Federal employees are routinely surveyed through OPM’s administration of the FEVS, which is administered to collect data on federal employees’ perceptions about how effectively agencies are managing their workforces. The FEVS is a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions that characterize successful organizations are present in their agencies, according to OPM. This survey was administered for the first time in 2002 and then repeated in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, and April through June 2012. The survey provides general indicators of how well the federal government is managing its human resources management systems. It also serves as a tool for OPM to assess individual agencies and their progress on strategic management of human capital, and gives senior managers employee perspectives on agency management. Specifically, the survey includes categories of questions asking employees for their perspectives on their work experience, work unit, agency, supervisor, leadership, and satisfaction. OPM intends for agency managers to use the findings to develop policies and action plans for improving agency performance. In 2011, OPM provided a summary of FEVS findings to DHS. In that report, OPM summarized DHS’s survey results relative to governmentwide averages and provided positive and negative response levels for each survey question. Also included in the report was action planning guidance for using FEVS results to improve human capital management. Pub. L. No. 107-295, § 1304, 116 Stat. 2315, 2289 (2002) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1103(c)). management, which is focused on agencies having quality people with the appropriate competencies in mission-critical activities. The FEVS job satisfaction index is one of the metrics used by OPM to assess whether agencies are effectively managing the talent management system. The FEVS provides one source of information for evaluating success on other HCAAF standards as well by measuring responses to groups of FEVS questions for four indices. The four index measures are: Leadership and Knowledge Management; Results-Oriented Performance Culture; Talent Management; and Job Satisfaction. In addition, in 2011, OPM added an index to measure employee engagement, which OPM defines as the extent to which an employee is immersed in the content of the job and energized to spend extra effort in job performance. DHS’s OCHCO is responsible for implementing policies and programs to recruit, hire, train and retain DHS’s workforce. As the department-wide unit responsible for human capital issues within DHS, OCHCO provides OPM with a DHS-wide action plan every other year, with the next plan due in January 2013. OCHCO also provides guidance and oversight to the DHS components related to morale issues. For example, OCHCO provides a survey analysis and action planning tool that the components must use in response to FEVS results to develop action plans for These plans are to state improving employees’ positive scores.objectives and identify actions to be taken in response to survey results. OCHCO also has provided oversight by reviewing and providing feedback on component action plans. Data from the 2011 FEVS show that DHS employees have lower average levels of job satisfaction and engagement overall and across most demographic groups available for comparison, such as pay grade, when compared with the average for the rest of the federal government. Levels of satisfaction and engagement vary across components, with some components reporting satisfaction or engagement above the average for the rest of the government. Similarly, these measures of morale vary within components as well, with some employee groups reporting higher morale than other groups within the same component. As shown in figure 1, DHS employees generally reported improvements in job satisfaction index levels since 2006 that narrowed the gap between DHS and the governmentwide average. However, employees continue to indicate less satisfaction than the governmentwide average. Partnership analysis of FEVS data also indicates consistent levels of low employee satisfaction relative to other federal agencies. Similar to its 2011 ranking, 31st of 33 federal agencies, the Partnership 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. Our analyses of 2011 FEVS results also indicate 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. As shown in figure 2, comparisons of DHS with non-DHS employees by supervisory status, pay group, and tenure indicate that satisfaction and engagement are lower across many of the For DHS groups where statistically significant differences are evident.example, across pay categories DHS satisfaction and engagement were lower than the scores for the same non-DHS employee pay groups, with the exception of senior executives, senior leaders, employees with less than 1 year of tenure, and General Schedule pay grades 1-6.job satisfaction and engagement scores for DHS management and non- management employees were lower than for the same non-DHS employee groups. DHS and the selected components have taken steps to understand morale problems, such as holding focus groups, implementing an exit survey, and routinely analyzing FEVS results. On the basis of FEVS results, DHS and the selected components planned actions to improve FEVS scores. However, we found that DHS could enhance its survey analysis and monitoring of action plan results. In addition, according to DHS’s Integrated Strategy for addressing the implementing and transforming high risk area, DHS has begun implementing activities to address morale but has not yet improved DHS’s scores on OPM’s job satisfaction index or its ranking on the Partnership’s Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. DHS’s OCHCO has taken several steps to understand morale problems DHS-wide. Specifically, since 2007, OCHCO: Conducted focus groups DHS-wide in 2007 to determine employee concerns related to morale, which identified employee concerns in areas of leadership, communication, empowerment, and resources. Performed statistical analysis in 2008 to identify workplace factors that drove employee job satisfaction, finding that the DHS mission and supervisor support, among other things, drove employee job satisfaction. Initiated an exit survey, first administered DHS-wide in 2011, to understand why employees chose to leave their position. The survey found lack of quality supervision and advancement opportunities were the top reasons for leaving. Analyzed 2011 FEVS results, among other things, showing where lower scores on HCAAF indices were concentrated among several components—Intelligence and Analysis, TSA, ICE, National Protection and Programs Directorate, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Launched an Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee (EEESC) in January 2012 that will identify action items for improving employee engagement by September 2012, according to OCHCO officials. The selected components also evaluated FEVS results to identify morale problems and considered additional information sources. For example: TSA convened a corporate action planning team in March 2011, as part of its response to FEVS results, which relied on data sources such as the TSA-administered exit survey, employee advisory groups, and an online employee suggestion tool, to gain perspectives on systemic challenge areas and to develop plans to address morale, according to TSA officials. TSA’s action plan for improving morale, based on these sources, was completed in July 2012. ICE considered results of a Federal Organizational Climate Survey (FOCS), last completed in March 2012, and held focus groups to gauge the extent to which employees view ICE as having an organizational culture that promotes diversity. CBP launched a quarterly online employee survey in 2009 to solicit opinions on one specific topic per quarter, such as use of career development resources and how the resources contributed to employees’ professional growth at CBP. The Coast Guard relied on an Organizational Assessment Survey (OAS), last administered by OPM in 2010, to understand employee morale. The OAS solicits opinions on a range of topics, including job satisfaction, leadership, training, innovation, and use of resources. It included civilian and military Coast Guard personnel, but is not administered governmentwide so comparisons between the Coast Guard and other federal employees are limited to organizations that may use the OAS, according to Coast Guard officials. Appendix III provides more detailed descriptions of DHS’s steps to address morale problems and selected components’ 2011 FEVS analysis methods and findings. Appendix IV provides additional information on the selected components’ data sources beyond FEVS for evaluating root causes of morale, including a summary of results and how the information was used by the components. For the 2011 FEVS, DHS and the selected components completed varying levels of analyses to determine the root causes of low morale. However, DHS and the selected components conducted limited analysis in several areas that is not consistent with OPM and Partnership guidance that lays out useful factors for evaluating root causes of morale problems through FEVS analysis, as shown in figure 4. Usage of the three factors described in figure 4 varied across DHS-wide and component-level 2011 FEVS analyses we reviewed. In some instances, the factors were partially or not used. For example: Demographic group comparisons. According to our reviews of OCHCO’s analyses, OCHCO’s DHS-wide analyses did not include evaluations of demographic group differences on morale-related issues for the 2011 FEVS. According to OCHCO officials, DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties reviews survey results to identify diversity issues that may be reflected in the survey, and OCHCO officials considered these results when developing one of the current (as of August 2012) DHS action plans to create policies that identify barriers to diversity. In 2007 and 2009, years in which DHS administered the Annual Employee Survey (AES), demographic comparisons were made. For example, on the basis of 2009 AES data, DHS found no significant demographic differences other than supervisors’ positive responses to questions were generally higher than those of non-supervisors and differences among pay grade levels.