DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Preliminary Observations 

on DHS’s Efforts to Improve 

Employee Morale

Statement of David C. Maurer, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Investigations, and Management, 

Committee on Homeland Security, House 

of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, March 22, 2012

GAO-12-509T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-509T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Investigations, and Management, Committee 

on Homeland Security, House of 

Representatives

March 22, 2012

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Preliminary Observations on DHS's Efforts to 

Improve Employee Morale

Why GAO Did This Study

DHS is the third largest cabinet-level 

agency in the federal government, 

employing more than 200,000 

employees in a broad range of jobs. 

Since its creation in 2003, DHS has 

faced challenges implementing its 

human capital functions, and its

employees have reported having low 

job satisfaction. GAO designated the 

implementation and transformation of 

DHS as high risk because it 

represented an enormous and complex 

undertaking that would require time to 

achieve in an effective and efficient 

manner. This testimony presents 

preliminary observations regarding: (1) 

how DHS’s employees’ workforce 

satisfaction compares with that of other 

federal government employees, and 

(2) the extent to which DHS is taking 

steps to improve employee job 

satisfaction. GAO’s comments are 

based on ongoing work on DHS’s 

employee job satisfaction survey 

results and its actions and plans to 

improve them, as well as reports 

issued from January 2003 through 

February 2012 on high-risk and morale 

issues in the federal government and 

at DHS. To conduct its ongoing work, 

GAO analyzed DHS and component 

planning documents, interviewed 

relevant DHS officials about employee 

morale, and analyzed 2011 federal 

employee job satisfaction survey 

results.

What GAO Found

Over time, federal surveys have consistently found that Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) employees are less satisfied with their jobs than the governmentwide average. In the 2004 Office of Personnel Management’s federal employee 

survey—a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to what 

extent conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their 

agency—56 percent of DHS employees responded that they were satisfied with 

their jobs, compared to 68 percent government-wide. In subsequent years, the 

disparity continued—ranging from a difference of 8 percentage points in 2006 to 

a 4 percentage point difference in 2008, 2010, and 2011. In 2011, DHS’s 

percentage of positive responses was lower than the averages for the rest of the 

federal government. For example, slightly less than half of the DHS employees 

surveyed reported positive responses to the statement “My talents are used well 

in the workplace,” nearly 12 percentage points less than the rest of the federal 

government average. In two areas, DHS’s percentage of positive responses was 

nearly the same or higher than the rest of the federal government average. For 

example, DHS’s percentage of positive responses to the statement “Considering 

everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?” was not statistically different 

than the rest of the federal government average. Job satisfaction data for 2011 

show that satisfaction levels vary across DHS components. For example, job 

satisfaction index results show the Transportation Security Administration as 11 

percentage points below government-wide averages while other components, 

such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, posted above average results. 

DHS has taken steps to identify where it has the most significant employee 

satisfaction problems and developed plans to address those problems, but has 

not yet improved DHS employee satisfaction survey results. For example, to 

determine root causes of job satisfaction department-wide, DHS conducted an 

evaluation of the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey results, according to DHS 

officials. In that analysis, DHS determined that the drivers of employee 

satisfaction across DHS included the DHS mission, senior leadership 

effectiveness, and supervisor support. According to DHS officials, DHS is 

working with a contractor on a new department-wide analysis of root causes of 

employee morale. As of March 2012, this analysis was not complete. DHS and 

its components are also taking steps to improve components’ positive response 

rates to selected survey items. For example, DHS’s Integrated Strategy for High 

Risk Management identified corrective actions to improve employee job 

satisfaction scores, such as the launch of the Employee Engagement Executive 

Steering Committee. GAO has previously reported on a variety of issues, 

including concerns about pay and a lack of trust in leadership that can lead to 

morale problems. This variation in potential issues that can result in morale 

problems underscores the importance of looking beyond survey scores to 

understand the root causes of those problems and developing plans to address 

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

economy of the United States, it is important that DHS employees are satisfied 

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

its work. GAO will continue to assess DHS’s efforts to address employee job 

satisfaction and expects to issue a report on its results in September 2012.

View GAO-12-509T. For more information, 

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

maurerd@gao.gov.
Page 1 GAO-12-509T 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear today to provide our preliminary observations on 

the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to address 

employees’ job satisfaction. DHS is the third largest cabinet-level agency 

in the federal government, employing more than 200,000 employees in a 

broad range of jobs, including aviation and border security, emergency 

response, cybersecurity analysis, and chemical facility inspection. The 

DHS workforce is situated throughout the nation, carrying out activities to 

support DHS’s mission to (1) prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2) 

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

immigration laws, (4) safeguard and secure cyberspace, and (5) ensure 

resilience from disasters. DHS carries out an additional set of activities to

provide essential support to national and economic security.

Since its creation in 2003, DHS has faced challenges implementing its 

human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low job 

satisfaction. For example, DHS’s scores on the 2011 Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)—a tool 

that measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to what extent 

conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their 

agency—and the Partnership for Public Service’s (Partnership) 2011 

rankings of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government were 

lower than governmentwide averages.1 In the 2011 FEVS survey, DHS’s 

percentage of positive responses was 64 percent for the job satisfaction 

index, 33rd out of 37 agencies surveyed, and 4 percentage points below 

the governmentwide average.2

 1 OPM conducted the FEVS in April/May 2011. The survey sample included 

employees from 29 major federal agencies, as well as 54 small and large 

independent agencies. The survey results represent a snapshot in time of the 

perceptions of the federal workforce.

In addition, in 2011, DHS was ranked 31st 

out of 33 agencies in the Best Places to Work ranking on overall scores 

2 The job satisfaction index, comprising seven FEVS questions, indicates the 

extent to which employees are satisfied with their jobs and various aspects 

thereof. 
Page 2 GAO-12-509T 

for employee satisfaction and commitment, which is similar to its ranking 

in past years.3

DHS employee concerns about job satisfaction are one example of the 

challenges the department faces across its management functions. In 

January 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of 

DHS as high risk because it represented an enormous and complex 

undertaking that would require time to achieve in an effective and efficient 

manner, and it has remained on our high-risk list since that time.4 This 

high-risk area includes challenges in strengthening DHS’s management 

functions—financial management, information technology, acquisition 

management, and human capital.5 DHS has issued various strategies 

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

capital strategic plan for fiscal years 2009 through 20136 and a workforce 

strategy for fiscal years 2011 through 2016, which contains the 

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

human capital management.7 In addition, DHS recently updated its plans 

for improving the department’s scores on the FEVS.

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

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

Places to Work in the Federal Government.

4

We have identified six high-risk areas involving DHS that need broad-based 

transformation to address major economy, efficiency, or effectiveness 

challenges. DHS has key responsibility for four of these six areas: (1) 

Implementing and Transforming DHS, (2) The National Flood Insurance 

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

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

Sharing Terrorism-Related Information to Protect the Homeland. DHS does not 

have primary responsibility for the other two areas: (1) Strategic Human Capital 

Management and (2) Managing Federal Real Property. GAO, Department of 

Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation and Transformation of 

Management Functions, but More Work Remains, GAO-10-911T (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 30, 2010).

5 GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Continued Progress Made Improving 

and Integrating Management Areas, but More Work Remains, GAO-12-365T

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2012)

6

DHS, Human Capital Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2009-2013 (Washington, 

D.C.).

7

DHS, Workforce Strategy for Fiscal Year 2011-2016 (Washington, D.C.).
Page 3 GAO-12-509T 

We have previously reported that successful organizations empower and 

involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a frontline 

perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of 

organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and morale.8

My statement is based on ongoing work for your committee regarding 

DHS’s employee job satisfaction survey results and its actions and plans 

to improve them as well as prior reports we issued from January 2003 

through February 2012 on high-risk and morale issues in the federal 

government and at DHS.

DHS has consistently been behind the rest of the federal government in 

key measures of workforce satisfaction, but it is taking actions aimed at 

improvement. As requested, my testimony presents preliminary 

observations regarding (1) how DHS’s employees’ workforce satisfaction

compares with that of other federal government employees and (2) the 

extent to which DHS is taking steps to improve employee job satisfaction.

9

All of our work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

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

Detailed information on our scope and 

methodology for our prior work can be found in these reports. We plan to 

issue a report on the final results from our ongoing work in September 

2012. For our ongoing work, among other things, we analyzed DHS and 

component planning documents relevant to employee morale, interviewed 

DHS officials about employee morale, and analyzed 2011 FEVS results.

We shared the information in this statement with DHS and incorporated 

its comments where appropriate.

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

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

9 See related GAO products at the end of this statement.
Page 4 GAO-12-509T 

Over time, federal surveys have consistently found that DHS employees 

are less satisfied with their jobs than the governmentwide average.10

Shortly after DHS was formed, 2004 federal survey data indicated a 

disparity between DHS and governmentwide averages in job satisfaction. 

At that time, 56 percent of DHS employees responded that they were

satisfied with their jobs, compared to the 68 percent governmentwide.11

In 2011, DHS employees also consistently indicated less satisfaction on

key items in OPM’s 2011 FEVS than employees in the rest of the federal 

government. On the basis of its analysis of its FEVS, OPM determined 

that responses to these items—called impact items— make a difference 

in whether people want to come, stay, and contribute their fullest to an 

agency. Specifically, DHS employees were less positive on 14 of the 16 

impact items. In some key areas, DHS’s percentage of positive responses 

was lower than the rest of the federal government averages. For 

example:

In 

subsequent years when comparative data were available using the job 

satisfaction index, the disparity continued—ranging from a difference of 8 

percentage points in 2006 to a 4 percentage point difference in 2008, 

2010, and 2011.

• Slightly less than half of the DHS employees surveyed reported 

positive responses to the statement “My talents are used well in the 

workplace,” nearly 12 percentage points less than the rest of the 

federal government average of 61.6 percent.

• DHS employees had nearly 10 percentage points fewer positive 

responses to the statements “I am given a real opportunity to improve 

my skills in my organization” and “Managers communicate the goals 

 10 The annual employee surveys cited in this testimony are overall assessments

of an agency’s climate and culture. While measures of job satisfaction were part 

of over 80 survey questions asked, according to OPM, the surveys are a

comprehensive analysis of an employee’s experience in his or her agency 

covering areas including leadership, work/life balance, training, and performance 

management. However, responses from a single survey provide only a partial 

picture of the level of job satisfaction and other concerns among employees. 

11 OPM’s job satisfaction index was not used in 2004; as a gauge of job 

satisfaction, the figures reported here are responses to the following question: 

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? The index and DHS 

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

DHS Employees 

Indicated Less Job 

Satisfaction Than the 

Rest of the Federal 

Government
Page 5 GAO-12-509T 

and priorities of the organization” than the rest of the federal 

government averages of 66.0 and 65.3 percent respectively.

In two areas, DHS’s percentage of positive responses was nearly the 

same or higher than the rest of the federal government average. 

Specifically:

• DHS’s percentage of positive responses to the statement 

“Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?” was 

not statistically different than the rest of the federal government

average, with responses of 62 percent for DHS and 63 percent for the 

rest of the federal government.

• DHS was nearly 2 percentage points higher than the rest of the 

federal government average for the statement “My workload is 

reasonable.”

The percentage of DHS respondents with positive responses on each of 

16 impact items and the difference between DHS and the rest of the 

federal government appear in appendix I. OPM calls for federal leaders to 

pay attention to the 16 impact items as key indicators of engagement and 

commitment to continued service. While improvement in any of the impact 

items that OPM identified could help DHS improve its attractiveness as an 

employer of choice, the items for which DHS is farthest behind the rest of 

the federal government could provide a focus for targeting improvement 

efforts.

The 2011 job satisfaction data also indicate that satisfaction levels vary 

across components within DHS. For example, as shown in table 1, job 

satisfaction index results for the 2011 FEVS show the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) as 11 percentage points below 

governmentwide averages while other large components, such as U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast 

Guard), posted above average results. Identifying this variation across 

components could help target efforts to improve employee satisfaction.
Page 6 GAO-12-509T 

Table 1: DHS Component Job Satisfaction Scores, 2011

DHS component

Job

satisfaction score

(percentage)

Difference from

governmentwide average

(percentage points)

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 72 4

Office of the Inspector General 71 3

U.S. Coast Guard 70 2

U.S. Secret Service 69 1

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 69 1

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 67 -1

Management Directorate 66 -2

Office of the Secretary 63 -5

Federal Emergency Management Administration 63 -5

National Protection and Programs Directorate 62 -6

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 61 -7

Undersecretary for Science and Technology 60 -8

Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis 58 -10

Transportation Security Administration 57 -11

Governmentwide (average score) 68 0

DHS (average score) 64 -4

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

TSA performed analysis of its 2011 FEVS results to gain a better 

understanding of whether employee satisfaction varies across location, 

program office, or level. This analysis identified variation in job 

satisfaction within the component; specifically, with Federal Security 

Director staff at airports providing more positive responses for job 

satisfaction (69 percent positive) than the airport screening workforce (54 

percent positive), as shown in figure 1.
Page 7 GAO-12-509T 

Figure 1: TSA Employee Group Responses to the Question: Considering 

Everything, How Satisfied Are You With Your Job?

DHS has taken steps to identify where it has the most significant 

employee satisfaction problems and has developed plans for addressing 

those problem areas. DHS has conducted some analysis of employee 

survey results and developed action plans to address some employee 

satisfaction problems, but it has not yet addressed the key goals related 

to job satisfaction—to improve DHS’s scores on OPM’s job satisfaction 

index, among other indexes, and to improve its ranking on the 

Partnership’s Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. The 

results from our prior work at DHS and other departments identify a wide 

variety of issues that can lead to employee morale problems. Thus, 

conducting an analysis of the root causes of employee satisfaction 

problems and developing plans to address them are important.

DHS’s job satisfaction scores could pose challenges to DHS in recruiting, 

motivating, and retaining talented employees that DHS needs to meet its 

mission requirements. Specifically, an agency’s reputation is a key factor 

in recruiting and hiring applicants. A Partnership for Public Service report 

published in 2010 noted that a good reputation is the most frequently 

mentioned factor in choosing potential employers, and agencies with high 

satisfaction and engagement scores were seen as desirable by college 

DHS Has Ongoing 

Actions to Address 

Job Satisfaction, but 

Has Not Yet Improved 

Employee Satisfaction 

Results

DHS Has Taken Action to 

Address Employee 

Satisfaction Problems
Page 8 GAO-12-509T 

graduates seeking employment.12 Similarly, the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB) reported that employees’ willingness to recommend the 

federal government or their agency as a place to work can directly affect 

an agency’s recruitment efforts, the quality of the resulting applicant pool, 

and the acceptance of employment offers.13

DHS has taken or has a variety of actions under way or planned to 

address employee satisfaction problems, including analyzing the results 

of employee surveys and developing action plans to improve employee 

satisfaction.

In addition, MSPB noted that 

prospective employees would rather work for an agency billed as one of 

the best places to work compared to an agency at the bottom of the list.

Components and DHS have used a variety of approaches to analyze 

survey results to gain insight about employee satisfaction. As part of our 

ongoing work on employee morale, we reviewed survey analyses 

conducted by DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, TSA, and 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

DHS. DHS completed an evaluation of the 2008 Federal Human Capital 

Survey results to determine root causes of job satisfaction 

departmentwide, according to DHS officials.14

TSA. TSA’s analysis focused on areas of difficulty across groups, such as 

pay and performance appraisal concerns, and also provides insight on 

which employee groups within TSA may be more dissatisfied with their 

In that analysis, DHS 

determined that the drivers of employee satisfaction across DHS included 

the DHS mission, senior leadership effectiveness, and supervisor 

support. According to DHS officials, DHS is currently working with a 

contractor on a departmentwide analysis of root causes of employee 

morale. As of March 2012, this analysis was not complete.

 12 Partnership for Public Service, Great Expectations: What Students Want in an 

Employer, and How Federal Agencies can Deliver It (Washington, D.C.: January 

2009).

13 Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Government: A Model Employer 

or a Work in Progress? Perspectives from 25 Years of the Merit Principles 

Survey (Washington, D.C.: September 2008).

14 The FEVS was preceded by the Federal Human Capital Survey, which 

included the same questions asked in the FEVS. 

Survey Analyses
Page 9 GAO-12-509T 

jobs than others. The analysis results are descriptive, showing where job 

satisfaction problem areas may exist, and do not identify the causes of 

dissatisfaction within employee groups. For the 2011 FEVS, TSA 

benchmarked its results against CBP results, as well as against DHS and 

governmentwide results. When comparing CBP and TSA scores, TSA 

found that the greatest differences in scores were on questions related to 

satisfaction with pay and with whether performance appraisals were a fair 

reflection of performance. TSA scored 40 percentage points lower on pay 

satisfaction and 25 percentage points lower on performance appraisal 

satisfaction. In comparing TSA results to DHS and governmentwide 

results, TSA found that TSA was below the averages for all FEVS 

dimensions.15

ICE. ICE analyzed the 2011 FEVS results by identifying ICE’s top FEVS 

questions with high positive and negative responses. ICE found that its

top strength was employees’ willingness to put in the extra effort to get a 

job done. ICE’s top negative result was employees’ perception that pay 

raises did not depend on how well employees perform their jobs. ICE did 

not perform demographic analysis of the survey results or identify the 

roots causes of employee satisfaction problems, but did benchmark its 

results against DHS and governmentwide results, identifying those 

questions and Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework 

(HCAAF) indices where ICE led or trailed DHS and the government.

TSA also evaluated FEVS results across employee groups 

by comparing dimension scores for headquarters staff, the Federal Air 

Marshals, Federal Security Director staff, and the screening workforce. 

TSA found that the screening workforce scored at or below scores for all 

other groups across all of the dimensions.

16

 15 The FEVS includes questions grouped into the following dimensions: work 

experiences, supervisor/team leader, agency, work unit, leadership, satisfaction, 

and work/life.

ICE 

found, among other things, that employee views on the fairness of its 

performance appraisals were above DHS’s average but that views on 

employee preparation for potential security threats were lower. When 

comparing ICE’s results with governmentwide figures, ICE found, among 

other things, that ICE was lower on all of the HCAAF indices, including 

job satisfaction.

16 The HCAAF indices provide metrics for measuring progress toward OPM goals 

for federal agencies, which include employee job satisfaction, leadership 

effectiveness and knowledge management, a results-oriented performance 

culture, and effective talent management.
Page 10 GAO-12-509T 

DHS and the components are taking actions that could improve employee 

satisfaction, with a focus on improving components’ positive responses to 

selected survey items.

DHS’s Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management. In December 

2011, DHS provided us with its updated Integrated Strategy for High Risk 

Management (Integrated Strategy), which summarized the department’s 

plans for addressing its implementation and transformation high-risk 

designation. In the Integrated Strategy, DHS identified corrective actions 

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

corrective actions include the Secretary issuing guidance to component 

heads to address gaps in the 2011 FEVS results; launch of an Employee 

Engagement Executive Steering Committee, which held its first meeting 

in February 2012; implementation in June 2009 of an online reporting and 

action planning tool for components; and execution of a DHS-wide exit 

survey in January 2011 for departing employees to gain additional insight 

into why employees are leaving the department.17

Within the Integrated Strategy action plan for improving job satisfaction 

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

resources. For example, fewer resources were available than anticipated 

for DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer to consult with 

components in developing action plans in response to 2011 FEVS results. 

Similarly, fewer resources were available than planned to deploy online 

focus discussions on job satisfaction-related issues. Sufficient resource 

planning to address the key high-risk human capital outcome of enhanced 

employee satisfaction scores is essential as DHS works to transform itself 

into a high-performing department.

According to the 

Integrated Strategy, DHS has begun implementing corrective actions but 

has not yet achieved its key outcome related to job satisfaction—to 

improve DHS’s scores on OPM’s job satisfaction index, among other 

indexes, and to improve its ranking on the Partnership’s Best Places to 

Work in the Federal Government. According to the Integrated Strategy, 

FEVS index scores did not improve appreciably relative to 

governmentwide averages from 2010 to 2011. DHS’s Partnership ranking 

also remains near last among federal agencies.

 17 The Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee’s purpose is to 

address areas of improvement identified in the 2011 FEVS.

Action Plans
Page 11 GAO-12-509T 

DHS and component action plans. We reviewed the most recent DHS 

action plans to address 2011 FEVS outcomes departmentwide as well as 

component plans for TSA, the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE. The plans 

state objectives and identify actions to be taken, among other things. 

Examples of initiatives from the plans are listed in table 2.

Table 2: DHS-wide and TSA, Coast Guard, CBP and ICE Action Plan Initiatives

DHS unit Action plan initiatives

DHS-wide Enhance leadership, recruitment, employee retention, and DHS unification.

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

employee performance management, and improve TSA communication mechanisms.

ICE Advance telework opportunities, increase communication between employees and management, and develop 

an awards handbook for distribution to employees.

CBP Address results, enhance communication between management and employees, create career and leadership 

development opportunities, replace pass/fail performance appraisal with multi-leveled performance 

management system, implement training improvements, and maintain an existing virtual focus group to enable 

upward feedback to senior leaders.

Coast Guard Improve communication with employees and training options.

Source: GAO analysis of DHS-wide TSA, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE 2011 action plans based on FEVS results.

As part of our ongoing work, we are comparing DHS and component 

action plans with OPM guidance for action planning and will report on our 

results in September 2012.

Our prior work at DHS and other departments and agencies illustrates the 

variety of issues that can lead to morale problems.

• In July 2009, we reported that the funding challenges FPS faced in 

fiscal year 2008 and its cost savings actions to address them resulted 

in adverse implications for its workforce, primarily low morale among 

staff and increase attrition.18

• In June 2011, we reported that the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA) human capital plan did not have strategies to 

 18 GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human 

Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants, GAO-09-749

(Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009).

Several Issues Can 

Contribute to Employee 

Dissatisfaction
Page 12 GAO-12-509T 

address retention challenges, among other things.19 FEMA 

experienced frequent turnover in key positions and divisions that 

could result in lost productivity, a decline in institutional knowledge, 

and a lack of continuity for remaining staff. We recommended that 

FEMA develop a comprehensive workforce plan that addressed 

retention issues, among other things. FEMA concurred with the 

recommendation and noted that a contractor had begun work on a 

new human capital plan.

• In August 2011, we reported that the Forest Service’s centralization of 

human resources management and information technology services 

contributed to several agencywide improvements, but it has also had 

widespread, largely negative effects on field-unit employees. Under 

centralization, the agency relies on a self-service approach whereby 

employees are generally responsible for independently initiating or 

carrying out many related business service tasks. Field-unit 

employees consistently told us that these increased administrative 

responsibilities, coupled with problems with automated systems and 

customer support, have negatively affected their ability to carry out 

their mission work and have led to lower employee morale.20

• In June 2009, we reported that employees from a number of different 

agencies and pay systems worked overseas in proximity to one 

another. Each of these pay systems was authorized by a separate 

statute that outlines the compensation to which employees under that 

system are entitled, certain elements of which are set without regard 

to the location in which the employees are working. We reported that 

when these employees are assigned overseas and serve side by side, 

the differences in pay systems may become more apparent and may 

adversely affect morale.21

 19 GAO, FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the National Flood 

Insurance Program, GAO-11-297 (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011). 

20 GAO, Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Reexamine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated Costs,

GAO-11-769 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 25, 2011).

21 GAO, Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and 

Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal Civilians, 

GAO-09-562 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2009).
Page 13 GAO-12-509T 

• In September 2008, we reported that the 2004 and 2006 employee 

survey results for the Small Business Administration (SBA) showed a 

lack of respect for and trust in SBA leadership and a concern about 

training opportunities.22 The SBA Administrator’s efforts to address 

the survey results included soliciting information from employees and 

visiting field locations to obtain their input on how to improve agency 

operations and morale.

The variation in potential issues that can result in morale problems 

underscores the importance of looking beyond survey scores to 

understand where problems, such as low employee satisfaction, are 

taking place within the organization, along with the root causes of those 

problems. Effective root cause analysis can help agencies better target 

efforts to develop action plans and programs to address the key drivers of 

employee satisfaction.

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

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

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

complete its work. We will continue to monitor and assess DHS’s efforts 

to address employee job satisfaction through our ongoing work and 

expect to issue a report on our final results in September 2012.

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

For questions about this statement, please contact David C. Maurer 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 statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 

include Sandra Burrell, Assistant Director; Ben Atwater, Analyst-inCharge; and Jean Orland. Other contributors include Alice Feldesman, 

Tracey King, Kirsten Lauber, Margaret McKenna, Lara Miklozek, and 

 22 GAO, Small Business Administration: Opportunities Exist to Build on 

Leadership’s Efforts to Improve Agency Performance and Employee Morale, 

GAO-08-995 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 2008).

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Page 14 GAO-12-509T 

Jeff Tessin. Key contributors for the previous work that this testimony is 

based on are listed in each product.
Appendix I: Comparison of DHS and Non-DHS 

Responses to Key Survey Questions

Page 15 GAO-12-509T 

Survey question

Percentage 

positive:

Excluding DHS

Percentage

Positive:

DHS

Difference: DHS 

minus non-DHS

My talents are used well in the workplace. 61.6 49.7 -11.8

I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my 

organization. 66.0 56.0 -9.9

Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the 

organization. 65.3 55.7 -9.6

Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect 

to work processes. 49.2 39.6 -9.6

How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that 

affect your work? 54.2 44.7 -9.5

How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your 

senior leaders? 46.4 37.1 -9.3

My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. 74.6 65.9 -8.7

How satisfied are you with the information you receive from 

management on what’s going on in your organization? 51.4 42.9 -8.6

How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a 

good job? 51.4 42.9 -8.6

I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. 57.3 49.4 -7.9

How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in 

your organization? 40.1 35.1 -5.0

How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your 

present job? 55.3 50.7 -4.6

Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your 

immediate supervisor/team leader? 69.6 66.1 -3.5

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?

62.6 61.6

Not statistically 

significant

I like the kind of work I do. 85.0 84.1 -1.0

My workload is reasonable. 58.9 60.6 1.7

Source: GAO analysis of 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.

Note: All percentage estimates have 95 percent margins of error equal to +/- 1 percentage point. 

Percentage differences between DHS and the rest of government are statistically distinguishable from 

zero at the .02 level, except where noted.

Appendix I: Comparison of DHS and NonDHS Responses to Key Survey Questions
Related GAO Products

Page 16 GAO-12-509T 

Department of Homeland Security: Continued Progress Made Improving 

and Integrating Management Areas, but More Work Remains.

GAO-12-365T. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2012.

Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Reexamine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated 

Costs. GAO-11-769. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2011.

FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the National Flood 

Insurance Program. GAO-11-297. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011.

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

2011.

Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation and 

Transformation of Management Functions, but More Work Remains.

GAO-10-911T. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010.

Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal Protective 

Service’s Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts. GAO-10-802R.

Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2010.

Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human 

Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants. GAO-09-749.

Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009.

Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and 

Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal 

Civilians. GAO-09-562. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2009.

Small Business Administration: Opportunities Exist to Build on 

Leadership’s Efforts to Improve Agency Performance and Employee 

Morale. GAO-08-995. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2008.

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

Washington, D.C.: January 2003.

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

2003.

Related GAO Products

(441053)
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.
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.