanagement employees were lower than for the same non-DHS 

employee groups.

 

16The differences between DHS and non-DHS senior leader, General Schedule 1-6, and 

less than 1 year of tenure satisfaction and engagement were not statistically significant. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Figure 2: OPM Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement Indexes in the 2011 FEVS, for Selected Categories of DHS and 

Non-DHS Employees

Note: Estimates of job satisfaction and employee engagement have a margin of error at the 95 

percent confidence level of no more than plus or minus 5.1 percentage points, except for employees 

in the Senior Leader pay group. Because statistical significance is a function of two things—the size 

of the difference and the size of the sampled groups being compared—the biggest differences are not 

always the differences that are significant.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

a

The Job Satisfaction index, composed of seven Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

questions, indicates the extent to which employees are satisfied with their jobs and various aspects 

thereof.

b

The Engagement index, composed of 15 FEVS questions, indicates the extent to which employees 

are immersed in the content of the job and energized to spend extra effort in job performance.

c

The “Other” pay group may include employees who are not part of the General Schedule system, 

such as those in pay-band systems.

d

Denotes statistically significant differences between DHS and non-DHS employees that are 

distinguishable from zero at the 0.05 level.

Satisfaction and engagement variation across components. As 

shown in table 1, the 2011 FEVS data indicate that satisfaction and 

engagement levels vary across DHS components. For example, TSA is 

11.6 percentage points below the non-DHS average on the job 

satisfaction index, but other large components, such as CBP and the 

Coast Guard, are 1 and 1.5 percentage points more satisfied than the 

average for the rest of the government, respectively. Three other 

components—the Inspector General, the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center, and the U.S. Secret Service—also score above the nonDHS engagement averages on the job satisfaction or engagement 

indexes. Morale varies widely across all components, with the job 

satisfaction index ranging from 56.9 to 71.6 percent and the employee 

engagement index ranging from 53.2 to 70.6 percent. 

Table 1: 2011 FEVS Job Satisfaction and Engagement Scores by DHS Component 

(Sorted by Job Satisfaction Index Score) 

Job

Satisfaction index

Employee 

Engagement index

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 71.6* 66.2

Inspector General 70.8 70.5*

U.S. Coast Guard 70.0 70.6*

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 69.5 62.9*

U.S. Secret Service 69.4 68.1

Non-DHS government employees 68.5 67.1

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 66.6* 64.0*

Under Secretary for Management 65.7* 65.7

DHS, no sub-agency 65.2 60.5*

DHS (overall) 64.0* 60.1*

Federal Emergency Management Agency 63.2* 58.0*

Office of the Secretary 63.0* 63.6*

National Policy and Programs Directorate 61.9* 57.7*

Employee Satisfaction and 

Engagement Vary across 

and within DHS 

Components 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Job

Satisfaction index

Employee 

Engagement index

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 60.6* 58.0*

Science and Technology Directorate 59.7* 55.7*

Office of Intelligence and Analysis 57.6* 53.2*

Transportation Security Administration 56.9* 54.4*

Source: GAO analysis of 2011 FEVS data.

Note: Estimates of job satisfaction and employee engagement have a 95 percent margin of error of 

no more than plus or minus 6.3 percentage points. Asterisks indicate estimates that are 

distinguishable from the non-DHS estimate at the 0.05 level.

Satisfaction and engagement variation within components. Within 

the selected components reviewed—the Coast Guard, ICE, CBP, and 

TSA—satisfaction and engagement varied across workgroups as well. 

For example, as shown in figure 3, responses by TSA employee groups 

varied widely, with the screening workforce reporting significantly lower

satisfaction and engagement scores.17

 

17For the purposes of this report we define employee groups as the different occupational 

groups that exist within DHS components, such as TSA’s Federal Air Marshals, screeners, 

and federal security director staff.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Figure 3: Satisfaction and Engagement by TSA Employee Group, 2011

Note: Estimates of job satisfaction and employee engagement have a 95 percent margin of error of 

no more than plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

Employee group scores showed variability in the three other selected 

DHS components as well.18

• CBP. Border Patrol employees were 8 percentage points more 

satisfied and 12 percentage points more engaged than CBP field 

operations employees.

For example:

19

 

18All differences between pairs of groups in this paragraph are distinguishable from zero 

at the 0.05 level.

19A border patrol agent is involved in detection, prevention and apprehension of terrorists, 

undocumented aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near the land border. A CBP field 

operations officer is responsible for, among other things, determining the nationality and 

identity of each applicant for admission to the United States and for preventing the entry of 

ineligible aliens, including criminals, terrorists, and drug traffickers. 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

• Coast Guard. Satisfaction and engagement levels exceeded the nonDHS average for some civilian employee groups, such as those under 

the Chief of Staff for Mission Support, but some groups were 

substantially higher. These groups include Districts 13 and 14, which 

were 18.6 and 10.3 percentage points more satisfied than non-DHS 

employees, respectively.20

• ICE. Homeland security investigators and immigration enforcement 

employees were less satisfied and engaged than many other 

employee groups in DHS and the average for the rest of the 

government.21 Homeland security investigators were 5.5 percentage 

points lower on satisfaction and 8.2 percentage points lower on 

engagement than the non-DHS averages. Enforcement and Removal 

employees were also less satisfied and engaged, with scores 12.7 

percentage points below on satisfaction and 14.4 percentage points 

lower on engagement than the non-DHS averages.

In addition to variation in satisfaction and engagement levels across 

employee groups, representatives of DHS employee groups we 

interviewed identified a range of issues that may be creating lower 

satisfaction rates among employees.22 These examples highlight the 

variety of issues that can lead to morale problems and may be unique to 

particular DHS components.23

• A TSA screener union representative described TSA’s performance 

assessment system as a key driver of morale problems among 

passenger screeners. According to the union representative, if a 

screener fails a portion of the annual examination more than three 

For example:

 

20The Coast Guard is organized into two major commands that are responsible for overall 

mission performance: the Pacific area that includes District 13 which covers the Pacific 

Northwest area, and District 14 which covers the Hawaii and Guam region. 

21Homeland security investigators investigate crime, human rights violations and human 

smuggling, smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband, financial 

crimes, cybercrime, and export enforcement issues while enforcement removal operations 

employees work to enforce the nation’s immigration laws by ensuring the removal of 

aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety.

22 For employee groups that had union representation, we interviewed union 

representatives who identified employee group perspectives on employee morale. For 

those groups without union representation, we convened focus groups of employees to 

discuss employee perspectives on morale. 

23The examples provided by agency officials are the observations of individual employees 

and are not representative of all employee opinions.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

times, the screener will be terminated. The union representative 

explained that failing three times is possible, even for highly effective 

screeners who may not be effective under testing conditions because 

of anxiety about the examination, resulting in a significant burden on 

the screeners and, therefore, the performance assessment will result 

in lower morale.

• ICE homeland security investigators who participated in a focus group 

we held cited frustrations with frequent turnover in regional leadership 

positions, which they stated negatively affects employee morale. 

Unequal resource allocations across investigative groups were also 

described as leading to lower morale among investigators.

• A union representative for CBP’s field operations employees 

described staffing shortages at ports of entry, temporary assignments 

to the southwest border that affect work-life balance, and 

management resistance to employee telework arrangements, among 

other things, as resulting in employee morale problems.

• Border Patrol union representatives cited uncertainties in overtime 

pay policy, living conditions at small, temporary shelters for Border 

Patrol agents deployed in an area, and inflexible employee work 

scheduling practices, among other things, as creating morale 

problems among Border Patrol agents.

Coast Guard civilian officials who participated in a focus group we held, 

on the other hand, provided examples of drivers of high levels of morale 

within the Coast Guard. The officials described a Coast Guard culture of 

mission focus that has led to high morale among civilian Coast Guard 

employees. For example, the officials stated that a sense of making a 

difference in maritime security and safety through work activities such as 

vessel inspections, contingency planning for natural disasters, and 

training Coast Guard employees results in employees who are engaged 

and satisfied with their jobs. The officials also described a Coast Guard 

cultural focus on team cohesion and shared successes, among both 

military and civilian Coast Guard personnel, both of which are recognized 

by Coast Guard leadership, according to the officials. For example, the 

officials stated that Coast Guard leadership designates a portion of 

awards for team successes, rather than individual achievement, which the 

officials we interviewed found more satisfying than individual awards.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

A statistical analysis of 2011 FEVS and employee demographic data we 

conducted suggested several other explanations for differences in 

morale24

• Several of the DHS components with lower morale, such as TSA and 

ICE, make up a substantial share of FEVS respondents at DHS, as 

shown in appendix I, table 7. Those components have more influence 

on the agency’s overall morale score than smaller components—

many of which have higher average morale scores. Consequently, the 

gap between DHS and the rest of the government in employee morale 

is driven primarily by the scores of a few large components.

between DHS and non-DHS agencies:

• DHS is not more likely than other agencies to employ the types of 

staff who tend to have lower morale across all agencies, as shown in 

appendix I, table 6. Instead, employees in the various groups we 

analyzed had lower morale at DHS than the same types of employees 

at other agencies. This suggests that the gap may be explained by 

factors unique to DHS, such as management practices and the nature 

of the agency’s work, or by differences among employees we could 

not analyze.25

• DHS employees who joined the department since its creation tend to 

have lower morale than employees who joined the department as part 

of preexisting components, as shown in appendix I, table 8. DHS 

employees who started working for the agency between 1 and 10 

years ago are less engaged than employees with similar tenures and 

demographics at other agencies. In addition, several of the least 

engaged components, such as the Intelligence and Analysis and 

Science and Technology divisions, as shown in appendix I, table 7, 

were created with the department or subsequently, rather than being 

added from elsewhere in the federal government.

 

24We used measures of job satisfaction and employee engagement as indicators of 

morale in our analysis.

25We used a statistical method called “Oaxaca decomposition” to divide the overall 

difference in morale between DHS and non-DHS agencies into two parts: the part 

explained by employee characteristics present in the FEVS (i.e. supervisory status, 

employee tenure, age and location), and the part explained by how those characteristics 

affect morale. This let us assess whether the morale gap is explained by available 

employee characteristics or by how those characteristics affect morale differently at DHS

because of unique characteristics of the agency such as management practices or 

program goals. The method cannot identify specific unique characteristics that are 

responsible, however. Appendix I describes this analysis in more detail.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

The variation of factors that can result in morale problems as suggested 

by these examples, as well as the variation in levels of satisfaction and 

engagement among employee groups, underscores the importance of 

looking beyond survey scores to understand where problems, such as 

low employee satisfaction, are taking place within the organization, and to 

identify and address the causes of these problems.

Appendix I provides comparisons for additional demographic groups, 

including age, component tenure, and location, and summarizes our 

statistical analysis that examines the relationships between each of these 

factors and satisfaction and engagement, holding constant each of the 

other factors. The appendix also provides a more detailed list of 

satisfaction and engagement estimates for components and offices, in 

some cases holding constant demographic differences among 

employees.

DHS and the selected components have taken steps to understand 

morale problems, such as holding focus groups, implementing an exit 

survey, and routinely analyzing FEVS results. On the basis of FEVS 

results, DHS and the selected components planned actions to improve 

FEVS scores. However, we found that DHS could enhance its survey 

analysis and monitoring of action plan results. In addition, according to 

DHS’s Integrated Strategy for addressing the implementing and 

transforming high risk area, DHS has begun implementing activities to 

address morale but has not yet improved DHS’s scores on OPM’s job 

satisfaction index or its ranking on the Partnership’s Best Places to Work 

in the Federal Government.

DHS’s OCHCO has taken several steps to understand morale problems 

DHS-wide. Specifically, since 2007, OCHCO:

• Conducted focus groups DHS-wide in 2007 to determine employee 

concerns related to morale, which identified employee concerns in 

areas of leadership, communication, empowerment, and resources.

• Performed statistical analysis in 2008 to identify workplace factors that 

drove employee job satisfaction, finding that the DHS mission and 

supervisor support, among other things, drove employee job 

satisfaction.

• Initiated an exit survey, first administered DHS-wide in 2011, to 

understand why employees chose to leave their position. The survey 

DHS Took Steps to 

Determine Root 

Causes of Morale 

Problems and 

Implemented 

Corrective Actions, 

but Could Strengthen 

Its Efforts

DHS and Selected 

Components’ Have Taken 

Steps to Understand 

Morale Problems
 

Page 18 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

found lack of quality supervision and advancement opportunities were 

the top reasons for leaving.26

• Analyzed 2011 FEVS results, among other things, showing where 

lower scores on HCAAF indices were concentrated among several 

components—Intelligence and Analysis, TSA, ICE, National 

Protection and Programs Directorate, and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

• Launched an Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee 

(EEESC) in January 2012 that will identify action items for improving 

employee engagement by September 2012, according to OCHCO 

officials.

The selected components also evaluated FEVS results to identify morale 

problems and considered additional information sources. For example:

• TSA convened a corporate action planning team in March 2011, as 

part of its response to FEVS results, which relied on data sources 

such as the TSA-administered exit survey, employee advisory groups, 

and an online employee suggestion tool, to gain perspectives on 

systemic challenge areas and to develop plans to address morale, 

according to TSA officials. TSA’s action plan for improving morale, 

based on these sources, was completed in July 2012.

• ICE considered results of a Federal Organizational Climate Survey 

(FOCS), last completed in March 2012, and held focus groups to 

gauge the extent to which employees view ICE as having an 

organizational culture that promotes diversity.

• CBP launched a quarterly online employee survey in 2009 to solicit 

opinions on one specific topic per quarter, such as use of career 

development resources and how the resources contributed to 

employees’ professional growth at CBP.

• The Coast Guard relied on an Organizational Assessment Survey 

(OAS), last administered by OPM in 2010, to understand employee 

morale. The OAS solicits opinions on a range of topics, including job 

satisfaction, leadership, training, innovation, and use of resources. It 

included civilian and military Coast Guard personnel, but is not 

administered governmentwide so comparisons between the Coast 

 

26 Results from DHS’ Exit Survey should be interpreted with caution. Due to the method in 

which it is administered, the survey’s response rate in 2011 was quite low, close to 40 

percent. It is likely that a higher response rate would have produced somewhat different 

results.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Guard and other federal employees are limited to organizations that 

may use the OAS, according to Coast Guard officials. 

Appendix III provides more detailed descriptions of DHS’s steps to 

address morale problems and selected components’ 2011 FEVS analysis 

methods and findings. Appendix IV provides additional information on the 

selected components’ data sources beyond FEVS for evaluating root 

causes of morale, including a summary of results and how the information 

was used by the components.

For the 2011 FEVS, DHS and the selected components completed 

varying levels of analyses to determine the root causes of low morale. 

However, DHS and the selected components conducted limited analysis

in several areas that is not consistent with OPM and Partnership 

guidance that lays out useful factors for evaluating root causes of morale 

problems through FEVS analysis, as shown in figure 4.

DHS and Selected 

Components Conducted 

Limited FEVS Analyses
 

Page 20 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Figure 4: The Extent to Which OCHCO, TSA, CBP, ICE, and the Coast Guard 

Incorporated Recommended Factors in Analyzing 2011 FEVS Results

Note:

Demographic comparisons. In its guidance to federal agencies for improving employee job 

satisfaction, the Partnership for Public Service advises, among other things, determining 

demographic group differences. According to the Partnership for Public Service, demographic group 

analysis shows where there may be gaps in satisfaction at an agency or subcomponent (i.e., perhaps 

some demographic groups report lower satisfaction than others). For the purposes of this report, 

demographic group is used to describe any common characteristic among employees, such as pay 

grade, supervisory status, or work group.

Benchmarking. Benchmarking agency survey results against those of similar organizations can 

provide a point of reference for improvements, according to the Partnership for Public Service. OPM’s 

management report to DHS for the 2011 FEVS also suggests, as part of action planning, comparing 

agency results with governmentwide results and noting which survey questions and Human Capital 

Assessment and Accountability Framework indexes scored lowest relative to the governmentwide 

averages.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Linking analysis results with action plans. Both OPM and the Partnership for Public Service action 

planning guidance list analyzing survey results as a first step to developing action plans to address 

employee concerns. According to OPM’s guidance, the data analysis may include reviewing FEVS 

results and following up on survey findings with focus groups to clarify reasons for low scores. OPM’s 

guidance then calls for agencies to translate issues uncovered through data analysis into a set of 

action plan goals. Similarly, the Partnership for Public Service advises agencies to develop action 

plan approaches to improve employee satisfaction, based on issues the data identify, while 

considering the organization’s mission, culture, available time, and resources.

a

CBP partially benchmarked its FEVS results because it compared results with governmentwide and 

DHS averages, but not with those for similar organizations for the 2011 FEVS. CBP officials stated 

that few agencies within the United States both use FEVS and have occupations similar to those of 

CBP.

b

OCHCO and the selected components partially linked root causes with action plans because lowscoring questions were listed on action plans as the reason why actions were chosen. However, 

additional root cause analysis findings, such as those listed in appendix IV, were not included in the 

action plan documentation.

Usage of the three factors described in figure 4 varied across DHS-wide 

and component-level 2011 FEVS analyses we reviewed. In some 

instances, the factors were partially or not used. For example:

• Demographic group comparisons. According to our reviews of 

OCHCO’s analyses, OCHCO’s DHS-wide analyses did not include 

evaluations of demographic group differences on morale-related 

issues for the 2011 FEVS. According to OCHCO officials, DHS’s 

Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties reviews survey results to 

identify diversity issues that may be reflected in the survey, and 

OCHCO officials considered these results when developing one of the 

current (as of August 2012) DHS action plans to create policies that 

identify barriers to diversity. In 2007 and 2009, years in which DHS 

administered the Annual Employee Survey (AES), demographic 

comparisons were made. For example, on the basis of 2009 AES 

data, DHS found no significant demographic differences other than 

supervisors’ positive responses to questions were generally higher 

than those of non-supervisors and differences among pay grade 

levels. Because OPM now administers the survey each year, DHS is 

not able to make significant demographic group comparisons because 

of the format of the data provided by OPM, according to OCHCO 

officials. However, we obtained FEVS data from OPM that allowed us 

to make demographic group comparisons. For example, we compared 

DHS and non-DHS employee satisfaction and engagement scores 

across available demographic groups and found that both satisfaction 

and engagement were generally lower for DHS employees, which is 

summarized in appendix I, table 5.

For the DHS component analyses we reviewed, TSA and CBP 

conducted some demographic analysis. For example, TSA compared 

screeners, Federal Security Director staff, Federal Air Marshals, and 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

headquarters staff on each FEVS dimension (e.g., work experiences, 

supervisor/leader, satisfaction, and work/life). As a result, TSA was 

able to identify screeners as having survey scores below those of 

other TSA employee groups. CBP also compared race, ethnicity, 

gender, and program office scores. CBP found that no significant 

differences were present in the positive responses to the 2011 FEVS 

core questions when comparing race, ethnicity and gender, and found 

that Border Patrol employees reported higher job satisfaction than 

field operations employees (74 versus 66 percent on the job 

satisfaction index). In contrast, the Coast Guard did not conduct 

analysis in addition to data that was provided by DHS OCHCO. 

Because OCHCO’s data did not include demographic information for 

the 2011 FEVS, Coast Guard did not make demographic group 

comparisons.27 ICE and CBP officials stated that they did not have 

access to 2011 FEVS data files necessary to conduct more detailed 

demographic comparisons. However, as shown in appendix I, we 

were able to make various demographic comparisons based on a 

more detailed data file provided by OPM, which is similar to a file that 

OPM makes available to agencies and the public.

28

• Benchmarking against similar organizations. TSA benchmarked 

its FEVS results against results from similar organizations, by 

comparing results with CBP, and OCHCO’s DHS-wide analysis 

highlighted Partnership rankings data, showing DHS’s position relative 

to the positions of other federal agencies as a Best Place to Work. 

Similarly, ICE benchmarked its FEVS results overall and for program 

offices, such as homeland security investigators, against other DHS 

components, including the U.S. Secret Service and CBP. For the 

2011 FEVS, CBP performed more limited benchmarking, by 

comparing FEVS results with governmentwide averages. According to 

CBP officials, when analyzing annual employee surveys prior to 2011, 

CBP benchmarked its results against agencies with high positive 

 

 

27In the 2010 OAS report to the Coast Guard, OPM made demographic comparisons 

among several employee groups within the Coast Guard, including work groups (such as 

ship versus shore-based employees), race and ethnicity, and gender, and comparisons 

between civilian and military ranks. However, the results of the OAS analysis are not 

included in the Coast Guard’s FEVS-based action planning documentation. See appendix 

IV for a description of how the OAS is used by the Coast Guard.

28Our file contained the same variables as the public release file, but it identified smaller 

demographic groups and work units. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

FEVS scores, such as the Social Security Administration, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. CBP is in the initial planning phase 

of a larger benchmarking project that would benchmark CBP against 

foreign immigration, customs, and agriculture inspection agencies, 

such as the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Australian 

Customs and Border Protection Service. If approved, this 

benchmarking project is expected to occur in fiscal year 2013, 

according to CBP officials. The Coast Guard did not perform FEVS 

benchmarking analysis, according to the documentation we reviewed, 

but did make OAS-based comparisons between the Coast Guard and 

other organizations that use the OAS, according to Coast Guard 

officials. 

• Linkage of root causes with action plans. For both DHS-wide and 

selected component action plans, FEVS questions with low scores 

were linked with action plan areas. For example, in the DHS-wide 

action plan, low scores on employee satisfaction with opportunities to 

get a better job in the organization were linked to action plan items for 

enhancing employee retention. However, the extent to which DHS 

and the components used root causes found through other analyses 

to inform their action plans, such as quarterly exit survey results or 

additional internal component surveys, was not evident in action plan 

documentation (see appendix IV for a description of these additional 

root cause analyses). For example,

• OCHCO’s DHS-wide action plan was last updated based on 2010 

FEVS data and therefore did not rely on data from the DHS 2011 

exit survey, since those results were not published until January 

2012. Similarly, the EEESC was launched in January 2012 and 

therefore its efforts are not yet documented in DHS-wide action 

planning documents. According to OCHCO officials, the 2010 

DHS-wide action plan includes consideration of results from 

OCHCO’s 2008 statistical analysis identifying key drivers of job 

satisfaction and results from the 2007 focus groups. However, 

linkage to items in the DHS-wide action plan to these results is not 

clearly identified because a new action plan template OPM 

introduced in 2010 did not provide an area to identify the linkage 

between each action and the driver, according to OCHCO 

officials. In addition, DHS’s September 2009 action plan indicates

consideration of the 2008 key driver analysis and 2007 focus 

group effort that led to a focus on leadership effectiveness 

initiatives.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

• According to CBP and TSA officials, data from other root cause 

analysis efforts are not explicitly documented in action plans 

developed in response to FEVS results because DHS has not 

included linkage of other root cause analysis efforts to actions 

items in the FEVS action planning templates used by the 

components. TSA officials also stated that other root cause efforts 

(see appendix IV) were used to develop TSA’s July 2012 action 

plan update. However, the July 2012 plan did not include linkage 

of root cause findings other than FEVS results, such as exit 

survey results, to action plan items.

• ICE officials stated that results from other root cause efforts, such 

as its FOCS, have not yet been considered in FEVS-based action 

planning but that ICE plans to do so in future efforts to address 

morale.

• The Coast Guard uses information from its OAS as part of a 

process separate from FEVS-based action planning for 

addressing morale, so OAS results are not linked to FEVS-based 

action plans.

OCHCO and component human capital officials described several 

reasons for the variation in root cause analysis of FEVS results. OCHCO 

officials described resource constraints and leadership changes within the 

OCHCO position as resulting in a lack of continuity in root cause analysis 

efforts. For example, one OCHCO official stated that because of resource 

constraints, OCHCO has focused more efforts on workforce planning than 

on morale problem analysis since 2009. ICE human capital officials stated 

that ICE’s human capital services were provided via a contract with CBP 

until 2010, when the human capital function became an independently 

funded part of the ICE organization. Only since moving to its current 

position within ICE has the human capital office been able to devote more 

resources to addressing morale issues, according to the officials. CBP 

human capital officials stated that for assessing morale issues, CBP uses 

both quantitative and qualitative information. However, according to the 

officials, qualitative evidence is preferable over quantitative survey 

analysis because focus groups and open-ended surveys, such as the 

Most Valuable Perspective online survey, allow CBP to better understand 

the issues affecting employees. Because of CBP human capital officials’ 

preference for qualitative information, CBP has not emphasized extensive 

quantitative analysis of survey results, such as statistical analysis that 

may determine underlying causes of morale problems.

Without a complete understanding of which issues are driving low 

employee morale, DHS risks not being able to effectively address the 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

underlying concerns of its varied employee population. Emphasis on 

survey analysis that includes demographic group comparisons, 

benchmarking against similar organizations, and linkage of other analysis 

efforts outside of FEVS within action plan documentation could assist 

DHS in better addressing its employee morale problems.

DHS and the selected components routinely update their action plans to 

address employee survey results in accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s budget guidance; the DHS-wide plan is 

updated every two years, and components update their plans at least 

annually.29

Table 2: DHS-wide and Component Action Plan Goals and Examples of Low-Scoring FEVS Topics Addressed through such 

Goals

According to OPM’s guide for using FEVS results, action 

planning involves, among other things, identifying goals and actions for 

improving low-scoring FEVS satisfaction topics such as reviewing survey 

results to determine steps to be taken to improve how the agency 

manages its workforce. DHS-wide and component action plan goals and 

examples of low-scoring FEVS satisfaction topics are listed in table 2.

DHS unit Summary of action plan goals to address FEVS results

Example of low-scoring

FEVS satisfaction topics

addressed by action plan goal

DHS-wide Enhance leadership, recruitment, employee retention, and DHS unification. Opportunity to get a better job in 

the organization

TSA Launch a corporate action planning team to study employee issues and develop 

recommendations, enhance employee performance management, and improve 

TSA communication mechanisms.

Discussions with supervisors 

about performance

ICE Advance telework opportunities, increase communication between employees and 

management, and develop an awards handbook for distribution to employees.

Physical conditions that allow 

employees to do their job well

CBP Develop action plans within CBP program offices to address results, enhance 

communication between management and employees, create career and 

leadership development opportunities, replace pass/fail performance appraisal with 

multi-leveled performance management system, implement training improvements, 

and maintain an existing virtual focus group to enable upward feedback to senior 

leaders.

Policies and practices of senior 

leaders

Coast Guard Improve communication with employees and training options. Information received from 

management

Source: GAO analysis of DHS-wide, TSA, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE FEVS action plans based on FEVS results.

 

29 The selected component action plans we reviewed were updated as of January 2012. Subsequent 

updates to the plans, due to OCHCO in July 2012, were not included in our evaluation. 

DHS and Its Components 

Completed Action Plans
 

Page 26 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

As part of DHS’s efforts to address our high-risk designation of 

implementing and transforming DHS, DHS described a plan for improving 

employee morale in its Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management 

(Integrated Strategy). In June 2012, DHS provided us with its updated 

Integrated Strategy, which summarized the status of the department’s 

activities for addressing its implementation and transformation high-risk 

designation. In the Integrated Strategy, DHS identified activities to 

improve employee job satisfaction scores, among other things. The status 

of the activities included ongoing analysis of the 2011 FEVS results, 

launch of the EEESC to address DHS scores on the HCAAF indexes, 

ongoing coordination between the OCHCO and components to develop 

action plans in response to the 2011 FEVS results, and launch of an 

online employee survey in the first quarter of fiscal year 2013.

Within the Integrated Strategy action plan for improving job satisfaction 

scores, DHS reported that three of six efforts were hindered by a lack of 

resources.30 For example, resources are a constraining factor for DHS’s 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer to consult with components in 

developing action plans in response to 2011 FEVS results. Similarly, 

resources are a constraining factor to deploy online focus discussions on 

job satisfaction-related issues.

 

30The six efforts are: (1) OPM releases 2011 survey results; DHS issues employee 

communications and conducts analysis; (2) CHCO leads an Enterprise-wide Executive 

Steering Committee to develop a deliberate way forward for addressing FEVS key indices; 

(3) OCHCO works with components to develop action plans responding to 2011 FEVS 

results; (4) On-line focus discussion survey deploys across Department; (5) CHCO 

provides components with feedback on action plans; and (6) Updated component and 

headquarter action plans are due. The three efforts that are hindered by a lack of 

resources are: OCHCO working with components to develop action plans, on-line focus 

discussions, and CHCO providing components with feedback.
 

Page 27 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

According to our review of the action plans created in response to the 

FEVS and interviews with agency officials, DHS and the selected 

components generally incorporated the six action planning steps 

suggested by OPM, but the agency does not have effective metrics to 

support its efforts related to monitoring.31

 

31The most recent DHS-wide action plan update was based on 2010 FEVS results. 

According to OCHCO officials, the next update to the action plan will be released in 

January 2013.

(See figure 5.)

DHS and Selected 

Components Generally 

Followed OPM’s Six Steps 

for Effective Action 

Planning but Do Not Have 

Effective Metrics for 

Monitoring Efforts
 

Page 28 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Figure 5: OPM’s Six Steps for Action Planning to Improve FEVS Scores

We found that, in general, DHS and its components are implementing the 

six steps for action planning as demonstrated in table 3 below.
 

Page 29 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Table 3: DHS-Wide and Selected Components’ Action Planning Steps

Action

Planning Step DHS and Component Response Examples of What Has Been Done

1. Identify issues All the components and OCHCO 

evaluated the FEVS results by, at a 

minimum, determining high and low 

positive response levels to survey 

questions.

For example, CBP’s action plan identified the FEVS questions that 

pertained to the job satisfaction dimension along with the positive 

response results for each of the survey questions.

2. Set goals All of the components and OCHCO 

developed broad goals to improve FEVS 

scores.

For example, TSA’s action plan included a goal of enhancing 

overall communication and innovation.

3. Identify staff All of the components and OCHCO 

identified personnel responsible for their 

action plan.

For example, TSA’s action plan described a cross-functional team 

that included representatives from existing councils and from all 

levels and organizational units to address an action item.

4. Develop plan All of the components and OCHCO 

developed plans that identified actions to 

be taken to accomplish their goals.

For example, ICE’s action plan for increasing communication 

included utilizing ICE broadcast announcements for more tangible 

and employee-related purposes.

5. Implement plan All of the components and OCHCO set 

target dates and in some cases indicated 

whether an action item was completed or 

on-going.

For example, Coast Guard’s action plan listed the redesign of the 

civilian website by December 20, 2012.

6. Monitor results All of the components and OCHCO 

established measures of success, 

providing the status of success or 

completion dates.

For example, OCHCO’s action plan included a goal to retain an 

engaged workforce. The three measures of success listed for this 

goal are (1) improve DHS ranking on the Partnership for Public 

Service Best Places to Work, (2) reduce attrition rates, and (3) 

achieve an HCAAF index positive response average of 58 percent 

on the 2011 FEVS.

Source: GAO analysis of DHS-wide, TSA, ICE, CBP, and Coast Guard action plans and U.S. Office of Personnel Management action 

planning guidance.

Although we found that OCHCO and the four selected components are 

generally taking actions to execute the sixth step—monitor and evaluate 

the results of implementation—they have not established effective 

measures of the agency’s achievement of action plan goals. For example, 

in the DHS-wide action plan, one of the four goals is to build an effective, 

mission focused, diverse and inspiring cadre of leaders. A measure of 

success listed for this goal is that progress will be measured against the 

2011 HCAAF index. For this measure, it is not clear which HCAAF index 

will be assessed and it does not include a target for improvement—such 

as a percent increase in satisfaction—by which DHS can benchmark its 

results. The measures of success within the DHS-wide and selected 

component action plans could be improved by including additional 

attributes of successful metrics. Specifically, in our prior work, we 

identified attributes of successful metrics that allow agencies to better 

determine whether they are meeting their goals while holding agency staff 
 

Page 30 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

accountable for improving performance.32

• linkage—determines whether there is a relationship between the 

performance measure and the goals;

Three attributes relevant to the 

action plans are:

• clarity—determines whether the performance measures are clearly 

stated; and

• measurable target—determines whether, performance measures 

have quantifiable, numerical targets or other measurable values, 

where appropriate.

In general, DHS and component measures satisfied the linkage attribute 

but did not address the clarity and measurable targets attributes. We 

compared DHS and the four components measures of success to the 

three attributes and found that all 54 measures of success incorporated 

the linkage attribute, 12 of the 54 measures of success did not address 

the clarity attribute, and 29 of the 54 measures of success did not 

address the measurable target attribute.

As shown in table 4 below, we found that these measures demonstrate 

linkage because they align with the action plan goals. However, we 

determined that the measures demonstrate neither clarity nor a 

measurable target. Specifically, the measures do not demonstrate clarity 

because they do not provide enough detail to clearly state the metric used 

to measure success. They also do not demonstrate a measureable target 

because they do not list quantitative goals or provide a qualitative 

predictor of a desired outcome, which would allow the agency to better 

determine the extent to which they were making progress toward 

achieving their goals.

 

32GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). Of the nine 

attributes of successful metrics listed in this report, we determined that linkage, clarity and 

measurable target are relevant to this evaluation. The six attributes that we did not 

evaluate are: objectivity, reliability, core program activities, balance, governmentwide 

priorities, and limited overlap. We did not include these six attributes because they were 

not relevant to employee morale action planning efforts. 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Table 4: Examples of DHS-Wide and Selected Components’ Measures of Success

DHS 

unit Goal

Measure of 

Success

Examples of Actions to 

Achieve Goal GAO Assessment 

DHSwideRecruit a highly 

qualified and 

diverse 

workforce 

Recruitment of

a highly 

qualified and 

diverse 

workforce 

• Streamline the hiring 

process to increase 

applicant and manager 

satisfaction

• Improve manager 

involvement

• Hold managers 

accountable for hiring 

process involvement 

through performance 

evaluations

• Streamline all DHS job 

opportunity 

announcements

Clarity

The measure lacks key information that would make it 

more clear—namely, what constitutes a highly qualified 

workforce and how should “diverse workforce” be 

interpreted.

Measurable Target

The measure does not list quantifiable or other 

measurable values to help determine when the goal 

has been reached. For example, the measure does not 

provide a target number of employees against which 

DHS can benchmark its results.

TSA Performance 

Management 

Enhancement

Programs 

launched and 

systems 

deployed

• Provide status updates to 

the employee 

performance management

program

• Provide training and 

resources to ensure 

managers and supervisors 

use fair, objective, and 

consistent merit-based 

principles during 

performance evaluations

Clarity

The measure lacks key information that would make it 

more clear—namely, which programs and systems 

TSA is to launch.

Measurable Target

The measure does not list quantifiable or other 

measurable values to help determine when the goal 

has been reached. For example, the measure does not 

provide a target number of programs against which 

TSA can benchmark its results.

CBP Continue to 

Implement 

Communication 

Strategies for 

Disseminating 

Information from 

Management to 

Employees via 

Technology

Increase 

awareness of 

survey results 

to employees

• Initiate Division Director 

communiqués

• Hold a series of town hall 

meetings across program 

offices

• Launch a virtual town hall 

meeting to address 

employee concerns

• Launch a series of town 

hall meetings in various 

geographic locations to 

address issues identified 

through the FEVS

Clarity

The measure lacks key information that would make it 

more clear—namely, what topics in the survey results 

are targeted, which employees should be included, and 

how “increase awareness” should be interpreted.

Measurable Target

The measure does not list quantifiable or other 

measurable values to help determine when the goal 

has been reached. For example, the measure does not 

provide a target number of employees or geographic 

locations against which CBP can benchmark its results 

nor does it provide a target measurement for “increase 

awareness.” 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

DHS 

unit Goal

Measure of 

Success

Examples of Actions to 

Achieve Goal GAO Assessment 

ICE Increasing 

Communication

Survey 

employees

• Increase engagement with 

union representatives

• Development of labor 

management forums 

within ICE

Clarity

The measure lacks key information that would make it 

more clear—namely, what issues are to be surveyed 

and which employees should be included.

Measurable Target

The measure does not list quantifiable or other 

measurable values to help determine when the goal 

has been reached. For example, the measure does not 

provide a target number of employee survey responses 

against which ICE can benchmark its results.

Coast 

Guard

Training and 

Development

Develop elearning 

course for new 

employees

• Enhance guidance 

provided to employees 

describing their role in 

individual development 

plans development

Clarity

The measure lacks key information that would make it 

more clear—namely, what is the course content or the 

specific training being provided through the e-learning 

course.

Measurable Target

The measure does not list quantifiable or other 

measurable values to help determine when the goal 

has been reached. For example, the measure does not 

provide a target number of new employees who will 

receive the training against which the Coast Guard can 

benchmark its results. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS-wide, TSA, CBP, ICE and Coast Guard action plans.

Officials provided several reasons why their measures of success may fall 

short of the attributes for successful metrics. According to OCHCO 

officials, OCHCO considers accomplishment of an action item step as a 

success and relies on the measures of success listed in its action plan as 

a metric for whether the action plan items were implemented. OCHCO 

considers whether positive responses to survey questions noted in the 

action plan improve over time as the outcome measure for whether action 

plans are effective. However, as part of its oversight and feedback on 

component action plans, OCHCO does not monitor or evaluate measures 

of success for action planning and therefore is not in a position to 

determine whether the measures reflect improvement. CBP officials 

stated that they monitor the change in FEVS results overall as the intent 

of the action planning is to improve their scores on the HCAAF indexes. 

Coast Guard officials stated that they rely on qualitative feedback from 

employees on action plan items, such as improved training and website 

updates, to measure action plan performance. TSA officials stated they 

assess action plan results by tracking completion dates for action items

and updating OCHCO on results at least semi-annually, and ICE officials 

have stated they have not yet fully developed monitoring efforts to 

evaluate job satisfaction action planning because the human capital office 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

received funding in the summer of 2011 to implement human capital 

programs.

We acknowledge that positive responses in survey results and positive 

employee feedback are good indicators that action planning is working. 

However, until DHS and its components begin to see positive results, it is 

important for them to (1) understand whether they are successfully 

implementing the individual steps of their action plans and (2) make any 

necessary changes to improve on them. By not having specific metrics 

within the action plans that are clear and measurable, it will be more 

difficult for DHS to assess its efforts to address employee morale 

problems, as well as determine if changes should be made to ensure 

progress toward achieving its goals. Furthermore, effective measures are 

key to DHS’s action plan as it is part of a process that informs the Office 

of Management and Budget and OPM of DHS efforts to address survey 

results. According to an OPM official responsible for federal action 

planning to improve morale, DHS should carefully consider, for each 

action step, what success means to the agency, such as increased 

employee engagement targets. The official said that when success is 

defined, it should not only be clear and measurable, but should also take 

into account as many of the different demographic groups evaluated as 

possible.

DHS and the selected components have initiated efforts to determine how 

other entities approach employee morale issues. DHS officials stated they 

have started to review and implement what they consider to be best 

practices for improving employee morale, such as the following:

• DHS working group—OCHCO leads a survey engagement team that 

holds monthly meetings during which action planning efforts from 

across the different components are shared and discussed. 

Representatives from other federal agencies such as the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation 

Administration have also attended these meetings and presented their 

action plans for addressing survey results.

• Idea Factory—a TSA web-based tool adopted by DHS that empowers 

employees to develop, rate, and improve innovative ideas for 

programs, processes, and technologies. According to a DHS 

assessment, the Under Secretary for Management plans to use this 

DHS and the Selected 

Components Consulted 

Best Practices
 

Page 34 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

tool for internal DHS employee communication so as to promote 

greater job satisfaction and enhance organization effectiveness.33

Component officials we interviewed also stated they have started to 

review, implement, and share what they consider to be best practices for 

improving morale. For example:

• ICE officials stated they consult with other agencies and DHS 

components, such as the U.S. Marshal’s Service, when addressing 

morale challenges and developing policies and programs. For 

example, the U.S. Marshal’s Service has a critical incident response 

program for employees encountering a traumatic event and ICE is 

exploring adopting a similar program.

• TSA officials stated that they reached out to Marriott Corporation, 

CBP, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to 

identify actions for increasing employee rewards and employee 

confidence in leadership.

• CBP officials stated they have established several ongoing working 

groups that routinely meet and share human capital best practices 

within the agency. One of these working groups has conducted 

benchmarking work with high-FEVS-scoring federal agencies such as 

the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Secret Service, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

• Coast Guard officials stated they share human capital best practices 

that may improve job satisfaction with other DHS components such as 

(1) their performance appraisal system which was adopted, in part, 

DHS-wide; (2) their automated cash award process with FEMA; and 

(3) Coast Guard training to supervisors with both DHS headquarters 

officials and FEMA.

Given the critical nature of DHS’s mission to protect the security and 

economy of our nation, it is important that DHS employees are satisfied 

with their jobs so that DHS can retain and attract the talent required to 

complete its work. Employee survey data indicate that when compared to 

other federal employees, many DHS employees report being dissatisfied 

and not engaged with their jobs. It is imperative that DHS understand 

what is driving employee morale problems and address those problems 

 

33DHS, Privacy Impact Assessment for the Idea Factory, January 21, 2010.

Conclusion 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

through targeted actions that address employees’ underlying concerns. 

DHS has made efforts to understand morale issues across the 

department, but those efforts could be improved. Specifically, given the 

annual employee survey data available through the FEVS, DHS and its 

components could improve their efforts to determine root causes of 

morale problems by comparing demographic groups, benchmarking 

against similar organizations, and linking root cause findings to action 

plans. Uncovering root causes of morale problems could help identify 

appropriate actions to take in efforts to improve morale. In addition, DHS 

has established performance measures for its action plans to improve 

morale, but incorporating attributes such as improved clarity and 

measurable targets could better position DHS to determine whether its 

action plans are effective. Without doing so, DHS will have a more difficult 

time determining whether it is achieving its goals.

To strengthen DHS’s evaluation and planning process for addressing 

employee morale, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland 

Security direct OCHCO and component human capital officials to take the 

following two actions:

• examine their root cause analysis efforts and, where absent, add the 

following: comparisons of demographic groups, benchmarking against 

similar organizations, and linkage of root cause findings to action 

plans; and

• establish metrics of success within the action plans that are clear and 

measurable.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS. On 

September 25, 2012, DHS provided written comments, which are 

reprinted in appendix V, and provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. DHS concurred with our two 

recommendations and described actions planned to address them. 

Specifically:

• DHS stated that it will ensure that department-wide and component 

action plans are tied to root causes and that the department will 

conduct benchmarking against other organizations. DHS also stated 

that its ability to conduct demographic analysis is limited due to the 

data set OPM makes available to federal agencies. However, 

according to OPM, DHS has access to the data necessary for 

conducting analysis similar to our comparison of demographic groups. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 36 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

• DHS stated it will review action plans to ensure that each action is 

clear and measurable. 

We also requested comments on a draft of this report from OPM. On 

September 18, 2012, OPM provided a written response, which is

reprinted in appendix VI. OPM’s letter indicated that it reviewed the draft 

report and had no comments. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and 

interested congressional committees. The report also will be available at 

no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report please contact 

me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix VII.

David C. Maurer

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 37 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

We conducted a statistical analysis of the 2011 Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) to assess employee morale at the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). Our analysis addressed two specific 

questions. First, how does morale at DHS and its components compare 

with morale at other agencies, holding constant demographic differences 

among employees? Second, to what extent is the morale gap between 

DHS and other agencies explained by differences in the demographic 

composition of the DHS workforce versus other unique characteristics of 

the agency or unmeasured demographic factors?

This appendix explains the value of statistical analysis for understanding 

the employee morale gap, describes the data and methods we used, and 

provides additional details about our findings, which are summarized in 

the body of the report. In sum

• DHS employees with the same demographic profiles (measured by 

FEVS) were about 7 percentage points less engaged and 6 points 

less satisfied than non-DHS employees.

• Demographic differences (measured by FEVS) between DHS and 

other agencies are unlikely to explain the overall morale gap. Unique 

features of DHS (or unmeasured demographics) are more likely to be 

responsible.

• DHS middle managers and employees with 1 to 10 years of tenure at 

their components—those hired after the department’s creation—have 

lower morale than similar employees at other departments.

• Morale varies widely across DHS components, and some have similar 

morale as non-DHS agencies. Individual offices can strongly influence 

the morale gap at the component level.

• The morale gap is smaller for DHS components that existed before 

the department was created.

The morale gap between DHS and other agencies may be due to unique 

issues within DHS or common issues faced by all agencies in similar 

circumstances. Unique issues might include developing an agency-wide 

culture, the decisions and composition of senior leaders, and the inherent 

uniqueness of homeland security programs. Common characteristics 

might include having many law enforcement and front-line customer 

service occupations, and having employees dispersed among many 

headquarters and field offices.

Determining whether unique or shared issues account for the overall 

morale gap is important for understanding the cause of the problem. If 

morale at DHS was not uniquely low, compared with morale at agencies 

Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security

and Other Agencies

Understanding the Morale 

Gap at DHS
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 38 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

with similar demographics and programs, the agency might learn from 

peer agencies facing similar challenges. Alternatively, if morale was lower 

at DHS for reasons unique to the agency, DHS might put more emphasis 

on understanding its own particular challenges. Distinguishing among 

these possible explanations can help develop a solution that is narrowly 

tailored to the problem.

Our analysis focused on one group of shared circumstances that might 

explain the morale gap: employee demographics. If DHS were more likely 

to employ the types of workers who tend to have lower morale across all 

agencies of the government, the composition of the workforce might 

account for the gap to a greater extent than factors specific to DHS. In 

other words, morale at DHS may be no worse than at other agencies 

among demographically equivalent employees. Our analysis focused on a 

limited number of demographic differences, such as location and age, but 

attitudinal differences about pay, benefits, supervision, training, 

mentoring, and other human capital issues could be assessed in a similar 

way.

We also considered how large of a morale gap there was between 

employees in various DHS components and work groups and non-DHS 

employees. The gap at the department level can mask groups of 

employees with higher or lower morale. Disaggregating morale into small 

work groups identifies areas of DHS in which morale may be high or low, 

and thus provides sufficiently detailed data for focused solutions to the 

problem.

Any analysis of morale in employee surveys is limited by the fact that 

associations among the variables of interest may not represent causeand-effect relationships. Nevertheless, a limited observational analysis 

remains useful for evaluating human capital programs. Since federal 

agencies cannot easily conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials 

of various approaches to managing their employees, the use of 

observational methods is common, often in the form of quantitative survey 

analyses or qualitative interviews and focus groups. We have previously 

found that a pragmatic approach to answering necessary policy 

questions, using the best methods and data that are feasible, is widely 

supported by academic experts and practitioners in policy analysis.1

 

1 See GAO-10-30, “Program Evaluation: A Variety of Rigorous Methods Can Help Identify 

Effective Interventions,” 20-31.
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 39 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Moreover, statistical theory has shown that observational methods can 

estimate cause-and-effect relationships in certain conditions.2

Associations between morale and demographic characteristics are useful 

for understanding the operation of human capital programs, when 

interpreted cautiously and in the context of all the available evidence. Our 

analysis here describes patterns across the demographic groups 

identified in the 2011 FEVS and determines whether the aggregate 

differences between DHS and other agencies persists among 

demographically similar employees. We make no causal interpretations of 

these relationships, and our approach is only one that might be valid and 

useful.

 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provided us with a version 

of the 2011 FEVS that included more detailed demographic and 

organizational data than the file it released to the public. Specifically, our 

file contained the same variables as the public file but identified more 

detailed groups of employees. The 2011 survey included responses from 

266,376 full-time, permanent federal employees, working for agencies 

that, according to OPM, constituted 97 percent of the executive branch 

workforce. OPM sampled employees within strata formed by supervisory 

status and organizational subgroup (e.g., component and work group).3

We focused on two types of variables in the FEVS: (1) employee 

demographics and (2) OPM’s Employee Engagement and Job 

Satisfaction indexes. A series of questions at the end of the survey 

collected the demographic data, rather than preexisting administrative 

records. OPM reported independently developing and validating the 

engagement indexes using factor-analytic procedures, which are common 

psychometric statistical methods. The survey items that made up each 

This produced generally large sample sizes even for many small work 

groups within components, which allowed us to analyze morale among 

small groups of employees with an acceptable degree of precision.

 

2 See, for example, Donald Rubin, “The Use of Matched Sampling and Regression 

Adjustment to Remove Bias in Observational Studies,” Biometrics 29 (1973): 185-203, 

and Paul Rosenbaum, Observational Studies, New York: Springer-Verlag,1995.

3

OPM refers to these organizational subgroups as “bureaus” and “offices.”

The 2011 Federal 

Employee Viewpoint 

Survey
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 40 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

index used five-point, Likert-type scales, with “agree/disagree,” 

“satisfied/dissatisfied,” or “good/poor” response options.4

We used weights provided by OPM to calculate estimates and sampling 

variances for all analyses. The weights were the product of the unequal 

sampling probabilities across strata and non-response and poststratification adjustments. Because some strata had relatively small 

population sizes—one-quarter with 18 employees or fewer—we corrected 

for finite populations.

One explanation for lower morale at DHS is that its employees could be 

members of demographic groups that typically have lower morale across 

all agencies. If this is true, the cause of morale problems and their 

solutions might focus less on factors that are unique to DHS and more on 

approaches that apply to any agency with a similar workforce.

Table 5 provides basic evidence to help assess the demographic 

explanation. The table presents the average OPM Engagement Index for 

several demographic groups in the 2011 FEVS. If engagement problems 

at DHS were isolated to particular subgroups of employees, the morale 

gap should vary widely across those subgroups. In fact, engagement at 

DHS is lower (or statistically indistinguishable from zero) than at other 

agencies in each demographic subgroup we analyzed, and the gap 

relative to DHS does not vary by large amounts across most subgroups. 

However, the gap is somewhat larger among employees who were in

certain subgroups, such as those who had 4 to 10 years of experience 

with their components and who worked outside of headquarters.

 

4

For a detailed description of the questions that made up the OPM indexes, see OPM, 

2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Empowering Employees, Inspiring Change, 

Department of Homeland Security, Agency Management Report. (Washington, D.C.), 21 

and 43. 

Morale Differences 

Between DHS Employees 

and Employees at Other 

Agencies
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 41 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Table 5: DHS and Non-DHS Employee Engagement Index by Demographic Group for the 2011 FEVS

OPM Employee 

Engagement

Index - Non-DHS

95% Margin

of Error (+/-) 

OPM Employee 

Engagement

Index - DHS

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

OPM Employee 

Engagement

Index - difference

95% margin 

of error (+/-) 

All employees 67.1 0.3 60.1 0.7 -7.0* 0.7

Supervisory status

Non-management 65.7 0.3 58.2 0.8 -7.5* 0.9

Management 74.1 0.4 67.0 1.1 -7.2* 1.2

Pay group

Federal Wage 

System

61.6 1.3 57.3 3.7 -4.3* 3.9

GS 1-6 65.6 1.0 61.4 5.1 -4.2 5.2

GS 7-12 66.8 0.4 61.3 1.1 -5.5* 1.2

GS 13-15 70.5 0.4 63.0 1.2 -7.5* 1.2

Senior Executive 

Service 

82.7 1.2 79.8 3.0 -3.0 3.2

SL 70.5 3.7 66.2 16.5 -4.4 16.9

Othera 65.6 1.1 53.1 1.4 -12.5* 1.8

Agency tenure

<1 year 76.0 1.3 75.6 4.2 -0.4 4.4

1-3 years 69.7 0.6 65.2 1.6 -4.6* 1.7

4-5 years 66.0 0.9 58.4 1.8 -7.7* 2.0

6-10 years 65.8 0.6 56.0 1.1 -9.9* 1.2

11-20 years 65.1 0.6 61.3 1.7 -3.8* 1.8

20+ years 67.2 0.5 60.3 2.3 -6.9* 2.3

Location

Headquarters 68.5 0.4 64.9 1.5 -3.5* 1.5

Field 66.5 0.3 59.0 0.8 -7.5* 0.8

Age 

<26 74.6 2.0 66.7 4.8 -7.9* 5.2

26-29 70.6 1.4 58.9 3.2 -11.7* 3.5

30-39 67.9 0.7 60.5 1.4 -7.4* 1.5
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 42 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

OPM Employee 

Engagement

Index - Non-DHS

95% Margin

of Error (+/-) 

OPM Employee 

Engagement

Index - DHS

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

OPM Employee 

Engagement

Index - difference

95% margin 

of error (+/-) 

40-49 67.2 0.5 60.6 1.2 -6.6* 1.3

50-59 66.2 0.4 58.9 1.3 -7.3* 1.3

60+ 67.8 0.7 58.1 2.2 -9.8* 2.3

Race

Hispanic 66.8 1.1 63.7 1.7 -3.1* 2.0

American Indian / 

Alaska Native

60.1 1.8 52.7 7.6 -7.3 7.8

Asian 72.4 1.2 65.0 3.4 -7.4* 3.6

Black 68.2 0.7 60.8 2.0 -7.4* 2.1

Hawaiian / Pacific 

Islander

65.4 4.1 56.8 6.6 -8.5* 7.8

White 67.5 0.3 58.5 0.9 -9.0* 0.9

Two or more races 62.3 1.9 56.3 4.0 -6.0* 4.4

Source: GAO analysis of 2011 FEVS data.

Note: Asterisks denote differences that are statistically distinguishable from zero at the 0.05 level.

a

Because respondents to the 2011 FEVS reported their own pay groups, the “other” category may 

have included workers in various groups other than the GS system. At DHS, this group may have 

included Transportation Security Administration airport security screeners.

We developed several statistical models to further assess the 

demographic explanation. These models held constant the demographic 

profiles of DHS and non-DHS employees, in order to isolate the portion of 

the morale gap that was specifically due to non-demographic factors. The 

models allowed us to compare morale at DHS and other agencies among 

employees who were in the same demographic groups, as measured by 

the FEVS.

To avoid methodological complications with modeling latent variables, we 

created a binary measure that identified whether a respondent was 

engaged or satisfied on each item in the respective scales. Our measure 

equaled 1 if the respondent gave positive answers (4 or 5) to each item in 

the index and 0 if the respondent gave neutral or negative responses 

(1,2, or 3) to at least one item. Collapsing the scale loses some 

information, since morale and satisfaction are continuous, latent 

variables. However, a collapsed measure provides some degree of 

comparability between OPM’s aggregate indices and our individual-level 

analysis, since the OPM’s indices also collapse the scale. The differences 

Multivariate Analysis
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 43 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

among agencies and subgroups of employees are generally similar using 

either our measure or OPM’s.

5

We focused on the associations between broad measures of morale and 

fixed demographic characteristics available in the 2011 FEVS. Fixed 

demographics and broad measures of satisfaction are not subject to 

artificially high correlations that a survey’s design can produce among 

attitudinal measures.

The models took the following form:

( ) (α β ) Moraleij DHSj Demogij DHSj +Λ= Demogij ,|E (1)

( ) ( ) Moraleij DHS j Demogij αDHS j DHS j ×+Λ= Demogijβ D + Demogijβ G ,|E (2)

Moraleij indicates whether employee i at agency j was engaged or 

satisfied, using the binary measure we calculated from the survey items 

that make up the OPM indexes (see above). DHSj indicates whether the 

employee worked for DHS, Demogij is a vector of demographic indicators 

(listed in table 6), Λis the logistic function, and α and β are vectors of 

coefficients that estimate how morale varied among employees in 

different demographic groups. We included all demographic factors 

measured by the FEVS that plausibly could have predicted morale and 

were clearly causally prior to morale. We excluded pay group, however, 

because of its high correlation with supervisory status. Model 2 allows 

DHS and non-DHS employees in the same demographic groups to have 

different levels of morale, as described by β D and β G .We estimated each 

model using cluster-robust maximum likelihood methods, with 365 agency 

clusters (e.g., Transportation Security Administration [TSA]).

Our multivariate analysis found that DHS employees remained an 

average of 6.4 percentage points less engaged (+/- 3.2) (see table 6) and 

5.5 points less satisfied (+/- 2.2) (not shown) on our scales than 

employees at other agencies who had the same age, office location, race, 

sex, supervisory status, and tenure. This suggests that measured 

demographic differences between employees at DHS and other agencies 

 

5

We discuss options for a more sophisticated analysis of engagement and satisfaction on 

latent, continuous scales at the end of this appendix.
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 44 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

do not fully explain the morale gap. Instead, factors that are intrinsic to 

DHS, such as culture or management practices, or demographic factors 

not measured by FEVS, such as education or occupation, are likely to be 

responsible.

We can further explore the roles of demographics and unique DHS 

characteristics by performing an Oaxaca decomposition of the results of 

model 2, in order to compare DHS with other agencies.6

Table 6: Model Estimates of Employee Engagement Index at DHS and Other Agencies Using the 2011 FEVS

Oaxaca 

decomposition can assess whether the overall morale gap is explained by 

the demographic characteristics of DHS employees, or whether it is 

explained by lower morale among DHS employees in the same 

demographic groups. In other words, does DHS employ an unusually 

large number of workers who tend to have low morale across all 

agencies, or do workers with the same backgrounds have uniquely lower 

morale at DHS?

DHS Other Agencies

Percentage engaged 

(GAO measure) Standard error

Percentage engaged 

(GAO measure) Standard error

All employees 20.7 1.5 27.1 0.5

Gap between DHS and other 

agencies

-6.3a

Portion of gap due to the 

demographic composition of DHS

0.1

Portion of gap due to unique 

differences between DHS and nonDHS employees with similar 

demographic profiles

-6.4

Race

Hispanic 27.0 1.1 29.0 0.7

American Indian / Alaska Native 13.2 3.7 21.3 0.8

 

6

Oaxaca decomposition is a method of disaggregating an average difference between two 

groups into (1) the part due to the differences in the values of the variables that determine 

the outcome of interest and (2) the part due to differences in the partial relationships 

between the predictor variables and the outcome. See Ronald Oaxaca, “Male–Female 

Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets,” International Economic Review 14 (1973).

693-709

Decomposing the Morale Gap
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 45 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

DHS Other Agencies

Percentage engaged 

(GAO measure) Standard error

Percentage engaged 

(GAO measure) Standard error

Asian 29.0 3.5 34.4 0.8

Black 23.7 2.0 27.8 0.5

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 23.1 2.5 28.4 1.3

White 19.0 1.5 26.7 0.5

Two or more races 18.3 3.0 20.7 0.8

Years worked for component

<1 34.6 2.5 38.1 0.9

1-3 22.8 2.2 30.5 0.6

4-5 20.0 1.8 27.3 0.7

6-10 17.6 1.6 25.7 0.5

11-20 19.3 2.2 24.7 0.5

20+ 21.2 3.0 26.6 0.6

Sex 

Male 20.6 1.6 27.1 0.5

Female 20.9 1.5 27.2 0.5

Supervisory status

Non-supervisor 18.2 1.5 23.3 0.5

Team leader 17.8 1.7 26.3 0.6

Supervisor 23.3 1.7 31.7 0.6

Manager 31.7 2.5 40.5 0.7

Executive 47.3 2.8 54.2 1.3

Age

< 26 20.0 2.9 28.6 1.1

26-29 16.7 2.6 24.9 0.9

30-39 19.3 1.6 26.3 0.6

40-49 20.8 1.9 27.4 0.5

50-59 21.0 1.7 26.7 0.5

60+ 22.8 1.6 29.3 0.6

Location

Headquarters 21.4 1.6 27.8 0.6

Field 20.2 1.9 26.6 0.6

Source GAO analysis of U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2011 FEVS data.
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 46 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Note: We created a unique measure of whether each employee in the 2011 FEVS was engaged for 

the purposes of statistical analysis and describing differences among groups of employees. Because 

our measure is defined differently than the OPM Employee Engagement Index, the measures are not 

comparable. Our measure counts an employee as engaged if he or she gave positive answers to 

each item in the OPM index (see text).Engagement statistics in this table are the in-sample 

percentage of employees who are predicted by model 2 to be engaged on GAO’s measure.

a

Gap estimates and their decomposition are estimated using Oaxaca methods applied to model 2.

As shown in table 6, the model suggests that the demographic profile of 

DHS employees (measured by FEVS) tends to slightly increase their 

engagement and reduce the gap compared with employees at other 

agencies. The demographic characteristics we can observe in FEVS 

reduce the overall gaps in the proportion engaged and satisfied on our 

scales by 0.1 and 1.0 percentage points, respectively.7

DHS employees with lower-level positions and component tenure were 

among those with lower morale, relative to employees in other agencies. 

As shown in figures 6 and 7, our measures of engagement and 

satisfaction generally increased with seniority and decreased with tenure, 

among employees at DHS and other agencies. At DHS, however, morale 

increased more slowly as employees gained more seniority, and it 

declined more quickly as they spent more time at the agency. For 

example, the average newly hired employee at DHS and similar 

employees at other agencies had statistically indistinguishable levels of 

engagement. By their sixth years, however, satisfaction for the DHS 

employee declined to an average of 18 percentage points, whereas 

satisfaction for the non-DHS employees declined to an average of only 26 

percentage points. A similar pattern exists with respect to supervisory 

status (see figures 6 and 7). These patterns are particularly important for 

explaining the overall morale gap, because DHS had about 30 percent 

more supervisors and about twice as many people with 6 to 10 years of 

Instead, the 

morale gap is better explained by unique differences in morale between 

DHS and other agencies among demographically similar employees. 

Such intrinsic differences increase the gaps in the proportion engaged 

and satisfied by 6.4 and 5.5 percentage points, respectively. If the 

demographic profile of the DHS workforce did not change, but DHS could 

achieve the same levels of morale as other agencies from the same types 

of employees, our model predicts that DHS employees would not have 

lower morale than employees at other agencies.

 

7

We omitted results for job satisfaction from table 6 to conserve space, but they generally 

resemble the results for engagement.
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 47 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

component tenure (as a share of all employees), compared with people at 

other agencies (according to FEVS). 8

Figure 6: Engagement Index Scores by Supervisory Status and Tenure, for DHS and 

Non-DHS Employees

 

8

DHS employees may have answered the 2011 FEVS question on tenure differently, 

depending on whether they worked for a component that existed before the department 

was created. Specifically, employees who reported more than 10 years of service may 

have interpreted the question to include their service prior to the creation of DHS.
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 48 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 49 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Figure 7: Satisfaction Index Scores by Supervisory Status and Tenure, for DHS and 

Non-DHS Employees
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 50 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Low employee morale is not a uniform problem throughout DHS. As 

shown in table 7, engagement varies widely across components within 

the department, with employees in some components not being 

significantly different from the average employee at non-DHS agencies. 

These components include the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), Management Directorate 

(MGMT), and U.S. Secret Service (USSS). Job satisfaction at these 

components also matches or exceeds that found at other agencies (not 

shown in table 7).

DHS has a number of components whose employees have substantially 

lower morale than employees at other agencies and elsewhere in the 

department. The large share of DHS employees working in these 

components accounts for the overall morale gap between DHS and other 

agencies.

Morale Differences within

DHS Components and 

Work Groups
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 51 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Components with lower morale include Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 

Intelligence and Analysis (IA), National Protection and Programs 

Directorate (NPPD), Science and Technology (ST), and the TSA. The 

engagement scores of these components range from 9.1 to 13.9 

percentage points lower than the average score for non-DHS agencies 

(see table 7). As a group, these components make up 46 percent of the 

employees interviewed for the FEVS. Consequently, the components with 

substantially lower morale have a large influence on the gap relative to 

the rest of the government, despite the fact that morale at many smaller 

DHS components is no worse.

Morale at some of the less engaged and satisfied components is, in turn, 

strongly influenced by particular employee workgroups (see table 7). For 

example, the average engagement at TSA is 12.8 percentage points 

(apart from rounding) lower than at non-DHS agencies. Within TSA, 

however, the collectively large groups of air marshal, law enforcement, 

and screening workers account for much of the overall difference. A 

similar pattern applies to the enforcement, removal, and homeland 

security investigation staffs at ICE, the field operations staff at CBP, and 

the Federal Protective Service. Such variation within components further 

suggests that the morale gap is isolated to particular areas within DHS 

that account for a large proportion of its workforce.

At other components, morale is more uniformly lower across most offices. 

Average engagement at all work groups within FEMA is 5.8 to 17.7 

percentage points lower than the non-DHS average, with the exception of 

two regional offices and the offices of the Administrator and Chief of Staff. 

The components of ST and IA also have more consistently low morale 

across work groups.
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 52 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Table 7: OPM Employee Morale Index by DHS Component and Offices Using the 2011 FEVS

OPM Employee 

Engagement (EE) 

Index

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

EE Index 

minus DHS 

average

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

EE Index 

minus nonDHS 

average

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) N 

DHS component

Non-DHS 67.1 0.3 . . 0.0 0.0 250,870

Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 64.0 2.0 . . -3.2* 2.0 1,303

CBP 62.9 1.3 . . -4.3* 1.3 3,057

Coast Guard 70.6 2.5 . . 3.5* 2.5 863

FEMA 58.0 2.3 . . -9.1* 2.3 972

FLETC 66.2 1.9 . . -1.0 1.9 611

ICE 58.0 2.5 . . -9.1* 2.5 1,313

Intel and Analysis 53.2 4.0 . . -13.9* 4.0 150

IG 70.5 3.3 . . 3.3 3.3 307

MGMT 65.7 2.1 . . -1.4 2.2 628

NPPD 57.7 2.1 . . -9.4* 2.2 771

Science and Technology 55.7 2.8 . . -11.5* 2.8 258

USSS 68.1 2.4 . . 1.0 2.4 959

Office of Secretary 63.6 2.5 . . -3.6* 2.6 409

TSA 54.4 1.1 . . -12.8* 1.2 3,701

DHS, no sub-agency 60.5 6.3 . . -6.6* 6.3 204

TSA 

Non-DHS 67.1 0.3 4.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 250,870

Other DHS 62.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 -4.4* 0.9 11,805

Headquarters staff 61.5 4.4 -1.2 4.5 -5.6* 4.4 279

Law enforcement/air marshal 52.9 4.4 -9.8 4.4 -14.2* 4.4 246

Federal security director staff 64.8 2.6 2.1 2.7 -2.3 2.6 630

Screeners 50.9 1.4 -11.8 1.6 -16.2* 1.4 2,273

ICE

Non-DHS 67.1 0.3 6.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 250,870

Other DHS 60.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 -6.7* 0.7 14,193

Director 66.3 23.4 5.9 23.4 -0.9 23.4 10

Acquisitions 41.2 31.0 -19.2 31.0 -26.0 31.0 13

CFO 68.3 12.6 7.9 12.6 1.2 12.6 33
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 53 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

OPM Employee 

Engagement (EE) 

Index

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

EE Index 

minus DHS 

average

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

EE Index 

minus nonDHS 

average

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) N 

CIO 69.8 14.1 9.4 14.1 2.6 14.1 29

Enforcement and removal operations 52.8 3.8 -7.6 3.9 -14.4* 3.8 491

Human capital 51.2 24.3 -9.2 24.3 -16.0 24.3 11

Intelligence 59.1 16.7 -1.3 16.7 -8.1 16.7 27

International affairs 57.5 11.0 -2.9 11.0 -9.6 11.0 21

Homeland security investigation 59.0 4.1 -1.4 4.2 -8.2* 4.1 433

Principle legal advisor 69.4 7.7 9.0 7.8 2.2 7.7 62

Professional responsibility 66.6 12.4 6.2 12.4 -0.6 12.4 40

Other 77.2 20.1 16.8 20.1 10.1 20.1 13

Coast Guard

Non-DHS 67.1 0.3 7.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 250,870

Other DHS 59.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 -7.6* 0.7 14,643

Vice commandant 71.9 18.1 12.3 18.1 4.7 18.1 12

Chief of staff, mission support 77.8 8.9 18.2 9.0 10.6* 8.9 66

Deputy commandant for operations 89.1 5.1 29.6 5.2 22.0* 5.1 15

Force readiness command 67.4 17.8 7.9 17.8 0.3 17.8 13

Marine safety security stewardship 68.8 14.5 9.2 14.5 1.6 14.5 21

Engineering and logistics 69.9 9.8 10.3 9.9 2.8 9.8 20

Command, control, communications, 

computers, and IT 79.3 18.7 19.8 18.7 12.2 18.7 13

Atlantic 72.6 10.0 13.0 10.1 5.4 10.0 44

Pacific 61.0 14.5 1.4 14.5 -6.1 14.5 19

Districts 1 76.7 8.7 17.1 8.8 9.6* 8.7 46

Districts 5 69.5 8.8 9.9 8.9 2.3 8.8 69

Districts 7 66.8 12.2 7.2 12.2 -0.3 12.2 41

Districts 8 71.8 8.7 12.2 8.7 4.7 8.7 45

Districts 9 71.8 9.9 12.2 10.0 4.7 9.9 19

Districts 11 64.3 14.2 4.7 14.2 -2.9 14.2 35

Districts 13 78.5 17.4 18.9 17.4 11.4 17.4 18

Districts 14 80.2 19.4 20.6 19.4 13.0 19.4 12

Districts 17 68.7 14.5 9.1 14.5 1.6 14.5 22

Other 69.2 4.6 9.6 4.6 2.0 4.6 270
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 54 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

OPM Employee 

Engagement (EE) 

Index

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

EE Index 

minus DHS 

average

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) 

EE Index 

minus nonDHS 

average

95% 

margin of 

error (+/-) N 

CBP

Non-DHS 67.1 0.3 8.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 250,870

Other DHS 58.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 -8.5* 0.8 12,449

Office of the commissioner 73.2 18.4 14.5 18.5 6.0 18.4 15

Chief Counsel 58.3 15.9 -0.3 15.9 -8.8 15.9 29

Human resources management 73.3 11.5 14.7 11.6 6.2 11.5 36

Border Patrol 69.2 2.2 10.6 2.3 2.1 2.2 861

International trade 66.1 7.4 7.5 7.4 -1.1 7.4 80

Internal affairs 73.0 13.0 14.4 13.0 5.9 13.0 36

Field operations 57.5 1.9 -1.1 2.0 -9.6* 1.9 1,326

Administration and public affairs 61.5 8.4 2.9 8.4 -5.6 8.4 69

Information and Technology 66.9 6.8 8.3 6.8 -0.3 6.8 98

Training and development 59.4 9.1 0.8 9.1 -7.7 9.1 47

Internal Affairs 59.2 19.6 0.6 19.6 -7.9 19.6 16

Air and marine 58.2 6.6 -0.5 6.7 -9.0* 6.6 103

Intelligence and operations 

coordination 60.9 20.3 2.3 20.4 -6.2 20.3 16

Technology, innovation, and 

acquisition 80.1 12.4 21.5 12.4 13.0* 12.4 23

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2011 FEVS data.

Note: Asterisks denote differences that are distinguishable from zero at the 0.05 level. Offices listed 

within the components are described as they are identified in OPM’s 2011 FEVS data files provided 

to GAO.

One explanation for why morale varies across components focuses on 

the length of time each organization has existed. Components that 

existed prior to the creation of DHS may have had more time to develop 

successful cultures and management practices than components that 

policymakers created with the department in 2003. As a result, the 

preexisting components may have better morale today than components 

with less mature cultures and practices.

To assess this explanation, we analyzed morale among two groups of 

components, divided according to whether the component was 

established with the creation of DHS or existed previously (see table 8). 

We considered three components to be preexisting—FLETC, USSS, and 

the Coast Guard—and the rest to be newly created. Because TSA was 

Comparison of Morale between 

Employees in Preexisting 

Components and Components 

Created with DHS 
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 55 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

created about 2 years before DHS, we included it with components that 

were created with DHS.

Our analysis shows that employees at the more recently created 

components were less engaged and satisfied on average than employees 

at the preexisting components and at non-DHS agencies. For the 

preexisting components, engagement was about 2.2 percentage points 

higher than at the rest of the government, and the difference in 

satisfaction was small (less than 1.4 percentage points). In contrast, 

engagement and satisfaction at the more recently created components 

were about 8 and 5.1 percentage points lower than at the rest of the 

government, respectively.

Table 8: Morale at Preexisting and Recently Created Components of DHS Using the 

2011 FEVS

OPM Job 

Satisfaction 

Index

Margin of 

error (+/-) 

OPM 

Employee 

Engagement 

Index

Margin of 

error (+/-) 

Non-DHS 68.5 0.2 67.1 0.3

Preexisting components 69.9 1.4 69.3 1.6

Components created with 

DHS 63.4 0.6 59.2 0.7

Source: GAO analysis of OPM 2011 FEVS data.

Note: Preexisting components include FLETC, USSS, and Coast Guard, with all others classified as 

being created with DHS.

We developed a statistical model to confirm whether the differences 

among components persist, holding constant demographic differences 

among their employees. In an alternative version of model 1 above, we 

replaced DHSj with a vector of variables indicating whether the employee 

worked for DHS components or at an agency other than DHS. All other 

parts of the model were identical.

The model estimates generally confirmed the differences in engagement 

between non-DHS and DHS component employees in the raw data (see 

table 9), with two exceptions. The model estimated that, holding constant 

demographic differences, employees in the Management Directorate and 

Office of the Secretary were 6.9 and 7.7 percentage points less engaged 

on average than employees in non-DHS agencies. This suggests that the 

engagement gap for employees in these offices is more similar to the gap 

at other offices, holding constant the demographic differences among 

Multivariate Analysis
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 56 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

offices measured by FEVS. The model estimated that differences in 

satisfaction between the components and non-DHS agencies were 

generally similar to such differences in engagement (see table 9).

The fact that differences among components remained, even among 

demographically equivalent employees, suggests that either unmeasured 

demographic variables or intrinsic characteristics of the components are 

responsible for the differences in morale.

Table 9: Model Estimates of the Difference in Engagement and Job Satisfaction between Employees in DHS Components and 

Non-DHS Agencies Based on the 2011 FEVS

DHS component

Difference in engagement 

(GAO measure, %)

Standard 

error

Difference in satisfaction 

(GAO measure, %)

Standard 

error

CIS -5.6 0.5 -3.5 0.5

CBP -6.1 0.5 -2.5 0.6

Coast Guard 2.6 0.5 -3.3 0.5

FEMA -9.9 0.5 -5.7 0.4

FLETC 0.5 0.6 6.8 0.5

ICE -9.8 0.6 -8.4 0.5

I&A -13.9 0.5 -10.6 0.5

IG 6.4 0.9 4.2 0.8

MGMT -6.9 0.6 -3.0 0.6

NPPD -11.3 0.5 -9.0 0.5

S&T -15.7 0.6 -9.6 0.8

USSS 3.6 0.6 0.1 0.5

Office of Secretary -7.7 0.6 -8.5 0.7

TSA -12.4 0.5 -12.2 0.4

DHS, no component 7.5 0.3 3.3 1.4

Components existing prior to DHS creation 2.5 0.8 0.5 2.0

Components created with DHS (plus TSA) -8.8 1.4 -6.8 1.9

Source: GAO analysis of 2011 FEVS data.

Note: Engagement statistics are the in-sample proportion of employees who are predicted by model 1 

to be engaged or satisfied on GAO’s measure.

Our analysis discussed in this appendix has a narrow scope: assessing 

whether demographic differences among employees explain the morale 

differences across DHS and non-DHS employees. Consequently, DHS or 

others could expand and improve upon our findings.

Opportunities for 

Additional Analysis
Appendix I: Statistical Analysis of Employee 

Morale at Department of Homeland Security 

and Other Agencies

Page 57 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Future work could examine whether attitudinal differences among 

employees at DHS and other agencies explain the overall morale gap, in 

addition to demographic differences. The 2011 FEVS measures 

employee attitudes about pay, benefits, health and safety hazards, 

training, supervisors, and other issues that could vary meaningfully 

between employees at DHS and other agencies and, therefore, explain 

why DHS has lower morale. One might include these factors in a

decomposition similar to the one we performed in this appendix. This 

could further assess how factors unique to DHS and factors that are 

common across all agencies explain the overall morale gap.

A broader attitudinal analysis likely would require the use of more 

sophisticated statistical methods for estimating the values of and 

relationships among latent variables. The broad measures of morale we 

analyze in this appendix, such as the OPM Employee Engagement index, 

are made up of responses to questions on smaller dimensions, such as 

leadership and supervision. To avoid simply replicating the correlations 

that were used to create the indexes, latent variable models could be 

useful to examine the relationships among these concepts and compare 

morale on latent scales between DHS and non-DHS agencies. This was 

beyond the scope of our work.
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

The objectives for this report were to evaluate (1) how DHS employee 

morale compares with that of other federal government employees and 

(2) to what extent DHS and its selected components determined the root 

causes of employee morale and developed action plans to improve 

morale.

To address our objectives, we evaluated both DHS-wide efforts and 

efforts at four selected components to address employee morale—CBP, 

ICE, TSA, and the Coast Guard. We selected the four DHS components 

based on their workforce size and how their 2011 job satisfaction and 

engagement index scores1 compare with the non-DHS average.2 The 

components selected had scores both above, below, and similar to the 

average: TSA—below average on both indexes, constituting 25 percent of 

the DHS workforce; ICE—below average on both indexes, accounting for

9 percent of the DHS workforce; CBP—at the non-DHS average for 

satisfaction and below on engagement, representing 27 percent of the 

DHS workforce; and the civilian portion of the Coast Guard—at the nonDHS average for satisfaction and above on engagement, composing 4 

percent of the DHS workforce.3

To evaluate how DHS’s employee morale compares with that of other 

federal government employees, we analyzed employee responses to the 

2011 FEVS. We determined that the 2011 FEVS data were reliable for 

the purposes of our report, based on interviews with OPM staff, review 

and analysis of technical documentation of its design and administration, 

and electronic testing. We used two measures created by OPM—the 

employee job satisfaction and engagement indexes—to describe morale 

Together these components represent 65 

percent of DHS’s workforce.

 

1

The job satisfaction index, composed of seven FEVS questions such as “my work gives 

me a feeling of personal accomplishment,” indicates the extent to which employees are 

satisfied with their jobs and various aspects thereof. The Engagement Index, composed of 

15 FEVS questions, indicates the extent to which employees are immersed in the content 

of the job and energized to spend extra effort in job performance.

2

Throughout this report, non-DHS refers to all federal employee FEVS responses outside 

of DHS.

3

The FEVS does not survey military personnel. Therefore, for the purposes of our review, 

our focus at the Coast Guard was on morale-related concerns for the Coast Guard’s 

civilian workforce, which included 8,342 employees in 2011. The Coast Guard’s civilian 

workforce is responsible for supporting the Coast Guard mission through over 200 

different types of professional and trade fields, such as engineering, information 

technology, administration, and electrical work. 

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 59 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

across the federal government and within DHS. We calculated these 

measures for various demographic groups, DHS components, and work 

groups, in order to compare morale at DHS and other agencies among 

employees who were demographically similar, in part using statistical 

models. Appendix I describes our methods and findings in more detail. In 

addition, we interviewed employee groups about morale to identify 

examples of what issues may drive high and low morale within DHS. We 

selected the employee groups based on the size of the employee group 

within each selected component, ensuring we met with employees from 

employee groups that composed significant proportions of FEVS 

respondents, such as screeners from TSA (61 percent of TSA 

respondents) and homeland security investigators from ICE (33 percent 

of ICE respondents). The comments received from these interviews are 

not generalizable to entire groups of component employees, but provide 

insights into the differing issues that can drive morale.

To determine the extent to which DHS and the selected components 

identified the root causes of employee morale and developed action plans 

for improvements, we reviewed analysis results, interviewed agency 

human capital officials and representatives of employee groups, and 

evaluated action plans for improving morale. To identify criteria for 

determining effective root cause analysis using survey data, we reviewed 

both OPM and Partnership for Public Service guidance for action planning 

based on annual employee survey results. On the basis of these 

guidance documents, we identified factors that should be considered in 

employee survey analysis that attempts to understand morale problems, 

such as use of demographic group comparisons, benchmarking results 

against results at similar organizations, and the linking results of root 

cause analyses to action planning efforts. We evaluated documents 

summarizing DHS-wide and selected component root cause analyses of 

the 2011 FEVS to determine whether the factors we identified were 

included in the analyses. In addition, we interviewed DHS officials who 

conducted the analyses in order to fully understand root cause analysis 

efforts. To identify criteria for determining agency action plans we 

reviewed OPM guidance for using FEVS results and previous GAO work 

indicating agencies’ success in measuring performance. On the basis of 

these guidance documents, we identified OPM’s six steps that should be 

considered in developing action plans and identified three attributes that 

were relevant for measuring action plan performance—linkage, clarity, 

and measurable target. We compared the action plans with these criteria 

to determine whether these items were included in the action plans. In 

addition, we interviewed DHS and component officials to identify efforts to 

leverage best practices for improving morale.
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 60 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 through 

September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of 

Morale Problems

Page 61 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Since 2007 DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) 

has completed several efforts to determine root causes of morale DHSwide.

Focus groups. In 2007 OCHCO conducted focus groups to determine 

employee concerns related to employee morale. DHS’s focus group effort 

probed for insights into four areas—(1) leadership, (2) communication, (3) 

empowerment, and (4) resources—and highlighted concerns raised by 

focus group participants in each of those areas. For example, within the 

leadership area, OCHCO’s focus group analysis found that the Customs 

and Immigration reorganization was a topic discussed by many of the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(CIS) personnel, especially what they felt was a lack of mission 

understanding on the part of their managers. According to the analysis, 

non-supervisory participants expressed dissatisfaction with the 

combination of three types of inspection functions to present “one face at 

the border.” 

Focus group results were distributed to DHS components for 

consideration in action planning efforts, according to OCHCO officials. 

CBP, CIS, TSA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 

and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center each addressed at 

least one of the focus group results relating to leadership, communication, 

empowerment, or resources in subsequent action plans, according to 

OCHCO officials.

Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of Morale 

Problems 

DHS Efforts to Determine 

Root Causes of Morale 

Problems

One Face at the Border

For operations at ports of entry, in September 2003 CBP issued its plan for 

consolidating the inspection functions formerly performed by separate inspectors from 

the three legacy agencies—customs inspectors from U.S. Customs, immigration 

inspectors and Border Patrol from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, 

and the agriculture border inspectors from the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service. The plan, referred to as “One Face at the Border,” 

called for unifying and integrating the legacy inspectors into two new positions—a CBP 

officer and a CBP agricultural specialist. The new CBP officer would serve as the 

frontline officer responsible for carrying out the priority anti-terrorism mission as well as 

the traditional customs and immigration inspection functions while also identifying and 

referring goods in need of a more extensive agricultural inspection to the agricultural 

specialist. CBP anticipated that having a well-trained and well-integrated workforce that 

could carry out the complete range of inspection functions involving the processing of 

individuals and goods would allow it to utilize its inspection resources more effectively 

and enable it to better target potentially high-risk travelers. Together, CBP envisioned 

the result to be more effective inspections and enhanced security at ports of entry while 

also accelerating the processing of legitimate trade and travel.
Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of 

Morale Problems

Page 62 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Statistical analysis. In 2008 OCHCO performed statistical analysis of 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data, beyond examining 

high- and low-scoring questions, in an effort to determine what workplace 

factors drove employee job satisfaction. Specifically, the analysis involved 

isolating which sets of FEVS questions most affect employee job 

satisfaction. The analysis found that five work areas identified in FEVS 

questions drive employee job satisfaction: (1) performance and rewards, 

(2) supervisor support, (3) physical conditions and safety, (4) senior 

leadership effectiveness, and (5) the DHS mission. According to OCHCO 

officials, DHS components were encouraged to conduct follow-up 

discussions at the lowest possible organizational level based on 

component survey scores in each of the five work areas. However, 

OCHCO officials stated that they are not aware of any results of this effort 

because OCHCO did not track or follow-up with the components on the 

effect of key driver discussions that may have occurred. In addition, 

increased emphasis on supervisor performance management training 

was also implemented as a result of the analysis, according to OCHCO 

officials.

Exit survey. In 2011, DHS began administering an exit survey to 

understand why employees choose to leave their DHS positions. 

Specifically, according to OCHCO officials, the DHS exit survey was 

designed to determine where departing employees were moving both 

inside and outside of DHS, to identify barriers related to diversity, to 

identify reasons that veterans may be leaving DHS, and to capture 

feedback from interns. The 2011 exit survey found, among other things, 

that 27 percent of departing employees who responded to the exit survey 

were staying within DHS or moving to a different position, and an 

additional 12 percent of respondents were retiring. Lack of quality 

supervision and advancement opportunities were the top reasons 

responding employees indicated for leaving their positions.1

2011 FEVS analysis. For the 2011 FEVS, DHS’s OCHCO evaluated the 

results by comparing Human Capital Assessment and Accountability 

Framework (HCAAF) index results by component. The analysis showed 

Exit survey 

results are shared with DHS components on a quarterly and annual basis.

 

1

Results from DHS’ exit survey should be interpreted with caution. Because of the 

method in which the survey is administered, its response rate in 2011 was quite low, close 

to 40 percent. It is likely that a higher response rate would have produced somewhat 

different results.
Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of 

Morale Problems

Page 63 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

where the lowest index scores were concentrated. As shown in figure 8, 

lower scores across the indexes were concentrated among several 

components, including Intelligence and Analysis, Transportation and 

Security Administration (TSA), ICE, National Protection and Programs 

Directorate, and FEMA.

Figure 8: DHS’s 2011 Component Comparison Based on Four HCAAF Indexes

The analysis also determined how DHS’s scores on the four indexes 

trended over time and compared with governmentwide averages. As 

shown in figure 9, DHS-wide scores have generally trended upward over 
Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of 

Morale Problems

Page 64 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

time, but continue to lag behind governmentwide averages for each 

index.

Figure 9: DHS HCAAF Scores since 2006

Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee (EEESC). In 

January 2012 the DHS Secretary directed all component heads to take 

steps to improve employee engagement through launch of the EEESC. 

According to OCHCO officials, the EEESC was launched in response to 

congressional concerns about DHS employee morale and the Partnership 

for Public Service results showing DHS’s low placement on the list of Best 

Places to Work. The EEESC is charged with serving as the DHS 

corporate body responsible for identifying DHS-wide initiatives to improve 

employee engagement, oversee the efforts of each DHS component to 

address employee engagement, and provide periodic reports to the 

Under Secretary for Management, Deputy Secretary, and Secretary on 

DHS-wide efforts to improve employee morale and engagement. 

Specifically, the Secretary made the following directives to component 

heads:
Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of 

Morale Problems

Page 65 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

• develop and assume responsibility for employee engagement 

improvement plans,

• identify and assign specific responsibilities for improved employee 

engagement to component senior executive performance objectives,

• identify and assign a senior accountable official to serve on the 

EEESC,

• conduct town hall meetings with employees,

• attend a Labor-Management Forum meeting, and

• provide monthly reports on actions planned and progress made to the 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.

As of August 2012, each of the Secretary’s directives were completed, 

with the exception of assigning responsibilities for improved employee 

engagement to Senior Executive performance objectives, which DHS 

plans to implement in October 2012 as part of the next senior executive 

performance period. The EEESC met in February 2012, and component 

representatives shared their latest action plans and discussed issues of 

joint concern. In preparation for the 2012 FEVS, the EEESC released a 

memorandum from the Secretary describing the responsibilities of the 

EEESC, highlighting department actions, and encouraging employee 

participation in the FEVS, which began in April 2012. The EEESC also 

agreed that a corresponding message should be released from 

component heads outlining specific component actions taken in response 

to past survey results and encouraging participation in the next survey. In 

an April 2012 EEESC meeting, the Partnership for Public Service 

provided a briefing describing the Best Places to Work in the Federal 

Government rankings and best practices across the government for 

improving morale scores. The EEESC members also discussed methods 

for improving the response rates for the upcoming survey and engaged in 

an action planning exercise designed to help identify actions for 

department-wide deployment, according to OCHCO officials. As of 

August 2012, EEESC action items were in development and had not 

been finalized. According to OCHCO officials, the EEESC plans to decide 

on action items by September 2012, but a projected date for full 

implementation has yet to be established because the actions have not 

been decided upon.

In addition to the DHS-wide efforts, the components we selected for 

review—ICE, TSA, the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and CBP—

conducted varying levels of analyses regarding the root causes of morale 

issues to inform agency action planning efforts. The selected components 

each analyzed FEVS data to understand leading issues that may relate to 

Components Have Also 

Conducted Some Root 

Cause Analyses Using 

FEVS Results
Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of 

Morale Problems

Page 66 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

morale, but the results indicated where job satisfaction problem areas 

may exist and do not identify the causes of dissatisfaction within 

employee groups. A discussion of the four selected components’ 2011 

FEVS analysis and results are described below.

TSA. In its analysis of the 2011 FEVS, TSA focused on areas of concern 

across groups, such as pay and performance appraisal concerns, and 

also looked for insight on which employee groups within TSA may be 

more dissatisfied with their jobs than others by comparing employee 

group scores on satisfaction-related questions. TSA compared its results 

with CBP results, as well as against DHS and governmentwide results. 

When comparing CBP and TSA scores, TSA found that the greatest 

differences in scores were on questions related to satisfaction with pay 

and whether performance appraisals were a fair reflection of 

performance. TSA scored 40 percentage points lower on pay satisfaction 

and 25 percentage points lower on performance appraisal satisfaction. In 

comparing TSA results with DHS and governmentwide results, TSA found 

that TSA was below the averages for all FEVS dimensions.2

ICE. In its analysis of the 2011 FEVS, ICE analyzed the results by 

identifying ICE’s FEVS questions with the top positive and negative 

responses. ICE found that its top strength was employees’ willingness to 

put in the extra effort to get a job done. ICE’s top negative result was 

employees’ perceptions that pay raises did not depend on how well 

employees perform their jobs. ICE also sorted the primary low-scoring 

results into action planning themes, such as leadership, empowerment, 

and work-life balance. ICE found, among other things, that employee 

views on the fairness of its performance appraisals were above DHS’s 

average but that views on employee preparation for potential security 

threats were lower. When comparing ICE’s results with average 

governmentwide figures, ICE found, among other things, that ICE was 

lower on all of the HCAAF indexes, including job satisfaction. According 

TSA also 

evaluated FEVS results across employee groups by comparing 

dimension scores for headquarters staff, the Federal Air Marshals, 

Federal Security Director staff, and the screening workforce. TSA found 

that the screening workforce scored at or below scores for all other 

groups across all of the dimensions.

 

2

The FEVS includes questions grouped into the following dimensions: work experiences, 

supervisor/team leader, agency, work unit, leadership, satisfaction, and work/life.
Appendix III: DHS and Selected Component 

Steps Taken to Determine Root Causes of 

Morale Problems

Page 67 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

to ICE human capital officials, future root cause analysis plans for the 

2012 FEVS are to benchmark FEVS scores with those of similar law 

enforcement agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency; Federal 

Bureau of Investigation; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; 

United States Secret Service; Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the 

U.S. Marshals.

CBP. In its analysis of the 2011 FEVS, CBP focused its analysis on 

trends since 2006. For example, the analysis showed that CBP increased 

its scores by 5 or more percentage points for 36 of the 39 core FEVS 

questions. CBP highlighted its greatest increases in HCAAF areas, such 

as results-oriented performance, which showed a 21 percent 

improvement over 2006 responses to the question—my performance 

appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. The analysis also 

identified areas in greatest need of improvement, which showed progress 

since 2006 but continued low scores, such as questions on dealing with 

poor performers who cannot or will not improve (28 percent positive), 

promotions based on merit (28 percent positive) and differences in 

performance are recognized (34 percent positive).3

Coast Guard. In its review of high and low 2011 FEVS responses, the 

Coast Guard identified employee responses to two questions that 

warranted action planning items—(1) How satisfied are you with the 

information you receive from management on what’s going on in your 

organization (53 percent positive) and (2) My training needs are assessed 

(51 percent positive).4

 

3

CBP noted its three FEVS scores as low, but CBP’s scores are not substantially lower 

than the governmentwide scores. In the 2011 FEVS, the governmentwide average for the 

three questions were: dealing with poor performers who cannot or will not improve (31 

percent positive), promotions based on merit (36 percent positive) and differences in 

performance are recognized (36 percent positive).

The Coast Guard officials did not provide any 

additional FEVS analyses that were used to inform action planning.

4

The Coast Guard’s scores on these questions are not substantially different from the 

governmentwide averages (51 percent positive on information satisfaction with information 

received and 54 percent positive on training needs). However, according to an OCHCO 

official who monitored the Coast Guard’s action planning in previous years, these 

questions were addressed in the Coast Guard’s action plan because they have an impact 

on other low-scoring items and were important for employee satisfaction. 
Appendix IV: Selected Components’ Data 

Sources for Evaluating Morale, Other than the 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

Page 68 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Component Data source Purpose Summary of results and how used

U.S. Immigration 

and Customs 

Enforcement

DHS exit survey Identify why employees leave the 

agency and where they are going. 

The number of exit survey respondents 

from ICE was too low to identify any 

results and have not been used to 

address morale as of June 2012, 

according to ICE officials.

Federal Organizational 

Climate Survey (FOCS) and 

focus groups

Last conducted in March 2012, the 

FOCS is a data-gathering tool for 

addressing the extent to which 

employees perceive their 

organizational culture as one that 

incorporates mutual respect, 

acceptance, teamwork, and 

productivity among individuals who are 

diverse in the dimensions of human 

differences. Additionally, ICE conducts 

focus groups and individual one-on-one 

interview sessions to obtain clarifying 

information pertaining to the FOCS 

results and written comments.

The survey showed low employee 

perceptions of ICE as an organization 

where people trust and care for each 

other, relative to the federal average, 

according to ICE officials. The results 

from the FOCS and feedback from the 

focus groups and individual one-on-one 

interview sessions are provided to ICE 

program offices with recommended 

strategies to improve the program 

office’s organizational climate.

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection

Focus groups Conducted in 2007, focus groups were 

launched in response to the 2006 

annual employee survey results, which 

showed CBP below DHS and 

governmentwide averages. 

The focus groups identified employees’

perceived problems in specific work 

environment areas, such as leaders 

lacking supervisory or communication 

skills.

Among other things, the issues 

identified by focus group participants 

allowed CBP to develop action plans 

that addressed these issues, according 

to CBP officials.

Most Valuable Perspective 

online survey (MVP)

Launched in 2009, this survey was 

implemented to solicit employee 

opinions on one topic per quarter as a 

mechanism for gathering further 

insights on FEVS results. The MVP 

was implemented as a continuation of 

the CBP focus groups completed in 

2007.

In the July 2012 MVP, which solicited 

employee preferences for future CBP 

webcasts to employees, employees 

suggested retirement planning and 

financial management as their top two 

preferences. CBP’s action plan 

planning process in response to FEVS 

results includes consideration of MVP 

results, according to CBP officials. 

Appendix IV: Selected Components’ Data 

Sources for Evaluating Morale, Other than 

the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
Appendix IV: Selected Components’ Data 

Sources for Evaluating Morale, Other than the 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

Page 69 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Component Data source Purpose Summary of results and how used

Coast Guard U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management Organizational 

Assessment Survey (OAS)

Beginning in 2002, in order to provide 

the granularity, detail, and reliability 

needed to ensure the best 

organizational value, the Coast Guard 

adopted the OAS as its primary 

personnel attitude survey, according to 

Coast Guard officials. The OAS is 

administered to military (active and 

reserve) and civilian personnel 

biennially.

OPM’s report to the Coast Guard on 

the 2010 OAS results identified seven 

strong organizational areas (diversity, 

teamwork, work environment, 

leadership and quality, communication, 

employee involvement and supervision) 

and three areas for improvement 

(innovation, use of resources, and 

rewards/recognition).

Coast Guard unit commanders and 

headquarters program managers use 

the OAS to support overall Coast 

Guard improvement. This improvement 

is achieved by feeding results of the 

OAS to Coast Guard Unit Commanders 

and Program Managers who then use 

OAS results in conjunction with other 

information as part of routine unit and 

program leadership and management.

Transportation 

Security 

Administration

TSA exit survey Identify why employees leave the 

agency, launched in 2005.

Top reasons for leaving overall were 

personal reasons, career 

advancement, management, schedule, 

and pay. Each quarterly report includes 

actions managers should take to 

reduce turnover. A real-time reporting 

system is also available for each airport 

and office within TSA so managers can 

gain access to their results and use 

them to reduce turnover and make 

improvements, according to DHS 

officials.

Results from the exit survey were also 

used by TSA officials in updating TSA’s 

action plan, according to TSA officials. 

However, the July 2012 action plan did 

not link exit survey findings to action 

items. 

Idea Factory An online tool for gathering employee 

suggestions for agency improvement. 

Each week, approximately 4,000 TSA 

employees log on to rate, comment, or 

search, or to submit ideas of their own. 

The Idea Factory team reviews all 

submissions and uses Idea Factory 

challenges to implement solutions to 

issues.

Results were not available for our 

evaluation.

National Advisory Council Two-year detail for TSA field 

representatives to collect and address 

workplace environment issues

Results were not available for our 

evaluation.
Appendix IV: Selected Components’ Data 

Sources for Evaluating Morale, Other than the 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

Page 70 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Component Data source Purpose Summary of results and how used

DHS Ombudsman Provides informal problem resolution 

services with the mission of promoting 

fair and equitable treatment in matters 

involving TSA, according to TSA 

officials. The Ombudsman assists 

customers by identifying options, 

making referrals, explaining policies 

and procedures, coaching individuals 

on how to constructively deal with

problems, facilitating dialogue, and 

mediating disputes.

Results were not available for our 

evaluation.

Employee Advisory 

Committee

Each airport and TSA headquarters 

has an employee advisory council 

made up of elected members who work 

on understanding and addressing a 

variety of workplace issues.

Results were not available for our 

evaluation.

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with agency officials and documents provided by DHS.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 71 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 72 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 73 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Office 

of Personnel Management
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 74 GAO-12-940 DHS Employee Morale

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director), 

Sandra Burrell (Assistant Director), Lydia Araya, Ben Atwater, Tracey 

King, Kirsten Lauber, Jean Orland, Jessica Orr, and Jeff Tessin made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441016)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.