This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-749 
entitled 'Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve 
Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants' which was 
released on July 30, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

July 2009: 

Homeland Security: 

Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and 
Better Communicate with Tenants: 

GAO-09-749: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-749, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Federal Protective Service (FPS), as part of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for providing security services 
to about 9,000 federal facilities. In recent years, FPS downsized its 
workforce from 1,400 to about 1,000 full-time employees. In 2008, GAO 
expressed concerns about the impact that downsizing had on FPSs 
mission, and in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 Congress mandated FPS 
maintain no fewer than 1,200 employees. 

GAO was asked to determine the extent to which (1) FPS has hired and 
trained new staff to address its mandated staffing levels, (2) FPS has 
developed a strategic human capital plan to manage its current and 
future workforce needs, and (3) FPSs customers are satisfied with the 
services it provides. To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant 
laws and documents, interviewed officials from FPS and other federal 
agencies, and conducted a generalizable survey of FPSs customers. 

What GAO Found: 

FPS did not meet its fiscal year 2008 mandated deadline of increasing 
its staffing level to no fewer than 1,200 full-time employees by July 
31, 2008. This same mandate relating to FPSs staffing was included in 
DHSs fiscal year 2009 appropriations act. Although FPS currently has 
over 1,200 employees on board, it did not meet this mandate until April 
2009, because of challenges in shifting its priorities from downsizing 
its workforce to increasing it, inexperience working with DHSs hiring 
processes, and delays in the candidate screening process. Also, not all 
of FPSs new law enforcement security officers have completed all 
required training. According to FPS officials, it expects to have all 
new hires fully trained by September 2009. 

FPS does not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its current 
and future workforce planning efforts, including effective processes 
for training, retention, and staff development. Instead, FPS has 
developed a short-term hiring plan that does not include key human 
capital principles, such as determining an agencys optimum staffing 
needs. The lack of a human capital plan has contributed to inconsistent 
approaches in how FPS regions and headquarters are managing human 
capital activities. For example, FPS officials in some of the regions 
GAO visited said they implement their own procedures for managing their 
workforce, including processes for performance feedback, training, and 
mentoring. Additionally, FPS does not collect data on its workforces 
knowledge, skills, and abilities. These elements are necessary for 
successful workforce planning activities, such as identifying and 
filling skill gaps and succession planning. FPS is working on 
developing and implementing a data management system that will provide 
it with these data, but this system has experienced significant delays 
and will not be available for use until 2011 at the earliest. 

On the basis of GAOs generalizable survey of FPS customers, customers 
had mixed views about some of the services they pay FPS to provide. 
Survey results showed that 58 percent were satisfied, 7 percent were 
dissatisfied, 18 percent were neutral, and 17 percent were not able to 
comment on FPSs overall services. The survey also showed that many of 
FPSs customers did not rely on FPS for services. For example, in 
emergency situations, about 82 percent of FPSs customers primarily 
rely on other agencies such as local law enforcement, while 18 percent 
rely on FPS. The survey also suggests that the roles and 
responsibilities of FPS and its customers are unclear, primarily 
because on average about one-third of FPSs customers, i.e., tenant 
agencies, could not comment on how satisfied or dissatisfied they were 
with FPSs level of communication on its services, partly because they 
had little to no interaction with FPS officers. Although FPS plans to 
implement education and outreach initiatives to improve customer 
service, it will face challenges because of its lack of complete and 
accurate contact data. Complete and accurate contact information for 
its customers is critical for information sharing and an essential 
component of any customer service initiative. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that FPS take steps to develop a strategic human capital 
plan to manage its current and future workforce needs, and clarify its 
roles and responsibilities to its customers. FPS concurred with our 
recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749] or key 
components. For more information, contact Mark Goldstein, (202) 512-
6670, goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

FPS Experienced Challenges with Hiring and Training New LESOs: 

FPS Does Not Have A Strategic Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Current 
and Future Workforce Planning Efforts: 

FPS's Customers Have Mixed Views on Its Services: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Survey of Federal Protective Service Customers: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: General Overview of Roles and Responsibilities of FPS's Law 
Enforcement Occupations: 

Table 2: Key Principles for Strategic Human Capital Planning and 
Examples of Implementation of Principles: 

Table 3: Survey Results on Customer Satisfaction with FPS's Level of 
Communication on Various Topics: 

Table 4: FPS Customer Survey Sample and Response Rates: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Timeline of LESO Hiring Process: 

Figure 2: Comparison of FPS, ICE, DHS, and Federal Government Attrition 
Rates: 

Figure 3: Survey Results For Primary Providers of Law Enforcement and 
Physical Security Services at GSA-Controlled Facilities: 

Abbreviations: 

BSA: building security assessment: 

CPDF: Central Personnel Data File: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: 

FPS: Federal Protective Service: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

ICE: Immigrations and Customs Enforcement: 

LESO: law enforcement security officer: 

NPPD: National Protection and Programs Directorate: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

RAMP: Risk Assessment and Management Program: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 30, 2009: 

Congressional Requesters: 

In 2003, the Federal Protective Service (FPS), under the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002, was transferred from the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FPS 
is the primary federal agency that is responsible for providing 
physical security and law enforcement services to about 9,000 
facilities under the control and custody of GSA, and is funded by the 
security fees it collects from the agencies it protects. FPS conducts 
its mission by providing (1) physical security services--conducting 
threat assessments of facilities and recommending risk-based 
countermeasures aimed at preventing incidents at facilities--and (2) 
law enforcement services--proactively patrolling facilities, responding 
to incidents, conducting criminal investigations, and exercising arrest 
authority. FPS is also responsible for management and oversight of the 
approximately 15,000 contract security guards posted at GSA facilities. 
After its transfer to DHS, FPS experienced budget shortfalls and its 
staff decreased by about 20 percent, from a high of about 1,400 full-
time employees at the end of fiscal year 2004, to a low of about 1,100 
at the end of fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 1] To address these budget 
shortfalls, FPS's security fee has increased over 100 percent since its 
transfer to DHS, from 30 cents per square foot in fiscal year 2003, to 
66 cents per square foot in fiscal year 2009. In our June 2008 report, 
we expressed concerns about a number of changes FPS had made since 
transferring to DHS.[Footnote 2] For example, we raised questions about 
the additional demands FPS's downsizing efforts would place on its 
workforce. We also identified several workforce-related challenges that 
FPS has faced since its transfer to DHS, including low morale among 
staff, increased attrition, and the loss of institutional knowledge. We 
reported that some of FPS's customers were concerned about the quality 
and cost of security provided by FPS since it transferred to DHS. In an 
effort to address these challenges, Congress mandated in the Fiscal 
Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act that by July 31, 2008, FPS 
maintain no fewer than 1,200 full-time employees, including 900 in law 
enforcement positions.[Footnote 3] This same mandate relating to FPS 
staffing level was included in DHS's 2009 fiscal year appropriations 
act.[Footnote 4] However, concerns remain about FPS's ability to manage 
its current and future workforce needs and the impact changes to its 
workforce may have on the agency's ability to provide physical security 
and law enforcement services to GSA and its other customers in the 
9,000 facilities it protects. 

In response to your request and in light of recent concerns about the 
quality of service provided by FPS, we address three objectives: 

1. To what extent has FPS hired and trained new staff to address its 
mandated staffing levels? 

2. To what extent has FPS developed a strategic human capital plan to 
manage its current and future workforce needs? 

3. To what extent are FPS's customers satisfied with the services it 
provides? 

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and documents 
and interviewed officials from FPS, GSA, and DHS. Specifically, we 
interviewed FPS headquarters officials to understand the actions FPS 
took to meet the mandate, challenges in meeting the mandate, efforts to 
assess its overall workforce needs, and plans for future human capital 
needs. We reviewed and analyzed available FPS workforce and human 
capital plans and policies and compared FPS's efforts with Key 
Principles of Effective Strategic Workforce Planning identified by 
GAO.[Footnote 5] We conducted site visits to 5 of FPS's 11 regions; 
while the results of these visits are not generalizable, these 5 
regions account for about 50 percent of the 9,000 facilities that FPS 
has responsibility for providing service. During our site visits, we 
met with FPS regional law enforcement and human capital managers as 
well as new and experienced law enforcement security officers to gain 
an understanding of how FPS's recent workforce changes have affected 
FPS's operations, actions each region has taken to address these 
changes, and how regions determine workforce needs. We also discussed 
the regions' role in the agency's human capital planning. 

For information about the level of service FPS provides its customers, 
we conducted a survey of building security committee chairpersons and 
designated officials in buildings under the control and custody of GSA. 
We focused on building security committee chairpersons and designated 
officials, because these officials are responsible for working with FPS 
at the building level to identify security issues and implement minimum 
security standards for their buildings.[Footnote 6] The survey sought 
information pertaining to FPS's law enforcement and physical security 
services and customers' perspectives on the quality of FPS's services. 
We surveyed a sample of 1,398 federal officials across all 11 FPS 
regions and in buildings with assigned security levels I through 
IV.[Footnote 7] We obtained an overall response rate of about 55 
percent and used these sample data to produce estimates about the 
entire population of FPS customers. See appendix I for a more detailed 
discussion of our overall scope and methodology and appendix II for a 
copy of the survey and complete tabulations of the results. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2008 through July 2009 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

FPS did not meet the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act 
requirement that it increase its staff to no fewer than 1,200 full-time 
employees by July 31, 2008. DHS's appropriations act for fiscal year 
2009 contains the same requirement relating to FPS's staffing. 
Additionally, not all of FPS's new law enforcement security officers 
have completed all required training. Although FPS currently has 1,239 
employees on board, including 929 law enforcement officers, it did not 
meet this mandate until April 2009, because of challenges in shifting 
its priorities from downsizing its workforce to increasing it to comply 
with the mandate, inexperience working with DHS's hiring service 
centers, and delays in the candidate screening process. FPS met its 
2009 mandate by hiring 187 new law enforcement security officers (LESO) 
and converting 105 FPS police officers to LESOs for a total of 292 
employees. As of May 2009, 46 percent of the 187 new hires have not 
completed the basic law enforcement training, and therefore are not 
permitted to conduct any law enforcement components of their jobs, 
including carrying firearms and exercising arrest and search 
authorities. Additionally, all 292 new law enforcement security 
officers are required to take physical security training. As of May 
2009, 12 percent had not yet completed this training, which is required 
for them to conduct building security assessments (BSA). Conducting 
building security assessments is the core duty of the LESO position, 
and FPS uses these assessments to determine and recommend 
countermeasures to protect federal facilities. Despite this lack of 
training, in two of the five regions we visited, police officers who 
had been converted to LESOs told us they were conducting building 
security assessments with little or no oversight from senior staff. FPS 
officials told us the primary reason training has been delayed is that 
FPS had submitted and finalized its schedule with its training center 
over 1 year before it was mandated to increase its staff numbers, and 
adding additional classes was a challenge because of the center's 
limited space and instructors. According to FPS, depending on class 
availability, it expects to have all LESOs fully trained by September 
2009. 

FPS does not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its current 
and future workforce planning efforts. While FPS has started some human 
capital planning, its efforts have not culminated in a long-term 
strategic human capital plan. Instead, FPS has developed a short-term 
plan for hiring new law enforcement security officers that is not an 
adequate substitute for a human capital plan because it does not 
include key human capital principles, such as an approach for 
determining agency staffing needs or identifying gaps in critical 
skills needed to accomplish its mission. The lack of a current human 
capital plan has contributed to inconsistent approaches in how FPS 
regions and headquarters are managing human capital activities for the 
agency. FPS officials in three of the five regions we visited said they 
implement their own procedures for managing their workforce, including 
processes for performance feedback, training, and mentoring. For 
example, one region we visited developed its own operating procedures 
for a field training program, and has also taken the initiative in 
several areas to develop specific guidance and provide employees with 
feedback on their performance in several areas. Additionally, FPS does 
not collect centralized and standardized data on the knowledge, skills, 
and abilities of its full-time employees. These data are necessary for 
workforce planning activities, such as identifying and filling skill 
gaps and succession planning. According to FPS officials, the agency is 
working on developing and implementing a data management system that 
will provide it with the necessary data to engage in long-term human 
capital planning, but this system has experienced significant delays 
and will not be available for use until fiscal year 2011 at the 
earliest. 

According to our generalizable survey of FPS customers, customers had 
mixed views about some of the law enforcement and physical security 
services they pay FPS to provide. FPS's customers spent approximately 
$187 million in fiscal year 2008 for basic security services, such as 
preparing building security assessments, responding to incidents, and 
providing advice and assistance to customers. Our survey asked FPS 
customers how satisfied they were with these services. Survey results 
showed that 58 percent were satisfied, 7 percent were dissatisfied, 18 
percent were neutral, and 17 percent were not able to comment on FPS's 
overall services. However, our survey also showed that many of FPS's 
customers had different levels of reliance or could not comment on the 
services they pay FPS to provide. For example: 

* About 82 percent of FPS's customers indicated they do not use FPS as 
their primary law enforcement agency in emergency situations and said 
they primarily rely on other agencies such as local law enforcement, 
the U.S. Marshals Service, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
while 18 percent rely on FPS. 

* About one-third of FPS's customers could not comment on how satisfied 
or dissatisfied they were with FPS's level of communication on various 
topics including building security assessments, threats to their 
facility, and security guidance, a response that suggests that the 
division of roles and responsibilities between FPS and its customers is 
unclear. 

In addition, we found that GSA--the owner and lessee of many FPS 
protected facilities--has not been satisfied with the level of service 
FPS has provided since FPS transferred to DHS. For example, according 
to GSA officials, FPS has not been responsive and timely in providing 
building security assessments for new leases. FPS has taken some steps 
to improve customer service through education and outreach initiatives; 
for example, it has conducted focus groups and distributed a newsletter 
to some of its customers. However, FPS will face additional challenges 
because of its lack of complete and accurate customer contact data. 
During the course of our review, we found that approximately 53 percent 
of the e-mail addresses and 27 percent of the telephone numbers for 
designated points of contacts was missing from FPS's contact database 
and the database required a substantial amount of revising. Complete 
and accurate contact information on its customers is critical for 
information sharing and an essential component of any customer service 
initiative. 

Background: 

As the primary federal agency that is responsible for protecting and 
securing GSA facilities and federal employees and visitors across the 
country, FPS has the authority to enforce federal laws and regulations 
aimed at protecting federally owned and leased properties and the 
persons on such property. FPS conducts its mission by providing 
security services through two types of activities: (1) physical 
security activities--conducting threat assessments of facilities and 
recommending risk-based countermeasures aimed at preventing incidents 
at facilities--and (2) law enforcement activities--proactively 
patrolling facilities, responding to incidents, conducting criminal 
investigations, and exercising arrest authority. FPS is also 
responsible for management and oversight of the approximately 15,000 
contract security guards posted at GSA facilities. To conduct its 
mission, FPS has 11 regional offices across the country and maintains a 
workforce of both law enforcement staff, and non-law enforcement staff. 
FPS's law enforcement staff is generally composed of three occupations--
LESOs, who are also called inspectors; police officers; and special 
agents--each with different roles and responsibilities. As shown in 
table 1, LESOs are responsible for the majority of FPS's duties. 

Table 1: General Overview of Roles and Responsibilities of FPS's Law 
Enforcement Occupations: 

LESOs: 
Carry firearms: [Check]; 
Arrest and search warrants: [Check]; 
Criminal investigations: [Check]; 
Building security assessments and countermeasure recommendations: 
[Check]; 
Contract guard oversight and management: [Check]. 

Police officers: 
Carry firearms: [Check]; 
Arrest and search warrants: [Check]; 
Criminal investigations: [Empty]; 
Building security assessments and countermeasure recommendations: 
[Empty]; 
Contract guard oversight and management: [Check]. 

Special agents: 
Carry firearms: [Check]; 
Arrest and search warrants: [Check]; 
Criminal investigations: [Check]; 
Building security assessments and countermeasure recommendations: 
[Empty]; 
Contract guard oversight and management: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of FPS data. 

[End of table] 

FPS funds its operations through the collection of security fees 
charged to FPS's customers, that is, tenant agencies. However, during 
fiscal years 2003 through 2006, these fees were not sufficient to cover 
FPS's operating costs. When FPS was located in GSA, it received 
additional support from the Federal Buildings Fund to cover the gap 
between collections and costs.[Footnote 8] Fiscal year 2004 was the 
last year that FPS had access to the Federal Buildings Fund, and 
despite increases in its security fee, FPS continued to experience a 
gap between its operational costs and fee collections. To mitigate its 
funding shortfalls, in 2007 FPS implemented many cost-saving measures, 
including restricting hiring and travel, limiting training and 
overtime, suspending employee performance awards, and reducing 
operating hours. FPS also took steps to reduce its staff levels through 
voluntary early retirement opportunities, and some staff were assigned 
on detail to other DHS offices. Also during this time, FPS did not 
replace positions that were lost to attrition. In June 2008, we 
reported that the funding challenges FPS faced and its cost-savings 
actions to address them resulted in adverse implications for its 
workforce, primarily low morale among staff and increased attrition. 

To minimize the impact of its funding and operational challenges on its 
ability to conduct its mission, in early 2007 FPS adopted a new 
strategic approach to how it conducted its mission. Faced with the 
reduction of its workforce to 950 full-time employees and the need to 
maintain its ability to protect federal facilities, FPS announced the 
adoption of a "LESO-based" workforce model. The model was intended to 
make more efficient use of its declining staffing levels by increasing 
focus on FPS's physical security duties and consolidating law 
enforcement activities. FPS's goal was to shift its law enforcement 
workforce composition from a mix of about 40 percent police officers, 
about 50 percent LESOs, and about 10 percent special agents--its 
composition when it was transferred to DHS in fiscal year 2003--to a 
workforce primarily composed of LESOs and some special agents, with the 
police officer position being gradually eliminated. To achieve this, 
FPS began eliminating its police officer position by offering existing 
police officers the option of applying for LESO positions, which 
incorporate physical security duties into their existing law 
enforcement responsibilities. Additionally, FPS eliminated police 
officers through attrition, and as police officers separated from FPS, 
their positions were not replaced. 

In December 2007 the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act 
was enacted; it mandated that FPS's security fees be adjusted to ensure 
that collections are "sufficient to ensure [that FPS] maintains, by 
July 31, 2008, not fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900 
full-time equivalent [law-enforcement staff] who, while working, are 
directly engaged on a daily basis protecting and enforcing laws at 
Federal buildings." To address this mandate, FPS began a large-scale 
hiring effort to bring on new LESOs by the legislated deadline. 
Although FPS was no longer working toward reducing the size of its 
workforce, it did not reverse its strategic direction of maintaining a 
LESO-based workforce. Appropriations are presumed to be annual 
appropriations and applicable to the fiscal year unless specified to 
the contrary. The requirement for no fewer than 1,200 full-time- 
equivalent staff, including 900 full-time law enforcement staff in 
DHS's 2008 appropriations act was effective for 2008. DHS's 
appropriations act for 2009 contains the same requirement relating to 
FPS's staffing level and is effective for fiscal year 2009. The 
President's budget for fiscal year 2010 requests that a staffing level 
of 1,225 be maintained in 2010; it also proposes relocating FPS from 
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component of DHS to the 
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS. 

FPS Experienced Challenges with Hiring and Training New LESOs: 

Delays in FPS's Hiring Process Affect Its Ability to Bring Staff On 
Board in a Timely Manner: 

While FPS is currently operating at its mandated staffing level, its 
hiring process met with delays and challenges. FPS was required to have 
at least 1,200 full-time employees, including 900 law enforcement 
employees, on board by July 31, 2008. This same requirement for FPS was 
included in DHS's fiscal year 2009 appropriations act, and FPS met this 
staffing level in April 2009, with 1,239 employees on board, including 
929 law enforcement staff, by hiring 187 new LESOs. According to human 
capital officials, FPS did not experience any problems recruiting for 
its LESO position, receiving over 6,000 applications. However, 
officials told us that FPS was not able to meet the July 31, 2008, 
mandate because of the challenges related to shifting its priorities 
from downsizing its workforce to increasing it to comply with the 
mandate, inexperience working with DHS's shared service center, and 
delays in its candidate screening process. Since transferring to DHS, 
FPS has been in a period of strategic transition--not only reducing its 
workforce size, but also changing its composition to a LESO-based 
workforce. Faced with funding challenges, FPS's human capital efforts 
were aimed at cutting costs and reducing the size of its workforce to a 
total staffing level of 950 full-time employees. FPS was on its way to 
achieving this goal, and had reduced its workforce to 1,061 employees 
in February 2008 when it changed course to respond to the mandate and 
increase its workforce to 1,200. According to FPS, these continual 
shifts affected the agency's ability to meet the staffing level 
mandated in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. 

FPS's ability to meet the mandate was also affected by its inexperience 
in working with DHS's shared service center. After transferring to DHS, 
the majority of FPS's hiring requirements are contracted out to the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Human Resources Management Center in 
Laguna Niguel, California (Laguna), which provides human resource 
services to all components of ICE through DHS's administrative shared 
services program. Laguna is responsible for providing a full range of 
human resource services to FPS, including processing actions related to 
employee hiring, separation, benefits, and job classification.[Footnote 
9] According to officials at Laguna, there have been some challenges 
working with FPS; primarily, officials told us that it is unclear what 
FPS's human capital needs are and where the agency is headed. 
Additionally, officials at Laguna said that FPS changes its human 
resource needs on a day-to-day basis and is constantly changing its 
priorities, causing Laguna to expend a lot of time and manpower in 
trying to meet the agency's needs. Additionally, officials said the 
high turnover in FPS management in its headquarters office has 
contributed to this lack of understanding. 

Finally, FPS also experienced delays in the candidate screening process 
that hampered its ability to meet the mandate. According to FPS 
officials, its hiring process can take 5 to 6 months to complete; 
however, under the mandate it was given 7 months to bring new staff on 
board; thus it was challenged to meet this mandate. Consequently, it 
experienced significant delays in screening potential candidates, 
particularly delays in the medical screening component, which Laguna 
contracts out to a private company. The screening process--which 
consists of drug testing, a background security clearance, and a 
medical screening--should take approximately 30 to 60 days. FPS 
officials told us that delays in the medical portion of the screening 
caused the process to take 90 to 100 days. According to FPS officials, 
they are working with the contractors to address problems. For example, 
FPS officials are working to determine if it is possible for candidates 
recently separated from the military to receive a waiver for the 
medical screening if they have recently undergone a military medical 
examination. See figure 1 for a timeline of the FPS hiring process. 

Figure 1: Timeline of LESO Hiring Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Develop and vacancy announcement: 14 days; 
Announce open period: 14 days; 
Qualifications review and certification issuance: 14 days; 
Interview applicants and make selection: 27 days; 
Notification of selectee: 3 days; 
Clearances required (Drug, Security, Medical): 30 to 60 days; 
Selectee and employer notification for release date: 28 days; 
Enter on duty. 

Source: GAO representation of CBP data. 

[End of figure] 

We have identified human capital management, including the hiring 
process, as an area in which DHS has significant management challenges. 
In our 2007 progress report on DHS's management challenges, we found 
that DHS had made limited progress in managing its human capital. 
[Footnote 10] With regard to a timely hiring process, we found that 
while DHS has developed a 45-day hiring model, and provided it to all 
of its component agencies, DHS does not assess the component agencies 
against this model. The prolonged time it takes to select and hire FPS 
LESOs further demonstrates the limited progress DHS's components have 
made in meeting the goals of this model. 

Some Newly Hired LESOs Are Not Fully Trained: 

FPS has experienced delays in its LESO training program. Almost 16 
months after FPS began hiring new LESOs, almost half of them have not 
completed the required law enforcement training and therefore are not 
permitted to conduct any law enforcement components of their jobs, 
including carrying firearms or exercising arrest and search 
authorities. Of these 187 new LESOs, almost all--95 percent--have 
completed the physical security training that is required to conduct a 
BSA. Conducting BSAs is the core function of the LESO position, and 
BSAs are used by FPS to determine and recommend countermeasures to 
protect federal facilities. In addition to hiring new LESOs, FPS 
converted 105 police officers to the LESO position, and while all 
police officers are already trained in law enforcement, 25 percent of 
the 105 police officers FPS promoted to LESO positions have not 
completed physical security training, and therefore are not eligible to 
conduct BSAs or recommend countermeasures, their key responsibilities. 
This training is essential to support FPS's new strategic direction, 
and in his June 2008 testimony, the Director of FPS indicated physical 
security responsibilities, such as completing BSAs, will account for 80 
percent of a LESO's duties. According to FPS, depending on class 
availability, it expects to have all new hire and converted LESOs fully 
trained by September 2009. According to FPS officials, LESOs that have 
not completed the physical security training are assisting experienced 
LESOs in completing their BSAs. During our site visits to FPS's 
regions, we were told that not having all LESOs fully trained caused a 
strain on FPS's resources, with LESOs taking on increased workloads. We 
also spoke with new LESOs in two regions who told us that while they 
have not received physical security training, they were conducting BSAs 
with little or no oversight from senior staff. 

FPS officials told us the reason training has been delayed is that it 
had submitted and finalized its training schedule with the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) over 1 year before it was mandated 
to increase its staff numbers, and adding additional classes after this 
time was a challenge because of limited space and instructors at FLETC. 
Officials said that FLETC is doing its best to accommodate the number 
of new hires and converts FPS is sending for training. According to FPS 
officials, FLETC is holding its Physical Security Training Program once 
every month back to back. Each class has a maximum of 24 students, and 
in the past, at most FLETC held three Physical Security Training 
Programs each year. 

Moreover, FPS has taken limited steps to provide ongoing physical 
security training to existing LESOs, a fact that limits the 
functionality of experienced LESOs. FPS is currently in the process of 
developing a biannual physical security training program to ensure that 
LESOs are current in their knowledge of physical security standards and 
technology. LESOs and regional officials we met with during our site 
visits told us they did not feel the current level of physical security 
training was adequate. According to FPS officials, the design and 
methodology for the new Physical Security Refresher Training Program 
have been completed, and a headquarters position dedicated to managing 
the agency's training program has been created, but the program has not 
been implemented and as of July 2009 there is no expected date for 
implementation.[Footnote 11] 

FPS's Attrition Rate Emphasizes the Need for Ongoing Hiring and 
Training Programs: 

While FPS has reached the mandated staffing levels, FPS continues to 
have a high attrition rate, and about 30 percent of its employees are 
eligible to retire in the next 5 years. Since fiscal year 2005, it has 
experienced increases in its overall attrition rate. As we previously 
reported, FPS experienced funding challenges in the first few years of 
its transition to DHS, and took steps to mitigate these challenges by 
reducing the size of its workforce. For example, FPS offered its 
employees Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, as well as detailing 
employees to other DHS components. FPS's attrition rate peaked at over 
11 percent in fiscal year 2007, and while it began declining once FPS 
halted its downsizing efforts, in fiscal year 2008 it was 9 percent, 
which was higher than the average rate of the federal government and 
ICE, but lower than DHS's. In addition, about 30 percent of FPS's 
workforce--360 employees--are eligible to retire by 2014, a fact that 
when combined with its attrition rates could place additional demands 
on FPS's hiring process. See figure 2 for a comparison of FPS's 
attrition rates with those of the federal government and DHS. 

Figure 2: Comparison of FPS, ICE, DHS, and Federal Government Attrition 
Rates: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 6.78%; 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.4%; 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 13.71%; 
Governmentwide: 8.66%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 10.71%; 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.26%; 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 11.8%; 
Governmentwide: 8.73%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 11.15%; 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.6%; 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 11.8%; 
Governmentwide: 8.91%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 8.97%; 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.29%; 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 11.22%; 
Governmentwide: 7.83%. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

Note: Attrition rate was calculated by the sum of all separations 
divided by the average of the number of employees at the beginning of 
the fiscal year plus the number at the end of the fiscal year. For the 
purposes of this report, DHS's attrition rates were calculated omitting 
ICE's attrition rate (including FPS), and ICE's attrition rates were 
calculated omitting FPS's attrition. 

[End of figure] 

FPS Does Not Have A Strategic Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Current 
and Future Workforce Planning Efforts: 

FPS currently does not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its 
current and future workforce planning efforts. Our work has shown that 
a strategic human capital plan addresses two critical needs: It (1) 
aligns an organization's human capital program with its current and 
emerging mission and programmatic goals, and (2) develops long-term 
strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve 
programmatic goals. In 2007, FPS took steps toward developing a 
Workforce Transition Plan to reflect its decision to move to a LESO- 
based workforce and reduce its workforce to about 950 employees. These 
steps included the following: 

* identifying skill sets needed to transition employees, including 
conducting focus groups with senior managers to determine what skills 
are needed in regions and headquarters and establishing a core 
curriculum and a career path for FPS occupations in categories of 
mission support, law enforcement, and supervisory positions; 

* identifying the number of employees who meet current skill set 
requirements and those who require training and type of training 
needed; and: 

* establishing a project plan to transition employees, including 
determination of employees eligible for retirement; establishing 
strategies for use of human capital flexibilities such as bonuses and 
relocation allowances; and establishing recruitment and retention 
strategies. 

However, in 2008, FPS discontinued this plan because the objective of 
the plan--to reduce FPS staff to 950 to meet the President's Fiscal 
Year 2008 Budget--was no longer relevant because of the congressional 
mandate to increase its workforce to 1,200 employees. FPS subsequently 
identified steps it needed to take in response to the mandate. However, 
we found that these efforts do not include developing strategies for 
determining agency staffing needs, identifying gaps in workforce 
critical skills and competencies, developing strategies for use of 
human capital flexibilities, or strategies for retention and succession 
planning. 

Additionally, the lack of a current human capital plan has contributed 
to inconsistent approaches in how FPS regions and headquarters are 
managing human capital activities for the agency. FPS officials in 
three of the five of the regions we visited said they implement their 
own strategies for managing their workforce, including processes for 
performance feedback, training, and mentoring. For example, one region 
we visited developed its own operating procedures for a field training 
program, and has received limited guidance from headquarters on how the 
program should be conducted. Officials in this region have also taken 
the initiative in several areas to develop specific guidance and 
provide employees with feedback on their performance in several areas. 
Another region we visited offers inspectors supplemental training in 
addition to required training. This region also requires new inspectors 
to complete a mentoring program in which they accompany an experienced 
inspector and are evaluated on all the aspects of their job. Similarly, 
a third region we visited has an informal mentoring program for the 
police officers that were promoted to inspectors. Each newly promoted 
inspector was paired with a senior inspector. 

Additionally, we found FPS's headquarters does not collect data on its 
workforce's knowledge, skills, and abilities. Consequently, FPS cannot 
determine what its optimal staffing levels should be or identify gaps 
in its workforce needs and determine how to modify its workforce 
planning strategies to fill these gaps. Effective workforce planning 
requires consistent agencywide data on the critical skills needed to 
achieve current and future programmatic goals and objectives. FPS's 
human capital activities are performed by a DHS shared service center 
managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Personnel Systems 
Division in Laguna Niguel, California. This shared service center 
provides FPS headquarters with biweekly reports on FPS's workforce 
statistics such as workforce demographics, and attrition and hiring 
data by occupation. These reports do not provide insight on FPS's 
workforce's knowledge, skills, and abilities--information that is key 
in identifying workforce gaps and engaging in ongoing staff 
development. In addition to the official data maintained by the shared 
service center, each FPS region maintains its own workforce data. 
Without the collection of centralized or standardized data on its 
workforce, it is unclear how FPS can engage in short-and long-term 
strategic workforce planning. FPS's Risk Assessment and Management 
Program (RAMP) system is intended to address some of these concerns, 
but this project has met with numerous delays, and according to FPS 
officials, data will not be available until fiscal year 2011.[Footnote 
12] Additionally, FPS's human capital challenges may be further 
exacerbated by the proposal in the President's 2010 budget to move FPS 
from ICE to NPPD. If the move is approved, it is unclear which agency 
will perform the human capital function for FPS, or how the move will 
affect FPS's operational and workforce needs.[Footnote 13] 

Strategic Human Capital Planning Is Necessary for Agency Leaders to 
Align Personnel with Agency Needs: 

GAO has developed a model of strategic human capital planning to help 
agency leaders effectively use their personnel and determine how well 
they integrate human capital considerations into daily decision making 
and planning for the program results they seek to achieve.[Footnote 14] 
Under the principles of effective workforce planning, an agency should 
determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to 
achieve current and future programmatic results. Then the agency should 
develop strategies tailored to address gaps in number, deployment, and 
alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining the 
contributions of all critical skills and competencies. GAO has 
identified five key principles that should be addressed in an agency's 
strategic human capital planning. See table 2 for key principles and 
examples of how an agency can implement these principles. 

Table 2: Key Principles for Strategic Human Capital Planning and 
Examples of Implementation of Principles: 

Key principle: Involve top management, employees, and other 
stakeholders in developing, communicating, and implementing the 
strategic workforce plan; 
Examples of implementation of principle: Communicate new strategic 
direction through; 
* establishment--by top management--of the overall direction and goals 
for workforce planning; 
* involvement of employees and other stakeholders in developing and 
implementing future workforce strategies, and; 
* establishment of a communication strategy to create shared 
expectations, promote transparency, and report progress. 

Key principle: Determine the critical skills and competencies that will 
be needed to achieve current and future programmatic results; 
Examples of implementation of principle: Identify needed skills and 
competencies that are clearly linked to the agency's strategic 
direction by collecting and analyzing data; 
* from managers and employees on the factors influencing the agency's 
capability to acquire, develop, and retain critical skills and other 
competencies, and; 
* on trends in attrition rates, projected retirement rates, 
fluctuations in workload, and geographic and demographic trends. 

Key principle: Develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in 
number, deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for 
enabling and sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and 
competencies; 
Examples of implementation of principle: Develop strategies to 
eliminate gaps and improve critical skills and competencies that are 
required for current and future workforce, including strategies for; 
* hiring; 
* training; 
* staff development; 
* succession planning; 
* performance management, and; 
* use of flexibilities. 

Key principle: Build the capability needed to address administrative, 
educational, and other requirements important to support workforce 
strategies; 
Examples of implementation of principle: Take advantage of existing and 
new human capital authorities by; 
* educating managers and employees on the availability and use of 
flexibilities; 
* streamlining and improving administrative processes, and; 
* building transparency and accountability into the system. 

Key principle: Monitor and evaluate the agency's progress toward its 
human capital goals and the contribution that human capital results 
have made toward achieving programmatic goals; 
Examples of implementation of principle: Design performance measures 
that gauge success in; 
* progress toward reaching human capital goals, and; 
* the contribution of human capital activities toward achieving 
programmatic goals. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

FPS's Customers Have Mixed Views on Its Services: 

FPS Customers Generally Had Mixed Views about Its Law Enforcement and 
Physical Security Services, but Some Could Not Evaluate FPS Services: 

On the basis of our generalizable survey of building security committee 
chairs and designated officials in facilities protected by FPS, we 
found that FPS customers had mixed views about the law enforcement and 
physical security services they paid FPS to provide. In order for FPS 
to carry out its mission of protecting federal buildings and the people 
in those buildings, FPS is authorized to collect security fees from the 
agencies it protects for law enforcement and physical security 
services. In fiscal year 2008, FPS's customers paid approximately $187 
million for basic security services, such as preparing BSAs, responding 
to incidents, and providing advice and assistance to building security 
committees. Our survey, which ended in May 2009, asked FPS customers 
how satisfied they were with a variety of services they pay FPS to 
provide. Overall, survey results showed that 58 percent were satisfied 
or very satisfied with FPS's current level of service, 7 percent were 
dissatisfied, 18 percent were neutral, and 17 percent were not able to 
comment on FPS's current level of service.[Footnote 15] However, our 
survey also showed that some of FPS's customers could not evaluate 
specific services. For example, according to our survey, an estimated 
28 percent of FPS's customers were satisfied with FPS's response time 
to emergencies at their facility, while 6 percent were dissatisfied or 
very dissatisfied, 11 percent were neutral, and 55 percent indicated 
that they could not comment, to some extent because there may not have 
been such an incident at their facility. Additionally, our survey 
suggests that some of FPS's customers may not be satisfied with FPS's 
decision to eliminate its police officer position and move to a LESO- 
based workforce, since 22 percent of FPS customers thought there were 
too few patrols of their facility by FPS police officers or LESOs, 
while no customers indicated that there were too many, 21 percent said 
about right, and 57 percent were unable to comment. (See appendix II 
for complete questionnaire tabulations.) 

Our survey also suggests that the communication between FPS and its 
customers about roles and responsibilities is unclear, in part because 
on average one third of FPS's customers could not comment on how 
satisfied or dissatisfied they were with FPS's level of communication 
on its services, as shown in table 3. For example, an estimated 35 
percent of FPS customers could not evaluate FPS's level of 
communication about services it can offer tenant agencies and 12 
percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. 

Table 3: Survey Results on Customer Satisfaction with FPS's Level of 
Communication on Various Topics: 

Question: How satisfied are you with FPS's current level of 
communication with respect to the following? (percentage of total 
respondents): 

a. Services FPS can offer tenant agencies, such as guidance on security 
issues and crime prevention training; 
Satisfied or very satisfied: 33%; 
Neutral: 20%; 
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 12%; 
Could not evaluate: 35%. 

b. Information related to building security assessments and security 
countermeasures; 
Satisfied or very satisfied: 38%; 
Neutral: 21%; 
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 11%; 
Could not evaluate: 30%. 

c. Threats to your facility; 
Satisfied or very satisfied: 36%; 
Neutral: 19%; 
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 10%; 
Could not evaluate: 35%. 

d. Security-related laws, regulations, and guidance; 
Satisfied or very satisfied: 31%; 
Neutral: 23%; 
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 9%; 
Could not evaluate: 37%. 

e. Information related to the security guards at your facility; 
Satisfied or very satisfied: 25%; 
Neutral: 17%; 
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 9%; 
Could not evaluate: 50%. 

f. General security information; 
Satisfied or very satisfied: 38%; 
Neutral: 24%; 
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 9%; 
Could not evaluate: 29%. 

Source: GAO survey of FPS customers. 

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. Numbers listed 
have been adjusted to exclude missing values. 

[End of table] 

Additionally, an estimated 36 percent of FPS customers had no basis to 
report on the frequency with which FPS officials attended meetings 
about the security of their facility, while about 22 percent indicated 
that FPS never attends and 18 percent reported rare attendance. 
Respondents that provided comments on our survey indicated they could 
not evaluate FPS's services mainly because they had little to no 
interaction with FPS. For example: 

* A respondent commented that he/she had little or no contact with FPS, 
because the closest FPS office is approximately 150 miles away; 
additionally this official noted that he/she was not aware of any 
services provided by FPS. 

* A respondent in a leased facility commented that FPS has very limited 
resources and the resources that are available are assigned to the 
primary federally owned building in the region. 

* A respondent commented that during his/her tenure of 12 years, this 
official remembered only one visit from an FPS officer. 

With the exception of meetings to discuss BSA reports, which should 
occur at least every 2 to 4 years, depending on the security level of 
the facility, according to FPS officials, FPS does not have policies 
regarding the frequency with which FPS LESOs should visit or patrol a 
customer's facility.[Footnote 16] However, according to our survey, an 
estimated 12 percent of FPS customers indicated that FPS had not 
conducted a BSA within the past 5 years and about 24 percent did not 
know if one had been conducted, and of those customers who indicated a 
BSA had been conducted, not all of them were briefed on the results. 
[Footnote 17] 

Many FPS Customers Do Not Rely on FPS for Services, and Some Were Not 
Fully Aware of the Services It Provides: 

Our survey also found that many customers do not rely on FPS for law 
enforcement and physical security services. Specifically, regarding law 
enforcement services, the majority of FPS's customers, about 82 
percent, do not rely on FPS as their primary provider in emergency 
situations that require an immediate response, though 18 percent rely 
on FPS. Most of the customers that did not indicate FPS as their 
primary provider for emergency situations reported that they rely on 
local law enforcement agencies, but some also used other federal 
agencies, such as the U.S. Marshals Service, Custom and Border 
Protection, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For nonemergency 
situations, such as enforcing laws and regulations, approximately 51 
percent relied on local law enforcement or others for service, while 49 
percent of FPS customers relied on FPS. Our survey also showed that 
about 48 percent of FPS's customers rely on FPS as their primary 
provider of physical security, which includes BSAs that FPS is required 
to provide customers and which has been FPS's primary focus since 2007, 
but the remaining 52 percent relied on other sources, including their 
agency's own internal security group, for physical security, and a few 
noted contracting with private sector companies for services.[Footnote 
18] See figure 3 for a summary of survey results about primary 
providers of law enforcement and physical security services. 

Figure 3: Survey Results For Primary Providers of Law Enforcement and 
Physical Security Services at GSA-Controlled Facilities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: three pie-charts] 

Emergency situations: 
Local law enforcement: 66%; 
FPS: 18%; 
Other[A]: 16%. 

Non-emergency situations: 
FPS: 49%; 
Local law enforcement: 36%; 
Other[A]: 16%. 

Physical security services: 
FPS: 48%; 
Internal office within customer's agency: 29%; 
Other[B]: 23%. 

Source: GAO survey of FPS customers. 

Note: Percentages shown are estimates and have margins of error of 
within plus or minus 5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence 
level. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

[A] Others for this category include state law enforcement agencies and 
federal agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service, Customs and Border 
Protection, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

[B] Others for this category include the General Services 
Administration's Building Security and Policy Division, other federal 
agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Postal Service 
Inspection Services, and private contractors. 

[End of figure] 

Although FPS and GSA have an agreement that outlines the services FPS 
will provide customers in GSA facilities, some customers were not aware 
of the services FPS provides and the fees that they paid for such 
services. For instance, a customer in a federally owned building in a 
remote location did not know that FPS provided 24-hour alarm-monitoring 
services, because FPS had not visited the office in over 2 years; as a 
result the customer purchased an alarm system that was not compatible 
with FPS's monitoring system. Another customer we spoke to in leased 
facilities told us that he/she had less of a need for FPS, because he/ 
she was in a leased facility and relied on either law enforcement 
officers or physical security specialists from his/her own agency. When 
we followed up with 10 customers who could not comment on FPS's 
services, we found that 6 of the 10 customers were unaware of the fees 
they paid FPS, and 4 of the 10 reported that FPS does not provide their 
facility services.[Footnote 19] For example, one customer we spoke to 
told us that she did not know what FPS's role was with respect to the 
security of her facility and did not realize that her agency paid FPS a 
security fee. GSA officials also told us that they have received 
complaints from customers that they do not know what services they were 
getting for the basic security fees they paid FPS. For instance, a 
customer at a large government-owned complex was not satisfied with 
FPS's security recommendation to add security guard posts at the 
facility for a fee of up to $300,000 in addition to the approximately 
$800,000 in basic security fees the customer was already paying FPS 
annually, because the customer reported never seeing FPS officers as 
part of the basic security fees they paid, according to a GSA official. 
[Footnote 20] 

In addition to our survey findings about the extent customers relied on 
FPS for services, others have found that while FPS is the primary 
federal agency responsible for protecting GSA facilities, federal 
agencies were taking steps to meet their security needs using other 
sources. GSA officials told us that some federal agencies have not been 
satisfied with FPS's building security assessments and have started 
conducting their own assessments. A few agencies have also requested 
delegations of authority for their buildings from FPS, including the 
National Archives and Records Administration and the Office of 
Personnel Management, according to GSA. Specifically, although the U.S. 
Marshals Service has delegated authority for building security of 
federal courthouses, according to officials from the Marshals Service, 
it started a perimeter security pilot program in October 2008 for 
courthouses in six cities, because of concerns with the quality of 
service provided by FPS contract guards at federal courthouses. 
Additionally, a 2006 study by ICE found that federal agencies were 
actively seeking delegations of authority because of increased overhead 
costs and agencies wanted more control over the security within their 
buildings. However, even with delegations of authority for security 
from FPS, agencies are still expected to pay FPS's fee for basic 
security services. Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget's 2007 
assessment of FPS found that the services provided by FPS were 
redundant and duplicative of other federal efforts, because many 
federal agencies--including the U.S. Marshals Court Security, Secret 
Service, and the Capitol Police--had their own security offices. 
[Footnote 21] 

GSA Has Not Been Satisfied with FPS's Performance: 

GSA has not been satisfied with the level of service FPS has provided 
and expressed some concerns about its performance since it transferred 
to DHS. As GSA owns and leases over 9,000 facilities FPS protects, GSA 
officials told us that they have a vested interest in the security of 
these facilities. According to GSA officials, FPS has not been able to 
provide the level of service GSA expects based on the existing 
memorandum of agreement between the two agencies. For example, GSA 
officials said FPS has not been responsive and timely in providing 
assessments for new leases, a fact that delayed negotiations and 
procurement of space for tenant agencies. According to FPS, it does not 
consistently receive notification of pre-lease assessments from GSA, 
and although FPS is working on developing an interface as part of RAMP 
to ensure that information is received and appropriately routed for 
action, this program has been delayed. GSA officials were also 
concerned about the lack of consistency in the BSA process. 
Specifically, GSA officials told us that the quality of a BSA can vary 
depending on the LESO conducting the assessment. 

While FPS and GSA have taken steps to improve information sharing, 
communication and coordination continue to be a challenge for them. As 
we recently reported, at the national level, FPS and GSA have 
established some formal channels for sharing information such as 
holding biweekly meetings, serving on working groups focused on 
security, and forming a joint Executive Advisory Council, which 
provides a vehicle for FPS, GSA, and customers to work together to 
identify common problems and devise solutions.[Footnote 22] However, 
GSA officials have been frustrated with FPS's level of communication. 
Specifically, these officials said that although the frequency of 
communication has increased, meetings with FPS are not productive 
because FPS does not contribute to planning the discussions, bringing 
up issues, or following up on discussion items as promised. 
Additionally, while FPS's Director views GSA as a partner, GSA 
officials said communication with FPS staff at levels below senior 
management has remained difficult and unchanged. Furthermore, FPS and 
GSA have not been able to reach an agreement about revisions to their 
current agreement, which according to GSA officials, does not include 
requirements regarding communication and measures that ensure the needs 
of customers are met. 

FPS Does Not Have Complete and Accurate Customer Contact Data to 
Increase Customer Awareness about Services: 

Although FPS is responsible for the protection of over 9,000 facilities 
owned and leased by GSA, it does not have complete and accurate contact 
data for the customers in these facilities who are responsible for 
working with FPS to identify security issues and implement security 
standards for their facility, typically the building security committee 
chair or a designated official. During the course of our review, we 
found that approximately 53 percent of the e-mail addresses and 27 
percent of the telephone numbers for designated points of contacts were 
missing from FPS's contact database. Additionally, while FPS was able 
to provide us a sufficient amount of contact information to conduct our 
survey, some of the customer data we received for our survey sample 
were either outdated or incorrect. For example, approximately 18 
percent of the survey notification e-mails we sent to customers in our 
sample were returned as undeliverable. When we attempted to obtain 
correct e-mail addresses, we found that some of the contacts FPS 
provided had retired or were no longer with the agency. In some 
instances, we found that the e-mail address FPS provided was incorrect, 
because of human errors such as the misspelling of the customer's name. 
Additionally, our follow-up calls to over 600 sample customers to check 
on the status of the survey found that FPS did not have the correct 
telephone numbers for about one-third of these customers, and more than 
100 customers provided us with updated contact information. 

While FPS acknowledges that it needs to improve customer service and 
has developed some initiatives to increase customer education and 
outreach, it will continue to face challenges implementing these 
initiatives without complete and accurate customer contact information. 
Specifically, one of FPS's three guiding principles in its strategic 
plan is to foster coordination and information sharing with 
stakeholders and strive to anticipate stakeholder needs to ensure it is 
providing the highest level of service and has taken steps to achieve 
this goal. For instance, in 2007, FPS conducted four focus group 
sessions to solicit customer input, but this effort was limited to 4 of 
11 FPS regions, with a total of 22 customers participating in the 
discussion. Additionally, FPS developed and distributed four 
stakeholder newsletters as a result of the focus group sessions. 
According to FPS, the newsletter was distributed to members of FPS and 
GSA's Executive Advisory Council as well as to 201 other director-level 
officials from various federal agencies. FPS's marketing and 
communications strategy identifies initiatives focused on improving 
customer service. For example, FPS plans to administer its own customer 
satisfaction survey with assistance from GSA. FPS's RAMP system is also 
expected to help improve customer service and allow LESOs to be more 
customer focused. In particular, RAMP will include a customer relations 
module that will allow FPS LESOs to better manage their relationship 
with customers by enabling them to input and access customer 
information such as building contacts and preferences for meeting 
times. However, it will be difficult for FPS to implement these or any 
customer service initiatives before taking steps to ensure it has 
complete and accurate contact information for all the facilities it 
protects. Furthermore, our prior work has shown that effective security 
requires people to work together to implement policies, processes, and 
procedures.[Footnote 23] Therefore without existing information to 
contact building security committees or officials responsible for 
security issues, FPS cannot effectively work with customers to ensure 
federal buildings are secure by communicating critical policies or 
emergency information such as threats to facilities. 

Conclusion: 

In recent years FPS's human capital efforts have primarily focused on 
downsizing its workforce and reducing costs. In December 2007, FPS's 
funding challenges were mitigated and it began increasing its workforce 
to meet a mandated deadline. While FPS's short-term hiring efforts met 
with some success, because of its attrition rates and number of 
employees eligible to retire in 5 years, FPS needs to continue to focus 
on improving its hiring and training processes. We have identified 
human capital management as a high-risk issue throughout the federal 
government, and particularly within DHS. FPS's hiring challenges 
further serve as an example of the importance of improving these 
processes. Without a long-term strategy for managing its current and 
future workforce needs, including effective processes for hiring, 
training, and staff development, FPS will be challenged to align its 
personnel with its programmatic goals. The President's 2010 budget 
proposes to transfer FPS from ICE to DHS's National Protection and 
Programs Directorate and presents FPS with a prime opportunity to take 
the initial steps required to develop a long-term strategic approach to 
managing its workforce. However, until FPS begins collecting data on 
its workforce's knowledge, skills, and abilities, FPS will not be able 
to start and complete this process. 

While FPS customers paid about $187 million dollars in fiscal year 2008 
for law enforcement and physical security services, and given the fact 
that our survey showed some customers are unaware of or do not use the 
services they are paying for, it is particularly important that FPS 
enhance its interaction with its customers. FPS acknowledges the need 
for improvement in its customer service, and has taken some initial 
steps toward improvement. Until benefits of these actions are realized 
by customers--something that cannot occur until FPS collects complete 
and accurate contact data for the facilities it provides service to, 
and establishes a process for reaching out to and educating customers 
on the services they should be receiving--customers will continue to 
raise questions about the quality of service they are receiving. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To facilitate effective strategic management of its workforce, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director 
of FPS to take the following actions: 

* improve how FPS headquarters collects data on its workforce's 
knowledge, skills, and abilities to help it better manage and 
understand current and future workforce needs, and: 

* use these data in the development and implementation of a long-term 
strategic human capital plan that addresses key principles for 
effective strategic workforce planning, including establishing 
programs, policies, and practices that will enable the agency to 
recruit, develop, and retain a qualified workforce. 

To improve service to all of its customers, FPS should: 

* collect and maintain an accurate and comprehensive list of all 
facility-designated points of contact, as well as a system for 
regularly updating this list, and: 

* develop and implement a program for education and outreach to all 
customers to ensure they are aware of the current roles, 
responsibilities, and services provided by FPS. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and GSA for review and 
comment. DHS concurred with the report's findings and recommendations, 
and provided us with technical comments. GSA had no comment. DHS's 
comments can be found in appendix III. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate committees, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, and other interested parties. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any 
questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 
goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 
listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Bennie Thompson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Peter King:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Public Buildings, Economic Development, and Emergency 
Management:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines the workforce and human capital processes and 
planning efforts of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). Specifically, 
our objectives were to provide information (1) on the extent that FPS 
has hired and trained new staff to address its mandated staffing 
levels, (2) on the extent that FPS has developed a strategic human 
capital plan to manage its current and future workforce needs, and (3) 
on the satisfaction of FPS's customers with its services. Our work was 
initially designed to address congressional concerns about FPS's 
staffing composition and level since it transferred to the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS), and its human capital polices and 
procedures for hiring and retaining a qualified workforce. Since this 
work was requested, DHS's 2008 and 2009 appropriations acts mandated 
FPS to ensure fee collections were sufficient to maintain no fewer than 
1,200 full-time equivalents, including 900 law enforcement positions. 
[Footnote 24] We also reported that some tenant agencies and 
stakeholders were concerned about the quality and cost of security 
provided by FPS since it transferred to DHS.[Footnote 25] Our findings 
raised questions about equity in which FPS has been providing services 
to customers across the country in facilities with different security 
needs. In light of these events and our recent findings, we expanded 
the focus of our review to include an assessment of FPS's efforts to 
meet the congressional mandate, steps it has taken to address customer 
concerns, and FPS's customer satisfaction with its services. 

To respond to the overall objectives of this report, we interviewed 
officials from FPS, DHS, and the General Services Administration (GSA). 
We also reviewed relevant laws, and FPS, DHS, and GAO documents related 
to workforce planning and human capital management. We conducted site 
visits at 5 of FPS's 11 regional offices; while the results of these 
visits are not generalizable, these 5 site visits accounted for about 
50 percent of the 9,000 facilities FPS is responsible for providing 
service. During our site visits, we met with FPS regional law 
enforcement and human capital managers as well as new and experienced 
law enforcement security officers (LESO) to gain an understanding of 
how FPS's recent workforce changes have affected FPS's operations, 
actions each regional office has taken to address these effects, and 
how regional offices determine workforce needs. We also discussed the 
regions' role in the agency's human capital planning. 

To assess the extent to which FPS is fully operational and has met 
staffing levels required by Congress, we interviewed officials in FPS's 
headquarters and officials from DHS Customs and Border Protection Human 
Resources Management Center in Laguna Niguel, California (Laguna), who 
were responsible for managing, overseeing, and implementing personnel 
actions for FPS, to understand the actions FPS took, and challenges 
faced, to meet the mandate. We also reviewed and analyzed FPS workforce 
data, such as hiring, attrition, separation, and retirement 
eligibility, by using the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) 
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). We also identify trends in 
attrition data for FPS employees from fiscal years 2005 through 2008 
and compared that information with that of the rest of the federal 
government and DHS during the same time period. To assess the 
reliability of OPM's CPDF, we reviewed GAO's prior data reliability 
work on CPDF.[Footnote 26] We also requested attrition and other 
workforce data from Laguna, which administers FPS's personnel actions, 
to determine the extent to which CPDF data matched the agency's data. 
When we compared the CPDF data with the data provided by Laguna on FPS 
personnel, we found that data provided by Laguna were sufficiently 
similar to the CPDF data and concluded that the CPDF data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. However, we did 
not independently verify the workforce data we received from Laguna. 

To calculate the attrition rates for each fiscal year, we divided the 
total number of separations from each agency or DHS component by the 
average of the number of employees in the CPDF at the beginning of the 
fiscal year plus the number at the end of the fiscal year. To place the 
overall attrition rates for FPS in context, we compared FPS's rates 
with those for federal employees in the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) a component agency within DHS, DHS as a whole, and 
the rest of government. For the purposes of this report, DHS's 
attrition rates were calculated omitting ICE's attrition rate 
(including that for FPS), and ICE's attrition rates were calculated 
omitting FPS's attrition. 

To determine the extent to which FPS has developed a plan to manage its 
current and future workforce needs, we reviewed and analyzed FPS and 
ICE documents related to human capital planning, vacancies for critical 
positions, and workforce models. We interviewed FPS officials regarding 
efforts to (1) develop and implement a long-term strategic human 
capital plan, (2) identify and fill critical vacancies, (3) and analyze 
current and future workforce needs. We then compared FPS's efforts with 
Key Principles of Effective Strategic Workforce Planning identified by 
GAO.[Footnote 27] 

To assess FPS's customer satisfaction with its services, we reviewed 
the existing memorandum of agreement between DHS and GSA, which 
outlines the services FPS provides GSA and other federal customers in 
GSA-controlled buildings. We also met with GSA officials in its central 
and regional offices to determine their level of satisfaction with 
FPS's services and specific actions FPS and GSA have taken to ensure 
effective communication and coordination. Additionally, we reviewed FPS 
documents related to customer communication and outreach. 

In addition, we conducted a Web-based survey of FPS customers in GSA- 
owned and leased buildings. For the purpose of our survey, we defined 
FPS customers as building security committee chairpersons and 
designated officials. We focused on building security committee 
chairpersons and designated officials, because these officials are 
responsible for working with FPS to identify security issues and 
implement minimum security standards for their buildings. The survey 
sought information pertaining to FPS's law enforcement and physical 
security services, customers' perspectives on the level of service FPS 
has provided, and observed changes in services over the past 5 years. 

To identify the appropriate officials to respond to the survey, we 
constructed our population of FPS customers in GSA-owned and leased 
facilities from GSA's facilities database as of October 2008, an action 
that resulted in over 9,000 GSA-controlled facilities, and matched 
customer contact information from FPS's database using GSA-assigned 
building numbers. We excluded about 670 facilities with data errors or 
anomalies pertaining to the security level of the facility as well as 
security level V facilities, because FPS does not have responsibility 
for protecting any level V buildings. On the basis of our discussions 
with GSA officials about the types of facilities in their inventory, we 
also excluded approximately 1,900 facilities that generally had either 
(1) few to no occupants; (2) limited use; or (3) no need for public 
access, such as warehouses, storage, and parking facilities, and this 
resulted in a study population of about 6,422 facilities. We selected a 
stratified random sample of 1,398 facilities from this study population 
where the strata were defined by region. Table 4 summarizes the sample 
and sample disposition for each of the strata. 

Table 4: FPS Customer Survey Sample and Response Rates: 

FPS Region: 1. New England; 
Number: 99; 
Response: 56; 
Out of scope[A]: 0; 
Response rate percentages: 57. 

FPS Region: 2. Northeast & Caribbean; 
Number: 102; 
Response: 51; 
Out of scope[A]: 0; 
Response rate percentages: 50. 

FPS Region: 3. Mid-Atlantic; 
Number: 112; 
Response: 68; 
Out of scope[A]: 0; 
Response rate percentages: 61. 

FPS Region: 4. Southeast; 
Number: 183; 
Response: 106; 
Out of scope[A]: 6; 
Response rate percentages: 59. 

FPS Region: 5. Great Lakes; 
Number: 122; 
Response: 60; 
Out of scope[A]: 3; 
Response rate percentages: 50. 

FPS Region: 6. Heartland; 
Number: 97; 
Response: 57; 
Out of scope[A]: 0; 
Response rate percentages: 59. 

FPS Region: 7. Greater Southwest; 
Number: 188; 
Response: 91; 
Out of scope[A]: 6; 
Response rate percentages: 50. 

FPS Region: 8. Rocky Mountain; 
Number: 112; 
Response: 65; 
Out of scope[A]: 1; 
Response rate percentages: 58. 

FPS Region: 9. Pacific Rim; 
Number: 168; 
Response: 82; 
Out of scope[A]: 0; 
Response rate percentages: 49. 

FPS Region: 10. Northwest/Arctic; 
Number: 108; 
Response: 71; 
Out of scope[A]: 5; 
Response rate percentages: 67. 

FPS Region: 11. National Capital; 
Number: 107; 
Response: 53; 
Out of scope[A]: 5; 
Response rate percentages: 52. 

FPS Region: Total; 
Number: 1,398; 
Response: 760; 
Out of scope[A]: 26; 
Response rate percentages: 55. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] A total of 26 properties in our sample were determined to be out of 
scope for this survey, generally because the facility was closed or 
otherwise not part of our study population. 

[End of table] 

As summarized in table 4, we received responses from customers at 760 
of the selected facilities (26 of which were out of scope, leaving 734 
respondents belonging to our study population), for an overall weighted 
response rate of approximately 55 percent. 

We attributed this response rate as mainly due to outdated or 
inaccurate FPS contact data. Our initial survey notification e-mail to 
customers in our sample of 1,398 customers resulted in approximately 18 
percent undeliverable e-mails. Our attempts to obtain e-mail addresses 
for these customers showed that FPS's data were outdated and 
inaccurate, because some customers had retired or left the agency. In 
addition, when we attempted to contact customers to encourage their 
participation in our survey, we found that FPS did not have the correct 
telephone numbers for over 200 of the 683 customers that did not 
respond to our survey. In addition to examining the response rates by 
sampling strata, we also examined the weighted response rates for other 
subgroups of the population and did not find wide variations in 
response rate by a building's security level, whether or not it was 
leased, or whether it was a single or multi-tenant building. 

We used the information gathered in this survey to calculate estimates 
about the entire study population of FPS customers in GSA-owned and 
leased buildings. Because we followed a probability procedure based on 
random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples 
that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided 
different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our 
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This 
is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 
percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 
percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report 
will include the true values in the study population. All percentage 
estimates from this survey have 95 percent confidence intervals of 
within plus or minus 5 percentage points of the estimated percentage, 
unless otherwise noted. 

In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties 
of conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly 
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a 
particular question is interpreted, the sources of information 
available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can 
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included 
steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages for the 
purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors. For example, we met with 
security officials from GSA who were knowledgeable about the roles and 
responsibilities of FPS and building security committees to gain an 
understanding of the types of services FPS should be providing 
customers and to discuss the feasibility of surveying customers in 
different types of buildings (i.e., leased versus government owned). We 
also pretested the questionnaire with five building security chairs to 
ensure the questions were consistently interpreted and understandable. 

We also corresponded with over 100 customers who contacted us to 
provide updated contact information. During these conversations, we 
discussed the relationship between FPS and building security 
committees/designated officials, including FPS's roles and 
responsibilities. In addition, we also followed up with 10 more 
customers who had no basis to judge FPS's overall level of service to 
gain an understanding of their responses to our survey questions and to 
gather information on aspects of FPS's awareness and outreach efforts. 
Specifically, we asked them about the types of information they receive 
from FPS about changes to its services and fee structure as well as 
actions FPS has taken to solicit their input. A copy of the survey 
questions and a complete tabulation of the results can be found in 
appendix II. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Survey of Federal Protective Service Customers: 

The questions we asked in our survey on FPS's services are shown below, 
and the percentages in parentheses indicate the proportion of 
respondents that chose that particular answer. Unless otherwise noted, 
all percentages shown are survey estimates that have 95 percent 
confidence intervals of within plus or minus 5 percentage points of the 
estimate itself. 

Background Information: 

Please answer all questions based your experience with the security at 
[Building Address], with building number [Building Number]. If you 
normally seek advice or support from Security/Law Enforcement/Physical 
Security Specialists to fulfill your duties as the Building Security 
Committee Chairperson or Designated Official, please feel free to seek 
their input to respond to this survey. 

1. What agency do you work for? 

[Open Ended] 

2. Which personnel function best describes your primary position within 
your agency? (Select one): 

1. Security personnel (12%):
2. Human resources personnel (0%):
3. Finance personnel (1%):
4. Management (70%):
5. Other (17%): 

If you answered "Other" above, please specify: 

[Open Ended] 

3. How long have you been the Building Security Committee Chairperson/ 
Designated Official for _____? (Select one): 

1. Less than a year (13%):
2. More than 1, but less than 2 years (12%):
3. More than 2, but less than 5 years (32%):
4. 5 or more years (44%): 

4. What is the Department of Justice assigned security level at _____? 
Please indicate the security level at _____ under the 1995 Department 
of Justice standards, even if the facility has been re-assigned a new 
security level under the 2008 Interagency Security Committee Standards 
for Facility Security Level Determinations For Federal Facilities 
(Select one): 

1. Level I (6%):
2. Level II (22%):
3. Level III (10%):
4. Level IV (10%:
5. Level V (1%):
6. Do not know (50%): 

5. Is _____ a government owned or a leased facility?[Footnote 28] 
(Select one): 

1. Government owned facility (19%):
2. Leased facility (80%):
3. Do not know (1%): 

6. Is _____ a single or multi-tenant agency facility? (Select one): 

1. Single tenant (34%):
2. Multi-tenant (65%):
3. Do not know (1%): 

7. Does your agency have delegated authority for any of the following 
security services? (Please check all that apply): 

Security Service: Contract security guard service; 
Checked: 23%; 
Not Checked: 87%. 

Security Service: Law enforcement services; 
Checked: 10%; 
Not Checked: 90%. 

Security Service: Perimeter security; 
Checked: 10%; 
Not Checked: 90%. 

Security Service: Interior security; 
Checked: 18%; 
Not Checked: 82%. 

Security Service: Other; 
Checked: 6%; 
Not Checked: 94%. 

Security Service: None of the above. My agency has no security 
delegation authority; 
Checked: 39%; 
Not Checked: 61%. 

Security Service: Do not know; 
Checked: 18%; 
Not Checked: 82%. 

[End of table] 

If you answered "Other" above, please specify: 

[Open Ended] 

Law Enforcement and Physical Security Providers: 

8. What law enforcement agency do you consider the primary provider of 
law enforcement services that require an immediate response to an 
emergency, such as responding to violent crimes and life threatening 
incidents, at _____? (Select one): 

1.Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and inspectors) 
(18%):
2. State law enforcement agency (3%):
3. Local law enforcement agency (66%):
4. Other (13%): 

If you answered "Other" above, please specify: 

[Open Ended] 

9. What law enforcement agency do you consider the primary provider of 
law enforcement services that do not require an immediate response such 
as enforcing laws and regulations at _____? (Select one): 

1. Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and 
inspectors) (49%):
2. State law enforcement agency (5%):
3. Local law enforcement agency (36%):
4. Other (11%): 

If you answered "Other" above, please specify: 

[Open Ended] 

10. What agency/organization do you consider the primary provider of 
physical security such as an on-site evaluation and analysis of 
security at _____? (Select one): 

1. Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and 
inspectors) (48%):
2. General Services Administration, Building Security & Policy Division 
(12%):
3. My agency's own internal office (29%):
4. Other (11%): 

If you answered "Other" above, please specify: 

[Open Ended] 

11. In addition to the agency you indicated for Q10, what other 
agencies provide physical security such as an on-site evaluation and 
analysis of security at _____? (Please check all that apply): 

Providers: Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and 
inspectors); 
Checked: 32%; 
Not checked: 68%. 

Providers: General Services Administration, Building Security and 
Policy Division; 
Checked: 26%; 
Not checked: 74%. 

Providers: My agency's own internal office; 
Checked: 32%; 
Not checked: 68%. 

Providers: Other; 
Checked: 10%; 
Not checked: 90%. 

If you answered "Other" above, please specify: 

[Open Ended] 

12. FPS Provided Private Security Guard Service: 

The following questions are about any service provided by private 
security guards stationed at your facility that are obtained through a 
contractual agreement with FPS. If there are no contract security 
guards provided by FPS at _____, answer NO to question 12 and skip to 
the next section. 

13. Does the Federal Protective Service (FPS) provide private security 
guards at _____? (Select one): 

1. Yes (36%):
2. No - Skip to question 14. (61%):
3. Do not know - Skip to question 14. (3%): 

14. How satisfied are you with the service provided by the security 
guard(s) at _____? (Select one): 

1. Very satisfied (42%)[Footnote 29]
2. Satisfied (45%)[Footnote 30]
3. Neutral (9%):
4. Dissatisfied (3%):
5. Very dissatisfied (0%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (1%): 

FPS Customer Service: 

The following questions are about the services provided by Federal 
Protective Service (FPS) police officers and inspectors. 

1. Overall, how satisfied are you with the current level of service 
provided by the FPS? (Select one): 

1. Very satisfied (25%):
2. Satisfied (34%):
3. Neutral (18%):
4. Dissatisfied (5%):
5. Very dissatisfied (2%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (17%): 

15. In your opinion, how has the quality of the following FPS basic 
security services changed over the past 5-years? (Select one for each 
row): 

a. Law enforcement services that require an immediate response to 
emergencies such as responding to crimes and incidents: 

Greatly improved (3%):
Improved (10%):
Stayed about the same (37%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (45%): 

b. Other law enforcement services such as patrolling the facility and 
enforcing federal laws and regulations: 

Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (9%):
Stayed about the same (36%):
Declined (5%):
Greatly declined (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (45%): 

c. Building Security Assessments: 

Greatly improved (3%):
Improved (18%):
Stayed about the same (44%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (29%): 

d. Assistance with security plans, such as Occupant Emergency Plans 
(OEP) and Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP): 

Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (12%):
Stayed about the same (33%):
Declined (5%):
Greatly declined (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (45%): 

16. In your opinion, how has the quality of the following FPS building 
specific services changed over the past 5-years? (Select one for each 
row): 

a.Management of security guards - acquisition and monitoring of guards 
from a private company contracted by FPS for security services: 

Greatly improved (3%):
Improved (9%):
Stayed about the same (24%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (58%): 

b. Installing, operating, maintaining, and/or repairing security 
equipment, such as x-ray machines, closed-circuit televisions and 
cameras, and alarm systems: 

Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (7%):
Stayed about the same (17%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (4%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (66%): 

c. Consultation on security fixtures, such as vehicular barriers, 
gates, locks, parking lot fencing, and guard booths: 

Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (8%):
Stayed about the same (22%):
Declined (5%):
Greatly declined (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (62%): 

17. How often does FPS attend meetings regarding the security at _____, 
including meetings about Building Security Assessments and 
countermeasures? (Select one): 

1. Always (11%):
2. Sometimes (13%):
3. Rarely (18%):
4. Never (22%):
5. No basis to judge/Not applicable (36%): 

18. How satisfied are you with FPS police officers' or inspectors' 
current ability to perform the following activities? (Select one for 
each row): 

a. Respond to incidents at your facility: 

Very satisfied (11%):
Satisfied (29%):
Neutral (12%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (39%): 

b. Patrol your facility: 

Very satisfied (6%):
Satisfied (18%):
Neutral (15%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (5%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (50%): 

c. Provide crime prevention and security trainings for tenant agencies: 

Very satisfied (7%):
Satisfied (17%):
Neutral (17%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (4%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (49%): 

19. Over the past 5-years, how has FPS police officers' or inspectors' 
ability to perform to the following activities changed? (Select one for 
each row): 

a. Respond to incidents at your facility: 

Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (8%):
Stayed about the same (36%):
Decreased (4%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (47%): 

b. Patrol your facility: 

Greatly increased (2%):
Increased (6%):
Stayed about the same (27%):
Decreased (6%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (57%): 

c. Provide crime prevention and security trainings for tenant agencies: 

Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (7%):
Stayed about the same (27%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (56%): 

20. How satisfied are you with FPS's current level of communication 
with respect to the following? (Select one for each row): 

a. Services FPS can offer tenant agencies, such as guidance on security 
issues and crime prevention training: 

Very satisfied (7%):
Satisfied (26%):
Neutral (20%):
Dissatisfied (9%):
Very dissatisfied (4%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (35%): 

b. Information related Building Security Assessments and security 
countermeasures: 

Very satisfied (8%):
Satisfied (30%):
Neutral (21%):
Dissatisfied (8%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (30%): 

c. Threats to your facility: 

Very satisfied (8%):
Satisfied (28%):
Neutral (19%):
Dissatisfied (7%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (35%): 

d. Security related laws, regulations, and guidance: 

Very satisfied (6%):
Satisfied (25%):
Neutral (23%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (37%): 

e. Information related to the security guards at your facility: 

Very satisfied (6%):
Satisfied (19%):
Neutral (17%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (50%): 

f. General security information: 

Very satisfied (7%):
Satisfied (31%):
Neutral (24%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (29%): 

21. Over the past 5-years, how has the level of communication with FPS 
changed with respect to the following? (Select one for each row): 

a. Services FPS can offer tenant agencies, such as guidance on security 
issues and crime prevention training: 

Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (14%):
Stayed about the same (34%):
Decreased (8%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (39%): 

b. Information related Building Security Assessments and security 
countermeasures: 

Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (16%):
Stayed about the same (36%):
Decreased (7%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (37%): 

c. Threats to your facility: 

Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (10%):
Stayed about the same (38%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (43%): 

d. Security related laws, regulations, and guidance: 

Greatly increased (2%):
Increased (9%):
Stayed about the same (38%):
Decreased (6%):
Greatly decreased (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (44%): 

e. Information related to the security guards at your facility: 

Greatly increased (2%):
Increased (8%):
Stayed about the same (30%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (53%): 

f. General security information: 

Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (13%):
Stayed about the same (39%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (38%): 

22. Based on your experience, what, if any, were the main actions FPS 
took over the last 5-years that contributed to the change in quality of 
service during this period? 

[Open Ended] 

FPS Law Enforcement Service: 

The following questions are about the law enforcement services provided 
by FPS police officers and inspectors. 

23. How satisfied are you with FPS's response time to emergencies that 
occur at _____? (Select one): 

1. Very satisfied (11%):
2. Satisfied (17%):
3. Neutral (11%):
4. Dissatisfied (5%):
5. Very dissatisfied (1%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (55%): 

24. How satisfied are you with FPS's response time to non-emergencies 
that occur at _____? (Select one): 

1. Very satisfied (12%):
2. Satisfied (27%):
3. Neutral (13%):
4. Dissatisfied (3%):
5. Very dissatisfied (1%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (44%): 

25. How would you characterize the level of patrolling at _____ by FPS 
police officers or inspectors? (Select one): 

1. Too many (0%):
2. About right (21%):
3. Too few (22%):
4. No basis to judge/Not applicable (57%): 

FPS Building Security Assessments: 

26. Has FPS conducted a Building Security Assessment (BSA) at _____ 
within the last 5 years? (Select one): 

1. Yes (64%):
2. No - Skip to question 34. (12%):
3. Do not know - Skip to question 34. (24%): 

27. Were you the designated official/BSC Chairperson while the last BSA 
was conducted by FPS at _____? (Select one): 

1. Yes (83%):
2. No (17%): 

28. What documentation was the designated official/BSC Chairperson 
provided as a result of the BSA conducted by FPS at _____? (Please 
check all that apply): 

Documentation: Executive summary of BSA; 
Checked: 35%; 
Not checked: 65%. 

Documentation: Full copy of BSA; 
Checked: 36%; 
Not checked: 64%. 

Documentation: Other documentation of BSA; 
Checked: 11%; 
Not checked: 89%. 

Documentation: No basis to judge/Not applicable; 
Checked: 13%; 
Not checked: 87%. 

29. For the most recent BSA conducted at _____, was the designated 
official/BSC Chairperson interviewed by the FPS inspector about 
security concerns or security posture for your facility? (Select one): 

1. Yes (83%):
2. No (9%):
3. No basis to judge/Not applicable (8%): 

30. For the most recent BSA conducted at _____, how satisfied were you 
with the level of interaction you had with FPS on the BSA? (Select 
one): 

1. Very satisfied (37%):
2. Satisfied (38%):
3. Neutral (15%):
4. Dissatisfied (3%):
5. Very dissatisfied (2%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (5%): 

31. Thinking back to the most recent BSA conducted by FPS at _____, 
were you/your BSC briefed by FPS on the BSA results? (Select one): 

1. Yes (82%):
2. No - Skip to question 34. (18%): 

32. Thinking back to the most recent presentation of BSA results by FPS 
at _____, how satisfied were you with the FPS inspector's overall 
presentation of the BSA results and recommendations? (Select one): 

1. Very satisfied (40%):
2. Satisfied (44%)[Footnote 31]
3. Neutral (12%):
4. Dissatisfied (2%):
5. Very dissatisfied (1%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (1%): 

33. Thinking back to the most recent presentation of BSA results by FPS 
at _____, how strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the 
following statements: (Select one for each row): 

a. The FPS inspector was knowledgeable about physical security 
standards, regulations, and guidelines. 

Strongly agree (39%):
Agree (49%)[Footnote 32]
Neither agree nor disagree (7%):
Disagree (1%):
Strongly disagree (0%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (4%): 

b. The FPS inspector provided useful information on the BSA process, 
including information about threats to the facility and how these 
threats are tied to the recommended countermeasures. 

Strongly agree (30%):
Agree (43%)[Footnote 33]
Neither agree nor disagree (15%):
Disagree (4%):
Strongly disagree (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (7%): 

c. The FPS inspector provided useful information on various security 
countermeasures, including alternatives to recommended countermeasures. 

Strongly agree (30%):
Agree (39%):
Neither agree nor disagree (16%):
Disagree (5%):
Strongly disagree (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (8%): 

d. The FPS inspector provided cost estimates for various security 
countermeasures. 

Strongly agree (12%):
Agree (21%):
Neither agree nor disagree (17%):
Disagree (11%):
Strongly disagree (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (35%): 

e. The FPS inspector took into consideration the budget cycle(s) of 
tenant agency(s). 

Strongly agree (8%):
Agree (18%):
Neither agree nor disagree (25%):
Disagree (6%):
Strongly disagree (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (40%): 

f. The FPS inspector sufficiently responded to questions. 

Strongly agree (32%):
Agree (48%)[Footnote 34]
Neither agree nor disagree (10%):
Disagree (1%):
Strongly disagree (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (7%): 

34. Thinking back to the most recent presentation of BSA results by FPS 
at __________, to what extent did FPS prioritize recommended security 
countermeasures? 

[Note: Because of an error in the response categories for this 
question, it was removed from the analysis of the FPS Customer Survey] 

35. If you have any comments that on the BSA process or would like to 
expand on your responses to questions Q26-34, please enter them in the 
space provided below: 

[Open Ended] 

Completed: 

36. If you have completed the survey, please check the "Completed" 
circle below. Clicking "Completed" lets us know that you are finished 
and that you want us to use your answers. Your answers will not be used 
unless you have selected the Completed" option to this question. 
(Select one): 

1. Completed:
2. Not completed: 

If you would like to view and print your completed survey, continue to 
the next screen. Otherwise click on the Exit button below to exit the 
survey and send your responses to GAO's server. 

Thank you! 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

July 21, 2009: 

Mr. Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director: 
Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-09-749, Homeland Security: Federal Protective 
Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate 
With Tenants (GAO Job Code 543215): 

The Department of Homeland Security (Department) appreciates the 
opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO's) draft report referenced above. The Department, 
particularly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under which the 
Federal Protective Service (FPS) currently is located, agrees with the 
recommendations. 

In order to facilitate effective strategic management of the FPS 
workforce, GAO recommends that the Secretary direct the Director of FPS 
to: 

Recommendation 1: Improve how FPS Headquarters collects data on its 
workforce's knowledge, skills and abilities to help it better manage 
and understand current and future workforce needs. 

Response: In early FY 2008, FPS undertook an ambitious effort, Phase I 
of the FPS Workforce Skills/Knowledge/Abilities Assessment Initiative, 
to standardize the position descriptions (PD) of its workforce. One 
finding from that effort was that FPS needed to improve its processes 
for capturing and conducting job task analyses and for improving its 
systems for storing and retrieving that information. Currently, 80 
percent of the workforce is on standard PDs and it is anticipated that 
percentage will reach 90 percent by the end of FY 2009. The FPS 
Workforce Skills/Knowledge/Abilities Assessment Initiative will result 
in the design of a system that will capture, analyze, and validate the 
skills, knowledge, and abilities required for the accomplishment of 
tasks of various FPS positions. Phase 2 will involve the development or 
purchase of a skill mapping template to determine and document the 
skills, knowledge, and abilities required to accomplish the various 
tasks of the FPS workforce. 

Recommendation 2: Use this data in the development and implementation 
of a long-term strategic human capital plan which addresses key 
principles for effective strategic workforce planning including 
establishing programs, policies, and practices that will enable the 
agency to recruit, develop, and retain [a] qualified workforce. 

Response: FPS has undertaken a Workforce Skills/Knowledge/Abilities 
Assessment Initiative, a three phase plan that will ultimately result 
in the use of data in the recruitment, development, and retention of a 
qualified workforce. As previously noted, Phase 1 of the FPS Workforce 
Skills/Knowledge/Abilities Assessment Initiative involves the 
standardization of the position descriptions of the FPS workforce. 
Phase 2 will involve the development or purchase of a skill mapping 
template to determine and document the skills, knowledge, and abilities 
required to accomplish the various tasks of the FPS workforce. Phase 3 
of the initiative will involve the creation and implementation of a 
standardized process for the identification of training, training 
delivery methods, and assessment tools to assist FPS in the 
recruitment, development, and retention of a qualified workforce. 

To improve service to all FPS customers, GAO recommended that FPS: 

Recommendation 3: Collect and maintain an accurate and comprehensive 
list of all facility designated points of contact, as well as a system 
for regularly updating this list. 

Response: The FPS Risk Assessment and Management Program (RAMP) will 
serve as the central point of information on the facilities protected 
by FPS. A key component of RAMP will be its contact management 
features. The system will store detailed information for multiple 
points of contact for each facility. This will include Facility 
Security Committee chairs, tenant representatives, GSA Property 
Managers, FPS personnel associated with the facility, and local law 
enforcement and emergency services contacts. FPS personnel will be able 
to make updates to facility contacts remotely, which will facilitate 
the process of maintaining accurate contacts, because RAMP will be 
deployed on rugged laptops with mobile connectivity. Further, personnel 
using RAMP will utilize these points of contact to schedule meetings 
and interviews as part of the Facility Security Assessment Process, 
which will also serve as a means to update contact information as 
necessary. This phase of RAMP should be deployed in November 2010. 

Recommendation 4: Develop and implement a program for education and 
outreach to all customers to ensure they are aware of the current 
roles, responsibilities, and services provided by FPS. 

Response: ICE agrees that additional outreach is needed; however, ICE 
disagrees with the GAO suggestion that there is "widespread 
dissatisfaction with communication with FPS." In their responses to 
survey questions concerning communications (Question 20), 13 percent or 
less of the respondents indicated dissatisfaction with FPS's current 
level of communication related to services FPS can offer tenant 
agencies, information related to Building Security Assessments and 
security countermeasures, threats to particular facilities, and 
security related laws, regulations and guidance. Less than 11 percent 
of the respondents (Question 21) indicated a decline in levels of 
communication with FPS over the past five years in the same areas. 
Respondents were also asked if the FPS inspector sufficiently responded 
to their questions. In their responses to this question (Question 331), 
only 3 percent of the respondents indicated dissatisfaction with 
information provided. 

FPS has actively engaged, and continues to engage, in outreach and 
communication programs to improve the understanding of FPS roles and 
responsibilities. In 2008, FPS conducted several outreach focus groups 
to provide information about products and services offered by FPS and 
to enhance current and future service offerings. In response to some of 
the feedback received during these meetings, FPS recognized a need to 
develop a guide that described security services provided to its 
customers. The guide was developed based on the Memorandum of Agreement 
(MOA) between the FPS and the General Services Administration (GSA). 
This MOA defines in detail FPS offerings and responsibilities with 
regard to services provided to GSA controlled facilities. 

FPS will also review, revise, and re-issue guidance to ensure that its 
customers are aware of the current roles, responsibilities, and 
services provided by FPS. Moreover, FPS will work with GSA senior 
officials to ensure that they communicate to their field staff the need 
to reinforce that FPS is their security provider and questions 
concerning FPS roles and responsibilities in providing security should 
be directed to their designated FPS inspector. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michael E. McPoland, for: 

Jerald E. Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Tammy Conquest, Assistant 
Director; Tida Barakat; Brandon Haller; Delwen Jones; Steven Lozano; 
Susan Michal-Smith; Josh Ormond; Mark Ramage; Kelly Rubin; Lacy Vong; 
and Greg Wilmoth made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] FPS funds its operations through the collection of security fees 
charged to tenant agencies, FPS's customers, for security services. 
However, we reported in June 2008 that during fiscal years 2003 through 
2006 these fees were not sufficient to cover FPS's operating costs. 

[2] GAO, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective Service Faces 
Several Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal 
Facilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-683] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2008). 

[3] Pub. L. No. 110-161, Division E, 121 Stat. 1844, 2051-2052 (2007). 

[4] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 
No. 110-329, Division D, 122 Stat. 3574, 3659-3660 (2008). 

[5] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 

[6] For purposes of this report, we refer to these building security 
committee chairpersons and designated officials as FPS customers. 

[7] The level of security FPS provides at each of the approximately 
9,000 federal building it protects varies depending on the building's 
security level, which is determined by the Department of Justice's 1995 
Vulnerability Assessment Guidelines. The guidelines designated security 
levels I through V for federal buildings and established 52 minimum 
standards, with level I buildings having 18 minimum standards and level 
V facilities having 39 standards. We excluded level V facilities from 
our analysis, because FPS does not have responsibility for protecting 
any level V buildings. 

[8] Established in 1972 and administered by GSA, the Federal Buildings 
Fund is a revolving fund in the U.S. Treasury into which federal agency 
rent and certain other moneys are deposited. Moneys deposited into the 
fund are available, subject to congressional appropriation, for GSA's 
real property management and related activities. See 40 U.S.C.  592. 

[9] Laguna drafts vacancy postings for available FPS positions, posts 
them online at [hyperlink, http://www.usajobs.gov] (the federal 
government hiring portal), certifies applicant eligibility for open 
positions, and refers eligible candidates to FPS for interviews. Once 
FPS receives a list of certified candidates from Laguna, it schedules 
and conducts interviews and selects candidates for offers of 
employment. Laguna then makes employment offers to candidates, and upon 
acceptance coordinates the new hire's date for reporting for duty. 

[10] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on 
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-454] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 
2007). 

[11] According to FPS officials, it established FPS Directive 08-010 in 
December 2008, standardizing all field training and evaluations, and 
has taken steps to provide ongoing in-house training to LESOs to 
compensate for delays at FLETC. 

[12] RAMP will be the primary tool FPS staff will use to fulfill their 
mission. According to FPS, RAMP is intended to be a comprehensive, 
systematic, and dynamic means of capturing, accessing, storing, 
managing, and utilizing pertinent facility information. RAMP will 
replace several FPS systems, including its Security Tracking System and 
the Contract Guard Employment Requirements Tracking System, and may be 
integrated with other systems associated with the BSA program. 

[13] According to FPS, since the announcement of the proposed shift of 
FPS from ICE to NPPD, a senior group from the three organizations has 
met to exchange initial information and establish communications. 
Additionally, FPS reported that working groups have been established 
including a FPS Transition Senior Working Group consisting of senior 
leaders from ICE, NPPD, and FPS with the purpose of producing a 
transition plan. 

[14] GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 
2002). 

[15] Unless otherwise noted all percentage estimates based on the FPS 
customer survey have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or 
minus 5 percentage points of the estimate itself. 

[16] Until 2008, FPS followed the Department of Justice guidance for 
completing BSAs, which requires BSAs to be completed every 2 to 4 
years, depending on the security level of the building. For example, a 
BSA for a level IV building is completed every 2 years and every 4 
years for a level I building. On March 10, 2008, the Interagency 
Security Committee, an organization composed of representatives from 
nonmilitary government agencies, published new standards for 
determining the security level of federal facilities, which superseded 
the Department of Justice's guidance and standards. Under the new 
standards, assessments will be conducted at least every 5 years for 
level I and II facilities and at least every 3 years for level III, IV, 
and V facilities. Additionally, although FPS established a policy in 
March 2009 regarding minimum standards for the frequency of visits by 
FPS LESOs to conduct guard post inspections, this policy does not 
include requirements for FPS LESOs to interact with FPS customers, 
namely the facilities' building security committee chairs, during these 
inspections. 

[17] We did not take steps to determine if building security 
assessments were completed for all buildings in our sample, because as 
noted in June 2008, we reported on the weaknesses of FPS's data 
systems, which made it difficult for FPS to accurately track and 
monitor performance measures, such as completion of BSAs and responses 
to incidents. 

[18] Our survey question regarding the primary provider of physical 
security provided an example of such services as an on-site evaluation 
and analysis of security of their facility, which FPS refers to as 
building security assessments; see appendix II question 10 for further 
details. 

[19] We did not take steps to determine the actual level of service FPS 
provided customers, because in June 2008 we reported on the weaknesses 
of FPS's data systems and oversight of FPS's performance was beyond the 
scope of our review. 

[20] In addition to the basic security fee FPS charges each tenant 
agency, other security services such as contract guard service and the 
maintenance of security systems (e.g., closed circuit cameras) can also 
be provided on a building or facility basis for an additional charge, 
known as building specific charges. 

[21] Office of Management and Budget, Program Assessment Rating Tool: 
Federal Protective Service 2007 Assessment. See [hyperlink, 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore] (last accessed January 17, 2009). 

[22] GAO, Homeland Security: Greater Attention to Key Practices Would 
Improve the Federal Protective Service's Approach to Facility 
Protection, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-644], 
(Washington, D.C: July 29, 2009). 

[23] GAO, National Preparedness: Technologies to Secure Federal 
Buildings, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-687T], 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2002). 

[24] Pub. L. No 110-161, Division E, 121 Stat 1844, 2051-2052 (2007), 
and Pub. L. No 110-329, Division D, 122 Stat 3574, 3652-3691 (2008). 

[25] GAO, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective Service Faces 
Several Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal 
Facilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-683] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2008). 

[26] GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently 
Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-98-199] (Washington, D.C.: 
September 1998). Also in a document dated February 28, 2008, an OPM 
official confirmed that OPM continues to follow the CPDF data quality 
standards and procedures contained in our 1998 report. 

[27] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 

[28] As of June 2009 the General Services Administration's inventory 
consists of 82 percent leased and 18 percent owned facilities. 

[29] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 36 
and 49 percent. 

[30] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 39 
and 51 percent. 

[31] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 38 
and 49 percent. 

[32] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 44 
and 55 percent. 

[33] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 38 
and 49 percent. 

[34] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 43 
and 54 percent. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAOs actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAOs Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: