GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION 

TSA Executive 

Attrition Has 

Declined, but Better 

Information Is Needed 

on Reasons for 

Leaving and Executive 

Hiring Process 

October 2009 

GAO-10-139 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2009

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION 

TSA Executive Attrition Has Declined, but Better 

Information Is Needed on Reasons for Leaving and 

Executive Hiring Process

Highlights of GAO-10-139, a report to 

Senate and House Committees on 

Appropriations 

The Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) 

Transportation Security Executive 

Service (TSES) consists of 

executive-level staff serving in key 

agency positions just below 

political appointees. Committees 

of Congress have raise questions 

about the frequency of turnover 

within the TSES and have directed 

GAO to examine turnover among 

TSES staff. Accordingly, this 

report examines: (1) TSES attrition 

and how it compares with that of 

Senior Executive Service (SES) 

staff in other DHS components and 

cabinet-level departments, (2) the 

reasons TSES staff separated from 

TSA, and (3) TSA efforts to mange 

TSES attrition consistent with 

effective management practices. 

To answer these objectives, GAO 

analyzed data within the Office of 

Personnel Management’s Central 

Personnel Data File, reviewed TSA 

human capital policies and 

procedures, and interviewed 

former TSES staff. The results of 

these interviews are not 

generalizable, but represent the 

views of about half the TSES staff 

who separated from fiscal years 

2005 through 2008. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends the TSA enable 

TSES staff to identify their level of 

employment when completing exit 

surveys and better document how 

it applies merit staffing 

requirements when hiring TSES 

staff. TSA concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations and has taken 

steps to implement them. 

Separation data from fiscal years 2004 through 2008 show that attrition among 

TSA’s TSES staff was consistently lower than the rate of attrition among all DHS 

SES staff and, through 2007, higher than SES attrition for all other cabinet-level 

departments. Separations among TSES staff peaked at 20 percent in fiscal years 

2005, but declined each year thereafter, and resignations (as opposed to 

retirements, terminations, transfers to other cabinet level departments, or 

expirations of a term appointment) were the most frequent type of TSES 

separations over this period. 

In interviews with 46 former TSES staff, the majority (36 of 46) identified at least 

one adverse reason (that is, a reason related to dissatisfaction with some aspect 

of their experience at TSA) for leaving, as opposed to a nonadverse reason (such 

as leaving the agency for another professional opportunity). The two most 

frequently cited reasons for separation were dissatisfaction with the leadership 

style of the TSA administrator or those reporting directly to him (14 of 46) and to 

pursue another professional opportunity (14 of 46). 

To better address TSES attrition and manage executive resources, TSA has 

implemented measures consistent with effective human capital management 

practices and standards for internal control in the federal government. These 

measures include, among other things, reinstating an exit survey and establishing 

a process for hiring TSES staff that encompasses merit staffing requirements. 

However, TSA could improve upon these measures. For example, due to TSA 

officials’ concerns about respondents’ anonymity, TSA’s new exit survey 

precludes TSES staff from identifying their position. Without such information, it 

will be difficult for TSA to identify reasons for attrition specific for TSES staff. 

Moreover, inconsistent with internal control standards, TSA did not document its 

adherence with at least one merit staffing procedure for 20 of 25 TSES hired in 

calendar year 2006 and 8 of 16 TSES hired in calendar year 2008. Although there 

are internal mechanisms that provide TSA officials reasonable assurance that 

merit staffing principles are followed, better documentation could also help TSA 

demonstrate to an independent third party, the Congress, and the public that its 

process for hiring TSES staff is fair and open. 

Comparison of Attrition Rates among Executives at TSA, DHS, and Cabinet-level Agencies

(Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008). 

All of DHS (excluding TSA)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Rate of attrition

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File.

Fiscal year

TSA All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS)

View GAO-10-139 or key components.

For more information, contact Stephen M. 

Lord at (202) 512-8777 or lords@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-139 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 6 

TSES Attrition Has Declined Since 2005 and Has Consistently Been 

Lower than SES Attrition at Other DHS Components and, Until 

Recently, Above SES Attrition at Other Cabinet-level 

Departments 12 

Former TSES Staff We Interviewed Primarily Cited Adverse 

Reasons for Leaving TSA; Current TSA Employees and Other 

Stakeholders Expressed Varying Views on the Impact of These 

Separations 17 

Nonadverse Reasons Cited for Leaving TSA 20 

Adverse Reasons Cited for Leaving TSA 20 

TSA Has Taken Steps to Manage TSES Attrition by Affording 

Separating TSES Staff the Opportunity to Complete an Exit 

Survey and Decreasing Its Use of Limited Term Appointments, 

but Limited Exit Survey Data May Hinder Efforts 26 

Conclusions 33 

Recommendations for Executive Action 33 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36 

Appendix II Transportation Security Executive Service Staff 

Attrition Data 50 

Appendix III Transportation Security Administration National 

Exit Survey 56 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 58 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61 

 

TSA Executive Attrition 
Tables 

Table 1: Differences between OPM and TSA Policies and 

Procedures Related to Executive Staff 7 

Table 2: Number of Executive-level Staff Employed per Thousand 

Nonexecutive Staff at DHS Agencies and TSA for Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2008 10 

Table 3: Total TSES Headquarters and Field Staff, Fiscal Years 2004 

through 2008a 11 

Table 4: Number of TSES Staff Who Left TSA from Fiscal Years 

2004 through 2008, by Type of Separation 14 

Table 5: Reasons for Leaving TSA Citied by Former TSES Staff 

Members a (N=46) 19 

Table 6: Number of New Limited Term TSES Appointments and 

Total New TSES Appointments for Fiscal Years 2004 

through 2008 28 

Table 7: Number of Hiring Decisions for TSES Positions Filled in 

Calendar Years 2006 and 2008 for which TSA 

Documentation of Merit Staffing Procedures Was Missing 

or Unclear 32 

Table 8: TSES Staff Who Separated from Fiscal Years 2005 through 

2008 Possessing Selection Criteria Characteristics 40 

Table 9: Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 Separated TSES Staff 

Members’ Cited Reasons for Leaving TSA 41 

Table 10: Seven Key Merit Staffing Requirements 48 

Table 11: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Data by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at All DHS Components 51 

Table 12: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level 

Departments 51 

Table 13: Fiscal Year 2005 Attrition Data by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at All DHS Components 52 

Table 14: Fiscal Year 2005 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level 

Departments 52 

Table 15: Fiscal Year 2006 Attrition Data by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at All DHS Components 53 

Table 16: Fiscal Year 2006 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-Level 

Departments 53 

Table 17: Fiscal Year 2007 Attrition Data by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at All DHS Components 54 

Page ii GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Table 18: Fiscal Year 2007 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level 

Departments 54 

Table 19: Fiscal Year 2008 Attrition Data by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at All DHS Components 55 

Table 20: Fiscal Year 2008 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for 

Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-Level 

Departments 55 

Figures 

Figure 1: Comparison of Attrition Rates among All TSES Staff, 

Headquarters TSES staff, and Field TSES staff, for Fiscal 

Years 2004 through 2008 13 

Figure 2: Comparison of Attrition Rates among Executives at TSA, 

DHS, and Other Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 

through 2008) 15 

Figure 3: Comparison of Rates of Resignation among Executives at 

TSA, DHS, and Other Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 

2004 through 2008) 16 

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 iii GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Page 1 GAO-10-139 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 9, 2009 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Chairman 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable David E. Price 

Chairman 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the President 

signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) into law on 

November 19, 2001, establishing the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) as the agency responsible for securing the nation’s 

transportation systems, including civil aviation, highways, railroads, buses, 

mass transit systems, ports, and pipelines.1

 Immediately after its 

formation, TSA began assembling a cadre of senior-level career staff to 

help establish the new agency. These staff members became part of the 

agency’s Transportation Security Executive Service (TSES), which—

similar to the Senior Executive Service (SES) of other executive branch 

agencies—is comprised of individuals selected for their executive 

leadership experience and subject area expertise to serve in key agency 

positions just below presidential appointees. 

In June 2007, a report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives noted that TSA had frequent and sustained attrition within 

its TSES ranks, resulting in a lack of historical knowledge about the 

1

TSA was initially created as an agency within the Department of Transportation. See Pub. 

L. No. 107-71, § 101(a), 115 Stat. 597 (2001) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 114). In 

March 2003, TSA, along with 21 other agencies, was transferred to the newly established 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). See Pub. L. No. 107-196, § 403(2), 116 Stat. 2135, 

2178 (2002). 

TSA Executive Attrition 
 

programs and policies of the agency.2 We have also reported that the 

extensive loss of experienced workers can lead to critical gaps in an 

agency’s leadership, skills, and institutional knowledge.3

 Due to its 

concern over TSA executive turnover, the Committee, in its report, 

encouraged TSA to take appropriate measures to build a stable, senior 

executive workforce so that when a change in political administration 

occurs, the agency can continue operating throughout the transition 

period without a diminution in transportation security oversight. 

Subsequently, the explanatory statement accompanying the DHS 

Appropriations Act, 2008, directed GAO to examine attrition—defined in 

this report as any type of separation from service (e.g., resignation, 

retirement, transfer)—among TSES staff since the agency’s formation.4

Accordingly, this report addresses the following questions: 

1. What has been the attrition rate among TSES staff for fiscal years 2004 

through 2008, and how does it compare to attrition among SES staff in 

other DHS components and cabinet-level departments?5

2. What reasons did former TSES staff provide for leaving TSA, and how 

do current TSA officials and industry stakeholders view the impact of 

TSES attrition on TSA’s operations? 

3. To what extent are current TSA efforts to manage TSES attrition 

consistent with effective human capital practices and standards for 

internal control in the federal government?6

 

2

See H.R. Rep. No. 110-181, at 63 (June 8, 2007) (accompanying H.R. 2638, the DHS 

Appropriations Bill, 2008). 

3

GAO, Older Workers: Federal Agencies Face Challenges, but Have Opportunities to Hire 

and Retain Experienced Employees, GAO-08-630T (Washington D.C.: Apr. 30, 2008). 

4

See Explanatory Statement accompanying Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2042 (2007), at 1054. The Explanatory 

Statement directed GAO to “report on the history of senior executive service-level career 

turnover since the formation of TSA.” As such, our analysis does not include turnover 

among political appointees or senior-level TSA staff who do not hold executive-level 

positions even though some of these individuals perform work similar to TSES staff. For 

example, Federal Security Director (FSD) positions at larger airports are TSES-level, while 

FSD positions at smaller airports, generally, are not. In our analysis we only included 

turnover among TSES-level FSDs. 

5

These cabinet-level departments are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Education, Energy, Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans 

Affairs. 

Page 2 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

To address the first objective, we obtained fiscal year 2004 through 2008 

data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central Personnel 

Data File (CPDF) to determine the rate of attrition among TSES staff and 

SES staff in other DHS components and cabinet-level departments.7

 We 

selected this time period because 2004 was the first full fiscal year during 

which TSA was a part of DHS after transferring from the Department of 

Transportation in March 2003, and 2008 was the most recently completed 

fiscal year for which attrition data were available in CPDF. To calculate 

attrition rates, we divided the total number of TSES who separated in a 

given fiscal year by the average number of TSES employed by the agency 

for that fiscal year.8

 For these calculations, we included all separation 

types—that is, the manner in which the TSES or SES staff member left the 

agency or department, such as through resignation, transfer to another 

cabinet-level department, retirement, termination, and expiration of a term 

appointment.9

 However, we did not include transfers from TSA to other 

SES positions within DHS because this information was not readily 

identifiable within CPDF data. We found CPDF data sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of this study. In addition to calculating the overall rate of 

attrition for TSA, DHS, and cabinet-level departments, we also calculated 

attrition rates for each separation type. To place TSA’s senior executive 

 

6

Internal controls comprise the plans, methods, and procedures an agency uses to provide 

reasonable assurance that it can meet its missions, goals, and objectives; they also serve as 

the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. A 

general framework for internal controls has been adopted by leading accountability 

organizations, including the GAO, the International Organization of Supreme Audit 

Institutions, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). See GAO, Standards 

for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington D.C.: 

November 1999). 

7

OPM’s Central Personnel Data File is a repository of selected human capital data for most 

executive branch employees, including separations data. Political appointees were not 

included among the TSES and SES data we analyzed. Furthermore, for agencies like TSA 

that do not have SES, we included SES-equivalent positions. When we refer to “executives” 

throughout this report, we are referring to TSES, SES, and SES-equivalent positions. 

8

More specifically, we determined the average number of TSES employed in a given fiscal 

year by averaging (1) the number of executive staff in the CPDF as of the last pay period of 

the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year for which the attrition rate was calculated and (2) the 

number of executive staff in CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal year in which the 

attrition occurred. 

9

For all DHS SES attrition calculations, we included all SES staff separations from 

department-level employment, except those from TSA. For all cabinet-level department 

SES attrition calculations, we included all SES staff separations from cabinet-level 

departments except those from DHS. GAO does not generally present percentages when 

the total population is less than 50. For this reason, this report discusses changes in the 

rate of executive employment only for TSA, DHS, and all cabinet-level departments—each 

of which has executive populations numbering over 50. 

Page 3 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

attrition rate in context, we compared it to the overall DHS SES attrition 

rate (excluding TSA) and the overall SES attrition rate for all other 

cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS). 

To obtain data on the reasons why former TSES chose to separate from 

TSA, we conducted interviews with 46 TSES staff who left the agency 

during fiscal years 2005 through 2008. To identify interviewees, we 

obtained a list from TSA of all TSES staff who left the agency during fiscal 

years 2005 through 2008—a total of 95 individuals.10 From this list, we 

ultimately selected a nonprobability sample of 46 individuals for 

interviews in order to achieve diversity among the following three 

characteristics—fiscal year of separation (2005 through 2008), manner of 

separation (resignations, retirements, etc.), and job location (headquarters 

or field).11 To categorize the reasons why the 46 TSES staff separated, we 

conducted a content analysis of their responses to our open-ended 

interview question asking them to describe the reasons why they left the 

agency. Although our sample did not allow us to generalize about the 

reasons for all TSES separations from fiscal years 2005 through 2008, it did 

provide us with the perspectives on why nearly half of these TSES staff 

left TSA. To obtain information on the impact of TSES staff attrition on 

agency operations, we conducted interviews with 22 TSA staff who were 

direct reports to—that is, staff who were directly supervised by—at least 

one of the TSES staff who separated from TSA during fiscal years 2005 

through 2008, as well as 7 TSA officials who had supervised at least one of 

 

10TSA could not readily provide us data for TSES staff separating in fiscal year 2004 (due to 

a change in its data system for tracking human capital data). Therefore we were unable to 

interview staff from this period. 

11Initially, we attempted to select former TSES staff based on a probability sample in order 

to generalize about the reasons for TSES separation. Of the 46 TSES we interviewed, 31 

were selected based upon a randomized list of the 95 separated TSES created to select this 

probability sample. However, we were unable to obtain an acceptable response rate for our 

sample, at which point we determined we would continue interviewing separated TSES 

until we had obtained responses from about half of the 95 separated TSES staff. We 

selected the remaining 15 separated TSES staff in our sample of 46 so that our entire 

sample would have similar proportions of three characteristics (fiscal year of separation, 

manner of separation, and job location) as the population of 95 TSES staff. For example, 66 

percent of the 95 TSES who separated from 2005 through 2008 were employed at 

headquarters, and of the TSES we selected for interviews, about 70 percent had held 

headquarters positions. Ultimately, to obtain our sample of 46 TSES, we contacted a total 

of 70 of the 95 separated TSES, and of these 70, 24 did not respond to our request for an 

interview. See app. I for more information on our sample of TSES. 

Page 4 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

these former TSES staff members.12 To obtain perspectives on how TSES 

attrition may have impacted TSA’s ability to work with stakeholders, we 

obtained information from seven industry associations representing 

various transportation sectors that collaborate with TSA on transportation 

security initiatives—three aviation, one surface, and three maritime 

associations. We identified these associations based upon our existing 

knowledge of contacts at various associations and by canvassing GAO’s 

team of transportation security analysts for additional contacts. The 

results of our interviews with direct reports, supervisors, and industry 

stakeholders are not generalizable, but do provide a range of perspectives 

on the impact of TSES attrition. 

To gather information on the extent to which current TSA efforts to 

manage TSES attrition are consistent with effective human capital 

practices and internal control standards, we first reviewed past GAO 

reports identifying effective human capital practices as well as the 

standards for internal controls in the federal government.13 We also 

reviewed applicable OPM regulations addressing merit staffing.14 We 

conducted interviews with TSA human capital officials on efforts 

underway and reviewed relevant documentation, such as TSA’s exit 

interview protocols (past and planned), completed exit interviews with 

separated staff, succession plans, and procedures for hiring TSES staff 

which incorporate merit staffing requirements. We also reviewed all case 

files containing documentation of the merit staffing procedures TSA 

followed for the competitive selection of all individuals for career TSES 

appointments from March 2006—when TSA established its hiring 

 

12We selected direct reports for interviews by asking the TSES staff members we 

interviewed for names of individuals who directly reported to them and who were still 

working at TSA; they provided us with 52 names, and we requested interviews with 25 of 

these. For the TSES supervisor interviews, TSA provided us with names of all 9 of the TSES 

still working at TSA who supervised any of the 95 TSES staff who separated during fiscal 

years 2005 through 2008; we conducted interviews with all but 2 of the supervisors 

identified. 

13Specifically, we reviewed the following GAO reports: GAO, A Model of Strategic Human 

Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2002), and GAO, Human 

Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 

(Washington, D.C.: December 2003). For internal controls standards, we reviewed GAO, 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington D.C.: November 1999). 

14See 5 C.F.R. pt. 317. 

Page 5 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

process—through the end of calendar year 2006 and for all of calendar 

year 2008.15

We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 to October 2009 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our objectives. Additional details on our scope and methodology 

are included in appendix I. 

Background 

Human Capital Authorities 

and Flexibilities Available 

to TSA with Regard to Its 

Executive Staff 

ATSA applied the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to TSA employees, and further authorized TSA to 

make any modifications to the system it considered necessary.16

Therefore, similar to FAA, TSA is exempt from many of the requirement

imposed and enforced by OPM—the agency responsible for establishing

human capital policies and regulations for the federal government—and, 

thus, has more flexibility in managing its executive workforce than ma

other federal agencies.

s 

ny 

 

17 For example, compared to agencies operating 

15We were interested in comparing how TSA followed its staffing policies, when they were 

initially created in 2006, with how it has followed them more recently in 2008—the most 

recent full calendar year when we undertook our review. Therefore, we did not review case 

files from 2007. 

16See 49 U.S.C. § 114(n). 

17See 49 U.S.C. § 40122 (requiring the establishment of an FAA personnel management 

system that, with certain exceptions, falls outside the authority of OPM and is to provide 

for greater flexibility in the hiring, training, compensation, and location of personnel). 

Many other executive branch agencies operate executive programs that are excluded from 

the SES by statute. These include, for example, the legislative and judicial branch agencies; 

independent government corporations; the Central Intelligence Agency; the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; and certain financial management 

regulatory agencies, among others. However, in commenting on a draft of this report, OPM 

stated that in many instances executives at these agencies continue to be covered by Title 5 

of the U.S. Code and OPM regulations. OPM is charged with ensuring that the federal 

government has an effective civilian workforce; specifically, it oversees the execution, 

administration, and enforcement of civil service laws, including the rules and regulations 

addressing a host of human capital issues, such as the selection, performance, pay, and 

separation of employees, including those pertaining to SES. See generally Civil Service 

Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, as amended. 

Page 6 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

under OPM’s regulations, TSA is not limited in the number of permanent 

TSES appointments and limited term TSES appointments it may make an

the types of positions limited term TSES appointments may be used for. 

Also, TSA has more discretion in granting recruitment, relocation, or 

retention incentives to TSES staff than other agencies have for SES staff 

(see

d 

 table 1). 

Table 1: Differences between OPM and TSA Policies and Procedures Related to Executive Staffa

Categories of executive service 

policies and procedures 

Policies and procedures related to executive 

staff at OPM-regulated agencies 

Policies and procedures related to 

executive staff at TSA 

Types of executive appointments There are four types of executive appointments: 

Career: an appointment in which the SES must 

be selected through merit staffing and have 

executive core qualifications (ECQs) approved by 

OPM; career appointees may fill any agency 

position, and may move to SES positions at other 

agencies without undergoing merit staffing or 

ECQ approval.b

Noncareer: an appointment in which the SES 

may be selected through merit staffing and does 

not have ECQs approved by OPM; noncareer 

appointees may only fill certain positions 

approved for noncareer appointments. 

Limited term: an appointment in which the SES 

does not have to be selected through merit 

staffing or have ECQs approved by OPM; 

appointees may only fill certain positions for a 

limited duration. 

Limited emergency: an appointment in which the 

SES does not have to be selected through merit 

staffing or have ECQs approved by OPM; 

appointees may only fill certain designated 

positions established to meet an unanticipated, 

urgent need. 

There are two types of executive 

appointments: 

Career: an appointment in which the TSES 

must be selected through merit staffing and 

have ECQs approved by OPM; career TSES 

appointees may fill any agency position and 

may move to SES positions at other agencies, 

pursuant to the OPM-DHS interchange 

agreement, without undergoing merit staffing 

or ECQ approval. 

Limited term: an appointment in which the 

TSES does not have to be selected through 

merit staffing or have ECQs approved; limited 

term appointees may fill any position in the 

agency, but may not move to another SES 

position outside of the agency without first 

being selected through merit staffing and 

having their ECQs approved by OPM. 

Duration of limited term 

appointments 

Limited term appointments are up to 3 years in 

length. 

Limited emergency appointments are up to 18 

months in length. 

No limit on the duration of limited term 

appointments, but TSA has self-imposed a 3-

year limit.c

Page 7 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

Categories of executive service 

policies and procedures 

Policies and procedures related to executive 

staff at OPM-regulated agencies 

Policies and procedures related to 

executive staff at TSA 

Limitations on term appointments 

as a percentage of total executive 

positions. 

Noncareer appointments cannot exceed 25 

percent of the number of SES positions allocated 

to the agency and 10 percent of the number of 

SES positions governmentwide. 

Limited term appointments cannot exceed 5 

percent of the number of SES positions 

governmentwide. By regulation, agencies may 

approve limited appointments up to 3 percent of 

the agencies’ allotted number of SES positions. 

OPM approval is required for additional 

appointments. 

No limit on the number of term appointments. 

Compensation Ceiling For SES under an appraisal system certified by 

OPM and the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) as making distinctions in pay based upon 

performance, the pay cap is Level II of the 

Executive Scheduled, ($177,000 in 2009). For 

SES who are not under a certified appraisal 

system, the pay cap is Level III of the Executive 

Schedule ($162,900 in 2009). 

SES pay is subject to an aggregate limitation on 

pay plus pay incentives (such as cash award for 

performance or retention bonus) up to Level I of 

the Executive Schedule ($196,700) or up to the 

Vice President’s salary ($227,300 in 2009) for an 

SES member under an appraisal system certified 

OPM and OMB. 

The TSES maximum rate of basic pay is equal 

to that of Level II of the Executive Schedule. 

TSES pay is generally subject to an aggregate 

limitation on pay plus pay incentives (such as 

cash award for performance or retention 

bonus) up to the Vice President’s salary 

($227,300 in 2009). 

For unique circumstances, the TSA Assistant 

Administrator of the Office of Human Capital 

may waive the limit on aggregate pay up to 

$250,000, but only for the purposes of a 

recruitment, relocation, or retention incentive. 

Source: GAO analysis of TSA and OPM guidance on senior executive programs. 

a

The table does not identify and describe all differences in human capital policies applicable to the 

TSES and the SES of other agencies. 

b

Pursuant to merit staffing requirements, which OPM established by regulation, agencies must 

provide for fair and open competition in their hiring process (by, for example, requiring that all 

candidates be evaluated against stated position requirements). See 5 C.F.R. pt. 317. Qualifications 

review boards (QRB) are convened by OPM and are responsible for reviewing and approving 

applicants’ executive core qualifications (ECQ)—five executive skill sets (leading change, leading 

people, results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions) that OPM has determined are 

needed to succeed in a variety of SES positions. To be evaluated by a QRB, candidates submit 

written narratives identifying how they have demonstrated proficiency in each of the ECQs over their 

career. SES and TSES staff members who have been selected through merit staffing and who have 

had their ECQs approved by a QRB are considered to have been “competitively placed.” As such, 

these individuals are no longer subject to the merit staffing and ECQ approval processes for any 

subsequent position once they fulfill a probationary assignment period. 

c

TSA began limiting limited term appointments to 3 years in 2006; prior to this period, some 

appointments may have been made for different lengths of time. 

d

By statute, maximum rates for SES and senior federal government employees are defined by 

reference to the Executive Schedule, which consists of five pay levels – Level I through Level V, and 

applies to positions identified in 5 U.S.C. § 5312 through § 5316. Level I encompasses the highest 

level of executive pay ($196,700 for 2009); Level II encompasses the second highest ($177,000 for 

2009), etc. 

One benefit available to career-appointed SES in OPM-regulated agencies 

is that once they are accepted into the SES of their agency, they can apply 

Page 8 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

for and obtain SES positions in other OPM-regulated executive branch 

agencies without undergoing the merit staffing process. DHS and OPM 

signed an agreement in February 2004 which also allows career-appointed 

TSES staff the benefit of applying to SES positions without being subject 

to the merit staffing process. Under the provisions of the agreement, TSA 

must ensure that all TSES staff selected for their first career TSES 

appointment (1) are hired using a process that encompasses merit staffing 

principles and (2) undergo the ECQ-evaluation process.18 Consistent with 

OPM regulations,19 a hiring process that encompasses federal merit 

staffing requirements should include: 

 

• public notice of position availability, 

• identification of all minimally eligible candidates, 

• identification of position qualifications,20

• rating and ranking of all eligible candidates using position qualifications,21

• determination of the best qualified candidates (a “best qualified list”),22

• selection of a candidate for the position from among those best qualified, 

and 

• certification of a candidate’s executive and technical qualifications. 

TSES Positions within TSA TSA has consistently employed more senior executives than any other 

DHS component agency; however, as shown in table 2, from fiscal years 

2005 through 2008, TSA went from being one of the DHS components with 

the highest numbers of executive staff per nonexecutive staff, to one of 

the components with the fewest executive staff per nonexecutive staff. 

Specifically, out of eight DHS components, TSA had the third highest 

18Under TSA policy, however, individuals who are being considered for limited term TSES 

appointments do not need to be subject to merit staffing requirements or the ECQevaluation process before being hired, in which case they would not be eligible for transfer 

to an SES position in another federal agency without undergoing the merit staffing process, 

per the interchange agreement, unless they were already an SESer prior to employment at 

TSA. 

19See generally 5 C.F.R. pt. 317. 

20Qualifications contain descriptions of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other jobrelated factors required for the position. 

21Rating involves the agency’s effort to differentiate among eligible candidates on the basis 

of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other job-related factors, which are generally identified 

or based upon descriptions within the position qualifications. See 49 C.F.R. § 317.501(c)(3). 

22Determination of those candidates who are best qualified is based upon the rating and 

ranking process. 

Page 9 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

number of executives per nonexecutive staff in 2005; however, by fiscal 

year 2008, TSA had the third lowest number of executives per 

nonexecutive staff. Compared with DHS overall, TSA had the same 

number of executive per nonexecutive staff as DHS in 2005, but over the 4-

year period, the number of TSA executive to nonexecutive staff declined, 

while that of DHS increased. Moreover, the number of TSA executive staff 

per nonexecutive staff was consistently lower than that of all cabinet-level 

departments for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 (see table 2). 

Table 2: Number of Executive-level Staff Employed per Thousand Nonexecutive Staff at DHS Agencies and TSA for Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2008 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

DHS 

components or 

departments a

Average 

number of 

executives b 

Executives per 

thousand 

nonexecutive 

staff 

Average 

number of 

executives

Executives per 

thousand 

nonexecutive 

staff

Average 

number of 

executives

Executives per 

thousand 

nonexecutive 

staff 

Average 

number of 

executives

Executives per 

thousand 

nonexecutive 

staff

Transportation 

Security 

Administration 160 2.7 144 2.5 139 2.4 144 2.4

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 58 1.4 67 1.6 74 1.6 89 1.8

U.S. Secret 

Service 39 5.9 41 6.2 45 6.8 47 7.1

Federal 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency 33 1.5 35 1.4 43 1.9 54 3.3

Immigration and 

Customs 

Enforcement 31 2.0 33 2.2 42 2.6 51 2.9

U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration 

Services 16 1.8 16 1.8 24 2.8 41 4.3

US. Coast Guard 8 1.1 8 1.0 9 1.2 12 1.5

DHS 

Headquartersc

35 90.8 50 58.9 76 57.4 102 63.9

Department of 

Homeland 

Security 

(excluding TSA) 278 2.7 306 2.8 365 3.3 446 4.0

Cabinet-level 

departments 

(excluding DHS) 6289 4.1 6403 4.1 6575 4.3 6791 4.3

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

Page 10 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

a

The first eight entities in this table are a selection of DHS components and do not account for all 

DHS SES positions; however, all DHS SES positions are accounted for within figures for the 

Department of Homeland Security (which immediately follows the eight DHS components). 

b

For each fiscal year, the average number of executives was calculated by averaging (1) the number 

of senior executive staff in the CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year 

for which the average is being calculated and (2) the number of senior executive staff in CPDF as of 

the last pay period of the fiscal year for which the average is being calculated. 

c

DHS Headquarters is a distinct component within CPDF data which includes all DHS executive staff 

in positions serving departmentwide functions, such as those involving financial or human capital 

management. 

TSA has employed approximately equal numbers of TSES staff in both 

headquarters and in the field, where its operational mission of securing the 

nation’s transportation system is carried out (see table 3). TSES positions 

in the field include federal security directors (FSDs) who are responsible 

for implementing and overseeing security operations, including passenger 

and baggage screening, at TSA-regulated airports; area directors, who 

supervise and provide support and coordination of federal security 

directors in the field; special agents in charge, who are part of the Federal 

Air Marshal Service and generally located at airports to carry out 

investigative activities; and senior field executives, who work with FSDs 

and other federal, state, and local officials to manage operational 

requirements across transportation modes. Headquarters executive 

positions generally include officials responsible for managing TSA 

divisions dedicated to internal agency operations, such as the Office of 

Human Capital or the Office of Legislative Affairs, and external agency 

operations, such as the Office of Security Operations and the Office of 

Global Strategies.23

Table 3: Total TSES Headquarters and Field Staff, Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008a

Fiscal year Total TSES staff headquarters Total TSES staff field

2004 71 83

2005 76 84

2006 67 77

2007 72 68

2008 77 68

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

 

23 TSA’s Office of Security Operations is responsible for overseeing various agency security 

initiatives, such as passenger and checked baggage screening at airports. The Office of 

Global Strategies is responsible for coordinating and overseeing TSA security efforts 

abroad. TSES headquarters positions include such titles as Assistant Administrators, 

General Managers, and Directors, among others. 

Page 11 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

a

CPDF data do not identify whether TSES staff work in headquarters or in the field, but do include 

codes that identify the physical location of each TSES position. We used these codes to determine 

the number of field and headquarters staff for each fiscal year, and also had TSA review and confirm 

our results. See app. I for more detail. 

TSES attrition for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 was at its highest (20 

percent) in fiscal year 2005, due to a surge in resignations for that fiscal 

year. The rate of attrition among TSES staff for fiscal years 2004 through 

2008 was consistently lower than the rate of attrition among all DHS SES, 

but, until 2008, higher than the SES attrition rate for all other cabinet-level 

departments. TSA human capital officials acknowledge that attrition 

among TSES staff has been high in the past—which they attribute to the 

frequent turnover in administrators the agency experienced from its 

formation in fiscal year 2002 through mid-2005—and noted that since TSA 

has had more stable leadership, attrition has declined. 

TSES Attrition Has 

Declined Since 2005 

and Has Consistently 

Been Lower than SES 

Attrition at Other DHS 

Components and, 

Until Recently, Above 

SES Attrition at Other 

Cabinet-level 

Departments 

TSES Attrition Peaked in 

Fiscal Year 2005, Primarily 

Due to Staff Resignations, 

and Has Since Declined 

CPDF data for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 show that attrition among 

TSES staff rose from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005—peaking at 20 

percent in fiscal year 2005—and has declined each year thereafter, 

measuring 10 percent in 2008. Attrition includes separations due to 

resignations, retirements, expiration of a limited term appointment, 

terminations, or transfers to another cabinet-level department. The rate of 

attrition among TSES headquarters staff was generally more than double 

that of TSES staff in the field. Specifically, in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, 

and 2008, TSES attrition in headquarters was 26, 28, 28, and 14 percent 

respectively, compared to TSES attrition in the field, which was 8, 13, 10, 

and 6 percent respectively (see fig. 1). 

Page 12 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

Figure 1: Comparison of Attrition Rates among All TSES Staff, Headquarters TSES 

Staff, and Field TSES Staff, for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Rate of attrition

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File and TSA data.

Fiscal year

TSES Headquarters attrition

TSES Field attrition

TSES TSA total attrition

a

Regarding the field TSES attrition figures, 7 of 83 field staff separated in 2004; 11 of 84 in 2005; 8 of 

77 in 2006; 11 of 68 in 2007; and 4 of 68 in 2008. Regarding the headquarters TSES attrition figures, 

18 of 71 headquarters staff separated in 2004; 21 out of 76 in 2005; 18 out of 67 in 2006; 7 out of 72 

in 2007; and 11 out of 77 in 2008. 

With regard to the manner in which TSES separated (through resignation, 

retirement, expiration of a limited term appointment, termination, or 

transfer to another cabinet-level department), our analysis of CPDF data 

shows that resignations were the most frequent type of TSES separation, 

accounting for almost half of total separations over the 5-year period and 

about two thirds of all separations during fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (see 

table 4). 24 Also, over the 5-year period, transfers and retirements tied for 

the second-most frequent type of TSES separation, while expiration of a 

limited term appointment and “other” were the least common separation 

types for TSES. 

 

24For the purposes of our analysis, we considered all separation modes as part of our 

attrition analysis. 

Page 13 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

Table 4: Number of TSES Staff Who Left TSA from Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008, by Type of Separation 

Type of separation FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 Total

Resignations 9 20 18 6 4 57

Transfers 8 4 2 2 5 22

Retirements 3 4 4 6 5 22

Terminations 4 3 2 1 0 10

Expiration of a limited term appointment 1 0 0 2 1 4

Othera0 1 0 1 0 2

Total separations 25 32 27 18 15 117

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

“Other” includes very infrequent types of attrition, such as the death of an employee. 

TSA human capital officials acknowledged that attrition among TSES staff 

has been high at certain points in TSA’s history. They noted that frequent 

turnover in administrators since TSA’s creation in 2002 through mid-2005 

was the likely catalyst for much TSES attrition, and that once 

Administrator Hawley, who served the longest term of any TSA 

Administrator, was appointed, attrition among TSES staff declined.25

Attrition among TSES Has 

Been Lower than that of 

All Other DHS SES, but 

Until Fiscal Year 2008, 

Higher than SES Attrition 

among Other Cabinet-level 

Departments 

As shown in figure 2, the rate of attrition among TSES staff for fiscal years 

2004 through 2008 was consistently lower than the rate of attrition among 

all DHS SES. On the other hand, from fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the 

TSES rate of attrition was higher than the overall SES attrition rate for all 

 

25Since its establishment, TSA has been led by four different administrators, including 

James McGaw (January 2002–July 2002); James Loy (July 2002–December 2003); David 

Stone (December 2003–May 2005); and Kip Hawley (June 2005–January 2009). In January 

2009, Gale Rossides was named Acting Administrator of TSA; as of October 9, 2009, TSA 

does not have a new Administrator. 

Page 14 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

other cabinet-level departments, but in 2008, the rate was slightly lower 

than the rate for other cabinet-level departments.26

Figure 2: Comparison of Attrition Rates among Executives at TSA, DHS, and Other 

Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008) 

All of DHS (excluding TSA)

TSA 

All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Rate of attrition

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File.

Fiscal year

When comparing attrition among types of separations, we found that TSA 

had higher rates of executive resignations than DHS in 2005 and 2006; in 

particular, the rate of TSES resignations in 2005 (13 percent) was almost 

twice that of DHS SES (7 percent). TSA also had consistently higher rates 

 

26We also compared TSES attrition to that of SES in other DHS components, specifically, 

those in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, DHS Headquarters (a distinct component 

within CPDF data which includes all DHS executive staff in positions serving 

departmentwide functions, such as those involving financial or human capital 

management), and the “Rest of DHS” (a category we developed for all SES not belonging to 

any of the previously identified components). Appendix II presents separations data for 

each of these components for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 (including average TSES, total 

separations, and separations by type). 

Page 15 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

of executive resignations than other cabinet-level departments for fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008 (see fig. 3). TSA human capital officials reiterated 

that many of these resignations were likely influenced by frequent 

turnover among TSA administrators, and that it is natural to expect that 

some executive staff would choose to leave the agency after a change in 

top agency leadership. They also explained that TSA’s high number of 

resignations could, in part, reflect TSES staff who opted to resign in lieu of 

being subject to disciplinary action or having a termination on their 

permanent record. 

Figure 3: Comparison of Rates of Resignation among Executives at TSA, DHS, and 

Other Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008) 

All of DHS (excluding TSA)

TSA 

All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Rate of resignation

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File.

Fiscal year

Regarding other separation types, TSA’s TSES had lower rates of 

retirements for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 than SES in DHS and all 

cabinet-level departments. However, rates of transfers among TSES were 

about the same as those among SES in DHS and cabinet-level 

Page 16 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

departments.27 For the same time period, TSA’s attrition rate for TSES 

terminations and expiration of term appointments was 3 percent or less, 

whereas the rate for DHS and all other cabinet-level departments was 1 

percent or less. 

In interviews with 46 of 95 TSES who separated from TSA from fiscal 

years 2005 through 2008, most reported adverse reasons for leaving the 

agency—that is, a reason related to dissatisfaction with some aspect of 

their TSA experience, as opposed to a nonadverse reason, such as to 

spend more time with family or pursue another professional opportunity. 

Perceptions regarding the impact of TSES separations on TSA operations 

varied among TSA staff who directly reported to separated TSES staff 

members, TSES supervisors, and stakeholder groups representing 

industries that collaborate with TSA on security initiatives. Some of these 

reported that TSES attrition had little or no impact on the agency’s ability 

to implement transportation security initiatives, while others identified 

negative effects on agency operations, such as a lack of program direction 

and uncertainty and stress among employees. 

Former TSES Staff We 

Interviewed Primarily 

Cited Adverse 

Reasons for Leaving 

TSA; Current TSA 

Employees and Other 

Stakeholders 

Expressed Varying 

Views on the Impact 

of These Separations 

TSES Staff We Interviewed 

Cited Nonadverse and 

Adverse Reasons for 

Leaving TSA 

In addition to obtaining information on the manner by which TSES staff 

separated from the agency, such as through resignation or retirement, we 

also sought more detailed information on the factors that led staff 

members to separate. For example, for TSES staff members who left the 

agency through retirement, we sought information on any factors, beyond 

basic eligibility, that compelled them to leave the agency. According to 

TSA officials, one of the primary reasons for attrition among TSES has 

been the large number of TSES term appointees employed by the agency, 

who, by the very nature of their appointment, are expected to leave TSA, 

generally within 3 years. However, as shown earlier in table 4, only 4 TSES 

appointees separated from TSA due to the expiration of their 

appointments for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and TSA reported hiring a 

total of 76 limited term appointees over this period. TSA human capital 

officials later explained that when the time period for a limited term 

 

27See app. II for rates of resignations, retirements, transfers, terminations, and terminations 

due to expirations of a term appointment for TSA TSES, DHS SES, and SES in cabinet-level 

departments. 

Page 17 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

appointments concludes, the reason for the staff member’s separation is 

recorded on his or her personnel file as a type of “termination.” For this 

reason, TSES on limited term appointments often leave the agency before 

their terms expire in order to avoid having “termination” on their 

personnel record, among other reasons. To better understand the reasons 

for TSES separations, and the extent to which they may have been 

influenced by TSES limited term appointments, we requested TSA exit 

interview data that would provide more in-depth explanations as to why 

the former TSES staff members left the agency.28 Since TSA had 

documented exit interviews for only 5 of 95 TSES staff members who 

separated from TSA from fiscal years 2005 through 2008,29 we interviewed 

46 of these former TSES staff to better understand the reasons why they 

left the agency.30 As stated previously, because we selected these 

individuals based on a nonprobability sampling method, we cannot 

generalize about the reasons for all TSES separations from fiscal years 

2005 through 2008. However, these interviews provided us with 

perspectives on why nearly half of these TSES staff left TSA. 

Of the 46 former TSES staff members we interviewed, 33 cited more than 

one reason for leaving TSA. Specifically, these individuals gave between 

one and six reasons for separating, with an average of two reasons 

identified per interviewee. Ten of 46 interviewees identified only 

nonadverse reasons for leaving TSA, 24 identified only adverse reasons, 

and 12 cited both adverse and nonadverse reasons. Nonadverse reasons 

were those not related to dissatisfaction with TSA, such as leaving the 

agency for another professional opportunity or to spend more time with 

family. Adverse reasons were those related to dissatisfaction with some 

aspect of the TSES staff member’s experience at TSA. As shown in table 5, 

 

28Exit interviews seek to obtain information from employees on why they are leaving their 

current positions. Such interviews may be conducted orally or through use of a written 

survey, and their design and content vary widely across jurisdictions. One limitation of 

these interviews is that workers may not be candid in their disclosure of information 

because they do not wish to sever relationships with coworkers and managers. 

29We interviewed TSES who separated during the fiscal year 2005 through 2008 time period 

because (1) this was a more stable period in TSA’s history, following the agency’s initial 

formation and transfer to DHS; and (2) TSA could not readily provide us with a total list of 

all TSES staff for prior fiscal years, due to a change in its personnel data system. See app. I 

for more information on our selection of TSES for interviews. 

30The TSES we interviewed left the agency through different separation types—resignation, 

retirement, expiration of a term appointment, termination, and transfer to another federal 

agency. See app. I for more detail on how we selected former TSES staff for interviews. 

Page 18 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

we identified three categories of nonadverse reasons and nine categories 

of adverse reasons for why TSES staff left TSA. By discussing only the 

perspectives of former TSES, we may not be presenting complete 

information regarding the circumstances surrounding their separation 

from TSA. However, as we agreed not to identify to TSA the identities of 

respondents we spoke with, we did not obtain TSA’s viewpoint on these 

separations because doing so would risk revealing the interviewee’s 

identity.31

Table 5: Reasons for Leaving TSA Citied by Former TSES Staff Membersa (n=46) 

Nonadverse reasons for separation Number of TSES citing reason

1. Pursuit of another professional opportunity 14

2. Personal and/or family reasons 7

3. Expiration of a limited term appointment or reannuitant waiver 4

Adverse reasons for separation 

1. Dissatisfaction with leadership style of top management 14

2. Perception that some TSES colleagues lacked executive-level skills or were selected for 

positions based on personal relationships 

13

3. Dissatisfaction with position authority or responsibilities 13

4. Disagreement with top leadership’s priorities or decisions 12

5. Frustration with agency reorganizations and turnover of administrators 11

6. Perception that TSA treated TSES executives and other employees in an unprofessional or 

disrespectful manner 

9

7. Termination or perception of being forced to leave TSA 9

8. Other adverse reasonb 9

9. Pay (insufficient pay or inequitable pay) 5

Source: GAO analysis of interview responses of 46 former TSES staff who left TSA from fiscal years 2005 through 2008. 

a

Many TSES gave more than one reason for leaving the agency. Therefore the total number of 

reasons identified for leaving is greater than 46 (the number of TSES we interviewed). 

b

These included reasons not captured by the other adverse reasons we identified, but that were still 

related to dissatisfaction with some aspect of the TSES staff member’s experience at TSA. 

 

31Nor did we try to confirm through any other sources the conditions that prompted the 

TSES staff to separate. Furthermore, because we did not interview SES staff at other DHS 

components or cabinet departments, we could not determine whether the reasons for 

leaving given by TSES and the proportions of those giving adverse versus nonadverse 

reasons are different from or similar to reasons for leaving for other SES staff. 

Page 19 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

Of the TSES staff we interviewed who reported leaving TSA for 

nonadverse reasons, 14 of the 46 reported leaving for another professional 

opportunity, such as a position in a security consulting firm. Seven of 46 

reported separating from TSA because of personal reasons, such as the 

desire to spend quality time with family, and 4 of the 46 TSES told us they 

separated from the agency because they were employed on re-employed 

annuitant waivers, which expired after 5 years.32

Nonadverse Reasons Cited 

for Leaving TSA 

Adverse Reasons Cited for 

Leaving TSA 

Of the TSES staff we interviewed who reported leaving TSA for adverse 

reasons, 14 of the 46 cited dissatisfaction with the leadership style of top 

management as a reason they left the agency. These interviewees defined 

top leadership as the TSA Administrator or those reporting directly to him, 

such as Assistant Administrators. In addition to issues with management 

style, 10 of the 14 responses focused specifically on top leadership’s 

communication style and cited instances in which top management had 

not communicated with other TSES staff and, in some cases, with lowerlevel staff. For example, one former FSD reported that new policies and 

procedures were implemented by headquarters with little or no notice to 

the field. He explained that in some cases, he learned that headquarters 

had issued new policies or procedures when the media called to ask 

questions about them. Another TSES interviewee reported that 

communication occurred between the administrator and a core group, but 

all other staff received only “bits and pieces of information.” Other 

examples provided in this category were more general. For example, 3 

interviewees reported they were compelled to leave the agency due to a 

specific TSA Administrator’s more hierarchical management style. 

Thirteen of the 46 former TSES staff we interviewed stated that some of 

their colleagues lacked executive-level skills or were selected for positions 

based on personal relationships with administrators or other TSES staff. 

Specifically, 12 of the 13 interviewees in this category stated their 

 

32Re-employed annuitant waivers are a type of human capital flexibility available to TSA 

and other federal agencies that allow individuals who retired from a federal government 

position and are collecting a federal annuity to continue receiving their full annuity in 

addition to their federal salary if they are hired for another federal position. Under normal 

circumstances, federal employees who are federal annuitants would have the amount of 

their annuity deducted from their salaries. These waivers are typically used when a 

program office has an urgent need to hire experienced, qualified staff—such as the need 

TSA had for executives with significant transportation security experience following its 

creation. Although TSA’s reannuitant waivers were generally for a period of 5 years, TSA 

extended some beyond the 5-year period. 

Page 20 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

colleagues lacked the necessary qualifications for the position. For 

example, one interviewee mentioned that an individual with a rail 

background was put in charge of a TSA division that focused on aviation 

policy. In addition, 6 of the 13 TSES staff in this category stated that many 

in the TSES were hired based on personal relationships, as opposed to 

executive qualifications. As discussed previously, unlike many other 

federal agencies, TSA is not required to adhere to merit staffing principles 

when hiring for limited term TSES positions. However, TSA has agreed to 

adhere to merit staffing principles when hiring for career TSES positions 

in accordance with the OPM-DHS interchange agreement. The former 

TSES staff we interviewed did not always provide us with the names of 

their colleagues whom they believed were not hired in accordance with 

merit staffing principles. Additionally, documentation related to the hiring 

of TSES staff who joined the agency prior to March 2006 was not generally 

available. Therefore, we were not able to conduct an independent 

assessment of whether the TSES in question should have been hired, and 

subsequently were hired, in accordance with merit staffing principles. 

However, later in this report, we discuss the extent to which TSA 

documented its adherence to merit staffing principles when hiring for 

TSES career positions in 2006 and 2008, such that an independent third 

party could make this type of assessment in the future. 

Thirteen of the 46 TSES staff we interviewed cited dissatisfaction with the 

authority and responsibilities of their position as a reason for leaving. 

Specifically, 7 TSES staff members reported being dissatisfied with the 

limited authority associated with their position. For example, during a 

period when contractors, as opposed to FSDs, were responsible for hiring 

TSA airport employees, one former FSD explained that he arrived at the 

interview site to observe the interview and testing process for the 

transportation security officer candidates, but was not allowed to enter 

the facility, even though he would be supervising many of the individuals 

who were hired.33 The remaining 6 TSES reported that they were either 

dissatisfied with the duties and responsibilities of their position, or they 

became dissatisfied with their position after (1) they were reassigned to a 

less desirable position or (2) they believed their position lost authority 

 

33In 2007, we reported that TSA has since vested FSDs at individual airports with 

responsibility for hiring transportation security officers, but continues to provide 

contractor support to assist FSDs in this effort. See GAO, Aviation Security: TSA’s 

Staffing Allocation Model Is Useful for Allocating Staff among Airports, but Its 

Assumptions Should Be Systematically Reassessed, GAO-07-299 (Washington, D.C.: 

February 2007). 

Page 21 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

over the course of their employment. For example, regarding the latter, 

one former TSES staff member reported that after his division was 

subsumed within another, he became dissatisfied with no longer having 

the ability to report directly to the administrator or implement policies 

across the agency, and subsequently left the agency. 

Twelve of the 46 TSES staff we interviewed cited disagreement with top 

leadership’s priorities or decisions as a reason for separation. Seven of the 

12 TSES staff in this category disagreed with a specific management 

decision. For example, one former TSES staff member reported leaving 

the agency when top leadership decided to discontinue a process for 

evaluating candidates for a certain TSA position, which the former TSES 

staff member believed was critical to selecting appropriate individuals for 

the position. The other 5 staff in this category questioned agency priorities. 

For example, one TSES staff member believed that TSA focused on 

aviation security at the expense of security for other modes of 

transportation, while another commented that agency priorities had 

shifted from a security focus to one that was centered on customer 

service. 

Eleven of the 46 TSES staff we interviewed reported that they were 

frustrated with numerous agency reorganizations and frequent changes in 

TSA administrators. For example, one TSES staff member reported that 

during her tenure she experienced six physical office changes along with 

multiple changes to duties and responsibilities, making it difficult to lead a 

cohesive program in the division. We conducted an analysis of TSA 

organization charts from calendar years 2002 through 2008, and found that 

TSA underwent at least 10 reorganizations over this period.34 Furthermore, 

the charts reflected 149 changes in the TSES staff in charge of TSA 

divisions.35 Also, TSA was headed by several different administrators from 

2002 through mid-2005—specifically, a total of 4 within its first 5 years of 

existence. TSA human capital officials acknowledged that the many 

reorganizations and changes in agency leadership the agency has 

experienced since its formation have led to many TSES staff separations. 

 

34We were unable to determine, and TSA was unable to confirm, whether these charts 

depicted all TSA reorganizations since the agency’s creation. 

35Specifically, these charts identified only upper-level TSA divisions reporting directly to 

the Office of the TSA Administrator and the TSES staff person in charge of these divisions. 

As such, we were not able to identify changes in lower-level TSES staff within each division 

from one reorganization to another. See app. I for more information on how we conducted 

our analysis of TSA organization charts. 

Page 22 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

With regard to some of the remaining adverse reasons, 

• Nine of the 46 TSES staff told us they separated from the agency because 

they believed that TSA executives and employees were treated in an 

unprofessional or disrespectful manner. For example, one TSES staff 

member reported that upon completion of a detail at another federal 

agency, he returned to TSA and learned that his TSES position had been 

backfilled without his knowledge. 

• Nine of the 46 TSES staff reported they were either terminated or 

pressured to leave the agency. We reviewed TSA-provided data on 

separations, and found that 3 of the 9 TSES in this category were actually 

terminated. The 6 who were not terminated reported that they were 

pressured to leave the agency. Specifically, 4 of the 6 reported that they 

were forced out of the agency after being offered positions that TSA 

leadership knew would be undesirable to them due to the location, duties, 

or supervisor associated with the position. Finally, 2 of the 6 TSES 

reported they were compelled to resign after being wrongly accused of 

misconduct or poor performance. 

• Five of the 46 TSES staff we spoke with reported either insufficient or 

inequitable pay as a reason for separating from the agency. In one case, a 

TSES staff member told us that, unlike his peers, he did not receive any 

bonuses or pay increases even though he was given excellent performance 

reviews. TSA provided us with data on the total amount of bonuses 

awarded to each TSES staff person employed with the agency during fiscal 

years 2005 through 2008.36 Agency documentation reflects that these 

bonuses were awarded to recognize performance. Of the 95 TSES who 

separated during this 4-year period, 55 were awarded performance 

bonuses, and the total amount of these awards ranged from $1,000 to 

$44,000. Of 141 TSES who were employed with TSA during fiscal years 

2005 through 2008, 92 were awarded performance bonuses, and the total 

 

36TSA provided data on the cumulative amounts of bonuses awarded to TSES from fiscal 

year 2005 through 2008 (as opposed to the amount per fiscal year); therefore, all bonus 

amounts identified represent the cumulative amount awarded to employees over this time 

period. In addition, if the recipient did not fulfill the conditions attached to these awards, 

the total amount awarded might not have been paid; we did not ascertain whether all 

awarded amounts were paid. 

Page 23 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

amount of these awards ranged from at least $4,800 to $85,000.37 Another 

interviewee told us that he left TSA due, in part, to his perception that 

TSES staff doing aviation security work were paid more than TSES staff 

such as himself who worked in other nonaviation transportation modes. 

TSA Employees and 

Stakeholders Held Varying 

Opinions on the Impact of 

TSES Attrition 

While some attrition impacts agency operations negatively, such as the 

loss of historical knowledge or expertise, the separation of other staff can 

have a positive impact on agency operations—such as when an executive 

is not meeting performance expectations. To identify the potential impact 

of TSES separations on agency operations, we conducted interviews with 

TSA staff who were direct reports to and immediate supervisors of TSES 

staff members who left the agency. We also interviewed representatives of 

seven transportation security associations. While we would not expect any 

of these individuals to have a full understanding of the impact that TSES 

attrition had on the agency, we believe that presenting the perspectives of 

superiors and subordinates and external agency stakeholders enables us 

to offer additional perspective on this issue. 

We found that the direct reports, supervisors, and external stakeholders 

had varying views regarding the impact that TSES attrition has had on 

TSA. Specifically, of the 22 direct reports we interviewed, 13 stated that 

TSES attrition had little or no impact on TSA’s programs and policies, 

whereas 8 others cited negative effects, such as delays in the development 

and implementation of agency programs.38 Two programs direct reports 

identified as being negatively affected by TSES attrition were Secure 

Flight and the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) 

 

37In addition to providing data on bonuses, TSA also provided data on the amount of 

relocation, retention, and recruitment payments awarded to TSES staff. However, since 

TSA provided us with a single sum for all these payments, we could not separately identify 

the amount of the bonus from other payments made for recruitment, retention, or 

relocation purposes, when a TSES staff person received other types of payments. Thus we 

excluded from our analysis any individual receiving payments for recruitment, retention, or 

relocation, in addition to bonuses. Specifically, we excluded data for 4 TSES staff who 

separated during fiscal years 2005 through 2008, and 34 TSES staff who were employed 

throughout the 4-year period. 

38One additional direct report stated that impact on programs was not applicable because 

the division had not started any programs. 

Page 24 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

programs.39 In addition, 12 of the direct reports stated that TSES attrition 

had little or no impact on the functioning of their particular division, 

although 10 cited negative effects such as a lack of communication 

regarding the direction of the division and its goals; difficulties in building 

relationships with ever-changing supervisors; and decreased morale. 

Regarding our interviews with the 7 supervisors of TSES staff who since 

left the agency, 6 reported that TSES attrition had little or no impact on 

TSA’s programs and policies, but one stated that TSES separations caused 

a lack of vision and direction for program development. Additionally, 4 

supervisors did not believe that TSES attrition had negative impacts on the 

functioning of a specific division, but 3 supervisors stated that TSES 

attrition did have negative impacts, stating that separations cause 

uncertainty and stress among employees, which negatively impacts 

morale. 

With regard to our interviews with seven industry associations 

representing the various stakeholders affected by TSA programs and 

policies (for example, airports, mass transit systems, and maritime 

industries), four industry associations could not identify a negative impact 

attributable to turnover among TSES staff. The remaining three 

stakeholders reported delayed program implementation and a lack of 

communication from TSA associated with TSES turnover. 

TSA human capital officials noted that they were generally pleased that 

many of the supervisors, direct reports, and stakeholders we interviewed 

stated that the impact of TSES turnover on agency operations was 

minimal. In particular, they interpreted this as evidence that their 

succession planning efforts—to identify, develop, and select successors 

who are the right people with the right skills for leadership and other key 

positions—are working as intended, and minimizing the impact of 

turnover on agency operations. 

 

39Secure Flight matches airline passenger lists against watch lists maintained by the federal 

government; TWIC is a program to issue credentials to individuals who require unescorted 

access to maritime facilities. See GAO, Aviation Security: TSA Is Enhancing Its Oversight 

of Air Carrier Efforts to Identify Passengers on the No Fly and Selectee Lists, but Expects 

Ultimate Solution to Be Implementation of Secure Flight, GAO-08-992 (Washington, D.C.: 

September 2008), and GAO, Transportation Security: Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential: A Status Update, GAO-08-1151T (Washington, D.C.: September 

2008). 

Page 25 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

By affording separating TSES the opportunity to complete an exit survey, 

TSA has taken steps to address attrition that are consistent with internal 

control standards and effective human capital management practices. 

Nevertheless, the current survey instrument does not allow TSES staff 

leaving the agency to identify themselves as executive-level staff, hence 

preventing the agency from isolating the responses of TSES staff and using 

the data to address reasons for TSES attrition. In addition, the agency has 

implemented other measures to improve overall management of its TSES 

corps that are consistent with effective human capital management 

practices and internal control standards, such as issuing an official 

handbook that delineates human capital policies applying to the TSES, 

implementing a succession plan, and incorporating merit-based staffing 

requirements (which are intended to ensure fair and open competition for 

positions) into its process for hiring executive staff. However, inconsistent 

with internal control standards, TSA did not always clearly document its 

implementation of merit staffing requirements. 

TSA Has Implemented 

Measures to Address 

TSES Attrition 

Consistent with 

Effective Human 

Capital Practices and 

Internal Controls, but 

Data on Exit Surveys 

and Hiring Decisions 

Could Be Improved 

TSA Has Taken Steps to 

Manage TSES Attrition by 

Affording Separating TSES 

Staff the Opportunity to 

Complete an Exit Survey 

and Decreasing Its Use of 

Limited Term 

Appointments, but Limited 

Exit Survey Data May 

Hinder Efforts 

According to TSA officials, in January 2008, TSA began collecting data on 

the reasons for TSES separation through an exit interview process, asking 

questions specifically designed to capture the experiences of executivelevel staff. The interview was administered by TSA human capital officials. 

According to a TSA official, after we requested access to this information 

in September 2008, TSA ceased conducting these exit interviews due to 

concerns that the format would not provide for anonymity of former TSES 

staff members’ responses. According to standards for internal control in 

the federal government, as part of its human capital planning, management 

should consider how best to retain valuable employees to ensure the 

continuity of needed skills and abilities.40 Also, we have reported that 

collecting and analyzing data on the reasons for attrition through exit 

interviews is important for strategic workforce planning. 41 Such planning 

entails developing and implementing long-term strategies for acquiring, 

developing, and retaining employees, so that an agency has a workforce in 

place capable of accomplishing its mission.42 In March 2009, TSA, 

 

40GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington D.C.: November 1999). 

41GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2002). 

42GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 2003). 

Page 26 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

recognizing the importance of such a process to its management of TSES 

resources, announced it was affording separating TSES staff the 

opportunity to complete an exit survey. Specifically, TSA officials reported 

that they would use the agency’s National Exit Survey instrument, which 

has been in use for non-TSES staff since November 2005.43 We reviewed 

the survey instrument, which consists of 21 questions (20 closed ended 

and one open ended) concerning the staff member’s experience at TSA 

and the specific reasons for separation, and found that it generally covered 

all the reasons for separation identified by 46 separated TSES staff we 

interviewed.44

Although TSA’s National Exit Survey responses are submitted 

anonymously (thereby allaying TSA’s concerns with the previous TSES 

exit interview process), respondents are given the opportunity to identify 

what position they held at TSA, such as “Transportation Security Officer 

(TSO),” by selecting from a pre-set list of position titles.45 However, TSA 

does not list “TSES” among the answer choices, which precludes TSES 

staff who fill out the survey from identifying their position rank. TSA 

officials explained that they do not allow TSES staff to self-identify 

because, given the small number of TSES staff who leave the agency in a 

given year, it may be possible to determine the identity of a particular 

TSES respondent. However, according to TSA’s documented policy for 

analyzing exit survey data, survey responses will not be analyzed by 

position if the total number of respondents in that position is fewer than 

five. We discussed this issue with TSA human capital officials and the TSA 

officials stated that, in light of this policy, they may consider allowing 

TSES staff members to identify themselves as such when filling out the 

survey. Without the ability to isolate the responses of TSES staff from 

those of other staff, it will be difficult for TSA to use the results of the exit 

 

43TSA officials made the announcement that separating TSES staff would be able to take 

the exit survey via e-mail communication to all Assistant Administrators and Business 

Management Office leads. Each TSA office is responsible for providing the survey 

information to separating employees, including members of the TSES. TSA expected the 

process to become centrally administered in July 2009 when TSA’s human capital services 

contractor is to assume responsibility for managing the survey process. 

44See app. III for a copy of TSA’s National Exit Survey. 

45Specifically, respondents are asked to identify their most recent job category; 

respondents may select among the following categories: TSO, LTSO, Master TSO, STSO, 

Expert TSO, Screening/Security Manager, FSD Staff, and HQ Staff. Another question asks 

respondents to identify whether their position was “supervisory” or “or non-supervisory.” 

See app. III for a copy of the survey. 

Page 27 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

survey to identify reasons for attrition specific to TSES staff, thus 

hindering TSA’s ability to use exit survey data to develop a strategy for 

retaining talented TSES staff with specialized skills and knowledge, and 

ensuring continuity among the agency’s leadership. 

TSA has also sought to manage attrition among TSES by decreasing its use 

of limited term TSES appointments. TSA officials believe that the agency’s 

use of limited term appointments has contributed to higher attrition 

among TSES staff. TSA’s Chief Human Capital Officer stated that during 

the agency’s formation and transition to DHS, TSA made more liberal use 

of limited term appointments, as it was necessary to quickly hire those 

individuals with the executive and subject area expertise to establish the 

agency. The official explained that as the agency has matured, and since it 

now has a regular executive candidate development program, the agency 

has hired fewer limited term appointments. TSA data on the number of 

limited term TSES appointed (hired) per fiscal year from 2004 through 

2008 show that the agency’s use of limited term appointments has 

generally been decreasing, both in number and as a proportion of all new 

TSES appointments. Specifically, the number of new limited term 

appointments was highest in fiscal year 2004, representing over half of all 

TSES appointments for that fiscal year; in fiscal year 2008, TSES made six 

TSES limited term appointments, representing a sixth of all new 

appointments for that fiscal year (see table 6). 

Table 6: Number of New Limited Term TSES Appointments and Total New TSES 

Appointments for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008a

Fiscal year

Number of new limited term 

appointmentsb

Total new TSES appointmentsc

2004 32 59

2005 20 49

2006 8 27

2007 10 51

2008 6 36

Source: GAO analysis of TSA and CPDF data. 

a

We did not provide the number of term employees as a percentage of total new appointments 

because GAO does not generally present percentages when the total population is less than 50. 

b

TSA provided data on the number of new limited term appointments made for each fiscal year. 

c

Total new TSES appointments for each fiscal year were determined through an analysis of CPDF 

data. 

Page 28 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

TSA has implemented a number of steps to help attract and retain TSES 

staff. In November 2008, TSA issued a TSES handbook delineating human 

capital policies and procedures applicable to TSES staff.46 Prior to this, a 

comprehensive policy document did not exist. According to standards for 

internal control in the federal government, management should establish 

good human capital policies and practices for hiring, training, evaluating, 

counseling, promoting, compensating, and disciplining personnel in order 

to maintain an environment throughout the organization that sets a 

positive and supportive attitude toward internal control and conscientious 

management.47 Moreover, these policies and practices should be clearly 

documented and readily available for examination. 

TSA Has Taken Steps to 

Better Manage Its TSES 

Program, but Better 

Documentation Is Needed 

so that TSA Can 

Demonstrate Its Use of 

Merit-Based Staffing 

Procedures as Part of Its 

TSES Hiring Process 

TSA has had documented policies and procedures in place for such things 

as reassignments, transfers, and terminations since December 2003, and 

for the performance assessment of its TSES staff since July 2003. 

However, in November 2008, TSA issued a more comprehensive 

management directive delineating the agency’s human capital policies and 

procedures for TSES that, in addition to the areas listed above, also covers 

details to other agencies, reinstatements, compensation, work schedules, 

leave, awards and recognition, disciplinary actions, and workforce 

reductions. 48 TSA stated that its goal is to ensure that all current TSES 

staff members are aware and have copies of the management directive. 

The directive, along with TSA’s stated commitment to increasing TSES 

access to this information, should help provide TSES staff with a more 

accurate and complete understanding of the applicable human capital 

management authorities, flexibilities, policies, and procedures. 

TSA also developed a succession plan in 2006 to improve its overall human 

capital management of TSES staff. 49 TSA’s succession planning efforts 

provide for a more systematic assessment of position needs and staff 

 

46Transportation Security Administration Office of Human Capital, TSA Handbook to 

Management Directive No. 1100.30-24, Transportation Security Executive Service 

Program (Washington, D.C.: November 2008). 

47GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

48Transportation Security Administration Office of Human Capital, TSA Handbook to 

Management Directive No. 1100.30-24, Transportation Security Executive Service 

Program (Washington, D.C.: November 2008). 

49TSA has had two succession plans; the first was approved in June 2006, and a later 

revised plan was reviewed and approved by the ERC in September 2008. The 2008 plan 

was further updated in December 2008. 

Page 29 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

capabilities. Specifically, the plan targets 81 positions (both TSES and payband) and identifies the leadership and technical competencies required 

for all.50 The program is designed to recruit talented TSA staff in lowerlevel positions as possible candidates for these positions and encourage 

them to apply for entrance into a Senior Leadership Development Program 

(SLDP) where, upon acceptance, program participants are to receive 

special access to training and development experiences.51 Moreover, 

program participants are to have their executive core qualifications 

approved by OPM upon completion of the program, making them eligible 

for noncompetitive placement into vacant TSES positions.52 We have 

previously reported that succession planning can enable an agency to 

remain aware of and be prepared for its current and future needs as an 

organization, including having a workforce with the knowledge, skills, and 

abilities needed for the agency to pursue its mission.53

To better manage its TSES program, TSA also established in 2006 a hiring 

process for TSES staff that incorporates merit staffing requirements; 

however, TSA lacked documentation that would demonstrate whether 

TSA is consistently following these requirements. Although TSA has more 

human capital flexibilities with regard to hiring than most federal 

agencies, the agency, on its own initiative, sought to incorporate various 

merit staffing requirements into its hiring process.54 Merit staffing 

requirements help to ensure that competition for executive positions is fair 

and transparent, and that individuals with the necessary technical skills 

and abilities are selected for positions—which was a concern for 13 of the 

 

50TSA’s pay bands are ranges of salary compensation for staff not within the senior 

executive service or political appointees. TSA pay bands range from A through M. Pay for 

the three highest bands’ (K through M) ranges from $81,681 through $149,000; these figures 

do not include locality pay. 

51For some positions, the agency may look for candidates outside of TSA’s current 

workforce. 

52TSA has implemented the SLDP in four phases, which focus on specific TSES positions; 

thus far, it has successfully completed two phases, with a third underway. As of July 2009, 

165 TSA employees have been accepted and 156 participated in the SLDP, and of these, 9 

have received career appointments to TSES positions. 

53GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2002). 

54However, career-appointed TSES who wish to transfer to career SES positions in other 

federal agencies without competing against other applicants (per the DHS-OPM 

Interchange Agreement) must be hired in accordance with merit-based staffing 

requirements. 

Page 30 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

46 former TSES we interviewed. While TSA human capital officials 

asserted that TSA has always hired qualified TSES staff in accordance with 

merit staffing requirements, these officials also acknowledged that for 

most of TSA’s existence, the agency did not have a documented process 

for doing so. In January 2006, TSA established an Executive Resources 

Council (ERC), which was chartered to advise the TSA Administrator and 

Deputy Administrator on the recruitment, assessment, and selection of 

executives, among other things. TSA’s ERC charter requires that merit 

staffing be used when hiring for TSES positions by encompassing certain 

merit staffing requirements into its procedures, namely public notice of 

position availability; identification, rating, and ranking of eligible 

candidates against position qualifications; determination of a list of best 

qualified candidates with the final selection coming from among those best 

qualified; and the agency’s certification of the final candidate’s 

qualifications. 

According to internal control standards, internal controls and other 

significant events—which could include the hiring of TSES staff—need to 

be clearly documented, and the documentation should be properly 

managed and maintained.55 To determine the extent to which TSA 

documented its implementation of the merit staffing procedures, we 

reviewed case files for evidence that merit staffing procedures were 

followed for the selection of 25 career TSES appointments for calendar 

year 2006 (the year the TSES staffing process was established) and 16 

TSES staff for calendar year 2008 (the most recent full calendar year for 

which documentation was available).56 We could not review 

documentation prior to this period because TSA explained that its hiring 

decisions were not consistently documented prior to the establishment of 

its ERC process in March 2006. 

Based upon our review, we found that for 20 of the 25 career TSES who 

were hired competitively in calendar year 2006 and for 8 of the 16 TSES 

who were hired competitively in calendar year 2008, documentation 

identifying how TSA implemented at least one of the merit staffing 

procedures was either missing or unclear. For example, in our review of 

 

55GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

56We looked at the case files, specifically, for all competitively filled career TSES 

appointments for calendar years 2006 and 2008 because TSA requires, per its own ERC 

charter guidance issued in March 2006, the use of merit-based staffing procedures for these 

selections. See app. I for more detail on our methodology for evaluating staffing folders. 

Page 31 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

one 2008 case file, we found that the person selected for the position had 

not previously held a career executive-level position, but we did not find 

documentation indicating on what basis the person had been rated and 

ranked against other candidates applying for the position.57 Absent such 

documentation, it is uncertain whether the appointment comported with 

TSA’s hiring process. Moreover, OPM regulations establishing merit 

staffing requirements, upon which TSA based its staffing process, provide 

that agencies operating under merit staffing requirements must retain such 

documentation for 2 years to permit reconstruction of merit staffing 

actions.58 Table 7 identifies the specific merit staffing procedures required 

by TSA’s hiring process for which documentation was either missing or 

unclear. 

Table 7: Number of Hiring Decisions for TSES Positions Filled in Calendar Years 2006 and 2008 for which TSA Documentation 

of Merit Staffing Procedures Was Missing or Unclear 

Merit staffing activity 

Number of hiring decisions for 

which documentation was 

missing or unclear— calendar 

year 2006 (n=25) 

Number of hiring decisions 

for which documentation was 

missing or unclear— calendar 

year 2008 (n=16)

Public notice of position availability 0 0

Identification of all minimally eligible candidates 2 5

Identification of position qualifications 9 1

Rating and ranking of all eligible candidates using position 

qualifications 

6 3

Determination of a best-qualified list 1 0

Selection of a candidate for the position from among those best 

qualified 

4 0

TSA’s certification of candidate’s executive and technical 

qualifications 

11 1

Source: GAO analysis of TSA documents. 

TSA human capital officials told us that a lack of documentation within 

case files does not necessarily indicate that merit staffing procedures were 

not followed for a particular staffing decision. Specifically, TSA stated that 

because the TSES staffing process consists of multiple levels of review, 

including review by both the TSA and DHS Executive Resources Councils, 

 

57According to merit staffing requirements, individuals selected for their initial appointment 

to an executive-level position must be selected competitively, which involves rating and 

ranking the candidate against other applicants. 

58See 5 C.F.R. § 317.501(d). 

Page 32 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

regardless of the lack of documentation, the agency has reasonable 

assurance that merit staffing principles have been followed. While TSA 

officials may believe that the agency has these assurances internally, by 

ensuring that there is complete and consistent documentation of its TSES 

staffing decisions, TSA can better demonstrate to an independent third 

party, the Congress, and the public that the way in which it hires for TSES 

positions is fair and open, that candidates are evaluated on the same basis, 

that selection for the position is not based on political or other non-job 

related factors, and that executives with the appropriate skills sets are 

selected for positions. 

Given the broad visibility of its mission to secure our nation’s 

transportation system, it is important that TSA maintain a skilled 

workforce led by well-qualified executives. As TSA prepares to bring on a 

new administrator, it would be beneficial to address some of the 

circumstances which led the former TSES staff members we interviewed 

to separate. TSA has taken steps to address attrition among TSES staff and 

to improve overall management of its TSES workforce. However, some 

modifications to these efforts could be beneficial. For example, TSA’s 

planned effort to conduct exit surveys of TSES staff—consistent with 

human capital best practices—is intended to provide TSA with more 

comprehensive data on the reasons why TSES staff decided to leave the 

agency. However, the method by which TSA has chosen to collect these 

data—anonymous surveys in which the separating TSES do not disclose 

their level of employment—will not provide TSA reasons why TSES staff, 

in particular, left the agency, thereby rendering the data less useful for 

addressing TSES attrition. TSA has also implemented a process to hire 

TSES staff, which incorporates procedures based upon merit staffing 

requirements in order to ensure that candidates for career TSES 

appointments are evaluated and hired on the basis of their skills and 

abilities as opposed to personal relationships—which was a concern 

among some former TSES staff we interviewed. By more consistently 

documenting whether and how it has applied merit staffing procedures 

when filling career TSES positions, TSA can better demonstrate that its 

hiring of TSES is fair and merit-based, as intended. 

To address attrition among TSES staff and improve management of TSES 

resources, we recommend that the TSA Administrator take the following 

two actions: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Page 33 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

• Ensure that the National Exit Survey, or any other exit survey instrument 

TSA may adopt, can be used to distinguish between responses provided by 

TSES staff and other staff, so that the agency can determine why TSES 

staff, in particular, are separating from TSA. 

• Require that TSA officials involved in the staffing process for TSES staff 

fully document how they applied each of the merit staffing principles 

required by TSA when evaluating, qualifying, and selecting individuals to 

fill career TSES positions. 

On October 7, 2009, we received written comments on the draft report, 

which are reproduced in full in appendix IV. TSA concurred with our 

recommendations and has taken action to implement them. In addition, 

TSA, as well as OPM, provided technical comments on the draft report, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

With regard to our recommendation that TSA allow TSES staff to identify 

themselves as such when filling out the National Exit Survey, TSA stated 

that it has revised Question 27 of the National Exit Survey—”What is your 

pay band?”—to include “TSES” as a response option. Regarding our 

second recommendation that TSA fully document how it applied merit 

staffing principles when evaluating, qualifying, and selecting individuals to 

fill career TSES positions, TSA stated that it has established a checklist for 

proper documentation and will conduct an internal audit of TSES 

selection files on a quarterly basis. 

While TSA agrees that it should document its adherence to merit staffing 

principles, it raised a question about our analysis by stating that that we 

regarded documentation of TSA’s certification of the candidate’s executive 

and technical qualifications as deficient if there was not both a signed 

letter from the selecting official and a signed Executive Resources Council 

recommendation, even when contemporaneous records existed. However, 

TSA’s statement is not accurate. To clarify, we considered documentation 

of this merit staffing principle complete if there was both a signed letter 

from the selecting official as well as a description of the candidate’s 

executive and technical qualifications. Therefore, even if the signed ERC 

recommendation was not present, if other contemporaneous records were 

provided to us attesting to the candidate’s executive and technical 

qualifications, we would have given TSA credit for this. We found that for 

2006, of the 11 staffing folders that we determined had incomplete 

documentation of TSA’s adherence to the agency certification principle, 4 

were only missing the signed certification by the selecting official, 5 were 

only missing the description of the candidate’s qualifications, and 2 of the 

Page 34 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
 

folders were missing both the signed letter from the selecting official as 

well as a description of the candidate’s executive and technical 

qualifications. The one folder we identified from 2008 as having 

incomplete documentation of TSA’s certification of the candidate was 

missing a description of the candidate’s qualifications. The absence of 

critical documentation makes it difficult to support TSA’s statement that it 

has implemented a rigorous process for executive resources management 

consistent with effective human capital management practices and 

standards for internal control. 

TSA also stated that it was unable to respond to the reasons we reported 

for why former TSES staff left the agency, because the responses were 

anonymous. It is the case that we did not provide TSA with the names of 

the former TSES staff with whom we spoke. However, we chose not to do 

so because we believe that if the former TSES staff we interviewed knew 

that we were going to share their names with TSA, they would have been 

less candid and forthcoming in their responses. We would also like to note 

that TSA would not have had to rely on the information we obtained from 

former TSES staff regarding their reasons for leaving if TSA had 

consistently been conducting exit interviews or exit surveys between 2005 

and 2008, which is the period of time during which those we interviewed 

left the agency. 

We will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Acting Assistant Secretary for TSA. The report will 

also be available at no charge on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any further questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-4379 or lords@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

Stephen M. Lord 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

Page 35 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 36 GAO-10-139 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Most executive branch agencies—including most Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) agencies—have a Senior Executive Service 

(SES), which is comprised of individuals selected for their executive 

leadership experience and subject area expertise who serve in key agency 

positions just below presidential appointees.1

 However, due to its 

exemption from many of the requirements imposed and enforced by the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—the agency responsible for 

establishing human capital policies and regulations for the federal 

government—the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) 

executives are part of the Transportation Security Executive Service 

(TSES), which is distinct from the SES of other agencies. The explanatory 

statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, directed GAO 

to “report on the history of senior executive service-level career turnover 

since the formation of TSA.”2

 Accordingly, we addressed the following 

questions regarding TSA’s TSES staff: 

1. What has been the attrition rate among TSES staff for fiscal years 2004 

through 2008, and how does it compare to attrition among SES staff in 

other DHS components and cabinet-level departments? 

2. What reasons did former TSES staff provide for leaving TSA, and how 

do current TSA officials and stakeholders view the impact of TSES 

attrition on TSA’s operations? 

3. To what extent are current TSA efforts to manage TSES attrition 

consistent with effective human capital practices and standards for 

internal control in the federal government? 

More details about the scope and methodology of our work to address 

each of these principal questions are presented below. 

Objective 1 - Attrition 

Rates for TSES Staff and 

SES Staff in DHS and 

Other Cabinet-level 

Departments 

To calculate attrition for TSES staff and SES staff in DHS overall 

(excluding TSA) as well as other cabinet-level departments, we analyzed 

fiscal year 2004 through 2008 data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File 

(CPDF), a repository of selected human capital data for most Executive 

Branch employees, including separations data. We selected this time 

period because 2004 was the first full fiscal year during which TSA was a 

 

1

Presidential appointees are appointed by the President and may be confirmed by the 

Senate. They generally occupy the highest departmental and agency positions and serve at 

the will of the President. 

2

See Explanatory Statement accompanying Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2042 (2007), at 1054. 

TSA Executive Attrition 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

part of DHS after transferring from the Department of Transportation in 

March 2003, and thus a more meaningful starting point for comparing 

TSES attrition to SES attrition at other federal agencies. Also, at the time 

of our review, 2008 was the most recently completed fiscal year for which 

attrition data were available in CPDF. The individuals who we classified as 

senior executive staff who attrited, or separated, from their agencies were 

those with CPDF codes that: 

• identified them as senior executive staff, specifically TSES, SES, or SES 

equivalent staff and3

• indicated that they had separated from their agency of employment 

through resignation, transfer to another cabinet-level department, 

retirement, termination, expiration of term appointment, or “other” 

separation type. 

We did not include TSES or SES staff who made intradepartmental 

transfers (such as transferring from TSA to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), which is another DHS agency) when calculating 

attrition because these data were not readily available in CPDF. 

We calculated the executive attrition rates (both SES and TSES) for each 

fiscal year by dividing the total number of executive separations for a 

given fiscal year by the average of (1) the number of senior executive staff 

in the CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal year prior to the fiscal 

year for which the attrition rate was calculated and (2) the number of 

senior executive staff in CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal year in 

which the attrition occurred. To place the TSA’s senior executive attrition 

rate in context, we compared it to the overall DHS SES attrition rate 

(excluding TSA) and the overall SES attrition rate for all other cabinetlevel departments (excluding DHS). We did not calculate senior executive 

attrition rates for individual component agencies within DHS (such as for 

U.S. Secret Service) because the total number of senior executive staff for 

most of these components for a given fiscal year was fewer than 50. We 

generally do not to calculate rates or percentages when the total 

 

3

Because our mandate asked that we specifically look at turnover among senior-executive 

staff, we did not collect data on political appointees or senior-level TSA staff who did not 

hold TSES positions even though some of these individuals held positions similar to 

TSES—such as Federal Security Director, Special Agent in Charge, and Deputy/Assistant 

Special Agent in Charge. Also, SES-equivalent positions refer to executives at agencies like 

TSA that do not have SES. When we refer to “executives” throughout this report, we are 

referring to TSES, SES, and SES-equivalent positions. 

Page 37 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

population for any unit is less than 50.4 Given that we could not provide 

rates for all DHS components, we decided not to compare TSES attrition 

to SES attrition for individual DHS components; however we do provide 

data on the number and type of executive separations for each DHS 

component in appendix II. 

For additional context, we compared the attrition rate for TSES staff who 

worked in TSA headquarters to those who worked in field locations for 

fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The CPDF does not identify whether a 

TSES staff person is considered headquarters or field staff, but does 

include codes that identify the physical location of each TSES position, 

including the location of TSA’s headquarters building. As such, we 

considered headquarters TSES staff to be all TSES staff assigned location 

codes for TSA’s headquarters building. In addition, using CPDF location 

codes, we identified all TSES staff working in the Washington D.C. area 

(Washington, D.C., and nearby counties in Virginia and Maryland) who 

were not assigned location codes for TSA headquarters, and asked TSA to 

identify which of these individuals were considered headquarters staff. All 

TSES staff not identified as headquarters staff were considered field staff.5

We believe that the CPDF data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this study. Regarding the CPDF, we have previously reported that 

governmentwide data from the CPDF were 97 percent or more accurate.6

 

4

Aside from TSA, of all other components, only U.S. Customs and Border Protection (for all 

fiscal years) and DHS Headquarters (for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 only) had over 50 

executives. 

5

There were 15 positions we asked TSA to identify as headquarters or field staff for the 

fiscal year 2004 to 2008 time period. 

6

See GAO, OPM’s Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable to Meet 

Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: September 1998). 

GAO/GGD-98-199 does not provide data specific to “total separations” or “separation 

types”; however, it can be inferred from what is in the report that the key data elements of 

this study (i.e., pay plan, agency, nature of action, and effective date) are reliable. 

Moreover, in a document dated February 28, 2008, an OPM official confirmed that OPM 

continues to follow the same CPDF data quality standards and procedures discussed in our 

1998 report that led us to conclude initially that CPDF data were reliable. 

Page 38 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To identify the reasons for TSES staff attrition, we selected a 

nonprobability sample of 46 former TSES staff members to interview from 

a TSA-provided list of 95 TSES staff members who separated from the 

agency during fiscal years 2005 through 2008.7

 TSA provided us with the 

last-known contact information for each of these individuals. We searched 

electronic databases, such as LexisNexis, or used Internet search engines 

to obtain current contact information for these individuals if the 

information TSA provided was outdated. We determined that the TSAprovided list of 95 former TSES staff was sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this study. To make this determination, we compared TSA 

data on TSES staff separations with the number of TSES separations 

identified in CPDF and found that both sources reported sufficiently 

similar numbers of TSES staff separations per fiscal year. 

Objective 2 - Reasons for 

TSES Separations from 

TSA and Stakeholder 

Views on the Impact of 

TSES Attrition on TSA 

Operations 

We attempted to select former TSES staff based on a probability sample in 

order to generalize about the reasons for TSES separation. Of the 46 

interviewees, 31 were selected based upon a randomized list of the 95 

separated TSES created to select a probability sample. We were unable to 

obtain an acceptable response rate for our sample, thus we determined we 

would continue interviewing until we had obtained responses from about 

half of the 95 separated TSES staff. We selected the remaining 15 

interviewees in our sample of 46 in such a way that the proportion of 

interviewees with the following three characteristics—fiscal year of 

separation (2005 through 2008), manner of separation (resignations, 

retirements, etc.), and job location (headquarters or field)—would be 

about the same as the proportion of the 95 TSES staff members who 

separated during fiscal year 2005 through 2008 who had those 

characteristics. For example, if one-third of the 95 former TSES staff TSA 

identified left the agency in fiscal year 2005, then our goal was to ensure 

that approximately one-third of the 46 former TSES we interviewed left in 

2005. We were not always successful in obtaining interviews with staff 

possessing some of the characteristics required to make our sample 

population resemble the larger population; however, for most 

characteristics, our sample of 46 generally had the same proportions as the 

larger population of TSES (see table 8). To obtain our sample of 46 TSES, 

we contacted a total of 70 of the 95 separated TSES, and of these 70, 24 did 

 

7

Due to a change in its system for tracking human capital information, data on TSES staff 

prior to August 2005 were difficult and time-consuming for TSA to provide; therefore, we 

did not include TSES separating before fiscal year 2005 within our sample in order to 

expedite the receipt of a complete list of former TSES from which to make our interviewee 

selections. 

Page 39 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

not respond to our request for an interview. Specifically, 16 of these 

nonresponses were from our attempt to select a probability sample. After 

we began selecting TSES for interviews based on the three 

characteristics—fiscal year of separation (2005 through 2008), manner of 

separation (resignations, retirements, etc.), and job location (headquarters 

or field)—we encountered an additional 8 nonresponses. 

Table 8: TSES Staff Who Separated from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 

Possessing Selection Criteria Characteristics 

Selection criteria characteristics 

Percentage of TSES 

population 

(n=95) 

Percentage of sample 

TSES interviewed

(n=46)

Resignations 52% (49) 46% (21)

Retirements 18% (17) 17% (8)

Terminations 6% (6) 9% (4)

Termination through expiration of a 

limited term appointment 

3% (3) 2% (1)

Transfers 21% (20) 26% (12)

Headquarters staff 66% (63) 72% (33) 

Field staff 34% (32) 28% (13)

FY 2005 separations 34% (32) 30% (14)

FY 2006 separations 29% (28) 33% (15)

FY 2007 separations 21% (20) 24% (11)

FY 2008 separations 16% (15) 13% (6)

Source: GAO analysis of TSA data. 

Since we determined which former TSES staff to interview based on a 

nonprobability sample, we cannot generalize the interview results to all 

TSES staff who separated from TSA from fiscal years 2005 through 2008. 

However, these results provided us with an indication of the range of 

reasons why nearly half of the TSES staff who separated from TSA during 

this time period left the agency. 

To ensure consistency in conducting our interviews with separated TSES 

staff members, we developed a structured interview guide of 24 questions 

that focused on senior-level executives’ reasons for separation and their 

opinions on how TSA could better manage attrition. We conducted 3 of the 

46 interviews in person at GAO headquarters and the remainder via 

telephone. Our question on the reasons for separation was open-ended; 

therefore, to analyze the responses to this question, we performed a 

systematic content analysis. To do so, our team of analysts reviewed all 

Page 40 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

responses to this question, proposed various descriptive categories in 

which TSES reasons for leaving TSA could be grouped based upon themes 

that emerged from the interview responses, and ultimately reached 

consensus on the 12 categories listed in table 9 below. 

Table 9: Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 Separated TSES Staff Members’ Cited Reasons for Leaving TSA 

Reasons for separation 

1. Pursuit of another professional opportunity 

2. Personal and/or family reasons 

3. Expiration of a limited term appointment or reannuitant waiver 

4. Dissatisfaction with leadership style of top management 

5. Perception that some TSES colleagues lacked executive-level skills or were selected for positions based on personal 

relationships 

6. Dissatisfaction with position authority or responsibilities 

7. Disagreement with top leadership’s priorities or decisions 

8. Frustration with agency reorganizations and turnover of administrators 

9. Perception that TSA treated TSES executives and other employees in an unprofessional or disrespectful manner 

10. Termination or perception of being forced to leave TSA 

11. Other adverse reason 

12. Pay (insufficient pay and/or inequitable pays) 

Source: GAO analysis of interview responses of 46 former TSES staff who left TSA from fiscal years 2005 through 2008. 

To determine which categories applied to a particular response provided 

by the former TSES staff members we interviewed, two analysts 

independently reviewed interview responses and assigned categories to 

the data; there was no limit to the number of categories the analysts could 

assign to each response. If the two analysts assigned the same categories, 

we considered the reasons for separation agreed upon. If they determined 

different categories applied, a third analyst reviewed the interview data 

and independently assigned categories. If the third analyst assigned the 

same category as one of the other reviewers, we considered the reason for 

separation the agreed upon category. If all three analysts assigned 

different categories, we coded the reason for separation as “unclassified.” 

Of the 46 responses we received to our question regarding reasons why the 

former TSES we interviewed separated from TSA, the initial two analysts 

agreed upon the categories for 37 TSES staff members’ responses. For all 9 

responses in which there was disagreement, a third analyst who reviewed 

the data agreed with the category assigned by one of the other two other 

analysts. 

Page 41 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

One of the general categories we established for why TSES separated from 

TSA was dissatisfaction with numerous agency reorganizations. To 

identify the number of reorganizations TSA experienced since its creation, 

and the movement of TSES staff associated with these reorganizations, we 

analyzed 10 organization charts provided to us by TSA covering calendar 

years 2002 through 2008.8

 These charts identified only high-level TSA 

organizational divisions and the TSES staff member (usually an Assistant 

Administrator) who headed each division.9

 To identify movement of TSES 

staff, we compared the charts in chronological order and counted the 

number of changes in the TSES staff person heading the division from one 

chart to the next. In conducting our analysis, we did not determine 

whether changes in TSES staff from one chart to the next were directly 

attributable to TSA’s reorganizations because we did not have the 

resources to investigate the specific circumstances surrounding each of 

the 149 changes. 

Another of the general categories we established for why TSES staff 

separated from TSA was dissatisfaction due to their perception of 

receiving insufficient or inequitable pay. TSA provided us data on the total 

amount of bonuses received by TSES staff employed with TSA during 

fiscal years 2005 through 2008. We analyzed these data to identify the 

number of TSES staff who received bonuses and the range of these 

cumulative payments for staff who separated and for those who did not 

separate during this period. For TSES staff who received, in addition to 

bonuses, relocation, retention, and recruitment payments, TSA provided 

us with a single sum for all these payments. For these TSES staff, we could 

not identify the amount of the bonus from other payments made for 

recruitment, retention, or relocation purposes. Thus, we excluded from 

our analysis any individual receiving payments for recruitment, retention, 

or relocation, in addition to bonuses. Specifically, we excluded data for 4 

TSES staff who separated during fiscal years 2005 through 2008, and 34 

 

8

Specifically we received two for 2002; two for 2003; two for 2004; two for 2005; one for 

2006; and one for 2008. We were unable to determine, and TSA was unable to confirm, 

whether these charts depicted all TSA reorganizations since the agency’s creation. 

Furthermore, because these charts only identified TSES staff members who led each 

division, our analysis did not capture the changes in lower-level TSES staff resulting from 

reorganizations. 

9

We were unable to use these charts to determine the extent of organizational change (that 

is, the number of changes in placement of divisions within the organization) resulting from 

reorganizations because, for various reasons, mergers and separations between divisions 

were not always clear when comparing the successive charts. 

Page 42 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

TSES staff who were employed throughout the 4-year period. Although we 

assessed TSA data on the number of TSES staff separations for fiscal years 

2005 through 2008 and found them reliable, we were not able to assess the 

reliability of the specific amounts of supplemental pay TSA reported giving 

to TSES over this time period because some of these data were not 

recorded within the CPDF for comparison. However, we confirmed with 

TSA that the data provided were applicable to all TSES employed over the 

fiscal year 2005 through 2008 time period. 

To address the impact of TSES attrition, we interviewed supervisors of 

separated TSES, employees who were direct reports to—that is, 

employees who were directly supervised by—separated TSES staff, and 

industry associations representing some of the various transportation 

sectors (aviation, surface, and maritime) that collaborate with TSA on 

transportation security initiatives. To conduct interviews with supervisors, 

we asked TSA to identify TSES supervisors who were still with TSA and 

who supervised any TSES who separated during fiscal years 2005 through 

2008. TSA identified nine TSES staff still at the agency who had supervised 

other TSES staff; we requested interviews with eight of these supervisors 

and conducted seven interviews.10 We asked the supervisors to identify the 

impact, if any, of the TSES separation(s) on 1) development or 

implementation of TSA programs or initiatives and 2) external stakeholder 

relations. Two analysts then performed a systematic content analysis to 

determine if the responses to our interview questions portrayed a positive 

impact, negative impact, or little to no impact. The analysts agreed in their 

determinations for all seven interviews. 

To identify direct reports for interviews, we asked the former TSES we 

interviewed to provide us with names of employees who reported directly 

to them when they were in TSES positions and who they believed were 

still TSA employees; among the 25 former TSES staff who responded to 

our inquiry, we were given names of 52 TSA employees who had reported 

directly to these TSES staff during their tenure at TSA.11 Though this 

selection method relied upon the recommendations of separated TSES 

 

10These were with four Assistant Administrators, one supervisory FSD, and two other TSES 

in positions which required them to supervise other TSES. We did not request an interview 

with the remaining supervisor because this person was the Acting Administrator of TSA, 

and her views would be captured in the agency’s final comment upon our draft. 

11At this point in our engagement, we had interviewed a total of 38 separated TSES staff 

members. 

Page 43 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

staff, we attempted to adjust for any bias the TSES staff may have had 

when recommending these individuals by ensuring that the direct reports 

we interviewed were evenly distributed across the following three 

categories: 1) reported to TSES staff who left TSA for only nonadverse 

reasons; 2) reported to TSES staff who left TSA for a combination of 

nonadverse and adverse reasons; and 3) reported to TSES staff who left 

TSA for adverse reasons only.12 We then selected 26 direct reports for 

interviews from among the three groups.13 We were able to conduct a total 

of 22 interviews: 5 from the nonadverse category; 4 from the 

nonadverse/adverse category; and 13 from the adverse only category.14 We 

conducted 9 of the 22 interviews in person at TSA headquarters with only 

ourselves—and no other TSA employee—present in the room; we 

conducted the remainder of direct report interviews via telephone, with a 

TSA staff person online throughout the call. This staff person was the TSA 

liaison, whose responsibility is to ensure that GAO receives access to 

requested documentation and interviews for a given engagement. Though 

the TSA liaison had no supervisory authority over the direct report staff 

we interviewed, the presence of this individual during the phone call could 

have inhibited the responses of the direct report interviewees we spoke 

with via telephone. We asked the direct reports to describe the impact, if 

any, of a TSES supervisor’s separation on their individual responsibilities 

and the efforts underway in their particular division. We then performed a 

systematic content analysis of their responses in the same manner as our 

content analysis of separated TSES interviews. The two analysts reviewing 

the direct report interviews agreed in their determinations for all 22 

interviews. 

 

12The separated TSES staff members who identified direct reports had been placed into 

these categories based on the preliminary results of the content analysis we were 

performing to determine the reasons for TSES separation. 

13Because a smaller number of direct reports were identified by TSES in the former two 

groups (nonadverse only and a combinations of adverse and nonadverse), we selected all 

direct reports identified by these two groups—a total of 11 individuals (5 were identified by 

the non-adverse only group and 6 were identified by the combination group). With regard 

to direct reports identified by separated TSES staff reporting only adverse reasons, we 

selected one direct report from each separated TSES who provided names, a total of 15 

individuals. 

14Two of the direct reports identified to use for interviews had already left TSA; because 

the separated TSES provided contact information for these individuals, we were able to 

interview them. These were the only direct reports we interviewed who were not currently 

employed with TSA. 

Page 44 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Finally, to obtain perspectives from industry stakeholders, we interviewed 

seven TSA transportation industry groups. We identified these industry 

groups based on our experience in the field of transportation security and 

by canvassing GAO analysts working in the area of transportation security 

for other contacts. We requested interviews with 13 industry stakeholder 

groups and either received written responses or obtained interviews with 

7—specifically 3 aviation associations, 1 surface transportation 

association; and 3 maritime transport associations.15 We asked the 

stakeholders to identify whether they were aware of turnover among TSES 

staff, how they knew turnover had occurred, and how it impacted a 

specific policy or program they were working with TSA to implement. Two 

analysts then performed a systematic content analysis on the responses, 

and there was no disagreement between their determinations. 

Although the direct report, supervisor, and industry stakeholder 

interviews provided important perspectives on impact of executive 

attrition, the results could not be generalized, and therefore, do not 

represent the views of the entire population of each group. 

 

15Specifically, we spoke with officials from Airports Council International, the International 

Air Transport Association, the American Public Transportation Association, the Airport 

Law Enforcement Agencies Network, the American Association of Port Authorities, the 

World Shipping Council, and the Chamber of Shipping of America. The remaining six 

industry groups that we contacted did not respond to our initial request for an interview, 

thus we were not able to obtain their views. Of the six industry groups that did not 

respond, two were aviation associations, two were maritime transport associations, and 

two were surface transportation associations. 

Page 45 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To gather information on TSA efforts to address attrition, we interviewed 

the Assistant Administrator and the Deputy Assistant Administrator of 

TSA’s Human Capital Office to learn about the various initiatives they have 

underway to address attrition and to improve management of their 

executive resources. These officials identified several initiatives, which we 

assessed, including a reinstated exit interview process, decreased use of 

limited term appointments, and recent release of a comprehensive 

handbook delineating TSES human capital policies, succession planning, 

and the establishment of a merit-based staffing process. 

To assess the exit survey process, we consulted prior GAO reports that 

address the use of exit interview data in workforce planning.16 We 

reviewed exit interviews TSA conducted under its previous process 

(specifically, five interviews dating from January 2008 through September 

2008), and examined TSA’s data collection tool for conducting these 

interviews. We also reviewed the National Exit Survey instrument that 

TSA is presently using to conduct exit interviews of TSES staff, and 

conducted interviews with TSA human capital officials on the agency’s 

plans for implementing this process. 

Objective 3-The Extent to 

which TSA Efforts to 

Manage TSES Attrition and 

Improve Overall 

Management of Its TSES 

Workforce Are Consistent 

with Effective Human 

Capital Practices and 

Standards for Internal 

Control 

To determine whether TSA has decreased its use of TSES limited term 

appointments, we reviewed TSA-provided data on the number of limited 

term appointments the agency made for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, 

and reviewed CPDF data on the total number of TSES staff hired for fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008. We were not able to determine the reliability of 

these data because some TSA data on limited term appointments were not 

recorded within CPDF. 

To determine the extent to which TSA’s handbook for TSES human capital 

policies and its succession plan were consistent with effective human 

capital practices and internal control standards, we reviewed criteria in 

prior GAO reports, as well as the standards for internal control in the 

federal government.17 We reviewed TSA management directives for TSES 

staff from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2008 (one of which is the 

 

16See GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2002), and GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective 

Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 2003). 

17See GAO-02-373SP, and GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Page 46 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

November 2008 handbook),18 as well as TSA’s succession plan (both the 

2006 and 2008 versions).19 To identify the extent to which TSA has 

implemented its succession plan, we also reviewed TSA data on the 

number of staff who completed executive-level training identified within 

its succession plan and spoke with human capital officials responsible for 

compiling these data. 

Finally, to determine the extent to which TSA has been following meritbased staffing requirements for hiring TSES staff, we first reviewed 

documentation delineating TSA’s hiring process, specifically its Executive 

Resource Council (ERC) charter. To determine the merit staffing 

requirements TSA’s ERC process should encompass, we reviewed 

applicable OPM regulations addressing merit staffing.20 We identified 

seven merit staffing requirements that should have been reflected within 

TSA’s hiring process, and therefore, within its documentation of hiring 

decisions (see table 7). To ensure that the seven requirements we 

identified were an appropriate standard for assessing TSA’s performance 

of merit staffing, we reviewed OPM’s audit procedures for merit staffing 

and found that OPM requires agencies operating under its jurisd

document performance of these seven requirements. In addition, TSA 

officials also confirmed that these were the key merit staffing 

requirements they followed and agreed that these should be reflected 

within documentation for T

iction to 

SES hiring decisions. 

 

18Transportation Security Administration Office of Human Capital, TSA Handbook to 

Management Directive No. 1100.30-24, Transportation Security Executive Service 

Program (Washington, D.C.: November, 2008). 

19Transportation Security Administration Office of Human Capital, Succession Plan for 

TSA (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 2008, updated Dec. 1, 2008). Transportation Security 

Administration Office of Human Capital, Succession Plan for TSA (Washington, D.C.: June 

2006). 

20Pursuant to ATSA, TSA adopted the personnel management system established by the 

Federal Aviation Administration, which falls outside of OPM’s jurisdiction and, therefore, is 

not bounded by OPM requirements, including merit staffing requirements for executive 

appointments. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 114(n), 40122(g); see also generally 49 C.F.R. tit. 5. 

However, TSA’s ERC charter, which identifies TSA’s process for staffing TSES staff, states 

that the process follows merit staffing procedures; moreover, the TSA Assistant 

Administrator for Human Capital stated in an interview that merit staffing procedures, as 

identified within regulations, are embedded within TSA’s staffing process. See generally 49 

C.F.R. pt. 317. 

Page 47 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 10: Seven Key Merit Staffing Requirements 

Public notice of position availability 

Identification of all minimally eligible candidates 

Identification of position qualifications 

Rating and ranking of all eligible candidates using position qualifications 

Determination of a best-qualified list 

Selection of a candidate for the position from among those best qualified 

TSA’s certification of a candidate’s executive and technical qualifications 

Source: GAO review of OPM regulations establishing merit staffing requirements. 

(5 C.F.R. §§ 317.501-.502). 

To determine whether TSA was documenting its performance of the seven 

merit staffing requirements, we reviewed all case files for competitively 

filled, career appointments to TSES positions for calendar years 2006 and 

2008—a total of 41 case files.21 We reviewed case files for competitively 

filled, career appointments specifically because TSA has committed to 

using merit staffing for these hiring decisions; thus, we could expect to 

find documentation of TSA’s performance of merit staffing procedures 

within these files. We did not review case files from 2007, because we 

were interested in comparing how TSA followed merit staffing 

requirements when it initially established its ERC process in 2006, with 

how it followed them more recently in 2008—the most recent full calendar 

year when we undertook our review. After we provided the draft report to 

DHS for comment on July 27, 2009, TSA officials informed us that the they 

had additional documentation to demonstrate that the agency had adhered 

to the merit staffing principle of agency certification of the candidate’s 

executive and technical qualifications for more TSES career positions than 

the number identified in our draft report. TSA provided this additional 

documentation to us on September 4, 2009. Although this documentation 

had not been kept in the files we reviewed, we assessed the additional 

documentation and revised our report accordingly. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through October 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

 

21Specifically, we looked at 25 case files dating from March 2006 (when TSA’s staffing 

process was established) through the end of calendar year 2006 and 16 case files from 

calendar year 2008 (the most recent full calendar year in which TSA was following its ERC 

process). 

Page 48 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our objectives. 

Page 49 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix II: Transportation Security Appendix II: Transportation Security Executive Service Staff Attrition Data 

Executive Service Staff Attrition Data 

The following tables provide data for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 on the 

number of senior executive staff who attrited—or separated—from the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA); other selected Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies; and all cabinet-level departments, 

excluding DHS. In this report, we define attrition as separation from an 

agency by means of resignation, termination, retirement, expiration of 

appointment, or transfer to another cabinet-level department. Senior 

executive staff members in TSA are those individuals who are part of the 

Transportation Security Executive Service (TSES), and senior executives 

for other DHS agencies and cabinet-level departments are those 

individuals who are part of the Senior Executive Service (SES) or who 

hold SES-equivalent positions (for those agencies within cabinet-level 

departments that, like TSA, do not have SES). The DHS agencies for which 

we provide SES attrition data are those with operational missions, namely 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Secret Service (USSS). We also provided SES 

attrition data for “DHS Headquarters,” which includes all DHS executive 

staff in positions serving departmentwide functions, such as those 

involving financial or human capital management.1

 We do not report rates 

and percentages for populations under 50. Although the executive 

populations of TSA and some DHS components for fiscal years 2004 

through 2008 numbered more than 50 individuals (namely CBP, DHS 

Headquarters, and Rest of DHS), most DHS components had less than 50 

executives during this period. So that the presentation of our data would 

be uniform, we chose to present the attrition data in tables 11, 13, 15, 17, 

and 19 in total figures for all DHS components. 

 

1

The remaining TSES at smaller DHS components we included within the category, “Rest of 

DHS,” table notes identify which TSA component executives are included within this 

category for each fiscal year. 

Page 50 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition 
Appendix II: Transportation Security 

Executive Service Staff Attrition Data 

Table 11: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior Executives at All DHS Components 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executivesa

Total 

attrited Other Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 154 25 0 4 9 3 1 8

CBP 64 16 0 0 1 15 0 0

USSS 38 10 0 0 0 10 0 0

FEMA 38 8 0 0 4 2 0 2

ICE 36 6 0 0 3 3 0 0

USCG 10 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

USCIS 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DHS headquarters 26 7 0 0 4 0 0 3

Rest of DHSb50 13 0 0 7 2 0 4

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

For all tables in which we present data on the average number of executives, we calculated these 

figures by averaging (1) the number of senior executive staff in the CPDF as of the last pay period of 

the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year for which the attrition rate was calculated and (2) the number of 

senior executive staff in CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal year in which the attrition 

occurred. 

b

Includes Office of the Inspector General; Office of the Under Secretary (OUS) Border and 

Transportation Security; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; OUS Information Analysis and 

Infrastructure Protection; OUS Management; and OUS for Science and Technology. 

Table 12: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level 

Departments 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Rate of 

attritiona Other Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment 

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 154 16% <1% 3% 6% 2% 1% 5%

DHS 

(excluding 

TSA)b

268 23% 0% 0% 7% 12% 0% 4%

Cabinet-level 

agencies 

(excluding 

DHS) 6269 10% <1% <1% 2% 7% <1% 2%

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Due to rounding, the sum of the attrition rates by separation type may not add to the rate of attrition. 

b

The sum of the average number of SES in the individual DHS components (excluding TSA) in table 

11 will not equal the average number of DHS (excluding TSA) in table 12 because these are average 

numbers, and not total numbers, of SES employed over the year. 

Page 51 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix II: Transportation Security 

Executive Service Staff Attrition Data 

Table 13: Fiscal Year 2005 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior Executives at All DHS Components 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Total 

attrited Other Terminated Resigned Retired 

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 160 32 1 3 20 4 0 4

CBP 58 8 0 0 0 6 1 1

USSS 39 10 0 0 0 10 0 0

FEMA 33 8 0 0 2 3 0 3

ICE 31 6 0 0 1 3 0 2

USCIS 16 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

USCG 8 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

DHS headquarters 35 15 0 0 10 1 0 4

Rest of DHSa60 13 0 0 5 4 0 4

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Includes Office of the Inspector General; OUS Border and Transportation Security; Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center; OUS Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection; OUS 

Management; OUS For Science and Technology. 

Table 14: Fiscal Year 2005 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level 

Departments 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Rate of 

attritiona Other Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment 

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 160 20% 1% 2% 13% 3% 0% 3%

DHS 

(excluding 

TSA)b

278 23% 0% 0% 7% 11% <1% 5%

Cabinet-level 

agencies 

(excluding 

DHS) 6289 11% <1% <1% 3% 7% <1% 2%

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Due to rounding, the sum of the attrition rates by separation type may not add to the rate of attrition. 

b

The sum of the average number of SES in the individual DHS components (excluding TSA) in table 

13 will not equal the average number of DHS (excluding TSA) in table 14 because these are average 

numbers, and not total numbers, of SES employed over the year. 

Page 52 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix II: Transportation Security 

Executive Service Staff Attrition Data 

Table 15: Fiscal Year 2006 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior Executives at All DHS Components 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives Total attrited Other Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 144 27 0 2 18 4 0 3

CBP 67 10 0 0 3 7 0 0

USSS 41 7 0 0 0 7 0 0

FEMA 35 13 0 0 5 6 0 2

ICE 33 4 0 0 2 2 0 0

USCIS 16 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

USCG 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

DHS 

headquarters 

50 24 0 0 13 6 0 5

Rest of DHSa57 12 0 0 4 4 0 4

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Includes Department of Homeland Security; Office of the Inspector General; OUS Border and 

Transportation Security; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; OUS Information Analysis and 

Infrastructure Protection; and OUS for Science and Technology. 

Table 16: Fiscal Year 2006 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-Level 

Departments 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Rate of 

attritionaOther Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment 

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 144 19% <1% 1% 13% 3% 0% 2%

DHS 

(excluding 

TSA)b

306 24% 0% 0% 9% 12% 0% 4%

Cabinet-level 

agencies 

(excluding 

DHS) 6403 11% <1% <1% 2% 6% <1% 2%

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Due to rounding, the sum of the attrition rates by separation type may not add to the rate of attrition. 

b

The sum of the average number of SES in the individual DHS components (excluding TSA) in table 

15 will not equal the average number of DHS (excluding TSA) in table 16 because these are average 

numbers, and not total numbers, of SES employed over the year. 

Page 53 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix II: Transportation Security 

Executive Service Staff Attrition Data 

Table 17: Fiscal Year 2007 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior Executives at All DHS Components 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Total 

attrited Other Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment 

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 139 18 1 1 6 6 2 2

CBP 74 15 0 0 1 14 0 0

USSS 45 5 0 0 0 5 0 0

FEMA 43 6 0 0 2 1 0 3

ICE 42 10 0 0 1 8 0 1

USCIS 24 3 0 0 1 2 0 0

USCG 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 1

DHS headquarters 76 10 0 0 5 1 0 4

Rest of DHSa52 11 0 0 4 3 0 4

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Includes Department of Homeland Security; Office of the Inspector General; Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center; OUS Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection; and OUS for 

Science and Technology. 

Table 18: Fiscal Year 2007 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level 

Departments 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Rate of 

attritionaOther Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment 

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 139 13% 1% 1% 4% 4% 1% 1%

DHS 

(excluding 

TSA)b

365 17% 0% 0% 4% 9% 0% 4%

Cabinet-level 

agencies 

(excluding 

DHS) 6575 11% <1% 0% 2% 7% <1% 2%

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Due to rounding, the sum of the attrition rates by separation type may not add to the rate of attrition. 

b

The sum of the average number of SES in the individual DHS components (excluding TSA) in table 

17 will not equal the average number of DHS (excluding TSA) in table 18 because these are average 

numbers, and not total numbers, of SES employed over the year. 

Page 54 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix II: Transportation Security 

Executive Service Staff Attrition Data 

Table 19: Fiscal Year 2008 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior Executives at All DHS Components 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Total 

attrited Other Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment 

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 144 15 0 0 4 5 1 5

CBP 89 8 0 0 2 5 0 1

FEMA 54 10 0 0 4 4 0 2

ICE 51 8 0 0 2 6 0 0

USSS 47 11 0 0 0 11 0 0

USCIS 41 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

USCG 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DHS headquarters 102 18 0 0 13 2 0 3

Rest of DHSa53 5 0 0 2 2 0 1

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Includes Office of the Inspector General; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; OUS 

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection; and OUS for Science and Technology. 

Table 20: Fiscal Year 2008 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-Level 

Departments 

Agency 

Average 

number of 

executives 

Rate of 

attritionaOther Terminated Resigned Retired

Termination - 

expiration of 

appointment

Voluntary/other 

transfer

TSA 144 10% <1% 0% 3% 3% 1% 3%

DHS 

(excluding 

TSA)b

446 14% 0% 0% 5% 7% 0% 2%

Cabinet-level 

agencies 

(excluding 

DHS) 6791 11% <1% <1% 2% 6% <1% 2%

Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File. 

a

Due to rounding, the sum of the attrition rates by separation type may not add to the rate of attrition. 

b

The sum of the average number of SES in the individual DHS components (excluding TSA) in table 

19 will not equal the average number of DHS (excluding TSA) in table 20 because these are average 

numbers, and not total numbers, of SES employed over the year. 

Page 55 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix III: Transportation Security Appendix III: Transportation Security Administration National Exit Survey 

Administration National Exit Survey 

Page 56 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition 
Appendix III: Transportation Security 

Administration National Exit Survey 

Page 57 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV: Comments from the of Homeland Security 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 58 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 59 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 60 GAO-10-139 TSA Executive Attrition
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 61 GAO-10-139 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Stephen M. Lord, (202) 512-8777 or lords@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, Kristy Brown (Assistant Director) 

and Mona Blake (Analyst-in-Charge) managed this assignment. Maria 

Soriano, Kim Perteet, and Janet Lee made significant contributions to the 

work. Gregory Wilmoth, Catherine Hurley, and Christine San assisted with 

design, methodology, and data analysis. Tom Lombardi and Jeff 

McDermott provided legal support. Adam Vogt provided assistance with 

report preparation. 

TSA Executive Attrition 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440718) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper