CAPITOL POLICE

Retirement Benefits, 

Pay, Duties, and 

Attrition Compared to 

Other Federal Police 

Forces

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2012

GAO-12-58

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-58, a report to 

congressional requesters 

January 2012

CAPITOL POLICE

Retirement Benefits, Pay, Duties, and Attrition

Compared to Other Federal Police Forces

Why GAO Did This Study

The Washington, D.C. metropolitan 

(DC metro) area is home to many 

federal police forces, including the 

United States Capitol Police (USCP), 

which maintain the safety of federal 

property, employees, and the public. 

Officials are concerned that disparities 

in pay and retirement benefits have 

caused federal police forces to 

experience difficulties in recruiting and 

retaining officers. In 2010, the USCP 

Labor Committee proposed six 

changes to enhance the USCP benefit 

structure. GAO was asked to review 

USCP’s pay and retirement benefits 

and compare them to other federal 

police forces in the DC metro area. 

GAO (1) compared USCP to other 

forces with respect to retirement 

benefits, minimum entry-level salary, 

duties, and employment requirements; 

(2) compared attrition at USCP to other 

forces, and determined how, if at all, 

USCP and other forces used human 

capital flexibilities (e.g., retention 

bonus); and (3) determined what level 

of retirement income USCP benefits 

provide and the costs associated with 

the proposed benefit enhancements. 

GAO chose nine other federal police 

forces to review based on prior work, 

inclusion in the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) police 

occupational series, and officer 

presence in the DC metro area. GAO 

analyzed laws, regulations, OPM data 

from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, 

and human capital data from the 10 

police forces. GAO also surveyed the 

10 forces.

USCP and the Office of Personnel 

Management generally agreed with our 

findings and provided technical 

comments, which GAO incorporated as 

appropriate.

What GAO Found

USCP generally has enhanced retirement benefits, a higher minimum starting 

salary, and a wider variety of protective duties than other federal police forces in 

the DC metro area that GAO reviewed, but has similar employment 

requirements. Even though USCP, Park Police, Supreme Court Police, and 

Secret Service Uniformed Division are federal police forces, they provide 

enhanced retirement benefits similar to those offered by federal law enforcement 

agencies that have additional investigative duties. These enhanced benefits

allow their officers to retire early and accrue retirement pensions faster than other 

federal police forces. USCP and these three forces also offered among the 

highest minimum entry-level salaries—ranging from $52,020 to $55,653—than 

the other six forces GAO reviewed, which had minimum entry-level salaries 

ranging from $38,609 to $52,018. USCP reported routinely having a wider variety 

of duties than most other forces. These duties ranged from routinely protecting 

members of Congress to protecting buildings. USCP and most of the forces 

generally have similar employment requirements, such as being in good physical 

condition.

USCP’s attrition rate is generally lower than the majority of the federal police 

forces in our review; and USCP and seven of the other nine police forces 

considered human capital flexibilities to be at least of some importance to 

recruiting and retaining qualified officers, but use of these flexibilities generally 

depends on recruiting needs, among other factors. From fiscal years 2005 

through 2010, USCP had the fourth lowest attrition rate (6.5 percent) among the 

10 police forces GAO reviewed; the attrition rates for the nine other forces 

ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent. Officials from USCP and four 

other forces GAO reviewed stated that, currently, attrition is not a problem 

because of the challenging economy. For example, officials from USCP and 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police stated that their officers want to retain 

their jobs in the challenging economy. In addition, USCP and other forces said 

that when their officers do leave the force, they generally do so either because of 

personal reasons or for better career advancement opportunities, and officers 

generally stay for reasons such as good working environment or appreciation for 

the agency’s mission. The extent to which retirement benefits, pay, and use of 

human capital flexibilities affect attrition can vary among forces given other 

factors—such as family issues—that could influence an employee’s decision to 

leave or remain with his or her employer. 

If fully utilized, benefits for USCP officers who retire at the age of 57 under 

existing provisions generally would be within the range of retirement income 

targets suggested by some retirement experts. However, the level of benefits 

depends significantly on the level of employee retirement contributions. In 2010, 

the USCP Labor Committee presented six proposals that would enhance the 

current USCP benefit structure. GAO’s analysis shows that five of the six would 

increase existing costs, GAO’s review found the other proposal, which urges the 

USCP Board to exercise its current authority to allow officers to voluntarily 

remain employed until age 60 rather than retire at age 57, as mandated, would 

have only a minimal impact on USCP costs and could increase officers’ 

retirement income. 

View GAO-12-58. For more information, 

contact Eileen R. Larence at (202) 512-8777 

or larencee@gao.gov or Charles A. Jeszeck at 

202-512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. 
 

Page i GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Letter 1 

Background 6

USCP Has Enhanced Retirement Benefits, a Higher Minimum 

Starting Salary, and a Wider Variety of Duties Compared to Most 

Federal Police Forces 10

USCP Has Relatively Low Attrition and Reported No Difficulty with 

Recruiting 23

Benefits under Existing FERS Provisions Generally Meet 

Recommended Targets, if Fully Utilized, with TSP Balances 

Being a Significant Factor 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 47

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 57

Appendix III Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 58

Appendix IV Comments from the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee 61

Appendix V GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 64

Tables

Table 1: Defined Benefit Calculations for Federal Employees (LEO 

and non-LEO Employees) 8

Table 2: Federal Police Force Retirement Benefits, Pay Plans, and 

Minimum Entry-Level Salaries, Fiscal Year 2010 13

Table 3: Attrition, Retirement Benefits, and Pay at Federal Police 

Forces 30

Table 4: Five Proposals Would Increase Costs to the Federal 

Government 39

Contents
 

Page ii GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Table 5: USCP and Comparable Federal Police Forces and Police 

Officers Located in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan 

Area or Who Received Washington, D.C., Locality Pay in 

Fiscal Year 2010 48

Figures

Figure 1: Routine Protective Duties of Federal Police Forces 14

Figure 2: USCP Primary and Shared Jurisdiction with MPD 16

Figure 3: Methods Used Routinely by Federal Police Forces to 

Protect People and Property 17

Figure 4: Activities Routinely Conducted by Federal Police Officers 19

Figure 5: Eligibility Requirements for Entry-Level Federal Police 

Officers 20

Figure 6: Requirements for the Hiring Process for Federal Police 

Officers 22

Figure 7: Attrition at Federal Police Forces from Fiscal Years 2005 

through 2010 24

Figure 8: Extent to which Federal Police Forces View Attrition as a 

Problem 25

Figure 9: Federal Police Force Officials’ Perspectives on Primary 

Reasons Why Officers Left or Stayed with the force since 

2010 27

Figure 10: Attrition by Years of Service at Federal Police Forces, 

Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010 29

Figure 11: Federal Police Forces’ Views on the Importance of 

Human Capital Flexibilities 31

Figure 12: Human Capital Flexibilities Available to and Offered by 

Federal Police Forces 32

Figure 13: Replacement Rates Under Existing FERS Provisions for 

Three Levels of TSP Contributions for Officers Retiring at 

Age 57 36

Figure 14: Percentage of Officers Making Employee Contributions 

to TSP at Different Levels (2010) 37

Figure 15: Effect on Replacement Rates of Retiring at Age 60 

Instead of Age 57 43

Abbreviations

BEP Police Bureau of Engraving and Printing

 Police

CBO Congressional Budget Office
 

Page iii GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological,

 and Nuclear

CERT Containment and Emergency

 Response Team

CPDF Central Personnel Data File 

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System 

FBI Police Federal Bureau of Investigation

 Police 

FERS Federal Employees Retirement

 System

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training

 Center

FTE Full Time Equivalents 

GED General Equivalency Diploma

GS General Schedule

HAZMAT Hazardous Material

IRC Internal Revenue Code

KSA Knowledge, Skill, and Ability

LEO Law Enforcement Officer

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPD Metropolitan Police Department of

 the District of Columbia

NIH Police National Institutes of Health Police 

Park Police United States Park Police

Pentagon Police Pentagon Force Protection Agency

 Police 

Postal Security Force U.S. Postal Service Security Force

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

Secret Service Uniformed Division U.S. Secret Service Uniformed

 Division 

SWAT Special Weapons and Tactics

TSP Thrift Savings Plan

USCP United States Capitol Police

VA Veteran’s Health Administration

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-12-58 Capitol Police 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

January 24, 2012

The Honorable Robert A. Brady

Ranking Member

Committee on House Administration

House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael E. Capuano

House of Representatives

As the epicenter for federal government operations, the Washington D.C., 

metropolitan area is home to many federal police forces—including the 

United States Capitol Police (USCP)—which play a key role in 

maintaining the safety and security of federal property, employees, and 

the general public. Since 2003, officials at some of these police forces 

have raised concerns that disparities in pay and retirement benefits have 

caused their police forces to experience difficulties in recruiting and 

retaining officers. For example, after the expansion of the Federal Air 

Marshal Program in 2003, concerns about disparities in pay and 

retirement benefits increased as the expansion created relatively highpaying job opportunities for existing federal police officers and reportedly 

lured many experienced officers from their police forces. In 2010, the 

USCP Labor Committee—the bargaining unit for USCP officers—raised 

concerns about whether retirement benefits offered by the USCP are 

adequate to attract and retain enough qualified officers, and it proposed 

six changes related to the USCP retirement benefit structure intended to 

improve retention. The USCP Labor Committee stated that a major factor 

in officers’ decisions to leave the agency is insufficient retirement 

benefits. We reported in July 2009 on the importance of considering a 

variety of organizational, personal, and economic factors, as well as 

compensation and human capital flexibilities, when assessing the need to 

increase retirement benefits.1

 

1 GAO, Federal Law Enforcement Retirement: Information on Enhanced Retirement 

Benefits for Law Enforcement Personnel.

We further reported that the presence or 

GAO-09-727 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2009). 

Human capital flexibilities represent the policies and procedures that an agency has the 

authority to implement in managing its workforce to achieve its goals. These flexibilities 

can include retention allowances, recruitment bonuses, tuition reimbursement, incentive 

awards, recognition, training and development, and work-life policies, among others. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

absence of better retirement benefits may not fully indicate why personnel 

leave a particular agency.

You requested that we review compensation and retirement benefits of 

the USCP and compare them to those of other federal police forces in the 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Specifically, this report addresses 

the following questions:

(1) How does the USCP compare to other federal police forces in the 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area with respect to retirement benefits, 

minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements?2

(2) How does attrition at USCP compare to other federal police forces, 

and how if at all, have USCP and other federal police forces used human 

capital tools to recruit and retain qualified officers?

(3) What level of retirement income do current USCP benefits provide and 

what costs are associated with the proposed benefit enhancements?

In addition to USCP, we selected nine other federal police forces to 

include in our review, based on (1) prior work on federal police forces, (2) 

inclusion in the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) occupational 

series for police officers (0083), and (3) the number of officers located in 

the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who receive Washington, D.C. 

locality pay.3

 

2 We determined how USCP compares to other federal police forces with respect to 

minimum entry-level salary. However, for our review, we did not determine how the police 

forces compared with respect to other aspects of compensation, such as maximum salary.

According to USCP officials, USCP police officers are 

functionally equivalent to police officers designated under OPM’s 0083 

3 GAO, Federal Uniformed Police: Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, and Retention at 

13 Police Forces in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. GAO-03-658 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 13, 2003). For the purpose of this report, we also used OPM’s Central 

Personnel Data File—a database that contains personnel information primarily on 

executive branch agencies—to determine which officers in the selected federal police 

forces received Washington, D.C. locality pay. These officers’ duty stations could be 

located in Washington, D.C., as well as Northern Virginia and parts of Maryland, West 

Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

police series.4

• Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police (BEP Police),

Further, USCP has approximately 1,800 police officers 

located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. We selected nine 

federal police forces that have officers who are part of, or functionally 

equivalent to, OPM’s 0083 police series and who have at least 50 officers 

who are located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or receive 

Washington, D.C. locality pay. The nine federal police forces are:

• Federal Bureau of Investigation Police (FBI Police),

• Federal Emergency Management Agency Police (FEMA Police),

• National Institutes of Health Police (NIH Police),

• Pentagon Force Protection Agency Police (Pentagon Police),

• Supreme Court Police,

• United States Park Police (Park Police),

• U.S. Postal Service Security Force (Postal Security Force)5

• U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division (Secret Service Uniformed 

Division).

 , and

6

To address our first two objectives, we reviewed relevant federal statutes, 

regulations, OPM reports and data, and our prior reports on human 

capital management to identify relevant issues pertaining to federal police 

 

4 OPM defines the 0083 police series as positions in which the primary duties are the 

performance or supervision of law enforcement work in the preservation of the peace; the 

prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes; the arrest or apprehension of violators; 

and the provision of assistance to citizens in emergency situations, including the 

protection of civil rights. 

5 Postal Security Force officials stated that even though their officers have not been 

subject to OPM classification, they do not believe that their officers are equivalent to 0083 

police officer but, instead, they believe their officers are equivalent to 0085 federal security 

guards. However, we believe that Postal Security Force is comparable to USCP for the 

purpose of our review and should be considered because (1) it reported having the same 

primary types of statutory law enforcement authorities as those reported by USCP, such 

as conducting criminal investigations, executing search warrants, making arrests, carrying 

firearms, and protecting people and property; (2) it was included in our prior work on 

federal uniformed police forces; and (3) it has more than 50 police officers located in the 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

6 Sixteen federal police forces had 0083 police officers. Nine of these forces had 50 or 

more police officers located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who received 

Washington, D.C. locality pay. The remaining seven federal police forces with 0083 

officers that did not meet these criteria, and therefore, were not included in our review are 

forces with the Federal Protective Service, National Institutes of Science and Technology, 

Smithsonian Institute, U.S. Mint, Government Printing Office, Veterans Health 

Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

officers’ retirement benefits, salaries, duties, employment requirements, 

and the police forces’ use of human capital flexibilities. We used fiscal 

year 2005 through 2010 separation data from OPM’s Central Personnel 

Data File (CPDF) to determine the level of attrition among officers at 

police forces that report to CPDF; and for forces that do not report to 

CPDF—USCP, Supreme Court Police, and Postal Security Force—we 

used fiscal year 2005 through 2010 separation data obtained directly from 

them.7

To address our third objective, we examined the prospects for retirement 

income under current provisions. Based on retirement, work history, and 

demographic data we obtained from USCP, we developed illustrative 

examples of workers hired at three different ages who progressed along a 

standard career path.

We chose this time frame in order to obtain the most recent data 

available for a full fiscal year. We also analyzed documentation and 

interviewed human resources officials, senior police officers, and 

executive officials from the police forces in our review regarding human 

capital issues. Based on this information, we surveyed and received 

responses from each of these police forces regarding issues such as 

duties, retention, and human capital flexibilities. We analyzed the survey 

results and followed up with these officials when information was

incomplete or inconsistent. We also interviewed human resources officials 

at OPM to obtain information on retirement benefits and pay. We 

assessed the reliability of the data the police forces provided in the survey 

by reviewing agency responses to questions regarding the integrity of the 

data sources. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes.

8

 

7 For this report, we calculated attrition by dividing the number of officers who separated 

from the police force during a particular fiscal year by the number of officers onboard at 

the end of that fiscal year. We considered calculating attrition by dividing the number of 

officers who separated by the average number of officers onboard at the beginning and 

end of the fiscal year. However, since the differences in the results of the two calculation 

methods were minimal, we decided to use end of fiscal year onboard numbers for 

computational simplicity.

Using a variety of assumptions, we calculated 

amounts for the three parts of USCP’s current retirement system—the 

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS): the FERS defined 

benefit, Social Security benefit, and expected retirement income from the 

8

These examples show officers hired as trainees who progress through the grades and 

steps of the pay scale based on time in grade. We focused on grade 3 officers because in 

2010, over 80 percent of all officers were grade 3 or on their way to grade 3. Grade 3 

officers have the title of Private First Class.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

federal Thrift Savings Plan annuity (TSP). We examined outcomes for 

three different TSP contribution levels as well as for retirement both at 

ages 57 and 60. In addition, we analyzed the benefit changes proposed 

by the USCP Labor Committee to identify which, if any, of the proposals 

aligned with current trends in retirement benefits. To do this, we 

discussed the proposals with officials from the USCP Labor Committee 

and OPM, and reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and literature. To 

examine the costs of these proposals, we reviewed the Congressional 

Budget Office’s (CBO) cost estimates for comparable benefit provisions to 

federal police forces, and interviewed OPM officials. We limited our 

analysis to federal police forces and did not examine the benefit 

structures of state or municipal police forces. To determine the costs to 

the federal government and officers of proposed changes to the USCP 

benefit structure, we obtained information from the USCP regarding 

officers’ retirement trends and demographic data. We conferred with 

OPM’s actuarial staff regarding information and data related to the entire 

law enforcement officer (LEO) population. We conferred with OPM’s 

actuarial staff regarding similar information and data related to the entire 

LEO population. OPM calculated the cost impact of allowing later USCP 

retirement using the aggregate entry age normal method.9

We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 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 analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit 

objectives.

Appendix I 

provides additional detail on our objectives, scope, and methodology.

 

9

Pension benefits are paid after retirement, but costs are accrued and should be funded in 

advance of retirement (during the working years). However, because there is no single 

way to assign post-retirement costs to particular years of pre-retirement service, an 

actuarial cost method is used that aggregates the costs for all individuals in the population 

being analyzed. For individuals in FERS, the method used to assign post-retirement costs 

to pre-retirement service is known as the aggregate age entry normal method.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

As federal employees, USCP and other federal police officers are eligible 

to participate in one of the two federal retirement plans—the Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement 

System (FERS). CSRS is available to employees entering federal service 

before 1984, while FERS is available to employees entering federal 

service on and after January 1, 1984. CSRS is a defined benefit plan—

meaning that the employer promises a specified monthly benefit during 

retirement that is predetermined by a formula; in the case of CSRS, the 

benefit amount and eligibility depend on the employee’s earnings history, 

tenure of service, and age. The defined benefit plan is funded by both 

employee and agency contributions as well as additional contributions 

from the U.S. Treasury. CSRS covered employment is generally not 

considered covered employment for the purposes of Social Security; 

hence, CSRS covered employees do not also receive Social Security 

benefits.10 FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three 

different sources: a defined benefit plan, Social Security, and TSP. As 

with CSRS, the defined benefit portion of FERS is funded by both 

employee and agency contributions, as well as additional contributions 

from the U.S. Treasury.11

Both federal retirement systems provide different levels of benefits 

depending on certain characteristics of covered employees. For example, 

under statutory and regulatory retirement provisions, federal employees 

who meet the retirement-related definitions of an LEO receive more 

generous retirement benefits under CSRS and FERS than non-LEO 

 

10CSRS covered employees may, through prior or subsequent private employment or as a 

survivor, obtain Social Security coverage.

11 For employees covered by the FERS retirement plan, the employee contributions for 

the defined benefit plan and the Social Security contributions are paid each pay period in 

the form of payroll deductions. Agencies also set up a TSP account for each employee 

and deposit the equivalent of 1 percent of the basic pay earned each pay period. An 

employee may choose to make additional TSP contributions up to the Internal Revenue 

Service’s elective deferral limit ($17,000 in 2012) to take advantage of any agency 

matching contributions (on the first 5 percent of basic pay contributed by the employee) or 

to contribute further beyond the matching limit. All contributions and earnings are taxdeferred. CSRS participants may also contribute to the TSP, but without an employer 

match for the employee contributions.

Background

Federal Retirement Benefit 

Systems

Federal Law Enforcement 

Retirement Benefits
 

Page 7 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

employees. Coverage under CSRS and FERS LEO definitional criteria 

generally include those personnel whose duties have been determined by 

the employing agency through an administrative process to be primarily 

the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or 

convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States.12

Generally, federal LEOs (and officers with LEO-like status) have a higher 

benefit accrual rate than most other federal employees, albeit over a 

shorter period of time due to the mandatory retirement age for LEOs. 

Officers in these categories also contribute 0.5 percent more for these 

benefits than most other federal employees contribute—7.5 percent of 

pay for CSRS and 1.3 percent of pay for FERS. As shown in table 1, 

under both CSRS and FERS, statutory provisions provide for a faster 

The 

FERS definition of a LEO is more restrictive than the CSRS LEO 

definition in that it expressly includes a rigorous duty standard, which 

provides that LEO positions must be sufficiently rigorous such that 

“employment opportunities should be limited to young and physically 

vigorous individuals.” In general, neither LEO definitions under CSRS or 

FERS have been interpreted by OPM to cover federal police officers. 

Implementing OPM regulations for CSRS and FERS provide that the 

respective LEO regulatory definitions, in general, do not include an 

employee whose primary duties involve maintaining order, protecting life 

and property, guarding against or inspecting for violations of law, or 

investigating persons other than those who are suspected or convicted of 

offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, which are akin to 

the responsibilities of federal police officers. Federal police officers might 

also be treated, for retirement purposes, as “law enforcement officers” 

(that is, granted LEO-like status) under two additional scenarios. First, 

over the years, certain other federal police forces whose duties have not 

been determined by their employing agency to meet the LEO definitional 

criteria under the administrative process have been explicitly added to the 

CSRS or FERS statutory definitions so that they are considered LEOs for 

retirement purposes. Second, certain other federal police forces whose 

duties have not been determined by their employing agency to be within 

the scope of the definitional criteria of a LEO or explicitly added by 

amending statutory LEO definitions, have been provided retirement 

benefits similar to that of LEOs directly through legislation.

 

12 OPM notes that it has delegated CSRS and FERS LEO decision making authority to 

agency heads and that while OPM retains oversight authority, it does not participate in the 

decision making process at the agency level. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

accruing defined benefit pension for LEO and LEO-like personnel than 

that provided for most other federal employees.

Table 1: Defined Benefit Calculations for Federal Employees (LEO and non-LEO 

Employees)

Type of Retirement Benefit Defined Benefit Formula

Enhanced Federal Retirement 

Benefits Available to LEOs 

and LEO-likes

CSRS

• Defined Benefit = [(2.5%) x (high 3 average basic 

pay) x (number of years of service ≤ 20)] 

+[(2.0%) x (high 3 average basic pay) x (number 

of years of service > 20)]

FERS

a

• Defined Benefit = [(1.7%) x (high 3 average basic 

pay) x (number of years of service ≤ 20)] + 

[(1.0%) x (high 3 average basic pay) x (number 

of years of service > 20)]

Standard Federal Retirement 

Benefits 

CSRS

• Defined Benefit = [(1.5%) x (high 3 average basic 

pay) x (number of years of service < 5)] + 

[(1.75%) x (high 3 average basic pay) x (number 

of years of service >5 and ≤10 years)] + [(2.0%) 

x (high 3 average basic pay) x (number of years 

of service > 10)]

FERS

• Defined Benefit = [(1.0% or 1.1%) x (high 3 

average basic pay) x (number of creditable years 

of FERS service)]b

Source: GAO analysis based on OPM data.

 

a

The “high-3 average pay” is the largest annual rate resulting from averaging an employee’s rates of 

basic pay in effect over any period of 3 consecutive years of creditable civilian service, with each rate 

weighted by the length of time it was in effect. 

b

Creditable years of FERS service refer to the length of an employee’s federal service eligible for 

FERS retirement. The 1.1 percent accrual rate applies only to a regular employee who retires under 

the immediate retirement provisions and who is at least 62 years old and has at least 20 years of 

service at retirement. It does not apply in the case of a congressional employee, military technician 

(dual status), law enforcement officer, member of the Supreme Court Police, customs and border 

protection officer, firefighter, nuclear materials courier, or air traffic controller. 

Also under FERS, federal police officers receiving LEO-like defined 

benefits are typically eligible for the same early and enhanced pension 

benefits as LEOs. For example, LEOs receive FERS cost-of-living 

adjustments beginning at retirement, even if retirement is earlier than age 

62, instead of at age 62 when most other FERS retirees become eligible 

for these adjustments. Under FERS, LEOs also qualify for an unreduced 

early retirement benefit and may retire at age 50 with a minimum of 20 

years of qualifying service, or at any age with at least 25 years of 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

qualifying service, which are also more generous than the corresponding

provisions for most other FERS participants.13 LEOs are also subject to 

mandatory retirement at age 57 with 20 years of service. They are also 

eligible to receive the special FERS supplement upon retirement that 

mimics the Social Security retirement benefits earned during federal 

government service.14 FERS retirees continue to receive the supplement 

until they reach age 62 and become eligible to collect Social Security. 

Police forces statutorily granted LEO-like status also typically receive 

these same benefits. The standard Social Security benefits apply to all 

federal LEOs.

In addition to varying retirement benefits, federal police forces may also 

operate under different compensation systems. Some federal police 

forces are covered by OPM’s General Schedule (GS) basic pay plan (i.e., 

standard basic pay plan). According to OPM, standard governmentwide 

basic pay systems, including the GS system, are established under title 5 

of the United States Code and most LEOs and other employees with 

arrest authority are covered by standard basic pay systems. Under a 

standard basic pay plan, OPM generally sets the basic pay ranges 

(grades) and pay increases (steps) within each grade for the positions, 

and federal police forces use these grades and steps to compensate their 

employees.15

 

13 Under FERS, for example, such qualifying service under 5 U.S.C. § 8412 refers to 

service as a law enforcement officer, member of the Capitol Police or Supreme Court 

Police, firefighter, nuclear materials courier, or customs and border protection officer, or 

any combination of such service.

On the other hand, some federal police forces are covered 

under non-standard basic pay plans authorized under separate 

legislation. Generally, under non-standard basic pay plans, federal police 

forces are authorized to, among other things, provide basic pay rates 

different from those specified in a standard basic pay plan and thus have 

14 According to OPM, agencies typically establish the maximum entry age for LEOs based 

on the age and service requirements for LEO mandatory retirement, which is generally 

age 57 with at least 20 years of LEO service. The maximum entry age is typically age 37 

because it allows an employee to achieve 20 years of LEO service when they reach the 

mandatory retirement age of 57. 

15 Under the standard pay plan, the grade scale for the 0083 police series ranges from GS 

03 to GS 10 and within each grade, the steps range from Step 1 to Step 10. According to 

OPM, CPDF also identifies federal police officers at grades higher than GS-10.

Pay Plans for Federal 

Police Forces
 

Page 10 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

the ability to offer higher minimum entry-level salaries than those provided 

to police officers under a standard pay system.

USCP has enhanced retirement benefits and a higher minimum entrylevel salary than most other federal police forces GAO reviewed. Also, it 

reported having a wider variety of protective duties such as routinely 

protecting members of Congress and buildings, and routinely using a 

variety of methods to carry out these duties, such as conducting entrance 

and exit screening and patrolling in vehicles, than most other police 

forces. However, USCP reported that its officers routinely engage in 

similar activities, such as intelligence operations, and have similar 

employment requirements for entry-level officers, such as being in good 

physical condition, as most other federal police forces.

USCP and three other police forces—Park Police, Secret Service 

Uniformed Division, and Supreme Court Police—have enhanced 

retirement benefits, similar to those received by federal LEOs, where 

officers can retire after fewer years of service and their retirement 

annuities accrue faster than the other six federal police forces GAO 

reviewed. Specifically, police officers within these four police forces are 

authorized under CSRS and FERS to retire at age 50 with a minimum of 

20 years of qualifying service and are subject to a mandatory retirement 

age of 57, with some exceptions.16

In 1988, the Park Police and the Secret Service Uniformed Division, both 

of which had not been determined by OPM and their employing agencies 

to be covered by the LEO definition, were explicitly added by statute to 

the FERS definition of a LEO so that they are considered LEOs for 

retirement purposes.17

 

16 Both CSRS and FERS personnel receiving LEO benefits may be retained for a short 

time beyond the mandatory retirement age under certain circumstances. First, if an 

agency head judges that the public interest so requires, that agency head may exempt 

such an employee from mandatory separation until that employee becomes 60 years of 

age. In addition, the President, by executive order, may exempt an employee (other than a 

member of the Capitol Police or Supreme Court Police, which are part of the legislative 

and judicial branches, respectively) from mandatory separation if the President determines 

the public interest so requires. 5 U.S.C. § 8335; 5 U.S.C. § 8425. 

Committee report language accompanying the 

17 Pub. L. No. 100-238, 101 Stat. 1744 (1988). 

USCP Has Enhanced 

Retirement Benefits, a 

Higher Minimum 

Starting Salary, and a 

Wider Variety of 

Duties Compared to 

Most Federal Police 

Forces

Retirement Benefits and 

Salary
 

Page 11 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

1988 legislation noted that “although these individuals are commonly 

thought to be law enforcement officers, OPM says they do not meet the 

FERS definition of ‘law enforcement officer’ under section 8401(17) and 

thus do not qualify for FERS law enforcement officer benefits.”18

In comparison, rather than amending the statutory LEO definition, 

separate legislation in 1990 and 2000 provided the USCP and the 

Supreme Court Police, respectively, with enhanced retirement benefits 

similar to those received by LEOs.

The 

Committee report then provided that the 1988 legislation would ensure 

that these individuals will receive FERS law enforcement officer benefits.

19 Conference committee report 

language accompanying the 2000 Supreme Court legislation, for 

example, explained that the new provision served to “bring the Supreme 

Court Police into parity with the retirement benefits provided to the United 

States Capitol Police and other federal law enforcement agencies.”20

Federal police officers at the remaining six police forces in our review 

receive standard federal employee retirement benefits.21

USCP and the three police forces with enhanced retirement benefits also 

operate under statutorily-provided, non-standard basic pay plans and 

reported offering among the highest entry-level salaries compared to 

 

18 H. R. Rep. No. 100-374, at 21 (1987). 

19 Pub. L. No. 101-428, 104 Stat. 928 (1990); Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762 (2000). 

20 H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-1005, at 290 (2000).

21 As of October 2011, officials from four of the six remaining police forces stated that their 

police forces had not requested enhanced retirement benefits. According to NIH Police 

officials, NIH requested enhanced retirement benefits in 1996 and again in fiscal year 

2005; however, neither instance resulted in the NIH Police receiving the requested 

enhanced LEO retirement coverage. As to the Pentagon Police, in September 2011, a bill 

(S. 1543) was introduced in the 112th Session of Congress to, in general, provide 

enhanced retirement benefits to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency officers whose 

permanent duty station is the Pentagon Reservation and who occupy a position in job 

series 0083. According to Pentagon Police officials, since fiscal year 2008, the Pentagon 

Police initiated legislative proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

amend sections 8401(17) and 8331(20) of Title 5, United States Code, to grant all 

Pentagon Police officers law enforcement retirement benefits. According to Pentagon 

Police officials, OMB released the fiscal year 2011 proposed legislation to Congress in 

2010, but it was not acted upon. Furthermore, Pentagon Police officials stated that the 

former Secretary of Defense sent an official letter to OPM indicating the criticality of 

offering enhanced retirement benefits to its officers. 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

those reported by the other federal police forces.22 With respect to USCP, 

for example, under its non-standard basic pay authority, the Capitol 

Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police set basic pay rates (both 

grades and steps) for USCP officers. Three other police forces (BEP 

Police, Pentagon Police, and Postal Security Force) with standard federal 

employee retirement benefits also operate non-standard basic pay plans, 

by statute, while the remaining three police forces—FBI Police, FEMA 

Police, and NIH Police—operate under the standard basic pay plans to 

compensate their officers.23 24

USCP and the three police forces with enhanced retirement benefits 

offered among the highest minimum entry-level salaries, ranging from 

$52,020 to $55,653, as shown in table 2. At $55,653, USCP and the 

Supreme Court Police offered the highest minimum entry-level salaries to 

their police officers. NIH Police and Postal Security Force offered the 

lowest minimum entry-level salaries among the 10 police forces, at 

$38,678 and $38,609, respectively.25

 

22 For the purpose of this review, entry-level refers to a 0083 police officer (or equivalent) 

entering the police force at the lowest level; and entry-level salary refers to the minimum 

possible starting salary that police force offers to its entry-level police officer.

23As of October 2011, a class action lawsuit, King v. United States of America, No. 07-589 

C, is pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims regarding FBI pay. The 

complaint alleges, among other things, that the FBI Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-

273, 116 Stat. 1758, 1830-31 (2002)) increased FBI police officer pay and benefits that 

the FBI has failed to provide. In its motion to dismiss, the United States asserted, in 

general, that the 2002 Act conveyed discretionary authority to establish a permanent FBI 

police force and that the FBI has not yet established such a permanent police force under 

that discretionary authority. The United States’ motion to dismiss further provided, in part, 

that the FBI determined that implementation would not be feasible given the potential 

fiscal impact that the retirement system issues created. 

24 According to OPM, special rates apply to 0083 police officers located in the 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who receive D.C. locality pay under 5 U.S.C. § 

5305, and at the entry-level grades, these rates are 13.5 percent above the normally 

applicable GS locality rates.

25We used entry-level salary data for fiscal year 2010 because it was the most recently 

completed fiscal year at the time of our review.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Table 2: Federal Police Force Retirement Benefits, Pay Plans, and Minimum Entry-Level Salaries, Fiscal Year 2010

Retirement Benefit Agency Pay Plan

Minimum Possible EntryLevel Salary ($)

Enhanced Retirement 

Benefit

a

USCP Non-Standard Basic Pay Plan

Police forces that have special 

authority to set their pay rates 

$55,653

Supreme Court Police $55,653

Secret Service Uniformed Division

b

$55,477

Park Police $52,020

Standard Federal 

Employee Retirement 

Benefit

Pentagon Police $52,018

BEP Police $50,355

Postal Security Force $38,609 

FEMA Police Standard Basic Pay Plan

Police forces for which OPM sets 

pay rates

$43,114

FBI Police $43,114

NIH Police $38,678

Source: GAO analysis of OPM and federal police force data.

a

All federal police forces have experienced increases in their minimum entry-level salaries since 

2002, ranging from approximately $9,900 to $16,000 based on periodic or annual pay scale 

adjustments. During this period, USCP’s minimum entry-level salary increased by approximately 

$16,000—from $39,427 to $55,653. 

b

The Supreme Court Police has an identical minimum entry-level salary as that of USCP and reported 

that it always adjusts its pay scale to match the USCP. 

USCP reported routinely having a wider variety of duties than other 

federal police forces.26

Conversely, the Postal Security Force reported having fewer duties, and 

the protective duties that it does have, including routinely protecting 

employees and buildings, are ones that all or most of the police forces, 

including the USCP, also have. Postal Security Force officials stated that 

their officers’ primary duty is routinely protecting the United States Postal 

Service buildings and mail processing facilities. Figure 1 identifies the 

reported routine protective duties of USCP and the nine federal police 

forces we reviewed.

These duties ranged from routinely protecting 

members of Congress to buildings. For example, USCP officials stated 

that their main focus is protecting life and property, and thus, in addition 

to routinely protecting members of Congress, they also protect members’ 

families throughout the entire United States, as authorized, as well as 

congressional buildings, parks, and thoroughfares.

 

26 For the purpose of this review, “routinely” is defined as daily to several times a week. 

Protective Duties and 

Methods to Carry Out 

These Duties
 

Page 14 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 1: Routine Protective Duties of Federal Police Forces

a

CBRN refers to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear facilities or materials. 

b

USCP officials stated that USCP routinely protects the Capitol Power complex, which houses some 

chemical materials. 

c

Park Police reported routinely protecting the Vice President in support of the United States Secret 

Service. 

d

Secret Service Uniformed Division reported routinely protecting the Vice President of the United 

States and his immediate family. 

e

Pentagon Police reported routinely protecting the Pentagon Memorial. 

f

BEP Police reported routinely protecting the nation’s currency. 

g

FBI Police reported its officers routinely assist in the protection of the FBI director. 

In addition to the routine protective duties listed above, some of these 

federal police forces, including the USCP, have shared jurisdiction with 

other non-federal police forces. For example, Park Police officials said 

that they have a shared understanding with the states of Maryland and 

Virginia to investigate homicides in federal parks within these states. 

Officials from USCP stated that they have statutory authority for extended 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

jurisdiction which is shared with the Metropolitan Police Department of the 

District of Columbia (MPD). Additionally, BEP Police, FBI Police, and 

Pentagon Police officials stated that they have a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) or cooperative agreement with MPD to patrol areas 

beyond their primary jurisdiction. For example, as shown in figure 2, as a 

result of the statutory authority for extended jurisdiction, USCP’s 

jurisdiction extends several blocks beyond the grounds of the U.S. Capitol 

complex.27

 

27 USCP additionally notes that 2 U.S.C. § 1967 authorizes shared jurisdiction between 

USCP and MPD.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 2: USCP Primary and Shared Jurisdiction with MPD

Note: A provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012,28 expanded USCP’s extended 

jurisdiction to include the Reflecting Pool area (not reflected in this figure), which is bordered on the 

east by 1st Street, on the west by 3rd Street, on the north by Pennsylvania Avenue, and on the south 

by Maryland Avenue. 

USCP and three other police forces—FBI Police, Park Police, and 

Supreme Court Police—reported routinely using a wider variety of 

methods to carry out their duties than the other federal police forces in 

our review. We identified six possible methods that federal police forces 

may use routinely in carrying out their duties, and USCP and the FBI 

Police reported using all six, as figure 3 indicates. In addition, the FBI 

 

28 Section 1202 of Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. (2011) provided, in general, that to the 

extent to which the Director of the National Park Service has jurisdiction and control over 

such specified area, such jurisdiction and control is transferred to the Architect of the 

Capitol. In turn, under 2 U.S.C. § 1961, Capitol Police jurisdiction over United States 

Capitol Buildings and Grounds includes, among other things, property acquired in the 

District of Columbia by the Architect of the Capitol. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Police, Park Police, and Supreme Court Police also reported routinely 

using other methods to carry out their duties, such as countersurveillance horse patrol, and standing post. All 10 of the police forces we 

reviewed reported routinely patrolling in vehicles and conducting entrance 

or exit screenings, and all except the NIH Police reported patrolling on 

foot. The NIH Police officials explained that their mission is protecting the 

NIH facility of about 347 acres, including biological-safety laboratories 

and responding to emergency calls, and thus, officers generally do not 

stand post but are out at the facility patrolling in vehicles.

Figure 3: Methods Used Routinely by Federal Police Forces to Protect People and Property

a

Patrol in vehicle refers to patrolling in a car or golf cart or on a motorcycle, Segway® Personal 

Transporter, etc. 

b

Conduct K-9 refers to law enforcement work conducted by specially-trained officers and canines. 

c

FBI Police reported using counter-surveillance method routinely. 

d

Park Police stated that its officers routinely patrol on horse. 

e

Supreme Court Police reported that its officers routinely stand post around the perimeter of the 

Supreme Court building. 

USCP also reported that it routinely engages in a variety of activities 

similar to those reported by some of the nine federal police forces in 

carrying out its protective duties. For example, USCP and seven of the 

other nine police forces reported routinely conducting specialized 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

activities such as Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), K-9, or 

Containment and Emergency Response Team (CERT) activities.29

 

29 For the purpose of this report, SWAT refers to activities requiring specially trained 

agents to intervene in high-risk events such as hostage and barricade situations, and 

CERT activities refer to providing specialized response for events requiring heightened 

protective measures such as counter sniper operations.

Also, 

USCP and eight of the other nine forces reported routinely conducting 

traffic control and responding to suspicious activities, in particular, 

suspicious packages and people. USCP officials indicated that suspicious 

packages within the Capitol complex have typically been items such as 

unattended backpacks that have not contained hazardous devices such 

as bombs. Also, the Pentagon police, in noting that the Pentagon is still a 

likely target since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, cited 

incidents such as a March 2010 attack when a gunman tried to shoot his 

way through the entrance of the building. In addition, USCP and the 

Pentagon Police reported routinely responding to chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) or hazardous material (HAZMAT) 

threats. Figure 4 summarizes the routine activities reported by each 

police force.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 4: Activities Routinely Conducted by Federal Police Officers

a

Suspicious activity response refers to response to suspicious people, packages, or vehicles. 

b

Specialized activity refers to such activity as SWAT, K-9 or CERT. 

c

Park Police reported routinely conducting aviation operations, search and rescue, medical 

evacuation, and horse-mounted patrols. 

d

The Supreme Court police reported routinely standing post both inside and outside the buildings. 

e

Postal Security Force reported that officers do not routinely engage in the identified activities but 

engage in burglary responses of postal service stations on an occasional to routine basis. 

USCP and most of the federal police forces in our review generally have 

similar employment requirements for their entry-level police officers, 

including eligibility requirements and requirements for the hiring process.

All of the police forces require applicants to be a U.S. citizen, in good 

physical condition, have a valid driver’s license, and have no criminal 

history in order to be eligible for employment. Also, most federal police 

forces require some college experience or prior related experience, with 

the exception of USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division, which 

require their officers to have a high school diploma or General 

Equivalency Diploma (GED) certificate. However, officials at USCP and 

Secret Service Uniformed Division stated that they also receive applicants 

with college or law enforcement experience. In addition, Postal Security 

Employment Requirements
 

Page 20 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Force officials stated that their officers are not required to have a high 

school diploma or GED certificate; however, they are required to have 

been employed by the Postal Service for at least 1 year, and the position 

that they held does not have to be law enforcement related. Most of the 

police forces that offer enhanced retirement benefits also differ from the 

other police forces in that they have a maximum age for applicants and 

require applicants to have good character and leadership skills. Figure 5 

provides the eligibility requirements for each federal police force in our 

review.

Figure 5: Eligibility Requirements for Entry-Level Federal Police Officersa

a

Some federal police forces also have various knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) requirements, 

including the ability to effectively solve problems, the skill to function effectively in a stressful 

environment; skill in effective oral communication; the ability to communicate effectively in writing; the 

ability to function effectively in a team environment; knowledge of local, state, and federal law 

involved in law enforcement work; and the ability to enforce law and order, among others. 

b

Secret Service Uniformed Division requires that applicants who are eligible for veterans preference 

must receive a conditional job offer letter prior to reaching age 40, in order to continue in the 

application process; applicants who are not eligible for veterans preference must receive a conditional 

job offer letter prior to reaching age 37, in order to continue in the application process. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

c

Supreme Court Police requires a bachelor’s degree to apply. As to the requirements to having valid 

driver’s license, being able to carry a firearm, and having minimum visual acuity, these were not 

specified in the Supreme Court police officer’s job vacancy announcement; however, the Chief of the 

Supreme Court Police identified these as requirements. 

d

The FBI Police requires a high school diploma and prior related experience, and FBI officials stated 

that some college experience is highly desirable. Also the police force requires selected applicants to 

sign a service agreement to remain in the police officer position for 2 years. 

Federal police forces generally have similar requirements for their hiring 

processes. For example, as shown in figure 6, each police force requires 

applicants to have an interview, medical examination, background 

investigation, and training either pre or post hiring, primarily at the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).30

 

30 FLETC is the largest single provider of law enforcement training for the federal 

government. 

Furthermore, most of the 

federal police forces, including USCP, require applicants to complete a 

drug test and a written examination. USCP differs from the majority of 

police forces, however, in that it does not require its officers to obtain a 

security clearance, but it does require a psychological evaluation, 

polygraph test, and a complete background investigation.
 

Page 22 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 6: Requirements for the Hiring Process for Federal Police Officers

a

Postal Security Force requires applicants to be able to hear the conversational voice without the use 

of a hearing aid. 

b

Park Police requires selected applicants to satisfactorily complete a 1-year probationary period; the 

Pentagon Police requires employees to be able to report to work within 1 hour of notification. 

c

USCP training is a post hiring requirement. 

d

Secret clearance is required by the Park Police and Pentagon Police, and Top Secret clearance is 

required by the Secret Service Police, FEMA Police, BEP Police, and FBI Police. Also, the Postal 

Security Force requires its officers to maintain a Postal Service “sensitive clearance” that is different 

from the national security clearance category such as Secret or Top Secret clearance. 

e

USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division officials stated that although physical fitness 

evaluation was not included in their hiring process during the time period covered in our review, it will 

be a part of the process starting in fiscal year 2012. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

In addition to enhanced retirement benefits and a higher minimum entrylevel salary, USCP has experienced lower attrition than six of the other 

nine federal police forces, and USCP reported that attrition was not a 

problem from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Also, USCP and some of 

the other nine federal police forces reported that officers who voluntarily 

separate for reasons other than retirement do so for personal reasons or 

career advancement; few forces cited the desire for greater retirement 

benefits or better salary as a reason why officers leave. While USCP and 

seven of the other nine police forces said that human capital flexibilities 

were important tools for recruiting and retaining police officers, their use 

generally depends on need or budget, among other factors.

From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, USCP’s average attrition rate was 

6.5 percent compared to the other nine federal police forces, which 

ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent.31

 

31 The attrition rates used in this report are aggregate attrition rates for the entire police 

workforce, calculated as the number of separations (which includes retirement, voluntary 

separations, internal transfers or reassignments, involuntary separations, and deaths) 

divided by the number of officers onboard from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. We 

collected data on age and years of service for the officers who separated from the 10 

federal police forces included in our review from 2005 through 2010; however, we did not 

collect data on age and years of service for all officers employed by the 10 police forces 

during this time period. Because of this data limitation, we were not able to separate 

attrition rates by age or years of service, which would have allowed us to look at the affect 

that age or service composition of the workforce has on the aggregate attrition rate. For 

example, a workforce with a high concentration of older employees eligible for retirement 

may show a high aggregate attrition rate solely because of its high concentration of older 

employees. Similarly, a workforce that has recently been enhanced by a large number of 

new hires may temporarily have a higher aggregate attrition rate because of a tendency 

for new hires to leave service, voluntarily or involuntarily, at a higher rate than more 

seasoned employees. As a result, differences in aggregate attrition rates could be 

explained, in part, by differences in the age or service composition of the workforce.

Three of the other 

nine police forces—BEP Police, NIH Police and Park Police—had lower 

attrition rates than USCP, while the remaining six forces had higher 

attrition rates during the same period, as shown in figure 7.

USCP Has Relatively 

Low Attrition and 

Reported No 

Difficulty with 

Recruiting

Attrition
 

Page 24 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 7: Attrition at Federal Police Forces from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010

a

The average attrition rate among the 10 federal police forces in our study was 8.7 percent from fiscal 

years 2005 through 2010. 

b

The average attrition rate for the FBI Police was calculated using fiscal year 2007 through 2010 

separation data because data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 were not available in the Central 

Personnel Data File. 

USCP as well as four other police forces reported that attrition was not a 

problem, and the most common explanation officials offered was the 

current economy. For example, USCP and BEP Police officials stated that 

with fewer jobs available in the economy, officers were remaining 

employed by their police forces. Specifically, from fiscal years 2005 

through 2008, when the national unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, the 

average attrition rate among the police forces in our review was about 9.2 

percent.32

 

32 The unemployment rates for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 and fiscal years 2009 

through 2010 are the averages of the monthly unemployment rates listed by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics for those time frames.

However, during fiscal years 2009 and 2010, when the national 

unemployment rate was 9.1 percent—almost twice as high as the 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

preceding 4 years—the combined average attrition rate for the police 

forces was lower, about 7.5 percent. The FBI Police was the only force 

with a higher attrition rate (17.9 percent) from fiscal years 2009 through 

2010. Two of the 10 police forces that reported that attrition was a great 

problem—Secret Service Uniformed Division and the FBI Police—also 

had the highest attrition rates. The Secret Service Uniformed Division 

cited the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and 

challenging demands of the job as reasons why attrition was a problem.

The FBI Police said better pay, positions, and benefits at other forces

were reasons why attrition was a problem. Figure 8 illustrates federal 

police forces’ responses to our survey question on the extent to which 

attrition was a problem.

Figure 8: Extent to which Federal Police Forces View Attrition as a Problem

Furthermore, USCP had no problem filling the vacant positions left by 

officers leaving the force as they are able to attract qualified applicants.

USCP and three of the other nine police forces—Park Police, FEMA 

Police and FBI Police—reported that they had no difficulty attracting 

qualified applicants. Our analysis of USCP data indicates that from fiscal 

year 2006 through 2010, USCP attracted, on average, 27 qualified 

applicants for each available vacancy and maintained a vacancy rate of 

2.6 percent. 33 34

 

33The majority of federal police forces in our study were unable to supply data on the 

number of applicants deemed to be qualified for most fiscal years.

During that time, the other nine federal police forces had 

an average vacancy rate of 7.9 percent, ranging from 1.9 percent at BEP 

34Vacancy rate was calculated as follows: authorized full time equivalents (FTE) minus the 

average of actual FTEs onboard at the beginning and end of the fiscal year; the result 

divided by authorized FTEs.
 

Page 26 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Police up to 24.4 percent at FEMA Police.35 Only two of the other nine 

forces—BEP Police and Supreme Court Police—had a lower vacancy 

rate with 1.9 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. USCP officials cited 

the slow economy and a competitive salary as reasons why they believe 

that they have no problem attracting qualified applicants. On the other 

hand, FBI Police, which has the highest attrition rate among the 10 police 

forces, stated that it is able to attract a large pool of applicants due to the 

reputation of the agency. FBI officials said that applicants view the police 

officer position as an entry-level position with hopes of advancing within 

the agency. In the case of FEMA Police, officials reported that they had 

no difficulty attracting qualified applicants; however, they had the highest 

vacancy rate among the 10 police forces. Officials explained that from 

2004 through 2010 FEMA Police was building its force and during that 

time management would periodically place a hold on hiring due to budget 

constraints.

Federal police forces said that their police officers generally leave their 

forces either because of personal reasons or for better career 

advancement opportunities, and officers generally stay because of 

appreciation for the agency’s mission.36

 

35 The vacancy rate for BEP Police was calculated using fiscal years 2008 through 2010 

FTE data because the BEP Police was unable to provide data from previous fiscal years.

For example, USCP and three 

other police forces indicated that most of their police officers leave for 

personal reasons, such as the desire to work closer to home. At the same 

time, five other police forces—Supreme Court Police, FBI Police, FEMA 

Police, Pentagon Police, and Postal Security Force—cited career 

advancement as the reason for officer attrition. Specifically, career 

advancement, as stated by the agencies, was either the acceptance of a 

higher level position at another agency or a transfer to an agency that has 

greater potential for future promotion. For example, our analysis shows 

that the majority of FBI’s voluntarily-separated officers transferred to 

different positions within the agency, such as an agent or intelligence 

analyst position. FBI Police officials said that applicants often view the 

police officer position as a stepping stone to advance to these positions.

36 The majority of federal police forces in our study reported that exit surveys of separating 

officers were either not conducted, not mandatory, or only recently initiated, and USCP 

reported that the response rate for its voluntary exit surveys was low. Therefore, we used 

senior level police force officials’ responses to our survey questions to identify reasons 

why officers leave or stay with their police force.

Primary Reasons Why 

Federal Police Officers 

Leave or Stay 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Furthermore, USCP and three other police forces reported that quality-oflife was one of the main reasons police officers stay with their forces, 

citing such underlying factors as the work environment and work-life 

balance. USCP said that pay and job security were two other main 

reasons that police officers remain employed by the force. Also, 6 of the 

10 forces stated that agency mission was a key reason that officers stay 

with their agencies. Figure 9 summarizes the primary reasons that federal 

police force officials offered for why their officers leave or stay.

Figure 9: Federal Police Force Officials’ Perspectives on Primary Reasons Why Officers Left or Stayed with the force since 

2010

Note: Personal reasons include family reasons, medical reasons, and relocation. 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

While the USCP Labor Committee asserted that inadequate retirement 

benefits have contributed to attrition among USCP officers, USCP did not 

report retirement benefits as a reason why its officers left, as shown in 

figure 9. On the other hand, there were other police forces that identified 

inadequate retirement benefits as a reason for officer attrition—BEP 

Police, FBI Police, and Pentagon Police—which were among the police 

forces that offer standard, as opposed to enhanced, retirement benefits.

However, our analysis suggests that the fact that a police force offers 

enhanced retirement benefits does not necessarily mean that it will have 

lower attrition compared to others police forces, and vice versa. For 

example, the Secret Service Uniformed Division offers enhanced 

retirement benefits, yet it had the second highest attrition rate among the 

federal police forces, whereas NIH Police offers standard retirement 

benefits and has one of the lowest attrition rates. 37

Although the difference in retirement benefits may not fully indicate why 

officers leave a police force, it may influence the timing of when officers 

leave. For all of the police forces with enhanced retirement benefits, a 

greater percentage of the officers who left—73 percent—did so within the 

first 5 years of service or after 20 years of service, compared to those 

forces with standard retirement benefits, where 54 percent of separating 

officers left either within the first 5 years of service or after 20 years of 

service. The Director of USCP Human Resources stated that if an officer 

stays with USCP beyond 5 years, that officer is likely to stay at least until 

the individual reaches early retirement, generally after 20 or 25 years of 

service. Figure 10 compares the timing of separation of police officers at 

police forces with enhanced retirement benefits to those with standard 

retirement benefits from fiscal years 2005 through 2010.

Further, none of the 

police forces that offered enhanced retirement benefits cited those 

benefits as a reason why officers stayed at their police force.

 

37 These findings should not be interpreted to mean that the level of retirement benefits 

does not have any effect on attrition. A multi-factor statistical analysis would be required to 

draw conclusions about the effect that any single factor has on attrition. We did not 

conduct such analysis as part of this review. However, our findings do provide some 

insight on the effects of individual factors. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 10: Attrition by Years of Service at Federal Police Forces, Fiscal Years 2005 

through 2010 

Note: The percentage of separating officers under standard retirement benefits with less than 5 years 

of service was 38 percent; between 5 and 20 years of service was 46 percent; and with 20 or more 

years of service was 16 percent. The percent of separating officers under enhanced retirement 

benefits with less than 5 years of service was 52 percent; between 5 and 20 years of service was 27 

percent; and with 20 or more years of service was 21 percent. 

As with greater retirement benefits, desire for a better salary was not cited 

by a majority of police forces as a reason why officers leave from or stay 

with their forces. As shown in figure 9, only 2 of the 10 forces—FBI Police 

and Postal Security Force—said that officers leave for better salaries, and 

3 of the 10 forces—USCP, Park Police, and Pentagon Police—said that 

officers stay for better salaries. Also, federal police forces with higher 

minimum entry-level salaries did not always have lower attrition.38 For 

example, USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division were among the 

highest paid federal police forces. USCP had among the lowest attrition, 

and Secret Service Uniformed Division had among the highest. Further, 

NIH Police, which offered one of the lowest minimum entry-level salaries, 

maintained the second lowest attrition from fiscal years 2005 through 

2010, as displayed in table 3.

 

38 There are aspects of compensation other than minimum entry-level salary that may 

affect attrition such as the maximum possible salary officers could earn and promotion 

opportunities. However, we did not address these factors as part of our review.
 

Page 30 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Table 3: Attrition, Retirement Benefits, and Pay at Federal Police Forces

Retirement 

Benefit

Average Attrition, fiscal years 

2005 Through 2010 (%) Agency

Minimum Possible 

Entry-Level Salary ($)

Standard 3.5% BEP Police $50,355

Standard 4.8% NIH Police $38,678

Enhanced 5.9% Park Police $52,020

Enhanced 6.5% USCP $55,653

Standard 8.9% Pentagon 

Police

$52,018

Enhanced 9.5% Supreme 

Court Police 

$55,653

Standard 9.7% Postal 

Security 

Force 

$38,609

Standard 11.6% FEMA Police $43,114

Enhanced 12.4% Secret 

Service 

Uniformed 

Division

$55,477

Standard 13.9% FBI Police $43,114

Source: GAO analysis based on CPDF and GAO 2011 survey of select federal police forces.

Most of the police forces in our review stated that the use of human 

capital flexibilities was of at least some importance for recruiting and 

retaining officers. Five of the 10 federal police forces in our study, 

including USCP, reported that human capital flexibilities were important or 

very important to recruiting and retaining police officers, while two police 

forces—Postal Security Force and FEMA Police—stated that they were 

not important. The other forces—FBI Police, Park Police, and Supreme 

Court Police—reported that human capital flexibilities are somewhat or 

moderately important. Further, NIH Police was the sole police force that 

reported a human capital flexibility as one of the primary reasons that 

officers remained employed by their police force. Figure 11 identifies the 

federal police forces’ views on the importance of human capital 

flexibilities.

Human Capital 

Flexibilities
 

Page 31 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 11: Federal Police Forces’ Views on the Importance of Human Capital Flexibilities

USCP and the other police forces offered a variety of human capital 

flexibilities related to work-life balance, relocation and position 

classification, and recruitment and retention, among others. For example, 

all of the police forces, except the USCP, reported offering cash 

performance bonuses to their officers. USCP officials noted that they did 

not offer this particular flexibility because it was not necessary to recruit 

and retain officers. Conversely, in some cases, flexibilities that were 

available to police forces to use were not offered to police officers. For 

example, three police forces—USCP, Park Police and FEMA Police—

reported that they did not use all of the recruitment and retention 

flexibilities available to them because they were not needed since they 

have a sufficient number of applicants. USCP and Park Police officials 

further stated that they did not offer these flexibilities due to budget 

constraints. Other human capital flexibilities were not offered because 

they were not available to police forces. Police forces generally reported 

not having some flexibilities available to their agencies because they had 

not requested that such flexibilities be made available, explaining that 

they did not need them as they were able to attract qualified applicants 

without offering more flexibilities. For example, the transportation subsidy 

was not available to Postal Security Force because, according to Postal 

Security Force officials, they did not need this flexibility to be made 

available to their force as they did not have difficulty in attracting 

applicants. Figure 12 provides information on federal police forces’ 

human capital flexibilities.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 12: Human Capital Flexibilities Available to and Offered by Federal Police Forces

a

Superior qualifications refer to increase in pay above the minimum pay because of the superior 

qualifications of the candidate or a special need of the agency for the candidate’s services.

b

Specialized unit opportunity refers to opportunities to work in units such as SWAT, K-9, or CERT. 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

c

Waiver of qualification requirement refers to waiving training requirements based on previous 

experience or training. 

d

Alternative work schedule refers to compressed schedule or flexible hours schedule. 

e

USCP officials stated that their police officers have access to child care services through the House 

and Senate Child Care Centers. 

Even though human capital flexibilities are intended to be a tool to recruit 

and retain employees, and most of the police forces considered them at 

least somewhat important, the police forces that offered a wider variety of 

human capital flexibilities did not always have lower attrition rates. For 

example, NIH Police and Secret Service Uniformed Division were the two 

forces that offered the widest variety of flexibilities. Yet, NIH Police had 

the second lowest attrition rate, and Secret Service Uniformed Division 

had the second highest attrition rate.

While retirement benefits, pay, and use of human capital flexibilities could 

affect attrition, the extent to which they do so can vary for a given agency, 

and other factors—such as family issues and promotion opportunities, as 

previously discussed—could influence an employee’s decision to leave or 

remain with his or her employer. Therefore, when an agency is 

determining its strategy for recruiting and retaining qualified employees, 

assessing the extent to which attrition is a problem, and developing 

strategies that address the problem, will be important.
 

Page 34 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

The benefits of USCP officers retiring at the age of 57 under existing 

FERS provisions, if fully utilized by USCP officers, would meet retirement 

income targets generally recommended by some retirement experts.

However, the level of benefits depends significantly on the level of 

employee TSP contributions. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee 

presented six proposals that would enhance the current USCP benefit 

structure. Five of the six would increase existing costs; our review found 

that the other proposal, which urges the USCP Board to exercise its 

current authority by allowing officers to voluntarily remain on the job until 

age 60 rather than retire at 57, as mandated, would have a minimal 

impact on costs to the federal government and could improve officers’ 

retirement benefits.39

In June 2011 we reported that there was little consensus among experts 

about how much income constitutes adequate retirement income.40 The 

replacement rate is one measure some economists and financial advisors 

use as a guide for retirement planning; it is the percentage of preretirement income that is received annually in retirement. Our review 

showed that some economists and financial advisors considered 

retirement income adequate if the ratio of retirement income to 

preretirement income—the replacement rate—is from 65 to 85 percent.41

To illustrate the effect of current FERS provisions on retirement income, 

we analyzed retirement benefits for illustrative USCP workers hired at 

ages 22, 27, and 37, retiring at age 57, and making three different levels 

of TSP contributions, as described in appendix I.42

 

39Apart from cost considerations, however, the proposal to encourage the Capitol Police 

Board to use its discretionary authority to make blanket exemptions from the mandatory 

retirement age provision until the age of 60, could run counter to the general legislative 

requirement for a mandatory retirement age. The mandatory retirement age requirements 

are designed to maintain a young and physically vigorous USCP force.

Overall, we found the 

40GAO, Ensuring Income throughout Retirement Requires Difficult Choices, GAO-11-400

(Washington D.C.: June 7, 2011). Retirement income adequacy may be defined relative to 

a standard of minimum needs, such as the poverty level, or to the level of spending 

households experienced during working years.

41The study examined general replacement rates and did not examine specific 

replacement rates of police officers.

42Since over 80 percent of USCP sworn officers are either grade 3 or on a career track to 

grade 3, we used examples of officers who retired from grade 3 having followed the 

standard career track for such positions. 

Benefits under 

Existing FERS 

Provisions Generally 

Meet Recommended 

Targets, if Fully 

Utilized, with TSP 

Balances Being a 

Significant Factor

Existing FERS Benefits 

Vary Depending on Level 

of TSP Contributions
 

Page 35 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

total replacement rates for retirement at age 57 ranged from a low of 

about 54 percent for a worker hired at age 37 making no TSP 

contributions to 91 percent for a worker hired at age 22 making 10 

percent TSP contributions, as shown in figure 13. A worker hired at age 

27, which is the average age at which individuals are hired by USCP, 

retiring at age 57, and contributing 5 percent to TSP (and thereby getting 

the maximum employer match) would have a replacement rate of 75 

percent, which would be in the middle of recommended replacement rate 

targets. Among our illustrative examples, only workers hired at age 37 or 

those who made no contributions to their TSP accounts would have 

replacement rates below 75 percent. Workers hired at age 37 may also 

have retirement income through prior employment. These are examples 

of individual workers, not households, since we had no basis for 

simulating the income and retirement benefits of spouses. Any benefits 

spouses received would add to household retirement income. These 

examples also assume there is no leakage from the TSP accounts in the 

form of TSP loans that are not repaid or lump-sum distributions that are 

not used as retirement income.43

 

43GAO, Policy Changes Could Reduce the Long-term Effects of Leakage on Workers’ 

Retirement Savings, GA0-09-715 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 28, 2009).
 

Page 36 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 13: Replacement Rates Under Existing FERS Provisions for Three Levels of TSP Contributions for Officers Retiring at 

Age 57

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Replacement rates here are the percentage of the final 

year’s salary that retirement income replaces. TSP annuities reflect employer contributions for 

corresponding levels of employee contributions. Replacement rates from the TSP annuity alone when 

workers make no contributions (but receive the automatic agency 1 percent contribution) range from 

about 1 to 2 percent depending on age at hire. For these illustrations, we used an inflation-adjusted 

rate of return on TSP account balances of 2 percent. These examples show officers hired as trainees 

and progressing through the grades and steps of the pay scale based on time in grade. We focus on 

grade 3 officers because in 2010, over 80 percent of all officers were grade 3 or on their way to grade 

3. The replacement rates for Social Security used in this chart are for the officer hired at age 22; for 

illustrative purposes only, doing so assumes all cases have the same Social Security earnings 

histories whether from USCP employment or elsewhere. Before age 62 retired officers would not be 

eligible for Social Security but may receive a supplement that takes its place, which would generally 

be somewhat smaller. For additional information regarding the graphic shown, only 2 percent of 

officers were hired at age 37 or older, and 40 percent of officers were hired between age 25 and 30. 

Hence, 27 was the approximate midpoint of this particular age range and represents the typical age 

officers are hired. 
 

Page 37 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Our analysis also shows that employee TSP contribution levels over the 

course of a career can make a significant difference to total retirement 

income. For workers hired at age 27, for example, increasing the 

contribution rate from 0 to 5 percent over the entire career would increase 

replacement rates at age 57 by 11 percentage points, bringing them from 

just below the recommended target range to the middle of it. In general, 

the longer a worker’s career, the more years they make contributions and 

earn investment returns, and the greater a difference the contribution rate 

makes. According to USCP data, in 2010, 12 percent of officers made no 

contributions to TSP, and another 10 percent contributed less than 5 

percent of pay, thereby forgoing some portion of the full employer 

matching contribution, as shown in figure 14. However, the data suggest 

that workers typically do increase their contributions over time, and 54 

percent of officers contribute more than 5 percent of pay.

Figure 14: Percentage of Officers Making Employee Contributions to TSP at 

Different Levels (2010)

Note: The Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) places limits on the dollar amount of contributions you can 

make to the TSP. The elective deferral limit for 2012 is $17,000. 
 

Page 38 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee provided selected members of 

Congress with six proposed changes to further enhance the current 

USCP benefit structure. None of the proposals included cost estimates, 

nor have CBO or OPM estimated the costs of any of the proposed 

changes.44 Based on our review, we found that five of the six proposals, if 

adopted, would increase costs and increase current pay and benefit 

disparities between USCP and other federal LEO and non-LEO groups. 

One proposal, which suggests that the USCP Board further exercise its 

current discretionary authority to allow officers to voluntarily remain on the 

job until age 60, would have a minimal effect on costs.45 Table 4 

discusses each proposal and its potential effect on costs to the federal 

government and officers’ benefits.46

 

44CBO is required to develop a cost estimate for virtually every bill reported by 

congressional committees to show how it would affect spending or revenues over the next 

5 years or more. CBO also prepares cost estimates for use in drafting bills (especially in 

the early stages), formulating floor amendments, and working out the final form of 

legislation in conference committees. According to OPM, OPM is required to calculate 

unique estimates for each subgroup of beneficiaries to which a unique structure of plan 

provisions applies. OPM develops a single LEO calculation that applies to all federal LEOs 

that are receiving the same benefits. OPM cannot develop cost estimates for USCP in part 

because USCP officers are employees of the legislative branch and OPM’s Central 

Personnel Data File does not contain information on these employees. However, if the law 

were amended to change the USCP FERS benefit formula in any way that differed from 

what was provided to the broader LEO population, then OPM would be required to 

calculate USCP benefits separately.

45Apart from cost considerations, however, the proposal to encourage the Capitol Police 

Board to use its discretionary authority to make blanket exemptions from the mandatory 

retirement age provision until the age of 60could run counter to the general legislative 

requirement for a mandatory retirement age. The mandatory retirement age requirements 

are designed to maintain a young and physically vigorous USCP force.

46Some of the benefit changes included in the USCP Labor Committee proposals could 

also have certain nonfinancial effects on agency operations. For example, several 

proposals, if implemented, could exacerbate current wage disparities between the USCP

and other federal LEOs and non-LEOs. In addition, the proposal to compress the USCP 

pay scale could give officers an incentive to retire earlier, which could give them less time 

to accrue retirement income.

Most of the Proposed 

Benefit Enhancements 

Would Increase 

Government Costs
 

Page 39 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Table 4: Five Proposals Would Increase Costs to the Federal Government

Proposal description 

Potential cost to the federal 

government

Potential benefit to USCP 

officers a

Are similar provisions 

available to comparable 

federal police forces?

1 Increase current employee 

FERS annuity percentages 

from 1.7% for the first 20 

years and 1.0% for every 

year after of covered service 

to 2% for every year of 

covered service.

If implemented, this proposal 

would increase accrual rates by 

18% per year for the first 20 years 

of service and by 100% for each 

year of service beyond 20 years. 

increasing government costs 

significantly.

If implemented, this proposal would 

increase an officer’s FERS annuity 

amount by 6% for the first 20 years 

of service and an additional 1% for 

each year of service beyond 20 

years. b

No. According to OPM, 

the higher LEO accrual 

rate was established for 

the specific purpose of 

making early retirement 

economically feasible.

2 Keep FERS annuity 

percentages at 1.7% for the 

first 20 years of covered 

service and all years after 20 

would be 2.0% for each year 

of additional service.

If implemented, this proposal 

would double the accrual rates for 

each year of service beyond 20 

years, increasing government 

costs significantly.

If implemented, this proposal would 

increase an officer’s current FERS 

annuity amount by 1% for each 

year of service beyond 20 years.

No

3 Keep all FERS annuity 

percentages the same 

through years of covered 

service but offer a “true high 

3” to include overtime and 

differentials.

If implemented, this proposal 

would increase government costs 

by inflating the salary amounts 

used to calculate the “high 3” 

average salary, thereby 

increasing the annuity amount 

due.

If implemented, this proposal would 

increase an officer’s FERS annuity 

amount by increasing the amount 

used to calculate the “high 3” 

average salary.

c

No

4 Keep FERS annuity 

percentages the same but 

have USCP cover costs for 

continued health care 

benefits upon retirement with 

no contributions from the 

retiree or survivor.

If implemented, this proposal 

would increase government costs 

by 33%. Currently, USCP retirees 

and survivors receiving benefits, 

like other federal retirees and 

survivors, are required to pay at 

least 25% of their health 

insurance premiums.

If implemented, this proposal would 

not change the FERS annuity 

amount for retirees or survivors, but 

it could increase the net amount of 

retirement income since the 

retiree’s or survivor’s share of 

health insurance premiums would 

no longer be withheld.

No

5 Have USCP compress the 

current pay scale to allow an 

officer to reach maximum 

base pay at year 20 of 

covered service instead of at 

year 26.

If implemented, this proposal 

could increase the government’s 

direct salary costs by allowing 

officers to earn higher salaries 

earlier and reach the maximum 

high-3 average 6 years sooner 

than currently possible.

If implemented, this proposal would 

ensure that all officers with 23 

years of service would be eligible to 

receive the maximum available 

FERS annuity amount. 

Yes. Pub. L. No. 111-

282, 124 Stat. 3033 

(2010) reduced the 

amount of service time 

required for Secret 

Service Uniformed 

Division officers to 

advance to the highest 

pay step from 30 years to 

22 yearsd

Source: GAO analysis of USCP Labor Committee proposals.

 

a

Costs in this column include direct costs to USCP (e.g., agency contributions to FERS and health 

insurance premiums for active officers), as well as costs to the U.S. Treasury (additional contributions 

to FERS) and to OPM (government share of health insurance premiums for retirees and survivors). 

b

In 2010, CBO estimated the costs of a provision that would increase the annuity paid to certain 

Secret Service Uniformed Division officers by 2.5 percent. It found that it would cost the government 

about $13 million from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2020. The USCP Labor Committee’s 

proposal would likely cost more as a result of a greater number of officers, higher salaries, and lower 

attrition rates among USCP officers. 
 

Page 40 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

c

According to OPM, only basic pay should be used to calculate an employee’s high 3 average pay 

and overtime must be excluded from basic pay calculations. 

d

CBO estimated that this change would cost the federal government $39 million from fiscal year 2010 

through fiscal year 2014. The USCP Labor Committee’s proposal would likely cost more as a result of 

a greater number of officers, higher salaries, and lower attrition rates among USCP officers. 

The sixth and final proposal suggests that the USCP Board exercise its 

authority to allow officers to remain employed until age 60. The Board 

currently has the discretionary authority to exempt officers with 20 years 

of service from the mandatory retirement age of 57 if an officer’s 

continued service is deemed to be in the public interest.47 According to 

USCP, the Board has approved 17 such exemptions since Sept. 30, 

2006: 16 in 2008 and 1 in 2010. It is unclear how many current officers 

would be affected by this proposal. According to USCP data, the average 

age at which officers retired from 2005 through 2010 retired was 54—3 

years before the mandatory retirement age of 57.48

The actual costs associated with this proposal would be contingent on the 

number of officers who chose to work longer.49 However, if the USCP 

Board deemed it to be in the public interest to allow more officers to 

voluntarily work past age 57, projections50

 

47An officer may work beyond age 57 without an exemption if he or she has not yet 

completed the required 20 years of LEO service. 5 U.S.C. § 8335(b),(c),(d); 5 U.S.C. § 

8425(b),(c),(d). However, the officer must be separated on the last day of the month in 

which he or she completes 20 years of service.

show a slight reduction in 

pension costs and a slight increase in payroll costs, largely offsetting 

48USCP data show the vast majority of officers are hired before the age of 35, which 

means that the vast majority of officers attain the 20 years of service needed for full 

retirement before the age of 55. 

49Officers choosing to work longer would still have to meet the physical fitness and health 

standards associated with LEO service. 

50Actuarial projections were performed by OPM using assumptions, suggested by GAO 

and agreed to by OPM, as to the number of officers who choose to work longer.

One Proposal Would Have 

Minimal Impact on 

Government Costs and 

Allow Additional Savings 

for Retirement
 

Page 41 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

each other and resulting in a minimal overall long-term cost impact.51

However, according to OPM, the savings actually realized by USCP 

directly due to reduced pension costs would be further minimized 

because the costs and savings would be distributed across the entire 

LEO population, under the cost allocation methodology used for FERS. In 

terms of USCP payroll costs, the later retirements would result in a less 

than 1 percent increase in total payroll throughout the projection period.52

According to our analysis, retiring at age 60 instead of 57 could 

significantly increase retirement incomes—more through TSP 

contributions than through the FERS annuity. The effect of later 

retirement on the FERS basic annuity is fairly predictable; under the 

FERS LEO provisions, the benefit formula provides 1 percent of final 

average pay for each year of additional service after 20 years. The effect 

on Social Security benefits would be relatively small, but could vary 

somewhat depending on whether USCP officers continued to work in 

This increase in payroll costs would largely offset the savings in pension 

costs, so that the overall net long-term cost effect to USCP of this 

proposal could be a very small or minimal increase, depending on the 

amount of pension costs allocated to USCP directly when distributed 

across the LEO population. In addition, the costs associated with paying 

agency matching contributions to officers’ TSP accounts would also be 

minimal since the total increase could not exceed 5 percent of the less 

than 1 percent increase in payroll costs.

 

51The pension cost reduction, which would be spread across the FERS LEO population, 

would be approximately $1.1 million in the first year of the projection. In addition, the 

government would realize an additional $9 million in savings over the projection period 

because when employees retire later than originally anticipated, there is a decrease in the 

costs that had already been attributed to past service. Under the terms of the funding 

provisions for FERS, the U.S. Treasury realizes any increases or decreases in costs 

attributable to past service, with the agencies responsible for costs attributable to current 

and future service.

52One percent of the USCP’s 2011 payroll of approximately $141 million is about $1.4 

million–although any increase in overall payroll due to later retirements does not happen 

immediately. This reflects the point that if USCP officers are hired at similar ages as in the 

past, but now work to a later age, the effect could be an increase in the overall USCP 

payroll. The overall workforce would have higher average years of past service. Even if 

the grade structure is the same, within-grade pay increases with service could cause this 

effect.
 

Page 42 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Social Security covered employment after retiring from USCP.53 Retiring 

later has the greatest effect on the TSP component of retirement income 

for those who contribute to TSP. USCP officers would increase the 

number of years they make TSP contributions, receive the agency match 

and earn investment returns and reduce the number of years that they 

would draw down their TSP accounts in retirement. Still the size of that 

effect depends on the level of lifetime TSP contributions. As shown in 

figure 15, taking all three FERS components into account, retiring at age 

60 instead of 57 would increase total replacement rates by as little at 

4 percentage points for workers making no TSP contributions and by as 

much as 10 percentage points for workers contributing 10 percent of pay 

to TSP.54

 

53We examined the effect for the worker hired at age 22 because the Social Security 

benefit is based on 35 years of covered earnings, and only that worker among our three 

cases has a full 35 years of earnings with USCP. We did not have a basis for supposing 

what earnings before or after USCP service might be. According to our estimates, for that 

worker, the Social Security benefit would increase by almost $400 annually, or about 2 

percent, as a result of having these 3 additional years of earnings.

54For our examples, we use contribution levels that are a constant percentage of pay over 

the entire career, including 0, 5, and 10 percent employee contribution rates. Such a 

contribution pattern would not include any catch-up contributions, which employees may 

make at ages 50 and over. 
 

Page 43 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Figure 15: Effect on Replacement Rates of Retiring at Age 60 Instead of Age 57
 

Page 44 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Replacement rates here are the percentage of the final 

year’s salary that retirement income replaces. Values for TSP are the additional replacement rates 

from the TSP annuities for each level of contribution and reflect employer contributions. Replacement 

rates from the TSP annuity alone when workers make no contributions (but receive the automatic 

agency 1 percent contribution) range about 1 to 2 percent depending on the age at hire and age of 

retirement. For these illustrations, we used an inflation-adjusted rate of return on TSP account 

balances of 2 percent. These examples show officers hired as trainees and progressing through the 

grades and steps of the pay scale based on time in grade. We focus on grade 3 officers because in 

2010, over 80 percent of all officers were grade 3 or on their way to grade 3. The replacement rates 

for Social Security used in this chart are for the officer hired at age 22; for illustrative purposes only, 

doing so assumes all cases have the same Social Security earnings histories whether from USCP 

employment or elsewhere. Before age 62, retired officers would not be eligible for Social Security, but 

may receive a supplement that takes its place, which would generally be somewhat smaller. For 

additional information regarding the graphic shown, only 2 percent of officers were hired at age 37 or 

older, and 40 percent of officers were hired between age 25 and 30. Hence, 27 was the approximate 

midpoint of this particular age range and represents the typical age officers are hired. 

Moreover, taking all three FERS components into account, employee 

TSP contribution levels over the course of a career can make more of a 

difference to retirement income than 3 additional years of service. In the 

case of workers hired at age 22 and contributing a constant 5 percent of 

wages to TSP, retiring at age 60 instead of 57 increases total 

replacement rates by 8 percentage points from 83 percent to 91 percent.

In contrast, increasing the employee contribution rate from 0 to 5 percent 

over the entire career would increase replacement rates by 14 

percentage points if retiring at age 57.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to USCP and 

the nine other federal police forces included in this review; the USCP 

Labor Committee; and OPM. USCP and four other federal police forces—

Secret Service Uniformed Division, Pentagon Police, FBI Police, and 

Postal Security Force—did not provide written comments to be included 

in this report, but provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. In emails received January 3 and 4, 2012, HHS and DOI 

liaisons, respectively, stated that their departments, including NIH Police 

and Park Police, had no comments on the report. In an email received 

January 9, 2012, the DHS liaison confirmed that the FEMA Police had no 

comments on the report. In emails received January 10, 2012, the BEP 

Police and Supreme Court Police liaisons stated their agencies had no 

comments on the report. We received comment letters from DHS, OPM, 

and the USCP Labor Committee, which are reproduced in appendices II, 

III, and IV, respectively.

In commenting on this report, DHS stated that it was pleased with GAO’s 

recognition of its efforts to develop, implement, and deploy human capital 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 45 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

flexibilities. DHS also noted that the report does not contain any 

recommendations for DHS.

In its letter, OPM made several comments regarding one of the proposals 

that we analyzed in the report—the proposed increase in the mandatory 

retirement age. OPM stated that the cost savings actually realized by 

USCP from raising the mandatory retirement age for USCP personnel 

would be small because the estimated reductions in annual pension costs 

would be spread across all LEO-employing agencies under the cost 

allocation methodology used for FERS. We revised our report to clarify 

this point. OPM also states that increasing the mandatory retirement age 

is unnecessary since LEO retirement benefits provide a higher annuity 

rate in order to make early retirement at age 57 economically feasible and

inconsistent with other retirement provisions that provide enhanced 

accrual rates for USCP in comparison to other, non-LEO federal 

employees. We are not taking a position on whether or not to raise the 

mandatory retirement age for USCP personnel in this report. Rather, the 

report provides information on some of the possible effects of doing so, 

namely that it could increase retirement security at a minimal cost. This 

report also shows that, generally, the effect of greater employee 

participation in TSP can provide a larger boost in post-retirement income 

than the effect of working 3 additional years on the defined benefit portion 

of retirement income. Finally, we recognize there are many other factors 

to take under consideration when making such policy decisions, including 

workforce planning needs; retirement trends across other agencies, 

industries and occupations; and broader workforce trends in employee 

health and longevity. OPM also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

In its letter, the USCP Labor Committee stated that, even though our 

report indicates that child care is available to USCP officers, to its 

knowledge, USCP does not have a child care program. It is the case that 

USCP, itself, does not offer a child care program; however, according to 

USCP officials, USCP police officers have access to child care through 

the House and Senate Child Care Centers. We revised our report to 

clarify this point. The letter also provided commentary on several of their 

proposals that extended beyond the scope of our review.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees. We are also sending copies to USCP; the nine other federal 

police forces included in this review; the USCP Labor Committee; and 
 

Page 46 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

OPM. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

Eileen Larence at 202-512-8777 or by e-mail at LarenceE@gao.gov or 

Charles Jeszeck at 202-512-7215 or by e-mail at JeszeckC@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix V.

Eileen R. Larence

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Charles Jeszeck

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

To understand how the United States Capitol Police (USCP) compares to 

other federal police forces with regard to retirement benefits, 

compensation, duties, employment requirements, attrition, human capital 

flexibilities, and costs associated with the proposed benefit 

enhancements, we addressed the following questions:

(1) How does the USCP compare to other federal police forces in the 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area with respect to retirement benefits, 

minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements?1

(2) How does attrition at USCP compare to other federal police forces, 

and how if at all, have USCP and other federal police forces used human 

capital tools to recruit and retain qualified officers?

(3) What level of retirement income do current USCP benefits provide and 

what costs are associated with the proposed benefit enhancements?

For the first and second objectives, we identified other federal police 

forces that were potentially comparable to USCP based on (1) prior work 

on federal uniformed police forces, (2) inclusion in the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM) occupational series for police officers (0083), and 

(3) the number of officers located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan 

area or who receive Washington, D.C. locality pay.2

 

1 We determined how USCP compares to other federal police forces with respect to 

minimum entry-level salary. However, for our review, we did not determine how the police 

forces compared with respect to other aspects of compensation, such as maximum salary.

Based on this 

information, we selected nine federal police forces whose officers are part 

of, or functionally equivalent to, the 0083 occupational series and who 

have at least 50 officers who are located in the Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan area or receive Washington, D.C. locality pay, as listed in 

2 GAO, Federal Uniformed Police: Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, and Retention at 

13 Police Forces in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. GAO-03-658 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 13, 2003). For the purpose of this report, we also used OPM’s Central 

Personnel Data File (CPDF)—a database that contains personnel information primarily on 

executive branch agencies—to determine which officers in the selected federal police 

forces received Washington, D.C. locality pay. These officers’ duty stations could be 

located in Washington, D.C., as well as Northern Virginia and parts of Maryland, West 

Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

table 5.3

Table 5: USCP and Comparable Federal Police Forces and Police Officers Located in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area 

or Who Received Washington, D.C., Locality Pay in Fiscal Year 2010

According to USCP, its police officers are functionally equivalent 

to OPM’s 0083 occupational series—or police series—for which an 

individual’s primary duties involve the performance or supervision of law 

enforcement work in the preservation of the peace; the prevention, 

detection, and investigation of crimes; the arrest or apprehension of 

violators; and the provision of assistance to citizens in emergency 

situations, including the protection of civil rights. Also, the primary duty 

station for the approximately 1,800 USCP officers is Washington, D.C. 

We excluded military police forces because our review is focused on 

civilian federal police forces which have a civilian retirement benefit 

system as opposed to a military retirement benefit system. We also 

excluded police forces for intelligence agencies because, unlike other 

executive branch police forces, they do not report their human capital 

data to Central Personnel Data File (CPDF).

Department

a

Federal police force

Total number of police officers 

on-board in fiscal year 2010

Legislative Branch

b

U.S. Capitol Police U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) 1, 777

Judicial Branch 

Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court Police 142

Executive Branch

Department of Defense Pentagon Force Protection Agency Police (Pentagon 

Police)

857

Department of the Interior United States Park Police (Park Police) 464

Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency Police (FEMA 

Police)

76

United States Secret Service Uniformed Division (Secret 

Service Uniformed Division)

1,378

Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Police (FBI Police) 141

Department of the Treasury Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police (BEP Police) 125

 

3 We excluded the Veteran’s Health Administration (VA) Police because it reported that its 

individual police force independently and separately managed their human capital 

functions such as full time equivalent (FTE) determinations, hiring, and offering recruiting 

and retention flexibilities. As a result, each individual police force had less than 50 police 

officers in fiscal year 2010.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Department Federal police force

Total number of police officers 

on-board in fiscal year 2010

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

b

National Institutes of Health Police (NIH Police) 84

Government Corporation

U.S. Postal Service U.S. Postal Service Security Force (Postal Security 

Force)

68 c

Total 5,112

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by USCP and the 9 other federal police forces.

a

Sixteen federal police forces, excluding USCP, had 0083 police officers. Nine of these forces had 50 

or more police officers located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who received 

Washington, D.C. locality pay. The remaining seven federal police forces with 0083 officers that did 

not meet these criteria and, therefore, were not included in our review are forces with the Federal 

Protective Service, National Institutes of Science and Technology, Smithsonian Institute, U.S. Mint, 

Government Printing Office, Veterans Health Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service. 

b

Whenever possible, we verified police officers’ on-board numbers with the CPDF data for fiscal year 

2010. 

c

Postal Security Force officials stated that even though their officers have not been subject to OPM 

classification; they do not believe that their officers are equivalent to 0083 police officer but, instead, 

they believe their officers are equivalent to 0085 federal security guards. However, we believe that 

Postal Security Force is comparable to USCP for the purpose of our review because (1) it reported 

having the same primary types of statutory law enforcement authorities as those reported by USCP, 

such as conducting criminal investigations, executing search warrants, making arrests, carrying 

firearms, and protecting people and property; (2) it was included in our prior work on federal 

uniformed police forces; and (3) it has more than 50 police officers located in the Washington, D.C. 

metropolitan area. 

To compare the USCP to other federal police forces located in the 

Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who receive Washington, D.C. 

locality pay with respect to (1) retirement benefits, minimum entry-level 

salary, duties, and employment requirements and (2) attrition and use of 

human capital flexibilities to recruit and retain qualified officers, we 

interviewed human resources officials, senior police officers, and 

executive officials and reviewed documents provided by the 10 police 

forces. For example, to identify similarities and differences among USCP 

and the other federal police forces, we obtained and reviewed 

documentation on minimum entry-level salary, grade, and step; job 

announcements and job descriptions; and legal authorities for police 

functions. We also interviewed human resources officials at OPM to 

obtain information on retirement benefits and pay, and we reviewed 

relevant personnel laws, regulations, and reports by OPM.

We also developed and administered a survey to collect consistent, 

detailed human capital information from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal 

year 2010 from each of the police forces in our review. The survey 

included questions about (1) retirement benefits and minimum entry-level 

officer salary, types of duties, and employment requirements for entry-
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

level applicants; (2) number of officers on-board, hired, and separated, 

and reasons why officers left or stayed, and difficulties in recruiting or 

retaining officers; and (3) the availability and use of human capital 

flexibilities to recruit and retain officers. To develop the survey questions, 

we reviewed federal statutes, regulations, OPM and CBO reports, and our 

related reports to identify issues pertaining to federal police pay, benefits, 

and human capital flexibilities. Furthermore, on the basis of interviews

with police forces officials, we identified issues related to human capital 

issues. Finally, we examined related surveys administered to many of 

these agencies to identify relevant issues pertaining to federal police 

forces pay, benefits, and human capital flexibilities.

The survey was pretested with potential respondents from USCP, BEP 

Police, and FBI Police to ensure that (1) the questions were clear and 

unambiguous; (2) the terms we used were precise; (3) the survey did not 

place an undue burden on the officials completing it; and (4) the survey 

was independent and unbiased. In addition, the survey was reviewed by 

an independent, internal survey expert. The survey was conducted using 

self-administered questionnaires that were disseminated by email. To 

encourage respondents to complete the survey, we sent an e-mail 

reminder to each nonrespondent about 2 weeks after our initial e-mail 

message. The survey data were collected from June 2011 through 

August 2011. We received responses from all 10 agencies, for a 

response rate of 100 percent.

All data from the returned surveys were double key-entered into an 

electronic file in batches (that is, the entries were 100 percent verified), 

and a random sample of each batch was selected for further verification 

for completeness and accuracy. To eliminate data-processing errors, we 

independently verified the computer program that generated the survey 

results. We reviewed survey responses for completeness and accuracy 

and followed-up on any missing or unclear responses with appropriate 

officials. We analyzed the police forces’ survey responses to compare 

and contrast information about the police forces’ retirement benefits, 

salaries, duties, employment requirements, attrition, and human capital 

flexibilities, among other things.

We used OPM’s CPDF to obtain the number of on-board police officers 

and separations each fiscal year from 2005 through 2010 for those police 

forces that report to the CPDF and used this information to determine the 

level of attrition among officers at police forces that report to CPDF; and 

for forces that do not report to CPDF—USCP, Supreme Court Police, and 

Postal Security Force—we used fiscal year 2005 through 2010 separation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

data obtained directly from them.4

To address our third objective, we examined the USCP Labor 

Committee’s proposed benefit changes, discussed them with Labor 

Committee representatives and OPM officials; and reviewed relevant 

federal laws, regulations, and literature. To examine whether other federal 

agencies had estimated the costs of these or similar proposals, we 

reviewed the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) cost estimates 

developed for comparable benefit provisions to the three federal police 

forces most similar to USCP. In addition, we interviewed OPM officials 

about the viability of the proposals. We then reviewed each proposal and 

analyzed its potential effect on costs to USCP and increased retirement 

benefits for USCP officers. As a result, we identified one proposal—the 

proposal for the USCP Board to exercise its current authority by allowing 

officers to remain on the job until age 60 rather than retire at 57, as 

mandated—for additional analysis that both minimally affected agency 

costs and improved retirement benefits, and we conducted additional 

analysis for that proposal.

We chose this time frame in order to 

obtain the most recent data available for a full fiscal year. We also used 

CPDF data to corroborate some survey responses, where possible. We 

assessed the reliability of the data the police forces provided in the survey 

by reviewing agency responses to questions about the data sources and 

how the results were generated. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Lastly, we reviewed our prior reports 

that identified retirement benefits, salary, and duties for the federal police 

forces in our review. We do not make an independent assessment about 

whether retirement benefits and salaries for these officers are 

commensurate with their duties and employment requirements.

To determine the costs to the federal government and officers of this 

proposed change to the USCP benefit structure, we obtained information 

from the USCP regarding officer retirement trends and demographic data.

We conferred with OPM’s actuarial staff regarding similar information and 

data related to the entire LEO population. OPM calculated the cost impact 

 

4 For this report, we calculated attrition by dividing the number of officers who separated 

from the police force during a particular fiscal year by the number of officers onboard at 

the end of that fiscal year. We considered calculating attrition by dividing the number of 

officers who separated by the average number of officers onboard at the beginning and 

end of the fiscal year. However, since the differences in the results of the two calculation 

methods were minimal, we decided to use end of fiscal year onboard numbers for 

computational simplicity.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

of allowing later USCP retirement using the Aggregate Entry Age Normal 

actuarial cost method.5

With these changes in assumptions, OPM could estimate the effect on 

cost.

Such cost estimates are based on an assumption 

as to the proportion of employees who retire at each age. OPM has a 

current set of retirement rates that based on expected retirement behavior 

under current USCP retirement rules. To estimate the effect of allowing 

retirement up to 3 years later, an assumption had to be made as to how 

such a change would influence retirement behavior by USCP officers. In 

consultation with OPM, we agreed that a reasonable assumption for the 

effect of the change on retirement behavior would be the following 

adjustments to the retirement rates currently assumed in the valuation of 

the plan: 1) The current assumed retirement rate for age 55 was assumed 

to extend to ages 56, 57, and 58 as well; 2) the current assumed 

retirement rates at ages 56 and 57 would be shifted 3 years to apply at 

ages 59 and 60. We also assumed no shift in hiring ages, with the result 

that, with later retirement, employees would have an increase in total 

years of service. Other assumptions were the same as OPM used in the 

most recent valuation of the plan.

In terms of changes in payroll cost because of later retirements, OPM 

currently assumes

(1) an annual 3.75 percent across-the-board salary increase and

(2) an annual merit assumption specific to LEOs of 0.49 percent (for 

LEOs age 55 and older with 20 years of service).

OPM could keep these assumptions constant unless there is evidence 

that they are not operative in the unique context of USCP. In the absence 

of such evidence, we held everything else constant; for example, we did 

not anticipate any pay increases in the final 3 years of service that would 

bump up high-3 average pay (on which the FERS benefit is calculated), 

 

5

Because pension benefits are paid after retirement but their costs are accrued and 

should be funded in advance of that (during the working years) and there is no single way 

to assign post-retirement costs to particular years of pre-retirement service, an actuarial 

cost method is selected for this purpose. For FERS and CSRS, the method used to assign 

post-retirement costs to pre-retirement service is known as the aggregate age entry 

normal method, which assigns costs as a level percentage of pay over all service. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

nor any promotional opportunities within USCP that would become 

available as a result of additional years of service.

OPM calculated the estimated effects of the later assumed retirement on 

both normal cost and accrued liability. Normal cost is the cost of benefits 

attributable to current service, and is the responsibility of USCP. Accrued 

liability is the cost of benefits attributable to past service; increases or 

decreases to it are borne by the federal government. Later assumed 

retirement has an impact on both normal cost and accrued liability.

Finally, we examined the prospects for retirement income under current 

provisions and the effects on retirement income of retiring at age 60 

instead of the current mandatory retirement age of 57. Based on 

retirement, work history, and demographic data we obtained from USCP, 

we developed illustrative examples of workers hired at three different 

ages who progressed along a standard career path. Using a variety of 

assumptions, we calculated amounts for retiring at both age 57 and age 

60 for the FERS defined benefit annuity, Social Security benefit, and 

expected retirement income from the federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).

We examined outcomes for three different TSP contribution levels. We 

have focused our reporting of results on replacement rates rather than 

dollar estimates.6

Salary history and grade level: We assume for all of our cases that the 

employee enters as a trainee and goes through the standard career 

progression through a grade 3, but not beyond. Over two-thirds of the 

 

6

Under FERS, workers who make no contributions to TSP nonetheless get an employer 

contribution equal to 1 percent of pay. Workers who contribute 5 percent or more get a 5 

percent employer contribution, which is the maximum employer contribution. For these 

examples, we assumed workers invested all their TSP balances in the G Fund earning a 

constant inflation-adjusted 2 percent return. To show the effect of TSP as a stream of 

lifetime annual payments, we further assumed that workers used their entire TSP balance 

at retirement to purchase a single-life annuity from TSP (with no cash refund or 10-year 

certain option). The size of such annuities is very sensitive to the prevailing interest rate 

used in the annuity calculation, with higher interest rates yielding higher annuity payments.

To provide conservative estimates, we used nominal interest rates of 3 percent. To 

compute our replacement rates, we took the sum of the FERS basic benefit, Social 

Security retired worker benefit, and the TSP annuity and divided by the salary in the last 

year before retirement. Before age 62, retired officers would not be eligible for a Social 

Security retired worker benefit but may receive a supplement that takes its place, which 

would generally be somewhat smaller.

Definition of Illustrative 

Worker Profiles
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

USCP sworn workforce in 2010 was grade 3, and another 13 percent 

were grade 2, which is on a career ladder to grade 3. Less than 20 

percent were higher than grade 3. Moreover, by focusing on grade 3, we 

focus on those workers at the lowest pay level at retirement. Those 

attaining higher grades would generally have higher retirement incomes, 

all else equal. USCP has provided information on the standard career 

progression and salary table. According to USCP, progression through 

grades and steps is usually just a function of time in grade. So our salary 

progression is based on that pattern. Also, our earnings histories and 

therefore also our replacement rates do not reflect any overtime or other 

special pay.

Age at hire: We look at three ages at which officers are hired, 22, 27, and 

37. Age 22 allows for a 35 year career with retirement at age 57, which 

facilitates getting an estimate for Social Security benefits based solely on 

USCP earnings years. Age 27 is the average age at which the officers on 

the force in 2010 were hired. Age 37 illustrates a case where an officer 

has 20 years of service when reaching the current mandatory retirement 

age.7

TSP contribution rate: To provide bracketing cases, we show cases with 

constant 0 and 10 percent employee contribution rates, along with the 

relevant employer match. We also show a case with a constant 5 percent 

employee contribution to illustrate taking advantage of the maximum 

employer match. We assume there is no leakage from TSP accounts, 

such as loans that are not repaid. We assume no “catch-up” 

contributions.8

Retirement benefits: Because any policy change would only affect the 

three parts of FERS, we only illustrated effects on benefits under FERS.

In developing our replacement rate estimates, we estimated the annual 

dollar value of the FERS basic annuity and Social Security benefits. 

Workers have a variety of options for how to draw on their TSP accounts 

for retirement, but for this illustration, we translated that into an annual 

 

7

An officer may work beyond age 57 without an exemption if he or she has not yet 

completed the required 20 years of LEO service. However, the officer must be separated 

on the last day of the month in which he or she completes 20 years of service.

8

Catch-up contributions are payroll deductions that participants who are age 50 or older 

may be eligible to make in addition to regular employee contributions.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

benefit. One way to do this was to assume they purchase a TSP annuity 

at retirement. We looked only at self-only FERS and TSP annuities 

because we had no basis for any assumption about spouses or their 

ages. We calculated a Social Security benefit only for the case hired at 

age 22 since we had no basis for speculating what the earnings history 

outside of USCP would look like and Social Security benefits are based 

on 35 years of earnings. We used the Social Security benefit only to 

illustrate what that total retirement package looked like for such a case.

When we showed Social Security benefit estimates for those hired at 

other ages for illustrative purposes, we assumed their Social Security 

earnings records would be identical to those of a worker hired by USCP 

at age 22.

Inflation rate: We calculated all our dollar estimates in 2010 dollars. For 

all worker salary histories, we used the 2010 pay scale. That is, for 

simplicity, we assumed that all past and future comparability increases 

equal the rate of inflation. To the extent that comparability increases 

reflect wage growth and not just price growth, our illustration did not 

capture the effect of that difference.

TSP rate of return: Assumptions for the TSP rate of return needed to be 

consistent with our approach for the earning histories and inflation.

Assuming all funds are invested in the G-Fund both provides a minimum 

expected benefit level and implicitly adjusts for the risk of other 

investment allocations. As a proxy, we used the Social Security Trustees’ 

long-term intermediate assumption for the real return on special-issue 

Treasury securities, which is 2.9 percent. Social Security’s special-issue 

Treasury securities are essentially the same as the G-Fund securities.

However, that long-term assumption also reflects the long-term 

assumption for the real-wage differential, which is the difference between 

the growth of wages and that of prices. Since we use the 2010 pay scale 

for all years and implicitly assume there is no real-wage differential, we 

reduced our rate of return assumption by the long-term Trustees’ 

intermediate assumption for the real-wage differential, which is roughly 

1.2 percent. That results in a TSP return assumption of 1.7 percent, but 

we round to 2 percent since the results from our approach would not 

reflect such a level of precision.

TSP annuitization rate: Given our other assumptions, the TSP balances 

we projected are expressed in 2010 dollars, and we wanted to calculate 

an annuity payment purchased from those balances that is constant going 

forward in inflation-adjusted terms. We used an annuity factor for a singleParametric assumptions
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

life (self-only) annuity (no 10-year certain option). To provide for an 

inflation-adjusted retirement benefit estimate, we used an annuity factor 

for the increasing TSP annuity option, and thus assumed that future 

inflation would match that implied by the increasing annuity. We adapted 

TSP’s annuity calculation worksheets to arrive at an annuity factor that is 

expressed as the percent of the TSP balance that is paid annually. The 

interest rate used to calculate the annuity factor is a critical assumption.

First, we used a nominal interest rate to convert the TSP balance in 2010 

dollars to an annuity expressed in 2010 dollars. However, nominal rates 

have fluctuated dramatically, and the nominal rate at which an annuity is 

purchased can have a large effect on the annuity payment. The Social 

Security Trustees’ intermediate assumption for the long-term nominal 

interest rate on special public debt obligations is 5.7 percent. However, 

the rates TSP used for annuity calculations in August and September 

2011 average 3 percent, which are at historically low levels. In order to 

make our illustrative examples conservative, that is, toward the lower end 

of what they might be, we used 3 percent for our nominal annuity interest 

rate assumption. This results in annual annuity factors of 3.71 and 4.19 

percent respectively for age 57 and age 60.9

We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 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 analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit 

objectives.

 

9

These annuity factors are multiplied by the account balance to determine the annual 

annuity benefit.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 57 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 58 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may differ 

from those in this report.
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 59 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 60 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 
Appendix IV: Comments from the United 

States Capitol Police Labor Committee

Page 61 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Appendix IV: Comments from the United 

States Capitol Police Labor Committee
Appendix IV: Comments from the United 

States Capitol Police Labor Committee

Page 62 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 
Appendix IV: Comments from the United 

States Capitol Police Labor Committee

Page 63 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments

Page 64 GAO-12-58 Capitol Police 

Eileen R. Larence, (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov

Charles A. Jeszeck, (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, Kristy Brown, Assistant Director,

Kim Granger, Assistant Director, Jonathan McMurray, Analyst-in-Charge, 

and Su Jin Yon, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. James 

Bennett, R.E. Canjar, Geoffrey Hamilton, Lara Miklozek, Christopher 

Ross, Rebecca Shea, Ken Stockbridge, Roger Thomas, and Frank 

Todisco made significant contributions to this report. Nicole Harkin, Jeff 

Jensen, Susanna Kuebler, Sara Margraf, Amanda Miller, and Gregory 

Wilmoth also provided valuable assistance.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(440940)
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.