Department of Homeland Security: DHS's Efforts to Improve Employee Morale and Fill Senior Leadership Vacancies
Released: 2013-12-12T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department in the federal government, with more than 240,000 employees situated throughout the nation. Employees engage in a broad range of jobs to support its missions, including aviation and border security, emergency response, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection, among others. Since it began operations in 2003, DHS has faced challenges in implementing human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low job satisfaction. In addition, Congress has raised questions about DHS's ability to hire and retain senior executives.

This testimony addresses (1) how DHS's employees' workforce satisfaction compares with that of other federal government employees and the extent to which DHS is taking steps to improve employee morale, and (2) vacancies in DHS senior leadership positions. This statement is based on products GAO issued in February 2012 and September 2012 and selected updates conducted in December 2013. GAO analyzed FEVS results and DHS vacancy data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and interviewed DHS officials.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In September 2012, GAO reported that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees identified having lower average morale than the average for the rest of the federal government, but morale varied across components. Specifically, GAO found that, according to the Office of Personnel Management's 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), DHS employees had 4.5 percentage points lower job satisfaction and 7.0 percentage point lower engagement--the extent to which employees are immersed in their work and spending extra effort on job performance. Several components with lower morale, such as the Transportation Security Administration, made up a substantial share of FEVS respondents at DHS and accounted for a significant portion of the overall difference between the department and other agencies. In September 2012, GAO recommended that DHS take action to better determine the root cause of low employee morale, and where absent, add benchmarking against similar organizations, among other things. Since September 2012, DHS has taken a number of actions intended to improve employee morale, such as directing component human capital officials to reevaluate their action plans to ensure that metrics of success are clear and measurable. In December 2013, GAO found that DHS has actions underway to address GAO's recommendations but DHS has not fully implemented them. It will be important to do so, as DHS employee job satisfaction declined in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 FEVS results. Specifically, 2013 FEVS data show that DHS employee satisfaction decreased 7 percentage points since 2011, which is more than the government-wide decrease of 4 percentage points over the same time period. As a result, the gap between average DHS employee satisfaction and the government-wide average widened to 7 percentage points. DHS has also consistently scored lower than the government-wide average on the FEVS Leadership and Knowledge Management index, which indicates the extent to which employees hold their leadership in high regard. Since 2011, DHS's scores for this index have decreased 5 percentage points, widening the gap between the DHS average and the government-wide average to 9 percentage points.

In February 2012, GAO reported that DHS Senior Executive Service (SES) vacancy rates, while reaching a peak of 25 percent in 2006, had generally declined, reaching 10 percent at the end of fiscal year 2011. GAO also reported that component officials identified a number of factors that may have contributed to component SES vacancy rates during that time period, including increases in SES allocations, events like presidential transitions, and organizational factors such as reorganizations. To help reduce SES vacancy rates, DHS has (1) implemented a simplified pilot hiring process aimed at attracting additional qualified applicants and planned to expand the method for all SES, and (2) implemented a centralized SES candidate development program aimed at providing a consistent approach to leadership training. As of December 2013, DHS had made the pilot process available to all components, but had not yet performed analysis of these efforts' effectiveness at reducing SES vacancy rates which, according to DHS data, have remained relatively steady since GAO's February 2012 report--11 percent at the end of fiscal year 2013.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO has made recommendations in prior reports for DHS to strengthen its analysis of low employee morale, and identify clear and measurable metrics for action plan success. DHS concurred with these recommendations and has reported actions under way to address them. GAO provided a copy of new information in this statement to DHS for review. DHS confirmed the accuracy of this information.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work on morale and senior  leadership vacancy rates at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department in the federal  government, employing more than 240,000 staff in a broad range of jobs,  including aviation and border security, emergency response,  cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection. The DHS workforce is  situated throughout the nation, carrying out activities in support of DHS’s  missions to (1) prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2) secure and  manage the nation’s borders, (3) enforce and administer immigration  laws, (4) safeguard and secure cyberspace, and (5) ensure resilience to  disasters.

Since it began operations in 2003, DHS has faced challenges in  implementing its human capital functions, and federal surveys have  consistently found that DHS employees are less satisfied with their jobs  than the government-wide average of federal employees. For example,  DHS’s scores on the 2012 and 2013 Office of Personnel Management  (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)—a tool that  measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to what extent  conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their  agency—and the Partnership for Public Service’s 2012 rankings of the  Best Places to Work in the Federal Government, were lower than  government-wide averages. For example, DHS ranked 36th of the 37  agencies that participated in the 2013 FEVS when it came to both the  Leadership and Knowledge Management Index, which indicates the  extent employees hold their leadership in high regard, both overall and on  specific facets of leadership, and the Job Satisfaction Index, which  indicates the extent employees are satisfied with their jobs and various  aspects thereof. In particular, DHS’s percentage of positive responses for  the Leadership and Knowledge Management Index was 9 percentage  points below the government-wide average and 7 percentage points  below the government-wide average for the Job Satisfaction Index. We  have previously reported that successful organizations empower and  involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a frontline  perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of  organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and morale.

In addition, Congress has raised questions about DHS’s ability to hire and  retain senior executives. For example, a May 2013 report from the House  Committee on Appropriations raised concerns about the number of  vacant senior leadership positions at DHS. capital strategic plan, reported on facing challenges in recruiting and  hiring qualified individuals to fill vacancies at the senior executive level.  As we reported in March 2003, high-performing organizations understand  that they need senior leaders who are accountable for results, drive  continuous improvement, and stimulate and support efforts to integrate  human capital approaches with organizational goals and related  transformation.

DHS has also, in its human  Within DHS, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) is  responsible for implementing policies and programs to recruit, hire, train,  and retain DHS’s workforce. As the department-wide unit responsible for  human capital issues within DHS, OCHCO also provides guidance and  oversight related to morale issues to the DHS components. In addition,  OCHCO provides OPM with a DHS-wide action plan every other year and  provides a survey analysis and action planning tool to components that  they are to use in response to FEVS results to develop action plans for  improving employees’ positive scores.

See H.R. Rep. No. 113-91, at 14-15 (May 29, 2013) (Dep’t of Homeland Security  Appropriations Bill, 2014, H.R. 2217, 113th Cong. (2d Sess. 2013). positions. This statement is based on our February 2012 and September  2012 reports and selected updates conducted in December 2013 related to DHS efforts to address recommendations we made in our prior work.For our February 2012 and September 2012 reports, among other  methodologies, we analyzed survey evaluations for the 2011 FEVS,  reviewed senior leadership vacancy and attrition information for DHS and  selected DHS components, and interviewed DHS officials. We further  reviewed DHS and component 2011 action planning documents from  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation  Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard, and U.S. Customs and  Border Protection (CBP). To determine Senior Executive Service (SES)  vacancy rates from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, we analyzed  departmental and component information on senior-level allocations from  OPM and onboard data by pay period from the National Finance Center.  More detailed information on the scope and methodology appears in our  February 2012 and September 2012 reports. For the selected updates,  we analyzed results for the 2012 and 2013 FEVS and DHS leadership  vacancy data, and interviewed agency officials on the reliability of these  data and DHS’s progress in implementing our recommendations. We  provided information in this statement to DHS for review to ensure its  accuracy. The department provided technical comments, which we  incorporated, as appropriate. We conducted the work on which this  statement is based 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: Fully Implementing GAO’s Prior Recommendations for Better Determining Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting Action Plans
paragraphs: In September 2012, we found that DHS employees reported having lower  average morale than the average for the rest of the federal government,  but morale varied across components and employee groups within the  department. Specifically, we found that DHS employees as a whole  reported lower satisfaction and engagement—the extent to which  employees are immersed in their work and spending extra effort on job  performance—than the rest of the federal government according to  several measures. In particular, the 2011 FEVS showed that DHS  employees had 4.5 percentage points lower job satisfaction and 7.0  percentage points lower engagement. Although DHS employees  generally reported improvements in Job Satisfaction Index levels from  2006 to 2011 that narrowed the gap between DHS and the government  average, employees continued to indicate less satisfaction than the  government-wide average. For example, DHS employees reported  satisfaction increased by 5 percentage points, from 59 percent in 2006 to  64 percent in 2011, but scores in both years were below the government- wide averages of 66 percent and 68 percent, respectively. As we reported  in September 2012, the Partnership for Public Service analysis of FEVS  data also indicated consistent levels of low employee satisfaction for DHS  relative to those of other federal agencies. As with DHS’s 2011 ranking,  31st of 33 large federal agencies, the Partnership for Public Service  ranked DHS 28th of 32 in 2010, 28th of 30 in 2009, and 29th of 30 in  2007 in the Best Places to Work ranking on overall scores for employee  satisfaction and commitment.

As we reported in September 2012, our analyses of 2011 FEVS results  further indicated that average DHS-wide employee satisfaction and  engagement scores were consistently lower when compared with  average non-DHS employee scores in the same demographic groups,  including supervisory status, pay, and agency tenure groups. For  example, within most pay categories, DHS employees reported lower  satisfaction and engagement than non-DHS employees in the same pay  groups. In addition, we reported that DHS was not more likely than other  agencies to employ the types of staff who tended to have lower morale  across all agencies. Instead, employees in the various groups we  analyzed had lower morale at DHS than the same types of employees at  other agencies. We concluded that the gap between DHS and  government-wide scores may be explained by factors unique to DHS,  such as management practices and the nature of the agency’s work, or  by differences among employees we could not analyze.

In September 2012, we also found that levels of satisfaction and  engagement varied across components, with some components reporting  scores above the non-DHS averages. For example, employees from CBP  and the Coast Guard were 1 and 1.5 percentage points more satisfied  than the rest of the government, respectively, according to the 2011  FEVS Job Satisfaction Index. We further reported that several  components with lower morale, such as TSA and ICE, made up a  substantial share of FEVS respondents at DHS, and accounted for a  significant portion of the overall difference between the department and  other agencies. For example, survey respondents representing the  approximately 55,000 employees at TSA and approximately 20,000  employees at ICE were on average 11.6 and 7.9 percentage points less  satisfied than the rest of the government, respectively. Job satisfaction  and engagement varied within components as well. For example,  employees in TSA’s Federal Security Director staff reported higher  satisfaction (by 13 percentage points) and engagement (by 14  percentage points) than TSA’s airport security screeners. Within CBP,  Border Patrol employees were 8 percentage points more satisfied and 12  percentage points more engaged than CBP field operations employees.On the basis of our findings we concluded that given this variation across  and within components, it was imperative that DHS understand and  address employee morale problems through targeted actions that  address employees’ underlying concerns.

In our September 2012 report, we also found that DHS and the selected  components had taken steps to determine the root causes of employee  morale problems and implemented corrective actions, but that the  department could strengthen its survey analyses and metrics for action  plan success. To understand morale problems, DHS and selected  components took steps, such as implementing an exit survey and  routinely analyzing FEVS results. Components GAO selected for  review—ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, and CBP—conducted varying levels  of analyses regarding the root causes of morale to understand leading  issues that may relate to morale. DHS and the selected components  planned actions to improve FEVS scores based on analyses of survey  results, but we found that these efforts could be enhanced. Specifically,  2011 DHS-wide survey analyses did not include evaluations of  demographic group differences on morale-related issues, the Coast  Guard did not perform benchmarking analyses, and it was not evident  from documentation the extent to which DHS and its components used  root cause analyses in their action planning to address morale problems.  As we reported in September 2012, without these elements, DHS risked  not being able to address the underlying concerns of its varied employee  population. We therefore recommended that DHS’s OCHCO and  component human capital officials examine their root cause analysis  efforts and, where absent, add the following: comparisons of  demographic groups, benchmarking against similar organizations, and  linkage of root cause findings to action plans.

In addition, in September 2012, we found that despite having broad  performance metrics in place to track and assess DHS employee morale  on an agency-wide level, DHS did not have specific metrics within the  action plans that were consistently clear and measurable. For example,  one way the Coast Guard intended to address low-scoring FEVS topics  was through improving employee training options, which it sought to  measure by whether it developed e-learning courses for new employees.  However, we found that this measure lacked key information that would  make it more clear—namely, the course content or the specific training  being provided—and did not list quantifiable or other measure values to  determine when the goal had been reached, such as a target number of  new employees who would receive training. As a result, we concluded  that DHS’s ability to assess its efforts to address employee morale  problems and determine if changes should be made to ensure progress  toward achieving its goals was limited. To help address this concern, we  recommended that DHS components establish metrics of success within  their action plans that are clear and measurable.

DHS concurred with our two recommendations and has taken steps since  September 2012 to address them. However, as of December 2013, DHS  has not yet fully implemented these recommendations.

Enhancing root cause analysis: As of December 2013, DHS OCHCO  had created a checklist for components to consult when creating  action plans to address employee survey results. The checklist  includes instructions to clearly identify the root cause associated with  each action item and to indicate whether the action addresses the root  cause. In addition, according to DHS OCHCO officials, OCHCO, CBP,  ICE and TSA completed demographic analysis of the 2012 FEVS  results, but were not certain of the extent to which other components  had completed analyses. However, according to these officials,  difficulties in identifying comparable organizations limited components’  benchmarking efforts. For example, while CBP identified a Canadian  border security organization with which CBP officials intend to  benchmark employee survey results, other DHS components did not  find organizations, such as airport security organizations, against  which to benchmark. OCHCO officials did not elaborate, however, on  why it was difficult to find organizations against which to benchmark.  We recognize that there can be some challenges associated with  identifying organizations against which to benchmark. However, we  continue to believe that DHS components could benefit from doing so  as, according to the Partnership for Public Service, benchmarking  agency survey results against those of similar organizations can  provide a point of reference for improvements.  DHS components and  DHS-wide efforts have not yet fully examined their root cause analysis  efforts and, where absent, added comparisons of demographic  groups, benchmarking against similar organizations, and linkage of  root cause findings to action plans, as we recommended in  September 2012.

Establishing metrics of success: OCHCO officials stated that, as of  December 2013, they had directed component human capital officials  to reevaluate their action plans to ensure that metrics of success were  clear and measurable. However, in December 2013 we reviewed the  2013 action plans produced by the four DHS components we selected  for our September 2012 report—ICE, CBP, TSA, and the Coast  Guard—and found that their measures of success did not contain  clear and measurable targets. Of the 53 measures of success  reviewed across the four components, 16 were unclear and 35 lacked  measurable targets.and compelling direction for ICE, is to be implemented by creating a  work group consisting of the top six leaders in the agency together  with the heads of ICE’s policy and public affairs offices to create a  clear and compelling mission and priorities to drive the agency’s  efforts. To determine whether ICE succeeds in implementing this  action item, ICE’s measures of success include: (1) agency creates a  mission statement and priority that guide employee focus and  behaviors; (2) ICE’s first several layers of leadership indicate full  support for the hard choices the direction-setting causes; (3) test  focus group results; and (4) pulse survey.  However, it is not clear, for  example, what the “test focus group results” and “pulse survey”  measures of success are measuring, and there are no measurable  targets against which to assess success. By ensuring that DHS and  component action plans contain measures of success that are clear  and include measurable targets, DHS can better position itself to  determine if its action plans are effective.

For example, one action item, to create a clear  Despite DHS’s efforts, since publication of our September 2012 report,  DHS employee morale has declined, and the gap between DHS and  government-wide scores has widened in key areas. Specifically, FEVS  fiscal year 2012 and 2013 survey results released since our 2012 report  indicate that DHS employees continue to report lower average  satisfaction than the average for the rest of the federal government. For  example, as shown in figure 1, 2013 FEVS data show that DHS employee  satisfaction decreased 7 percentage points since 2011, which is more  than the government-wide decrease of 4 percentage points over that  same period of time. As a result, DHS employee satisfaction in 2013 is 7  percentage points lower than the government-wide average, a difference  not seen since 2006.

Moreover, consistent with our reporting in September 2012, morale varied  across components, as shown in table 1. For example, while the Federal  Law Enforcement Training Center and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Service scored above the government-wide average with respect to  employee satisfaction, the TSA and the National Protection and Programs  Directorate scored below the government-wide average.

In addition, DHS has also consistently scored lower than the government- wide average on the FEVS Leadership and Knowledge Management  Index, which indicates the extent to which employees hold their  leadership in high regard, both overall and on specific facets of  leadership. For example, the index includes questions such as whether  leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the  workforce, and whether employees have a high level of respect for their  organization’s senior leaders. From fiscal years 2006 through 2013, DHS  scored lower than the government-wide average each year for which  survey data are available. While government-wide scores for this index  have declined 3 percentage points since 2011, DHS’s scores have  decreased 5 percentage points, widening the gap between DHS and the  government-wide average to 9 percentage points. See figure 2 for  additional detail.

In December 2013, DHS senior officials provided a recent analysis they  performed of 2012 FEVS results that indicated DHS low morale issues  may persist because of employee concerns about senior leadership and  supervisors, among other things, such as whether their talents are being  well-used. DHS’s analysis of the 2012 FEVS results identified survey  questions that correlated most strongly with index measures, such as the  Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement indexes. As noted in DHS’s  analysis, the evaluation assessed the correlations among survey items,  but did not attempt to identify the root cause for the survey results. For  example, DHS found that the survey question, “How satisfied are you with  the policies and practices of your senior leaders?” was more strongly  correlated with the Job Satisfaction Index. However, DHS did not do  further research to determine the specific senior leader policies and  practices that affected satisfaction or explain why this effect occurred.   According to DHS senior officials, on the basis of the results of this  analysis and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security’s review of the  2013 FEVS results, the department plans to launch additional employee  surveys to probe perspectives on departmental leadership. As we have  previously reported, given the critical nature of DHS’s mission to protect  the security and economy of our nation, it is important that DHS  employees be satisfied with their jobs so that DHS can retain and attract  the talent required to complete its work. Accordingly, it is important for  DHS to continue efforts to understand the root causes behind employee  survey results.

section_title: Senior Leadership Vacancy Rates Generally Declined, but Components’ Rates Varied
paragraphs: In February 2012, we reported that DHS SES vacancy rates, while  reaching a peak of 25 percent in 2006, had generally declined since that  time—from 25 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 10 percent at the end of  fiscal year 2011, as shown in figure 3.

Since February 2012, DHS data indicate that SES vacancy percentages  have remained relatively stable. In particular, according to DHS data, at  the end of fiscal year 2012 the SES vacancy rate was approximately 9 percent, and approximately 11 percent at the end of fiscal year 2013.

Although there is no generally agreed-upon standard for acceptable  vacancy rates, to provide perspective, in our February 2012 report we  compared DHS’s rates with those of other agencies subject to the Chief  Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended. 2006 through 2010—the most recent year for which federal-wide  vacancy-rate data were available at the time of our February 2012  report—DHS vacancy rates were at times statistically higher than those at  other CFO Act agencies. For example, in fiscal year 2010, the DHS  SES vacancy rate at the end of the year was 17 percent and ranged from  a low of 8.4 percent to a high of 20.7 percent during the course of the  year. This compares with an average vacancy rate across other CFO  agencies of 9.0 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. Further, as we  reported in February 2012, vacancy rates varied widely across DHS  components. For example, at the end of fiscal year 2011, 20 percent of  SES positions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  and 19.5 percent of SES equivalent position at TSA were vacant,  compared with 5 percent at the Coast Guard and zero percent at the U.S.  Secret Service. Vacancy rates at components generally declined from  2006 through 2011.

See 31 U.S.C. § 901 (identifying 24 agencies subject to requirements of the CFO Act).  As of 2009, CFO Act agencies employed 98 percent of all federal employees. events like presidential transitions, and organizational factors such as  reorganizations. We also found that in fiscal year 2010, DHS’s senior  leadership attrition rate was 11.4 percent, and that from fiscal years 2006  through 2010, the most frequent separation types were retirements and  resignations. DHS’s attrition rates were statistically higher than the  average of other CFO agencies in 2006, 2007, and 2009, but not  statistically different in 2008 and 2010. OCHCO officials told us in  December 2013 that while they no longer identify increases in allocations  or organizational factors as significant to SES vacancy rates, budgetary  constraints can present challenges. For example, these officials stated  that budgetary constraints make it difficult for the department to fund  allocated positions.

In addition, DHS data provided in December 2013 indicate that the  number of vacant DHS political positions, including positions that do and  do not require Senate confirmation, doubled from 13 in fiscal year 2012 to  26 in fiscal year 2013. From fiscal year 2012 to 2013, the total number  of filled political positions decreased from 73 to 56. In addition, some  political positions were filled temporarily through employees serving in  “acting” positions. In particular, DHS data provided in December 2013  indicate that 3 of 13 vacated positions were filled with personnel in acting  positions at the end of fiscal year 2012 and 10 of 26 positions were filled  in this manner at the end of fiscal year 2013.

DHS has efforts under way to enhance senior leadership training and  hiring, but it is too early to assess their effectiveness at reducing vacancy  rates. In February 2012, we reported that DHS had (1) implemented a  simplified pilot hiring process aimed at attracting additional qualified  applicants and planned to expand the method for all SES, and (2)  implemented a centralized SES candidate development program aimed at  providing a consistent approach to leadership training. According to DHS  officials, as of December 2013, the pilot hiring process had been made  available to all DHS components, but the department had not performed  analysis to assess the process’ impact on hiring. In addition, officials  stated that in 2013, the first class of SES candidates had completed the  candidate development program; however, the program’s impact on  leadership training could not yet be determined.

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and members of the  committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you may have at this time.

section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For questions about this statement, please contact David C. Maurer at  (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement  include Joseph P. Cruz (Assistant Director), Ben Atwater, Katherine  Davis, Tracey King, Thomas Lombardi, Taylor Matheson, Jeff Tessin,  Julia Vieweg, and Yee Wong. Key contributors for the previous work that  this testimony is based on are listed in each product.

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.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: What did GAO report about DHS Senior Executive Service vacancy rates?
answer: In February 2012, GAO reported that DHS Senior Executive Service (SES) vacancy rates, while reaching a peak of 25 percent in 2006, had generally declined, reaching 10 percent at the end of fiscal year 2011.
child_questions: question: What did GAO report about component officials?
answer: GAO also reported that component officials identified a number of factors that may have contributed to component SES vacancy rates during that time period, including increases in SES allocations, events like presidential transitions, and organizational factors such as reorganizations.

question: What has DHS done to reduce SES vacancy rates?
answer: To help reduce SES vacancy rates, DHS has (1) implemented a simplified pilot hiring process aimed at attracting additional qualified applicants and planned to expand the method for all SES, and (2) implemented a centralized SES candidate development program aimed at providing a consistent approach to leadership training.

question: What has DHS done to the pilot process as of December 2013?
answer: As of December 2013, DHS had made the pilot process available to all components, but had not yet performed analysis of these efforts' effectiveness at reducing SES vacancy rates which, according to DHS data, have remained relatively steady since GAO's February 2012 report--11 percent at the end of fiscal year 2013.

questions: question: What is DHS?
answer: DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department in the federal government, with more than 240,000 employees situated throughout the nation.

question: What kinds of jobs do DHS employees engage in?
answer: Employees engage in a broad range of jobs to support its missions, including aviation and border security, emergency response, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection, among others.

question: What challenges has DHS faced?
answer: Since it began operations in 2003, DHS has faced challenges in implementing human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low job satisfaction.
child_questions: question: What questions has congress raised about DHS?
answer: In addition, Congress has raised questions about DHS's ability to hire and retain senior executives.

questions: question: What does this testimony address?
answer: This testimony addresses (1) how DHS's employees' workforce satisfaction compares with that of other federal government employees and the extent to which DHS is taking steps to improve employee morale, and (2) vacancies in DHS senior leadership positions.
child_questions: question: What is this statement based on?
answer: This statement is based on products GAO issued in February 2012 and September 2012 and selected updates conducted in December 2013.

question: What did GAO analyze?
answer: GAO analyzed FEVS results and DHS vacancy data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and interviewed DHS officials.