Administrative Leave: Evaluation of DHS's New Policy Can Help Identify Progress toward Reducing Leave Use
Released: 2016-03-23T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal agencies have the discretion to authorize administrative leave—an excused absence without loss of pay or charge to leave—for personnel matters, such as when investigating employees for misconduct allegations. In October 2014, GAO reported on the use of administrative leave in the federal government. GAO found that, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013, 263 federal employees were on this type of leave for 1 year or more during this 3-year period. Of these, 71 were DHS employees.

GAO was asked to examine DHS's use of administrative leave across directorates, offices, and components (DHS components). This report describes (1) the number of DHS employees who were on administrative leave for 1 year or more for personnel matters from fiscal years 2011 through 2015, (2) the factors that contribute to the length of time employees are on administrative leave, and (3) the extent to which DHS has policies and procedures for managing such leave. GAO used data from DHS and the Office of Personnel Management, reviewed DHS policies and procedures, interviewed DHS officials, and reviewed information on selected cases of DHS employees placed on administrative leave. Cases were selected based on length of leave, reason for using leave, and DHS component, among other things.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Between fiscal years 2011 and 2015, 116 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees were on administrative leave for personnel matters for 1 year or more, with a total estimated salary cost of $19.8 million for this period. Of these 116 employees on administrative leave:

69 employees (59 percent) were for matters related to misconduct allegations,

28 employees (24 percent) were for matters related to fitness for duty issues, and

19 employees (or 16 percent) were for matters related to security clearance investigations.

As of September 30, 2015, DHS reported that of these 116 employees:

68 employees (59 percent) were separated from the agency,

32 employees (28 percent) were back on duty,

2 employees (2 percent) were on indefinite suspension, and

14 employees (12 percent) remained on administrative leave.

Several factors can contribute to the length of time an employee is on administrative leave for personnel matters, such as certain legal procedural steps that must be completed before suspending or removing an employee, or time needed for completing investigations. For example, in one particularly long and complex misconduct investigation, an employee was on administrative leave for over 2 years while investigating officials conducted over 50 interviews abroad.

In September 2015, DHS issued an administrative leave policy to ensure proper and limited use of administrative leave across the department. The policy clarifies when such leave is proper, elevates the level of management approval needed for longer periods of leave, and requires quarterly reporting of leave use to component heads and the Chief Human Capital Officer. Component policies and procedures varied prior to the DHS policy; however, component officials stated they would make changes needed to comply with the new policy. Federal internal control standards call for agencies to conduct routine monitoring and separate evaluations to ensure agency controls are effective, and to share their results. While the quarterly reports required under DHS's policy provide routine monitoring information, the policy does not address how DHS will evaluate the effectiveness of the policy and related procedures or how DHS will share lessons learned. DHS officials said they plan to learn from reviewing quarterly reports, but agreed evaluations could be valuable in assessing policy effectiveness. Evaluations of DHS's administrative leave policy can help the department identify effective practices for managing administrative leave, as well as agency inefficiencies that increase the time employees spend on such leave. Sharing evaluation results with components may help ensure DHS's administrative leave policy and procedures are effective, and are achieving the intended result of reducing leave use.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DHS evaluate the results of its administrative leave policy and share the evaluation results with the department's components. DHS concurred with the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government has different types of leave for employees to use  when they are away from the workplace. These types of leave include  annual leave, sick leave, leave without pay, leave donated under the  voluntary leave transfer program, military leave, and administrative leave.  Also, federal agencies have the discretion to authorize administrative  leave—an excused absence without loss of pay or charge to leave—for a  variety of reasons, including closures for severe weather, and for  personnel matters, such as misconduct investigations. In October 2014,  we reported on the use of administrative leave, which is a cost to  taxpayers, across the federal government. We found that, between fiscal  years 2011 and 2013, 4,281 federal employees were on administrative  leave for 3 months or more and that 263 of these employees were on this  type of leave for 1 year or more, with an estimated salary cost of $31  million during this 3-year period. Also, we found that 71 Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) employees were on this type of leave for 1  year or more during the same period—more employees than at any other  department.

In light of the findings of our October 2014 report, you asked us to  examine the use of administrative leave for personnel matters at DHS.   This report describes (1) the number of DHS employees who were on  administrative leave for 1 year or more for personnel matters between  fiscal years 2011 and 2015, (2) the factors that contribute to the length of  time employees are on administrative leave at DHS, and (3) the extent to  which DHS has policies and procedures for managing such leave.

Our scope involves all DHS directorates, offices, and components (DHS  components) with employees who were on administrative leave for  personnel matters between fiscal years 2011 and 2015. Specifically,  these components include U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE), National Protection and Programs  Directorate (NPPD), Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO), Office of  the Inspector General (OIG), Transportation Security Administration  (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Services (USCIS), and U.S. Secret Service (USSS).

To address these objectives, we interviewed DHS officials regarding their  policies and procedures for managing administrative leave. We also  reviewed U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance on the  use of administrative leave and interviewed OPM officials regarding their  role in providing oversight and guidance on administrative leave. To  understand how DHS has used administrative leave for personnel  matters, we obtained a list from DHS of all DHS employees who had  been on administrative leave for a least 1 year between fiscal years 2011  and 2015, and analyzed information from 27 selected cases. Criteria for  selecting cases include length of leave, reason for being on leave, and  DHS component, among other things. Information from the cases we  selected is not generalizable, but our analysis of the information provided  insights on administrative leave at DHS.

For our first objective, we used two data sets to help provide a complete  picture of the DHS employees who were on administrative leave for  personnel matters across the 5 fiscal years in our scope. Specifically, we  used data provided by DHS and data from OPM’s Enterprise Human  Resources Integration (EHRI) system. The data from EHRI allowed us to  determine the number of DHS employees on administrative leave for at  least 3 months between fiscal years 2011 and 2014. EHRI data for fiscal  year 2015 were not available in time to include in this report. Accordingly,  to ensure we included information from fiscal year 2015, we used DHS- provided data on the number of DHS employees on administrative leave  for 1 year or more between fiscal years 2011 and 2015 and related  estimated salary costs. The DHS-provided data also contained data  fields not found in the OPM EHRI data such as reason for being on  administrative leave, time on administrative leave, related estimated  salary costs, and employment status as of the end of fiscal year 2015.  DHS initially compiled these data between fiscal years 2011 and 2014 in  response to a congressional inquiry, and subsequently updated these  data through fiscal year 2015 in response to our request. To assess the  reliability of the DHS-provided data, we discussed these data with DHS  officials and we compared the DHS data with EHRI data for fiscal years  2011 through 2014. On the basis of our previous and current work with  the OPM EHRI data and our discussions with the DHS officials on their  data, we determined the data coming from each agency’s system were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.

For our second objective, we reviewed case file documents and timelines  for 27 selected DHS cases to identify factors contributing to the length of  time an employee is on leave. We interviewed DHS and component  officials about the time needed to complete actions to address personnel  issues and related use of administrative leave. We reviewed legal  procedural requirements and DHS component guidance regarding  adverse actions against employees.

For our third objective, we reviewed DHS’s September 2015 Interim  Policy on the Proper Use of Administrative Leave and compared it to  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also  examined component policies and procedures on administrative leave  and interviewed DHS officials on these policies and procedures, and on  plans for implementing the new policy.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to March 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federal agencies, including DHS and its components, have discretion to  place employees on administrative leave in appropriate circumstances  and for an appropriate length of time. Administrative leave is an excused  absence without loss of pay or charge to another type of leave. In the  absence of statutory authority to promulgate regulations addressing  administrative leave by all federal employees, OPM has mentioned this  leave in limited contexts in regulations covering other types of leave and  excused absences for federal employees. OPM has provided additional  guidance to federal agencies on administrative leave via government- wide memorandums, handbooks, fact sheets, and frequently asked  questions. For example, in May 2015, OPM sent a memorandum to  federal agencies that described the steps it was taking to address the  recommendations from our October 2014 report on administrative leave  and that included a fact sheet focused on this type of leave.

OPM guidance has acknowledged numerous purposes for which  administrative leave is appropriate. To promote equity and consistency  across the government, OPM advises that administrative leave be limited  to those situations not specifically prohibited by law and satisfying one or  more of the following criteria:

The absence is directly related to the department or agency’s mission,

The absence is officially sponsored or sanctioned by the head of the

The absence will clearly enhance the professional development or  skills of the employee in his or her current position, or

The absence is as brief as possible under the circumstances and is  determined to be in the interest of the agency.

With respect to administrative leave for personnel matters, OPM states  that placing an employee on administrative leave is an immediate,  temporary solution for an employee who should be kept away from the  worksite. As a general rule, administrative leave should not be used for  an extended or indefinite period or on a recurring basis.

Specifically, OPM guidance discusses agency use of administrative leave  before or after proposing an adverse action against an employee. For  example, an agency may place an employee on administrative leave  during an investigation prior to proposing an adverse action when the  agency believes the employee poses a threat to his own safety or the  safety of others, the agency mission, or government systems or  property. According to OPM, a federal agency should monitor the  situation and move towards longer-term actions when it is possible,  appropriate, and prudent to do so.

An agency may also place an employee on administrative leave after  proposing an adverse action. According to OPM regulations, under  ordinary circumstances, an employee whose removal or suspension has  been proposed will remain in a duty status in his or her regular position  after the employee receives notice of the proposed adverse action. In  those rare circumstances after the agency proposes an adverse action  when the agency believes the employee’s continued presence in the  workplace may pose a threat to the employee or others, result in loss of  or damage to government property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate  government interests, the agency may place the employee on  administrative leave for such time as is necessary to effect the adverse  action. However, OPM strongly recommends agencies consider other  options prior to using administrative leave in this scenario. Options  include assigning the employee to duties and a location where he or she  is not a threat to safety, the agency mission, or government property;  allowing the employee to take leave (annual leave, sick leave as  appropriate, or leave without pay); or curtailing the advance notice period  for the proposed adverse action when the agency can invoke the “crime  provision” because it has reasonable cause to believe the employee has  committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be  imposed.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), among other things,  adjudicates individual federal employee appeals of agency adverse  actions. MSPB has recognized the authority of agencies to place  employees on short-term administrative leave while instituting adverse  action procedures. MSPB has also ruled that placing an employee on  administrative leave is not subject to procedural due process  requirements and is not an appealable agency action. This is in contrast  to adverse actions, such as removals or suspensions of more than 14  days, including indefinite suspensions, which require procedural due  process (such as 30 days advance notice), and are subject to appeal and  reversal by MSPB where agencies fail to follow such due process  procedures. Similarly, where an agency bars an employee from duty for  more than 14 days, requiring that employee to involuntarily use his or her  own leave, such agency actions are also subject to appeal. A federal  employee may obtain judicial review of a final MSPB decision with the  United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by filing a petition  for review within 60 days after the Board issues notice of its final action.

section_title: Over the Past 5 Fiscal Years, More than 100 DHS Employees Were on Administrative Leave for Personnel Matters for 1 Year or More
paragraphs: Between fiscal years 2011 and 2015, DHS placed 116 employees on  administrative leave for personnel matters for 1 year or more, with a total  estimated salary cost of $19.8 million during the same period, as shown  in table 1. DHS placed the majority of these employees (69 employees  or 59 percent) on administrative leave for matters related to misconduct  allegations, according to DHS data. For example, as of September 30,  2015, a law enforcement agent at a DHS component had been on  administrative leave for over 3 years while under investigation for  allegations of criminal and administrative misconduct. These allegations  raised concerns about the protection of government resources and  precluded him from working as a law enforcement agent, according to the  component. While on administrative leave, the employee received an  estimated $455,000 in salary and benefits, according to DHS.

DHS also placed employees on administrative leave for personnel  matters involving fitness for duty and security clearances. Of the 116 DHS  employees on administrative leave for at least 1 year between fiscal years  2011 through 2015, 28 employees (24 percent) faced matters related to  fitness for duty and 19 employees (or 16 percent) faced matters related to  security clearances. For example, a component placed an employee on  administrative leave because of concerns regarding his personal conduct  and his handling of protected information. After proposing revocation of  his security clearance and allowing the employee time to respond, the  agency revoked the employee’s security clearance. The employee’s  position required a security clearance, and the employee remained on  administrative leave while he exhausted the agency’s appeal process for  revocation of his security clearance. Ultimately, after almost 18 months on  administrative leave with an estimated salary cost of over $160,000, the  employee was removed from the agency. As shown in table 1, CBP had  the most employees placed on administrative leave for 1 year or more  between fiscal years 2011 and 2015 (52 employees or 45 percent of the  116 DHS employees). The estimated salary cost for these employees  for the same period was $8.9 million, according to DHS.

DHS reported the current status, as of the end of fiscal year 2015, of the  employees that had been on administrative leave for more than one year  as one of four options: returned to duty, on indefinite suspension,  separated, and on administrative leave. Prior to proposing an adverse  action, such as suspension or removal, an agency often conducts an  investigation. If the agency determines that for safety or security reasons  the employee cannot stay in the workplace while the investigation is being  conducted, the agency may put the employee on administrative leave  until it has sufficient evidence to support a proposed adverse action. If the  agency cannot gather sufficient evidence, the agency may need to return  the employee to duty. For example, on the basis of allegations of  misconduct, a component placed an employee on administrative leave.  The employee remained on administrative leave—for over 3 years with an  estimated salary cost of over $340,000—while the component conducted  an investigation into the allegations of misconduct, according to DHS.  Ultimately, the employee was returned to duty after the component  determined that it had insufficient evidence to remove the employee or to  put him on indefinite suspension.

Table 2 shows, as of September 30, 2015, the status of the 116 DHS  employees who had been on administrative leave for at least 1 year  between fiscal years 2011 and 2015. Specifically, DHS ultimately  returned to duty 32 employees (28 percent), separated from the agency  more than half (59 percent) of the employees, and put on indefinite  suspension 2 employees (2 percent), according to DHS data. As of  September 30, 2015, 14 of the 116 employees (12 percent) were still on  administrative leave, pending a final outcome, with an estimated salary  cost of $2.6 million between fiscal years 2011 and 2015.

section_title: Numerous Factors Affect the Length of Administrative Leave
paragraphs: Several factors can contribute to the length of time an employee is on  administrative leave for personnel matters. Factors contributing to the  time an employee is on administrative leave include (1) adverse action  legal procedural requirements and the length of time needed for  completing investigations related to misconduct, fitness for duty, or  security clearance issues; (2) limited options other than administrative  leave; and (3) agency inefficiencies in resolving administrative leave  cases as expeditiously as possible. These factors are described below  with examples from the DHS case files we reviewed where the employee  was on administrative leave for 1 year or more.

Adverse action requirements. It is important to note that an agency  cannot take an adverse action, such as suspending for more than 14  days or removing an employee before taking certain procedural steps  outlined in law. These procedural steps are described below.

Prior to proposing an adverse action, an agency may place an employee  on administrative leave in situations when the employee should be kept  away from the workplace when the agency believes the employee poses  a threat to his or her own safety or the safety of others, to the agency  mission, or to government systems or property while an investigation is  pending. For example, one DHS employee believed to be involved in  alien smuggling and considered a risk was placed on administrative leave  while the component collected evidence against the employee. An option  could include assigning the employee to duties where he or she is no  longer a threat to safety, the agency mission, or government property, if  feasible.

After proposing an adverse action, agencies are required to provide  employees with at least 30 days advance written notice of proposed  adverse action (e.g., notice of proposed indefinite suspension, notice of  proposed removal), unless there is reasonable cause to believe the  employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment  may be imposed, in which case a shorter notice may be provided. For  example, the notice period was shortened to a 7-day notice period for a  case in which an employee was indicted for extortion and bribery, among  other things. After a proposed removal notice was issued, the employee  resigned. In another case, there were two 30-day proposed suspension  notice periods because the employee was indefinitely suspended,  reinstated, and then indefinitely suspended a second time. Further,  during the adverse action process, if new facts come to light it may be  necessary to provide additional notification to the employee and provide  them the opportunity to reply to that new information that will be  considered in the final decision.

An employee is also entitled to a reasonable time, but not less than 7  days, to respond to the notice of proposed adverse action orally and in  writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in  support of the answer. In some cases, these responses can take  months. For example, in one case the component issued a proposed  removal notice in March 2014 because of the employee’s lack of candor  under oath. The employee responded in writing and orally over the next  few months, raising issues that required clarification by the agency.  Ultimately, the removal was finalized in November 2014, nearly 8 months  after the original proposal. In addition, an employee or representative may  request an extension of time to reply and has a right to review the  information that the agency is relying upon. For example, in a case  involving an employee accused of aggravated assault, the employee  designated an attorney and requested time for the attorney to review the  case before responding. Further, the component twice provided the  employee with new information and time to respond. The original  indefinite suspension proposal was issued in March 2014, but with the  addition of the attorney and new evidence introduced, the oral response  was not submitted until October 2014.

If the employee wishes for an agency to consider any medical condition  that may contribute to a conduct, performance, or leave problem, the  employee must be given a reasonable time to furnish medical  documentation. The agency may, if authorized, require a medical  examination, or otherwise, at its option, offer a medical examination.   For example, in a case that took more than 20 months to resolve, the  component ordered the employee to take a fitness-for-duty exam in July  2012, after the employee exhibited hostile behavior at work. Over the  course of the next 20 months, the employee received a general exam and  two psychiatric exams. During this time, the employee remained on  administrative leave while exams were rescheduled, physicians  requested additional information, and there was miscommunication  regarding medical records. In March 2014, the component determined  that, according to the medical evidence, the employee was a threat to  others and not able to safely perform his duties. The component  ultimately removed the employee in September 2014.

Conducting investigations and collecting evidence to make adverse  action determination. Investigations into allegations of employee  misconduct may be extensive, potentially involving multiple interviews  over a lengthy period of time, or require investigations by third parties.  Component officials indicated where parallel criminal investigations are  ongoing by a third party, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations,  U.S. Attorney’s Office, Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity, or  the DHS OIG, the investigation may be lengthy and the component may  be limited in its ability to conduct its own investigation because it may be  precluded from obtaining documents and interviewing witnesses as that  may interfere with the criminal investigation. For example, in a particularly  long and complex misconduct investigation, component officials said the  third-party investigation (by the DHS OIG) took over 2 years to complete,  including over 50 interviews conducted abroad.

However, as DHS and component officials noted, well-documented  investigations are vital for ensuring adverse action decisions are properly  supported, as officials are cautious to avoid liability in subsequent  proceedings from an appealable decision that may result in an award of  back pay and attorney’s fees, which can be as much as three times or  more the cost of employee back pay. For example, in one case involving  an employee who had been removed for knowingly hiring an  undocumented alien, the employee appealed the component’s decision to  the MSPB. The MSPB reversed the removal decision, finding that the  deciding official’s consideration of the employee’s conviction as grounds  for removal without first notifying her of the significance that he attached  to her criminal status was a due process violation. The MSPB ordered the  component to retroactively restore pay and benefits to the employee.  Components have also withdrawn adverse actions in response to MSPB  decisions. For example, after the MSPB handed down several decisions  regarding indefinite suspensions based on security clearance  investigations, DHS component officials rescinded the indefinite  suspensions for two similar cases and returned the employees to  administrative leave in order to reevaluate its procedures for these  cases.

Limited options other than administrative leave. In certain situations,  management officials may have limited alternative options to  administrative leave. The DHS policy and OPM guidance note that  agencies should consider options other than administrative leave, such as  assigning the employee to alternative work arrangements or duties where  he or she is no longer a threat to safety or government property.  According to DHS, telework is an alternative option to administrative  leave. However, if an employee engages in alleged misconduct involving  the misuse of government equipment, telework is not likely an alternative  option as the individual would have access to the same government  equipment and systems that they have allegedly misused. In this case,  the only alternative is placing the individual on administrative leave. Also,  DHS and component officials noted that reassignment to another position  is not always feasible or viable, depending on other circumstances. For  example, the U.S. Secret Service requires all of its employees to maintain  a top secret security clearance, so if an employee’s clearance is  suspended pending an investigation, there are no alternative duties or  positions to assign the employee to until the investigation is complete and  a final decision is made.

Potentially inefficient agency procedures. Inefficient procedures may  also in some cases contribute to the extended use of administrative  leave. While the facts and circumstances of each case are unique and  management is faced with difficult decisions regarding appropriate  actions to take in situations involving the use of administrative leave, our  review of DHS case files identified examples where inefficient procedures  may have contributed to the length of time the employee was on  administrative leave. For example, at one DHS component, resolution of  a case was delayed for months when the designated proposing and  deciding officials—who are the officials responsible for proposing and  making the decision on the adverse action regarding the employee—left  their positions and the agency did not designate new officials in a timely  manner. During this time, the employee remained on administrative  leave. Filling the positions and allowing for replacements to become  familiar with the case added time to resolve the case, according to  agency officials. The component has since revised its procedures to allow  flexibility in terms of who serves in those roles. In another case, an  employee’s top secret security clearance was suspended based on  concerns about the employee’s behavior and the employee was placed  on administrative leave in December 2011. However, a mandatory  physical examination to establish the employee’s fitness for duty was not  scheduled for this employee until May 2012. In another case, it was  almost 5 months from the notice of proposed removal to the final  decision, although the component already had medical documentation the  employee was unable to perform his job.

section_title: DHS’s Recently Issued Policy Increases Oversight of Administrative Leave but Does Not Include an Evaluation Strategy
paragraphs: In September 2015, DHS issued a policy on the proper use of  administrative leave across the department. Prior to its issuance, the  department did not have a policy or guidance regarding the proper use of  administrative leave. Instead, components had their own approach to  managing administrative leave, and policies and procedures varied  across the components in terms of oversight, approvals, and tracking.  According to DHS officials, they issued this policy to help ensure proper  and limited use of administrative leave across the department, consistent  with OPM guidance. Component officials said they would modify their  policies and procedures as necessary to ensure compliance with the  requirements of the DHS policy. Key provisions in the DHS policy include  the following.

An emphasis on using administrative leave for short periods of  time and only as a last resort for personnel matters. Citing OPM’s  guidance on the appropriate use of administrative leave, the policy  includes examples of when it is appropriate for a manager to grant  administrative leave, such as for dismissal or closure because of  severe weather, voting, or blood donations. For personnel matters,  such as during an investigation of the employee, the policy states that  employees should remain in the workplace unless the employee is  believed to pose a risk to him/her self, to others, or to government  property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate government interests.  Other management options should then be considered, such as  indefinite suspension, if appropriate, with administrative leave as a  last resort.

Requiring elevated management approval for longer periods of  use. Supervisors can approve administrative leave for short periods,  consistent with legal authority and relevant guidance. Supervisors are  expected to consult with human resources officials and counsel as  appropriate. No component may place an employee on administrative  leave for more than 30 consecutive days without the approval of the  component head or his/her designee.

Routine reporting on administrative leave use to component and  DHS management for increased visibility. Component heads are to  receive quarterly reports on employees who are placed on  administrative leave for 320 hours or more and to consider whether  administrative leave continues to be warranted. Components are to  report quarterly to the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer regarding  employees placed on administrative leave for 960 hours (6 months) or  more.

DHS’s new policy is intended to increase DHS and component  awareness regarding the use of administrative leave by requiring elevated  management approval and routine reporting to component heads and the  DHS Chief Human Capital Officer, among other things, according to DHS  officials. However, the policy does not address how DHS will evaluate the  effectiveness of the policy in ensuring proper and limited use of  administrative leave. Federal internal control standards call for agency  management to establish internal control activities to ensure that ongoing  monitoring occurs in the course of normal operations and that separate  evaluations are conducted to assess effectiveness at a specific time.  The standards also note that information on the deficiencies found during  ongoing monitoring and evaluations should be communicated within the  organization. DHS’s new administrative leave policy provides for routine  monitoring by component heads and the DHS Chief Human Capital  Officer of administrative leave usage, which should help increase  management visibility of the issue. DHS officials said they intend to use  the quarterly reports to determine if administrative leave continues to be  warranted for those specific cases. However, they acknowledged that  conducting evaluations and sharing of evaluation results could help  ensure the effectiveness of the policy and procedures across DHS.

Evaluations of DHS’s administrative leave policy can help the department  identify and share particularly effective component practices for managing  administrative leave, such as identifying alternative duties to assign  employees instead of placing them on administrative leave. They may  also help identify inefficient component processes, such as those we  identified, that could increase the length of time an employee spends on  administrative leave, allowing DHS to then take steps to address such  inefficiencies and their causes. An evaluation may also identify  unintended consequences resulting from DHS’s administrative leave  policy that monitoring does not capture. For example, an evaluation may  find that the reporting aspects of the policy serves as an incentive to  suspend or remove an employee before such actions are supported by an  investigation, which may cost a component more if the action is  successfully appealed. Finally, conducting evaluations of DHS’s  administrative leave policy may help ensure DHS’s administrative leave  policy and procedures are effective in reducing the use of administrative  leave—one of the intended goals of the new policy—and ensuring the use  is proper and justified.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Administrative leave is a cost to the taxpayer and its use should be  managed effectively. While the reporting requirements in DHS’s new  administrative leave policy should help increase DHS and component  awareness regarding the use of such leave and will allow for regular  monitoring, the policy does not require a more comprehensive separate  evaluation of the effectiveness of the policy and related procedures. Once  the DHS policy and procedures have been in place and administrative  leave routinely monitored, a separate evaluation of the policy and  procedures can help the department identify and share effective  components practices for managing administrative leave as well as make  adjustments needed to help ensure proper and limited use of  administrative leave across DHS.

section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that the department’s administrative leave policy is working as  intended, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct  the Chief Human Capital Officer to conduct evaluations of the  department’s policy and related procedures to identify successful  practices, potential inefficiencies, and necessary policy and procedural  adjustments, and to share the evaluation results across the department.

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this product to DHS and OPM for their review and  comment. DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in full  in appendix II. OPM did not provide written comments. In its comments,  DHS concurred with the recommendation in the report and described  planned actions to address it. Specifically, DHS stated that it will evaluate  the effectiveness of the new administrative leave policy and related  procedures, as GAO recommends. Also, DHS noted that an initial review  of the administrative leave data from the first quarter of fiscal year 2016  was completed in February 2016, and the review of all fiscal year 2016  data and recommendations concerning administrative leave policy and  related procedures will be completed by March 31, 2017. These planned  actions, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the  recommendation contained in this report.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland  Security, the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and  the appropriate congressional committees. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (213) 830-1011 or vonaha@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.

section_title: Appendix I: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Employees on Administrative Leave for 3 Months or More between Fiscal Years 2011 and 2014 by Component
paragraphs: To present more detailed information on DHS’s use of administrative  leave, and to help verify the reliability of the information we obtained from  DHS, we analyzed data from the Office of Personnel Management’s  (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) system on DHS  employees on at least 3 months of administrative leave between fiscal  years 2011 and 2014. Fiscal year 2015 data were not available at the  time of this report. As shown in table 3, during this period a total of 752  DHS employees were on administrative leave for 3 months or more  between fiscal years 2011 and 2014, and 90 of these DHS employees   were on this type of leave for 1 year or more during this period.   This  last number of employees is similar to the 87 employees on  administrative leave for at least 1 year between fiscal years 2011 and  2014 reported in the DHS information.

section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Adam Hoffman (Assistant  Director), Juan Tapia-Videla (Analyst-in-Charge), Monica Kelly, Tracey  King, David Alexander, Cynthia Grant, and Chris Zbrozek made  significant contributions to this report.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: Why did DHS issue a leave policy?
answer: In September 2015, DHS issued an administrative leave policy to ensure proper and limited use of administrative leave across the department.
child_questions: question: What does this policy clarify?
answer: The policy clarifies when such leave is proper, elevates the level of management approval needed for longer periods of leave, and requires quarterly reporting of leave use to component heads and the Chief Human Capital Officer.

question: How was this policy regarded by components?
answer: Component policies and procedures varied prior to the DHS policy; however, component officials stated they would make changes needed to comply with the new policy.

question: What do federal internal control standards address for agency controls?
answer: Federal internal control standards call for agencies to conduct routine monitoring and separate evaluations to ensure agency controls are effective, and to share their results.
child_questions: question: How does the new policy relate to this control?
answer: While the quarterly reports required under DHS's policy provide routine monitoring information, the policy does not address how DHS will evaluate the effectiveness of the policy and related procedures or how DHS will share lessons learned.
child_questions: question: What was DHS reaction to evaluations?
answer: DHS officials said they plan to learn from reviewing quarterly reports, but agreed evaluations could be valuable in assessing policy effectiveness.
child_questions: question: What is the benefit of evaluations?
answer: Evaluations of DHS's administrative leave policy can help the department identify effective practices for managing administrative leave, as well as agency inefficiencies that increase the time employees spend on such leave. Sharing evaluation results with components may help ensure DHS's administrative leave policy and procedures are effective, and are achieving the intended result of reducing leave use.

questions: question: What are administrative leaves?
answer: Federal agencies have the discretion to authorize administrative leave—an excused absence without loss of pay or charge to leave—for personnel matters, such as when investigating employees for misconduct allegations.

question: How have the GAO considered administrative leave?
answer: In October 2014, GAO reported on the use of administrative leave in the federal government.
child_questions: question: What did they find regarding the use of administrative leave?
answer: GAO found that, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013, 263 federal employees were on this type of leave for 1 year or more during this 3-year period.

question: What agencies used administrative leave?
answer: Of these, 71 were DHS employees.

questions: question: What was the GAO asked to review?
answer: GAO was asked to examine DHS's use of administrative leave across directorates, offices, and components (DHS components).

question: What does this report cover?
answer: This report describes (1) the number of DHS employees who were on administrative leave for 1 year or more for personnel matters from fiscal years 2011 through 2015, (2) the factors that contribute to the length of time employees are on administrative leave, and (3) the extent to which DHS has policies and procedures for managing such leave.

question: What information did the GAO evaluate?
answer: GAO used data from DHS and the Office of Personnel Management, reviewed DHS policies and procedures, interviewed DHS officials, and reviewed information on selected cases of DHS employees placed on administrative leave.
child_questions: question: How were cases chosen?
answer: Cases were selected based on length of leave, reason for using leave, and DHS component, among other things.