Department of Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on DHS's Efforts to Improve Employee Morale
Released: 2012-03-22T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DHS is the third largest cabinet-level agency in the federal government, employing more than 200,000 employees in a broad range of jobs. Since its creation in 2003, DHS has faced challenges implementing its human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low job satisfaction. GAO designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as high risk because it represented an enormous and complex undertaking that would require time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner. This testimony presents preliminary observations regarding: (1) how DHS’s employees’ workforce satisfaction compares with that of other federal government employees, and (2) the extent to which DHS is taking steps to improve employee job satisfaction. GAO’s comments are based on ongoing work on DHS’s employee job satisfaction survey results and its actions and plans to improve them, as well as reports issued from January 2003 through February 2012 on high-risk and morale issues in the federal government and at DHS. To conduct its ongoing work, GAO analyzed DHS and component planning documents, interviewed relevant DHS officials about employee morale, and analyzed 2011 federal employee job satisfaction survey results.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Over time, federal surveys have consistently found that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees are less satisfied with their jobs than the government-wide average. In the 2004 Office of Personnel Management’s federal employee survey—a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to what extent conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their agency—56 percent of DHS employees responded that they were satisfied with their jobs, compared to 68 percent government-wide. In subsequent years, the disparity continued—ranging from a difference of 8 percentage points in 2006 to a 4 percentage point difference in 2008, 2010, and 2011. In 2011, DHS’s percentage of positive responses was lower than the averages for the rest of the federal government. For example, slightly less than half of the DHS employees surveyed reported positive responses to the statement “My talents are used well in the workplace,” nearly 12 percentage points less than the rest of the federal government average. In two areas, DHS’s percentage of positive responses was nearly the same or higher than the rest of the federal government average. For example, DHS’s percentage of positive responses to the statement “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?” was not statistically different than the rest of the federal government average. Job satisfaction data for 2011 show that satisfaction levels vary across DHS components. For example, job satisfaction index results show the Transportation Security Administration as 11 percentage points below government-wide averages while other components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, posted above average results.

DHS has taken steps to identify where it has the most significant employee satisfaction problems and developed plans to address those problems, but has not yet improved DHS employee satisfaction survey results. For example, to determine root causes of job satisfaction department-wide, DHS conducted an evaluation of the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey results, according to DHS officials. In that analysis, DHS determined that the drivers of employee satisfaction across DHS included the DHS mission, senior leadership effectiveness, and supervisor support. According to DHS officials, DHS is working with a contractor on a new department-wide analysis of root causes of employee morale. As of March 2012, this analysis was not complete. DHS and its components are also taking steps to improve components’ positive response rates to selected survey items. For example, DHS’s Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management identified corrective actions to improve employee job satisfaction scores, such as the launch of the Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee. GAO has previously reported on a variety of issues, including concerns about pay and a lack of trust in leadership that can lead to morale problems. This variation in potential issues that can result in morale problems underscores the importance of looking beyond survey scores to understand the root causes of those problems and developing plans to address them. Given the critical nature of DHS’s mission to protect the security and economy of the United States, it is important that DHS employees are satisfied with their jobs so that DHS can attract and retain the talent required to complete its work. GAO will continue to assess DHS’s efforts to address employee job satisfaction and expects to issue a report on its results in September 2012.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to appear today to provide our preliminary observations on  the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to address  employees’ job satisfaction. DHS is the third largest cabinet-level agency  in the federal government, employing more than 200,000 employees in a  broad range of jobs, including aviation and border security, emergency  response, cybersecurity analysis, and chemical facility inspection. The  DHS workforce is situated throughout the nation, carrying out activities to  support DHS’s mission to (1) prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2)  secure and manage the nation’s borders, (3) enforce and administer  immigration laws, (4) safeguard and secure cyberspace, and (5) ensure  resilience from disasters. DHS carries out an additional set of activities to  provide essential support to national and economic security.

Since its creation in 2003, DHS has faced challenges implementing its  human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low job  satisfaction. For example, DHS’s scores on the 2011 Office of Personnel  Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)—a tool  that measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to what extent  conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their  agency—and the Partnership for Public Service’s (Partnership) 2011  rankings of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government were  lower than governmentwide averages. In the 2011 FEVS survey, DHS’s  percentage of positive responses was 64 percent for the job satisfaction  index, 33rd out of 37 agencies surveyed, and 4 percentage points below  the governmentwide average. In addition, in 2011, DHS was ranked 31st  out of 33 agencies in the Best Places to Work ranking on overall scores  for employee satisfaction and commitment, which is similar to its ranking  in past years.

DHS employee concerns about job satisfaction are one example of the  challenges the department faces across its management functions. In  January 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of  DHS as high risk because it represented an enormous and complex  undertaking that would require time to achieve in an effective and efficient  manner, and it has remained on our high-risk list since that time. high-risk area includes challenges in strengthening DHS’s management  functions—financial management, information technology, acquisition  management, and human capital. DHS has issued various strategies  and plans for its human capital activities and functions, such as a human  capital strategic plan for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 and a workforce  strategy for fiscal years 2011 through 2016, which contains the  department’s workforce goals, objectives, and performance measures for   In addition, DHS recently updated its plans  human capital management.for improving the department’s scores on the FEVS.

We have identified six high-risk areas involving DHS that need broad-based  transformation to address major economy, efficiency, or effectiveness  challenges. DHS has key responsibility for four of these six areas: (1)  Implementing and Transforming DHS, (2) The National Flood Insurance  Program, (3) Protecting the Federal Government’s Information Systems and the  Nation’s Critical Infrastructure, and (4) Establishing Effective Mechanisms for  Sharing Terrorism-Related Information to Protect the Homeland. DHS does not  have primary responsibility for the other two areas: (1) Strategic Human Capital  Management and (2) Managing Federal Real Property. GAO, Department of  Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation and Transformation of  Management Functions, but More Work Remains, GAO-10-911T (Washington,  D.C.: Sept. 30, 2010).

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.  DHS has consistently been behind the rest of the federal government in  key measures of workforce satisfaction, but it is taking actions aimed at  improvement. As requested, my testimony presents preliminary  observations regarding (1) how DHS’s employees’ workforce satisfaction  compares with that of other federal government employees and (2) the  extent to which DHS is taking steps to improve employee job satisfaction.

My statement is based on ongoing work for your committee regarding  DHS’s employee job satisfaction survey results and its actions and plans  to improve them as well as prior reports we issued from January 2003  through February 2012 on high-risk and morale issues in the federal  government and at DHS. methodology for our prior work can be found in these reports. We plan to  issue a report on the final results from our ongoing work in September  2012. For our ongoing work, among other things, we analyzed DHS and  component planning documents relevant to employee morale, interviewed  DHS officials about employee morale, and analyzed 2011 FEVS results.  We shared the information in this statement with DHS and incorporated  its comments where appropriate.

Detailed information on our scope and  All of our work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

See related GAO products at the end of this statement.
subsections: section_title: DHS Employees Indicated Less Job Satisfaction Than the Rest of the Federal Government
paragraphs: Over time, federal surveys have consistently found that DHS employees  are less satisfied with their jobs than the governmentwide average.  Shortly after DHS was formed, 2004 federal survey data indicated a  disparity between DHS and governmentwide averages in job satisfaction.  At that time, 56 percent of DHS employees responded that they were  satisfied with their jobs, compared to the 68 percent governmentwide.subsequent years when comparative data were available using the job  satisfaction index, the disparity continued—ranging from a difference of 8  percentage points in 2006 to a 4 percentage point difference in 2008,  2010, and 2011.

In 2011, DHS employees also consistently indicated less satisfaction on  key items in OPM’s 2011 FEVS than employees in the rest of the federal  government. On the basis of its analysis of its FEVS, OPM determined  that responses to these items—called impact items— make a difference  in whether people want to come, stay, and contribute their fullest to an  agency. Specifically, DHS employees were less positive on 14 of the 16  impact items. In some key areas, DHS’s percentage of positive responses  was lower than the rest of the federal government averages. For  example:

Slightly less than half of the DHS employees surveyed reported  positive responses to the statement “My talents are used well in the  workplace,” nearly 12 percentage points less than the rest of the  federal government average of 61.6 percent.

DHS employees had nearly 10 percentage points fewer positive  responses to the statements “I am given a real opportunity to improve  my skills in my organization” and “Managers communicate the goals  and priorities of the organization” than the rest of the federal  government averages of 66.0 and 65.3 percent respectively.

In two areas, DHS’s percentage of positive responses was nearly the  same or higher than the rest of the federal government average.  Specifically:

DHS’s percentage of positive responses to the statement  “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?” was  not statistically different than the rest of the federal government  average, with responses of 62 percent for DHS and 63 percent for the  rest of the federal government.

DHS was nearly 2 percentage points higher than the rest of the  federal government average for the statement “My workload is  reasonable.”

The percentage of DHS respondents with positive responses on each of  16 impact items and the difference between DHS and the rest of the  federal government appear in appendix I. OPM calls for federal leaders to  pay attention to the 16 impact items as key indicators of engagement and  commitment to continued service. While improvement in any of the impact  items that OPM identified could help DHS improve its attractiveness as an  employer of choice, the items for which DHS is farthest behind the rest of  the federal government could provide a focus for targeting improvement  efforts.

The 2011 job satisfaction data also indicate that satisfaction levels vary  across components within DHS. For example, as shown in table 1, job  satisfaction index results for the 2011 FEVS show the Transportation  Security Administration (TSA) as 11 percentage points below  governmentwide averages while other large components, such as U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast  Guard), posted above average results. Identifying this variation across  components could help target efforts to improve employee satisfaction.

TSA performed analysis of its 2011 FEVS results to gain a better  understanding of whether employee satisfaction varies across location,  program office, or level. This analysis identified variation in job  satisfaction within the component; specifically, with Federal Security  Director staff at airports providing more positive responses for job  satisfaction (69 percent positive) than the airport screening workforce (54  percent positive), as shown in figure 1.

section_title: DHS Has Ongoing Actions to Address Job Satisfaction, but Has Not Yet Improved Employee Satisfaction Results
paragraphs: DHS has taken steps to identify where it has the most significant  employee satisfaction problems and has developed plans for addressing  those problem areas. DHS has conducted some analysis of employee  survey results and developed action plans to address some employee  satisfaction problems, but it has not yet addressed the key goals related  to job satisfaction—to improve DHS’s scores on OPM’s job satisfaction  index, among other indexes, and to improve its ranking on the  Partnership’s Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. The  results from our prior work at DHS and other departments identify a wide  variety of issues that can lead to employee morale problems. Thus,  conducting an analysis of the root causes of employee satisfaction  problems and developing plans to address them are important.
subsections: section_title: DHS Has Taken Action to Address Employee Satisfaction Problems
paragraphs: DHS’s job satisfaction scores could pose challenges to DHS in recruiting,  motivating, and retaining talented employees that DHS needs to meet its  mission requirements. Specifically, an agency’s reputation is a key factor  in recruiting and hiring applicants. A Partnership for Public Service report  published in 2010 noted that a good reputation is the most frequently  mentioned factor in choosing potential employers, and agencies with high  satisfaction and engagement scores were seen as desirable by college  graduates seeking employment. Similarly, the Merit Systems Protection  Board (MSPB) reported that employees’ willingness to recommend the  federal government or their agency as a place to work can directly affect  an agency’s recruitment efforts, the quality of the resulting applicant pool,  and the acceptance of employment offers. In addition, MSPB noted that  prospective employees would rather work for an agency billed as one of  the best places to work compared to an agency at the bottom of the list.

DHS has taken or has a variety of actions under way or planned to  address employee satisfaction problems, including analyzing the results  of employee surveys and developing action plans to improve employee  satisfaction.

Components and DHS have used a variety of approaches to analyze  survey results to gain insight about employee satisfaction. As part of our  ongoing work on employee morale, we reviewed survey analyses  conducted by DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, TSA, and  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

DHS. DHS completed an evaluation of the 2008 Federal Human Capital  Survey results to determine root causes of job satisfaction  departmentwide, according to DHS officials. In that analysis, DHS  determined that the drivers of employee satisfaction across DHS included  the DHS mission, senior leadership effectiveness, and supervisor  support. According to DHS officials, DHS is currently working with a  contractor on a departmentwide analysis of root causes of employee  morale. As of March 2012, this analysis was not complete.

TSA. TSA’s analysis focused on areas of difficulty across groups, such as  pay and performance appraisal concerns, and also provides insight on  which employee groups within TSA may be more dissatisfied with their  jobs than others. The analysis results are descriptive, showing where job  satisfaction problem areas may exist, and do not identify the causes of  dissatisfaction within employee groups. For the 2011 FEVS, TSA  benchmarked its results against CBP results, as well as against DHS and  governmentwide results. When comparing CBP and TSA scores, TSA  found that the greatest differences in scores were on questions related to  satisfaction with pay and with whether performance appraisals were a fair  reflection of performance. TSA scored 40 percentage points lower on pay  satisfaction and 25 percentage points lower on performance appraisal  satisfaction. In comparing TSA results to DHS and governmentwide  results, TSA found that TSA was below the averages for all FEVS  dimensions. TSA also evaluated FEVS results across employee groups  by comparing dimension scores for headquarters staff, the Federal Air  Marshals, Federal Security Director staff, and the screening workforce.  TSA found that the screening workforce scored at or below scores for all  other groups across all of the dimensions.

ICE. ICE analyzed the 2011 FEVS results by identifying ICE’s top FEVS  questions with high positive and negative responses. ICE found that its  top strength was employees’ willingness to put in the extra effort to get a  job done. ICE’s top negative result was employees’ perception that pay  raises did not depend on how well employees perform their jobs. ICE did  not perform demographic analysis of the survey results or identify the  roots causes of employee satisfaction problems, but did benchmark its  results against DHS and governmentwide results, identifying those  questions and Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework   ICE  (HCAAF) indices where ICE led or trailed DHS and the government. found, among other things, that employee views on the fairness of its  performance appraisals were above DHS’s average but that views on  employee preparation for potential security threats were lower. When  comparing ICE’s results with governmentwide figures, ICE found, among  other things, that ICE was lower on all of the HCAAF indices, including  job satisfaction.

The HCAAF indices provide metrics for measuring progress toward OPM goals  for federal agencies, which include employee job satisfaction, leadership  effectiveness and knowledge management, a results-oriented performance  culture, and effective talent management.

DHS and the components are taking actions that could improve employee  satisfaction, with a focus on improving components’ positive responses to  selected survey items.

DHS’s Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management. In December  2011, DHS provided us with its updated Integrated Strategy for High Risk  Management (Integrated Strategy), which summarized the department’s  plans for addressing its implementation and transformation high-risk  designation. In the Integrated Strategy, DHS identified corrective actions  to improve employee job satisfaction scores, among other things. The  corrective actions include the Secretary issuing guidance to component  heads to address gaps in the 2011 FEVS results; launch of an Employee  Engagement Executive Steering Committee, which held its first meeting  in February 2012; implementation in June 2009 of an online reporting and  action planning tool for components; and execution of a DHS-wide exit  survey in January 2011 for departing employees to gain additional insight  into why employees are leaving the department. According to the  Integrated Strategy, DHS has begun implementing corrective actions but  has not yet achieved its key outcome related to job satisfaction—to  improve DHS’s scores on OPM’s job satisfaction index, among other  indexes, and to improve its ranking on the Partnership’s Best Places to  Work in the Federal Government. According to the Integrated Strategy,  FEVS index scores did not improve appreciably relative to  governmentwide averages from 2010 to 2011. DHS’s Partnership ranking  also remains near last among federal agencies.

Within the Integrated Strategy action plan for improving job satisfaction  scores, DHS reported that three of six efforts were hindered by a lack of  resources. For example, fewer resources were available than anticipated  for DHS’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer to consult with  components in developing action plans in response to 2011 FEVS results.  Similarly, fewer resources were available than planned to deploy online  focus discussions on job satisfaction-related issues. Sufficient resource  planning to address the key high-risk human capital outcome of enhanced  employee satisfaction scores is essential as DHS works to transform itself  into a high-performing department.

DHS and component action plans. We reviewed the most recent DHS  action plans to address 2011 FEVS outcomes departmentwide as well as  component plans for TSA, the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE. The plans  state objectives and identify actions to be taken, among other things.  Examples of initiatives from the plans are listed in table 2.

As part of our ongoing work, we are comparing DHS and component  action plans with OPM guidance for action planning and will report on our  results in September 2012.

section_title: Several Issues Can Contribute to Employee Dissatisfaction
paragraphs: Our prior work at DHS and other departments and agencies illustrates the  variety of issues that can lead to morale problems.

In July 2009, we reported that the funding challenges FPS faced in  fiscal year 2008 and its cost savings actions to address them resulted  in adverse implications for its workforce, primarily low morale among  staff and increase attrition.

In June 2011, we reported that the Federal Emergency Management  Agency’s (FEMA) human capital plan did not have strategies to  address retention challenges, among other things.experienced frequent turnover in key positions and divisions that  could result in lost productivity, a decline in institutional knowledge,  and a lack of continuity for remaining staff. We recommended that  FEMA develop a comprehensive workforce plan that addressed  retention issues, among other things. FEMA concurred with the  recommendation and noted that a contractor had begun work on a  new human capital plan.

In August 2011, we reported that the Forest Service’s centralization of  human resources management and information technology services  contributed to several agencywide improvements, but it has also had  widespread, largely negative effects on field-unit employees. Under  centralization, the agency relies on a self-service approach whereby  employees are generally responsible for independently initiating or  carrying out many related business service tasks. Field-unit  employees consistently told us that these increased administrative  responsibilities, coupled with problems with automated systems and  customer support, have negatively affected their ability to carry out  their mission work and have led to lower employee morale.

In June 2009, we reported that employees from a number of different  agencies and pay systems worked overseas in proximity to one  another. Each of these pay systems was authorized by a separate  statute that outlines the compensation to which employees under that  system are entitled, certain elements of which are set without regard  to the location in which the employees are working. We reported that  when these employees are assigned overseas and serve side by side,  the differences in pay systems may become more apparent and may  adversely affect morale.

In September 2008, we reported that the 2004 and 2006 employee  survey results for the Small Business Administration (SBA) showed a  lack of respect for and trust in SBA leadership and a concern about  training opportunities. The SBA Administrator’s efforts to address  the survey results included soliciting information from employees and  visiting field locations to obtain their input on how to improve agency  operations and morale.

The variation in potential issues that can result in morale problems  underscores the importance of looking beyond survey scores to  understand where problems, such as low employee satisfaction, are  taking place within the organization, along with the root causes of those  problems. Effective root cause analysis can help agencies better target  efforts to develop action plans and programs to address the key drivers of  employee satisfaction.

Given the critical nature of DHS’s mission to protect the security and  economy of our nation, it is important that DHS employees are satisfied  with their jobs so that DHS can retain and attract the talent required to  complete its work. We will continue to monitor and assess DHS’s efforts  to address employee job satisfaction through our ongoing work and  expect to issue a report on our final results in September 2012.

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

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 Sandra Burrell, Assistant Director; Ben Atwater, Analyst-in- Charge; and Jean Orland. Other contributors include Alice Feldesman,  Tracey King, Kirsten Lauber, Margaret McKenna, Lara Miklozek, and   Jeff Tessin. Key contributors for the previous work that this testimony is  based on are listed in each product.

section_title: Appendix I: Comparison of DHS and Non- DHS Responses to Key Survey Questions
paragraphs: Survey question  My talents are used well in the workplace.

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

Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the  organization.

Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect  to work processes.

How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that  affect your work?

How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your  senior leaders?

My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.

How satisfied are you with the information you receive from  management on what’s going on in your organization?

How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a  good job?

I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders.

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

How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your  present job?

Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your  immediate supervisor/team leader?

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?

section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Department of Homeland Security: Continued Progress Made Improving  and Integrating Management Areas, but More Work Remains.   GAO-12-365T. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2012.

Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed to Re- examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated  Costs. GAO-11-769. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2011.

FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the National Flood  Insurance Program. GAO-11-297. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011.

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

Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation and  Transformation of Management Functions, but More Work Remains.  GAO-10-911T. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2010.

Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal Protective  Service’s Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts. GAO-10-802R.  Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2010.

Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human  Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants. GAO-09-749.  Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2009.

Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and  Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal  Civilians. GAO-09-562. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2009.

Small Business Administration: Opportunities Exist to Build on  Leadership’s Efforts to Improve Agency Performance and Employee  Morale. GAO-08-995. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2008.

High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-03-120.  Washington, D.C.: January 2003.

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

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: How has DHS addressed employee satisfaction issues?
answer: DHS has taken steps to identify where it has the most significant employee satisfaction problems and developed plans to address those problems, but has not yet improved DHS employee satisfaction survey results.
child_questions: question: How did DHS determine the root factors in job satisfaction in the department?
answer: For example, to determine root causes of job satisfaction department-wide, DHS conducted an evaluation of the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey results, according to DHS officials.
child_questions: question: What factors were found to have the greatest impact on employee satisfaction?
answer: In that analysis, DHS determined that the drivers of employee satisfaction across DHS included the DHS mission, senior leadership effectiveness, and supervisor support.

question: How is DHS seeking to determine the root factors of employee morale in the department?
answer: According to DHS officials, DHS is working with a contractor on a new department-wide analysis of root causes of employee morale.
child_questions: question: What is the status of the new analysis?
answer: As of March 2012, this analysis was not complete.

question: How is DHS attempting to improve survey results for specific questions?
answer: DHS and its components are also taking steps to improve components’ positive response rates to selected survey items. For example, DHS’s Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management identified corrective actions to improve employee job satisfaction scores, such as the launch of the Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee.

question: What were GAO's previous findings related to DHS employee satisfaction?
answer: GAO has previously reported on a variety of issues, including concerns about pay and a lack of trust in leadership that can lead to morale problems.
child_questions: question: Why does GAO believe it is important to look beyond the survey to understand root problems?
answer: GAO has previously reported on a variety of issues, including concerns about pay and a lack of trust in leadership that can lead to morale problems. This variation in potential issues that can result in morale problems underscores the importance of looking beyond survey scores to understand the root causes of those problems and developing plans to address them.

question: How will GAO continue to assess DHS employee satisfaction?
answer: GAO will continue to assess DHS’s efforts to address employee job satisfaction and expects to issue a report on its results in September 2012.

question: Why is it important that DHS employees are satisfied with their jobs?
answer: Given the critical nature of DHS’s mission to protect the security and economy of the United States, it is important that DHS employees are satisfied with their jobs so that DHS can attract and retain the talent required to complete its work.

questions: question: What is the role of DHS in the federal government?
answer: DHS is the third largest cabinet-level agency in the federal government, employing more than 200,000 employees in a broad range of jobs.
child_questions: question: What problems have faced DHS since its creation in 2003?
answer: Since its creation in 2003, DHS has faced challenges implementing its human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low job satisfaction.
child_questions: question: Why did GAO designate the implementation and transformation of DHS as high risk?
answer: GAO designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as high risk because it represented an enormous and complex undertaking that would require time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner.

question: What information is presented in this testimony?
answer: This testimony presents preliminary observations regarding: (1) how DHS’s employees’ workforce satisfaction compares with that of other federal government employees, and (2) the extent to which DHS is taking steps to improve employee job satisfaction.
child_questions: question: What information did GAO use as the basis for its observations?
answer: GAO’s comments are based on ongoing work on DHS’s employee job satisfaction survey results and its actions and plans to improve them, as well as reports issued from January 2003 through February 2012 on high-risk and morale issues in the federal government and at DHS.

question: How is GAO conducting its ongoing work related to DHS?
answer: To conduct its ongoing work, GAO analyzed DHS and component planning documents, interviewed relevant DHS officials about employee morale, and analyzed 2011 federal employee job satisfaction survey results.