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

Letter

Fully Implementing GAO’s Prior Recommendations for Better Determining Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting Action Plans

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.

Senior Leadership Vacancy Rates Generally Declined, but Components’ Rates Varied

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.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

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.