As the primary federal agency responsible for providing security services to about 9,500 federal facilities (a majority of which are GSA-held or leased), FPS, among other things, enforces federal laws and regulations aimed at protecting federal properties and the persons on such property and investigates offenses against these buildings and persons. In conducting its mission, the agency provides two types of activities: (1) physical security and (2) law enforcement activities. As part of its physical security activities, the FPS workforce conducts facility security assessments, which consist of identifying and assessing threats to and vulnerabilities of a facility, as well as identifying countermeasures (e.g., security equipment) best suited to secure the facility. The agency’s law enforcement activities include proactively patrolling facilities, responding to incidents, and conducting criminal investigations, among other things. (See app. II for a list of activities FPS performs). To carry out these activities in fiscal year 2015, FPS maintained a workforce of 1,371 full-time equivalents (FTEs) at its headquarters and in its 11 geographic regions (see fig. 1 below). FPS’s Plan and staffing model focus on this federal workforce. This workforce consists of 1,007 law enforcement staff (inspectors, criminal investigators, and special agents) performing physical security and law enforcement activities and 364 non-law enforcement staff providing mission support. FPS also manages and oversees approximately 13,500 PSOs (i.e., contract guards) posted at federal facilities. These PSOs have responsibility for controlling access to facilities; conducting screening at access points to prevent the entry of prohibited items, such as weapons and explosives; responding to emergency situations involving facility safety and security; and performing other duties. FPS funds its operations by collecting security fees from federal agencies that use FPS for facility protection. FPS collects a basic security fee of $0.74 per square foot and an oversight fee to fund FPS for direct and indirect costs associated with providing building- or agency-specific security. The oversight fee is an additional 6 percent of the costs for providing security services to a building or agency. FPS anticipates collecting about $336.5 million in operating revenues from security fees charged to federal agencies in fiscal year 2016. Over the years, we have reported on FPS’s workforce-planning efforts and challenges. For instance, in July 2009, we found that FPS faced challenges with hiring and training new staff and did not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its workforce-planning efforts. We recommended that FPS take a strategic approach to managing its staffing resources, including developing a human capital plan to better manage its workforce needs. In October 2012, FPS implemented our recommendation and issued an Interim Strategic Human Capital Plan. In June 2010, we also identified several potential challenges that FPS may face with obtaining the staffing needed to adequately protect federal facilities, including funding challenges, difficulties in hiring inspectors, and training backlogs. Since 2011, Congress has required FPS to submit a strategic human capital plan that aligns fee collections to workforce requirements based on current threat assessments. To meet this requirement, FPS tasked DHS’s Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (SEDI) to analyze FPS’s current organizational structure, position allocations, and assignments of personnel to help prepare a strategic human capital plan. In April 2012, SEDI developed a staffing model to estimate the size and composition of the workforce FPS needs to meet its facility protection mission. SEDI also helped develop FPS’s Plan, which identifies human capital strategies FPS intends to implement. The Plan states that the strategies will help the agency hire and retain people with the skills needed to carry out its mission. Since 2012, FPS has updated the staffing model and the Plan several times (see fig. 2). FPS last updated the staffing model in August 2013 and the Plan in February 2015. As FPS’s parent organization, NPPD has responsibility for managing and overseeing FPS’s human capital efforts. For example, NPPD has responsibility for recruiting and hiring FPS employees and providing guidance on other human capital services, such as training. In August 2015, NPPD proposed restructuring its organization to improve its management and operations. In December 2015, NPPD finalized a Human Capital Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2016 through 2020, which identified the overarching human capital goals and objectives for all NPPD component agencies, including FPS. In January 2016, NPPD also finalized a complementary operational plan that provides a road map of the actions NPPD plans to take in fiscal year 2016 to meet the goals established in its human capital plan. FPS’s Plan and related human capital planning efforts generally align with four of the five key principles for strategic workforce planning that we identified. Specifically, we found that FPS developed its Plan consistent with the first four principles described in table 1 below. FPS’s efforts to develop the Plan and take the actions described in table 1 show a marked improvement from 2009 when we found that that FPS did not have a human capital plan. However, in this review we found that FPS has not fully developed its human capital performance measures, which is the fifth key principle for strategic workforce planning. In our 2003 report on key principles for strategic workforce planning, we found that federal agencies’ use of all five key principles can contribute to effective strategic workforce planning. FPS officials told us that they intend to further develop performance measures in the future. They also told us that they are in the process of implementing the Plan and continue to review and refine strategies described in the Plan to meet the agency’s needs as they change. What is strategic workforce planning? Strategic workforce planning, also called human capital planning, is a systematic process that focuses on developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining an organization’s workforce to meet its mission. Agencies may outline strategies— the programs, policies, and processes that agencies use to build and sustain their workforces—in a human capital plan or through other human capital planning efforts. FPS sought input from key stakeholders when it developed and implemented the Plan and its human capital strategies. As noted in our 2003 report, involving top management can help set the overall direction of the agency’s workforce planning and soliciting employee input on workforce planning can help an agency better understand human capital needs and identify ways to improve human capital strategies. We found that FPS solicited input from its management and employees, NPPD, and external stakeholders. This input helped inform the Plan’s contents. FPS management and employees: FPS officials provided several examples of how FPS senior executives and employees provided input into the Plan. For example, the officials said that the senior executives set the strategic direction for FPS’s Plan and related efforts. Furthermore, the senior executives meet regularly to discuss broad human capital issues, such as actions the agency can take to ensure that its workforce can address future needs. In addition, FPS officials said that they administered surveys, held working groups, and conducted interviews with their employees to identify specific human capital issues, which helped shape the contents of the Plan. For example, FPS established working groups to help develop employee performance work plans. As discussed below, these performance work plans identify critical core competencies and associated performance standards for each position. These working groups consisted of regional directors, area commanders, and other regional staff. Furthermore, the Plan states that FPS intends to continue to involve employees and obtain their feedback as the agency implements the Plan. NPPD: NPPD is responsible for providing human capital services (e.g., recruiting, hiring) on behalf of FPS. FPS obtained input from NPPD when developing and implementing the Plan and its related efforts. For example, FPS and NPPD officials explained that NPPD officials participated in various working groups to develop strategies identified in the Plan. External stakeholders: While FPS officials told us they did not directly solicit input from any external stakeholder on the Plan, officials said they solicit feedback from these stakeholders on FPS’s services, which they used to inform the contents of the Plan. FPS interacts with a number of external stakeholders. For example, FPS is responsible for protecting all GSA-held or leased facilities, making GSA a key customer and important stakeholder. According to FPS officials, FPS interacts with GSA to ensure a coordinated effort for the protection of federal facilities. According to officials, FPS also works closely with entities such as the U.S. Marshals Service and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to provide coordinated protection at U.S. courthouses and the Social Security Administration to understand the threat environment and additional protection measures that can mitigate incidents. FPS officials told us that they solicit stakeholder feedback through continuous discussions and annual surveys on the services FPS provides. FPS has identified and standardized skills and competencies its staff need to carry out its activities and continues to work on developing this area. According to our 2003 report, determining an agency’s critical skills and competencies is essential to ensure that employees have the necessary skill sets to meet the agency’s needs. FPS has identified needed skills and competencies in the documents described below. FPS continues to finalize some of these documents. Performance work plans: FPS officials told us that in fiscal year 2015, they standardized performance work plans for the majority of its mission critical positions, such as inspectors and area commanders. These plans identify critical core competencies and associated performance standards for each position. For example, the core competencies for an inspector include skills in customer service (e.g., working with the GSA to understand its needs), representing the agency, and teamwork and cooperation, as well as technical proficiency. FPS uses the competencies in these work plans to systematically assess employees’ performance.