[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

BUILDING ONE DHS:

WHY IS EMPLOYEE MORALE LOW?
=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT,

INVESTIGATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT

of the

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

MARCH 22, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-79

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS.#13

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-605 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Joe Walsh, Illinois Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Ben Quayle, Arizona Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Scott Rigell, Virginia Janice Hahn, California
Billy Long, Missouri Vacancy
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT

Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Billy Long, Missouri, Vice Chair Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Dr. R. Nick Palarino, Staff Director
Diana Bergwin, Subcommittee Clerk
Tamla Scott, Minority Subcommittee Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight, Investigations, and Management:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable William R. Keating, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Massachusetts, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management:
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 3

WITNESSES
Panel I

Admiral Thad W. Allen (Ret.), Senior Vice President, Booz Allen
Hamilton:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7

Panel II

Ms. Catherine V. Emerson, Chief Human Capital Officer, Department
of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Mr. David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Team, Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, The Partnership for Public
Service:
Oral Statement................................................. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 35
Dr. Jeff T.H. Pon, Chief Human Resources Officer, Society for
Human Resource Management:
Oral Statement................................................. 42
Prepared Statement............................................. 44

FOR THE RECORD

The Honorable William R. Keating, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Massachusetts, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management:
Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union............. 56

BUILDING ONE DHS: WHY IS EMPLOYEE MORALE LOW?

----------

Thursday, March 22, 2012

U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and
Management,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:08 a.m., in
Room 311, Canon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McCaul, Duncan, Keating, and
Thompson.
Mr. McCaul. The committee will come to order. Good morning,
everybody. I want to thank the Ranking Member of the full
committee for subbing in for the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee today.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
More than 200,000 men and women whose job is to keep
Americans safe from terrorist attacks have a low level of
morale, and equally as important, a low level of confidence in
their leadership. Simply put, the Department of Homeland
Security, whose employees' job responsibilities range from law
enforcement to intelligence analysis, from screening airline
passengers to protecting cyberspace, have a morale problem.
To quote a memo written by the Department of Homeland
security, ``vulnerability in leadership is a vulnerability in
homeland security.'' I could not agree more.
With such a diverse workforce there are bound to be
inherent leadership challenges. But after 9 years the
Department continues to struggle with low employee morale.
DHS employees strongly believe in their work and their
mission, but what does it say when only 37 percent of DHS
employees believe senior leaders motivate them and only 37
percent are satisfied with their senior leaders' policies and
practices? Those numbers are some of the poor grades assigned
to the Department's leadership in the Office of Personnel
Management Federal Viewpoints Survey.
This is unacceptable. DHS's mission is the safety and
security of this country and the success or failure of that
mission depends on the people in that organization. We need to
ensure our men and women on the front lines of securing our
homeland have the support of the Nation and their own
leadership.
These hardworking individuals deserve the best the
Department has to offer. Instead, DHS ranks 31 out of 33
Federal organizations in the Best Places to Work survey.
We should also be concerned about the range of employee
satisfaction in the various DHS subordinate agencies,
especially the differences. The United States Coast Guard made
gains this year, to commend them, in the survey, and they
ranked 37 out of 240 subcomponents in the Federal Government
while the Office of Science and Technology ranked 238 out of
240. Of course, various DHS components have different mission
sets, but they should not have different mindsets.
Today we look forward to hearing from Admiral Thad Allen
about building morale in these organizations. As most of us
know, Admiral Allen, besides a distinguished military career,
led the successful response and clean-up of the Gulf oil spill.
Morale can drive an organization forward or it can fuel the
fire of deeper discontent among employees, eventually
compromising its mission. There is too much at stake for the
American people to allow this to continue.
We hope to hear today what is causing low morale in DHS and
how DHS plans to improve morale by communicating a vision,
energizing staff, and developing loyalty and a team mentality
within its workforce. Without these essential elements the goal
of developing what Secretary Napolitano wants, ``One DHS''--
that cannot be accomplished.
This is our fourth hearing examining DHS management issues.
There is a sense of deja vu for anyone following these
hearings. While I believe DHS management is working to address
their problems and moving in the right direction, by their own
admission they have a long road ahead.
Merely combining 22 agencies with the mission of homeland
security will not produce better performance or a coherent
policy. This is the job of leadership.
In order to create One DHS, greater attention and focus
needs to be placed on the issues we have highlighted over the
past 2 months. Resolving the management issues, such as
developing a clear and focused strategy in line with budget
allocations, technology integration, and eliminating waste and
duplication in the Department are issues I believe will go a
long way to improving workforce morale.
Now, with that I would like to recognize now the Ranking
Member of the full Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson,
for his opening statement.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
March 22, 2012
More than 200,000 men and women whose job it is to keep Americans
safe from terrorist attacks have a low level of morale, and equally as
important a low level of confidence in their leadership.
Simply put, the Department of Homeland Security, whose employees'
job responsibilities range from law enforcement to intelligence
analysis, from screening airline passengers to protecting cyberspace,
has a morale problem.
To quote a memo written by the Department of Homeland Security,
``vulnerability in leadership is a vulnerability in homeland
security.''
I could not agree more.
With such a diverse workforce there are bound to be inherent
leadership challenges. But after 9 years the Department continues to
struggle with low employee morale.
DHS employees strongly believe in their work and mission. But what
does it say when only 37% of DHS employees believe senior leaders
motivate them and only 37% are satisfied with their senior leaders'
policies and practices? Those numbers are some of the poor grades
assigned to the Department's leadership in the Office of Personnel
Management's Federal Viewpoints Survey.
This is unacceptable.
DHS's mission is the safety and security of this country and the
success or failure of that mission depends on the people in that
organization. We need to ensure our men and women on the front lines of
securing our homeland have the support of the Nation and their own
leadership.
These hard-working individuals deserve the best the Department has
to offer. Instead, DHS ranks 31 out of 33 Federal organizations in the
Best Places to Work survey.
We should also be concerned about the range of employee
satisfaction in the various DHS subordinate agencies, especially the
differences. The United States Coast Guard made gains this year in the
survey and ranked 37 out of 240 subcomponents in the Federal Government
while the Office of Science and Technology ranked 238 out of 240. Of
course various DHS components have different mission sets but they
should not have different mind sets.
Today we look forward to hearing from Admiral Thad Allen about
building morale in organizations. As most of us know, Admiral Allen,
besides a distinguished military career, lead the successful response
and clean-up of the Gulf oil spill.
Morale can drive an organization forward or it can fuel the fire of
deeper discontent among employees, eventually compromising its mission.
There is too much at stake for the American people to allow this to
continue.
We hope to hear today what is causing low morale in DHS, how DHS
plans to improve morale by communicating a vision, energizing staff,
and developing loyalty and a team mentality within its workforce.
Without these essential elements the goal of developing what Secretary
Napolitano wants, ``One DHS,'' cannot be accomplished.
This is our fourth hearing examining DHS management issues. There
is a sense of deja vu for anyone following these hearings. While I
believe DHS management is working to address their problems and moving
in the right direction, by their own admission they have a long road
ahead.
Merely combining 22 agencies with the mission of ``homeland
security'' will not produce better performance or a coherent policy.
This is the job of leadership.
In order to create ``One DHS'', greater attention and focus needs
to be placed on the issues we have highlighted over the past 2 months.
Resolving the management issues such as developing a clear and focused
strategy in line with budget allocations, technology integration, and
eliminating waste and duplication in the Department are issues I
believe will go a long way to improving workforce morale.

Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Chairman McCaul, for
holding this hearing.
For too long the Department of Homeland Security has been
plagued with low morale, employee dissatisfaction, and rankings
at or near the bottom of the Federal human capital surveys.
Eleven years into the Department's existence it remains at or
near the bottom in Federal Government rankings.
There are more than 220,000 employees who serve every day
at the Department in an effort to keep our country secure. They
are clear on their mission, and according to the latest Office
of Personnel Management survey, 91 percent of those responding
believe the work they do is important. And it is.
Department of Homeland Security employees represent the
front lines of our Nation's airport, land, and marine borders
and ports of entry. They are called when disaster and
emergencies strike and they uphold the immigration laws of our
Nation.
They develop technology for homeland security and homeland
defense missions and work with other Federal agencies to
protect and secure our infrastructure. They protect the
President of the United States and over 9,000 Federal buildings
across America.
They also work at the Department's headquarters providing
the managerial and administrative means for the Department to
fulfill its mission, and this exhaustive list does not fully
cover what it takes on a daily basis to staff and operate the
third-largest agency in the Federal Government.
Yet, despite numerous Government Accountability Office
recommendations and insight on where the problems lie from
surveys conducted by the Office of Personnel Management and the
Partnership for Public Service, the Department has yet to
figure out a strategy for improving its employees' morale.
Given its mission, the lack of human capital strategy is not
about numbers; it is about the security of our country.
The solution must come from the top. Unfortunately, the
position responsible for establishing human capital priorities,
recommending program improvements, and implementing corrective
action--the chief human capital officer--has been one of the
highest turnover rates of all Department leadership positions.
Including those serving in an acting capacity, there have been
eight different human capital officers at DHS since 2003. Only
one has served more than 2 years; most last about 13 months.
Moreover, the Department has yet to achieve the level of
diversity that is reflected Government-wide. In every category
except one the number of racial and ethnic minority employees
at the Department is lower than the Federal average.
It is no secret that the current economic climate has
caused Federal agencies to do more with less. But I am
encouraged that the 2011 OPM survey revealed that 96 percent of
respondents feel that they are willing to put in the extra
effort to get the job done and 90 percent feel that they are
constantly looking for ways to do their job better.
To the contrary, only 78 percent feel that they are treated
with respect by supervisors and less than half--46 percent--
believe that promotions are based on merit.
I applaud the efforts to put into place, by Secretary
Napolitano, such as new workforce strategy, the leader
development program, and the integrated strategy for high risk.
I am also pleased to see the addition of a diversity and
inclusion officer at the Department.
However, I am deeply troubled that employees continue to
rank the Department at or near the bottom. Hopefully today's
hearing will shed light on how to improve this dismal picture.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCaul. I thank the Ranking Member. Other Members are
reminded that they may submit statements for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Keating follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member William Keating
March 22, 2012
Thank you Chairman McCaul for holding today's hearing.
I would also like thank our distinguished witnesses for their
participation.
Today, we will examine an issue that is vital to the Department of
Homeland Security's operations and that is the management of its
220,000 employees.
I am deeply troubled by the Department's ranking in both the Office
of Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and the
Partnership for Public Service's Best Places to Work rankings.
In both surveys the Department ranked near the bottom.
On a positive note, the survey revealed that progress has been made
in the last 5 years; however, this progress has been incremental and
has not yielded overall improvement for the Department's ranking as
compared to other Federal agencies.
To that end, I am pleased that today's hearing will provide us with
an opportunity to examine ways to chart a way forward.
To do so, however, the Department must properly address the causes
of its employees' dissatisfaction and make a concerted effort to
improve Department-wide morale.
Given the huge gap between component-level responses, it is clear
that there needs to be a clearer connection and better collaboration
between DHS headquarters and its components.
For example, although the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center received overall scores of 70.9 and 66.5,
respectively; TSA's score was a mere 48 and the Science and Technology
Directorate was even lower at 41.
The Department recently developed its Workforce Strategy for fiscal
years 2011-2016.
Hopefully, this plan will serves as the blueprint for improved
human capital management and result in better morale among the
Department's employees.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony.
Thank you.

Mr. McCaul. Like to introduce our first witness. Admiral
Allen is the senior vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton,
supporting the firm's work with the Departments of Justice and
Homeland Security.
Mr. Allen completed his distinguished career in the United
States Coast Guard as its 23rd commandant. In 2010 President
Obama selected Admiral Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander for the unified response to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
I commend you for your great work in that effort.
Prior to his assignment as commandant Admiral Allen served
as a Coast Guard chief of staff.
I want to thank you for being here today, Admiral. With
that, I recognize you for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN (RET.), SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON

Admiral Allen. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, I want to thank
you for holding the hearing this morning and congratulate you
on taking the opportunity to look at what I think is a very
important issue in the Department of Homeland Security. I have
been involved with the Department since its inception and I
welcome the opportunity to discuss the linkage between employee
morale and personal and organizational performance, which I
believe is a key.
I would say today that I am testifying in my capacity as a
private citizen and the views expressed by me are not intended
to represent any Government agency or a private firm. A summary
of my work experience and experience related to the missions of
the Department of Homeland Security are provided at the
conclusion of my statement.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will submit a
statement for the record and proceed with a brief oral summary.
Mr. McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
Admiral Allen. Thank you.
Let me state at the outset that it is my belief that morale
is not an objective to be achieved in an organization. It is
rather the natural byproduct of a high-performing organization
and its people. It is a measure of their collective
understanding by the employees of their mission and their role
in the organization and an acknowledgement that the conditions
in which they work enable them to succeed.
When there is a shared vision of the mission, commitment to
shared values of an organization, and strong, effective
leadership that enables employees to be successful, morale
happens. Creating such an environment is not necessarily easy
and cannot be accomplished overnight. It is the collective
impact of workplace conditions, the quality of front-line
supervisory leadership, the mission support structure that
enables mission execution, and an enduring commitment by senior
leaders to the concept that mission performance starts and ends
with people.
I believe there are three contexts in which morale is
generated in any organization of Government. The first place is
the workplace environment and the conditions under which
employees work and the front-line supervisory leadership.
I believe the next level is the Department agency or
environment, and there the mission, the structure of the
organization itself, the culture, the maturity of the support
structures that are in that agency all bear on the ability of
employees to do their job and create the perception in these
employees that the organization cares about them and their
performance. Finally, there is the overall structure of the
Federal Government and its real or perceived competency to meet
its social contract with the American public.
I have said in a number of fora over the last couple years
that as we look at a constrained budget environment moving
forward in the Government we need to understand that we are
going to have to make difficult choices and we shouldn't
confuse the mandate to deal with shrinking budgets with the
value of public service. I think we do a great disservice to
hundreds of thousands of Federal employees when a constrained
fiscal environment is interpreted as a referendum on the value
of public service.
I think before we have any discussion of morale regarding
the Department it is important to note what I would call the
preexisting organizational issues that create so much
complexity and challenges in the Department of Homeland
Security, and I think anybody that is familiar with the
evolution of the Department since its establishment in 2003
would probably agree that we are in the process of trying to
retrofit basic organizational structures, capabilities, and
competencies into an organization that was mandated to come
into effect 60 days after the President signed this act into
law, and then the agencies had to come in by March 1, 2003,
less than 6 months' total time.
This was done in the middle of a fiscal year. There was no
appropriation provided to the Department until fiscal year
2004. The bill was signed just before and during midterm
elections with no real capability for the Senate to be
impaneled and actually confirm senior leaders in the
Department. That created a massive amount of complexity and
difficulty in standing up the Department.
I think we need to understand, too, that some agencies--and
you mentioned this earlier, Mr. Chairman--the Coast Guard and
Secret Service--were moved over intact, with the mission set
intact and their culture and organizational structures in
place, and because of that they have scored higher,
traditionally, in these surveys and rankings. TSA was still a
work in progress; they were transferred intact but they were
still trying to build an organization. CBP and ICE were--
basically inspection functions were taken from INS--legacy
INS--Treasury, and other agencies, and recombined, as was ICE
with the investigative functions from Customs and Immigration.
So what you have is a mixture of 22 agencies that are in
various stages of their life cycle, and therefore, various
stages of maturity and trying to develop the internal
mechanisms that allow them to enable employees or create
support structure. We should understand that but we should not
take that as an excuse why we shouldn't move forward.
One look at the appropriations proposal for this year--the
budget justification--will show you, if you look across all the
different agencies, that the breakdown of the appropriation
structures is not the same so it is hard to compare the cost
and the structure related to things like human resources, that
are very, very impactful on employees.
I would say there are four areas to look at moving forward.
One, we would look at development of leaders to retain
employees and create unity of effort. We need to provide the
tools, capability, and competencies that enable personnel to
succeed in the workplace.
We need to create a mission support architecture to
generate and sustain the capability and capacity of the
enterprise to execute the mission. Finally, we need to
integrate planning and coordination of mission execution that
reflects internal unity of effort and external interagency
leadership for the Department.
In my view, those four basic dimensions will empower and
improve personal performance and organizational performance,
and morale will be a by-product of that process.
Thank you for having me here this morning, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Admiral Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thad W. Allen
March 22, 2012
introduction
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today.
Let me first congratulate you Mr. Chairman and the committee for
addressing an important issue. I have been involved with the Department
since its inception and welcome the opportunity to discuss the linkage
between employee morale and and personal and organizational
performance.
I am testifying today in my capacity as a private citizen and the
views expressed by me are not intended to represent any Government
agency or private firm. A summary of my work experience and experience
related to the missions of the Department of Homeland Security are
provided at the conclusion of this statement.
Max Stier, the President of the Partnership for Public Service is a
member of the next panel and is best suited to discuss in detail their
report Best Places To Work In The Federal Government. My perspective
today is one of a leader who served in the Department of Homeland
Security since its inception and as a coworker and colleague of the men
and women who serve or have served in the components that make up the
Department for over 40 years. My comments also reflect my experience
leading large complex responses across the Federal Government that
demand unity of effort to meet our commitment to the American public.
morale
Let me state at the outset that it is my belief that morale is not
an objective to be achieved in an organization. It is rather the
natural by product of high-performing people and organizations. It is a
measure of the collective understanding by employees of the mission and
their role in the organization and an acknowledgement that the
conditions in which they work enable them to succeed.
When there is a shared vision of the mission, commitment to the
shared values of an organization, and strong and effective leadership
that enables employees to be successful, morale ``happens.'' Creating
such an environment is not necessarily easy and cannot be accomplished
overnight. It is the collective impact of workplace conditions, the
quality of front-line supervisory leadership, the mission support
structure that enables mission execution, and an enduring commitment by
senior leaders to the concept that mission performance starts and ends
with people.
organizational context
It is my opinion that there are three environments that
collectively interact with individual performance and therefore impact
morale.
The Workplace Environment
At a very basic and personal level, morale is the collective effect
and interaction of individual aspirations, interpersonal relationships,
workplace conditions, and front-line supervisory leadership that that
drive employee performance. From this view, to paraphrase your former
colleague Tip O'Neill, all ``morale is local.'' At this level the
greatest organizational impacts on employee morale in my view are: (1)
The quality of front-line supervisory leadership and (2) the work
environment--the physical surroundings, support structures, work tools,
and co-workers. This applies equally to deployed units, field offices,
and headquarters staffs.
The Department or Agency Environment
Beyond the immediate work environment, factors that impact personal
and organizational performance are legislative authorities that define
the mission and structure and effectiveness of the organization.
Specifically, I am referring to the capability and capacity of the
enterprise to execute the mission, the real or perceived competency of
the organization (internally and externally), and ultimately the
understanding of the individual of their role and their value in that
structure. Critical to employee understanding of their role in this
larger context is clear, unambiguous communication by leaders on
mission and core values.
The Federal Government Environment
Finally, the overall structure of the Federal Government and its
real or perceived competency to meet its social contract with the
American public is something that every Government employee feels and
understands. I have stated repeatedly in various fora that is important
to distinguish between the difficult choices that are required to deal
with shrinking budgets and the value of public service. We do a great
disservice to hundreds of thousands of Federal employees when a
constrained fiscal environment is interpreted as a referendum on the
value of public service.
pre-existing organizational issues create complexity and challenges
It is difficult to discuss employee morale in DHS without first
acknowledging the conditions under which the Department was created and
the degree of difficulty associated with ``retrofitting'' basic
organizational structure and capabilities. This issue is greatly
misunderstood but any discussion regarding Departmental performance and
morale must acknowledge it. We need to understand that different
elements and components of the Department were created and now exist
within radically different structures and are in different stages
organizational life cycle and maturity, including the Departmental
headquarters. For example, the highest-scoring Departmental agencies in
the rankings (Coast Guard and Secret Service) were moved intact to DHS
in 2003 with minimal disruption to on-going operations. While TSA was
transferred intact, the organization was still being built. CBP and
ICE, on the other hand, were created largely from reorganized INS and
Customs functions with the attendant challenges of integrating work
forces, different collective bargaining structures, different grade
structures, and operating procedures. Still other entities such as the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Science and Technology, and
Intelligence and Analysis were created from ``whole cloth'' by
legislation and had no precursors.
The process was further complicated by the inelegant redistribution
of base funding from legacy departments and agencies due to a lack of
historical cost information (the Department was created in the middle
of a fiscal year with reprogrammed funds and did not receive an annual
appropriation until FHY 2004). OMB has pressed for efficiencies
throughout the life of the Department without first acknowledging that
capability, competency, and capacity are precursors to cost savings (IT
savings were sought in the transition process when new investment was
required).
The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget justifications reveals
little consistency in budget presentation or treatment of standard
organizational costs such as personnel, operating expenses, capital
investment, programs of record, or support costs such as information
technology. While progress has been made to standardize budget
submissions the basic structure of appropriations remains different in
each component and is an indicator of the enduring challenge of
functional integration in DHS. While these issues sound bureaucratic
and removed from actual work environments, there are few employees in
the Department that are not aware of the challenges associated with
maturing the enterprise.
improved individual and organizational performance positively impacts
morale
An exhaustive evaluation of every factor that impacts employee
morale is well beyond the scope of my testimony today. Accordingly, I
would like to focus on a few areas that I believe offer the best
opportunities to improve organizational and individual performance and
by extension morale. It is not surprising that these recommendations
also contribute to a more integrated, functionally aligned department
that is more capable of mission execution.
Develop Leaders That Retain Employees and Create Unity of
Effort
Provide the Tools, Capabilities, and Competencies That
Enable Personnel To Succeed in the Work Place
Create A Mission Support Architecture To Generate and
Sustain the Capability and Capacity of the Enterprise to
Execute the Mission
Integrate the Planning and Coordination of Mission Execution
That Reflects Internal Unity of Effort and External Interagency
Leadership
develop leaders that retain employees and create unity of effort
The Federal Government has struggled for decades to create a
strategic and comprehensive leadership development framework. The
Government-wide effort has been attenuated by various individual
mandates to develop training programs within communities of interest
such as the intelligence community, National security organization,
Defense Department, State Department, and others. The spotty collective
performance of these initiatives has less to do with their content than
the lack of sustained commitment at the highest levels of the
organization that protects, nurtures, and celebrates the process that
produces leaders, an earmark of successful and sustained military
professional and leadership development.
As a strong supporter of the current DHS Fellows program I can
personally attest to the fact that the program is valued and celebrated
by the cohort that has received the training and the program is helping
to build cohesion within the Department. I also strongly support the
evolving DHS leadership framework that focuses on employees at all
levels. That fact however carries little weight with budget reviewers
and examiners and these programs are often the first casualty of
internal reviews, OMB passbacks, and budget negotiations that focus on
large, high-dollar programs and policies at the expense of the basics
of organizational success. As a result these programs are often funded
from year-end ``fall out'' funds or reprogrammed funds from other
programs when available. Mr. Chairman, these are not huge amounts of
money but the return on investment is considerable. The leadership
development program in Homeland Security should fence off a budget line
item that allows multi-year planning, promotes consistency of program
execution, and demonstrates senior leader commitment. While current
programs begin with senior leader training, I would focus on improving
the skills of front-line supervisors who have a significant impact on
employee performance and morale.
provide the tools, capabilities, and competencies that enable personnel
to succeed in the work place
As noted earlier one facet of employee morale is their sense of the
commitment of their organization and leaders to them through the tools
they are provided to do their jobs. To that end, physical facilities,
information technology, communications, specialized training, access to
enterprise information, performance systems, collective bargaining
structures, employee benefits, and the opportunity for organizational
learning can all positively impact morale. It is well beyond the scope
of my testimony to ``drill down'' in each of these areas regarding
Departmental capability and performance. However, there are strong
thematic links that can be discussed in the context of stronger
component and Departmental performance. Three are discussed here.
Human Resource Systems
First, the current human resource system the Department is an
aggregation of pre-existing systems from legacy agencies and
departments. Early attempts to create an all-encompassing HR system and
a pay for performance structure across the Department failed and
current efforts are focused on smaller incremental changes to integrate
the diverse existing systems. Past failures to adequately forecast and
budget for adjustments to position grades needed to integrate legacy
organizations have resulted in short-term emergency fixes. The
Department should seek to standardize the forecasting, accounting,
budgeting, and funding of personnel costs within a Departmental
framework that is visible and comparable across Departmental components
and entities in the annual budget. Increased consistency and
transparency in managing personnel costs will reduce uncertainty and
the need for year-to-year adjustments that, in turn, create concern in
the workforce.
Information Systems
Second, whether an employee executes the mission in the field or
supports the mission regionally or in a headquarters, the
organizational medium of exchange that propels daily operations is
information. From automated license plate readers at land ports of
entry, to personal radiation detectors, to passenger and cargo
screening, to cost accounting information related to logistics support
of aircraft, mission execution, and mission support is enabled by the
information that is generated by or made available to Department
employees. Information sharing is an enterprise challenge that I will
address in the next section but we should remember that employees
measure organizational commitment by how much they are empowered to
know and then to act on that knowledge. The challenge can be seen in
discrete parts.
Information collection, storage, and access.
Analytical tools that convert data to decision-supporting
knowledge.
Platforms and devices that allow access, including
visualization of knowledge to enable decision-making.
Systems security.
At present there are numerous efforts to improve information access
for employees in the Department but it is generally focused at the
component level and within individual stove-piped data and
communications systems. While progress has been and is being made,
every effort must be made to put state-of-the-art information
technology tools in the hands of Departmental employees and those tools
must be integrated across components.
Workplace Integration, Building A Unified Team
Every DHS component and headquarters office has a noble and worthy
mission to protect the American public. Some components such as Customs
and Border Protection and the Coast Guard have legacies that span two
centuries of service. However, the promise of the Homeland Security Act
was knit these functions and activities into a unified, cohesive
enterprise.
The entering argument for unity of effort at the working level is
trust. The formula for trust is: (1) A shared vision of the mission,
(2) a commitment to share expertise and information, and (3) the
ability to represent a parent organization without allowing parochial
policy, budget, or cultural issues to cloud effective participation and
the success of the larger ``good.'' When employees see their leaders
creating this type of work environment they are motivated to improve
their performance as well.
I have seen this demonstrated in countless venues across the
Department where effective teams work side-by-side, tirelessly everyday
to executive the mission. The challenge is that this model is not
present everywhere. Where it exists morale is high, where there is no
trust employees revert to governing policies that protect the resources
and discretion of their component, regardless of the mission
requirement or the demands of the situation. These situations erode the
rationale for the Department's creation and inhibit the maturation of
the Department as a leader across Government.
The ability to integrate effort in the field is affected by: (1)
Facility decisions that restrict, do not allow, or fail to facilitate
colocation, (2) stove-piped data systems that make access to even DHS
counterpart's information difficult, and (3) local leadership
challenges where supervisors are hesitant or unwilling to partner and
collaborate. Similar challenges exist in Washington where components
are physically separated from the Departmental headquarters and there
is a proliferation of command centers.
create a mission support architecture to generate and sustain the
capability and capacity of the enterprise to execute the mission
During my first 2 years as Commandant of the Coast Guard I
initiated a sweeping transformation of our mission support structure to
build a more effective organization to enable mission execution. That
transformation continues today. To demonstrate my commitment to this
change I participated in a number of All Hands meetings throughout the
Coast Guard. I explained the mandate for improved mission support in
simple terms. If you work for the Coast Guard (or any governmental
agency for that matter), you do one of two things: You either execute
the mission or you support mission execution. If your daily work cannot
be explained by either of these, one of two mistakes has occurred. The
task has not been fully explained or the task is not needed.
A significant driver of employee morale is the ability for the
employee to connect their daily work to the agency mission. Everyone
has heard the classic story of the janitor at a NASA facility who was
asked what he did and his response was ``I put men on the moon!'' As
noted earlier, the first decade of the existence of the Department of
Homeland Security has been challenging and earmarked by: (1) Public
``zero tolerance'' for failure, (2) unrelenting media scrutiny, (3)
duplicative oversight, and (4) the inevitable immediate public
discourse and referendum on Departmental performance while operations
are being conducted. In this environment it is easy to become captive
to what I call the ``tyranny of the present.'' That said, it is
critically important to preserve the time, effort, and resources to
unambiguously define the need and create a mission support structure
that enables mission execution and allows every employee to say, ``I
protect the homeland.''
While one could argue exactly what constitutes ``mission support''
I think an acceptable structure would generally include the following:
Human Resources
Financial Management
Information Systems and Communications (and their security)
Acquisition Planning and Management
Facilities Management
Logistics and Maintenance
Health, Safety, and Environment
The challenge in creating an integrated Departmental mission
support system is to combine disparate support systems that were
transferred from legacy agencies with base funding contained in
component appropriations. This requires a shared vision of the end-
state and a framework to implement needed changes. Repeated attempts at
integration and/or consolidation across these functional support lines
of business have not been successful. Employees know this. That said,
current demand for improved performance and morale are now converging
with a constrained budget environment to create a cause for action to
refocus on the integration of mission support functions of the
Department.
integrate the planning and coordination of mission execution that
reflects internal unity of effort and external interagency leadership
The Department faces two major challenges in effective mission
execution to achieve unity of effort and improve performance (and
morale): (1) Internal integration of operational planning and execution
across components and mission areas, and (2) creating the capability,
competency, and capacity to eternalize planning and execution across
the Federal Government and vertically with State and local governments.
This fundamental process of an operating department is, in my view, is
the single most impactful Departmental role that is visible to all
employees. Further, it is the basis by which the Department is seen and
evaluated by stakeholders, overseers, the public, and the media.
From the outset the Department has been hampered by the
Balkanization of facilities and command centers, particularly in the
Washington, DC area. The exigencies associated with standing up the
Department rapidly and the proliferation of office locations in and
around Washington has hampered the development of a central unified
command center that is necessary to the effective planning and
coordination of operations. The promise of a unified National
operations center at the St. Elizabeth's venue appears to be in doubt.
Notwithstanding the need for physical consolidation, the Department
should continue to press ahead to develop improved organizational
capability to plan and execute operations, including effective
information sharing and analysis, risk assessment, and the development
of Departmental and National doctrine to guide mission execution.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the challenges faced by the Department of Homeland
Security are numerous but hundreds of thousands of dedicated employees
work tirelessly everyday to serve the American public. Our collective
responsibility is to provide them the best leadership and tools that
enable them to perform to their greatest potential. The goal should not
be to try to affect survey respondents behavior to achieve a better
score but to enable and empower employees to do their job and be proud
of it. If you enable performance, morale will follow.

Mr. McCaul. Thank the admiral for your testimony.
Let me just say, you know, the report card--the grade is
not good in terms of morale at the Department of Homeland
Security, but the purpose of this hearing is not to beat down
on the Department about this. The purpose of this hearing is:
How can we constructively fix the problem? How can we build
morale within the Department of Homeland Security?
It is often referred to as a step-child or a whipping boy,
and that is not where we want the Department to be. The mission
is too important--to protect the lives of Americans. So I think
constructively, in a bipartisan way, what we are trying to do
here today is: How can we make it better and how can we improve
that morale?
There are some examples with other departments--Department
of Defense, for instance, went through a lot of growing pains
in a similar fashion. It took a while--as you mentioned,
maturity of an organization--to get to the point where they are
today.
In fact, there was a book that was entitled ``How Much is
Enough?'' about the Department of Defense, and it--and I have
to read the quote from this book. It says, ``No large
organization, military or civilian, public or private, is
likely to pursue automatically the broader national interest as
distinct from its own institutional interests without external
forces and leadership in that direction.''
So it really is about leadership. It is about maturity of
the organization.
I guess my question to you here is: What can we learn from
the Department of Defense model? What are some of the maturity
insights? For instance, Goldwater-Nichols--when we look at what
we did--what they did to reform the Department of Defense and
get it to where it is today, what are lessons learned we can
utilize by looking at the DOD example, applying it to the
Department of Homeland Security?
Admiral Allen. Well, sir, if I were to give you two or
three that just stand out, and this is a personal opinion now,
I think relating back to your--the book--you mentioned ``How
Much is Enough?'' which was written during the 1960s, is really
a treatise on how the planning, programming, and budgeting
system was put in place that exists today in the Department of
Defense. Now, it has been changed and it gets altered by
politics and leadership and everything, but a rational way to
look at budgets and a multi-year forecasting model was what
came out of that period under Secretary McNamara.
If you look at the Homeland Security Act right now it
actually mandates a future years homeland security plan, and
the goal was to try and achieve some kind of a consistency in
long-term budget estimations so you could have that ability to
project out and make the tradeoffs between the types of
capabilities and competencies that you would need to execute
the mission. I would say in the 9 years the Department has been
in existence the annual struggle to try and build out a future
years homeland security plan and have that reflected in the
budget justification has been an on-going internal struggle
inside the administration because when you put out a 5-year
projection that vastly starts to reduce the flexibility and
oversight that is included in places like OMB and inter-
decisions that are taken in regard to the budget get pretty
complex at that point.
The second point I would make was the Goldwater-Nichols
legislation was groundbreaking. As you know, it was driven
largely by the failed rescue of the Iranian hostages in 1980
and spotty performances in Panama and Grenada.
We have similar experiences inside the Department that
would lead us to believe that we need better unity of effort in
integrating operations, planning, and coordination. This would
traditionally be called the J3 or the J5 function in the
military.
But I think for the Department to succeed moving forward,
and again, improve performance and morale, there needs to be a
mechanism to create that kind of unity of effort inside the
Department, to integrate across the components and unify the
Department. That is a precursor for then projecting that
leadership into the interagency for the responsibilities the
Secretary has under the Homeland Security Act and directives
like homeland security Presidential Directive 5.
Mr. McCaul. What we have seen in prior hearings on this
management issue is that it is not fully integrated; it is
still 22 different agencies and in many respects stovepiped.
Acquisition is not integrated. Procurement is not integrated.
It is 22 different agencies. I think technology can play a big
role in terms of cloud computing, integrating these 22 agencies
together.
Other than oversight, which is the function of this
subcommittee, what can the Congress do to help in this effort?
Admiral Allen. Well, I firmly believe, as a former
commandant and as a recovering budget director of the Coast
Guard that long-term consistency and predictability and out-
year budget estimates cannot be overstated as a way to be able
to make tradeoffs, make reasoned choices about investments you
are going to make, and the associated risk acceptance with
that. If you have to redefine the 5-year estimates every year
there is no baseline.
I guess, to what you see in the Department of Defense in
the Future Year Defense Plan, or the FYDP, I think the
intention always was to create that. If I were to give you one
thing that is already authorized, called for in the Homeland
Security Act that has never been actually put into place it
would be that.
Mr. McCaul. Right. I appreciate the testimony. I think that
someone like yourself, an admiral with Coast Guard experience,
would be well-equipped to provide a leadership role within the
Department. I know you are at Booz Allen now but I hope you
will consider returning to public service in the future.
With that, I recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. I noticed we didn't get an answer from you on
that return to public service.
Admiral Allen. I am very happy with the status quo.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Thompson. Let me say at the outset, Admiral, we
appreciate your service. You and I have worked on a number of
projects together and even though those projects were difficult
we worked through it to the satisfaction of everyone. So again,
thank you for your service.
Now that you are kind of out of the fishbowl and--I want to
give you an opportunity to say that if you had an opportunity
to create this One DHS--this goal of creating DHS--the Chairman
talked about acquisition and some other things, but as you
know, every department, for the most part, has a personnel
system, and some of them relate, some don't. What would you do?
Admiral Allen. Thank you for the question, sir. It is my
personal opinion when you look at the operation of a Government
agency the people in that agency do one of two things: You
either execute the mission or you support the people that are
executing the mission.
When I was trying to go through a very difficult
transformation in the Coast Guard in 2006, as you will
remember, I went around and I held all-hands meetings and I
would tell people, ``If you come into work every day and we
cannot tell you--or you cannot tell me what you do to either
execute the mission or support the mission we have made one of
two mistakes. Either we haven't explained your job to you or we
don't need your job.''
I don't want to be binary about this, but I think that two
areas of focus to improve the Department are mission execution
and mission support, and if you start to parse that down--first
on mission execution, it is the internal integration of
planning and coordination of operations across the components
and the ability to have that capacity at the Departmental level
to be able to unify the effort of the Department. It is
incredibly important for the Department's missions.
This happens a lot in local areas. You can go to joint
harbor operation centers--the TSA viper teams that are working
with Coast Guard. There are tremendous examples in the field
about how this works.
I think the challenge is to institutionalize that in the
Department and have a standard operating doctrine that is very
similar to the joint operating doctrine you would see inside
the military. I think this has to be done inside the Department
first before the Department then can extend that type of
leadership across the interagency, which is expected under the
Homeland Security Act.
On the mission support side, you are absolutely right, sir.
We are talking about acquisition, finance, human resources,
health, safety and environment, facilities--all those things
that kind of create the environment that enables people to
perform and organizations to perform.
All of the base resources that actually make that happen in
the Department rest in the components, and if you try and
compare the cost of those services across the components and
the budget you can't because the budgets are not presented the
same way and the appropriations structures are not the same
way. So I would press for greater transparency and uniformity
of how those functions are represented in the budget so you can
actually see who owns the resources and how they are being
managed.
After that I think there is a very valid role for the
Department--comparing and contrasting to the Department of
Defense--the Chairman's last question--there is no Secretary of
the components in between that does acquisition, so you have to
have competency in the components to do a certain level of that
but then you have to have oversight in the Department. So in
the area of acquisitions what you need is a very robust,
competent life-cycle acquisition type of a management
structure, and they have been working on this for a long time.
I was actually part of this. That needs to continue but it
needs to have the ability to integrate investment decisions.
Again, it has to be put against a long-term budget that is
predictable and consistent so you can make those decisions
about that.
So I would reduce everything to mission execution, mission
support on execution that is unified, coordinated operations,
planning and execution in the Department on the mission support
side. It is to take the Under Secretary of management
functions, which are administration, the CHCO, the CFO
functions, and so forth, and figure out a way to have
comparability across the components to where those bases are at
because the money does not rest with the Department; the money
is in the components. But there needs to be the authority and
the ability and the accountability to integrate the operations
across the top at the Department and then have that visible in
the budget process.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The other part is that--does that require legislation or
that--does that just require the will to do it?
Admiral Allen. In my view?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Admiral Allen. Requires no legislation.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Yield back.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Ranking Member.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman.
Admiral, thank you for being here today.
I think one thing, Mr. Chairman, that we can do is simply
say thank you to the men and women who are serving our country
under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security right
now, understanding that there is a level of frustration,
especially when you think of the history of independent
agencies or independent organizations within the U.S.
Government that were brought under that umbrella, and they have
lost some of their independence, so to speak, but under a
broader mission to defend this homeland and make sure that we
are safe.
It is easy, I think, to become a little bit down when you
constantly read the press and you constantly hear Members of
Congress talk about the need to reduce the budget, find cuts,
to save money for the taxpayer, and they are constantly berated
by that. We have oversight hearings and we hammer the Secretary
and the Department on their budget, and their expenditures, and
making smart decisions. So I understand the morale component of
that.
So let me just pause and say thank you, because you all are
keeping us safe. When I think about the myriad of duties that
you have from, you know, Coast Guard, from your background, but
container security, which we have talked about here, to TSA and
internal and international flight safety, and just Customs and
Border Patrol as a whole having to secure our Southwest Border
and our Northern Border and deal with drug interdiction but
also the things they are dealing with with EPA compliance, and
just other things that are heaped upon the agency. I get that.
So I think this oversight hearing is necessary in order to
find ways we can facilitate to help you and help employee
morale.
I just have a quick question in terms of improving that
morale. Which program or initiative, such as leadership
development programs, or employee award ceremonies, visits from
Members of Congress--which would have the greatest return on
investment and what can we do to help you facilitate that?
Admiral Allen. Well, sir, the first and most important
thing we can do about employee morale--and there is not even a
close second--is the best quality front-line leadership
supervision. I believe that about any organization--and any
military organization, any non-Governmental organization.
Front-line supervisors are the most important impact on morale
and employee retention. People do not leave jobs; they leave
bad leaders.
I believe there is a multi-tiered leadership program under
development in the Department. I think what needs to happen is
it needs to be formalized; it needs to be supported with a
permanent budget line item that creates the predictability and
consistency that allows them to implement that program. Then
there needs to be an integration of existing leadership
programs and their components so that it all comes together in
a leadership architecture for the Department.
But there, in my view, more important than developing
front-line leaders.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I have taken an opportunity as a freshman
Member of Congress to go visit different programs under the
DHS, try to understand staff development within my own staff.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that we continue that
process as Members of Congress to go and shake the hands of the
front-line folks that are defending our Nation and making sure
that we are safe, telling them ``thank you,'' asking their
input on what we can do as Members of Congress to help them.
Not just at the top level; I am talking about the folks from
all across the spectrum.
So I appreciate this hearing and I yield back the balance.
Mr. McCaul. Thank the gentleman.
Just one last follow-up, Admiral: As I mentioned, the
report card is not good. DHS ranks almost dead last in terms of
morale. This survey was taken by the people on the front line,
whether it is Custom and Border Patrol, you know, or ICE. It
was the referendum on leadership is what it was. It is not a
good referendum.
I think as you point out, people don't leave jobs; they
leave bad leaders. I think that answers the question I had, but
if you could maybe expand upon why, after 10 years, is the
report card still so bad?
Admiral Allen. Well, as I said earlier, I think morale is a
byproduct of leadership and enabling employee performance and
organizational performance. So if you are going to look at
morale, which is the subject of the hearing and is discussed in
the rankings, I think you need to go back and look at that--
that is the effect and what is the cause? I believe it is a
combination of the issues related to front-line supervision and
the development of leaders, but it also is the on-going
understanding by employees in the Department of Homeland
Security that that support structure--and everybody knows what
the issues are--for some reason is not able to mature over
changes of leadership that you mentioned earlier.
A good example--and I will take one that is not Coast Guard
related--when you bring inspectors from Immigration and Customs
together and you have different grade structures, different
levels for what are journeyman grades, you have different ways
to estimate the cost associated with that--we went through a
huge amount of turmoil in the last 24 or 36 months inside the
Department to try and standardize the grade structures from the
legacy organizational structures and then find the money to
support the standardization of those grades because some of
them had to be raised.
Employees see that. That is not de facto leadership but
they tend to aggregate that all in their impression of the
commitment of the organization to them. That is the reason the
evolution and the maturation of the support structure is so
important as it relates to human resources. Information sharing
and IT--what are the tools we put in the hands of our employees
so they can actually work together and share at the port level?
I think those are all things that become indicia to them of
how much the Department cares, and it is easy to make that
become a surrogate measure of leadership. So I am not sure you
can parse this down. I think it is all interconnected.
But the notion of maturing the support structure and all
the basic elements that support the workforce cannot be
understated in their impact on how employees perceive
leadership.
Mr. McCaul. Well, I think you are spot on, and I don't know
if we need to--if leadership in DHS needs more training,
perhaps maybe replacement. I don't really know what the answer
is.
Admiral Allen. Mr. Chairman, as a recovering budget officer
I would tell you, you don't make policy until you spend money.
Mr. McCaul. Right. That is a very good point.
Well, Admiral, let me just say thank you for your testimony
and I appreciate you showing up bright and early this morning.
Thanks for the service--great service you made to this Nation
through your tenure at Coast Guard, and the Deepwater Horizon
cleanup, which was a great tragedy but you turned it into about
as positive of a thing as you possibly could have. So thanks
for your service to the country and I appreciate your
testimony.
Admiral Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
leadership.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
With that, we will go to the second panel.
Okay. I want to thank the second panel for being here
today. I want to go ahead and begin the introductions.
First, we have Ms. Catherine Emerson, who is the chief
human capital officer at the Department of Homeland Security.
She is responsible for the Department's recruiting, diversity,
learning, and development policies, programs, and technology to
ensure the Department has the right people in the right jobs at
the right time. Prior to joining the Department, Ms. Emerson
was the assistant administrator for human resource management
at the Federal Aviation Administration.
Thank you, Ms. Emerson, for being here this morning.
Second, we have Mr. David Maurer, who has testified before
this subcommittee on many occasions.
It is good to have you back here again.
He is the director of the U.S. Government Accountability
Office of Homeland Security and Justice team. He leads the
GAO's work reviewing DHS and Department of Justice management
issues. His recent work in these areas include DHS management
and integration, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review,
Secret Service financial management, DOJ grant management, and
the Federal prison system, and an assessment of technologies
for directing--detecting explosives in the passenger rail
environment.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Maurer.
Next, Mr. Max Stier--am I pronouncing that correctly--is
the president and CEO of Partnership for Public Service. He has
worked in all three branches of the Federal Government.
In 1982 he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim
Leach. Mr. Stier clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit in 1992, clerked
for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in
1994. Between these two positions Mr. Stier served as special
litigation counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman
at the Department of Justice.
Next, we have Mr.--or Dr. Jeff Pon, chief human resources
and strategy officer at the Society for Human Resources
Management. Prior to joining the Society for Human Resources
Management, Dr. Pon was the president and COO of Founders Inc.,
an organization whose mission it was to find the right jobs for
returning military veterans and their families. In 2006 he was
appointed as the chief human capital officer at the Department
of Energy.
I want to thank all of you for being here today.
Now the Chairman recognizes Ms. Emerson for her testimony.

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE V. EMERSON, CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Ms. Emerson. Chairman McCaul, thank you for having me here
today to discuss employee morale at the Department of Homeland
Security. One of my top priorities as chief human capital
officer for DHS is to support the Secretary's efforts to
improve employee morale and engagement across the Department.
While DHS ranked 31 out of 33 large agencies in the
Partnership for Public Service Best Places to Work rankings,
our strengths include DHS employees' belief in their work and
willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty. This is a
strong foundation and gives me hope that we can return to a
strong upward trend in scores DHS experienced from 2006 to
2010. Moreover, our drop in the Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey scores between 2010 and 2011 was mirrored Government-
wide, to a lesser degree, suggesting external factors also
shaped 2011 results.
While the specific strengths and gaps, as measured by the
2011 survey, vary by component, we are using these findings to
dictate a three-prong strategy to improve employee morale at
DHS: The first is institutionally--institutionalizing a
Secretarial mandate to all component heads to prioritize
employee engagement, including the establishment of an Employee
Engagement Executive Steering Committee. Second, supporting a
unified One DHS through improved employee communication,
training, emphasis on diversity and inclusion, and employee
recognition. The third, strengthening the leadership skills and
capacity of all supervisors and managers within DHS.
With this comprehensive approach I expect to see DHS
improve in its survey scores in the coming years. The
correlation between morale and employees' need to feel
connected to their leadership and to feel valued are
unmistakable links to improving our overall scores.
In January Secretary Napolitano directed the creation of
the Employee Engagement ESC, which I chair. This group will
focus on strategic employment engagement, including enhanced
employee communications, recognition, and effective engagement
with our union partners through the DHS Labor-Management Forum.
One DHS is an idea that the Secretary has been using to
build a stronger and more unified DHS, and there are several
mutually reinforcing employee engagement efforts that fit under
this umbrella. My written testimony highlights our efforts to
consolidate our learning management systems, the DHS SES
Candidate Development Program, and the DHS Fellows Program. It
also highlights our diversity and inclusion strategic plan, the
Secretary's award program, which are initiatives that I believe
positively impact employee engagement.
I would like to highlight our exciting work in the area of
leader development, which we consider to be our most critical
effort and is tied to employee satisfaction. In fiscal year
2010 the deputy secretary directed the establishment of an
integrated DHS leader development program to maximize mission
performance, strengthen the DHS leadership bench, and to build
leadership competencies at all levels of the DHS workforce. To
accomplish this we ensured component participation in
developing Department-wide requirements and programs and are
leveraging what already exists within the components and
applying them across the Department.
The top priority to date has been the development of
Cornerstone leader development program for front-line
supervisors. This program establishes Department-wide training
requirements for four distinct groups: Understanding the DHS
leadership commitment, supervisor on-boarding, fundamentals of
DHS leadership, and continuous development for supervisors.
We are also moving forward in developing our Executive
Capstone Program, which will be required for all new DHS
executives, including Coast Guard admirals. The program,
designed with significant input from components, will provide
new executives across the Department with an intensive exposure
to strategic leadership capabilities unique to being an
executive at DHS.
The 3-week program will feature on-site instruction at key
DHS locations and will include simulation activities that build
leadership competencies within a homeland security context. We
plan to pilot the program this summer.
With this renewed focus on employee engagement I am
optimistic that DHS will again make incremental gains in
employee satisfaction. It is our goal that the Department of
Homeland Security be considered a best place to work in the
Federal Government and beyond.
I believe that the Department has instituted a strong and
broadly-focused foundation upon which our efforts to improve
employee morale will continue. Given the history of DHS we have
significant challenges, but they are not insurmountable.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Emerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine V. Emerson
March 22, 2012
introduction
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and other distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss employee morale at the Department of
Homeland Security.
One of my top priorities as Chief Human Capital Officer for DHS is
to support the Secretary's efforts to improve employee morale and
engagement across the Department. In the 2011 Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey, our strengths included DHS employees' belief in their
work and a willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty. This is
a strong foundation and gives me hope that we can return to the strong
upward trend in scores DHS experienced from 2006 to 2010. Moreover, our
drop in Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey scores between 2010 and 2011
was mirrored Government-wide to a lesser degree, suggesting external
factors also shaped 2011 results.
DHS's areas for improvement, as outlined in the 2011 Survey
results, included employee recognition; opportunities for creativity,
innovation, and empowerment; opportunities to get a better job within
the organization; and the ability of senior leaders to generate
employee motivation and commitment. While the specific strengths and
gaps, as measured by the 2011 results, vary by component, we are using
these findings to dictate a three-pronged strategy to improve employee
morale at DHS:
(1) Institutionalizing a Secretarial mandate to all component heads
to prioritize employee engagement, including the establishment
of an Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee;
(2) Supporting a unified, One DHS, through improved employee
communication, training, emphasis on diversity and inclusion,
and employee recognition; and
(3) Strengthening the leadership skills and capacity of all
supervisors and managers within DHS.
With this concerted and comprehensive approach, I expect to see DHS
improve its Employee Viewpoint Survey scores in the coming years. The
correlation between morale and employees' need to feel connected to
their leadership and to feel valued are unmistakable links to improving
our overall scores.
secretarial mandate
I would like to share with the subcommittee some concrete examples
of what DHS is doing to address employee engagement and morale. On
January 9, 2012, Secretary Napolitano directed component heads to take
several steps to institute accountability in a focused employee
engagement initiative across the Department. Component heads were
directed to:
Develop and assume responsibility for employee engagement
improvement plans;
Identify and assign specific responsibilities for improved
employee engagement to component Senior Executive performance
objectives;
Identify a component Deputy-level official to serve on a
newly-created DHS Employee Engagement Executive Steering
Committee (ESC);
Conduct town hall meetings with employees (including in
field locations);
If applicable, attend a labor-management forum; and
Provide regular reports on actions planned and progress made
to my office.
The Employee Engagement ESC, which I chair, launched in February
and is developing a strategic framework to boost employee engagement,
including enhanced employee communications. At our first meeting, we
shared best practices regarding what each component was doing to
address gaps identified by the 2011 Survey, which facilitated the
development of action items at both the component and Departmental
Headquarters levels.
The DHS Employee Engagement ESC will continue to meet periodically
to inject new ideas and leadership attention to the set of
communications, recognition, and other employee engagement efforts I
will describe shortly. The Employee Engagement ESC will also more
effectively engage our union partners through the DHS Labor-Management
Forum and encourage Components with bargaining unit employees to work
with union partners on action planning. In the spirit of transparency
and best practices sharing, the Employee Engagement ESC members will
also post all Component Action Plans to the DHS intranet and conduct
targeted pulse surveys across the Department.
communication, training, diversity, and recognition
Over time, the Secretary has been building a stronger and more
unified One DHS, and there are several mutually reinforcing employee
engagement efforts that fit under this umbrella. Today, I'd like to
highlight our efforts to consolidate our learning management systems;
our DHS Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program and our
DHS Fellows Program; our new Diversity and Inclusion strategic plan;
and the Secretary's Awards Program as initiatives that I believe will
positively impact employee engagement.
One of the areas we are prioritizing in our Human Resources
Information Technology strategy is the move from many to a common
learning management system, or LMS. This will enable employees from
across DHS to access the same training and development opportunities,
and will create greater consistency, and a stronger and more unified
culture and Departmental identity. A common LMS will channel resources
to the important training and professional development that is so
crucial to continued investment in our employees.
We have also been delivering a set of DHS-wide programs aimed at
improving unity and common leadership skills across the Department.
This past year we selected our first cohort of a DHS-wide Senior
Executive Service Candidate Development Program, or SES CDP, replacing
component-specific programs with different curricula. The DHS SES CDP
is now preparing high-potential employees that will be able to step
into leadership positions across in the Department. Similarly, our DHS
Fellows Program identifies and grooms employees across the Department
at the GS-13, 14, and 15 levels and instills a common leadership vision
and experience. I believe these common leadership and development
programs will significantly help us realize the One DHS vision.
We have developed a diversity and inclusion strategic plan which
will be important to acknowledging and appreciating the diverse
workforce of DHS, including Veterans, women, individuals of all
heritages, abilities, and backgrounds. Integrating a recruitment
strategy that communicates that the Department focuses on education
and/or experience as its priority, ensures those we hire will
contribute to our mission--which is our top priority. The plan builds
on progress we have made in the area of diversity and inclusion at the
Department, including in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and the
Transportation Senior Executive Service (TSES). For instance, we have
made considerable progress in diversity in our senior levels over the
last several years.
Employee recognition is a key element of employee engagement. In
addition to our performance recognition efforts, a Secretary's Awards
program is being scheduled for later this year to recognize and honor
the important and impressive work of individuals and teams across the
Department. This level of recognition is another example of our
concerted effort to promote the Secretary's One DHS theme and address
gaps identified in the Employee Viewpoint Survey.
leaderships skills and capacity of supervisors and managers
Last, I'd like to share our exciting work in the area of leader
development, which we consider to be our most critical effort. This is
an area integrally tied to employee satisfaction, and is an area in
which we are doing a lot of groundbreaking work at DHS.
In fiscal year 2010, the Deputy Secretary directed the
establishment of an integrated DHS Leader Development Program to
maximize mission performance, strengthen the DHS leadership bench, and
build leadership competencies at all levels of the DHS workforce,
through a coherent and seamless continuum of leader development
opportunities across the Department.
The guiding principles for the Leader Development effort at the
onset include transparency by ensuring Component perspectives are
considered; ensuring components have a seat at the table to help
design, develop, and execute the leader development programs, which
ensures their ownership and buy-in; component participation in
developing the Department-wide requirements and programs; and
leveraging what already exists within the components, across the
Department.
In collaboration with the components, the DHS Leader Development
Program Office has identified a common set of competencies for DHS
leaders. The competencies have been organized into five groups: Core
Foundations (integrity/honesty, continual learning, self-management);
Building Engagement (written/verbal communications, interpersonal
skills, conflict management); Management Skills (financial/HR/
performance management, developing others, accountability); Solutions
Capabilities (problem solving, creative/critical thinking, decision
making); and Homeland Security (leading joint teams, risk and incident
management, planning joint operations).
In January 2011, the Deputy Secretary approved the Leader
Development ``Framework,'' a strategic roadmap for the next 3 years,
which identifies five leadership levels spanning all of DHS. They are:
Team Member (learning good Departmental citizenship and how to lead by
example); Project Leader (an informal leadership position); Supervisor
(first formal level of supervision, leading performance and employees);
Manager (overseeing supervisors and leading organizations and
programs); and Executive (strategic leadership, includes all SESs and
Coast Guard admirals).
The top priority to date has been the development of the
``Cornerstone'' leader development program for front-line supervisors.
The program establishes Department-wide training requirements in four
distinct groups: Understanding the DHS Leadership Commitment,
Supervisor On-boarding, Fundamentals of DHS Leadership, and Continuous
Development for Supervisors.
We are also moving forward in developing our Executive Capstone
Program, which will be required for all new DHS executives (SES, TSES,
and Coast Guard Admirals). The program, designed with significant input
from components, will provide new executives across the Department with
an intensive exposure to strategic leadership capabilities unique to
being an executive at DHS, and support their transition into executive
leadership. The 3-week program will feature on-site instruction at key
DHS locations, action learning, and simulation activities that build
collaboration, strategic, and crisis leadership competencies within a
homeland security context. We plan to pilot the program this summer.
conclusion
With this renewed focus directed from the Department-level through
the Employee Engagement ESC, I am optimistic that DHS will again make
incremental gains in employee satisfaction and engagement as measured
by the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. It is our goal to
ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is considered ``a best
place to work,'' in the Federal Government and beyond. Through the
collective efforts described in the statement, I believe that the
Department has instituted a strong and broadly-scoped foundation upon
which our efforts to improve employee morale will continue. We
recognize the difficulties that exist due to the many organizational
cultures that were brought together when the Department was created 9
years ago, but these difficulties are not insurmountable and we will
continue to move forward in our efforts toward creating a One DHS. Once
again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and
I look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Ms. Emerson.
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Maurer for his testimony

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. MAURER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Maurer. Good morning, Chairman McCaul and staff. I am
pleased to be here today to discuss employee morale at the
Department of Homeland Security.
Over 200,000 people work at DHS on a wide variety of
missions. Given the Department's critical role in protecting
the security and economy of our Nation, it is important that
its employees are satisfied with their jobs and that DHS can
attract and retain the talent required to complete its work.
Mr. Chairman, we currently have work underway for you and
Ranking Member Keating examining morale issues at DHS and we
expect to issue our final report in September. My comments
today draw on that work and are focused on two key questions:
First, how do DHS employee satisfaction scores compare to the
rest of the Government? Second, what is DHS doing to improve
employee satisfaction?
Now, as you know, morale at DHS has been a long-standing
problem, although it has been slowly improving. Compared to the
rest of the Government, DHS has always ranked and continues to
rank near the bottom for employee satisfaction.
Of particular note, last year less than half of DHS
employees reported positive responses to the statement, ``My
talents are used well in the workplace.'' Now, the encouraging
news is that the gap between DHS and the Government-wide
average has narrowed to 4 points down from 12 in 2004, and in
some cases, DHS's scores last year were at or above the Federal
average, including responses related to pay and workload.
It is important to recognize that DHS-wide results mask
significant differences across the components. Coast Guard,
Secret Service, and CBP reported job satisfaction as slightly
higher than the Government average while ICE and TSA were 7 and
11 points below the Government-wide figure.
This variation demonstrates the challenge DHS faces in
addressing morale issues. Across such a large, diverse
department, one size does not fit all.
So what is DHS doing to address this problem? There are
some encouraging signs. There is clear senior-level commitment
to tackle this issue. The Department plans to launch an
analysis of survey results to understand what is behind the low
scores.
At the component level, our work has identified promising
efforts at TSA and ICE to identify where problem areas reside.
Components have also developed individual action plans to
address morale issues.
As we are conducting our work we are keeping one very
important thing in mind: If you want to improve morale you need
to look beyond the numbers. Job satisfaction scores alone don't
tell you why people responded the way they did and they don't
tell you what you need to do to fix the problem.
In addition, as Admiral Allen has already pointed out so
well, you don't fix morale. Rather, improving morale is a
byproduct of fixing other things.
This is borne out in our prior work at DHS and elsewhere
where we found a wide variety of problems that resulted in
lower employee morale: Centralization of human resources and IT
services, different approaches to paying civilian staff
deployed overseas, lack of respect for leadership, and concerns
about training, failure to plan for and address frequent
turnover. All of these things hurt morale, yet in many cases it
would have been hard to figure that out just from survey
scores.
So we are looking at what DHS is doing to determine where
it has morale problems, what the root cause of those problems
are, and what actions are best suited to address those root
causes. Based on what we know so far, it is still an open
question whether DHS has determined the root causes of its
morale issues. This greatly complicates efforts to figure out
how to fix things.
If you are taking aim at a problem you need to know where
to shoot, and while DHS has efforts underway we want to make
sure that the Department is not shooting in the dark on the
morale issue. My hope is that today's hearing and our on-going
work will help shed some additional light and better enable DHS
to become an even better place to work for its employees.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Mauer follows:]
Statement of David C. Maurer
March 22, 2012
gao highlights
Highlights of GAO-12-509T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight, Investigations, and Management, Committee on Homeland
Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study
DHS is the third-largest Cabinet-level agency in the Federal
Government, employing more than 200,000 employees in a broad range of
jobs. Since its creation in 2003, DHS has faced challenges implementing
its human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low
job satisfaction. GAO designated the implementation and transformation
of DHS as high-risk because it represented an enormous and complex
undertaking that would require time to achieve in an effective and
efficient manner. This testimony presents preliminary observations
regarding: (1) How DHS's employees' workforce satisfaction compares
with that of other Federal Government employees, and (2) the extent to
which DHS is taking steps to improve employee job satisfaction. GAO's
comments are based on on-going work on DHS's employee job satisfaction
survey results and its actions and plans to improve them, as well as
reports issued from January 2003 through February 2012 on high-risk and
morale issues in the Federal Government and at DHS. To conduct its on-
going work, GAO analyzed DHS and component planning documents,
interviewed relevant DHS officials about employee morale, and analyzed
2011 Federal employee job satisfaction survey results.
department of homeland security.--preliminary observations on dhs's
efforts to improve employee morale
What GAO Found
Over time, Federal surveys have consistently found that Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) employees are less satisfied with their jobs
than the Government-wide average. In the 2004 Office of Personnel
Management's Federal employee survey--a tool that measures employees'
perceptions of whether and to what extent conditions characterizing
successful organizations are present in their agency--56 percent of DHS
employees responded that they were satisfied with their jobs, compared
to 68 percent Government-wide. In subsequent years, the disparity
continued--ranging from a difference of 8 percentage points in 2006 to
a 4 percentage point difference in 2008, 2010, and 2011. In 2011, DHS's
percentage of positive responses was lower than the averages for the
rest of the Federal Government. For example, slightly less than half of
the DHS employees surveyed reported positive responses to the statement
``My talents are used well in the workplace,'' nearly 12 percentage
points less than the rest of the Federal Government average. In two
areas, DHS's percentage of positive responses was nearly the same or
higher than the rest of the Federal Government average. For example,
DHS's percentage of positive responses to the statement ``Considering
everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?'' was not
statistically different than the rest of the Federal Government
average. Job satisfaction data for 2011 show that satisfaction levels
vary across DHS components. For example, job satisfaction index results
show the Transportation Security Administration as 11 percentage points
below Government-wide averages while other components, such as U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, posted above-average results.
DHS has taken steps to identify where it has the most significant
employee satisfaction problems and developed plans to address those
problems, but has not yet improved DHS employee satisfaction survey
results. For example, to determine root causes of job satisfaction
Department-wide, DHS conducted an evaluation of the 2008 Federal Human
Capital Survey results, according to DHS officials. In that analysis,
DHS determined that the drivers of employee satisfaction across DHS
included the DHS mission, senior leadership effectiveness, and
supervisor support. According to DHS officials, DHS is working with a
contractor on a new Department-wide analysis of root causes of employee
morale. As of March 2012, this analysis was not complete. DHS and its
components are also taking steps to improve components' positive
response rates to selected survey items. For example, DHS's Integrated
Strategy for High-Risk Management identified corrective actions to
improve employee job satisfaction scores, such as the launch of the
Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee. GAO has previously
reported on a variety of issues, including concerns about pay and a
lack of trust in leadership that can lead to morale problems. This
variation in potential issues that can result in morale problems
underscores the importance of looking beyond survey scores to
understand the root causes of those problems and developing plans to
address them. Given the critical nature of DHS's mission to protect the
security and economy of the United States, it is important that DHS
employees are satisfied with their jobs so that DHS can attract and
retain the talent required to complete its work. GAO will continue to
assess DHS's efforts to address employee job satisfaction and expects
to issue a report on its results in September 2012.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the
subcommittee: I am pleased to appear today to provide our preliminary
observations on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to
address employees' job satisfaction. DHS is the third-largest Cabinet-
level agency in the Federal Government, employing more than 200,000
employees in a broad range of jobs, including aviation and border
security, emergency response, cybersecurity analysis, and chemical
facility inspection. The DHS workforce is situated throughout the
Nation, carrying out activities to support DHS's mission to: (1)
Prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2) secure and manage the
Nation's borders, (3) enforce and administer immigration laws, (4)
safeguard and secure cyberspace, and (5) ensure resilience from
disasters. DHS carries out an additional set of activities to provide
essential support to National and economic security.
Since its creation in 2003, DHS has faced challenges implementing
its human capital functions, and its employees have reported having low
job satisfaction. For example, DHS's scores on the 2011 Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)--a
tool that measures employees' perceptions of whether and to what extent
conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their
agency--and the Partnership for Public Service's (Partnership) 2011
rankings of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government were
lower than Government-wide averages.\1\ In the 2011 FEVS survey, DHS's
percentage of positive responses was 64 percent for the job
satisfaction index, 33rd out of 37 agencies surveyed, and 4 percentage
points below the Government-wide average.\2\ In addition, in 2011, DHS
was ranked 31st out of 33 agencies in the Best Places to Work ranking
on overall scores for employee satisfaction and commitment, which is
similar to its ranking in past years.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OPM conducted the FEVS in April/May 2011. The survey sample
included employees from 29 major Federal agencies, as well as 54 small
and large independent agencies. The survey results represent a snapshot
in time of the perceptions of the Federal workforce.
\2\ The job satisfaction index, comprising seven FEVS questions,
indicates the extent to which employees are satisfied with their jobs
and various aspects thereof.
\3\ Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for the Study
of Public Policy Implementation at the American University School of
Public Affairs, The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS employee concerns about job satisfaction are one example of the
challenges the Department faces across its management functions. In
January 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of
DHS as high-risk because it represented an enormous and complex
undertaking that would require time to achieve in an effective and
efficient manner, and it has remained on our high-risk list since that
time.\4\ This high-risk area includes challenges in strengthening DHS's
management functions--financial management, information technology,
acquisition management, and human capital.\5\ DHS has issued various
strategies and plans for its human capital activities and functions,
such as a human capital strategic plan for fiscal years 2009 through
2013 \6\ and a workforce strategy for fiscal years 2011 through 2016,
which contains the Department's workforce goals, objectives, and
performance measures for human capital management.\7\ In addition, DHS
recently updated its plans for improving the Department's scores on the
FEVS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We have identified six high-risk areas involving DHS that need
broad-based transformation to address major economy, efficiency, or
effectiveness challenges. DHS has key responsibility for four of these
six areas: (1) Implementing and Transforming DHS, (2) The National
Flood Insurance Program, (3) Protecting the Federal Government's
Information Systems and the Nation's Critical Infrastructure, and (4)
Establishing Effective Mechanisms for Sharing Terrorism-Related
Information to Protect the Homeland. DHS does not have primary
responsibility for the other two areas: (1) Strategic Human Capital
Management and (2) Managing Federal Real Property. GAO, Department of
Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation and Transformation
of Management Functions, but More Work Remains, GAO-10-911T
(Washington, DC: Sept. 30, 2010).
\5\ GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Continued Progress Made
Improving and Integrating Management Areas, but More Work Remains, GAO-
12-365T (Washington, DC: Mar. 1, 2012).
\6\ DHS, Human Capital Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2009-2013
(Washington, DC).
\7\ DHS, Workforce Strategy for Fiscal Year 2011-2016 (Washington,
DC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have previously reported that successful organizations empower
and involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a
front-line perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of
organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and
morale.\8\ DHS has consistently been behind the rest of the Federal
Government in key measures of workforce satisfaction, but it is taking
actions aimed at improvement. As requested, my testimony presents
preliminary observations regarding: (1) How DHS's employees' workforce
satisfaction compares with that of other Federal Government employees
and (2) the extent to which DHS is taking steps to improve employee job
satisfaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-
03-120 (Washington, DC: January 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement is based on on-going work for your committee regarding
DHS's employee job satisfaction survey results and its actions and
plans to improve them as well as prior reports we issued from January
2003 through February 2012 on high-risk and morale issues in the
Federal Government and at DHS.\9\ Detailed information on our scope and
methodology for our prior work can be found in these reports. We plan
to issue a report on the final results from our on-going work in
September 2012. For our on-going work, among other things, we analyzed
DHS and component planning documents relevant to employee morale,
interviewed DHS officials about employee morale, and analyzed 2011 FEVS
results. We shared the information in this statement with DHS and
incorporated its comments where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See related GAO products at the end of this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of our work was conducted 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.
dhs employees indicated less job satisfaction than the rest of the
federal government
Over time, Federal surveys have consistently found that DHS
employees are less satisfied with their jobs than the Government-wide
average.\10\ Shortly after DHS was formed, 2004 Federal survey data
indicated a disparity between DHS and Government-wide averages in job
satisfaction. At that time, 56 percent of DHS employees responded that
they were satisfied with their jobs, compared to the 68 percent
Government-wide.\11\ In subsequent years when comparative data were
available using the job satisfaction index, the disparity continued--
ranging from a difference of 8 percentage points in 2006 to a 4
percentage point difference in 2008, 2010, and 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The annual employee surveys cited in this testimony are
overall assessments of an agency's climate and culture. While measures
of job satisfaction were part of over 80 survey questions asked,
according to OPM, the surveys are a comprehensive analysis of an
employee's experience in his or her agency covering areas including
leadership, work/life balance, training, and performance management.
However, responses from a single survey provide only a partial picture
of the level of job satisfaction and other concerns among employees.
\11\ OPM's job satisfaction index was not used in 2004; as a gauge
of job satisfaction, the figures reported here are responses to the
following question: Considering everything, how satisfied are you with
your job? The index and DHS versus Government-wide averages are
available for 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, DHS employees also consistently indicated less
satisfaction on key items in OPM's 2011 FEVS than employees in the rest
of the Federal Government. On the basis of its analysis of its FEVS,
OPM determined that responses to these items--called impact items--make
a difference in whether people want to come, stay, and contribute their
fullest to an agency. Specifically, DHS employees were less positive on
14 of the 16 impact items. In some key areas, DHS's percentage of
positive responses was lower than the rest of the Federal Government
averages. For example:
Slightly less than half of the DHS employees surveyed
reported positive responses to the statement ``My talents are
used well in the workplace,'' nearly 12 percentage points less
than the rest of the Federal Government average of 61.6
percent.
DHS employees had nearly 10 percentage points fewer positive
responses to the statements ``I am given a real opportunity to
improve my skills in my organization'' and ``Managers
communicate the goals and priorities of the organization'' than
the rest of the Federal Government averages of 66.0 and 65.3
percent respectively.
In two areas, DHS's percentage of positive responses was nearly the
same or higher than the rest of the Federal Government average.
Specifically:
DHS's percentage of positive responses to the statement
``Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your
pay?'' was not statistically different than the rest of the
Federal Government average, with responses of 62 percent for
DHS and 63 percent for the rest of the Federal Government.
DHS was nearly 2 percentage points higher than the rest of
the Federal Government average for the statement ``My workload
is reasonable.''
The percentage of DHS respondents with positive responses on each
of 16 impact items and the difference between DHS and the rest of the
Federal Government appear in appendix I. OPM calls for Federal leaders
to pay attention to the 16 impact items as key indicators of engagement
and commitment to continued service. While improvement in any of the
impact items that OPM identified could help DHS improve its
attractiveness as an employer of choice, the items for which DHS is
farthest behind the rest of the Federal Government could provide a
focus for targeting improvement efforts.
The 2011 job satisfaction data also indicate that satisfaction
levels vary across components within DHS. For example, as shown in
table 1, job satisfaction index results for the 2011 FEVS show the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as 11 percentage points
below Government-wide averages while other large components, such as
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard
(Coast Guard), posted above-average results. Identifying this variation
across components could help target efforts to improve employee
satisfaction.

TABLE 1.--DHS COMPONENT JOB SATISFACTION SCORES, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
From
Job Government-
DHS Component Satisfaction wide
Score Average
(Percentage) (Percentage
Points)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center...... 72 4
Office of the Inspector General.............. 71 3
U.S. Coast Guard............................. 70 2
U.S. Secret Service.......................... 69 1
U.S. Customs and Border Protection........... 69 1
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.... 67 -1
Management Directorate....................... 66 -2
Office of the Secretary...................... 63 -5
Federal Emergency Management Administration.. 63 -5
National Protection and Programs Directorate. 62 -6
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.......... 61 -7
Undersecretary for Science and Technology.... 60 -8
Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis. 58 -10
Transportation Security Administration....... 57 -11
Government-wide (average score).............. 68 0
DHS (average score).......................... 64 -4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

TSA performed analysis of its 2011 FEVS results to gain a better
understanding of whether employee satisfaction varies across location,
program office, or level. This analysis identified variation in job
satisfaction within the component; specifically, with Federal Security
Director staff at airports providing more positive responses for job
satisfaction (69 percent positive) than the airport screening workforce
(54 percent positive), as shown in figure 1.

dhs has on-going actions to address job satisfaction, but has not yet
improved employee satisfaction results
DHS has taken steps to identify where it has the most significant
employee satisfaction problems and has developed plans for addressing
those problem areas. DHS has conducted some analysis of employee survey
results and developed action plans to address some employee
satisfaction problems, but it has not yet addressed the key goals
related to job satisfaction--to improve DHS's scores on OPM's job
satisfaction index, among other indexes, and to improve its ranking on
the Partnership's Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. The
results from our prior work at DHS and other departments identify a
wide variety of issues that can lead to employee morale problems. Thus,
conducting an analysis of the root causes of employee satisfaction
problems and developing plans to address them are important.
DHS Has Taken Action to Address Employee Satisfaction Problems
DHS's job satisfaction scores could pose challenges to DHS in
recruiting, motivating, and retaining talented employees that DHS needs
to meet its mission requirements. Specifically, an agency's reputation
is a key factor in recruiting and hiring applicants. A Partnership for
Public Service report published in 2010 noted that a good reputation is
the most frequently-mentioned factor in choosing potential employers,
and agencies with high satisfaction and engagement scores were seen as
desirable by college graduates seeking employment.\12\ Similarly, the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) reported that employees'
willingness to recommend the Federal Government or their agency as a
place to work can directly affect an agency's recruitment efforts, the
quality of the resulting applicant pool, and the acceptance of
employment offers.\13\ In addition, MSPB noted that prospective
employees would rather work for an agency billed as one of the best
places to work compared to an agency at the bottom of the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Partnership for Public Service, Great Expectations: What
Students Want in an Employer, and How Federal Agencies can Deliver It
(Washington, DC: January 2009).
\13\ Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Government: A
Model Employer or a Work in Progress? Perspectives from 25 Years of the
Merit Principles Survey (Washington, DC: September 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has taken or has a variety of actions under way or planned to
address employee satisfaction problems, including analyzing the results
of employee surveys and developing action plans to improve employee
satisfaction.
Survey Analyses
Components and DHS have used a variety of approaches to analyze
survey results to gain insight about employee satisfaction. As part of
our on-going work on employee morale, we reviewed survey analyses
conducted by DHS's Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, TSA, and
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
DHS.--DHS completed an evaluation of the 2008 Federal Human Capital
Survey results to determine root causes of job satisfaction Department-
wide, according to DHS officials.\14\ In that analysis, DHS determined
that the drivers of employee satisfaction across DHS included the DHS
mission, senior leadership effectiveness, and supervisor support.
According to DHS officials, DHS is currently working with a contractor
on a Department-wide analysis of root causes of employee morale. As of
March 2012, this analysis was not complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The FEVS was preceded by the Federal Human Capital Survey,
which included the same questions asked in the FEVS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA.--TSA's analysis focused on areas of difficulty across groups,
such as pay and performance appraisal concerns, and also provides
insight on which employee groups within TSA may be more dissatisfied
with their jobs than others. The analysis results are descriptive,
showing where job satisfaction problem areas may exist, and do not
identify the causes of dissatisfaction within employee groups. For the
2011 FEVS, TSA benchmarked its results against CBP results, as well as
against DHS and Government-wide results. When comparing CBP and TSA
scores, TSA found that the greatest differences in scores were on
questions related to satisfaction with pay and with whether performance
appraisals were a fair reflection of performance. TSA scored 40
percentage points lower on pay satisfaction and 25 percentage points
lower on performance appraisal satisfaction. In comparing TSA results
to DHS and Government-wide results, TSA found that TSA was below the
averages for all FEVS dimensions.\15\ TSA also evaluated FEVS results
across employee groups by comparing dimension scores for headquarters
staff, the Federal Air Marshals, Federal Security Director staff, and
the screening workforce. TSA found that the screening workforce scored
at or below scores for all other groups across all of the dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The FEVS includes questions grouped into the following
dimensions: Work experiences, supervisor/team leader, agency, work
unit, leadership, satisfaction, and work/life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE.--ICE analyzed the 2011 FEVS results by identifying ICE's top
FEVS questions with high positive and negative responses. ICE found
that its top strength was employees' willingness to put in the extra
effort to get a job done. ICE's top negative result was employees'
perception that pay raises did not depend on how well employees perform
their jobs. ICE did not perform demographic analysis of the survey
results or identify the roots causes of employee satisfaction problems,
but did benchmark its results against DHS and Government-wide results,
identifying those questions and Human Capital Assessment and
Accountability Framework (HCAAF) indices where ICE led or trailed DHS
and the Government.\16\ ICE found, among other things, that employee
views on the fairness of its performance appraisals were above DHS's
average but that views on employee preparation for potential security
threats were lower. When comparing ICE's results with Government-wide
figures, ICE found, among other things, that ICE was lower on all of
the HCAAF indices, including job satisfaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The HCAAF indices provide metrics for measuring progress
toward OPM goals for Federal agencies, which include employee job
satisfaction, leadership effectiveness and knowledge management, a
results-oriented performance culture, and effective talent management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Plans
DHS and the components are taking actions that could improve
employee satisfaction, with a focus on improving components' positive
responses to selected survey items.
DHS's Integrated Strategy for High-Risk Management.--In December
2011, DHS provided us with its updated Integrated Strategy for High-
Risk Management (Integrated Strategy), which summarized the
Department's plans for addressing its implementation and transformation
high-risk designation. In the Integrated Strategy, DHS identified
corrective actions to improve employee job satisfaction scores, among
other things. The corrective actions include the Secretary issuing
guidance to component heads to address gaps in the 2011 FEVS results;
launch of an Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee, which
held its first meeting in February 2012; implementation in June 2009 of
an on-line reporting and action planning tool for components; and
execution of a DHS-wide exit survey in January 2011 for departing
employees to gain additional insight into why employees are leaving the
Department.\17\ According to the Integrated Strategy, DHS has begun
implementing corrective actions but has not yet achieved its key
outcome related to job satisfaction--to improve DHS's scores on OPM's
job satisfaction index, among other indexes, and to improve its ranking
on the Partnership's Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.
According to the Integrated Strategy, FEVS index scores did not improve
appreciably relative to Government-wide averages from 2010 to 2011.
DHS's Partnership ranking also remains near last among Federal
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee's purpose
is to address areas of improvement identified in the 2011 FEVS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Integrated Strategy action plan for improving job
satisfaction scores, DHS reported that three of six efforts were
hindered by a lack of resources. For example, fewer resources were
available than anticipated for DHS's Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer to consult with components in developing action plans in
response to 2011 FEVS results. Similarly, fewer resources were
available than planned to deploy on-line focus discussions on job
satisfaction-related issues. Sufficient resource planning to address
the key high-risk human capital outcome of enhanced employee
satisfaction scores is essential as DHS works to transform itself into
a high-performing department.
DHS and component action plans.--We reviewed the most recent DHS
action plans to address 2011 FEVS outcomes Department-wide as well as
component plans for TSA, the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE. The plans state
objectives and identify actions to be taken, among other things.
Examples of initiatives from the plans are listed in table 2.

TABLE 2.--DHS-WIDE AND TSA, COAST GUARD, CBP, AND ICE ACTION PLAN
INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS Unit Action Plan Initiatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS-wide............................... Enhance leadership,
recruitment, employee
retention, and DHS
unification.
TSA.................................... Launch a corporate action
planning team to study
employee issues and develop
recommendations, enhance
employee performance
management, and improve TSA
communication mechanisms.
ICE.................................... Advance telework opportunities,
increase communication between
employees and management, and
develop an awards handbook for
distribution to employees.
CBP.................................... Address results, enhance
communication between
management and employees,
create career and leadership
development opportunities,
replace pass/fail performance
appraisal with multi-leveled
performance management system,
implement training
improvements, and maintain an
existing virtual focus group
to enable upward feedback to
senior leaders.
Coast Guard............................ Improve communication with
employees and training
options.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of DHS-wide TSA, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE 2011
action plans based on FEVS results.

As part of our on-going work, we are comparing DHS and component
action plans with OPM guidance for action planning and will report on
our results in September 2012.
Several Issues Can Contribute to Employee Dissatisfaction
Our prior work at DHS and other departments and agencies
illustrates the variety of issues that can lead to morale problems.
In July 2009, we reported that the funding challenges FPS
faced in fiscal year 2008 and its cost savings actions to
address them resulted in adverse implications for its
workforce, primarily low morale among staff and increase
attrition.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should
Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants,
GAO-09-749 (Washington, DC: July 30, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2011, we reported that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) human capital plan did not have
strategies to address retention challenges, among other
things.\19\ FEMA experienced frequent turnover in key positions
and divisions that could result in lost productivity, a decline
in institutional knowledge, and a lack of continuity for
remaining staff. We recommended that FEMA develop a
comprehensive workforce plan that addressed retention issues,
among other things. FEMA concurred with the recommendation and
noted that a contractor had begun work on a new human capital
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ GAO, FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the
National Flood Insurance Program, GAO-11-297 (Washington, DC: June 9,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2011, we reported that the Forest Service's
centralization of human resources management and information
technology services contributed to several agency-wide
improvements, but it has also had widespread, largely negative
effects on field-unit employees. Under centralization, the
agency relies on a self-service approach whereby employees are
generally responsible for independently initiating or carrying
out many related business service tasks. Field-unit employees
consistently told us that these increased administrative
responsibilities, coupled with problems with automated systems
and customer support, have negatively affected their ability to
carry out their mission work and have led to lower employee
morale.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO, Forest Service Business Services: Further Actions Needed
to Re-examine Centralization Approach and to Better Document Associated
Costs, GAO-11-769 (Washington, DC: Aug. 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2009, we reported that employees from a number of
different agencies and pay systems worked overseas in proximity
to one another. Each of these pay systems was authorized by a
separate statute that outlines the compensation to which
employees under that system are entitled, certain elements of
which are set without regard to the location in which the
employees are working. We reported that when these employees
are assigned overseas and serve side-by-side, the differences
in pay systems may become more apparent and may adversely
affect morale.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO, Human Capital: Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide
Timely and Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed
Federal Civilians, GAO-09-562 (Washington, DC: June 26, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, we reported that the 2004 and 2006
employee survey results for the Small Business Administration
(SBA) showed a lack of respect for and trust in SBA leadership
and a concern about training opportunities.\22\ The SBA
Administrator's efforts to address the survey results included
soliciting information from employees and visiting field
locations to obtain their input on how to improve agency
operations and morale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ GAO, Small Business Administration: Opportunities Exist to
Build on Leadership's Efforts to Improve Agency Performance and
Employee Morale, GAO-08-995 (Washington, DC: Sept. 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The variation in potential issues that can result in morale
problems underscores the importance of looking beyond survey scores to
understand where problems, such as low employee satisfaction, are
taking place within the organization, along with the root causes of
those problems. Effective root cause analysis can help agencies better
target efforts to develop action plans and programs to address the key
drivers of employee satisfaction.
Given the critical nature of DHS's mission to protect the security
and economy of our Nation, it is important that DHS employees are
satisfied with their jobs so that DHS can retain and attract the talent
required to complete its work. We will continue to monitor and assess
DHS's efforts to address employee job satisfaction through our on-going
work and expect to issue a report on our final results in September
2012.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the
subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Appendix I.--Comparison of DHS and Non-DHS Responses to Key Survey
Questions

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Positive: Percentage Difference:
Survey Question Excluding Positive: DHS Minus
DHS DHS Non-DHS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My talents are used well in the 61.6 49.7 -11.8
workplace.........................
I am given a real opportunity to 66.0 56.0 -9.9
improve my skills in my
organization......................
Managers communicate the goals and 65.3 55.7 -9.6
priorities of the organization....
Employees have a feeling of 49.2 39.6 -9.6
personal empowerment with respect
to work processes.................
How satisfied are you with your 54.2 44.7 -9.5
involvement in decisions that
affect your work?.................
How satisfied are you with the 46.4 37.1 -9.3
policies and practices of your
senior leaders?...................
My work gives me a feeling of 74.6 65.9 -8.7
personal accomplishment...........
How satisfied are you with the 51.4 42.9 -8.6
information you receive from
management on what's going on in
your organization?................
How satisfied are you with the 51.4 42.9 -8.6
recognition you receive for doing
a good job?.......................
I have a high level of respect for 57.3 49.4 -7.9
my organization's senior leaders..
How satisfied are you with your 40.1 35.1 -5.0
opportunity to get a better job in
your organization?................
How satisfied are you with the 55.3 50.7 -4.6
training you receive for your
present job?......................
Overall, how good a job do you feel 69.6 66.1 -3.5
is being done by your immediate
supervisor/team leader?...........
Considering everything, how 62.6 61.6 *
satisfied are you with your pay?..
I like the kind of work I do....... 85.0 84.1 -1.0
My workload is reasonable.......... 58.9 60.6 1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not statistically significant.
Source: GAO analysis of 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Note: All percentage estimates have 95 percent margins of error equal to
+/- 1 percentage point. Percentage differences between DHS and the
rest of Government are statistically distinguishable from zero at the
.02 level, except where noted.

Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Maurer.
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Stier for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Stier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the
opportunity to be here. It is a very important issue that you
are focusing on and I do want to just highlight two things.
First, Admiral Allen is on the board of the Partnership for
Public Service, so that ought to be disclosed. Second, this
really is critical that you are focusing on--this is not about
happy employees; it ultimately is about performance. So as
Admiral Allen says, you see morale challenges as a byproduct of
other issues that are going on, but in the environment we are
in right now in the public sector you don't have financial
metrics where you can measure end outcome; you are trying to
do--trying to pursue public goods. So actually, employee
engagement numbers--satisfaction numbers are quite important in
understanding what is actually going on inside these
organizations.
What is also really important to recognize is that many of
the problems that exist at DHS are problems that exist
Government-wide. One of the attractive things to note, though,
is that other agencies are doing some extraordinary things.
An example, Secretary Ray LaHood at Department of
Transportation was the most improved agency in 2010, saw almost
a 16 percent increase in their scores. At the end of the day it
was all about his taking this issue on personally. He talks
about employee morale; he acts on it; and as I will mention
later on in my comments, he has done some very specific things
that have turned things around.
FDIC is another great example. They were near the bottom of
our rankings in 2005; they are now the No. 1 ranked agency.
Sheila Bair--again, top leadership--said this is something I
want to do something about. It was a 5-year program and she
made a very real difference.
So there are other agencies where you can see some real
change.
You asked earlier, what can Congress do about this? There
are four things that I want to focus on.
The first is--coming back to your example of the Defense
Department and Goldwater-Nichols--the joint duty requirement
for the military is one of the things that had the most
substantial changes in the culture of DOD--the requirement that
in order to become a flag officer you actually had to work on a
joint duty assignment with others from other services. Mobility
is a real challenge in the Federal environment at the senior
executive service level.
At DHS specifically, I think it is only 6 percent of the
SES had actually come from outside of Government; only 12
percent of those that are in the SES at DHS have worked in
multiple agencies. Some--more than half--have never worked in
any job than they are in currently right now, as an SES member.
In order to have the real executive group, in order to
bring components together, in order to connect to other
organizations, having worked in those other organizations is
absolutely critical and we believe that pushing mobility is one
way that you could actually create some real change, and I
think very powerfully trying to think about exchange with the
private sector, as well. FEMA has a very interesting program
where they bring some private executives--sector executives in.
We need to see that flow and I think that will improve things a
great deal.
No. 2, we need continuity of focus. Again, you mentioned
earlier the turnover in the chief human capital officer
position--eight different members. Capital is a great--it is
great to have Catherine Emerson here as a career CHCO in this
position as a career person.
I would argue that all the management positions ought to be
career positions. You can set your policy on a political level,
but if you really want to see change it is going to take a long
time. You need a long runway. If people turn over real quickly
at those top positions it is not going to happen, so actually
converting the positions formally into career positions--CHCO,
CFO, which they still don't have--would make a very, very big
difference.
No. 3, we need accountability. I mentioned Secretary LaHood
at Transportation. He has actually built in requirements in all
their career and non-career SES--that means the political, as
well--requirements around performance standards and engaging
employees, and he has built it into how they are evaluated,
which means they actually really pay attention to it. There are
a whole bunch of things we can talk about if you want that they
have done that I think could be replicated.
Clearly, your oversight here matters a huge amount. It has
to be a regular thing that you are looking at. That will
actually generate, I think, continuous interest in the
Executive branch, and that is absolutely vital.
No. 4, and that is we need improved data. One of the
challenges right now is we are asking these employees--Federal
employees--you know, their opinion about what is happening
inside their agencies in April; the information is not coming
out until September, sometimes even later than that. That is a
real problem.
We also need more data. We ought to be able to get
information by occupation. It would be terrific to be able to
compare the IT shops at DHS versus other agencies, and that
would actually be a very powerful indicator about where things
that are happening well could be replicated and where there are
real challenges.
You look at organizations like IBM. They do 400,000
surveys; they produce 40,000 reports. Smart private sector
organizations use this information to drive their management,
and that is what we ought to see here.
Finally, we do have some real bright spots in the
Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard, at Secret
Service--there is a lot to be learned from what is already
happening. My view is almost everything that should be
happening in Government is happening some places, just not
everywhere, and the key is how do we spread it?
But thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The statement of Mr. Stier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Max Stier
March 22, 2012
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am Max Stier, President and CEO of the Partnership for Public
Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to
revitalizing the Federal civil service and to transforming the way the
Federal Government works. I was honored to testify before this
subcommittee both in 2007 and in 2009 on the human capital challenges
facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the morale of the
Department's employees. I appreciate you inviting me back today to
discuss the current state of the Department's workforce and to suggest
areas which I believe would benefit most from this subcommittee's
attention.
The Partnership has two principal areas of focus. First, we work to
inspire and educate mission-critical talent about the benefits of
Federal service. Second, we work with Government leaders to prepare
them to build strong teams, drive innovation, and work across
organizational boundaries to deliver results for America. Our work
includes all aspects of how the Federal Government manages people--
attracting them to Government, leading and engaging them, supporting
their development, managing performance--all the essential ingredients
for creating, developing, and maintaining a world-class workforce.
You have charged the witnesses for today's hearing with discussing
challenges at the Department of Homeland Security, including low morale
and consistent scores near the bottom of the Partnership's Best Places
to Work in the Federal Government rankings. Since starting the Best
Places to Work rankings in 2003, the Partnership has seen how employee
morale affects an agency's ability to execute on its mission. A low
ranking may be a warning that serious management attention is needed,
sometimes urgently. An unfortunate but noteworthy example is the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was an independent
agency in 2003 when it ranked last in the rankings just 2 years before
Hurricane Katrina. In hindsight, given the low level of satisfaction
and engagement of FEMA employees, it seems unsurprising that the agency
was roundly criticized for its response to that disaster.
Highly engaged employees are likely to be more motivated and
productive in achieving agency goals, leading to greater efficiency,
more innovation, and better results. Therefore, increasing employee
engagement is important for driving performance. The Partnership's
annual Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings quantify
and analyze employee satisfaction levels across the Federal Government,
providing measurable indicators of employee satisfaction and commitment
and offering an important tool by which Congress and the administration
can hold agency leaders accountable for the health and performance of
their workforces. This is especially important at DHS, where failure to
execute on the agency's mission to secure the Nation could mean
widespread disaster.
about ``best places to work in the federal government''
Designed to help a broad audience of Government leaders, employees,
Members of Congress, job seekers and researchers, the 2011 Best Places
to Work in the Federal Government rankings were produced by the
Partnership for Public Service with support from Deloitte and Hay
Group. This year's rankings draw on responses from more than 266,000
civil servants to produce a detailed view of employee satisfaction and
commitment across 308 Federal agencies and subcomponents.
The Partnership for Public Service uses data from the Office of
Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) to rank
agencies and their subcomponents according to a Best Places to Work
index score. A few organizations, such as the Government Accountability
Office, are not covered by the FEVS but independently conduct valid
surveys and provide the data to the Partnership. Agencies and
subcomponents are not only measured on overall employee satisfaction,
but are scored in ten workplace categories, such as effective
leadership, employee skills/mission match, pay, and work/life balance.
The Best Places to Work rankings are an important tool for
Congressional oversight and for ensuring that employee satisfaction is
a top priority for Government managers and leaders. The rankings
provide a mechanism to hold agency leaders accountable for the health
of their organizations, serve as an early warning sign for agencies in
trouble, offer a roadmap for improvement and give job seekers insights
into how Federal employees view their agencies.
Ideally, the Best Places to Work rankings can aid Congress in
fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by highlighting the Federal
Government's high-performing agencies and raising a red flag when
agencies suffer from conditions that lead to low employee satisfaction
and, consequently, poor performance.
the big picture
Last November, the Partnership for Public Service released the
scores for the 2011 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government
rankings.\1\ The 2011 rankings include 33 large agencies, 35 small
agencies, and 240 agency subcomponents. In looking at the big picture,
the 2011 Best Places to Work results show a Government-wide decline in
employee satisfaction compared to 2010, but not as big a drop as one
might have expected given the difficult economic and political climate
that has led to a Federal pay freeze, the possibility of reduced worker
benefits, threats of Government shutdowns, and the certainty of
significant agency budget reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visit bestplacestowork.org to access the complete 2011
rankings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Best Places to Work Government-wide employee satisfaction score
for 2011 stood at 64 out of 100, representing a 1.5 percent decrease
from 2010, but still 5.7 percent higher than 2003 when our rankings
were first published.
The new rankings show improvement in worker satisfaction scores for
only 31 percent of Federal organizations, compared with 68 percent in
2010, demonstrating that 2011 was a challenging year for most agencies.
At the same time, the rise in employee satisfaction at some agencies
suggests that a determined focus on good management can have a positive
workplace impact in the workplace even in tough times.
Generally, for an agency to successfully improve its Best Places to
Work ranking and overall employee morale, the Partnership has found
that several things need to happen:
(1) The agency needs to understand its survey data through careful
analysis and discover what may be driving the perceptions
reported.
(2) Senior agency leaders must create a powerful vision around the
change they want to see and paint a clear vision for the
future.
(3) The agency should actively work with managers, employees, and
other stakeholders to translate the vision into action plans
and manage the change effort.
(4) The agency needs to develop a credible communications strategy
to ensure information and goals are understood at all levels.
(5) Senior political and career leaders are held accountable for
actions and results in their performance plans.
(6) The agency celebrates success.
Mr. Chairman, this year's results tell a compelling story about
DHS. The Department is fortunate to have a workforce that is committed
to its mission, yet varying degrees of weakness in all ten workplace
categories, as well as a few low-scoring subcomponents, keep the
Department and its employees from performing at their best. As one of
the largest agencies in the Federal Government (behind only the
Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs), DHS has challenges that
some smaller agencies do not. In essence, DHS is a large ship and will
take longer than many smaller agencies to change course. However, it is
also worth noting that there are ten DHS subcomponents in the rankings
(plus an ``All Other'' category) and their scores range from a low of
41.0 to a high of 70.9. So, while DHS is large, it is not monolithic.
There are undoubtedly some ``lessons learned'' that can be shared
profitably among the subcomponents.
Overall, the Department again finds itself near the bottom of the
2011 Best Places to Work rankings. While steady progress had been made
each year since the first rankings came out, DHS went down on its
overall index score in 2011. The Department's scores on its ``effective
leadership'' dimension are troubling and deserve this subcommittee's
sustained attention. The effective leadership category measures the
extent to which employees believe leadership at all levels of the
organization generates motivation and commitment, encourages integrity,
and manages people fairly, while also promoting the professional
development, creativity, and empowerment of employees. While the
Department's current score of 47.6 is up substantially from its score
of 40.1 in 2005, it still ranks at the bottom of all the large agencies
ranked on this dimension.
Among DHS subcomponents, FEMA and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) stand out as two of the lowest-scoring
subcomponents and continue to have low employee satisfaction. On the
other hand, there is positive news in this year's results at the U.S.
Coast Guard and the Secret Service. Both subcomponents saw their index
scores rise, and Secret Service improved in nearly every category.
overall dhs rankings
This year, DHS ranks 31 of 33 among large agencies. The
Department's overall index score decreased 3.5 percent from 58.6 in
2010 to 56.6 in 2011. Prior to this year, the Department was trending
steadily upward, showing gains from a score of 49.1 in 2005 to a high
of 58.6 in 2010.
In addition to the index score, agencies and subcomponents are
ranked by ten workplace categories: Employee skills/mission match,
effective leadership, work/life balance, teamwork, pay, training and
development, support for diversity, strategic management, performance-
based rewards and advancement, and family-friendly culture and
benefits. DHS decreased in each of these categories, and ranked last
for all large agencies in the categories of effective leadership and
family-friendly culture and benefits.
The effective leadership category is particularly noteworthy and
troubling. A regression analysis conducted each year by the
Partnership's partner, the Hay Group, determines which workplace
categories are the best predictors of the Best Places to Work index
score. Government-wide, and for DHS, the No. 1 driver of employee
satisfaction in 2011--and for the sixth time in a row--was effective
leadership. As previously noted, there was a decrease of 2.2 percent in
the score given to effective leadership by employees at DHS, putting
the Department last of all large agencies with a score of 47.6. It is
important to note that prior to this year's survey, DHS had been making
steady progress in this category, up from a score of 40.1 in 2005 to
48.7 in 2010.
One positive trend to highlight is in the subcategory of fairness,
one of four subcategories under effective leadership. DHS increased its
score 1.6 percent this year, indicating that employees feel an
increased belief that arbitrary action and personal favoritism is not
tolerated.
In addition to effective leadership, employee skills/mission match
and pay are the other two key drivers of employee satisfaction at DHS.
This matches the Government-wide key drivers. Subcomponents at DHS all
showed effective leadership and employee skills/mission match as the
top two drivers, although the third driver was something other than pay
for eight of the subcomponents.\2\ The key driver analysis is useful
for agencies and subcomponents looking for high-impact areas to focus
their transformation efforts; in other words, improving in the
workplace dimensions that are key drivers of employee satisfaction,
like leadership or skills/mission match, is most likely to impact
overall employee satisfaction scores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FEMA's third key driver was work/life, while Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the
United States Coast Guard had strategic management as a third key
driver. Secret Service had training as a third key driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private sector employee satisfaction scores offer another benchmark
by which to measure the Department's progress on improving workforce
morale. The Partnership has access to data that allows for some
comparison between Federal Government employee satisfaction and private
sector employee satisfaction.\3\ Both for DHS and for Government as a
whole, the news is not great. The Federal Government lags behind the
private sector in employee satisfaction, and this is certainly true at
DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Private sector comparison data is provided by the Office of
Personnel Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparative data with the private sector is available for 13
questions that are in the Office of Personnel Management's Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey. One question that covers satisfaction with
leadership is, ``How satisfied are you with the information you receive
from management on what's going on in your organization?'' The
Government falls 14 points behind the private sector on this question,
while DHS falls 25 points behind. Satisfaction with leadership is just
one area where Government--DHS in particular--needs to close the gap. A
Federal Government workforce that is less engaged and less satisfied
will not be able to match the private sector in delivering on its
mission.
dhs subcomponent rankings
Of the 11 DHS subcomponents that were included in the Best Places
to Work rankings in 2011, only the United States Coast Guard and Secret
Service saw their overall index score increase. The subcomponent data
provides a fascinating look at where things are going well, or are not
going well, in the Department. Some of the more troubling data points
for DHS subcomponents include the following:
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
TSA is ranked 227 of 228 \4\ agency subcomponents in the
workplace categories of effective leadership and fairness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Not all 240 ranked agency subcomponents have data available for
the various workplace categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA is ranked last of all 228 agency subcomponents in the
workplace categories of pay, performance-based rewards and
advancement, and family-friendly culture and benefits. Each of
these categories decreased by more than 10 percent.
Overall, TSA is ranked 232 of 240 agency subcomponents, down
6.4 percent from 2010 with an overall index score of 48.0.
It should be noted that TSA was in the midst of union
elections at the time the survey was administered.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
FEMA is ranked 223 of 228 agency subcomponents in the
workplace category of effective leadership.
FEMA is ranked 222 of 228 agency subcomponents in the
workplace subcategory of leaders (one of four subcategories
under effective leadership). FEMA is down between 7-13 percent
in all four leadership subcategories, and in leadership
overall.
Overall, FEMA is ranked 231 of 240 agency subcomponents,
down 13.7 percent from 2010 with an overall index score of
48.3.
When asked if they believe the results of the survey will be used
to make their agency a better place to work, only 33.2 percent of
employees at FEMA responded favorably. The response was similar at TSA,
with only 37.9 percent of employees responding favorably to the same
question. Both subcomponents saw a decrease on this question this year,
with FEMA's score going down 6 percent and TSA's score declining 2
percent. The subcommittee should use this Best Places to Work data to
ask the leadership at these agencies about action planning and efforts
to communicate to staff. For example, what means is the agency using to
hear from employees directly? What is the agency doing to understand
the ``why'' behind the scores, and how are they addressing responses
and measuring results?
There is also encouraging data in this year's survey results. Eight
of the DHS subcomponents saw an improved score on the question, ``My
agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.'' The Secret Service
is the most notable, raising its score a full 10 percent to make it the
highest-scoring DHS subcomponent on this question at 88.1 percent
favorable. Compared to all other agency subcomponents, Secret Service
ranks 6 of 228 on this question.
The Secret Service saw its overall index score increase 11.5
percent this year, making it the most improved DHS subcomponent. The
agency also saw an increase in nine of the ten workplace categories,
including each of the four leadership subcategories. Impressively, the
Secret Service saw a 22.6 percent increase in employee satisfaction for
employees under age 40. The subcommittee should find out more about
what the Secret Service is doing to improve employee satisfaction.
current efforts to address low morale
Working in the Department's favor is Secretary Napolitano's
personal attention to improving employee morale. The Partnership has
learned that Secretary Napolitano has established an Employee
Engagement Executive Steering Committee to address the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey results and has tasked the individual DHS
subcomponents with reviewing their results and assuming responsibility
for improving employee engagement. We believe top leadership support is
an essential first step in bringing about change, and we commend the
Secretary and the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer for
recognizing the importance of employee engagement in achieving agency
goals.
We also know that the Department is taking steps to improve
leadership, which is the No. 1 driver of employee satisfaction. The
agency has created a Department-wide leadership development program
which the Department plans to implement this year. The program
prioritizes developing and training first-line supervisors, followed by
executives. The program identifies 44 leadership competencies for all
of DHS, with special considerations for the operational side of the
Department.
The Partnership runs a leadership program called the DHS Fellows
program, which will now become part of the Department-wide leadership
development structure. The DHS Fellows program strengthens the
leadership skills of GS-14 and GS-15 employees through a proven
combination of innovative coursework, best practices benchmarking,
challenging action-learning projects, executive coaching, and DHS-wide
networking. The program was launched in 2007 and has proven to be a
popular, and successful, professional development opportunity for DHS's
next generation of leaders.
The Department has also made strides to understand why its
employees leave. The DHS Human Capital Strategic Plan for fiscal year
2009-2013 noted that 72 percent of DHS career executives left the
Department from October 1, 2003 to September 20, 2007, the highest rate
of any Cabinet department. At the time, no one knew why executives were
leaving and no process existed to find out. More recently, the rate of
career executives leaving the Department has declined, and DHS has
implemented a new exit survey that can help identify the reasons DHS
senior leaders leave the Department. This is a positive change that
will reveal valuable insight into why talented people leave DHS and
what it might take to keep them.
We are encouraged by the steps that DHS is already taking to tackle
some of its challenges, although there is still much to be done. We
urge the subcommittee to monitor the steps DHS is taking to improve
satisfaction and pay attention to the impact and results of Department
efforts to improve.
case studies on improving scores
One way to identify a path forward is to look at the successes of
other agencies and apply best practices at the Department of Homeland
Security. The Partnership has worked with several agencies that have
dramatically improved their Best Places to Work rankings, and I will
highlight their keys to success here.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Amid enormous pressures and greatly increased workloads stemming
from the Nation's financial crisis, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) has risen to the top of the 2011 Best Places to Work
in the Federal Government rankings.
The FDIC moved from third place in 2010 to first place among large
agencies in the 2011 rankings. The FDIC recorded a Best Places to Work
score of 85.9 out of 100, an 8.5 percent jump from 2010. The 2011 score
represented the largest percentage improvement for any large agency
that year. The new rankings also placed the FDIC first among large
agencies when it comes to employee views on overall effective
leadership, senior leaders, the match between skills and mission,
strategic management, teamwork, and pay.
The FDIC began a multi-year culture change program in 2008 after
being ranked 21 of 30 large agencies in 2007. The culture change
program included the development of a core set of values to guide the
agency, clear and repeated messages from agency leaders that they were
dedicated to improving workplace conditions, and a commitment to
soliciting staff input and communicating how and why decisions are
made.
The FDIC established an internal ombudsman who reports directly to
the chairman and handles problems and grievances; created a website for
employees to submit questions and get answers on workplace issues; held
town hall meetings; instituted conference calls with the chairman and
all employees to answer questions and get direct input; and established
a culture change council and teams to explore workplace improvements.
Department of the Treasury
The U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), both
part of the Department of the Treasury, registered significant gains in
employee job satisfaction and commitment in 2011, showing improvements
on a wide range of workplace issues that include leadership and
opportunities for rewards and advancement.
Both the Mint and BEP were at the bottom of the rankings for
Federal agency subcomponents in 2010, and made dedicated efforts to
engage employees, and improve morale and workplace conditions--
strategies that were undertaken at the behest of the leadership of the
Treasury. The leaders of the bureaus are held accountable for making
progress on workplace issues, with goals embedded in their performance
plans.
The Mint was the most improved agency subcomponent in the 2011 Best
Places to Work rankings. The organization recorded a Best Places to
Work score of 68.5 out of 100, up from 56.5 in 2010, for a 21.2 percent
gain. It also catapulted in the rankings from 201 of 224 in 2010 to the
57th spot in 2011 out of 240 agency subcomponents.
At the Mint, there was a focus on increasing communication with
employees to explain the challenges faced by the organization and the
reasons for various decisions. Mint executives are now working more
cooperatively with labor unions to bring about change and resolve
outstanding issues, and are seeking to empower employees with greater
flexibility to do their jobs.
The Mint has held regular town hall meetings in concert with the
president of the Mint's chapter of the American Federation of
Government Employees, and the deputy director of the Mint has visited
all of the Mint's facilities to hear employee concerns. In addition,
the senior leaders are pulling together as a team and providing a
unified sense of direction for the organization.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing was the third-most improved
agency subcomponent in 2011, raising its Best Places to Work employee
satisfaction and commitment score from 51.5 out of 100 in 2010 to 60 in
2011. This represents a 16.6 percent increase. In addition, the BEP's
ranking rose to 174 out of 240 agency subcomponents in 2011. While
still low, it marked a positive step from being ranked 219 out of 224
in 2010.
The BEP was given improved marks by employees for effective
leadership, including a 25.7 percent improvement in the scores for the
senior leaders. The scores went up in every workplace category
surveyed, including opportunities for training and development and
support for diversity.
The agency held focus groups that included white-collar workers and
those doing manual labor, mid-level managers, and entry-level employees
to take the pulse of the workforce, and to find out the reasons behind
the historically low employee ratings.
The No. 1 concern was lack of communication, which resulted in
development of an action plan to let employees know what was happening
in the organization and why decisions were being made. Mechanisms have
been put in place to get feedback, to act on concerns, and to let
employees know that they are being heard.
Supervisors meet regularly with employees as part of their
performance requirements to discuss and address workplace issues, to
understand what motivates the workforce, and to ensure active
engagement. The leadership also has worked closely with union leaders
and held off-site meetings to find areas where all parties can
collectively improve the work environment.
In addition, senior executives regularly take part in the ``Walking
in Your Shoes'' program by spending a day doing line work in the
printing plants to better understand the nature and stresses of the
jobs, and to get suggestions on ways to make improvements. BEP has
undertaken skill assessments of many of its workers, increased internal
training programs to address skill gaps and helped workers adapt to new
technologies being introduced into the printing process.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has taken a number of steps
to improve its Best Places to Work scores. DOT has embedded senior
executive performance plans with a requirement that executives model
leadership behaviors that will reduce communication barriers, build
employee trust, address employee concerns and more effectively engage
employees. All other things being equal, such behaviors should lead to
increases in positive responses on the Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey.
DOT has also developed a ``Leadership Quick Wins'' document to give
senior leaders ideas on how to improve employee satisfaction and
commitment. The ideas include having an open-door policy, engaging
regional and field employees outside of Washington, and perusing
employee suggestions on DOT's IdeaHub. IdeaHub was created in 2010 to
give leaders an easy and simple way of hearing what employees have to
say about DOT and how to improve it.
As the case studies show, agencies that actively participate in
raising employee satisfaction and commitment can and most often will
have success. It starts with top leadership engagement and commitment
to change and is executed at every level of the agency. In each of
these case studies, agency leaders took actions consistent with the
model the Partnership has found to be most effective. Agencies leaders
created a vision, led a culture change initiative headed by influential
leaders across the agency, communicated frequently to all employees
about the effort and progress, held senior staff accountable for
results and celebrated success.
partnership recommendations to congress
Congress has a vital role to play in overseeing the Department of
Homeland Security's efforts to improve employee satisfaction. The
Department is taking steps to understand its data, bring together
senior leaders to create a vision for change and develop action plans,
but change at the Department has come slowly and with only sporadic
leadership focus.
Improving the performance of DHS depends on having an engaged
workforce. That will only come if the Department's leaders communicate
a clear vision that resonates with employees and hold themselves
accountable for action and results over the long-term. Change is hard,
and it will require sustained attention from the Department's
leadership team. We commend the subcommittee for your needed and
thoughtful attention to the role of employee morale in the Department's
performance, and we encourage your on-going oversight keep the
Department moving in the right direction. To that end, we offer the
following recommendations:
Strengthen Leaders
(1) Given the importance of having great leadership at DHS,
Congress should encourage and fund leadership development
programs for DHS employees at all levels. Improving the skills
of existing leaders and developing the next generation of
leaders will improve employee engagement and organizational
performance.

More specifically, Congress should focus on developing leaders for
the Senior Executive Service (SES). Currently, 27 percent of
the senior executives at DHS are eligible to retire, and by
2016 that number increases to 59 percent. With this knowledge,
DHS has a unique opportunity to invest in future executive
leaders to build a highly effective leadership cadre.

To ensure that DHS recruits executives with a diversity of
experiences and perspectives, Congress should require that
prior to being selected for a position in the SES, an
individual must have had significant experience in another
agency, level of government or sector, or must have
participated in a CDP, IPA, extended detail, sabbatical, or
other agency rotation program.

In addition, DHS should provide more mobility opportunities for
current members of the SES. Currently, only 49 percent of the
SES at DHS has ever changed positions and only 12 percent has
ever changed agencies. Mobility helps agencies build executive
managerial skills, fill vacancies strategically, and infuse new
thinking into the organization. Mobility also has a Government-
wide impact, as it increases the Government's ability to
fulfill cross-agency mission and promotes greater sharing of
information and resources. Congress should direct DHS to submit
a plan that outlines steps the agency will take to advance
mobility, including efforts to reduce barriers and create
greater incentives.

Further, Congress should consider establishing a public/private
sector talent exchange at DHS to provide developmental
opportunities for DHS executives and expose them to private
sector best practices. In these arrangements, business and
Government exchange key managers, executives, specialists, or
operational experts for limited periods so that each side can
benefit from the other's expertise and perspective. For
business, the direct benefits include gaining a better
understanding of how Government operates; for Government, the
primary benefit is exposure to cutting-edge operational
techniques and best practices in the areas of strategy, talent
management, work processes and systems, and leadership
development.

(2) Political appointees at DHS and across Government need
orientation, training, and mentoring (collectively known as
``onboarding'') to maximize their effectiveness in the Federal
environment. The Partnership's Ready to Govern report \5\ found
that many political appointees are unfamiliar with the workings
of their departments and agencies, and many are schooled more
in policy than management. Congress should seek information
regarding how DHS appointees are prepared to succeed in their
new roles, including what training and orientation activities
are available. Ultimately, Congress should be satisfied that a
robust on-boarding program exists to improve political
appointees' ability to increase employee engagement, improve
retention, enhance performance, and work within and across the
Department to achieve results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Partnership for Public Service, Ready to Govern: Improving the
Presidential Transition, January 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Management and Hold Agencies Accountable
(1) Frequent turnover in senior political leadership causes a lack
of continuous focus on employee satisfaction and commitment
issues. We propose converting a number of appointed positions
from political to career positions with fixed terms and
performance contracts. This makes sense for positions that are
truly of a managerial nature, and would enable a longer time
horizon to address agency management challenges. For example,
the current Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), Catherine
Emerson, is the first real career CHCO at DHS. Having career
experts serving in key management positions allows an agency to
retain institutional knowledge and ensure continuity between
administrations.

(2) The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is a critical source of
data about the health of an organization, but it is not enough
by itself. A lack of real-time information hinders an agency
from moving swiftly to address challenges. Additional
instruments, such as pulse surveys and focus groups, are
effective sources of information that the subcommittee should
encourage DHS to use to focus attention on critical management
issues. The subcommittee should encourage DHS to use the data
it collects from FEVS, exit surveys, and other instruments to
drive change and hold the Department accountable for results.

(3) While the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey is a rich source of
information, the legislation on which it is based needs
updating. For example, Congress should update the 2003 language
to give OPM responsibility for conducting the annual survey,
and should direct that the data is collected and reported by
occupation to the extent feasible. This latter change would
allow Congress to view the survey results for particular
occupations--those engaged in law enforcement, for example--and
would enhance the richness and usefulness of the data.

(4) DHS should hold executives accountable for addressing employee
satisfaction and morale issues in their agency, as identified
through employee surveys and feedback. To ensure this happens,
Congress should pass legislation requiring that performance
plans for senior executives include an objective for holding
executives accountable for taking steps to improve satisfaction
in their workplace. Such efforts might include reducing
communication barriers, building employee trust and confidence
through open communication, holding employee listening
sessions, improving internal communication, and implementing at
least one ``quick-win''.

(5) The large number of Congressional committees with jurisdiction
over DHS complicates the prioritization of programs and
funding. With approximately 88 committees and subcommittees
having authority over DHS, its leaders often receive
conflicting directives that hinder the functioning of the
Department. Congress has taken steps to consolidate oversight
of the Department--including the creation of this committee--
but further reorganization is possible and highly encouraged.
conclusion
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to share the
Partnership's views on the personnel challenges facing the Department
of Homeland Security and our recommendations for the best way forward.
We look forward to being of assistance to this subcommittee and to
Congress as you consider the future of the Department.

Mr. McCaul. Thank you. You made some excellent points and I
appreciate your testimony.
The Chairman now recognizes Dr. Pon.

STATEMENT OF JEFF T.H. PON, CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER,
SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Pon. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
me to testify.
My name is Jeff Pon. I am the human resources and strategy
officer for the Society for Human Resources Management. With
more than 260,000 members, SHRM is the world's largest
organization dedicated to the HR profession.
Having served in the Federal Government before, I
understand and appreciate the organizational challenges and
their impact on morale by relatively a new agency and so many
assimilating their 22 subcomponents. As a citizen I feel
privileged today here, along with the Partnership for Public
Service, Government Accountability Office, and DHS. I hope that
I and SHRM can help serve the people who serve us.
My Federal service began in 2003 as the deputy director for
e-Government, a lot of the HR IT initiatives, such as USAJobs.
In 2006 I was appointed to be the chief human capital officer
for the Department of Energy and I have worked with Partnership
for Public Service in the past.
I have transformed workplaces in--with challenging
predicaments like DHS. I know the domino effect that low morale
has on loyalty, engagement, and productivity.
Energy had to put together five separate organizations in
the last 1970s with the very distinct history, cultures, and
origins under one Secretary and under one organization. The
roller-coaster ride of employee morale is a Government-wide
issue, not one unique to DHS.
At a technology manufacturing organization once I worked
for it had 13 layers of management and 57 EVPs and SVPs. Due to
the lack of proper integration of acquiring companies there was
a lack of coordination, increased duplication, slower
communication, decision-making, and confusion about the
organization's purpose.
Transformation helped alleviate many of those things. It
was an example of how an organization is put together and it
often defines behavior of an organization.
In a book called ``The Heart of Change'' by John P. Kotter,
of Harvard Business School, he presents the steps for
successful change. It is a framework that has been used by many
public and private organizations to address challenges similar
to those facing DHS. Briefly: Form a strong cross-functional
change team, create a vision, communicate honestly, break down
the barriers for impeding success, and demonstrate progress
that shows changes are making a difference, and celebrate with
resistance the short-term wins and don't exaggerate and spin
those successes.
Finally, don't give up. Exhaustion can be the enemy. DHS is
in its ninth year of evolving as an organization. It is
relatively new to the Federal Government still.
SHRM's most recent annual survey of employee satisfaction
actually shows a decrease in overall satisfaction in the
private sector and public sector. It found that compensation
and benefits was somewhat low on the list, so pay is not
clearly the Holy Grail of employee satisfaction. Among factors
related was relationship with employees had with their
immediate supervisor, as some people have previously stated.
Employees also want to recognize--have a recognition of
contributions to the organization's mission. Because of the
integration challenges DHS may see some employees as lacking in
clear understanding of the mission that inspires a--core.
The gold standard is to move satisfaction to a higher plane
of engagement. That is when people find meaning in their work,
when they stop watching the clock and start embracing their
role in moving the organization forward.
At SHRM we believe that workforce flexibility and
reimagining the workplace is the next major strategic
competitive advantage for all organizations and the way to
engage employees. It is the next business imperative.
No organization will be able to cut enough, streamline
enough, and boost effectiveness enough to come close to what
happens when you optimize talent and allow staff to flourish.
Then employees have a sense of pride and sense of connection to
a sense of passion.
A successful culture can be--can happen at DHS and SHRM
stands ready to serve by reimagining and redesigning the
workplace and the Department for transformation for the present
and the future. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Pon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff T.H. Pon
March 22, 2012
Good morning Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, and
distinguished Representatives. I am Dr. Jeff T.H. Pon, Chief Human
Resources and Strategy Officer of the Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM). I will describe SHRM and summarize my experience in
just a moment, but first, with the panel's indulgence, I would like to
acknowledge the importance of this discussion. Notably, I must
emphasize that I am here to support DHS, not to criticize DHS.
Having served in Federal Government myself, I can understand and
appreciate the organizational challenges--and their related impact on
morale--faced by a relatively new agency working to assimilate more
than 10 subcomponents. Just as important, as a citizen, I have enormous
respect and admiration for the men and women of DHS, and the vital role
they play in protecting our Nation and its people.
It is the DHS that leads the Federal Government's efforts to guard
against terrorist attacks on our soil, to protect and secure our
borders, and to prevent or respond to all nature of threats to our
Nation. In doing that, DHS employees may at times be asked to place the
Nation's safety above their own. They accept that responsibility with
courage, professionalism, and love of country. For all these reasons, I
feel privileged to be here today, along with the Partnership for Public
Service, the Government Accountability Office, and the DHS. I hope that
I and SHRM can play some role in serving the people who serve us.
Recently, I joined the executive staff of the Society for Human
Resource Management. With more than 260,000 members, SHRM is the
world's largest organization dedicated to the HR profession. A non-
partisan organization, we advocate for workforce laws and regulations
that are fair to employers and employees alike, and it has been our
honor to be asked to testify before Congressional panels many times in
the past.
Our top priority, however, is serving each of our members. Through
a broad array of research products, individual assistance, professional
development opportunities, and other resources, the Society helps HR
professionals advance their careers through the creation of fair,
productive, and forward-thinking workplaces.
More broadly, inclusive human asset utilization, along with
priority attention to employee satisfaction and engagement, will be
critical to our Nation as we continue recovering from economic storms
while staying competitive globally. Across the globe, HR professionals
know that the success of their organizations, public or private, rides
on the success of their people, more than any other asset.
Those professionals recognize the importance of recruiting and
retaining employees with the highest value that can be brought to each
individual job. They know that successful recruitment and retention is
heavily dependent on executive dedication to creating and maintaining a
fair, flexible, inclusive, and engaging workplace culture.
As for myself, I have spent more than 20 years leading
organizations and transforming talent management, in both the private
and public sectors. For instance, I helped develop a National human
resource standard for the National Academy of Public Administration,
and I helped the Corporate Leadership Council develop courses for HR
business partners.
As a principal at Booz Allen Hamilton, I provided strategic human
capital management services, with a special focus on change management,
to such Federal agencies as the Department of Defense, the Department
of Energy, General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel
Management, the IRS, and Social Security. Similarly, I have assisted
such companies as Federal Express, Hewlett-Packard, Seagate Technology,
Hyperion Solutions, and Williams-Sonoma.
My Federal service began in 2003, when I was named Deputy Director
of e-Government at the Office of Personnel Management. Key HR
initiatives such as USAJobs, e-Payroll, and the Human Resources Line of
Business I led there that have resulted in saving taxpayers an
estimated $2.6 billion. During my service with OPM, I was awarded the
Grace Hopper Award, e-Gov Explorers Award, and the Federal 100 Award.
In 2006, I was appointed to the Senior Executive Service as the
Chief Human Capital Officer for the Department of Energy. During my
tenure there, I played a key role in implementing a top priority for
the department--re-inventing its human capital management. I helped
develop increased capability, capacity, and individual and departmental
performance accountability. While with Energy, I was awarded the
Secretary's Distinguished Service Award and the Career Achievement
Award. In recognition for other Federal HR assistance I provided, I
received the Gold Medal from the Director of National Intelligence, and
the Distinguished Service Award from the Administrator for the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
And, I should add that I have worked with the Partnership for
Public Service before, helping them advise Government executives, and
celebrate and recognize the unsung heroes of Federal Government staffs.
I outline my experience only to illustrate that I have been in--and
transformed--workplaces with challenges not unlike those now being
faced by the DHS. I have seen similar instances of low morale, and the
domino-like effect that it has on loyalty, engagement, and
productivity. What I've seen is that there is sometimes less concern
about the abilities and professional qualities of employees, and more
worry about placing square pegs in square holes.
The Department of Energy was organized in the late seventies. Like
DHS it put together five separate organizations that were under one
Secretary, but had very distinct history, cultures, and origins. The
challenge has been to clarify what you are trying to accomplish as an
organization, and how to tie-in each member of the organization with
his or her role and relevance in achieving that culture, mission, and
purpose.
As evident today in the lobby of the Forrestal Building on
Independence Avenue, you can see the department's shared history.
Starting from Einstein's letter to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
to the latest research on alternative fuels, Energy is about National
Security, Energy Security, Scientific Discovery, Environmental
Responsibility, and Management Excellence--engaging each with a shared
purpose and mission.
Obviously, DHS faces challenges of low morale, satisfaction, and
engagement within its ranks--that's why you have called this hearing.
My colleague from the Partnership for Public Service is more versed in
the fine details, but I've seen enough from their annual ranking of the
``Best Places to Work in Federal Government'' to know that there's work
to be done at DHS.
Based on responses from 266,000 Federal employees, not only did the
2011 rating for DHS drop 3.5 percent from the prior year, the
Department is now ranked 31 out of 33 large Federal agencies. If its
rating is compared to those of all large and small agencies, plus their
subcomponents, DHS would rank 268 among those 308 organizations. As was
the case in what I saw at the Department of Energy, much of that
employee assessment can be attributed to difficulties a relatively new
agency has in the integration of seemingly disparate subcomponents. Not
surprisingly, it has not been a smooth journey for DHS. Additionally,
the roller coaster of employee morale is a Government-wide issue, one
that each agency must address in its most appropriate and mission-
specific way.
However, even considering inherent differences in workplaces within
both sectors, there are lessons that the public sector can learn from
the experience of the private sector. My role here today, representing
SHRM and its 260,000 HR professionals, is to talk about what works in
the private sector, not to critique DHS for what hasn't worked there.
Not every approach or solution is transferable to the public-sector
workplace, but each contains at least a seed for growing improvement.
Typically, when private organizations face similar challenges to
those being addressed by DHS, those situations can be traced back to
uncertainty and disconnects within a weak organizational culture. A
strong and enriching culture is not just about the people themselves.
It's about creating the right environment for them to flourish,
incorporating shared experience, beliefs, artifacts, and the power of
teamwork. It's about identifying who and what the organization is, why
it's here, and about everyone embracing its mission. It's about the
limited and judicious reliance on silos.
Within DHS, there may be silos that are important for many critical
missions, but there could also be competitive silos, built for the
quest for critical limited resources. When that happens in any
organization, there is not enough sharing of information, inter-
department collaboration, and respect for both commonalities and
differences.
For example, one of the private-sector technology manufacturing
organizations I worked with matured after 25 years into 13 layers of
management, and 57 general ledgers (57 EVPs and SVPs with their own
budget bowls). The lack of integrating acquired companies, and the
accompanying growth, organically resulted in unintended silos and
layers. This organization had business units competing for resources, a
lack of coordination, increased duplication, slower communication,
slower decision-making, and confusion on the organization's purpose.
The organization moved toward seven layers, and started to manage
across product sets--three product groups, not 57 general ledgers. This
provided greater speed, and a sense of increased control over sourcing
materials, production, and distribution. Although DHS is very different
than this example, what remains is an example of how an organization is
put together often defines how it behaves.
In both the private and public sectors, smart organizations--those
that want to be successful, meet goals, and be an employer of choice--
often come to the realization that they must make intrinsic change.
They have to change the way they operate, and they must commit to
improving the organization's root culture.
At a glance, it would seem logical that change management is all
about gathering and analyzing information, and making change based on
that information. Certainly, that is part of change management, but
it's far from everything that's needed. Information can bring a change
intellectually, but true change can only come when individuals are
touched emotionally.
In his book, ``The Heart of Change,'' John P. Kotter, instructor at
the Harvard Business School for 40 years and respected author on the
subject of change, has analyzed many successful organizational
transformations and suggests that the path to change within the
``hearts'' of a staff is one of eight steps. I'll paraphrase him in
explaining just some of those steps, which have been followed by
countless private-sector and public-sector organizations to improve
morale and productivity. It's a simple framework that has been used to
address challenges similar to those facing the DHS.
form a strong change team
To lead the effort, start by selecting a cross-functional change
team from throughout the organization, including both people who can
inspire other team members, and those who may need to be redirected
because they are ineffective in old ways but entrenched in them. This
selection process won't be easy. As Professor Kotter says, in a
reference that could well be applied to DHS, ``An organization's
politics and history, especially if it has undergone mergers, can
undermine efforts to construct a strong team.''
create a vision
With the team in place, it must create a common vision for the
organization, and identify goals that everyone can rally behind. A
vision isn't a strategic plan, or an extension of status quo. Professor
Kotter suggests, rightly, that developing a workable vision requires
venturing into unknown territory, and exploring ways that a good vision
can motivate people. Simply laying down the law with managers won't
motivate them; it may even impede their growth. Find a vision that
inspires--that touches the heart--and then start removing the
impediments to achieving that vision.
communicate honestly
Direct communication creates trust. Communicate early and often
about the change initiative. Early responses might include fear,
cynicism, and anxiety. Those realities cannot be ignored; they must be
addressed. Present the vision clearly and honestly, and then treat
every response with respect and consideration. As communication
spreads, there must be evidence that it's not just talk--executives and
managers must ``walk the walk.'' Demonstrate that leadership takes
transformation seriously, even if that change creates some discomfort
for those at the top of the pyramid.
break down barriers
With a full-communication philosophy in place, along with proof of
executive buy-in, focus more attention to the impediments mentioned
earlier. A typical barrier is a stubborn manager who greets the vision
with a declaration that, ``We tried that once and it didn't work.''
Don't give up on that manager, or assume that he or she is impossible
to convince. Consider steps such as a temporary change of venue--change
may come when the manager is allowed to see things differently through
the prism of a new experience. Also, fear of failure is an impediment.
Don't ask people to take risks and make change in return for modest
rewards, yet maintain a culture in which they're conditioned to expect
punishment if they fail. Break down the silos that keep employees from
full engagement.
demonstrate progress
Show that the changes are making a difference. Celebrate--with
restraint--short-term wins. Although a good vision is long-term, short-
term successes reaffirm the vision, boost those employees who helped
achieve them, and help to turn around skeptics. But don't exaggerate,
or ``spin'' the wins for anything more than what they are. Employees
see through that, and then mistrust news of even more important and
better documented achievements.
don't give up
Stick with the course of change. Don't let up; be tenacious and
fully engaged with the process. Even when short-term successes are
recognized, it still emphasizes that much more needs to be done. With
those early successes on-board, heighten urgency, and keep alive the
initial flame of the change campaign. At this point in the campaign,
exhaustion can be an enemy--people are making rapid change while still
doing all of their old work. They may feel there is no hope, and
abandon the new work. The solution is to intensely analyze some of the
old work, and streamline or eliminate what isn't really critical. A
manager's mandatory 25-page monthly report may be just as effective in
2 pages.
When change management is employed correctly, there will be not
only acceptance of and comfort with the transformation, but also higher
employee satisfaction. Every step of the process, as I've just
outlined, conveys messages of team, commonality of mission, and
fairness in the workplace.
Those elements lead to employee satisfaction, and advances from
there to the highest achievement--employee engagement. For the last 10
years, the Society for Human Resource Management has conducted an
annual National survey focusing on levels of employee satisfaction and
engagement.
According to our 2011 findings, there is evidence of both good and
bad news. We found that 83 percent of U.S. employees reported overall
satisfaction with their current job, with 41 percent of employees
indicating they were ``very satisfied,'' and 42 percent ``somewhat
satisfied.'' However, despite the seemingly positive findings, there
has been a steady decrease in overall satisfaction since 2009.
In most cases, job security ranked among the top two ``very
important'' aspects of job satisfaction, regardless of the
organization's staff size or employees' tenure, age, or gender. Farther
down the list was compensation and benefits (54 percent and 53 percent,
respectively), so pay is clearly not the Holy Grail of employee
satisfaction.
That corresponds with surveys completed in 2011 by the staffing
firm OfficeTeam. Workers were asked, ``Aside from salary, which aspect
of your job is most tied to your satisfaction?'' The top response was
``work-life balance.'' When managers were asked what aspect, aside from
pay, affected their employees' morale, work-life balance was again the
leading choice.
In the SHRM research, among the factors that employees rated higher
than benefits and compensation in affecting their satisfaction was the
relationship they had with their immediate supervisors. This finding
could be particularly relevant to DHS, which has experienced a high
frequency of turnover among senior-level management.
Similarly, 71 percent of employees said that acknowledgment of
their contribution to the organization's business goals satisfies and
engages them. Because of its integration challenges since the agency
was formed, DHS may be seen by some of its employees as lacking a clear
and unified mission.
Effective communication from senior management, especially during
times of uncertainty, can provide the workforce with direction. Our
research in 2011 found that 53 percent of employees said communication
between employees and senior management was very important to their job
satisfaction. And a full 60 percent said a proper organizational
culture could engage them.
moving from employee satisfaction to engagement
If there is a gold standard in human capital management, it's to
move a workforce from employee satisfaction to the higher achievement
of employee engagement. That's when people find meaning in their work.
It's when they stop watching the clock, and start embracing their role
in moving the organization forward.
Rising to that plane is not easy, whether in the private or public
sector. Nor is doing so a guarantee of key staff retention. For
instance, we can't assume that an era of financial uncertainty is going
to lock in our staffs, and keep key members from going elsewhere. Many
employees will still feel anxious, alienated, adrift--and maybe even a
little distrustful of management. That's why, even in a still uncertain
market, many of them are poised to flee. In the fall of 2009--before
the economic skies started to brighten a little bit--staffing firm
CareerBuilder surveyed 5,200 U.S. workers and found that nearly one in
five, or about 20 percent, said they planned to get a new job in 2010.
And, last fall, Randstad U.S. released its Employee Attachment
Index. It showed that nearly 30 percent of the most engaged employees--
the ones who say they like working for their employers--said they would
seriously consider a new job offer in 2011. Plus, one out of five of
those same people said they would accept one, if offered.
Last year, SHRM did a webcast with Mike Ryan, an expert on
workforce engagement and recognition. He said that high unemployment
levels are giving employers a false sense of security--they assume
people are happy to simply have a job.
But, he said, the willingness of employees to put in discretionary
effort--to go the extra mile--has declined; employees are feeling like
disposable commodities. He said, ``Emotionally, many of them have
checked out.'' They're simply waiting for the economy to improve in
order to find a better environment.
Despite the lack of any guarantees, achieving employee satisfaction
is still the top priority for HR professionals. The first step is to
recognize the distinction between satisfaction and engagement.
Satisfaction is fickle, and can vary from day to day. But true
engagement is steady and locked in.
An engaged employee has an understanding of what must be done to
add value to his or her organization. That understanding is accompanied
by a sense of pride, a sense of passion, and a connection to the
organization's mission. A little farther down the scale, a non-engaged
employee has checked out, with no energy or passion.
Finally comes the actively dis-engaged employee, who acts out his
or her unhappiness and undermines the spirit and accomplishments of
others. This is the toxic employee; one who poisons the organization's
culture. A recent Gallup poll of 42,000 workers determined that only a
third of U.S. workers feel engaged. Gallop estimated that lack of
engagement--and resulting lack of productivity--costs U.S. businesses
$350 billion every year. That's more than the annual GDP of Israel,
Portugal, or Singapore.
We're conditioned to think that ``recognition for good work'' is
the best way of engaging employees. That helps, but it's not the No. 1
driver. Research shows that progress is. Employees feel most engaged
when they can make headway--when the challenge is neither too easy nor
too hard--and when they receive the support they need to overcome
obstacles.
Progressive employers have concluded that engaged employees and the
management philosophy of command-and-control aren't good cubicle
partners. As noted author Daniel Pink says, blind compliance can be an
effective strategy for physical survival, but it's a lousy one for
personal fulfillment. In a recent best-selling book, ``Drive: The
Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us,'' he said, ``We have way too
much compliance and way too little engagement. The former might get you
through the day, but only the latter will get you through the night.''
Engagement could get any organization through the night--when it's
darkest, and when everything is just a little more unknown and
challenging.
Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, noted psychologist, author and expert
on well-being, analyzed people who were totally engaged in free-time
activity. He labeled what they were enjoying as autotelic experiences--
effort in which the activity itself is its own reward. Later he re-
labeled that simply as flow--a place where goals are clear and commonly
reached, where feedback is immediate. He said that in a state of flow,
``the effort itself is the most delicious reward.''
Human resource professionals have found that the costs are high
when a workplace is a no-flow zone. Leading innovators like Microsoft
and others have realized that flow-friendly workplaces help people move
toward satisfaction, engagement, and higher productivity.
the power of a flexible workplace
Not long ago, SHRM surveyed its members globally and asked them
what will be their biggest challenges in the next 10 years. The No. 1
response was retaining and rewarding their best talent to achieve their
organizational mission, the type of people who could be satisfied with
their work, and eventually engaged with it. The No. 2 response was
attracting those types of people to their organizations.
Then we asked, what is the most important factor in achieving those
goals? Nearly 60 percent of those polled, in organizations large and
small, said the creation of flexible work arrangements--that is,
creating work environments that don't focus on where, when, or how
people do their work, as long as the results the organization needs are
met; work settings in which employees are also offered opportunities
for self-improvement, either through employer-funded education,
personal finance education, or others. ``Compensation,'' was much
farther down the list.
At SHRM, we believe that workplace flexibility--re-imagining the
workplace--is the next major strategic competitive advantage for the
business of both private-sector and public-sector organizations. It is
the next business imperative.
A flexible workplace is one where human capital is held with
esteem, and where personal priorities and responsibilities don't have
to compete with organizational vision. And, for the employer, flexible
arrangements increase productivity; boost engagement and loyalty;
reduce absenteeism; save money on overhead; attract new employees; and
help retrain the best talent the employer already has.
We at SHRM feel so strongly about this issue that we have partnered
with the Families & Work Institute, the preeminent research
organization on workplace flexibility, to promote this new paradigm
through research and experience-based advice on implementation. We feel
that any organization will never be able to cut enough, streamline
enough, or boost efficiency enough, to come close to what happens when
you optimize the talents of the workforce and allow employees the
freedom to flourish. All of us want work that is meaningful and
rewarding, and a work setting that reflects the best of who we are.
The Federal Government and its agencies deserve credit for the
strides they have already made in creating flexible work settings, but
even more can be done. Every workplace in 21st Century must be adaptive
enough to benefit employers and employees alike. Every workplace must
be free from discrimination of any kind, a place where we celebrate--
and take full advantage of--our differences, the wonderful mix of our
ethnic, cultural, religious, and societal influences. In such a
workplace, both the organization and every one of its employees can
realize their goals, and become the best they can be, all due to a
place where workers have a sense of pride, a sense of connection--a
sense of passion.
other challenges faced by every employer
In today's challenging environment, it's little wonder that an
organization such as DHS can be facing human capital issues,
particularly within an agency that has been in flux since its creation
under National crisis. Similarly, human resources professionals have a
lot on their plates specifically the following issues.
There is an unprecedented mix of generations in the workforce. For
the first time in history, we have four generations in the workforce,
and in just a few years, there will be five. The work behaviors and
motivations of such a diverse mix need accommodation. All of these
people have different needs, different ways of communicating, and
different expectations of their employing organization. The
organization's challenge is to align them, to help them collaborate,
and to work together toward the common interests and goals of the
organization.
A boomer brain drain is looming on the horizon. The first wave of
baby boomers started turning 65 last year, and 10,000 more will be
turning 65 every day for the next 20 years. Both private and public
employers don't want to suddenly lose that reservoir of experience,
maturity, and judgment--especially when they will need someone to help
foster a positive work environment among those four or five generations
in the workplace.
Also, despite unemployment levels, we are facing a major skills
shortage. Recruiters in both the public and private sectors are having
difficulty in finding the necessary talent to do the job. A survey not
long ago by the staffing firm Manpower found that 52 percent of U.S.
employers have a hard time filling critical positions with necessary
skills sets, up 14 percentage points from the previous year.
In SHRM's own research, we have found that our members' employers
have more than 3 million jobs today that simply can't be filled, or
what is called ``structural unemployment.'' If we could fill these jobs
alone, the National unemployment rate could be lowered a full
percentage point. We match 100-percent fits, as opposed to connecting
the 70-80-percent fits to development opportunity, and then to
employment.
Finally, due to an education gap, our schools are not adequately
preparing the workforce of tomorrow. The Georgetown University Center
on Education and the Workforce says that by 2018, the Nation will need
22 million new college degrees to remain competitive--but we will fall
short of that number by at least 3 million.
Forty years ago, in 1973, only 28 percent--or one out of four--jobs
in the United States required a post-secondary education. That number
is expected to rise to 63 percent over the next decade. If something is
not done soon to address this problem, high school graduates and
dropouts will be largely left behind--unemployable. And, as a Nation,
we will not have the workforce we need to fill our jobs. As a result,
the competition for skilled talent will become even fiercer, and
organizations like DHS and others will need to develop new strategies
to differentiate their organizations in order to recruit and keep the
best workers.
conclusion
Admittedly, we at SHRM are biased in focusing on the human
resources staff of DHS, knowing that successful change management will
come from their creativity. Their wisdom is in anticipation, in knowing
what comes next, because that's what HR does--and then building the
right workforce to seize the opportunities that come with change.
There's a reason we so often hear the line that an organization's
most important assets walk out the door at end of every work day. The
reason is because it's true. There is ample evidence from both the
private sector and public sector that a culture change at DHS can be
successfully implemented, and the Society for Human Resource Management
stands ready to serve.
With the right vision, a bold and tenacious commitment to change at
every executive level, and with honest and open communication, DHS will
be able to look over the horizon and foresee more changes. By re-
imagining and re-designing the workplace and the workforce, it will be
able to transform the present, and plan for the future.

Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Dr. Pon.
The Chairman now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. I just
want to start by saying, you know, this is a bad report card.
It is a referendum on leadership within the Department.
Mr. Stier, I thought you made an excellent point about
leadership at the top. Ray LaHood, who I served with in the
Congress and the House, has turned around the Department of
Transportation and the morale has gone up.
I remember working in the Department of Justice for many
years--over a decade--and a lot of it--you know, we believed in
the mission but whoever was appointed at the top as attorney
general had a lot--a very big impact on our morale, whether we
believed in that attorney general or not, whether we thought
that attorney general was--were proud of that attorney general,
for instance, whether that attorney general was being
political. One thing we prided ourselves on was that we weren't
political. We had integrity in the process because we were
devoid of politics and we didn't look at things through that
prism.
We had--I have to be honest--a little bit of distrust for
the political appointees within the Department because we
thought they had a political agenda, and oftentimes they did.
We felt that we were the ones who were really holding the
standard of integrity within the Department of Justice by not
being political. Certainly criminal prosecutions should be
devoid of politics.
So you mentioned I thought an excellent point, and it
relates to Ms. Emerson as well, the idea of putting some of
these positions out of the political appointee realm and rather
as a career appointee.
I think, Ms. Emerson, you being a career person gains the
trust of the rank-and-file within the Department of Homeland
Security. So I think that is a positive thing that I see.
But could you--perhaps the two of you--expand upon what
impact really does the top leadership have, and in this case
Secretary Napolitano, within the Department of Homeland
Security and some of the top leadership? Because again, this
referendum is not a positive referendum. It basically says that
the rank-and-file view the top leadership as really--there is a
bit of distrust and the morale is low, and they don't approve
of their leadership.
What do you make of that and what needs to be done?
Mr. Stier. Okay. So to begin with, there is no question
that leadership--and we have very deep data on this--is the No.
1 driver for employee engagement, and in the broader
leadership, effectively leadership category, the old saw is,
you don't leave your job; you leave your boss. But what we see
in the data, actually, is that senior leadership is a more
important component of employee engagement than the first line
supervisor. Both are important.
I say that. When we say senior leadership the data does not
allow us to disaggregate political from career, so if you are
a--you know, a GS-9 border patrol person senior leader is not
going to just be the Secretary; it is going to be, you know,
many layers down from that as well. So one of the things I
would say--and this is the point that Greg made earlier, which
is that this gives us a lot of ideas about questions that we
should be asking. We need further follow-up information to
understand. Frankly, we might even be able to improve the
instrument of collecting information so we can understand
better whether people are talking about the political
leadership versus their career SES.
But plainly, the focus on employee morale has to come from
the very top. You see that with Secretary LaHood. You see that
with, you know, Sheila Bair, who was head of FDIC. You are
hearing that right now from Secretary Napolitano in the
engagement that she is, you know, working on right now and the
set of things that you heard from Catherine Emerson. That is
vital.
It is also critical that it be sustained, and I think the
point that you make about career leadership is very important
for a variety of reasons, one of which is that by design
political leaders are going to be turning over fairly quickly
and there is no way they are going to be able to maintain focus
over time on a set of issues that require, you know, 4 or 5
years, maybe more. That is one of the reasons why that makes a
lot of sense to have these management positions actually be
career positions--not just the chief human capital officer, but
frankly, across the board. When we talked about acquisition
issues; we talked about, you know, financial issues at the
Department.
They still don't have a--you know, a confirmed CFO. In
fact, I believe only--there are only five of the Cabinet
agencies that actually have confirmed CFOs. That is a real
problem.
So not only are these people not staying around a long
time, it is hard for them to get into their job, and that means
that there isn't the leadership that ultimately can focus on
very challenging problems over time.
The last thing I would say on this point, though, is that
this is an issue that DHS has seen for its whole existence.
Interestingly, though, when you dig beyond the Departmental
level you see components that have made a very, very real
difference with their employees, and those are the ones that we
need to emulate.
Mr. McCaul. That is a great point. I think that, you know,
certainly any administration has, certainly, the right to place
political appointees in trusted positions to move forward their
agenda. But I think, having been a rank-and-file Federal
employee myself, there is that sort of feeling that, as you
said, it is a very short-term. You know, they are going to be
around for a couple of years and they leave, and you are--you
feel like you are really the one upholding the Department--
sustaining it over a long term.
So the idea of maybe--I don't know if you convert some of
these political appointees to career, necessarily, or perhaps
under secretary positions you appoint a deputy who is a career
person. Perhaps maybe that is a potential solution.
Mr. Stier. My own view on that--and I am glad you mentioned
the under secretary position as--obviously an under secretary
for management, I think, actually Under Secretary Borras has
done a very good job at DHS--and there are some real results of
the work that he has done. I would love to see that position
itself, frankly, be made career.
At the end of the day, again, the reason why we have
political appointees isn't to ensure that the policy choices
that are being made reflect the will of the President. The
management needs are independent of those policy choices, and
if you don't have very senior people--there is, in fact, I
believe, a career deputy in that office--if you don't have
those--a very senior person themselves being career--it may
even be a term appointment with a performance contract; doesn't
have to be the same flavor of career. But you need them to be
around long enough with the expectation that they are focusing
on that long-term health of the organization so that the
political team coming isn't going to be, in the--in that--rapid
turnover, actually disruptive to those critical management
issues.
Mr. McCaul. I couldn't agree with you more.
Ms. Emerson, do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Emerson. Having recently come from FAA, which was part
of Department of Transportation, and leading employee
engagement there, I echo what you say, how important it is for
top-level leadership to support employee engagement and morale
initiatives. I have to tell you that Secretary Napolitano is
very dedicated to improving employee morale and satisfaction in
DHS. In fact, she was--one of the reasons I was hired was
because of my work that I had done in employee engagement in--
at DOT.
But also, she has recently sent out a memorandum and held
meetings with the component heads regarding this very issue. In
fact, we had Partnership for Public Service at our last meeting
to come and talk about what we can do in DHS to improve
employee morale and satisfaction.
I have to say, the component heads were all very engaged
themselves and reported out on action planning that they were
doing in their components. The Secretary is holding them
accountable for that, so----
Mr. McCaul. Well, I do commend the Secretary for putting
you in that position and making it a career position, as well.
I think that is a positive development. I know you have only
been in the job for less than a year so you have quite a
challenge in front of you, and I wish you all the best success
with it.
Mr. Maurer, you know, as I mentioned earlier, DHS is--I
really don't envy anybody who is appointed Secretary of
Homeland Security. It is a real challenge; you are always in
the bull's eye; it is always--you know, they call it step-
child, they call it a whipping boy.
You know, Tom Ridge came in, I thought provided great
leadership; Mr. Chertoff came in and had a lot of challenges on
his plate. Now currently Secretary Napolitano has an enormous
challenge.
But when we hear about, you know SBInet, the failure of
SBInet, which you and I have talked about, you know, I feel for
TSA screeners because that is, in some respects, a thankless
job. We hear the stories about patting down, you know, children
and grandmothers and that sort of thing.
In the last hearing we heard testimony about border patrol
agents taking bribes and actually working with the drug
cartels. We heard about the mismanagement of FEMA disaster
funds, and that could go on and on.
What impacts do you believe these issues have on the morale
at the Department?
Mr. Maurer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Certainly problems like that don't help morale at the
Department, so that certainly is not a--doesn't create a kind
of work environment where people are going to be necessarily
looking forward to getting up every morning and going in and
meeting those kind of challenges. Now, the good news is at DHS
there is overwhelming support among the rank-and-file and they
believe strongly in the mission that they are performing. I
think that is a very good thing.
But I think the--one of the--key after-effects of having
low morale scores within the Department is that it affects the
Department's ability to brand itself with the taxpayers and
prospective employees. Because when people are thinking about
where they want to work you would like them to think about DHS
in a very positive light. You would like them to think about
DHS as being a place where there is top-notch talent, it is a
great place to work, there is great morale and I can make a
difference in securing this Nation.
They are making great strides, but having relatively low
morale scores and being in the headlines for not having good
morale certainly doesn't help with that. So that is one of the
things that, you know, we sort of highlighted in some of our
prior work.
I think to address that--and the Department is on the right
path--I mean, they do need to have this clear leadership
commitment from the very top of the Department. I think it is
certainly going to help if they can make progress in
integrating the management functions to form a common support
base across all of DHS.
But I think the really critical thing they need to do is
dig into, within the individual components and figure out, what
are the root causes behind the morale issues? Because what they
may find is that there is a wide variety of issues that are
specific to individual components or even within components.
I mean, a lot of these organizations within DHS are large
in their own right. There are six major components within DHS
that employ more than 10,000 people. So there are different
stories embedded within DHS, and so we would like to see a
combination of this high-level strategic support for addressing
morale issues combined with a better, more granular
understanding of the root causes.
Mr. McCaul. It is a good point. You know, I look at when I
went on a trip on Veterans Day to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq, and I see our military serving, and they have a great
pride of service under very difficult circumstances, and they
are protecting America's interests abroad.
Yet, I think the Department--there is an opportunity to
turn it around. I think when you look at the mission of the
Department it is to protect the American people at home, and
they should take great pride in that. I know a lot of them do.
I applaud the efforts of the rank-and-file within the
Department, and sometimes it is a thankless job.
I think that we--I think the Department has a lot to learn
from the Department of Defense and the military. If we could
transpose that--that public--that, mission of service to
protecting Americans as the military has--if we could somehow
place that upon the Department of Homeland Security, protecting
Americans at home, I think that would go a long way.
Mr. Stier, you talked about, you know, the DOD model, and
you talked about Goldwater-Nichols. Can you expand upon that,
and what can the DHS learn from the Department of Defense?
Mr. Stier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think one of the most interesting stories at Department
of Defense is that there really are two organizations there:
There is the military, as you described, and there is also the
civilian service. So there are close to 700,000 civilian
employees at DOD and they are managed quite differently than
those that are in uniform.
Importantly, I think, that the military has a very
different perspective on its investment in its talent. They
have a strong culture and belief that they are going to develop
their talent in all ways possible and leadership is, you know,
No. 1 for them.
So I think the No. 1 lesson that, frankly, could be learned
is just the priority that is placed on viewing employees as an
asset not a cost, and really growing their skills and
abilities, and I think that has a lot to do with the success of
our military.
Interestingly, that same approach isn't, in fact, taken for
the civilians at DOD. Their scores are better than DHS but they
are still not at the top of the heap, and I think that is
worth, you know, some further exploration and the opportunity
is really there.
There are some things that DOD has done historically with
the military--and I mentioned joint duty as being one of them--
as a way of really integrating their services. I think they
recognize you can move the boxes around as much as you want but
you are going to actually create relationships and
understanding much better by moving the people instead.
So in order--they created an incentive and requirement--in
order to become a flag officer you actually had to have worked
with the other services. They are now taking that model and
applying it to the civilian side. I believe this year is the
first year they are going to have that requirement. So they are
looking at a--from their--for their career executives on the
civilian side--an expectation that they have the experience of
having worked cross-organizationally.
I believe that same opportunity exists at DHS. I think that
having their folks there, you know, rotate through intra-
agency, but frankly, inter-governmentally, and even better,
intra-sector--inter-sector--would create better skills, better
understanding, better relationships. The challenges they have
to address are multi-sector challenges and we need to have a
workforce that reflects a knowledge base and an understanding
of how those other sectors work better.
So the mobility point, I think, is extraordinarily
important and would have long-term impact on bringing the
agency together and improving its ultimate performance.
Mr. McCaul. Very good point. I think that is part of why
the Coast Guard ranked so high in the survey, whereas the rest
of the Department probably did not. So I think we have a lot--
and I think you are right, it is the culture.
Mr. Stier. Yes.
Mr. McCaul. It is the culture.
I think that is the great challenge, Ms. Emerson, that you
have and the Secretary has is to try to change the culture--
culture to inspire them that their mission is important, that
they are protecting American lives at home.
Dr. Pon, I want to give you the last word.
Mr. Pon. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the last
word.
Mr. McCaul. Course, the Ranking Member just showed up so
you can have another word.
Mr. Pon. Mr. Keating, you will have the last word, I
believe.
From my experience as the chief human capital officer of
the U.S. Department of Energy many of the same issues occur,
and you nailed it on the head, which is it is culture. It is
shared mission and story.
When I first started Department of Energy people in the
complex talked about the Department of Energy as the DHS of the
1970s. It was never integrated very well.
But if you actually go in the lobby of the Forrestal
Building, where the headquarters is, what we did was we made
sure that we had a common history. It starts with walking to
the left you have Einstein's letter to FDR warning about
Germans actually acquiring different scientists around Eastern
Europe and Western Europe for the harnessing of the atomic
weapons. Then it goes on to celebrate the Nobel Prize winners,
the nuclear complex, the scientific discovery of the 17
National laboratories, the management excellence that we had.
It really talked about how, under five things--defense,
energy security, scientific discovery, environmental
responsibility, and management excellence--everybody could hang
their hat on. It made the people understand that they had
relevance and role to the mission of the Department.
With an organization like DHS you have 22 separate cultures
and agencies, and as Admiral Allen previously stated, you have
different cultures with different maturity levels. Also, you
are compounding the complexity there because you have over 200
occupations. We have addressed some of the things about the
career professional being a CHCO in human resources or
acquisition. There is another, you know, 190 different
occupations you have to actually occur to.
So having different types of standards for each and every
one of the support professions may be a good way to ensure the
continuity of the support functions there. What I have found is
that many of my fellow CHCOs and many of the CFOs, political or
whatnot, didn't really have qualifications--didn't grow up in
HR functions or financial functions. That happens too often
when you have the criteria of a chief human capital officer not
having any HR background.
As the Society for Human Resources Management what we are
trying to do not only in the Government but elsewhere is to
make sure the standards of practices is well known, make sure
we can have a body of knowledge and a practice that can be
certified eventually so that you will have common parallels to
accounting.
Mr. McCaul. Excellent point. I want to thank you for your
testimony.
The Chairman is pleased that the Ranking Member has arrived
at this hearing, and I now recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quick housekeeping: I
would just like to submit for the record a written statement
submitted by the National Treasury Employees Union, if I could.
Mr. McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
March 22, 2012
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Keating, distinguished Members of
the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to provide this
testimony on morale issues at the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). As President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I
have the honor of leading a union that represents over 24,000 DHS
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers and trade enforcement
specialists in the Office of Field Operations (OFO) who are stationed
at 331 land, sea, and air ports of entry (POEs) across the United
States. CBP employees' mission is to protect the Nation's borders at
the ports of entry from all threats while facilitating legitimate
travel and trade. CBP trade compliance personnel enforce over 400 U.S.
trade and tariff laws and regulations in order to ensure a fair and
competitive trade environment pursuant to existing international
agreements and treaties, as well as stemming the flow of illegal
contraband such as child pornography, illegal arms, weapons of mass
destruction, and laundered money. CBP is also a revenue collection
agency, processing approximately $2 trillion in imports--28 million
trade entries a year--at the POEs and collecting more than $32 billion
in revenue for the U.S. Government in fiscal year 2010.
According to the Partnership for Public Service's most recent Best
Places to Work in the Federal Government ``Overall Index Scores for
Employee Satisfaction and Commitment,'' DHS came in 31st out of the 33
large Federal agencies surveyed. One of DHS' largest component
agencies, CBP, ranked 145 of 228 Federal agency subcomponents surveyed
and continues to rank near the bottom for strategic management,
teamwork, effective leadership (all categories), support for diversity,
and family-friendly culture and benefits (see Appendix 1.)
A significant cause of low morale at CBP is the on-going staffing
shortages at the ports of entry. Sufficient staffing should be provided
to maintain expertise, ensure security, and promote trade and travel by
reducing wait times at our Nation's air, sea, and land ports of entry.
Despite demonstrated need--long lines and unmanned booths facing those
waiting to deliver goods and services through commercial lanes and
travelers in line for hours waiting to visit our country and spend
money--there is no increase in the number of CBP employees at the ports
of entry in the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.
In October 2009, the Southwest Border Task Force, created by
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, presented the results of
its staffing and resources review in a draft report. This draft report
recommended that the ``federal government should hire more Customs [and
Border Protection] officers.'' The report echoes the finding of the
Border-Facilitation Working Group. (The U.S.-Mexico Border Facilitation
Working Group was created during the bilateral meeting between
President George W. Bush and President Felipe Calderon held in Merida
in March 2007.) ``In order to more optimally operate the various ports
of entry, CBP needs to increase the number of CBP Officers. According
to its own estimate, the lack of human resources only for the San
Ysidro POE is in the ``hundreds'' and the CBP Officer need at all ports
of entry located along the border with Mexico is in the ``thousands.''
(``CBP: Challenges and Opportunities'' a memo prepared by Armand
Peschard-Sverdrup for Mexico's Ministry of the Economy: U.S.-Mexico
Border Facilitation Working Group, January 2008, pages 1 and 2.) An
example of how staffing shortages affect morale can be found at the San
Ysidro POE where many employees are assigned so many hours of overtime
that they believe their own safety is endangered.
Despite these independent studies that state that CBP is
understaffed at ports of entry by thousands of officers, the fiscal
year 2013 budget provides only enough personnel funding to maintain the
current number of CBP Officer, CBP Agriculture Specialist, and CBP
trade operations positions.
Another significant cause of low morale and a result of continuing
staffing shortages at CBP are the constant temporary duty assignments
(TDYs) of employees to the Southwest Border, Iraq, Container Security
Initiative ports, the National Targeting Center, and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center to name a few locations. Employees realize
that many CBP TDYs are designed to increase the security of our
country. Nevertheless, there is an adverse impact on employee work and
work-family balance as a result of these TDYs which disrupt the lives
of many employees and are on-going. These impacts include a reduction
in safety as a result of insufficient staffing, more forced overtime,
tension in the annual leave approval process, violations of collective
bargaining agreements and the law, in addition to the disruption caused
to the employees and their families when they staff these TDYs.
Another source of concern is the resistance by CBP managers to
implementing expanded telework programs as authorized by Congress. Non-
uniformed trade operations personnel continue to be denied telework for
reasons cited by management that have nothing to do with the telework
program, such as short staffing, not enough work to justify telework,
and the belief that they could not perform their job duties in a
telework environment, for example, at their residence. Staffing issues
are not a reason to deny telework in a non-uniform, office environment.
Another area of concern for Customs and Border Protection Officers
is the One Face at the Border initiative that consolidates immigration
and customs inspection specialties into a single front-line border
security position at ports of entry. Consolidating inspection functions
has caused logistical and institutional weakness resulting in a loss of
expertise in critical homeland security priorities and has contributed
to undermining CBP Officers' morale.
According to a recent DHS Inspector General report ``components
that experienced difficulty . . . cited a loss of institutional
knowledge of immigration law as the cause. In the 8 years since the
creation of DHS, the percentage of CBP . . . officers with prior
experience in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service has
declined because of attrition and retirements.'' (See page 16 of DHS
OIG-12-39, February 2012.)
It is clear that CBP sees its One Face at the Border Initiative as
a means to increase management flexibility without increasing CBP
Officer staffing levels. Congress must ensure that institutional
expertise is retained by supporting immigration and customs specialties
within the CBP Officer corps.
Recently CBP began experimenting with a ``One Face One Border''
program in which supervisory personnel from OFO and the U.S. Border
Patrol work at each other's respective locations. Border Patrol
supervisors are temporarily assigned to manage CBP Officers at the
ports and OFO supervisors are assigned to manage Border Patrol Agents
operating between the POEs so that they ``experience the challenges of
their respective CBP counterparts.''
This experiment is disconcerting to CBP Officers because the U.S.
Border Patrol's mission is to stop illegal crossings of people, drugs,
and contraband between the POEs. The mission of CBP Officers is to
facilitate legal trade and travel, while being trained to recognize
illegal documents, counterfeit goods, and enforce customs and trade
laws applicable to the expeditious movement of travelers and cargo
through the air, sea, and land ports. In a time of extreme staffing
shortages and long wait times at the ports, introducing Border Patrol
supervisory personnel that are unfamiliar with the mission and skills
of CBP front-line port personnel is incomprehensible. The ``One Face
One Border'' experiment should also be abandoned.
NTEU commends the Department for increasing journeyman pay for CBP
Officers, Border Patrol Agents, and Agriculture Specialists. The
majority of CBP employees received this increase and CBP reported one
of its highest scores in the Best Places index (27 of 228 for pay.)
Many deserving CBP trade and security positions, however, were left
out of this pay increase, which has significantly damaged these
workers' morale. NTEU strongly supports extending this same career
ladder increase to additional CBP positions, including CBP trade
operations specialists and CBP Seized Property Specialists. The
journeyman pay level for the CBP Technicians who perform important
commercial trade and administration duties should also be increased
from GS-7 to GS-9.
Finally, CBP is continuing to increase the number of supervisors
when a much greater need exists for new front-line hires. In terms of
real numbers, since CBP was created, the number of new managers has
increased at a much higher rate than the number of new front-line CBP
hires. According to GAO, between October 2003 and February 2006, CBP
increased the number of managers by 17 percent, but increased the
number of front-line CBP Officers by only 2 percent (See GAO-06-751R,
page 11).
According to NTEU's most recent data, of the 21,186 CBP Officers on
board, nearly 5,600 are not in the bargaining unit. It is NTEU's
understanding that nearly 1,000 CBP Officers are serving either at CBP
headquarters or non-OFO field locations. This means that as many as
4,600 CBP Officers are serving in supervisory positions. CBP's top-
heavy management structure contributes to the lack of adequate staffing
at the ports, excessive overtime schedules, and flagging morale among
the rank-and-file.
The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at
the expense of National security preparedness and front-line positions.
Also, these highly-paid management positions are straining the CBP
budget.
recommendations
Sufficient CBP staffing must be provided to ensure security,
mitigate prolonged wait times for both trade and travel at our Nation's
ports of entry, and improve morale.
Therefore, NTEU urges the committee to:
significantly increase both port security and trade
enforcement staffing at the ports of entry;
extend enhanced pay and retirement recognition to additional
CBP personnel, including Import and other Commercial Operations
Specialists, CBP Seized Property Specialists, and CBP
Technicians;
expand inspectional expertise by ending the One Face at the
Border and One Face One Border programs; and
examine the cost and necessity of CBP's top-heavy management
structure.
The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of
their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our
neighborhoods safe from drugs, and our economy safe from illegal trade,
while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously though
our air, sea, and land ports. These men and women are deserving of more
resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
APPENDIX I
Customs and Border Protection (DHS)
Index Score: 62.4 (Ranked No. 145 out of varied totals)
To secure the homeland by preventing the illegal entry of people
and goods while facilitating travel and trade.

SCORES AND RANKINGS BY CLASS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank (out
Class 2011 of varied
Score totals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Skills/Mission Match..................... 76.1 158
Strategic Management.............................. 51.9 203
Teamwork.......................................... 59.9 211
Effective Leadership.............................. 50.1 201
Effective Leadership--Empowerment................. 41.9 206
Effective Leadership--Fairness.................... 51.1 167
Effective Leadership--Leaders..................... 45.2 173
Effective Leadership--Supervisors................. 58.4 214
Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement......... 42.5 190
Training and Development.......................... 56.1 173
Support for Diversity............................. 53.4 202
Pay............................................... 71.2 27
Family-Friendly Culture and Benefits.............. 25.2 205
Work/Life Balance................................. 58.2 176
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCORES AND RANKINGS BY CLASS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scores by Class 2010 2009 2007 2005 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee Skills/Mission Match...................................... 75.5 75.0 71.1 71.6 .......
Strategic Management............................................... 51.6 49.5 47.2 46.7 .......
Teamwork........................................................... 61.2 67.5 64.2 64.9 .......
Effective Leadership............................................... 49.9 46.9 41.9 43.7 .......
Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement.......................... 42.7 37.8 31.9 33.9 .......
Training and Development........................................... 57.9 55.8 50.7 50.5 .......
Support for Diversity.............................................. 52.5 54.9 49.4 54.1 .......
Pay................................................................ 70.0 67.2 64.7 ....... .......
Family-Friendly Culture and Benefits............................... 27.9 ....... ....... ....... .......
Work/Life Balance.................................................. 59.6 56.7 52.1 56.6 .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX SCORES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011......................................................... 62.4
2010......................................................... 63.3
2009......................................................... 58.2
2007......................................................... 53.2
2005......................................................... 55.0
2003......................................................... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Keating. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Emerson, just want to focus on the leadership
development program and similar type of initiatives. We had
hearings before that dealt with this. It is great to do it on
the morale side and the human service--human resource side to
see how we are doing specifically.
As you are going through the program do you have any
metrics in place to measure success with that at all, or----
Ms. Emerson. It is my understanding that there are metrics
in place. Right now what we have underway is our Cornerstone
program that is providing leadership training to all first-line
supervisors, and that is well underway in all the components.
They have provided input on that and it is to be wrapped up the
end of this fiscal year.
Also, this summer we are going to be kicking off a pilot
for our Capstone program, which is leadership training for our
executives. So we will be getting feedback on that. It will be
about 20 executives in DHS going through that program and then
we will go ahead, measure that, get feedback, and we will tweak
our program and go forward with Capstone.
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much.
Mr. Maurer, I just--sort of dealing with an issue that was
brought up in the efficiency portion of the hearings we looked
at before, in terms of the morale, when you have a situation
where the chief human capital officer, or the CHCO, at the
Department--it has been sort a revolving door back and forth.
How has that affected the morale or other problems in that
respect?
Mr. Maurer. Well, it has certainly complicated efforts to
have a common, consistent hand on the till in addressing human
resources issues across the Department. I think it is a good
step to having a more permanent--permanency in that position
will certainly help in that regard.
I know Ms. Emerson's predecessor was at the Department for
about 2 years and I think that made him the longest-serving
chief human capital officer in DHS history. That helps, because
then you can have someone who is tied in with the leadership
team at the Department and can help drive change throughout the
organization on an on-going basis. If people are coming in and
out of that position with less than 12 months there is not
really much that they can accomplish and have those changes
stick.
Mr. Keating. Actually, I will throw this open to any of the
panel members: How can we help in those regards so you don't
have the revolving door occurring? What kind of things could
you say that could be helpful in that regard, just
institutionally?
Mr. Pon. May I?
I think some of the best practices out there is to make
sure you have a succession plan, make sure you understand the
talent that you have and have a workforce plan. I think a good
executive is a replaceable executive. You have a good second
bench, if you will.
What we see in the Federal Government when I was there, you
have a lot of good leaders but the people that are coming up
are not rotating, finding the development in--you know, at
Energy I often chided my counterparts, such as the CIO, for
their prowess in budget because we actually spend more--at the
time we spent more in IT support than we did in leadership
development. That is a concern when you are spending more on
your systems infrastructure than your people infrastructure.
The focus on cutting budgets will actually compound the
amount of funding that Ms. Emerson would have, as well as all
the other components. So one of the things, if I were to
recommend, is to make sure that you ensure that there are
resources for developing talent in the organization.
Without that you are going to have a lot of people ``get
promoted'' without ever learning how to be managers, and that
is why, as Max and others have stated, most people leave jobs.
It is because of the managers and the supervisors that they
have.
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. Thank you.
I think the place you started--which is what are your
accountability metrics?--is a good one. If you have an accepted
set of accountability metrics that this committee comes back to
on a regular basis that will enable continuity of focus even if
there is a change in personnel. So that would be the first
thing.
The second, as we discussed earlier, is converting
permanently the management--the chief management positions of
the Department to career or term appointment positions so that
they don't roll over as quickly as the political appointees do.
My proposition, that would be not only the chief human capital
officer, the CFO, and frankly, I think, the under secretary for
management, which all these folks should pull up to so that you
have continuity of management. Policy can change but managers
stay there in order to ensure that your organization has the
capacity to perform.
Mr. Keating. Great.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCaul. Thank the Ranking Member.
I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony.
I think this has been a very productive exercise and I have
learned a great deal, and hopefully we can move forward and
improve the morale within the Department.
So thank you for your testimony. This hearing is adjourned
[Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]