DHS HUMAN 

CAPITAL 

Senior Leadership 

Vacancy Rates 

Generally Declined, 

but Components’ 

Rates Varied 

Report to Congressional Committees

February 2012 

GAO-12-264 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

Revised February 22, 2012, to remove the header “What GAO 

Recommends” that was inadvertently inserted on the highlights 

page.
 United States Government Accountability Office 

Highlights of GAO-12-264, a report to 

congressional committees 

February 2012 

DHS HUMAN CAPITAL

Senior Leadership Vacancy Rates Generally 

Declined, but Components' Rates Varied 

Why GAO Did This Study 

Since its creation, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) has faced 

scrutiny from Congress and others 

concerning DHS’s ability to hire and 

retain senior executives. GAO was 

requested to review senior leadership 

vacancies at DHS, including efforts to 

address vacancies. This report 

addresses: (1) vacancy rates in DHS 

senior leadership positions from fiscal 

years 2006 through 2011 and how 

these rates compared with other 

federal agencies; (2) attrition in DHS 

senior leadership positions, how 

attrition compares with other federal 

agencies, and actions DHS has taken 

to identify causes of senior leadership 

attrition; and (3) programs to help 

address senior-leadership hiring and 

recruitment. 

GAO calculated vacancy and attrition 

rates using Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) data. GAO also 

used National Finance Center (NFC) 

payroll data obtained from DHS in 

vacancy rate calculations. There is no 

generally agreed upon standard for 

vacancy rates. However, to provide 

perspective, using OPM data, GAO 

calculated vacancy rates for other 

agencies subject to the Chief Financial 

Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 and 

compared them with DHS. GAO found 

the OPM and NFC data sufficiently 

reliable to calculate vacancy and 

attrition rates. To determine actions 

taken to identify attrition causes and 

efforts to enhance recruitment and 

retention, GAO reviewed agency 

documents, interviewed DHS human 

capital officials, and considered human 

capital practices GAO has previously 

recommended. 

What GAO Found 

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) senior leadership vacancy rates, 

while reaching a peak of 25 percent in 2006, have generally declined since that 

time—from 25 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 10 percent at the end of fiscal year 2011. 

From fiscal years 2006 through 2010—the most recent year for which 

governmentwide vacancy and attrition data were available—DHS vacancy rates in 

2006, 2007, and 2010 were statistically higher than the average of other agencies 

subject to the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act but were not statistically different in 

2008 and 2009. DHS’s components’—such as the Transportation Security 

Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—vacancy rates 

varied. Many had vacancy rates above 20 percent—one as high as 57 percent—in 

fiscal year 2006, but generally had lower rates at the end of fiscal year 2011. 

At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS’s senior leadership attrition rate was 11.4 

percent. For fiscal years 2006 through 2010, the most frequent separation types were 

retirements and resignations. DHS’s attrition rates were statistically higher than the 

average of other CFO agencies in 2006, 2007, and 2009 but not statistically different 

in 2008 and 2010. In January 2010, DHS deployed an exit survey to be sent to all 

separating employees. DHS analyzed survey responses from 17 self-identified senior 

executives. The top three survey choices selected regarding reasons for leaving were 

1) supervisor/management, 2) personal or family-related reasons, and 3) salary/pay. 

DHS officials implemented two programs to enhance senior leadership hiring and 

recruitment. In fiscal year 2010, DHS implemented a simplified pilot hiring process 

aiming to attract additional qualified applicants. According to DHS officials, the pilot 

was successful, and they now plan to use the method for all Senior Executive Service 

hiring. DHS also implemented a centralized candidate-development program aimed 

at providing a consistent approach to leadership training. 

GAO provided a draft of this report to DHS. DHS reiterated the actions it is taking to 

enhance senior leadership recruitment and hiring. 

DHS Senior Executive Service Vacancies Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 

550

600

650

700

750

800

Allocations

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sources: GAO analysis of NFC and OPM data.

Fiscal year (biweekly pay periods)

Vacancy rate (percentage)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

On-board data for October-December 2005 were not available. Fiscal year 2006 vacancy calculation is for 

January-September 2006.

Allocations of SES positions to DHS.

Vacancy rate by pay period.

View GAO-12-264. For more information, 

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

maurerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Letter 1 

Background 6

DHS SES Vacancy Rates Have Generally Declined, Have Been 

Higher Than Other Federal Agencies at Times, and Have Varied 

for Specific DHS Components 8

Resignations and Retirements Were the Most Common Reasons for 

Separation; Attrition Rates Were Higher 18

Than Other CFO Agencies in Some Years 18

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Department of Homeland Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011 27

Appendix II Department of Homeland Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010 40

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 46

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47

Tables

Table 1: Senior Leadership Position Allocations, as of Sept. 30, 2011 7

Table 2: DHS and Other CFO Act Agencies’ SES Vacancy Rates, as 

of September 30, 2010 (in percentages) 13

Table 3: DHS Component SES On-Board Numbers and Vacancy 

Rates, as of the Beginning and End of Fiscal Year 2011 15

Table 4: Number and Type of Separations for Senior Leadership 

Positions DHS-Wide, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010 19

Table 5: DHS Attrition Relative to Other CFO Act Agencies as of 

September 30, 2010 (in percentages) 19

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2006 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership 

Separations 40

Table 7: Fiscal Year 2007 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership 

Separations 41

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Table 8: Fiscal Year 2008 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership 

Separations 42

Table 9: Fiscal Year 2009 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership 

Separations 43

Table 10: Fiscal Year 2010 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership 

Separations 44

Table 11: DHS Components’ Attrition Rates by Fiscal Year 45

Figures

Figure 1: DHS SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 10

Figure 2: DHS and Average of Other CFO Act Agency SES Vacancy 

Rates for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 12

Figure 3: USCIS SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2011 29

Figure 4: CPB SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 31

Figure 5: FEMA SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2011 33

Figure 6: ICE SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 35

Figure 7: TSA TSES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 37

Figure 8: USSS SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011 39
Page iii GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Abbreviations

CDP Candidate Development Program 

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CBP United States Customs & Border Protection

CPDF Central Personnel Data File

DHS Department of Homeland Security

ESCS Executive and Schedule C System

ECQ Executive Core Qualifications

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

NFC National Finance Center

OCHCO Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SES Senior Executive Service

SL Senior Level

ST Scientific/Professional

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSES Transportation Security Executive Service

USCG United States Coast Guard

USCIS United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

USSS United States Secret Service

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 10, 2012

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Chairman 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Government Management Oversight, the Federal

 Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United State Senate

Since its creation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has faced 

scrutiny from Congress and others concerning DHS’s ability to hire and 

retain senior executives. July 2007 and June 2008 reports from the 

majority staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the 

National Academy of Public Administration, respectively, each raised 

concerns about the number of vacant senior leadership positions at 

DHS.1 DHS has acknowledged, in its human capital strategic plan, facing 

challenges in recruiting and hiring qualified individuals to fill vacancies at 

the senior executive level. As we reported in June 2007, high-performing 

organizations understand that they need senior leaders who are 

accountable for results, drive continuous improvement, and stimulate and 

support efforts to integrate human capital approaches with organizational 

goals and related transformation.2

 

1

Committee on Homeland Security (Majority Staff) Report: Critical Leadership Vacancies 

Impede United States Department of Homeland Security (Washington, D.C.: July 2007) 

and National Association of Public Administration: Addressing the 2009 Presidential 

Transition at the Department of Homeland Security (Washington, D.C.: June 2008)

Moreover, as we reported in April 

2

GAO, Human Capital: Bonuses to Senior Executives at the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, GAO-07-985T (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2007).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

2008, extensive loss of experienced workers can lead to critical gaps in 

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

In 2003, we designated implementing and transforming DHS as high risk 

because DHS had to transform 22 agencies—several with major 

management challenges—into one department, and failure to effectively 

address DHS’s management and mission risks could have serious 

consequences for U.S. national and economic security. Human capital 

was among the challenges for implementing and transforming DHS that

we identified.

 

4 In our most recent update of the high risk work, we noted 

that in December 2010, DHS issued its Workforce Strategy for Fiscal 

Years 2011–2016, which contains the department’s workforce goals, 

objectives, and performance measures for human capital management. 

We identified implementing this strategy and linking workforce- planning 

efforts to strategic and program-specific planning efforts to identify current 

and future human-capital needs as one of the key outcomes that are 

critical to addressing DHS’s implementation and transformation 

challenges.5

DHS relies on four types of senior leadership positions to operate and 

oversee nearly every activity in the department: (1) Presidential 

appointments (with or without Senate confirmation); (2) Senior Executive 

Service (SES) personnel who carry out managerial, supervisory, and 

policy advisory responsibilities;6

 

3

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

and Retain Experienced Employees, 

(3) Senior Level (SL) personnel who 

provide expertise in complex areas that generally do not have a 

managerial focus, and (4) Scientific/Professional (ST) personnel who are 

specialized professionals who generally have fundamental research and 

development responsibilities. The senior leadership vacancies and 

attrition examined in this report do not include Presidential appointments 

(with or without Senate confirmation).

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

4

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

5

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011).

6

Discussions of SES in this report include the Transportation Security Administration’s 

SES equivalent, the Transportation Security Executive Service.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Given the importance of senior leadership and DHS’s mission to prevent 

terrorism, secure our borders and cyberspace, and ensure resilience to 

disasters, you requested that we review senior leadership vacancies at 

DHS, including efforts to identify their causes and address them.7

1. What were vacancy rates in DHS senior leadership positions from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and how do these vacancy rates 

compare with other federal agencies?

This 

report addresses the following questions:

2. What were the attrition rates in DHS senior leadership positions from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2010, how do these rates compare with 

other federal agencies, and what actions has DHS taken to identify 

causes of senior leadership attrition?

3. What programs has DHS implemented to enhance senior leadership 

hiring and recruitment?

DHS officials reported that a number of different factors or events have 

influenced the department’s vacancy rates at various points in time and 

for variable durations—including OPM’s authorization of additional senior 

level allocations, department and component reorganizations, and 

political transitions. When vacancy rates fluctuate, single data points may 

not provide a representative picture of vacancy conditions. Therefore, we 

calculated trends based on vacancy rates derived at multiple points in 

time from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.

We analyzed DHS senior leadership vacancy and attrition information for 

the entire DHS organization. We also separately analyzed information for

the following DHS components: United States Customs & Border 

Protection (CBP), United States Citizenship & Immigration Services 

(USCIS), United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA), United States Secret Service (USSS), and 

the United States Coast Guard (USCG). We did not separately analyze 

vacancy information for USCG because of the relatively low number of 

USCG senior leadership positions.

 

7

For the purposes of this report, senior leadership vacancies include any unfilled senior 

leadership positions at DHS established pursuant to allocations by (or in the case of the 

Transportation Security Administration, pursuant to an agreement with OPM. See, e.g., 5 

C.F.R. § 330.101(b).
 

Page 4 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Our analysis of vacancy rates at DHS and its components focused on 

SES—including Transportation Security Executive Service (TSES)—

positions because DHS components had few SL and ST positions during 

the review period.8 To determine SES vacancy rates from fiscal years 

2006 through 2011, we analyzed departmental and component 

information on senior level allocations and on-board data by pay period. 

We used information on allocations contained in the letters sent from the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to DHS’s Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) informing DHS of the number of 

positions allocated.9 DHS’s Human Capital Business Systems Office 

provided on-board data by pay period, using the National Finance Center 

(NFC) payroll and personnel database that has been adopted by multiple 

government agencies.10

To determine how DHS’s SES vacancy rates compare with other federal 

agencies, we obtained the number of on-board and allocated SES 

positions for agencies across the federal government subject to the Chief 

Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 from OPM’s Central Personnel Data 

File (CPDF) and Executive and Schedule C System (ESCS), 

We calculated vacancy rates for each pay period 

by subtracting the number of staff on board from the current allocation to 

obtain a vacancy count and dividing that vacancy count by the allocation. 

 

8

Most DHS components were not allocated SL or ST positions during the 2006 through 

2011 review period. Specifically, only CBP received ST allocations during this time frame. 

Less than half the components received SL allocations—never exceeding a total of three 

positions. As of the end of fiscal year 2011, DHS had a total of 65 SL and ST allocations, 

60 of which were spread among DHS headquarters offices. The Office of the 

Undersecretary for Science and Technology is the only office to have received more than 

eight SL and ST allocations.

9

DHS-provided data on OPM allocations were not computer processed. OPM informs 

federal departments of their allocations via written letter. DHS provided us with copies of 

the OPM letters it received during the time frame of our review. 

10On-board data for October through December 2005 were not available because 

recoding and reorganization that took place in 2005 may have led to data reliability 

concerns. Our fiscal year 2006 vacancy calculation is for January through September 

2006.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

respectively.11

Our analysis of senior leadership attrition at DHS includes positions in the 

SES (including TSES), ST, and SL categories. To determine attrition 

rates at DHS and other CFO agencies from fiscal years 2006 through 

2010, we analyzed data from OPM's CDPF for information on separations 

by type, such as through resignation, transfers, retirement, termination, 

and expiration of a term appointment. We calculated the average number 

of executives on board 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. We calculated attrition rates by 

dividing the number of separations in a fiscal year by the average number 

of executives on board.

We calculated the respective end of fiscal year vacancy 

rates for DHS and for other CFO Act agencies and applied a t-test—a 

standard statistical test to determine whether the differences in this type 

of data are significant—to determine whether there is a statistical 

difference between DHS and other CFO Act agency vacancy rates. 

To determine the actions DHS has taken to identify the causes of senior 

level attrition and the efforts DHS has undertaken to enhance senior 

leadership recruitment and retention, we reviewed relevant agency 

documents, such as DHS’s Strategic Human Capital Plan and DHS’s 

Workforce Strategy for fiscal years 2011–2016. We also interviewed 

officials in DHS’s OCHCO and human capital officials in select DHS 

components. We considered the initiatives DHS has undertaken and 

which, if any, of our previous human capital recommendations might 

apply to DHS’s senior leadership efforts.

To assess the reliability of the NFC database for providing on-board data 

for senior leadership positions, we reviewed relevant documentation and 

conducted interviews with knowledgeable DHS human capital agency 

officials to understand how DHS collects, categorizes, and tabulates the 

 

11See 31 U.S.C. § 901 (identifying 24 agencies subject to requirements of the CFO Act). 

As of 2009, CFO Act agencies employed 98 percent of all federal employees. OPM’s 

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

executive branch employees, including separation data. OPM’s Executive Schedule C 

System is a database that tracks OPM allocations of SES positions to federal agencies. 

Schedule C positions are excepted from the competitive service because of the 

confidential or policy-determining nature of the position duties.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

data and the actions it takes to ensure its consistency, accuracy, and 

completeness. We determined the NFC on-board data provided by DHS 

to be sufficiently reliable for presenting the number of executives on 

board and calculating vacancy rates by pay period for fiscal years 2006 

through 2011. To determine the reliability of data obtained from OPM’s 

CPDF, we reviewed the data system’s technical documentation, as well 

as our prior work in which we reported that governmentwide data from the 

CPDF were 97 percent or more accurate.12

We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 through January 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

the evidence provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We determined that the CPDF 

data we use in this report are sufficiently reliable for presenting the 

number of executives on board as well as the number of separations at 

DHS, its components, and other CFO Act agencies, and for calculating 

vacancy and attrition rates. To determine the reliability of data obtained 

from OPM’s ESCS, we reviewed the data system’s technical

documentation and conducted interviews with knowledgeable OPM 

officials to understand the actions OPM takes to ensure the data’s 

consistency, accuracy, and completeness. We determined that the ESCS 

data we use in this report are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

calculating vacancy rates.

With more than 200,000 employees doing diverse jobs—for example, 

aviation and border security, emergency response, cybersecurity 

analysis, and chemical facility inspection—DHS is the third largest 

cabinet-level agency in the federal government. The DHS workforce is 

 

12See GAO-10-139 and 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).

Background 

DHS Workforce
 

Page 7 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

situated throughout the nation carrying out activities to support DHS’s 

multipronged mission to: (1) prevent terrorism and enhance security; (2) 

secure and manage the nation’s borders; (3) enforce and administer 

immigration laws; (5) safeguard and secure cyberspace; and (6) ensure 

resilience from disasters.

As of September 30, 2011, DHS had 624 SES and 164 TSES allocations, 

36 ST allocations, and 29 SL allocations for a total of 853 senior 

leadership positions. Table 1 shows how DHS allocated these senior 

leadership positions among the components and headquarters offices, as 

of September 30, 2011. 

Table 1: Senior Leadership Position Allocations, as of Sept. 30, 2011

Components Total Positions Allocated

CBP 118

FEMA 81

ICE 82

TSA 164

USCIS 58

USCG 20

USSS 53

DHS Headquarters and Other Offices 278 a

Total 854

Source: DHS OCHCO.

a

Vacancies are created primarily in two circumstances. First, vacancies 

are created when employees separate from the organization, leaving a 

position unfilled. Second, vacancies are created when positions are 

created but not yet filled—such as when agencies receive additional 

allocations of senior leadership positions for which an employee has yet 

to be hired.

DHS headquarters includes the following: Office of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Immediate 

Offices; Office of the General Counsel; Office of the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis; 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy; Office of the Operations Coordination and Planning 

Directorate; Office of Health Affairs/Chief Medical Officer; Office of the Under Secretary for 

Management; Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology; Office of the Under 

Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate; Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; and 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Separations: Separations are actions that end employment with an 

agency. Separations include expiration of limited term appointments, 

retirements, resignations, terminations, transfers, removals, separations 

How Vacancies in Senior 

Leadership Positions 

Come to Exist
 

Page 8 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

due to reduction in force, separations to enter the uniformed services, and 

deaths.13

Allocations: OPM, in consultation with the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), allocates senior leadership positions every 2 years.14 In 

consultation with OMB, OPM reviews requests from each department and 

agency and authorizes a specific number of SES positions for the 2 fiscal 

years covered by the requests. Within the allocation authorized by OMB, 

DHS may establish SES positions in accordance with OPM guidance as 

well as applicable law and regulation without further OPM approval. DHS 

allocates these positions among its components and its headquarters 

offices. In addition, OPM allows out-of-cycle requests for additional 

allocations if a pressing, unforeseen need arises. When DHS receives 

new allocations from OPM those positions appear as vacancies until they 

are filled. 

 

13Agencies may use up to 3 percent of their SES allocations for limited term 

appointments. See 5 C.F.R. §317.601(c). A limited term appointee may not serve in that 

capacity in excess of 36 months. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 317.602(c), 604(b)(2).

14For the purposes of this report, when we use the term allocation in connection with 

OPM, we are referring to an authorization by OPM for an agency to fill an established 

number of SES, SL, or ST positions. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 3104, 3133, and 5108. Senior 

leadership positions for TSA are not directly allocated by OPM, but are arranged under 

agreement between DHS and OPM. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. §§ 114(n) (applying, in general, 

the personnel management system established by the Federal Aviation Administration—a 

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

for greater flexibility in hiring, training, compensation, and location of personnel—to TSA).

DHS SES Vacancy 

Rates Have Generally 

Declined, Have Been 

Higher Than Other 

Federal Agencies at 

Times, and Have 

Varied for Specific 

DHS Components
 

Page 9 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

DHS SES vacancy rates have been as high as 25 percent in 2006 and 

since that time have varied but have generally declined. As of the end of 

fiscal year 2011, DHS’s SES (including TSES) vacancy rate was 10 

percent.15

 

15Because of the low number of SL and ST positions allocated among the components, 

our vacancy rate calculations are for SES positions only.

Increases in vacancy rates tended to be pronounced at times 

immediately following the receipt of new allocations. For example, 

following OPM’s allocation of 90 new SES positions in October 2009, the 

vacancy rate rose from 11.3 percent to 20.8 percent as additional 

positions to be filled were granted. Following that rise in the vacancy rate 

it remained elevated through the remainder of fiscal 2010—between 17.1 

percent and 20.2 percent. DHS officials attributed the elevation during 

2010 to a series of organizational factors including, departmental position 

reevaluations, delays in assigning allocations among the components, 

and changes in recruitment and hiring processes. For example, according 

to DHS OCHCO officials, the 90 new SES positions DHS received in 

fiscal year 2010 were less than half those originally requested by a prior 

administration and need to be reevaluated to determine whether they 

were directed toward programs most critical to the new administration.

DHS SES Vacancy Rates 

Declined through Fiscal 

Year 2009, Rose in 2010 as 

a Result of Organizational 

Factors, and Declined 

Again in 2011
 

Page 10 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 1: DHS SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011
 

Page 11 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Although there is no generally agreed-upon standard for acceptable 

vacancy rates, to provide perspective, we compared DHS’s rates to other 

CFO Act agencies. From fiscal years 2006 through 2010—the most 

recent year for which federalwide vacancy-rate data were available—DHS 

vacancy rates were at times statistically higher than other CFO Act 

agencies. Figure 2 shows the CFO vacancy rate at the end of each fiscal 

year in our review period, relative to the DHS vacancy rate at the same 

point in time and the highest and lowest DHS vacancy rates during each 

fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2010, the DHS vacancy rate at the 

end of the year was 17 percent and ranged from a low of 8.4 percent to a 

high of 20.7 percent during the course of the year. This compares to an 

average vacancy rate across other CFO agencies of 9.0 percent at the 

end of fiscal year 2010.

DHS Vacancy Rates Were, 

at Times, Statistically 

Higher Than Other CFO 

Act Agencies
 

Page 12 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 2: DHS and Average of Other CFO Act Agency SES Vacancy Rates for Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2011

Note: Department of Justice’s practices when reporting on-board data to OPM or inclusion in the 

CPDF did not allow for us to accurately calculate its vacancy rate. From fiscal years 2006 through 

2010, Department of Justice vacancy rates calculated using CPDF data resulted in negative vacancy 

rates (ranging from -34.1 percent to -54.1 percent). Department of Justice officials explained that the 

United States Attorney General was provided separate authority to establish a personnel system for 

senior personnel within the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

See 5 U.S.C. § 3151. On-board data for these Justice components were included in the data reported 

to OPM, resulting in an on-board number that was not proportionate to the OPM allocation data we 

used in our calculation. Therefore, we excluded the department from the CFO Act agency 

comparisons.

We performed tests of statistical significance, which demonstrated 

whether there was a statistical difference in vacancy rates between DHS 

and the average for other CFO Act agencies and determined that the 

DHS vacancy rate was statistically higher than the CFO average rate in 

fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2010. DHS’s rate was not statistically 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

different than the average of other CFO Act agencies in fiscal years 2008 

and 2009. Table 2 shows DHS’s vacancy rates relative to other CFO Act 

agencies, including the direction of statistical difference, for each of these 

fiscal years. Of note is that the number of newly allocated SES positions 

at DHS, particularly in 2007 and 2010, relative to most other CFO Act 

agencies is substantially higher. We could not compare DHS’s vacancy 

rate at the end of fiscal year 2011 with other CFO Act agencies because 

comparable data from these agencies were not yet available. 

Table 2: DHS and Other CFO Act Agencies’ SES Vacancy Rates, as of September 30, 2010 (in percentages)

Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated

Fiscal Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Department of 

Agriculture 10.4 402 9.0 402 15.4 408 13.0 399 8.8 399

Department of 

Commerce 6.9 378 4.5 378 1.3 378 0.0 370 a 0.3 373

Department of 

Defense 10.9 1378 8.8 1378 8.8 1401 9.2 1397 5.6 1423

Department of 

Education 2.2 90 5.6 90 0.0 90 4.8 83 8.1 86

Department of 

Energy 3.2 471 1.5 471 0.0a 471 0.4 470 5.4 480

Department of 

Health and Human 

Services 25.0 529 22.1 529 19.1 529 19.6 514 12.1 514

Department of 

Homeland Security 19.9 573 14.9 646 10.8 710 8.7 698 17.0 788

Department of 

Housing and Urban 

Development 13.8 116 10.3 116 7.8 116 6.6 106 0.0 111 a

Department of the 

Interior 6.1 280 8.9 280 6.8 280 1.9 270 2.2 273

Department of 

Labor 28.5 193 21.8 193 18.1 199 14.7 191 22.9 201

Department of 

State 17.7 192 18.8 192 15.9 195 22.5 191 12.4 194

Department of 

Transportation 17.5 251 12.4 251 12.7 251 11.8 238 11.9 244

Department of the 

Treasury 9.7 454 8.1 454 9.1 484 1.5 473 7.2 502

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 25.6 320 24.4 320 27.9 337 24.5 335 30.8 406
 

Page 14 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated Rate

Total 

Allocated

Fiscal Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Environmental 

Protection Agency 7.9 305 7.2 305 9.4 309 12.3 300 7.9 303

General Services 

Administration 21.9 114 14.9 114 16.2 117 17.1 111 11.7 111

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration 11.0 480 8.1 480 5.4 480 6.9 475 7.4 475

National Science 

Foundation 19.6 107 16.8 107 19.6 107 13.6 103 17.5 103

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 6.2 162 12.6 167 11.6 172 4.1 169 5.3 170

Office of Personnel 

Management 17.7 62 17.7 62 15.6 64 5.2 58 13.4 67

Small Business 

Administration 22.0 59 16.9 59 11.9 59 0.0a 54 1.9 54

Social Security 

Administration 3.7 161 10.6 161 13.8 174 9.1 164 8.3 169

US Agency for 

International 

Development 55.0 40 45.0 40 42.5 40 6.3 32 3.1 32

CFO average/total 

(excluding DHS 

and Justice) 12.9 b 6544 11.3 6549 10.7 6661 9.3 6503 9.0 6690

DHS Significance 

Direction Higher Higher Not Significant Not Significant Higher

Source: GAO Analysis of CPDF data.

a

OPM may authorize an agency, in certain circumstances and upon request, a temporary SES 

position that would increase the number of SES at an agency beyond its allocation. In these 

circumstances, an agency’s vacancy rate would be calculated as a negative number, but they are set 

to 0 for this table, to acknowledge that such overages are not permanent.

b

Department of Justice’s practices when reporting on-board data to OPM or inclusion in the CPDF did 

not allow for us to accurately calculate its vacancy rate. From fiscal years 2006 through 2010, 

Department of Justice vacancy rates calculated using CPDF data resulted in negative vacancy rates 

(ranging from -34.1 percent to -54.1 percent). Department of Justice officials explained that the United 

States Attorney General was provided separate authority to establish a personnel system for senior 

personnel within the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. See 5 

U.S.C. § 3151. On-board data for these Justice components were included in the data reported to 

OPM, resulting in an on-board number that was not proportionate to the OPM allocation data we used 

in our calculation. Therefore, we excluded the department from the CFO Act agency comparisons.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Vacancy rates for DHS components varied widely during fiscal years 

2006 through 2011. Component officials reported a number of different 

factors that may have contributed to component SES vacancy rates 

during that time period, including increases in allocations, events like 

Presidential transitions, and organizational factors such as 

reorganizations. Overall, component vacancy rates declined between 

2006 and 2011. USCIS, CBP, ICE, and FEMA all had lower vacancy 

rates in September 2011 than they had in the first pay period of 2006. 

Only TSA’s rate was higher in 2011 than 2006. USSS’s 2006 and 2011 

rates were similar, and USSS’s rate never exceeded 20 percent. 

Table 3 shows component vacancy rates and on-board counts at the 

beginning and end of fiscal year 2011. For more information about 

component vacancy rates, see appendix I. With the exception of TSA, all 

components experienced declining vacancy rates in 2011 and except 

FEMA all had rates lower than 20 percent at the end of fiscal year 2011.

Table 3: DHS Component SES On-Board Numbers and Vacancy Rates, as of the Beginning and End of Fiscal Year 2011

Component

2011 total on board

2011 vacancy rates

(percentage)

Fiscal year 2011 Start Fiscal year 2011 End Fiscal year 2011 Start Fiscal year 2011 End

CBP 98 106 15.5 8.6

FEMA 66 64 17.5 20.0

ICE 55 71 32.9 13.4

TSA 138 132 15.9 19.5

USCIS 44 51 24.1 12.1

USCG 16 19 20.0 5.0

USSS 50 51 2.0 0.0

Source: GAO Analysis of NFC and OPM Data.

Several components—CBP, FEMA, ICE, and USCIS—had vacancy rates 

near or higher than 20 percent in fiscal year 2006; however, most 

components experienced a decline in vacancy rates between fiscal year 

2006 and the early part of fiscal 2007. Officials from USCIS, for example, 

reported that in calendar years 2006 and 2007, USCIS filled 27 positions 

while experiencing only 4 new vacancies. As a result, USCIS experienced 

a significant drop in its vacancy rates—from 56.7 percent in pay period 1 

(January) of 2006 to 3.3 percent in pay period 8 (April) of 2007. In May 

2007, corresponding with new allocations, most components’ rates rose 

again. For example, USCIS’s SES allocations increased from 32 to 46 in 

May 2007. Correspondingly, from pay period 8 to pay period 9 in 2007 

DHS Components’ Vacancy 

Rates Varied Widely from 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2011, but Have Largely 

Declined Since 2006
 

Page 16 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

(April/May), USCIS’s vacancy rate rose from 3.3 percent to 37 percent. 

Similarly, CBP’s vacancy rate rose from 2.4 to 21.2; ICE’s rose from 12.8 

to 32.8, and FEMA’s rose from 9.8 to 27.4 due, at least in part, to 

increased allocations for SES positions.

Following the additional allocations in fiscal year 2007, CBP, ICE, and 

USCIS vacancy rates followed a similar pattern, generally declining as the 

newly created positions were filled then remaining relatively steady until 

receiving another sizable increase in allocations in July 2010. For 

example, USCIS received 8 new allocations in July 2010, increasing its 

authorized SES level from 50 to 58. As a result, USCIS’s vacancy rate 

rose from 0 to 17.2 percent during this time. 

USSS, FEMA, and TSA rates did not necessarily follow this pattern of 

increasing rates corresponding with new allocations followed by declining 

rates for various reasons. First, FEMA vacancy rates experienced an 

increase in early to mid fiscal year 2009 that did not correspond to new 

allocations. According to FEMA officials, the 2009 spike in vacancies was 

because of resignations associated with a changing administration. The 

officials noted that this increase in vacancies continued through 2009. 

USSS had the lowest vacancy rates of all components considered, as 

well as the lowest number of total SES allocations (other than USCG, 

which we did not separately evaluate). Throughout the entire period, the 

USSS SES vacancy rates tended to be in the single digits, and 

separations were generally because of retirements, with only one 

resignation. Because USSS has relatively small numbers of SES—as of 

September 30, 2011, it had 51—small changes in filled positions can 

result in disproportionately large changes in vacancy rates. USSS’s 

highest vacancy rates occurred from May through July 2010, when the 

rate increased from 10.4 percent to 19.6 percent. By July the end of 2010, 

USSS had filled these vacancies, and the rate had declined to 2 percent. 

Finally, TSA’s TSES vacancy rates were generally more stable than some 

of the other components, in part, because it had fewer allocations during 

our study period. TSES positions are not included in the OPM SES 

allocation that DHS allots to the other components and therefore did not 

occur on the same schedule. TSA received one allocation of 14 additional 

TSES positions during our review period, in early to mid fiscal year 2008. 

This increase in allocations coincided with an increase in vacancy rates 

from 7.3 to 15.9 percent. However, unlike other components, TSA’s 

vacancy rate did not subsequently decline. TSA’s highest vacancy rates 

occurred the following year, coinciding with the change in administration, 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

when the rate was as high as 23.2 percent. Overall, it remained near 20 

percent from about April 2008 until the end of fiscal year 2011. Among the 

components, TSA’s 164 TSES allocations are the highest number of 

senior leadership positions allocated. 

According to TSA’s Director of Executive Resources, TSES vacancies do 

not necessarily reflect unfilled positions that TSA has funded and has an 

active need to fill. Because TSA does not have an SES allocation from 

OPM, TSA and DHS agreed on a TSES allocation, which functions as a 

ceiling rather than a specific number of positions that must be filled. She 

explained that TSA has continued to mature as an organization and has 

gone through a number of organization transformations. In the course of 

transformations, some TSES positions have been abolished and later 

reallocated. For example, according to the director, during its current 

transformation, TSA reduced 12 Office of Security Operations regions to 

6 regions and reorganized 3 TSES per regional office to 1, thereby 

eliminating twelve SES positions. Those positions are then reflected as 

available in the TSES overall ceiling, but are not necessarily immediately 

reallocated for staffing. Additionally, she noted that in this tenth 

anniversary year, TSA has experienced a wave of retirements. In some 

cases, TSES officials transfer from their existing TSES positions to fill 

positions vacated by retirees. The director stated that TSA considers its 

highest organizational needs when it makes these TSES selections, 

whether through competition or transfers of current personnel.

In October 2009, we reported on executive turnover at TSA. We found 

that TSA executive attrition declined from fiscal years 2005 through 2008, 

but better information was needed on reasons for leaving and the 

executive hiring process. We recommended that TSA enable TSES staff 

to identify their position when completing exit surveys and better 

document how it applies merit staffing requirements when hiring TSES 

staff. TSA concurred and, in March 2010, TSA updated the National Exit 

Survey instrument to include TSES among its preset list of position titles 

to allow for the collection of data specific to TSES staff taking the survey. 

In addition, in March 2010 TSA officials established a process to audit the 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

TSES staffing files on a quarterly basis to ensure the completeness and 

accuracy of merit documentation.16 

At the end of fiscal year 2010—the most recent period for which CPDF 

attrition data were available—DHS’s attrition rate for all types of senior 

leadership (including SES, TSES, ST, and SL) separations was 11.4 

percent.17 As table 4 shows, from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, the 

most frequent types of senior leadership separations were resignations—

which were higher in the 2009 presidential transition year—and 

retirements, followed by transfers, and then by smaller numbers of 

terminations and other separations. Appendix II contains information 

about senior leadership attrition in the DHS components in fiscal years 

2006 through 2010.

 

16See GAO, Transportation Security Administration: TSA Executive Attrition Has Declined, 

but Better Information Is Needed on Reasons for Leaving and Executive Hiring Process, 

GAO-10-139 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2009).

17Data for fiscal year 2011 were not yet available in OPM’s CPDF at the time of this 

review.

Resignations and 

Retirements Were the 

Most Common 

Reasons for 

Separation; Attrition 

Rates Were Higher 

Than Other CFO 

Agencies in Some 

Years 

Retirements and 

Resignations Were the 

Leading Types of Senior 

Leadership Attrition in 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2010
 

Page 19 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Table 4: Number and Type of Separations for Senior Leadership Positions DHS-Wide, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010

Type of separation

Fiscal Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 a Total

Resignations 45 23 28 77 18 191

Retirements 42 42 37 30 38 189

Transfers 17 15 14 12 16 74

Terminations 2 3 1 6 4 16

Other 0 b 1 0 5 3 19

Total separations 104 84 80 130 79 479

Source: Data, CPDF; GAO Analysis.

a

2009 was a presidential transition year.

b

On the basis of CPDF data from September 30, 2010, DHS’s attrition rate 

was 11.4 percent, compared with an average rate of 10.1 percent for 

other CFO Act agencies. As shown in table 5, according to our tests of 

statistical significance, this 2010 attrition rate was generally comparable 

to other CFO Act agencies and also generally comparable in 2008. 

However, the rate was statistically higher than other CFO Act agencies 

during fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2009.

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

Table 5: DHS Attrition Relative to Other CFO Act Agencies as of September 30, 2010 (in percentages)

Fiscal year

Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board

2006

a

2007 2008 2009 2010

Department of 

Agriculture 9.0 413 12.5 424 16.8 411.5 17.4 401.5 7.5 415

Department of 

Commerce 12.8 407.5 12.8 415 13.2 423 13.6 433.5 9.7 432

Department of Defense 13.7 1367.5 12.7 1395.5 11.3 1428 14.6 1435 9.6 1473.5

Department of Education 15.8 88.5 16.0 87.5 14.6 89 27.4 87.5 18.1 83

Department of Energy 12.5 473.5 15.0 481.5 11.9 497.5 13.3 505 11.5 496

Department of Health 

and Human Resources 9.2 401 13.1 419.5 12.0 433 19.2 432 8.8 442.5

Department of 

Homeland Security 22.1 474.5 15.8 533 12.7 629 18.7 680.5 11.4 690.5

Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 12.2 98.5 10.7 103 14.1 106.5 28.8 104 10.3

106.5

Department of the 

Interior 12.8 337 13.9 331 10.8 332 16.7 340.5 10.4 345.5

DHS Attrition Was, at 

Times, Statistically Higher 

Than Other CFO Act 

Agencies
 

Page 20 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Fiscal year

Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board

2006

a

2007 2008 2009 2010

Department of Justice 9.3 720 10.9 760 10.3 8085 14.6 836.5 11.9 854

Department of Labor 8.1 160 8.2 159 12.8 172 21.3 178.5 16.0 175.5

Department of State 13.9 165 17.0 159 8.0 161.5 35.0 157 10.0 160

Department of 

Transportation 10.0 210.5 10.0 219.5 18.2 225 23.7 219.5 11.0 218.5

Department of the 

Treasury 17.5 435.5 14.6 430.5 14.5 447.5 14.3 474 13.7 490

Department of Veterans 

Affairs 13.8 246 12.7 243.5 9.6 250.5 14.0 257 12.3 275.5

Environmental 

Protection Agency 5.7 314.5 7.3 316 8.2 319 13.6 309.5 7.2 307

General Services 

Administration 21.3 94 20.3 93.5 13.1 99 23.7 97 8.2 97

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration 13.7 526 12.2 531.5 8.5 555 7.8 574.5 6.6 576.5

National Science 

Foundation 8.1 86.5 9.1 87.5 9.1 87.5 4.6 87.5 12.6 87

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 8.7 149 12.1 149 14.8 149 4.5 157 6.2 161.5

Office of Personnel 

Management 40.0 57.5 20.8 53 9.2 54.5 12.4 56.5 8.5 59

Small Business 

Administration 18.6 48.5 10.5 47.5 21.8 50.5 26.2 53.5 9.3 54

Social Security 

Administration 4.0 149.5 14.7 149.5 10.9 147 13.4 149.5 10.5 152

United States Agency for 

International 

Development 20.0 20 14.3 21 12.8 23.5 10.7 28 6.2 32.5

CFO average/total 

(excluding DHS) 12.2 6969.0 12.6 7077.0 11.8 7270.5 15.4 7374.5 10.1 7494,0

DHS Significance 

Direction

Higher Higher Not Significant Higher Not Significant

Data Source: CPDF; GAO Analysis.

a

We calculated average on-board 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.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

DHS collects data on attrition and has taken preliminary steps to analyze 

the causes of senior leadership attrition. Our prior work on human capital 

and workforce planning, as well as the Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government, indicate that identifying the causes of senior 

leadership attrition could support more effective human capital 

management. As part of a strategic workforce planning approach, we 

have reported that, in addition to attrition data, collecting information on 

why employees leave is useful. Specifically, we noted that collection and 

analysis of data on the reasons for attrition could help agencies minimize 

the lost investment in training, particularly when new employees resign.18

Similarly, according to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, as part of human capital planning, management should 

consider, among other things, how best to retain valuable employees to 

ensure the continuity of needed skills and abilities.19

Consistent with the Standards for Internal Control and the practices we 

have advocated, DHS maintains and tracks attrition data for workforce 

monitoring and planning on agencywide and component-specific bases. 

The attrition data that DHS maintains include breakdowns by positions—

such as SES, SL, and ST. In addition, in January 2010, DHS deployed its 

first departmentwide exit survey—the DHS National Exit Survey. When 

any employee voluntarily leaves DHS, they are to receive a link to the 

survey as part of exiting procedures. Results come directly to OCHCO 

and are analyzed on a quarterly basis. 

DHS has designed the survey to aid in its attrition data gathering and 

analysis. Separating employees, including senior leadership, are able to 

answer a series of questions about the reasons they decided to leave the 

department. Although DHS’s survey responses are confidential, 

respondents are given an opportunity to, among other things, (1) identify 

their pay system (i.e., the position they held, such as SES, SL, or ST), (2) 

the component they are leaving, and (3) the office or area in which they 

work. According to the OCHCO officials, all components are using the 

DHS Exit Survey with the exception of TSA and USSS. They stated that 

both TSA and USSS already had a working exit survey in place, and so 

 

18GAO, Homeland Security: DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff and Comply with 

the Vacancies Reform Act, GAO-07-758 (Washington, D.C., Jul. 16, 2007).

19GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C., November 1999).

DHS Has Recently 

Implemented a New Exit 

Survey That Can Help 

Identify the Reasons DHS 

Senior Leaders Separate 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

were given an exemption from using the DHS exit survey. Both 

components have incorporated the DHS core questions into their preexisting exit surveys. 

According to senior human capital officials, it is their policy to refrain from 

analyzing survey results with fewer than 10 respondents in any 

category—such as the positions ST, SL, and SES—to protect the 

anonymity of survey respondents. Because DHS has not had the 

minimum number of senior leadership leaving in a given quarter, DHS 

has not been able to analyze the causes of senior leadership attrition on a 

quarterly basis. However, DHS has analyzed, in the aggregate, the senior 

leadership responses it has collected since it implemented the survey. 

That analysis demonstrated that 17 departing officials have self-identified 

as senior executives. The top three survey responses these senior 

executives selected as reasons for leaving were 1) 

supervisor/management, 2) personal or family-related reasons; and 3) 

salary/pay.

In addition, some components—CBP, USCIS, and FEMA—reported that 

they separately use ad-hoc approaches to analyze attrition—including 

senior leadership attrition—for their workforces. For example, at FEMA, 

the top agency leadership officials conduct exit interviews with departing 

senior executives to discuss various matters, including reasons for 

separation. OCHCO officials said that their longer-term goal is to 

implement standardized out processing to improve their ability to collect 

and analyze information about senior leadership attrition, among other 

things, from these surveys.

We have previously reported key principles that strategic workforce 

planning should address, including developing strategies that address 

gaps and human capital conditions.20

 

20GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

DHS OCHCO officials identified two 

programs designed to enhance senior leadership hiring and recruitment: 

(1) a resume-only hiring process—which simplifies the process for 

applicants by streamlining application requirements and (2) a centralized 

SES candidate development program.

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2003).

DHS Has Implemented 

Programs to Help Address 

Senior Leadership Hiring 

and Recruitment 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Resume-Only Hiring Process. We reported in October 2009 that in a 

highly competitive job market, having an effective hiring process can help 

an agency compete for talented people who have the requisite knowledge 

and up-to-date skills to accomplish missions and achieve goals.21 In line 

with seeking to implement effective hiring processes, in 2010, DHS 

implemented a resume-only hiring process on a pilot basis to fill the 90 

newly allocated SES positions across DHS received as part of the OPM’s 

biennial review. The pilot resume-only process was used for internal and 

external applicants. The intent of the resume-only hiring process is to 

attract and generate a greater number of qualified applicants for 

executive-level positions than the traditional hiring method, which 

required narrative responses to five Executive Core Qualifications 

(ECQs).22

We reported in May 2008 that applicants can be dissuaded from public 

service by complex and lengthy application procedures.

 

23

 

21GAO, Federal Aviation Administration: Human Capital System Incorporates Many 

Leading Practices, but Improving Employees' Satisfaction with Their Workplace Remains 

a Challenge, 

Under the 

resume-only method, the vacancy announcement directs applicants to 

submit only a resume, rather than answering essay questions and other 

application requirements. Applicants demonstrate ECQs and any 

technical qualifications within the context of the resume. Components 

also developed, in coordination with the Diversity, Recruitment, and 

Veterans Outreach team in OCHCO, outreach plans to develop marketing 

and advertising strategies that would appeal to affinity and diversity 

groups for the new senior leadership positions. DHS human capital 

officials reported that overall, the process has resulted in highly qualified 

pools of candidates from which they have made selections. According to 

GAO-10-89 (Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2009).

22The ECQs were developed in 1997 after extensive research on the 

attributes of successful executives in both the private and public sectors. 

They were revalidated and reissued with a few modifications in 2006. In 

their current form, they represent the best thinking of organizational 

psychologists, human resources professionals both at OPM and other 

agencies, and Senior Executives themselves. The ECQs are: (1) leading 

change, (2) leading people, (3) results driven, (4) business acumen, and 

(5) building coalitions.

23GAO, Human Capital: Transforming Federal Recruiting and Hiring Efforts, GAO-08-762T 

(Washington, D.C., May 8, 2008).
 

Page 24 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

the DHS Director, Executive Resources, the streamlined resume-only 

hiring process resulted in applicant pools doubling (in most instances) in 

comparison to applicant pools generated from the traditional method. As 

of December 2011, 84 of the 90 newly created senior leadership positions 

have been filled through the resume-only process.24

SES Candidate Development Program. We reported in June 2007 that 

among the tools human capital managers have at their disposal to help 

meet 21st century human capital needs are training and development 

programs.

The DHS Director, 

Executive Resources reported that DHS now plans to use the resume 

only process as its primary method of filling SES positions.

25

DHS has established performance metrics for the CDP program. These 

metrics include (1) OPM Qualification Review Board candidatecertification rates; (2) percent of SES CDP graduates who are placed in 

SES positions; (3) percent of DHS SES vacancies filled by CDP 

graduates; (4) diverse participants in the program; and (5) diverse 

selections for DHS SES positions.

To build its senior leadership pipeline within the department, 

DHS offers future senior leadership from across the department, as well 

as external candidates, the opportunity to compete and be selected for 

DHS’s SES Candidate Development Program (CDP), which DHS kicked 

off in May 2011. According to DHS officials, the CDP is designed to 

provide a unified, consistent approach to leadership training throughout 

the department. 

26

 

24According to DHS OCHCO, of the 6 remaining positions, 2 are in the recruitment phase 

and 4 are on hold pending decisions about organizational placement.

DHS does not yet have data on these 

metrics, because the first CDP cycle is not complete. According to DHS 

OCHCO officials, the latest date these participants would seek OPM 

certification would be August 1, 2013; however, they predict that most 

candidates will seek OPM certification around February or March 2013.

25GAO-07-758. 

26All senior executives must have their executive qualifications certified by an OPM 

Qualifications Review Board before being appointed as career members of the SES. See 

5 C.F.R. § 317.502(a). The Qualifications Review Board review and certification is the last 

critical step in the SES selection process. Among other things, Qualification Review 

Boards will determine whether a candidate has demonstrated executive qualifications 

sufficient for entry into the SES.
 

Page 25 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

The CDP process also provides DHS a framework with which to assess 

its future senior leadership workforce needs. To determine how many 

candidates should be selected for the CDP each year, the CDP policy 

requires DHS components to perform a needs assessment for senior 

leadership needs. The senior leadership workforce analysis consists of 

evaluating attrition rates over a 3-year period to determine (1) average 

annual attrition, (2) which executive vacancies have historically been filled 

internally and which externally, and (3) how many employees in the 

agency would be prepared to fill positions vacated by executives without 

further development. Each of the DHS components and offices completed 

the assessment for the first DHS SES CDP. Because this is the first year 

of the SES CDP, it is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

program or its workforce analysis process in helping to ensure adequate 

senior leadership at DHS.

In addition to the CDP, the OPM administered Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey may provide DHS human capital managers with some 

information about senior leadership workforce needs. One purpose of the 

survey is to provide managers information about employee insight on 

leadership, performance culture, personal work experiences, and job 

satisfaction. According to DHS OCHCO, in the context of senior leaders, 

it considers survey questions about how likely employees are to leave or 

retire in the coming years as predictive but not wholly reliable indicators of 

upcoming workforce needs. We have an ongoing review of DHS morale, 

for the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Investigations and Management, that includes examining how DHS uses 

the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey to assess morale across the 

agency. We expect to report on our results later in 2012.

We provided a draft of this report for review to DHS. We received written 

comments on the draft report, which are reproduced in full in appendix IIII. 

DHS reiterated the actions it is taking to enhance senior leadership 

recruitment and hiring. DHS also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and interested congressional committees. The report is also 

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

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 26 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

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

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

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

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

this report are listed in appendix IV.

David Maurer

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 27 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

This appendix illustrates vacancy rates from fiscal years 2006 through 

20111

The following series of figures depict vacancy rates on the top half of 

each figure and corresponding numbers of positions allocated and 

onboard counts on the bottom half. Vacancy rates change when 

employees fill or separate from an allocated positions and when 

components receive additional allocations.

in six of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 

components—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and 

the United States Secret Service (USSS). We did not separately analyze 

vacancy rates for the United States Coast Guard because the numbers of 

Senior Executive Service (SES) allocations were too low to meaningfully 

depict vacancy trends. 

 

1

On-board data for October-December 2005 were not available. Our fiscal year 2006 

vacancy calculation is for January-September 2006.

Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 28 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

As figure 3 shows, USCIS’s SES vacancy rate was 56.7 percent in 

January 2006 and remained above 40 percent during the remainder of 

fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2007, USCIS received 16 additional 

allocations, increasing its vacancy rate above 30 percent for 9 

consecutive pay periods (from April–September). The rate declined in the 

latter part of fiscal year 2008 to single-digit vacancy rates. USCIS 

received another allocation of 8 positions in fiscal year 2008, and the 

vacancy rate increased to 17.2 percent. The rate increased further with 

separations, reaching 24.1 percent (14 vacant positions) at the start of 

fiscal year 2011 and later peaking at 29.3 percent. By the end of fiscal 

year 2011, the rate declined to 12.1 percent (7 vacant positions).

USCIS 
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 29 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 3: USCIS SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 30 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

CBP had a single continuous period—from the time it received an 

allocation of 17 new positions in April 2007 through October 2007—with a 

vacancy rate of 20 percent or more. Otherwise, CBP predominantly 

experienced vacancy rates in the teens or single digits during the review 

period. CBP started fiscal year 2011 at 15.5 percent (18 vacant positions) 

and closed the year at 8.6 percent (10 vacant positions).

CBP 
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 31 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 4: CPB SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 32 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

As figure 5 shows between 2006 and 2011, FEMA’s SES vacancy rate 

varied. The vacancy rate was 35.3 percent in January 2006 and remained 

above 20 percent for the remainder of fiscal year 2006. The rate rose with 

allocations and then and declined in both fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 

2008. From early to mid fiscal year 2008 on FEMA’s rate was near 20 

percent. Near the middle of fiscal year 2009, separations increased the 

vacancy rate from 6.9 percent (5 vacant positions) to 29.2 percent (21 

vacant positions) and remained near 30 percent for 16 pay periods. The 

rate decreased to 13.9 percent (10 vacant positions) by late fiscal year 

2010, when it increased with a new allocation. At the start of fiscal year 

2011, FEMA’s SES vacancy rate was 17.5 percent (14 vacant positions), 

and by the end of the year was 20.0 percent (16 vacant positions).

FEMA
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 33 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 5: FEMA SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 34 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

As figure 6 shows, ICE’s SES vacancy rate was 38.3 percent in January 

2006 and declined until ICE received a new allocation in the middle of 

fiscal year 2007, at which time the rate rose above 30 percent. The rate 

had decreased to 7.5 percent at the beginning of fiscal year 2010, when it 

increased to 25.4 percent as a result of separations. It rose again to 37.8 

percent with a new allocation in late fiscal year 2010. At the start of fiscal 

year 2011 the vacancy rate was 32.9 percent (27 vacant positions). By 

the end of fiscal year 2011, the ICE SES vacancy rate had declined to 

13.4 percent (11 vacant positions).

ICE 
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 35 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 6: ICE SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 36 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

As figure 7 shows, from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, TSA’s highest 

vacancy period was from January 2009 through April 2010, when it had a 

vacancy rate of 20 percent or more. In fiscal year 2008 TSA received an 

increased allocation of 14 positions, at which time its vacancy rate rose 

from 7.3 percent (11 vacant positions) to 15.9 percent (26 vacant 

positions); while, subsequent separations further raised the rate to a peak 

of 23.2 percent (38 vacant positions) in the first half of fiscal year 2010. 

For the remainder of fiscal year 2010 and in fiscal year 2011, TSA’s 

vacancy rate was in the teens. TSA started fiscal year 2011 at 15.9 

percent (21 vacant positions) and closed the year at 19.5 percent (32 

vacant positions). According to TSA human capital officials, TSA’s total 

allocation functions as a ceiling rather than a specific hiring target. 

TSA 
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 37 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 7: TSA TSES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 38 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Throughout the entire period, the USSS SES vacancy rates tended to be 

in the single digits. The highest vacancy rates occurred from May through 

July 2010, when the rate increased from 10.4 percent to 19.6 percent with 

the addition of three allocations and separations of two on-board staff. 

USSS started fiscal 2011 at 2.0 percent (1 vacancy) and ended the year 

at 0 percent (0 vacancies).

USSS 
Appendix I: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Executive 

Service Vacancy Rates from 2006 to 2011

Page 39 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Figure 8: USSS SES Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011
Appendix II: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010

Page 40 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Tables 6–10 show the number and types of attrition for senior leadership 

positions in DHS components for each of the fiscal years from 2006 

through 2010—the most recent year for which CPDF data were 

available—separated by career and noncareer positions.1

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2006 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership Separations

Table 6 shows 

the average number of on-board senior leadership positions and attrition 

rates in DHS components for each of the fiscal years from 2006–2010.

Agency Retired Resigned Transferred Terminated Other Total a

CBP Career 7 1 0 0 0 8 

Noncareer 0 2 0 0 0 2 

FEMA Career 5 1 2 0 0 8 

Noncareer 1 4 b 0 0 0 5 

ICE Career 2 2 0 0 0 4 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TSA Career 4 18 3 2 0 27

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCIS Career 3 0 0 0 0 3 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCG Career 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USSS Career 7 0 0 0 0 7 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DHS headquarters Career 10 5 5 0 0 20

Noncareer 2 12 7 0 0 21

Total 42 

(39.6%)

45 

(42.5%)

17

(16.0%)

2 

(1.9%) 

0 

(0.0%) 106 

Source: Data: GAO analysis of CPDF Data

a

Other includes expiration of a limited term appointment and infrequent types of attrition, such as the 

death of an employee. A limited term appointee is an individual appointed under a nonrenewable 

appointment for a term of 3 years or less to an SES position the duties of which will expire at the end 

of such term. 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(5). A limited emergency appointee is an individual appointed under 

 

1

According to OPM, a career appointee is an SES whose appointment to the position was 

based on a competitive SES merit staffing process and whose executive qualifications for 

the SES were certified by a Qualifications Review Board or an individual who converted to 

the SES with a career appointment. A non-career appointee was appointed 

noncompetitively to an SES position, and non-career SES positions are limited or 

emergency term appointments. 

Appendix II: Department of Homeland

Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010
Appendix II: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010

Page 41 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

a nonrenewable appointment, not to exceed 18 months, to an SES position established to meet a 

bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need. § 3132(a)(6).

b

Career federal employees can be assigned to noncareer SES positions but retain their retirement 

eligibility.

Table 7: Fiscal Year 2007 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership Separations

Agency Retired Resigned Transferred Terminated Other Total a

CBP Career 14 0 0 0 0 14

Noncareer 0 1 0 0 0 1 

FEMA Career 1 0 1 0 0 2 

Noncareer 0 2 2 0 0 4 

ICE Career 8 0 1 0 0 9 

Noncareer 0 1 0 0 0 1 

TSA Career 6 6 2 3 1 18

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCIS Career 2 0 0 0 0 2 

Noncareer 0 1 0 0 0 1 

USCG Career 0 1 1 0 0 2 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USSS Career 5 0 0 0 0 5 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DHS headquarters Career 6 7 3 0 0 16

Noncareer 0 4 5 0 0 9 

Total 42

(50.0%)

23

(27.4%)

15

(17.9%)

3 

(3.6%)

1 

(1.2%) 84 

Source: GAO analysis of CPDF Data.

a

Other includes expiration of a limited term appointment and infrequent types of attrition, such as the 

death of an employee. A limited appointee is an individual appointed under a nonrenewable 

appointment for a term of three years or less to an SES position the duties of which will expire at the 

end of such term. 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(5). A limited emergency appointee is an individual appointed 

under a nonrenewable appointment, not to exceed 18 months, to an SES position established to meet 

a bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need. § 3132(a)(6).
Appendix II: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010

Page 42 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Table 8: Fiscal Year 2008 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership Separations 

Agency Retired Resigned Transferred Terminated Other Total a

CBP Career 5 1 1 0 0 7 

Noncareer 0 1 0 0 0 1 

FEMA Career 3 2 1 0 0 6

Noncareer 1 2 1 0 0 3 

ICE Career 6 2 0 0 0 8 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TSA Career 5 4 6 1 0 16

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCIS Career 1 0 0 0 0 1

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCG Career 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USSS Career 11 0 0 0 0 11

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DHS headquarters Career 4 7 4 0 0 15

Noncareer 1 9 1 0 0 11

Total 37 

(46.3%)

28 

(35.0%)

14

(17.5%) 

1 

(1.3%)

0 

(0.0%) 79 

Source: GAO analysis of CPDF Data.

a

Other includes expiration of a limited term appointment and infrequent types of attrition, such as the 

death of an employee. A limited term appointee is an individual appointed under a nonrenewable 

appointment for a term of three years or less to an SES position the duties of which will expire at the 

end of such term. 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(5). A limited emergency appointee is an individual appointed 

under a nonrenewable appointment, not to exceed 18 months, to an SES position established to meet 

a bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need. § 3132(a)(6).
Appendix II: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010

Page 43 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Table 9: Fiscal Year 2009 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership Separations

Agency Retired Resigned Transferred Terminated Other Total a

CBP Career 5 2 0 0 0 7 

Noncareer 0 4 0 0 0 4 

FEMA Career 5 1 2 0 1 9

Noncareer 0 15 0 1 0 16

ICE Career 4 2 2 0 1 9 

Noncareer 0 3 0 0 0 3 

TSA Career 5 12 2 3 1 23

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCIS Career 0 0 0 0 1 1

Noncareer 0 5 0 0 0 5 

USCG Career 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USSS Career 3 0 0 0 0 3 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DHS headquarters Career 4 2 3 0 1 10

Noncareer 3 31 3 2 0 39

Total 30

(23.1%)

77

(59.2%) 

12

(9.2%)

6 

(4.6%)

5 

(3.8%) 130

Source: GAO analysis of CPDF Data.

a

Other includes expiration of a limited term appointment and infrequent types of attrition, such as the 

death of an employee. A limited term appointee is an individual appointed under a nonrenewable 

appointment for a term of three years or less to an SES position the duties of which will expire at the 

end of such term. 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(5). A limited emergency appointee is an individual appointed 

under a nonrenewable appointment, not to exceed 18 months, to an SES position established to meet 

a bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need. § 3132(a)(6).
Appendix II: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010

Page 44 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Table 10: Fiscal Year 2010 DHS-Component Senior-Leadership Separations

Agency Retired Resigned Transferred Terminated Other Total a

CBP Career 9 1 3 0 1 14

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

FEMA Career 1 1 3 0 0 5

Noncareer 0 1 0 0 0 1 

ICE Career 5 1 2 0 1 9 

Noncareer 1 0 b 0 0 0 1 

TSA Career 3 2 1 2 1 9 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCIS Career 4 0 1 0 0 5

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USCG Career 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

USSS Career 9 1 0 0 0 10

Noncareer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

DHS headquarters Career 4 8 6 1 0 19

Noncareer 2 3 0 1 0 6 

Total 38 

(48.1%)

18 

(22.8%)

16

(20.3%)

4 

(5.1%)

3 

(3.8%) 79

Source: GAO Analysis of CPDF Data.

a

b

Career federal employees can be assigned to noncareer SES positions but retain their retirement 

eligibility.

Other includes expiration of a limited term appointment and infrequent types of attrition, such as the 

death of an employee. A limited term appointee is an individual appointed under a nonrenewable 

appointment for a term of three years or less to an SES position the duties of which will expire at the 

end of such term. 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(5). A limited emergency appointee is an individual appointed 

under a nonrenewable appointment, not to exceed 18 months, to an SES position established to meet 

a bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need. § 3132(a)(6).

Table 11 shows the component vacancy rates by fiscal year from 2006–

2010. 
Appendix II: Department of Homeland 

Security’s Components Senior Leadership 

Attrition from 2006 to 2010

Page 45 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Table 11: DHS Components’ Attrition Rates by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Component

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate

Average 

on board Rate a

USCIS 16.0 18.8 24.0 12.5 40.5 2.5 48.0 12.5 45.5 11.0

CBP 66.5 15.0 74.0 20.3 89.0 9.0 103.0 10.7 101.0 13.9

FEMA 35.0 34.3 43.0 14.0 55.0 18.2 58.0 37.9 60.0 10.0

ICE 33.0 12.1 42.0 23.8 51.0 15.7 56.5 21.2 57.0 17.5

TSA 144.0 18.8 139.0 12.9 144.0 11.1 137.5 16.7 136.0 6.6

USCG 7.5 13.3 9.0 22.2 11.5 0.0 13.0 7.7 14.5 0.0

USSS 40.5 17.3 44.5 11.2 47.5 23.2 49.5 6.1 51.0 19.6

DHS 

average 474.5 22.1 533 15.8 629 12.7 680.5 18.7 690.5 11.4

Source: GAO analysis of CPDF Data.

a

We calculated average on-board 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.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 46 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 47 GAO-12-264 DHS Senior Leadership Vacancy and Attrition

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sandra Burrell, Assistant 

Director; Rebecca Gambler, Assistant Director; George Erhart; Kathryn 

Godfrey; Jared Hermalin; and Celia Mendive made significant 

contributions to the work. Ben Atwater, Justin Dunleavy, and Jean Orland 

also contributed. Muriel Brown and Robert Robinson assisted with 

graphic design. Steven Putansu and Greg Wilmoth assisted with design, 

methodology, and analysis. Thomas Lombardi provided legal support. 

Lara Miklozek and Linda Miller provided communications expertise.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440919)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.