As federal employees, USCP and other federal police officers are eligible to participate in one of the two federal retirement plans—the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). CSRS is available to employees entering federal service before 1984, while FERS is available to employees entering federal service on and after January 1, 1984. CSRS is a defined benefit plan— meaning that the employer promises a specified monthly benefit during retirement that is predetermined by a formula; in the case of CSRS, the benefit amount and eligibility depend on the employee’s earnings history, tenure of service, and age. The defined benefit plan is funded by both employee and agency contributions as well as additional contributions from the U.S. Treasury. CSRS covered employment is generally not considered covered employment for the purposes of Social Security; hence, CSRS covered employees do not also receive Social Security benefits. FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a defined benefit plan, Social Security, and TSP. As with CSRS, the defined benefit portion of FERS is funded by both employee and agency contributions, as well as additional contributions from the U.S. Treasury. Both federal retirement systems provide different levels of benefits depending on certain characteristics of covered employees. For example, under statutory and regulatory retirement provisions, federal employees who meet the retirement-related definitions of an LEO receive more generous retirement benefits under CSRS and FERS than non-LEO employees. Coverage under CSRS and FERS LEO definitional criteria generally include those personnel whose duties have been determined by the employing agency through an administrative process to be primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States. The FERS definition of a LEO is more restrictive than the CSRS LEO definition in that it expressly includes a rigorous duty standard, which provides that LEO positions must be sufficiently rigorous such that “employment opportunities should be limited to young and physically vigorous individuals.” In general, neither LEO definitions under CSRS or FERS have been interpreted by OPM to cover federal police officers. Implementing OPM regulations for CSRS and FERS provide that the respective LEO regulatory definitions, in general, do not include an employee whose primary duties involve maintaining order, protecting life and property, guarding against or inspecting for violations of law, or investigating persons other than those who are suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, which are akin to the responsibilities of federal police officers. Federal police officers might also be treated, for retirement purposes, as “law enforcement officers” (that is, granted LEO-like status) under two additional scenarios. First, over the years, certain other federal police forces whose duties have not been determined by their employing agency to meet the LEO definitional criteria under the administrative process have been explicitly added to the CSRS or FERS statutory definitions so that they are considered LEOs for retirement purposes. Second, certain other federal police forces whose duties have not been determined by their employing agency to be within the scope of the definitional criteria of a LEO or explicitly added by amending statutory LEO definitions, have been provided retirement benefits similar to that of LEOs directly through legislation. Generally, federal LEOs (and officers with LEO-like status) have a higher benefit accrual rate than most other federal employees, albeit over a shorter period of time due to the mandatory retirement age for LEOs. Officers in these categories also contribute 0.5 percent more for these benefits than most other federal employees contribute—7.5 percent of pay for CSRS and 1.3 percent of pay for FERS. As shown in table 1, under both CSRS and FERS, statutory provisions provide for a faster accruing defined benefit pension for LEO and LEO-like personnel than that provided for most other federal employees. Also under FERS, federal police officers receiving LEO-like defined benefits are typically eligible for the same early and enhanced pension benefits as LEOs. For example, LEOs receive FERS cost-of-living adjustments beginning at retirement, even if retirement is earlier than age 62, instead of at age 62 when most other FERS retirees become eligible for these adjustments. Under FERS, LEOs also qualify for an unreduced early retirement benefit and may retire at age 50 with a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service, or at any age with at least 25 years of qualifying service, which are also more generous than the corresponding provisions for most other FERS participants. LEOs are also subject to mandatory retirement at age 57 with 20 years of service. They are also eligible to receive the special FERS supplement upon retirement that mimics the Social Security retirement benefits earned during federal government service. FERS retirees continue to receive the supplement until they reach age 62 and become eligible to collect Social Security. Police forces statutorily granted LEO-like status also typically receive these same benefits. The standard Social Security benefits apply to all federal LEOs. In addition to varying retirement benefits, federal police forces may also operate under different compensation systems. Some federal police forces are covered by OPM’s General Schedule (GS) basic pay plan (i.e., standard basic pay plan). According to OPM, standard governmentwide basic pay systems, including the GS system, are established under title 5 of the United States Code and most LEOs and other employees with arrest authority are covered by standard basic pay systems. Under a standard basic pay plan, OPM generally sets the basic pay ranges (grades) and pay increases (steps) within each grade for the positions, and federal police forces use these grades and steps to compensate their employees. On the other hand, some federal police forces are covered under non-standard basic pay plans authorized under separate legislation. Generally, under non-standard basic pay plans, federal police forces are authorized to, among other things, provide basic pay rates different from those specified in a standard basic pay plan and thus have the ability to offer higher minimum entry-level salaries than those provided to police officers under a standard pay system. USCP has enhanced retirement benefits and a higher minimum entry- level salary than most other federal police forces GAO reviewed. Also, it reported having a wider variety of protective duties such as routinely protecting members of Congress and buildings, and routinely using a variety of methods to carry out these duties, such as conducting entrance and exit screening and patrolling in vehicles, than most other police forces. However, USCP reported that its officers routinely engage in similar activities, such as intelligence operations, and have similar employment requirements for entry-level officers, such as being in good physical condition, as most other federal police forces. USCP and three other police forces—Park Police, Secret Service Uniformed Division, and Supreme Court Police—have enhanced retirement benefits, similar to those received by federal LEOs, where officers can retire after fewer years of service and their retirement annuities accrue faster than the other six federal police forces GAO reviewed. Specifically, police officers within these four police forces are authorized under CSRS and FERS to retire at age 50 with a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service and are subject to a mandatory retirement age of 57, with some exceptions. In 1988, the Park Police and the Secret Service Uniformed Division, both of which had not been determined by OPM and their employing agencies to be covered by the LEO definition, were explicitly added by statute to the FERS definition of a LEO so that they are considered LEOs for retirement purposes. Committee report language accompanying the 1988 legislation noted that “although these individuals are commonly thought to be law enforcement officers, OPM says they do not meet the FERS definition of ‘law enforcement officer’ under section 8401(17) and thus do not qualify for FERS law enforcement officer benefits.” The Committee report then provided that the 1988 legislation would ensure that these individuals will receive FERS law enforcement officer benefits. In comparison, rather than amending the statutory LEO definition, separate legislation in 1990 and 2000 provided the USCP and the Supreme Court Police, respectively, with enhanced retirement benefits similar to those received by LEOs. language accompanying the 2000 Supreme Court legislation, for example, explained that the new provision served to “bring the Supreme Court Police into parity with the retirement benefits provided to the United States Capitol Police and other federal law enforcement agencies.” Federal police officers at the remaining six police forces in our review receive standard federal employee retirement benefits. Pub. L. No. 101-428, 104 Stat. 928 (1990); Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762 (2000). those reported by the other federal police forces. With respect to USCP, for example, under its non-standard basic pay authority, the Capitol Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police set basic pay rates (both grades and steps) for USCP officers. Three other police forces (BEP Police, Pentagon Police, and Postal Security Force) with standard federal employee retirement benefits also operate non-standard basic pay plans, by statute, while the remaining three police forces—FBI Police, FEMA Police, and NIH Police—operate under the standard basic pay plans to compensate their officers. USCP and the three police forces with enhanced retirement benefits offered among the highest minimum entry-level salaries, ranging from $52,020 to $55,653, as shown in table 2. At $55,653, USCP and the Supreme Court Police offered the highest minimum entry-level salaries to their police officers. NIH Police and Postal Security Force offered the lowest minimum entry-level salaries among the 10 police forces, at $38,678 and $38,609, respectively. USCP reported routinely having a wider variety of duties than other federal police forces. These duties ranged from routinely protecting members of Congress to buildings. For example, USCP officials stated that their main focus is protecting life and property, and thus, in addition to routinely protecting members of Congress, they also protect members’ families throughout the entire United States, as authorized, as well as congressional buildings, parks, and thoroughfares. Conversely, the Postal Security Force reported having fewer duties, and the protective duties that it does have, including routinely protecting employees and buildings, are ones that all or most of the police forces, including the USCP, also have. Postal Security Force officials stated that their officers’ primary duty is routinely protecting the United States Postal Service buildings and mail processing facilities. Figure 1 identifies the reported routine protective duties of USCP and the nine federal police forces we reviewed. In addition to the routine protective duties listed above, some of these federal police forces, including the USCP, have shared jurisdiction with other non-federal police forces. For example, Park Police officials said that they have a shared understanding with the states of Maryland and Virginia to investigate homicides in federal parks within these states. Officials from USCP stated that they have statutory authority for extended jurisdiction which is shared with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPD). Additionally, BEP Police, FBI Police, and Pentagon Police officials stated that they have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or cooperative agreement with MPD to patrol areas beyond their primary jurisdiction. For example, as shown in figure 2, as a result of the statutory authority for extended jurisdiction, USCP’s jurisdiction extends several blocks beyond the grounds of the U.S. Capitol complex. Section 1202 of Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. (2011) provided, in general, that to the extent to which the Director of the National Park Service has jurisdiction and control over such specified area, such jurisdiction and control is transferred to the Architect of the Capitol. In turn, under 2 U.S.C. § 1961, Capitol Police jurisdiction over United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds includes, among other things, property acquired in the District of Columbia by the Architect of the Capitol. Police, Park Police, and Supreme Court Police also reported routinely using other methods to carry out their duties, such as counter- surveillance horse patrol, and standing post. All 10 of the police forces we reviewed reported routinely patrolling in vehicles and conducting entrance or exit screenings, and all except the NIH Police reported patrolling on foot. The NIH Police officials explained that their mission is protecting the NIH facility of about 347 acres, including biological-safety laboratories and responding to emergency calls, and thus, officers generally do not stand post but are out at the facility patrolling in vehicles. USCP also reported that it routinely engages in a variety of activities similar to those reported by some of the nine federal police forces in carrying out its protective duties. For example, USCP and seven of the other nine police forces reported routinely conducting specialized activities such as Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), K-9, or Containment and Emergency Response Team (CERT) activities. Also, USCP and eight of the other nine forces reported routinely conducting traffic control and responding to suspicious activities, in particular, suspicious packages and people. USCP officials indicated that suspicious packages within the Capitol complex have typically been items such as unattended backpacks that have not contained hazardous devices such as bombs. Also, the Pentagon police, in noting that the Pentagon is still a likely target since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, cited incidents such as a March 2010 attack when a gunman tried to shoot his way through the entrance of the building. In addition, USCP and the Pentagon Police reported routinely responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) or hazardous material (HAZMAT) threats. Figure 4 summarizes the routine activities reported by each police force. USCP and most of the federal police forces in our review generally have similar employment requirements for their entry-level police officers, including eligibility requirements and requirements for the hiring process. All of the police forces require applicants to be a U.S. citizen, in good physical condition, have a valid driver’s license, and have no criminal history in order to be eligible for employment. Also, most federal police forces require some college experience or prior related experience, with the exception of USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division, which require their officers to have a high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) certificate. However, officials at USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division stated that they also receive applicants with college or law enforcement experience. In addition, Postal Security Force officials stated that their officers are not required to have a high school diploma or GED certificate; however, they are required to have been employed by the Postal Service for at least 1 year, and the position that they held does not have to be law enforcement related. Most of the police forces that offer enhanced retirement benefits also differ from the other police forces in that they have a maximum age for applicants and require applicants to have good character and leadership skills. Figure 5 provides the eligibility requirements for each federal police force in our review. Federal police forces generally have similar requirements for their hiring processes. For example, as shown in figure 6, each police force requires applicants to have an interview, medical examination, background investigation, and training either pre or post hiring, primarily at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Furthermore, most of the federal police forces, including USCP, require applicants to complete a drug test and a written examination. USCP differs from the majority of police forces, however, in that it does not require its officers to obtain a security clearance, but it does require a psychological evaluation, polygraph test, and a complete background investigation. In addition to enhanced retirement benefits and a higher minimum entry- level salary, USCP has experienced lower attrition than six of the other nine federal police forces, and USCP reported that attrition was not a problem from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Also, USCP and some of the other nine federal police forces reported that officers who voluntarily separate for reasons other than retirement do so for personal reasons or career advancement; few forces cited the desire for greater retirement benefits or better salary as a reason why officers leave. While USCP and seven of the other nine police forces said that human capital flexibilities were important tools for recruiting and retaining police officers, their use generally depends on need or budget, among other factors. From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, USCP’s average attrition rate was 6.5 percent compared to the other nine federal police forces, which ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent. Three of the other nine police forces—BEP Police, NIH Police and Park Police—had lower attrition rates than USCP, while the remaining six forces had higher attrition rates during the same period, as shown in figure 7. USCP as well as four other police forces reported that attrition was not a problem, and the most common explanation officials offered was the current economy. For example, USCP and BEP Police officials stated that with fewer jobs available in the economy, officers were remaining employed by their police forces. Specifically, from fiscal years 2005 through 2008, when the national unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, the average attrition rate among the police forces in our review was about 9.2 percent. However, during fiscal years 2009 and 2010, when the national unemployment rate was 9.1 percent—almost twice as high as the preceding 4 years—the combined average attrition rate for the police forces was lower, about 7.5 percent. The FBI Police was the only force with a higher attrition rate (17.9 percent) from fiscal years 2009 through 2010. Two of the 10 police forces that reported that attrition was a great problem—Secret Service Uniformed Division and the FBI Police—also had the highest attrition rates. The Secret Service Uniformed Division cited the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and challenging demands of the job as reasons why attrition was a problem. The FBI Police said better pay, positions, and benefits at other forces were reasons why attrition was a problem. Figure 8 illustrates federal police forces’ responses to our survey question on the extent to which attrition was a problem. Furthermore, USCP had no problem filling the vacant positions left by officers leaving the force as they are able to attract qualified applicants. USCP and three of the other nine police forces—Park Police, FEMA Police and FBI Police—reported that they had no difficulty attracting qualified applicants. Our analysis of USCP data indicates that from fiscal year 2006 through 2010, USCP attracted, on average, 27 qualified applicants for each available vacancy and maintained a vacancy rate of 2.6 percent. During that time, the other nine federal police forces had an average vacancy rate of 7.9 percent, ranging from 1.9 percent at BEP Police up to 24.4 percent at FEMA Police. Only two of the other nine forces—BEP Police and Supreme Court Police—had a lower vacancy rate with 1.9 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. USCP officials cited the slow economy and a competitive salary as reasons why they believe that they have no problem attracting qualified applicants. On the other hand, FBI Police, which has the highest attrition rate among the 10 police forces, stated that it is able to attract a large pool of applicants due to the reputation of the agency. FBI officials said that applicants view the police officer position as an entry-level position with hopes of advancing within the agency. In the case of FEMA Police, officials reported that they had no difficulty attracting qualified applicants; however, they had the highest vacancy rate among the 10 police forces. Officials explained that from 2004 through 2010 FEMA Police was building its force and during that time management would periodically place a hold on hiring due to budget constraints. Federal police forces said that their police officers generally leave their forces either because of personal reasons or for better career advancement opportunities, and officers generally stay because of appreciation for the agency’s mission.other police forces indicated that most of their police officers leave for personal reasons, such as the desire to work closer to home. At the same time, five other police forces—Supreme Court Police, FBI Police, FEMA Police, Pentagon Police, and Postal Security Force—cited career advancement as the reason for officer attrition. Specifically, career advancement, as stated by the agencies, was either the acceptance of a higher level position at another agency or a transfer to an agency that has greater potential for future promotion. For example, our analysis shows that the majority of FBI’s voluntarily-separated officers transferred to different positions within the agency, such as an agent or intelligence analyst position. FBI Police officials said that applicants often view the police officer position as a stepping stone to advance to these positions. For example, USCP and three Furthermore, USCP and three other police forces reported that quality-of- life was one of the main reasons police officers stay with their forces, citing such underlying factors as the work environment and work-life balance. USCP said that pay and job security were two other main reasons that police officers remain employed by the force. Also, 6 of the 10 forces stated that agency mission was a key reason that officers stay with their agencies. Figure 9 summarizes the primary reasons that federal police force officials offered for why their officers leave or stay. While the USCP Labor Committee asserted that inadequate retirement benefits have contributed to attrition among USCP officers, USCP did not report retirement benefits as a reason why its officers left, as shown in figure 9. On the other hand, there were other police forces that identified inadequate retirement benefits as a reason for officer attrition—BEP Police, FBI Police, and Pentagon Police—which were among the police forces that offer standard, as opposed to enhanced, retirement benefits. However, our analysis suggests that the fact that a police force offers enhanced retirement benefits does not necessarily mean that it will have lower attrition compared to others police forces, and vice versa. For example, the Secret Service Uniformed Division offers enhanced retirement benefits, yet it had the second highest attrition rate among the federal police forces, whereas NIH Police offers standard retirement benefits and has one of the lowest attrition rates. Further, none of the police forces that offered enhanced retirement benefits cited those benefits as a reason why officers stayed at their police force. Although the difference in retirement benefits may not fully indicate why officers leave a police force, it may influence the timing of when officers leave. For all of the police forces with enhanced retirement benefits, a greater percentage of the officers who left—73 percent—did so within the first 5 years of service or after 20 years of service, compared to those forces with standard retirement benefits, where 54 percent of separating officers left either within the first 5 years of service or after 20 years of service. The Director of USCP Human Resources stated that if an officer stays with USCP beyond 5 years, that officer is likely to stay at least until the individual reaches early retirement, generally after 20 or 25 years of service. Figure 10 compares the timing of separation of police officers at police forces with enhanced retirement benefits to those with standard retirement benefits from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. As with greater retirement benefits, desire for a better salary was not cited by a majority of police forces as a reason why officers leave from or stay with their forces. As shown in figure 9, only 2 of the 10 forces—FBI Police and Postal Security Force—said that officers leave for better salaries, and 3 of the 10 forces—USCP, Park Police, and Pentagon Police—said that officers stay for better salaries. Also, federal police forces with higher minimum entry-level salaries did not always have lower attrition. For example, USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division were among the highest paid federal police forces. USCP had among the lowest attrition, and Secret Service Uniformed Division had among the highest. Further, NIH Police, which offered one of the lowest minimum entry-level salaries, maintained the second lowest attrition from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, as displayed in table 3. Most of the police forces in our review stated that the use of human capital flexibilities was of at least some importance for recruiting and retaining officers. Five of the 10 federal police forces in our study, including USCP, reported that human capital flexibilities were important or very important to recruiting and retaining police officers, while two police forces—Postal Security Force and FEMA Police—stated that they were not important. The other forces—FBI Police, Park Police, and Supreme Court Police—reported that human capital flexibilities are somewhat or moderately important. Further, NIH Police was the sole police force that reported a human capital flexibility as one of the primary reasons that officers remained employed by their police force. Figure 11 identifies the federal police forces’ views on the importance of human capital flexibilities. USCP and the other police forces offered a variety of human capital flexibilities related to work-life balance, relocation and position classification, and recruitment and retention, among others. For example, all of the police forces, except the USCP, reported offering cash performance bonuses to their officers. USCP officials noted that they did not offer this particular flexibility because it was not necessary to recruit and retain officers. Conversely, in some cases, flexibilities that were available to police forces to use were not offered to police officers. For example, three police forces—USCP, Park Police and FEMA Police— reported that they did not use all of the recruitment and retention flexibilities available to them because they were not needed since they have a sufficient number of applicants. USCP and Park Police officials further stated that they did not offer these flexibilities due to budget constraints. Other human capital flexibilities were not offered because they were not available to police forces. Police forces generally reported not having some flexibilities available to their agencies because they had not requested that such flexibilities be made available, explaining that they did not need them as they were able to attract qualified applicants without offering more flexibilities. For example, the transportation subsidy was not available to Postal Security Force because, according to Postal Security Force officials, they did not need this flexibility to be made available to their force as they did not have difficulty in attracting applicants. Figure 12 provides information on federal police forces’ human capital flexibilities. Even though human capital flexibilities are intended to be a tool to recruit and retain employees, and most of the police forces considered them at least somewhat important, the police forces that offered a wider variety of human capital flexibilities did not always have lower attrition rates. For example, NIH Police and Secret Service Uniformed Division were the two forces that offered the widest variety of flexibilities. Yet, NIH Police had the second lowest attrition rate, and Secret Service Uniformed Division had the second highest attrition rate. While retirement benefits, pay, and use of human capital flexibilities could affect attrition, the extent to which they do so can vary for a given agency, and other factors—such as family issues and promotion opportunities, as previously discussed—could influence an employee’s decision to leave or remain with his or her employer. Therefore, when an agency is determining its strategy for recruiting and retaining qualified employees, assessing the extent to which attrition is a problem, and developing strategies that address the problem, will be important. The benefits of USCP officers retiring at the age of 57 under existing FERS provisions, if fully utilized by USCP officers, would meet retirement income targets generally recommended by some retirement experts. However, the level of benefits depends significantly on the level of employee TSP contributions. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee presented six proposals that would enhance the current USCP benefit structure. Five of the six would increase existing costs; our review found that the other proposal, which urges the USCP Board to exercise its current authority by allowing officers to voluntarily remain on the job until age 60 rather than retire at 57, as mandated, would have a minimal impact on costs to the federal government and could improve officers’ retirement benefits. In June 2011 we reported that there was little consensus among experts about how much income constitutes adequate retirement income. The replacement rate is one measure some economists and financial advisors use as a guide for retirement planning; it is the percentage of pre- retirement income that is received annually in retirement. Our review showed that some economists and financial advisors considered retirement income adequate if the ratio of retirement income to preretirement income—the replacement rate—is from 65 to 85 percent. To illustrate the effect of current FERS provisions on retirement income, we analyzed retirement benefits for illustrative USCP workers hired at ages 22, 27, and 37, retiring at age 57, and making three different levels Overall, we found the of TSP contributions, as described in appendix I.total replacement rates for retirement at age 57 ranged from a low of about 54 percent for a worker hired at age 37 making no TSP contributions to 91 percent for a worker hired at age 22 making 10 percent TSP contributions, as shown in figure 13. A worker hired at age 27, which is the average age at which individuals are hired by USCP, retiring at age 57, and contributing 5 percent to TSP (and thereby getting the maximum employer match) would have a replacement rate of 75 percent, which would be in the middle of recommended replacement rate targets. Among our illustrative examples, only workers hired at age 37 or those who made no contributions to their TSP accounts would have replacement rates below 75 percent. Workers hired at age 37 may also have retirement income through prior employment. These are examples of individual workers, not households, since we had no basis for simulating the income and retirement benefits of spouses. Any benefits spouses received would add to household retirement income. These examples also assume there is no leakage from the TSP accounts in the form of TSP loans that are not repaid or lump-sum distributions that are not used as retirement income. Our analysis also shows that employee TSP contribution levels over the course of a career can make a significant difference to total retirement income. For workers hired at age 27, for example, increasing the contribution rate from 0 to 5 percent over the entire career would increase replacement rates at age 57 by 11 percentage points, bringing them from just below the recommended target range to the middle of it. In general, the longer a worker’s career, the more years they make contributions and earn investment returns, and the greater a difference the contribution rate makes. According to USCP data, in 2010, 12 percent of officers made no contributions to TSP, and another 10 percent contributed less than 5 percent of pay, thereby forgoing some portion of the full employer matching contribution, as shown in figure 14. However, the data suggest that workers typically do increase their contributions over time, and 54 percent of officers contribute more than 5 percent of pay. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee provided selected members of Congress with six proposed changes to further enhance the current USCP benefit structure. None of the proposals included cost estimates, nor have CBO or OPM estimated the costs of any of the proposed changes. Based on our review, we found that five of the six proposals, if adopted, would increase costs and increase current pay and benefit disparities between USCP and other federal LEO and non-LEO groups. One proposal, which suggests that the USCP Board further exercise its current discretionary authority to allow officers to voluntarily remain on the job until age 60, would have a minimal effect on costs. Table 4 discusses each proposal and its potential effect on costs to the federal government and officers’ benefits. The sixth and final proposal suggests that the USCP Board exercise its authority to allow officers to remain employed until age 60. The Board currently has the discretionary authority to exempt officers with 20 years of service from the mandatory retirement age of 57 if an officer’s continued service is deemed to be in the public interest. According to USCP, the Board has approved 17 such exemptions since Sept. 30, 2006: 16 in 2008 and 1 in 2010. It is unclear how many current officers would be affected by this proposal. According to USCP data, the average age at which officers retired from 2005 through 2010 retired was 54—3 years before the mandatory retirement age of 57. The actual costs associated with this proposal would be contingent on the number of officers who chose to work longer. However, if the USCP Board deemed it to be in the public interest to allow more officers to voluntarily work past age 57, projections show a slight reduction in pension costs and a slight increase in payroll costs, largely offsetting each other and resulting in a minimal overall long-term cost impact. However, according to OPM, the savings actually realized by USCP directly due to reduced pension costs would be further minimized because the costs and savings would be distributed across the entire LEO population, under the cost allocation methodology used for FERS. In terms of USCP payroll costs, the later retirements would result in a less than 1 percent increase in total payroll throughout the projection period. This increase in payroll costs would largely offset the savings in pension costs, so that the overall net long-term cost effect to USCP of this proposal could be a very small or minimal increase, depending on the amount of pension costs allocated to USCP directly when distributed across the LEO population. In addition, the costs associated with paying agency matching contributions to officers’ TSP accounts would also be minimal since the total increase could not exceed 5 percent of the less than 1 percent increase in payroll costs. According to our analysis, retiring at age 60 instead of 57 could significantly increase retirement incomes—more through TSP contributions than through the FERS annuity. The effect of later retirement on the FERS basic annuity is fairly predictable; under the FERS LEO provisions, the benefit formula provides 1 percent of final average pay for each year of additional service after 20 years. The effect on Social Security benefits would be relatively small, but could vary somewhat depending on whether USCP officers continued to work in Social Security covered employment after retiring from USCP. Retiring later has the greatest effect on the TSP component of retirement income for those who contribute to TSP. USCP officers would increase the number of years they make TSP contributions, receive the agency match and earn investment returns and reduce the number of years that they would draw down their TSP accounts in retirement. Still the size of that effect depends on the level of lifetime TSP contributions. As shown in figure 15, taking all three FERS components into account, retiring at age 60 instead of 57 would increase total replacement rates by as little at 4 percentage points for workers making no TSP contributions and by as much as 10 percentage points for workers contributing 10 percent of pay to TSP. Moreover, taking all three FERS components into account, employee TSP contribution levels over the course of a career can make more of a difference to retirement income than 3 additional years of service. In the case of workers hired at age 22 and contributing a constant 5 percent of wages to TSP, retiring at age 60 instead of 57 increases total replacement rates by 8 percentage points from 83 percent to 91 percent. In contrast, increasing the employee contribution rate from 0 to 5 percent over the entire career would increase replacement rates by 14 percentage points if retiring at age 57. We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to USCP and the nine other federal police forces included in this review; the USCP Labor Committee; and OPM. USCP and four other federal police forces— Secret Service Uniformed Division, Pentagon Police, FBI Police, and Postal Security Force—did not provide written comments to be included in this report, but provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In emails received January 3 and 4, 2012, HHS and DOI liaisons, respectively, stated that their departments, including NIH Police and Park Police, had no comments on the report. In an email received January 9, 2012, the DHS liaison confirmed that the FEMA Police had no comments on the report. In emails received January 10, 2012, the BEP Police and Supreme Court Police liaisons stated their agencies had no comments on the report. We received comment letters from DHS, OPM, and the USCP Labor Committee, which are reproduced in appendices II, III, and IV, respectively. In commenting on this report, DHS stated that it was pleased with GAO’s recognition of its efforts to develop, implement, and deploy human capital flexibilities. DHS also noted that the report does not contain any recommendations for DHS. In its letter, OPM made several comments regarding one of the proposals that we analyzed in the report—the proposed increase in the mandatory retirement age. OPM stated that the cost savings actually realized by USCP from raising the mandatory retirement age for USCP personnel would be small because the estimated reductions in annual pension costs would be spread across all LEO-employing agencies under the cost allocation methodology used for FERS. We revised our report to clarify this point. OPM also states that increasing the mandatory retirement age is unnecessary since LEO retirement benefits provide a higher annuity rate in order to make early retirement at age 57 economically feasible and inconsistent with other retirement provisions that provide enhanced accrual rates for USCP in comparison to other, non-LEO federal employees. We are not taking a position on whether or not to raise the mandatory retirement age for USCP personnel in this report. Rather, the report provides information on some of the possible effects of doing so, namely that it could increase retirement security at a minimal cost. This report also shows that, generally, the effect of greater employee participation in TSP can provide a larger boost in post-retirement income than the effect of working 3 additional years on the defined benefit portion of retirement income. Finally, we recognize there are many other factors to take under consideration when making such policy decisions, including workforce planning needs; retirement trends across other agencies, industries and occupations; and broader workforce trends in employee health and longevity. OPM also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In its letter, the USCP Labor Committee stated that, even though our report indicates that child care is available to USCP officers, to its knowledge, USCP does not have a child care program. It is the case that USCP, itself, does not offer a child care program; however, according to USCP officials, USCP police officers have access to child care through the House and Senate Child Care Centers. We revised our report to clarify this point. The letter also provided commentary on several of their proposals that extended beyond the scope of our review. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees. We are also sending copies to USCP; the nine other federal police forces included in this review; the USCP Labor Committee; and OPM. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Eileen Larence at 202-512-8777 or by e-mail at LarenceE@gao.gov or Charles Jeszeck at 202-512-7215 or by e-mail at JeszeckC@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. To understand how the United States Capitol Police (USCP) compares to other federal police forces with regard to retirement benefits, compensation, duties, employment requirements, attrition, human capital flexibilities, and costs associated with the proposed benefit enhancements, we addressed the following questions: (1) How does the USCP compare to other federal police forces in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area with respect to retirement benefits, minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements? (2) How does attrition at USCP compare to other federal police forces, and how if at all, have USCP and other federal police forces used human capital tools to recruit and retain qualified officers? (3) What level of retirement income do current USCP benefits provide and what costs are associated with the proposed benefit enhancements? For the first and second objectives, we identified other federal police forces that were potentially comparable to USCP based on (1) prior work on federal uniformed police forces, (2) inclusion in the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) occupational series for police officers (0083), and (3) the number of officers located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who receive Washington, D.C. locality pay.information, we selected nine federal police forces whose officers are part of, or functionally equivalent to, the 0083 occupational series and who have at least 50 officers who are located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or receive Washington, D.C. locality pay, as listed in Based on this table 5.to OPM’s 0083 occupational series—or police series—for which an individual’s primary duties involve the performance or supervision of law enforcement work in the preservation of the peace; the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes; the arrest or apprehension of violators; and the provision of assistance to citizens in emergency situations, including the protection of civil rights. Also, the primary duty station for the approximately 1,800 USCP officers is Washington, D.C. We excluded military police forces because our review is focused on civilian federal police forces which have a civilian retirement benefit system as opposed to a military retirement benefit system. We also excluded police forces for intelligence agencies because, unlike other executive branch police forces, they do not report their human capital data to Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). In addition to the contacts named above, Kristy Brown, Assistant Director, Kim Granger, Assistant Director, Jonathan McMurray, Analyst-in-Charge, and Su Jin Yon, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. James Bennett, R.E. Canjar, Geoffrey Hamilton, Lara Miklozek, Christopher Ross, Rebecca Shea, Ken Stockbridge, Roger Thomas, and Frank Todisco made significant contributions to this report. Nicole Harkin, Jeff Jensen, Susanna Kuebler, Sara Margraf, Amanda Miller, and Gregory Wilmoth also provided valuable assistance.

Summary: The Washington, D.C. metropolitan (DC metro) area is home to many federal police forces, including the United States Capitol Police (USCP), which maintain the safety of federal property, employees, and the public. Officials are concerned that disparities in pay and retirement benefits have caused federal police forces to experience difficulties in recruiting and retaining officers. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee proposed six changes to enhance the USCP benefit structure. GAO was asked to review USCPs pay and retirement benefits and compare them to other federal police forces in the DC metro area. GAO (1) compared USCP to other forces with respect to retirement benefits, minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements; (2) compared attrition at USCP to other forces, and determined how, if at all, USCP and other forces used human capital flexibilities (e.g., retention bonus); and (3) determined what level of retirement income USCP benefits provide and the costs associated with the proposed benefit enhancements. GAO chose nine other federal police forces to review based on prior work, inclusion in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) police occupational series, and officer presence in the DC metro area. GAO analyzed laws, regulations, OPM data from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, and human capital data from the 10 police forces. GAO also surveyed the 10 forces. USCP and the Office of Personnel Management generally agreed with our findings and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. USCP generally has enhanced retirement benefits, a higher minimum starting salary, and a wider variety of protective duties than other federal police forces in the DC metro area that GAO reviewed, but has similar employment requirements. Even though USCP, Park Police, Supreme Court Police, and Secret Service Uniformed Division are federal police forces, they provide enhanced retirement benefits similar to those offered by federal law enforcement agencies that have additional investigative duties. These enhanced benefits allow their officers to retire early and accrue retirement pensions faster than other federal police forces. USCP and these three forces also offered among the highest minimum entry-level salariesranging from $52,020 to $55,653than the other six forces GAO reviewed, which had minimum entry-level salaries ranging from $38,609 to $52,018. USCP reported routinely having a wider variety of duties than most other forces. These duties ranged from routinely protecting members of Congress to protecting buildings. USCP and most of the forces generally have similar employment requirements, such as being in good physical condition. USCPs attrition rate is generally lower than the majority of the federal police forces in our review; and USCP and seven of the other nine police forces considered human capital flexibilities to be at least of some importance to recruiting and retaining qualified officers, but use of these flexibilities generally depends on recruiting needs, among other factors. From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, USCP had the fourth lowest attrition rate (6.5 percent) among the 10 police forces GAO reviewed; the attrition rates for the nine other forces ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent. Officials from USCP and four other forces GAO reviewed stated that, currently, attrition is not a problem because of the challenging economy. For example, officials from USCP and Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police stated that their officers want to retain their jobs in the challenging economy. In addition, USCP and other forces said that when their officers do leave the force, they generally do so either because of personal reasons or for better career advancement opportunities, and officers generally stay for reasons such as good working environment or appreciation for the agencys mission. The extent to which retirement benefits, pay, and use of human capital flexibilities affect attrition can vary among forces given other factorssuch as family issuesthat could influence an employees decision to leave or remain with his or her employer. If fully utilized, benefits for USCP officers who retire at the age of 57 under existing provisions generally would be within the range of retirement income targets suggested by some retirement experts. However, the level of benefits depends significantly on the level of employee retirement contributions. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee presented six proposals that would enhance the current USCP benefit structure. GAOs analysis shows that five of the six would increase existing costs, GAOs review found the other proposal, which urges the USCP Board to exercise its current authority to allow officers to voluntarily remain employed until age 60 rather than retire at age 57, as mandated, would have only a minimal impact on USCP costs and could increase officers retirement income.