Federal Protective Service's Organizational Placement: Considerations for Transition to the DHS Management Directorate
Released: 2019-06-11T00:00:00

Letter

Background

While the core mission of protecting federal facilities has remained constant as FPS has moved from one agency to another, its responsibilities have changed. In the 1970s, GSA created FPS as part of its Public Buildings Service (PBS). While in GSA’s PBS, FPS was responsible for protecting GSA’s held or leased facilities, providing both physical security and law enforcement services. To protect buildings, FPS officers developed physical security risk assessments, installed security equipment, and oversaw contract guard services. As a part of its law enforcement services, among other duties, FPS officers enforced laws and regulations aimed at protecting federal facilities and the persons in such facilities and conducted criminal investigations.

Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted. It created DHS and moved FPS from GSA to the new department, effective in March 2003. Within DHS, FPS was placed in U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), where its responsibilities grew beyond solely protecting GSA buildings to include homeland security activities such as implementing homeland security directives and providing law-enforcement, security, and emergency- response services during natural disasters and special events.

In 2009, DHS proposed transferring FPS from ICE to NPPD. In explaining this transfer in DHS’s fiscal year 2010 budget justification to Congress, DHS stated that having FPS and NPPD’s Office of Infrastructure Protection in the same organization would further solidify NPPD as DHS’s lead for critical infrastructure protection. FPS was placed in NPPD and continued to lead physical security and law enforcement services at GSA- held or GSA-leased facilities and continued its efforts in homeland security activities. In November 2018, legislation was enacted that reorganized NPPD to an organization that had a greater statutory focus on managing cyber risks and authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine the appropriate placement for FPS within DHS and begin transfer of FPS to that entity.

Throughout FPS’s organizational placements in DHS, we have reported on persistent challenges it faced in meeting its mission to protect facilities. In 2011, we reported on FPS’s challenges in transferring mission support functions from ICE to NPPD. While FPS was in NPPD, we reported on FPS’s challenges related to managing and overseeing contract guards and collaborating with GSA and the United States Marshals Service (Marshals) on facility security. We made recommendations to help address these challenges and FPS has made progress on some of these recommendations. For example, in September 2018, FPS and GSA established a formal agreement on roles and responsibilities related to facility protection, as we recommended. However, in our January 2019 report, we identified challenges related to other aspects of overseeing contract guards and collaboration with other agencies on physical security that had persisted. As of June of 2019, FPS continues to work on establishing a contract guard-management system. However, FPS is unable to assess its guards’ capabilities across its portfolio because the system is not fully implemented nor does it interact with its training system. As of 2019, federal physical security continues to be part of our federal real-property management’s high-risk area.

Key Criteria for Evaluating Placement Options

In 2002, we reported on organizational and accountability criteria for establishing DHS. From this prior work, we identified key criteria that are relevant to assessing potential placement options for FPS, as shown in table 1.

Considerations for FPS’s Placement in DHS’s Management Directorate

For our January 2019 report, we applied these key criteria for evaluating organizational placement to eight agencies that could be potential placement options for FPS. We found that none of the selected agencies met all the organizational placement criteria; thus, any of the organizational placement options could result in both benefits and trade- offs. In instances where placing FPS within DHS met our criteria (that is, instances where DHS was similar to FPS), FPS could experience benefits. In those instances where the criteria were not met, we reported it would be incumbent upon any agency to consider and address any potential trade-offs in order to ensure the decision was successful.

We reviewed FPS as a “standalone” entity reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary of DHS and found this placement option met several key criteria. Table 2 below summarizes our analysis.

For the first four criteria—(1) mission, goals, and objectives; (2) responsibilities; (3) organizational culture; and (4) information sharing and coordination—we determined that DHS met the criteria if the agency or its subcomponents had any similarities to FPS. For the last criterion— mission support—we determined that DHS met the criterion if the agency or its subcomponents had similarities to FPS or could provide FPS needed mission support.

Mission, Goals, and Objectives. In January 2019, we reported that FPS’s mission focused on the protection of federal facilities and the people working in and visiting those facilities. DHS was similar to FPS in that its mission statement and goals as stated in its strategic plan include an explicit focus on the protection of infrastructure or specific facilities. Our prior work found that placing an agency into an organization that has a similar mission might help ensure that the agency’s mission receives adequate funding, attention, visibility, and support. Our January 2019 work reported that one of DHS’s goals—as noted in its strategic plan covering fiscal years 2014 to 2018—was to reduce risk to the nation’s critical infrastructure. DHS and FPS share objectives that focus on mitigating risks and responding to incidents.

Responsibilities. In January 2019, we reported that FPS has facility- protection and physical-security responsibilities and law-enforcement, and contract-guard oversight responsibilities. DHS was similar to FPS as it had responsibilities for physical security and performed law enforcement functions. As a part of its physical security activities, FPS conducted facility security assessments, identified countermeasures (e.g., equipment and contract guards) best suited to secure a facility, and oversaw contract guards. As a part of its law enforcement activities, FPS proactively patrolled facilities, responded to incidents, and conducted criminal investigations. FPS also provided additional operational law enforcement support, at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, to address emerging threats and homeland security incidents. One of FPS’s most critical activities was overseeing about 13,500 contract guards who were posted at federal facilities and were responsible for controlling access to facilities, responding to emergency situations involving facility safety and security, and performing other duties. FPS was responsible for ensuring, among other things, that these guards are performing their assigned duties and have the necessary training and certifications. DHS, however, only used a limited number of contract guards and therefore had less responsibility. At the time of our review, DHS officials told us they procured about 130 guards.

Organizational Culture. In January 2019, we reported that while there are many areas relevant to organizational culture, law enforcement was a key aspect of FPS’s organizational culture, according to officials we interviewed from an association of security companies and a former, high- ranking official in NPPD. DHS had a similar culture in that it was a law enforcement agency.

Information Sharing and Coordination. In January 2019, we reported that Component Intelligence Programs (CIP) were organizations in DHS that collected, gathered, processed, analyzed, produced, or disseminated information related to national homeland security. In 2016, DHS designated a division within FPS as a CIP, a move that allowed FPS more access to information on threats other DHS agencies have identified and actions they plan to take. While DHS, like FPS, had access to and could share information related to national homeland security, DHS did not have joint responsibility for coordinating facility protection with FPS. Rather, FPS shared this responsibility with GSA, and these two agencies and Marshals had joint responsibility for protecting courthouses. FPS has faced challenges with coordinating with these agencies in the past. For example, in September 2011, we reported that FPS, Marshals, and other agencies involved in protecting courthouses (i.e., GSA and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts) faced challenges related to coordination, such as in the implementation of roles and responsibilities and the use or participation in existing collaboration mechanisms.

Mission Support. In January 2019, we reported that mission support was comprised of financial management, human capital, information technology systems for financial management, and law enforcement training. FPS owned and used many of the key operational and business- related information technology (IT) systems and applications it needs to carry out its mission. However, FPS received some mission support services from other agencies in DHS, such as human capital and some aspects of information technology. We found that if FPS changed its organizational placement it would need mission support in these areas. For example, FPS did not have delegated examining authority to allow it to fill competitive civil service jobs and relied on NPPD to provide this service. DHS had the authority to fill competitive service jobs that could support FPS needs. Further, FPS used a financial management IT system owned by ICE. DHS could provide FPS access to financial management systems that can support FPS. Finally, FPS offered its own training courses and would still need access to DHS’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers.

In our January 2019 report, we did not assess FPS as a placement within DHS’s Management Directorate. Further, we recommended DHS (1) identify the specific goals of a change in FPS’s placement—that is, what DHS expects to achieve by moving FPS to another agency, and (2) fully evaluate placement options for FPS based on what DHS expects to achieve by changing FPS’s placement, an assessment of FPS’s current placement, and other best practices such as an analysis of alternatives assessing the benefits and trade-offs. DHS agreed with our recommendations. In May 2019, FPS officials told us that the Acting Secretary’s decision to place FPS within the Management Directorate was based upon an assessment of placement options within DHS using criteria and analyzing the trade-offs. GAO has not yet received DHS’s assessment of placement options. We will assess the actions DHS has taken in response to our recommendations when we receive DHS’s assessment.

Steps to Transition FPS

Our prior work offers valuable insights for agencies to consider when evaluating or implementing a reorganization or transformation, and can provide insights for making any transition regarding FPS. These include considering (1) key questions for consolidations and (2) leading practices when implementing an organizational change.

Two sets of considerations for organizational transformations provide insights for making any FPS organizational placement. First, in May 2012, we reported on key questions for agency officials to consider when evaluating and implementing an organizational change that involves consolidation. Table 3 provides a summary of these key questions. Answering these questions would help provide FPS with assurance that important aspects of effective organizational change are addressed.

Second, we reported in July 2003 on key practices and implementation steps for mergers and organizational transformations. The practices we noted are intended to help agencies transform their cultures so that they can be more results oriented, customer focused, and collaborative in nature (see table 4).

In summary, the questions and practices for organizational change that we previously identified could provide insights to DHS and FPS for any transition. . Madam Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, 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.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff has any questions concerning this testimony, please contact Lori Rectanus at 202-512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. In addition to the contacts named above: Amelia Bates Shachoy (Assistant Director); Roshni Davé; George Depaoli (Analyst-in-Charge); Geoffrey Hamilton; Kelly Rubin; Sarah Veale; and Amelia Michelle Weathers made key contributions to the testimony. Other staff who made contributions to the reports cited in the testimony are identified in the source products.

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.