[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SEVENTEEN YEARS LATER: WHY IS MORALE AT DHS STILL LOW?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT,
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 14, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-966 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York Mark Walker, North Carolina
J. Luis Correa, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Max Rose, New York Mark Green, Tennessee
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Van Taylor, Texas
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Al Green, Texas Michael Guest, Mississippi
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico, Chairwoman
Dina Titus, Nevada Dan Crenshaw, Texas, Ranking
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Member
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Van Taylor, Texas
officio) Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
Lisa Canini, Subcommittee Staff Director
Katy Flynn, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Xochitl Torres Small, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Mexico, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Oversight, Management, and Accountability:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Dan Crenshaw, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight,
Management, and Accountability:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Witnesses
Ms. Angela Bailey, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Mr. Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team,
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service:
Oral Statement................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
For the Record
The Honorable Xochitl Torres Small, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Mexico, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Oversight, Management, and Accountability:
Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National
Treasury Employees Union..................................... 45
Statement of the American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO...................................................... 50
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Angela Bailey..... 55
Questions From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Angela Bailey. 55
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Angela Bailey............ 55
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers for Angela Bailey...... 56
Question From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Chris Currie....... 56
Question From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Chris Currie... 56
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Chris Currie............. 57
Question From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Max Stier.......... 58
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Max Stier................ 58
SEVENTEEN YEARS LATER: WHY IS MORALE AT DHS STILL LOW?
----------
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Management,
and Accountability,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Xochitl Torres
Small [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Torres Small, Barragan, Crenshaw,
Higgins, and Taylor.
Ms. Torres Small. The Subcommittee on Oversight,
Management, and Accountability will come to order.
Good afternoon. We are here today to discuss employee
morale at the Department of Homeland Security.
Concerns about morale transcend party. Nearly 8 years ago,
my Republican colleagues on this committee held a hearing on
this very same subject.
Today, the timing of this hearing coincides with the
recently released ``Best Places to Work in the Federal
Government'' rankings released by the Partnership for Public
Service. Unfortunately, the results indicate a strong need for
improvement. This year, as has been the case since 2012, DHS
ranked last out of all large Federal agencies. DHS also ranked
last out of the 7 National security agencies.
I am particularly concerned by the fact that after a few
years of minor improvements in overall morale, in 2019 employee
morale at DHS decreased again.
Given the critical mission of the Department, I fear the
consequences should the Department not take urgent and drastic
action to improve employee morale. We will have a greater
challenge to face.
I also worry about how this environment affects the well-
being of the more than 200,000 hardworking DHS employees, from
Border Patrol agents and CBP officers working throughout my
district to the thousands more keeping America safe. These
employees deserve better.
It is true that lifting morale at DHS is challenging when
the Department remains a target of public criticism and intense
scrutiny. Morale may be low, in part, because DHS employees are
engaged in tough jobs on the front line.
Yet, this is clearly not the whole picture. Such
explanations fail to account for the fact that morale at DHS
has been low since the Department's inception.
Moreover, headquarter offices and support components, like
the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the Management
Directorate, and the Office of Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction, receive poor ratings from their employees as well.
For example, DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis,
I&A, sits toward the bottom of the rankings, while other
offices in the intelligence community have some of the highest
morale Government-wide.
In 2018, I&A was the second-worst-ranked Government office
out of 415. Even with a modest improvement in employee morale,
the office still sits ranked at 406 out of 420 ranked offices.
Even more concerning is the fact that the Office of
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, the office tasked with
preventing attacks against United States soil, debuted on the
list as the lowest-ranked office Government-wide.
As the Partnership's data show and as Mr. Stier's testimony
will further illustrate, this ultimately is a failure of
leadership. According to the Partnership, while many factors
influence an agency's overall ranking, effective leadership is
the key driver for Federal employee morale.
Despite these concerns, there were some bright spots
throughout the Department that I hope we can learn from and
apply DHS-wide.
For example, the Coast Guard and the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services have both consistently received high
scores from employees and are currently ranked in the top 25
percent of all Federal offices.
I was also encouraged to see that the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, has seen steady and
consistent improvement in employee morale since 2013.
Finally, the Secret Service, which has historically
struggled with low employee morale, has shown signs that a
multi-year effort to solicit and respond to feedback from
employees and their families is beginning to pay off. I
understand that the Department has recently launched a similar
effort in the form of an Employee and Family Readiness Council,
to identify and begin to address some of the primary concerns
facing employees.
Ms. Bailey, I hope to hear more from you this afternoon
about these efforts as well as how Congress might be able to
act to give the Department additional tools to improve morale.
I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Stier about what models
throughout Government the Department should be looking to as it
pursues these efforts.
Finally, I look forward to getting an outside and objective
perspective from Mr. Currie about what DHS is doing well, where
it needs to continue to improve, and what risks it exposes
itself to under current circumstances.
Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to
highlight some of the work this committee has done to improve
morale at the Department.
In 2019, I co-sponsored legislation introduced by Chairman
Thompson, the DHS Morale, Recognition, Learning, and Engagement
Act--very cleverly creating the MORALE Act--to require action
on DHS's part to respond to its employees' concerns. This bill
passed out of committee and the House on a bipartisan basis, so
I am grateful to my Republican colleagues for their support of
this legislation.
Thank you to the witnesses for joining the subcommittee
this afternoon. Good morale contributes to good job
performance, something we all rely on when it comes to Homeland
Security. I hope we have a productive discussion.
[The statement of Ms. Torres Small follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small
January 14, 2020
Concerns about morale at DHS transcend party. Nearly 8 years ago,
my Republican colleagues on this committee held a hearing on this very
subject. Today, the timing of this hearing coincides with the recently-
released ``Best Places to Work in the Federal Government'' rankings
released by the Partnership for Public Service. Unfortunately, the
results indicate a strong need for improvement. This year, as has been
the case since 2012, DHS ranked last out of the all large Federal
agencies. DHS also ranked last out of the 7 National security agencies.
I am particularly concerned by the fact that, after a few years of
minor improvements in overall morale, in 2019, employee morale at DHS
decreased again.
Given the critical mission of the Department, I fear the
consequences should the Department not take urgent and drastic action
to improve employee morale. I also worry about how this environment
affects the well-being of the more than 200,000 hard-working DHS
employees--from the Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers working
throughout my district to the thousands more keeping America safe.
These employees deserve better. It's true that lifting morale at DHS is
challenging when the Department remains a target of public criticism
and intense scrutiny. And, morale may be low in part because DHS
employees are engaged in tough jobs on the front line. Yet, this is
clearly not the whole picture. Such explanations fail to account for
the fact morale at DHS has been low since the Department's inception.
Moreover, Headquarter offices like the Office of Intelligence &
Analysis, the Management Directorate, and the Office of Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction receive poor ratings from their employees.
For example, DHS's Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) sits toward
the bottom of the rankings while other offices in the intelligence
community have some of the highest morale Government-wide.
In 2018, I&A was the second-worst ranked Government office out of
415. Even with a modest improvement in employee morale, the office
still sits ranked 406th out of 420 ranked offices. Even more concerning
is the fact that the Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction,
the office tasked with preventing attacks against U.S. soil, debuted on
the list as the lowest-ranked office Government-wide. As the
Partnership's data show and as Mr. Stier's testimony will further
illustrate, this is ultimately a failure in leadership. According to
the Partnership, while many factors influence an agency's overall
ranking, effective leadership is the key driver for Federal employee
morale.
Despite these concerns, there were some bright spots throughout the
Department that I hope we can learn from and apply DHS-wide. For
example, the Coast Guard and U.S. Citizenship and Immmigration Services
have both consistently received high scores from employees and are
currently ranked in the top 25 percent of all Federal offices. I was
also encouraged to see that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA) has seen steady and consistent improvement in
employee morale since 2013.
Finally, the Secret Service, which has historically struggled with
low employee morale, has shown signs that a multi-year effort to
solicit and respond to feedback from employees and their families is
beginning to pay off. I understand that the Department has recently
launched a similar effort in the form of an Employee and Family
Readiness Council to identify and begin to address some of the primary
concerns facing employees. Ms. Bailey, I hope to hear more from you
this afternoon about these efforts as well as how Congress might be
able to act to give the Department additional tools to improve morale.
I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Stier about what models
throughout Government the Department should be looking to as it pursues
these efforts. Finally, I look forward to getting an outside and
objective perspective from Mr. Currie about what DHS is doing well,
where it needs to continue to improve, and what risks it exposes itself
to under current circumstances. Before I conclude, I would like to take
a moment to highlight some of the work this committee has done to
improve morale at the Department. In 2019, I cosponsored legislation
introduced by Chairman Thompson--the DHS Morale, Recognition, Learning,
and Engagement Act (DHS MORALE Act)--to require action on DHS's part to
respond to its employees concerns. This bill passed out of committee
and the House on a bipartisan basis so I acknowledge my Republican
colleagues for their support of this legislation.
Ms. Torres Small. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking
Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Crenshaw, for an opening statement.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Chairwoman Torres Small, and I am
very pleased that you called this hearing today. The morale of
the Department of Homeland Security and its employees is of the
utmost importance.
Thank you all for being here and taking time out of your
day.
DHS has been besieged with issues of low morale, high-level
vacancies, and mismanagement since its inception. Some of the
struggle is understandable from an agency that was created by
combining so many unique entities with their own mission sets.
However, almost 17 years after its creation we need to see some
real progress in this area. The work the Department does makes
this too important to ignore.
DHS employs over 200,000 individuals dedicated to
protecting the homeland and the American people. It is
imperative to our security that those individuals are satisfied
in their job, feel supported by Department leadership, and have
support from the people of this country in their mission to
secure the homeland.
The most recent survey of DHS employees shows that 56
percent of employees are satisfied in their jobs. While this is
an improvement over recent years, DHS is still ranked last
among large agencies. The survey shows that while 87 percent of
the employees feel that they do important work, 63 percent felt
that there was no consequence for employees who underperform,
and only 36 percent felt motivated by their leadership.
Unfortunately, these employee viewpoints are not new.
Similar numbers were reported at a hearing this committee held
on morale during the Obama administration.
The responses to these questions show fundamental issues
with the leadership of DHS and its components. While the
employees value their work, they do not feel valued in their
workplace. This is a problem that starts at the top. DHS
leadership must hire and promote leaders who can motivate their
staff, and they must find ways to reward good performance and
address underperformance.
I was pleased to find out that DHS has established an
Employee and Family Readiness Council to address challenges DHS
employees face. This is a step in the right direction. However,
I believe more needs to be done to determine the root causes of
the employee dissatisfaction.
While I believe some of the dissatisfaction has its roots
in the organization of the Department, I also believe and need
to point out that the physical attacks on the Offices of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the verbal attacks on
ICE and Customs and Border Protection as well as the Department
as a whole by Members of Congress and the media absolutely
undermine employee morale.
Every day DHS employees strive to carry out critical
missions to protect the people of this country, from CBP agents
on the border, ICE, HSI conducting counter proliferation
operations and counter human trafficking operations, and CISA
ensuring physical and cybersecurity that keep us safe. They
should not be blamed for the failings of an immigration system
that we as a Congress have not acted to fix.
Good morale at an agency can help drive progress and ensure
mission success. Bad morale can lead to a disconnected work
force and a lack of commitment to an agency's mission. With an
agency like DHS, the stakes are too high to allow this to
happen.
DHS needs to develop a clear vision for addressing the root
causes as well as metrics to measure its success. It also needs
to develop ways to motivate, instill, and reward performance.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
causes of the low morale at DHS as well as the steps DHS should
take to address it.
I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Crenshaw follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Dan Crenshaw
Jan. 14, 2020
I am pleased that you called this hearing today. The morale of the
Department of Homeland Security employees is of the utmost importance.
DHS has been besieged with issues of low morale, high-level
vacancies, and mismanagement since its inception.
Some of this struggle is understandable from an agency that was
created by combining so many unique entities with their own mission
sets. However, almost 17 years after its creation, we need to see some
real progress in this area. The work the Department does makes this too
important to ignore.
DHS employs over 200,000 individuals dedicated to protecting the
homeland and the American people. It is imperative to our security that
those individuals are satisfied in their jobs, feel supported by
Department leadership, and have support from the people of this country
in their mission to secure the homeland.
The most recent survey of DHS employees shows that 56 percent of
employees are satisfied in their jobs. While this is an improvement
over recent years, DHS is still ranked last among large agencies. The
survey shows that while 87 percent of the employees feel that they do
important work, 63 percent felt that there was no consequence for
employees that underperform and only 36 percent felt motivated by their
leadership. Unfortunately, these employee viewpoints are not new;
similar numbers were reported at a hearing this committee held on
morale during the Obama administration.
The responses to these questions show fundamental issues with the
leadership of DHS and its components. While the employees value their
work, they do not feel valued in their workplace. This is a problem
that starts at the top. DHS leadership must hire and promote leaders
who can motivate their staff and they must find ways to reward good
performance and address underperformance.
I was pleased to find out that DHS has established an Employee and
Family Readiness Council to address challenges DHS employees face. This
is a step in the right direction. However, I believe more needs to be
done to determine the root causes of the employee dissatisfaction.
While I believe that some of the dissatisfaction has its roots in
the organization of the Department, I also believe that the physical
attacks on the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the
verbal attacks on ICE and Customs and Border Protection, as well as the
Department as a whole by Members of Congress and the media undermine
employee morale.
Every day, DHS employees strive to carry out critical missions to
protect the people of this country. From CBP agents on the border, ICE
HSI conducting counter proliferation operations, and CISA ensuring
physical and cybersecurity--they keep us safe. They should not be
blamed for the failings of an immigration system that we as a Congress
have not acted to fix.
Good morale at an agency can help drive progress and ensure mission
success; bad morale can lead to a discontented workforce and a lack of
commitment to an agency's mission.
With an agency like DHS, the stakes are too high to allow this to
happen.
DHS needs to develop a clear vision for addressing the root causes,
as well as metrics to measure its success. It also needs to develop
ways to motivate staff and reward performance. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today on the causes of the low morale at
DHS, as well as the steps DHS should take to address it.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that, under the
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
January 14, 2020
At a similar hearing before this committee nearly 8 years ago, I
lamented that 11 years into the Department's existence, it remained at
or near the bottom in Federal Government morale rankings. I am
disappointed to say that little has changed in the ensuing years. The
Department continues to be plagued with low morale and employee
dissatisfaction and remains ranked at the bottom of Federal human
capital surveys. In rankings recently released by the Partnership for
Public Service, the Department is the worst-rated of 17 large Federal
agencies. The Department also ranks last among large agencies in the
following categories: Training, teamwork, work-life balance, and
support for diversity, among others. Given its mission, this crisis is
not just about human capital management. It is about the security of
our country. More than 200,000 employees who serve every day at the
Department are dedicated in their effort to keep our country safe. They
are committed to their mission, and according to Office of Personnel
Management survey data 87 percent believe the work they do is
important. This is, ultimately, a failure in leadership.
According to the Partnership for Public Service's analysis,
effective leadership is the key driver in overall employee morale.
Unfortunately, in 2019, the Department ranked as the worst large
Federal agency in the ``effective leadership'' category. And Office of
Personnel Management survey data shows that less than half of DHS
employees have a high level of respect for the Department's senior
leaders. This crisis requires urgent action. In his exit memorandum,
former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson cited the need ``for
an aggressive campaign to improve morale and satisfaction at the
Department.'' Yet I am concerned that low morale is not being treated
with the necessary urgency. For example, right now, 13 senior
leadership roles throughout the Department are filled by acting
officials who have little empowerment to implement the kind of
organizational change needed to improve employee morale.
And after 3 years of slight improvement in morale, the
Partnership's data show that employee morale decreased again in 2019.
As such, one of the first pieces of legislation I introduced this
Congress was the ``Department of Homeland Security Morale, Recognition,
Learning, and Engagement Act'' (DHS Morale Act). The bill would create
and catalogue leadership development opportunities and would create an
Employee Engagement Steering Committee to identify and address issues
affecting morale. It also would also authorize the Secretary to
establish an award program to recognize employees for significant
contributions to the Department's goals and mission. The DHS MORALE Act
has been endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the National
Treasury Employees Union, and the American Federation of Government
Employees--unions representing a large swath of the Department's
employees.
I was encouraged to learn that the Department recently launched an
Employee and Family Readiness Council, made up of representatives from
all the components, to identify and begin to address some of the
primary concerns raised by employees. I hope to hear more from Chief
Human Capital Officer Bailey about these efforts and see evidence that
DHS is treating this morale problem with the urgency it deserves.
Ms. Torres Small. I now welcome our panel of witnesses and
thank them for joining us today.
Our first witness is Ms. Angela Bailey, chief human capital
officer of the Department of Homeland Security. In that role,
she is responsible for the Department's Human Capital Program,
including human resource policy, recruitment and hiring, and
employee development. She has dedicated more than 38 years to a
career in public service, with 32 of those years in human
resources. Ms. Bailey was appointed to her current position in
January 2016.
Our second witness, Mr. Chris Currie, is a director on the
Homeland Security and Justice Team at the Government
Accountability Office. He leads the agency's work on National
preparedness, emergency management, and critical infrastructure
protection issues. Mr. Currie has been with GAO since 2002 and
has been the recipient of numerous agency awards, including the
Meritorious Service Award in 2008.
Our final witness is Mr. Max Stier, founding president and
CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. At the Partnership,
he has overseen a center focusing on the Presidential
transition, an awards program that recognizes exceptional civil
servants, annual rankings that examine employee engagement, and
numerous leadership development programs. Before joining the
Partnership, he had a career spanning all 3 branches of
Government.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his
or her statements for 5 minutes, beginning with Ms. Angela
Bailey.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA BAILEY, CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Bailey. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Torres Small,
Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's
sustained efforts to enhance employee morale and engagement.
DHS employees are on the Nation's front lines, performing
extremely difficult work under challenging conditions. Think of
our Transportation Security Officers screening frantic
passengers who are trying to make flights home, knowing that 1
second of inattention could jeopardize their lives, or FEMA
employees leaving their families to deploy to a disaster site
under austere conditions, or Border Patrol agents trying to
humanely manage an overwhelming volume of migrants.
In addition, think of the ICE Homeland Security
Investigations team whose work led to capturing and convicting
El Chapo, the notorious international drug cartel leader, or
one of our Coast Guard employees whose work during Hurricane
Florence contributed to saving 75 lives.
It is all difficult, critically necessary, and often
thankless work, and it can put our dedicated employees under
harsh public scrutiny for simply doing their jobs.
At the same time they are performing these incredibly
important duties, our employees worry about life challenges as
well, like paying student loan debt, picking up their kids on
time, taking care of sick or elderly family members, or missing
yet another family obligation, such as a vacation, birthday, or
anniversary due to work.
This is why we see DHS's employee engagement as a team
effort. Our Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey scores reflect
the hard work that all levels of our Department have undertaken
to meet the needs of our talented and dedicated work force.
Our leaders are actively engaged. Our union representatives
take personal time to take a fallen agent's little boy to a
baseball practice, and our employees volunteer to assist their
colleagues through extra assignments and peer support.
Perhaps this is why the DHS Employee Engagement Index, or
EEI, improved again, by 2 percentage points in 2019 and by 9
percentage points since 2015. During this same period, the
Government-wide score increased only 4 percentage points.
In 2019, the Department's positive responses increased on
55 of the 71 core FEVS questions. In fact, OPM shows us as 1 of
the 3 most improved very large agencies, and GAO rated our
efforts as mostly addressed as a result of our continued
improvement.
Improving employee morale and engagement is a sustained
effort by everyone in DHS. The cornerstone of this positive
change is the collective support of our various Department and
component-level councils, including the DHS Employee Engagement
Steering Committee.
As a result, we have seen some notable component-level
successes. For example, the Secret Service has achieved
substantial sustained improvement since 2016. This progress is
the result of paying attention to FEVS data and reaching out
directly to employees to solicit feedback on root causes of
dissatisfaction. It is a textbook example, and it has paid off.
Another example is at TSA, where employee satisfaction data
helps identify root causes and solutions for local
implementation. In 2018, sites receiving this support
experienced an 8 percent increase in the EEI, and in 2019 sites
improved 5 percent. In fact, since 2015, all of our major
components increased and in 1 case by 15 percentage points.
We have also instituted new initiatives, like Leadership
Year and Employee and Family Readiness, or EFR. EFR is designed
to build a more robust infrastructure of support for employees
and their families. In 2019, our EFR Council, made up of
representatives from all of the components, began work on the
top 5 issues our employees experience on a daily basis: General
stress, personal relationship issues, mental health, dependent
care, and financial concerns. Work continues on these in 2020,
plus we have added 2 new focus areas: Social connectedness and
wellness.
My office, in collaboration with partners across the
Department, will continue to enhance our efforts, listen to and
act on employee feedback, and support the Department's
leadership commitment to our work force.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. The
Department would not be successful without your support and the
support of our brave men and women, who sacrifice each day to
make our country safe.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angela Bailey
January 14, 2020
introduction
Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss efforts to enhance employee morale and
engagement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the
Department).
I am Angela Bailey, the Department's Chief Human Capital Officer. I
joined DHS in January 2016 as a career Federal executive and have more
than 38 years of service, 32 of those in human resources.
DHS was established in 2002, combining 22 different Federal
departments and agencies into a unified, integrated Cabinet agency.
While each of our components has its own distinct homeland security
mission and history, we are unified and steadfast in our goal--to
safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.
Many of our employees are on the front lines, executing our mission
every day, performing extremely difficult work under some of the most
challenging circumstances and conditions. They interact with the
American public and people from around the world to prevent terrorism;
enhance security; secure and manage our borders; administer and enforce
our immigration laws; safeguard travel; monitor and secure cyber space;
respond to and provide relief from disasters; protect our National
leaders; and prevent drug and human trafficking.
At the same time our employees are performing these incredibly
important duties, the approximately 240,000 men and women in the
Department are also mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, neighbors,
and engaged members of their community. They worry about the same
things other Americans worry about, including: Student loan debt,
making it on time to pick up their children from daycare or school,
taking care of an elderly family member, or missing yet another family
vacation due to work obligations. Adding to these concerns is the
possibility of future Government shutdowns, meaning our employees may
work without pay, for some period of time, due to lapsed
appropriations.
In fact, during the partial Government shutdown last year, 86
percent of the DHS workforce continued to work without pay--most of
those employees were our front-line law enforcement officers and agents
who face danger each and every day. However, our 2019 Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results show that despite unmanageable
workloads, delayed work, missed deadlines, and time lost restarting
work for many of our employees, only 3 percent of respondents said they
are looking for another job specifically because of the shutdown.
Another indicator of how dedicated our employees are to the DHS
mission is that almost 1,000 employees across the Department joined the
DHS Volunteer Force, to alleviate stress the crisis on the Southern
Border has on U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement front-line personnel. While these employees
were volunteering, others in their home offices sought to ensure their
responsibilities were covered. These actions represent an incredible
effort that speaks volumes about a workforce who values and supports
each other day-to-day and steps up even more in crisis situations.
employee engagement
The Department's FEVS scores over the last several years reflect
the hard work leadership at all levels has undertaken. DHS is listening
to employee feedback and taking action. In an organization as enormous
and diverse as DHS, change comes slowly and incrementally--yet change
is happening.
The Partnership for Public Service and their Best Places scoring
currently shows DHS decreased less than 1 point, yet this information
is based on only 3 core FEVS questions out of 71. DHS tracks the
Employee Engagement Index (EEI) score as calculated by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) from FEVS data. The EEI is comprised of 15
key questions that together are a good indicator of employee
engagement. The DHS EEI improved by 2 percentage points in 2019. In
fact, DHS is 1 of 3 very large agencies identified by OPM as having top
EEI increases (the other 2 were the Air Force and the Army). In
addition, the Department's positive responses increased on 55 of the
core FEVS questions, decreased on only 4, and those decreases were by
just 1 percentage point.
The cornerstone of this positive change is the DHS Employee
Engagement Steering Committee (EESC), chaired by the Under Secretary
for Management and staffed by component executives. This body serves as
a forum for sharing ideas and best practices and helps ensure component
accountability. The EESC also represents a mixture of internal and
external information exchange.
Internally, components share ideas and knowledge for employee
engagement with each other. Externally, for example, DHS is holding
executive sessions with corporations to hear about their leadership
practices. In a recent session, we gained tremendous insight into the
benefits of an intentional approach to building a supportive culture.
Our next panel session will focus on another corporation's culture
change journey. Although the private sector is very different in many
ways from the Federal Government, what is striking about the session so
far, and I expect the same in future sessions, is how very similar we
are in working to create an engaged culture, and how much we can learn
from our shared challenges and successes.
Members of the EESC are also responsible for component-level
employee engagement action plans, which are updated each year based on
FEVS results and are approved by component leadership. Through this
mechanism, DHS has empowered components to tailor their plans according
to their mission and workforce needs. In addition, the EESC has created
a loop of accountability that keeps leadership focused on formulating
and executing plans.
DHS data from the FEVS shows that over the last 4 years, when DHS
employees were asked the important question, ``I believe the results of
this survey will be used to make my agency a better place to work,'' we
have made consistent progress informing employees that their input is
heard. In fact, this year 40 percent of our employees responded
positively to this question, which is only 1 percentage point below the
Government average--and 8 percentage points above our score in 2015.
The General Accountability Office (GAO) has recognized our strong
work and success addressing engagement and accountability. Of the 2
employee engagement items on the Department's High-Risk List, GAO
rewarded our progress on Component Action Plans with a ``fully
addressed'' status in 2018, and our progress on improving FEVS scores
with a ``mostly addressed'' status just last month.
Below are some notable examples of DHS component accomplishments
toward employee engagement:
With the release of the most recent Best Places to Work in
the Federal Government rankings, the Partnership for Public
Service specifically mentioned the U.S. Secret Service as
having substantial, sustained improvement from 2016 forward.
This progress is the result of paying attention to FEVS
results, reaching out directly to employees to solicit further
feedback on root causes of dissatisfaction, and finding 3 main
focus areas to take action: Staffing, work-life balance, and
leader development. This is a textbook example of executing on
the Department's expectations for action planning, and it has
paid off.
Another example is an initiative of the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), which offers ``Local Action
Planning'' at sites with lower levels of employee satisfaction
to identify root causes of challenges and solutions for local
implementation. TSA sends expert teams on-site to conduct focus
groups, make recommendations, and guide local leaders through
the planning process. TSA has experienced positive trends in
FEVS ratings in these targeted locations. The Department's
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) is
collaborating with TSA and OPM to pilot another tool, the DHS
Leadership Survey, that allows employees to provide upward
feedback on their first-, second-, and third-line supervisors.
DHS experienced tremendous success with this tool at Los
Angeles International Airport and with the Federal Air Marshals
Service and is moving forward with 2 new airport sites in 2020.
We know that meaningful engagement takes continuous attention and
it starts with leaders. Within my office, the DHS OCHCO, we take FEVS
results very seriously, at even the most local levels, including making
personnel changes to improve the organization.
In November 2019, OCHCO brought together the executive cadre of DHS
to hear from the Acting Secretary and from our Presidential Rank
Awardees in what has become an annual gathering focused on excellence
in leadership. One of the featured presentations was from the
leadership team from Los Angeles International Airport that discussed
their experience with the DHS Leadership Survey.
DHS has also strengthened its agency-wide leadership development
programs by providing more opportunities for lower-grade employees to
begin their leadership journeys, additional rotational experiences, and
further career path guidance. Several examples of these efforts are
highlighted below:
In fiscal year 2019, DHS implemented a brand-new part of its
leader development strategy called the ``Leadership Bridges
Program.'' Instead of waiting to develop leadership skills at
each level, this new element of the strategy establishes a
variety of products and tools for employees seeking to increase
their capabilities and aspire to higher leadership levels.
One of the most exciting new products is the roll-out of a
program to prepare employees in supervisory acumen ahead of
their advancement to supervisory positions. DHS launched an
innovative self-paced program that meets the needs of our
geographically-dispersed workforce and provides motivated
employees--at any grade level--with a set of curated activities
central to the development of essential supervisory leadership
competencies.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2020, DHS will launch a 6-month
pilot Supervisory Leadership Bridges Cohort program to guide
participants in specific job series through a rigorous process
to identify traits validated to be predictive of leadership
success and build on those traits with classroom, mentoring,
and experiential learning. As DHS anticipates both a hiring
surge and significant retirement in the 1800 job series, the
Leadership Bridges Program provides a ready talent pool of
employees who will hit the ground running, already familiar
with the critical supervisory acumen that results in an
engaged, proficient workforce.
employee and family readiness and employee retention
Kicked off in 2019 and continuing into 2020, DHS's current
signature employee engagement initiative is Employee and Family
Readiness (EFR). With a workforce that operates day in and day out
under tremendous stress and challenge, OCHCO identified the need for a
more robust infrastructure of support not only for employees, but for
their family members as well.
One key program we are working on across all components is enhanced
initiatives to prevent suicides. We are working to improve and expand
existing programs while also adding new approaches. In addition, DHS
established an Employee and Family Readiness Council (EFRC), made up of
representatives from all the components, that serves in an advisory
capacity to the EFR Initiative. The goals are to develop and promote a
unified strategy and common vision of EFR, explore opportunities to
share resources between components, set annual priorities, and
collaborate to address these priorities across the enterprise.
In addition to permanent programs such as suicide prevention, the
EFRC identified and ranked 18 family resilience issues by priority to
create annual goals and began working on the top 5 in 2019. These 5
areas were: General stress, personal relationship issues, mental
health, dependent care, and financial concerns. Work continues on all
of these areas in 2020, plus we have added 2 new focus areas: Social
connectedness and wellness.
General Stress.--In fiscal year 2019, 24 mindfulness
resilience and stress reduction training classes were held
across DHS, reaching over 700 employees. The response to this
training was positive and additional courses are planned for
fiscal year 2020. This training helps our employees, in
particular the law enforcement community, stay in the present,
let go of negative experiences, and increase resilience to
adverse life events.
Personal Relationships.--DHS is using a 2-pronged approach
to address personal relationships, to include Stronger Bonds
training and counseling through Employee Assistance Programs.
For example, the Stronger Bonds curriculum draws upon proven
strategies from couples therapy and research on commitment and
relationship development. This curriculum was reviewed by the
National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices and
is listed in the U.S. Government's Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration's registry of evidence-based
programs and practices. In 2019, OCHCO trained 45 DHS employees
to facilitate Stronger Bonds Workshops for DHS employees and
their family members, and in 2020 we plan to train more DHS
employees to facilitate this course.
Mental Health.--DHS will launch a public-facing website in
2020 to provide easily accessible information for employees and
their families. The site is life-event based, with a focus on
encouraging individuals to seek help to address concerns. The
overarching message of this initiative is that there is no
stigma in reaching out for help. The site soft-launched in 2019
and will be updated for the 2020 full launch with 2 new content
areas designed for spouses and children of DHS employees.
Dependent Care.--According to OPM research, by 2021, 43
percent of DHS employees will have childcare responsibilities
and 32 percent will have adult care responsibilities. To ensure
that DHS understands the needs of the workforce, the Department
is currently conducting a Nation-wide workforce needs
assessment. This effort will allow DHS to identify both the
current needs of its workforce regarding dependent care as well
as projected needs 5 to 10 years in the future.
Financial Concerns.--The Financial Literacy Campaign,
``Invest in Your Financial Health,'' provides helpful
information and accessible financial resources, addresses
common concerns, and directs employees to internal programs
promoting financial wellness. This campaign kicked off in March
2019 and runs through March 2020.
Wellness.--An awareness campaign encouraging healthy
lifestyle choices kicks off this month. Each month, articles
and/or podcasts will be made available to employees and their
families, through the DHS public-facing website.
Social Connectedness.--Initiatives in this area include
exploring ways to facilitate awareness of employee resources
and affinity groups across components. DHS is also seeking to
connect with spouse networks and family support groups to
provide information about the EFR Initiative.
These programs noted above are coupled with other traditional
retention strategies, such as cyber retention pay, special salary
rates, student loan repayments, child care subsidies, and employee
engagement, to round out the overarching DHS retention strategy.
hiring
Due to DHS's critical mission, we are fortunate to have an
abundance of applicants for many of the jobs we post. In order to serve
both the applicants and DHS well, we have worked to innovate and
streamline our hiring practices to reduce time-to-hire and get people
on-board as fast as practical. Through our innovations, our time-to-
hire is down to as low as 107 days, a reduction of 34 percent from our
rate 5 years ago, and we continue to look for more efficient and
innovative practices every day.
While DHS hiring strategies include time-to-hire, hiring hubs, and
hiring events, they start with DHS thinking about not only our
requirements for today, but also 5 to 10 years from now. Determining
how many and what type of employees will we need is a critical first
step, followed by a discussion of the kind of skills and abilities we
need, as well as where will we find such talent. Based on these
discussions, strategies concerning how best to ``buy or build'' talent,
including partnering with local schools, universities, industry, the
military, and our local communities, are developed. These strategies
are coupled with examinations of our hiring process, finding ways to
streamline the hiring process and making it less arduous for those
applying for our positions, and identifying technology advancements
that can integrate our hiring systems making the process more
efficient.
The reason these hiring strategies are so important is that, by
ensuring our positions are filled with the right leaders and
technically skilled personnel, we can drive down overtime, shorten
deployments, and create a better work-life balance for our employees--
all of which our employees have told us through the FEVS and other
focus groups that they desire. Our hiring strategies help us retain our
talented workforce. However, just having positions filled is not enough
to retain our employees, or more importantly, to ensure that while they
are carrying out their missions they have the tools necessary to deal
with all that the job and life throws their way. As a result, and noted
above, we place special emphasis on taking care of our employees and
their families as the cornerstone of our retention strategy.
Despite our hiring efforts, there is always room for improvement.
Additionally, a way for Congress to help us is to support our
legislative proposal, the Department of Homeland Security Enhanced
Hiring Act. DHS seeks to use this authority in an effort to streamline
and simplify the agency's hiring authorities in a manner that ensures
the Department is able to expeditiously hire the best-qualified
candidates for mission-critical positions and sustain its record of
hiring veterans. This legislative proposal would enhance the current
noncompetitive hiring authorities for veterans and establish other
important hiring authorities. I respectfully request that Congress
expeditiously takes up and passes such legislation.
conclusion
The Department recently celebrated the Secretary's Awards Ceremony,
which recognizes achievements of dedicated and talented DHS employees
from across the country. In listening to the descriptions of all the
accomplishments, I was reminded that every day the men and women of DHS
carry out difficult and often dangerous work that often is unseen by
the American public. They do an outstanding job and have a deep
commitment to the mission. Through our efforts dedicated to employee
engagement, retention, and hiring, OCHCO is determined to enhance their
work experience and home life and honor their contributions.
My office, in collaboration with partners across the Department,
will continue to enhance our efforts, listen to and act on employee
feedback, and support the Department's leadership commitment to our
workforce.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. The
Department would not be successful without your support and the support
of our brave men and women who sacrifice each day to make our country
safe. I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Currie to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS CURRIE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Currie. Thank you, Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking
Member Crenshaw, other Members of the committee that are here
today. We appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about
GAO's work on DHS morale.
I personally and those of us at GAO have been working on
this issue since the Department was created, and I want to say
from the beginning we have tremendous respect for the men and
women at DHS and the hard work that they do every day and the
intense public pressure they face and the public scrutiny with
which they do their jobs.
I also know that nobody cares more about this problem than
the leadership of the Department, and we have seen this across
administrations. It is not a partisan issue. It is something
that every administration has really worked hard to address.
Since 2003, DHS has been on our high-risk list at GAO, and
a big part of that is because of human capital management
challenges. A big part within the human capital management area
has been employee morale and training, performance management
standards, and all the things that lead up to what creates a
person's morale.
Over the last 5 years particularly, we have seen a number
of positive changes in this area. As Ms. Bailey mentioned, we
have seen DHS make steady progress in the FEVS scores, and do
it in years when sometimes other Government agencies have
actually seen a decrease. So they are making slow and steady
progress, but obviously there is a lot more that needs to be
done.
They have done this by implementing a number of
recommendations across a number of agencies. For example, they
have implemented our recommendations to develop employee
engagement plans, not just the whole Department but the
components themselves, that identify the root causes of morale
issues.
As the Ranking Member said, these root causes are varied. A
lot of these things have to do with just core leadership
management issues. Do I trust my supervisor? Do I believe in
our performance management system? Do I think our agency has
the ability to hire the people we need to do their jobs?
These are the kind of things we see not just at DHS, but
across Government. So I absolutely agree that while DHS faces a
unique mission and unique challenges, a lot of agencies face
unique missions and unique challenges and don't have the level
of morale that DHS has right now.
I also want to say that, unfortunately, as was said, DHS's
morale scores are still toward the bottom of large departments.
I think that you have to look within DHS to really get a better
sense of those numbers. The Department is huge, and the
components are so varied and different, and different in size,
too.
So what plagues TSA is going to be completely different
than what the Coast Guard faces. The Coast Guard is an agency
that has been around for many, many years, has a strong
leadership culture, has its own academy, well-grounded
management principles, and a structure and hierarchy. So it is
understandable that TSA is going to take much longer to get to
the point where they have addressed their morale issues.
There are really just a few things I want to point to
moving forward that I think we need to focus on moving forward.
First is, I really think that this committee and other
committees, as you are conducting your oversight over component
missions, like border security, cybersecurity, emergency
management, that you speak to the leadership of those
components about this issue, too, and that human capital and
morale issues be held at the same standard of accountability as
the mission side, as otherwise they are not going to have the
incentive to address the issues like they will on the mission
side.
Also, I think there needs to be a focus on a few specific
components. If you look at CBP and TSA, they have somewhere in
the range of a third to almost a half of the Department's
employees. So I think a focus needs to be put on the place
where the most impact can be made.
Then last, I think that you need to continue the oversight
in terms of these types of hearings and with the components as
well, and really to drive this home.
So thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward
to the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Currie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Currie
January 14, 2020
gao highlights
Highlights of GAO-20-349T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight, Management, and Accountability, Committee on Homeland
Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study
DHS is the third-largest Cabinet-level department in the Federal
Government, employing more than 240,000 staff in a broad range of jobs,
including countering terrorism and homeland security threats, providing
aviation and border security, emergency response, cybersecurity, and
critical infrastructure protection. Since it began operations in 2003,
DHS has faced challenges with low employee morale and engagement.
Federal surveys have consistently found that DHS employees are less
satisfied with their jobs compared to the average Federal employee. For
example, DHS's scores on the FEVS and the Partnership for Public
Service's rankings of the Best Places to Work in the Federal
Government are consistently among the lowest for similarly-sized
Federal agencies.
This statement addresses our past and on-going work monitoring
human capital management and employee morale at DHS and select work on
employee engagement across the Government. This statement is based on
products GAO issued from September 2012 through May 2019 as well as
GAO's on-going efforts to monitor employee morale at DHS as part of
GAO's high-risk work. For these products, GAO analyzed DHS strategies
and other documents related to DHS's efforts to address its high-risk
areas, interviewed DHS officials, conducted analyses of FEVS data, and
interviewed officials from other Federal agencies that achieved high
employee engagement scores, among other things.
GAO provided a copy of new information in this statement to DHS for
review. DHS confirmed the accuracy of this information.
department of homeland security.--employee morale survey scores
highlight progress and continued challenges
What GAO Found
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has undertaken
initiatives to strengthen employee engagement through efforts at its
component agencies and across the Department. For example, at the
headquarters level, DHS has instituted initiatives to improve awareness
and access to support programs, benefits, and resources for DHS
employees and their families.
In 2019, DHS improved its employee engagement scores, as measured
by the Office of Personnel Management's 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. As shown below, DHS increased its scores
on a measure of employee engagement, the Employee Engagement Index
(EEI), across 4 consecutive years, from a low of 53 percent in 2015 to
62 percent in 2019.
While DHS has made progress in improving its scores, in 2019 it
remained 6 points below the Government-wide average for the EEI. For
several years, DHS and its component agencies have identified root
causes for their engagement scores including concerns about leadership
accountability and understaffing, among others. This statement
discusses 9 recommendations related to DHS employee engagement and
workforce planning. DHS implemented all but one of these
recommendations--to review and correct its coding of cybersecurity
positions and assess the accuracy of position descriptions. Finally,
filling vacancies could help ensure continued leadership commitment
across DHS's mission areas.
Madam Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members
of the subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
importance of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employee engagement
and morale, the Department's progress thus far, and areas where
challenges remain.
DHS is the third-largest Cabinet-level department in the Federal
Government, employing more than 240,000 staff in a broad range of jobs,
including aviation and border security, emergency response,
cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection. The DHS
workforce is located throughout the Nation, carrying out activities in
support of DHS's missions to counter terrorism and homeland security
threats, secure United States borders, secure cyber space and critical
infrastructure, preserve and uphold the Nation's prosperity and
economic security, strengthen preparedness and resilience, and champion
the DHS workforce and strengthen the Department.
Since it began operations in 2003, DHS has faced challenges with
low employee morale and engagement. Federal surveys have consistently
found that DHS employees are less satisfied with their jobs than the
Government-wide average of Federal employees. For example, DHS's
employee satisfaction--as measured by the Office of Personnel
Management 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 rankings of the Best
Places to Work in the Federal Government--is consistently among the
lowest for similarly-sized Federal agencies.
As we stated in our 2015 report on employee engagement across the
Federal Government, a number of studies of private-sector entities have
found that increased levels of engagement result in better individual
and organizational performance including increased employee performance
and productivity; higher customer service ratings; fewer safety
incidents; and less absenteeism and turnover.\1\ Studies of the public
sector, while more limited, have shown similar benefits. For example,
the Merit Systems Protection Board found that higher levels of employee
engagement in Federal agencies led to improved agency performance, less
absenteeism, and fewer equal employment opportunity complaints.\2\ As
we reported in 2015, across the Government, key drivers of employee
morale include holding constructive performance conversations, career
development and training opportunities, work-life balance, an inclusive
work environment, employee involvement, and communication from
management. We also identified key lessons for improving employee
engagement. These key lessons include using effective management
practices to implement change, looking to other sources of data in
addition to the FEVS to form a complete picture of employee engagement,
and recognizing that improving engagement and organizational
performance takes time, which may involve several efforts with effects
seen at different points in time. Engagement is one component of
employee morale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Federal Workforce: Additional Analysis and Sharing of
Promising Practices Could Improve Employee Engagement and Performance,
GAO-15-585 (Washington, DC: July 14, 2015).
\2\ U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal
Employee Engagement (Washington, DC: September 2008). Results were
based on responses to the Merit System Protection Board's Merit
Principles Survey, which asks employees about their perceptions of
their jobs, work environments, supervisors and agencies and is
administered approximately every 3 to 4 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS employee morale and engagement concerns are one example of the
challenges the Department faces in implementing its missions. In 2003,
shortly after the Department was formed, we recognized that the
creation of DHS was an enormous undertaking that could take years to
implement. Failure to effectively address management challenges could
have serious National security consequences. As a result, in 2003,
shortly after the Department was formed, we designated Implementing and
Transforming DHS as a high-risk area to the Federal Government. DHS
subsequently made considerable progress in transforming its original
component agencies into a single Cabinet-level department. As a result,
in 2013, we narrowed the scope of the high-risk area to focus on
strengthening DHS management functions, including human capital
management, and changed the name of the high-risk area to Strengthening
DHS Management Functions to reflect this focus.\3\ We continue to
monitor DHS's work in this area--including work to address employee
morale and engagement--and regularly meet with DHS to discuss progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The 5 management functions included in the Strengthening DHS
Management Functions high-risk area are acquisition management,
information technology management, financial management, human capital
management, and management integration. The 5 criteria for removal from
the high-risk list are: (1) A demonstrated strong commitment and top
leadership support to address the risks; (2) the capacity--the people
and other resources--to resolve the risks; (3) a corrective action plan
that identifies the root causes and identifies effective solutions; (4)
a program instituted to monitor and independently validate the
effectiveness and sustainability of corrective measures; and (5) the
ability to demonstrate progress in implementing corrective measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today discusses our past and on-going work monitoring
human capital management and employee morale at DHS and select work on
employee engagement across the Government. This statement is based on
products we issued from September 2012 through May 2019 as well as our
on-going efforts in 2019 to monitor employee morale at DHS as part of
our high-risk work.\4\ For our products we analyzed DHS strategies and
other documents related to the Department's efforts to address its
high-risk area, interviewed DHS officials, conducted analyses of FEVS
data, and interviewed officials from other Federal agencies that
achieved high employee engagement scores, among other things. We
conducted the work on which this statement is based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We issue an update to the High-Risk List every 2 years at the
start of each new session of Congress. Our most recent update was
issued in March 2019. See GAO, High-Risk Series: Substantial Efforts
Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas, GAO-19-157SP
(Washington, DC: Mar. 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dhs has taken steps to improve its employee engagement scores but still
falls below the government-wide average
In connection with the Strengthening DHS Management Functions high-
risk area, we monitor DHS's progress in the area of employee morale and
engagement. In 2010, we identified, and DHS agreed, that achieving 30
specific outcomes would be critical to addressing the challenges within
the Department's high-risk management areas. These 30 outcomes are the
criteria by which we gauge DHS's demonstrated progress. We rate each
outcome on a scale of not-initiated, initiated, partially addressed,
mostly addressed, or fully addressed. Several of these outcome criteria
relate to human capital actions needed to improve employee morale.
Specifically, we monitor DHS's progress to:
seek employees' input on a periodic basis and demonstrate
measurable progress in implementing strategies to adjust human
capital approaches;
base hiring decisions, management selections, promotions,
and performance evaluations on human capital competencies and
individual performance;
enhance information technology security through improved
workforce planning of the DHS cybersecurity workforce; and
improve DHS's FEVS scores related to employee engagement.
Since we began monitoring DHS's progress on these outcomes, DHS has
worked to strengthen employee engagement through several efforts both
at DHS headquarters and within its component agencies. In this
statement, we discuss 9 recommendations related to DHS employee
engagement and workforce planning, 8 of which have been implemented by
the Department. Within DHS, the Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer (OCHCO) is responsible for implementing policies and programs
to recruit, hire, train, and retain DHS's workforce. As the Department-
wide unit responsible for human capital issues within DHS, OCHCO also
provides guidance and oversight related to morale issues to the DHS
components.
Seeking employees' input and demonstrating progress to adjust human
capital approaches.--DHS, OCHCO, and the components have taken action
to use employees' input from the FEVS to inform and implement
initiatives targeted at improving employee engagement. For example, in
2017 and 2018 DHS implemented our 2 recommendations for OCHCO and DHS
components to establish metrics of success within their action plans
for addressing employee satisfaction problems and to better use these
plans to examine the root causes of morale challenges.\5\ DHS
components have continued to develop these employee engagement action
plans and several components report implementing initiatives to enhance
employee engagement. For example, the U.S. Secret Service's action plan
details a sponsorship program for all newly-hired and recently-
relocated employees. In addition, one division of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) used FEVS survey data to identify a need for
increased engagement between employees and component leadership. ICE's
employee action plan includes goals with milestones, time lines, and
metrics to improve this engagement through efforts such as leadership
town halls and leadership site visits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to
Better Determine Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting
Action Plans, GAO-12-940 (Washington, DC: Sept. 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the headquarters level, DHS and OCHCO have also established
employee engagement initiatives across the Department. For example, DHS
established initiatives for employees and their families that aim to
increase awareness and access to support programs, benefits, and
resources. Through another initiative--Human Resources (H.R.) Academy--
DHS provides education, training, and career development opportunities
to human resource professionals within the Department. DHS uses an
Employee Engagement Steering Committee to guide and monitor
implementation of these DHS-wide employee engagement initiatives. As a
result of these steps, among other actions, we have considered this
human capital outcome area fully addressed since 2018.
Basing hiring decisions and promotions on competencies and
performance.--OCHCO has conducted audits to better ensure components
are basing hiring decisions and promotions on human capital
competencies and individual performance and we have considered this
outcome fully addressed since 2017. Our past work has highlighted the
importance of selecting candidates based on qualifications, as doing
otherwise can negatively affect morale.\6\ Working to ensure that
components' human capital decisions are based on performance and
established competencies helps create a connection between individual
performance and the agency's success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO, U.S. Marshals Service: Additional Actions Needed to
Improve Oversight of Merit Promotion Process and Address Employee
Perceptions of Favoritism, GAO-18-8 (Washington, DC: Oct. 17, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancing information technology security through improved
workforce planning for cybersecurity positions.--In February 2018, we
made 6 recommendations to DHS to take steps to identify its position
and critical skill requirements among its cybersecurity workforce.\7\
Since then, DHS has implemented all 6 recommendations. For example, in
fiscal year 2019, regarding its cybersecurity position identification
and coding efforts, we verified that DHS had identified individuals in
each component who are responsible for leading those efforts, developed
procedures, established a process to review each component's
procedures, and developed plans for reporting critical needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Cybersecurity Workforce: Urgent Need for DHS to Take
Actions to Identify Its Position and Critical Skill Requirements, GAO-
18-175 (Washington, DC: Feb. 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, DHS has not yet implemented a recommendation we made in
March 2019 to review and correct its coding of cybersecurity positions
and assess the accuracy of position descriptions.\8\ Specifically, we
stated that DHS had not correctly categorized its information
technology/cybersecurity/cyber-related positions. We noted that having
inaccurate information about the type of work performed by 28 percent
of the Department's information technology/cybersecurity/cyber-related
positions is a significant impediment to effectively examining the
Department's cybersecurity workforce, identifying work roles of
critical need, and improving workforce planning. DHS officials stated
that they plan to implement this recommendation by March 2020. As a
result, this outcome remains mostly addressed. Until DHS accurately
categorizes its positions, its ability to effectively identify critical
staffing needs will be impaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GAO, Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Accurately
Categorize Positions to Effectively Identify Critical Staffing Needs,
GAO-19-144 (Washington, DC: Mar. 12, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving FEVS scores on employee engagement.--Since our last High-
Risk report in March 2019, DHS has demonstrated additional progress in
its employee engagement scores, as measured by the FEVS Employee
Engagement Index (EEI). The EEI is 1 of 3 indices OPM calculates to
synthesize FEVS data.\9\ The EEI measures conditions that lead to
engaged employees and is comprised of 3 sub-indices related to
employees' views on leadership, supervisors, and intrinsic work
experience. As a result of continued improvement on DHS's EEI score, we
have moved this outcome rating from partially addressed to mostly
addressed based on DHS's 2019 score. As shown in figure 1, DHS
increased its EEI score across 4 consecutive years, from a low of 53
percent in 2015 to 62 percent in 2019. In particular, DHS improved its
score by 2 points between 2018 and 2019 while the Government average
remained constant over the same period. With its 2019 score, DHS also
regained the ground that it lost during an 8-point drop between 2010
and 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In addition to the EEI, OPM calculates 2 other indices. The New
Inclusion Quotient, referred to as New IQ, summarizes information about
inclusivity in the workplace, and Global Satisfaction is a combination
of employees' satisfaction with their job, their pay, and their
organization, plus their willingness to recommend their organization as
a good place to work.
\10\ In our monitoring of DHS's progress on this outcome, we
established 2010 as the benchmark year when we developed and DHS agreed
upon the outcomes that we monitor.
While DHS has made progress in improving its scores including
moving toward the Government average, it remains below the Government
average on the EEI and on other measures of employee morale. For
example, in 2019 DHS remained 6 points below the Government-wide
average for the EEI. In addition to the EEI and other indices OPM
calculates, the Partnership for Public Service uses FEVS data to
produce an index of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.
The Partnership for Public Service's analysis of FEVS data indicates
low levels of employee satisfaction and commitment for DHS employees
relative to other large Federal agencies. In 2019, the Partnership for
Public Service ranked DHS 17th out of 17 large Federal agencies for
employee satisfaction and commitment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Partnership for Public Service and Boston Consulting Group,
The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. The Partnership for
Public Service's ranking cited here is composed of rankings of large
agencies, defined as agencies with more than 15,000 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the Department, employee satisfaction scores vary by
component. Some DHS components have EEI scores above the Government
average and rank highly on the Partnership for Public Service's index.
For example, the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services have EEI scores of 76 and 74, respectively, and rank 85th and
90th, respectively, out of 420 subcomponent agencies on the Partnership
for Public Service's index. Further, some DHS component agencies have
improved their scores in recent years. The U.S. Secret Service raised
its EEI score 7 points between 2018 and 2019, and it moved from the
last place among all subcomponent agencies on the Partnership for
Public Service's Ranking in 2016 to 360th out of 420 subcomponent
agencies in 2019. However, other DHS component agencies continue to
rank among the lowest across the Federal Government in the Partnership
for Public Service rankings of employee satisfaction and commitment.
For example, in 2019 out of 420 subcomponent agencies across the
Federal Government, the DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
office ranked 420th, the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis ranked
406th, and the Transportation Security Administration ranked 398th for
employee satisfaction and commitment. As a result, continuing to
increase employee engagement and morale remains important to
strengthening DHS's management functions and ability to implement its
missions.
DHS employee concerns about senior leadership, among other things,
is one area that negatively affects DHS's overall employee morale
scores. In 2015, we identified effective management practices agencies
can use to improve employee engagement across the Government.\12\ One
of these practices is the direct involvement of top leadership in
organizational improvement efforts.\13\ When top leadership clearly and
personally leads organizational improvement efforts, it provides an
identifiable source for employees to rally around and helps processes
stay on course. A DHS analysis of its 2012 FEVS scores indicated DHS
low morale issues may persist because of employee concerns about senior
leadership and supervisors, among other things, such as whether their
talents were being well-used. Within the 2019 FEVS results for both DHS
and Government-wide, leadership remains the lowest of the 3 sub-indices
of the EEI. In addition, for several years DHS components have
identified several root causes of engagement scores. For example, in
2019, the Transportation Security Administration identified the
performance of managers, time constraints and understaffing, and lack
of manager and leadership accountability for change as root causes of
the component's engagement scores in recent years. Another component,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, identified in 2019 that the
areas of leadership performance, accountability, transparency, and
training and development opportunities were 2018 engagement score root
causes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ GAO-15-585.
\13\ Other effective management practices included applying
policies consistently, creating a line of sight between the agency's
mission and the work of each employee, and reaching out to employees to
obtain insight into their FEVS scores or to inform other improvement
efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have previously reported that DHS's top leadership, including
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, have demonstrated commitment and
support for addressing the Department's management challenges.
Continuing to identify and address the root causes of employee
engagement scores and addressing the human capital management
challenges we have identified in relation to the DHS management high-
risk area could help DHS maintain progress in improving employee
morale. Implementing our recommendation to review and correct DHS
coding of cybersecurity positions and assess the accuracy of position
descriptions will assist the Department in identifying critical
staffing needs. In addition, as we reported in May 2019, vacancies in
top leadership positions could pose a challenge to addressing aspects
of DHS's high-risk area, such as employee morale.\14\ There are
currently acting officials serving in 10 positions requiring Senate
confirmation.\15\ Filling vacancies--including top DHS leadership
positions and the heads of operational components--with confirmed
appointees, as applicable, could help ensure continued leadership
commitment across DHS's mission areas.\16\ We will continue to monitor
DHS's progress in strengthening management functions, and may identify
additional actions DHS leadership could take to improve employee morale
and engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Continued Leadership Is
Critical to Addressing a Range of Management Challenges, GAO-19-544T
(Washington, DC: May 1, 2019).
\15\ Specifically, as of December 18, 2019, the following positions
remained vacant: Secretary, deputy secretary, under secretary for
management, under secretary for science and technology, chief financial
officer, general counsel, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and
administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
\16\ The DHS operational components are the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Transportation
Security Administration, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Secret Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, DHS has made notable progress in the area of human
capital management, specifically in improving employee engagement and
morale, but still falls behind other Federal agencies. It is essential
for DHS to continue improving employee morale and engagement given
their impact on agency performance and the importance of DHS's
missions. Continued senior leadership commitment to employee engagement
efforts and filling critical vacancies could assist DHS in these
efforts.
Madam Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members
of the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement, I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Stier to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PARTNERSHIP FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stier. Thank you so much. I can't imagine better
opening statements than both your, Chairwoman Torres Small, and
your, Ranking Member Crenshaw. I thought they were pitch
perfect and exactly right.
Members of the committee, this is fantastic that you are
having this hearing. I want to start by highlighting that I
think Ms. Bailey is easily one of the best chief human capital
officers across the entire Government and is doing fabulous
work.
One of the most important things I can advocate for is
continued focus on the good and not just the bad. If you ask
root causes, one of the real challenges we have in Government
is lots of infrastructure to find problems and almost no effort
to find the good things that are actually answers to those
problems.
So the more you can do to surface the good, the more you
will actually do to address the bad. I can come back to that
later. I would love to do so if that is possible.
Lots of good things are happening. Your numbers are exactly
right. Ms. Bailey is correct, that since 2015 the Department on
our rankings has come up 9 points. All those things need to be
encouraged and reinforced.
I want to focus, though, on 10 ideas that can make it even
better. So finding ways for us to move even more aggressively
in some of the areas that I think would make a very big
difference.
Part of it is building on things that are already there.
One component that you have heard talk about already, Secret
Service, I want to point to leadership there. So it turned
around when Tex Alles became the director of the Secret
Service. He is now the acting under secretary for management.
No one better for that position. He turned around Secret
Service. He is a great contributor, and I think there is a lot
more that he could do.
So 10 ideas for you, if I might, beginning with Congress
itself and what you might be able to focus on. It is hearings
like these. You heard from Chris, it would be fantastic for you
to do this on an annual basis. If there is a regular set of
hearings, a regular tempo, leadership is going to expect this.
They know that this is a priority from your perspective, and
then they will pay more attention to that.
The normal course, it is one of the powers that you have in
your oversight is to direct attention and to focus on the good
things. So, yes, on the subcomponents and what is working in
the different parts of Government.
No. 2 would be to hold leaders accountable. So, again, on
the political side, one of the challenges is most political
appointees are selected because they are policy experts and not
necessarily have a lot of management expertise. In fact, having
performance plans for political appointees as there are for
career employees would be an example of things that you could
use to help direct them to things that are management-oriented
and hold them accountable.
No. 3, we need to provide continuity in the senior
management ranks. That doesn't exist today. So I mentioned Tex,
fantastic guy. He is the fifth, if I count correctly, fifth
under secretary for management in 5 years.
It is very difficult to make forward progress on difficult
management issues without continuity. There are way too many
Senate-confirmed positions, way too many political appointees.
We ought to be creative here. Think about IGs. They don't
turn over every administration. We could think about
operational versus policy positions amongst the political
ranks, and that would make a very big difference.
So I posit to you that creating continuity in the
management positions would have phenomenal impact and be very
powerful. If you think about GAO, they have got a 15-year term.
Gene Dodaro is doing an amazing job. That is the kind of thing
you need in the management positions.
No. 4, you need to provide budget stability, and both of
you have worked on this issue. Shutdowns are the worst. It is
craziness, burning down your own house. We have got to change
that, got to prevent that. But we also don't need CRs, and that
is something again in Congress' house.
No. 5, you need to support investments in leadership
development. That, again, is the name of the game. The
political leaders, yes. The career folks are the ones that are
there day-in, day-out, and they need to be invested in in ways
that don't happen very much. Coast Guard is a great example.
Now, No. 6, really fast, for the administration and DHS.
There is work to do to continue to improve metrics. I think
they could be doing poll surveys. One of the challenges with
the FEVS is it comes real late and can be improved, I think.
No. 7, we need to ensure that those senior leaders actually
have management experience. They are running huge
organizations, again, often selected for policy expertise. They
need to be on-boarded differently.
No. 8, we need to enhance the leadership development of the
career work force.
No. 9, we need to work on that culture of recognition,
again, to pull up the good things. More ought to be done around
that.
No. 10, I want to end on this piece, which is, you pointed
this out, Congressman Crenshaw, I mean, you need to have
Presidential appointee-confirmed people in place in greater
numbers. Right now, DHS is the agency with the fewest number of
Senate-confirmed positions in place. Even though the FEMA
director was confirmed today, that created another vacancy in
the organization. So they are at 41 percent.
Very, very challenging for any organization. Phenomenal
people can be in those jobs, but they are the substitute
teacher if they are in an acting capacity. So we need to look
at that issue as well.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Max Stier
January 14, 2020
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw,
and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
participate in today's important hearing on morale at the Department of
Homeland Security. I am Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership
for Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to
inspire a new generation to serve and transform the way Government
works through leadership development, Government reform, and employee
engagement.
I want to start by thanking you for holding this hearing on
employee engagement and morale, and how they contribute to agency
performance. This subcommittee has a history of bipartisan interest in
the challenges facing the Department's nonpartisan civil service and
how Congress can help the Department accomplish its varied and
difficult missions. Your inquiry today adds to that legacy and
contributes to better oversight and a deeper understanding of the
management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security and
the rest of our Government.
``best places to work in the federal government'' and the importance
of employee engagement
The Partnership produces the annual Best Places to Work in the
Federal Government rankings in collaboration with the Boston
Consulting Group (BCG). The rankings are based on the results of the
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) administered by the Office of
Personnel Management, as well as other agency-specific surveys that are
comparable to FEVS. We rank agencies by size and analyze the key
drivers of employee engagement--in other words, the factors that have
the biggest impact on how employees view the agencies in which they
work. The rankings also shed light on how agencies fare in different
categories that define the employee experience, including effective
leadership, pay, training, innovation, and performance-based rewards
and advancement.
Employee engagement is not just about happy employees. Higher
scores in employment engagement equate to better performance and
higher-quality service. According to a Gallup analysis of more than
82,000 business units spanning 230 organizations, those with improved
employee engagement scores had 41 percent less absenteeism, 24 percent
less turnover, 17 percent more productivity, and 70 percent fewer
employee safety incidents.\1\ With such an impact on the workforce it
is critical for leadership at the political and career levels to be
focused on engagement at the agencies they lead. The Best Places
rankings provide a mechanism for holding agency leaders accountable for
the health of their organizations, serve as early warning signs for
agencies in trouble, and shine a spotlight on agency successes that can
be replicated elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gallup, ``The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and
Organizational Outcomes,'' 2016. Retrieved from https://
news.gallup.com/reports/191489/q12-meta-analysis-report-2016.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2019 Best Places to Work rankings reflect the views of over
880,000 civil servants from 490 Federal agencies and their
subcomponents on a wide range of workplace topics. Government-wide,
2019 saw a 0.5-point decrease from the 2018 rankings, bringing
Government's overall engagement score to 61.7 out of 100. This was a
modest drop despite a tumultuous time for our Nation's public
servants--a time when about 800,000 of the 2 million Federal employees
were affected by a lengthy Government shutdown, there were a number of
critical leadership vacancies across the Government, and many agencies
had to deal with a variety of political headwinds.
Despite these circumstances, the data show modest but meaningful
improvements Government-wide in employee attitudes in 8 of 10
categories that measure the work experience. Government-wide employee
views on training and development, and on performance-based rewards and
advancement, both rose by 0.8 points. Government-wide scores on
effective leadership, which encompasses employee views of their
supervisors, senior leaders, fairness in the workplace and individual
empowerment, rose by 0.3 points. Categories that declined Government-
wide were pay, down 0.4 points, and support for diversity, which
dropped 0.2 points.
The 2019 rankings also show that the Federal Government still
significantly underperforms the private sector when it comes to
employee engagement. In 2019, the Government's score lagged 15.3 points
behind the private sector engagement score.\2\ Only 11 of the
Government's 70 large, midsize, and small agencies included in the Best
Places rankings scored above the private sector average this year,
including NASA, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Peace Corps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The private-sector data is based on nearly 6.5 million employee
survey responses from organizations in a wide variety of industries,
gathered by the employee research firm Mercer/Sirota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 rankings for dhs
Based on our methodology, the Department of Homeland Security
experienced a 0.8-point decrease from the 2018 rankings (from 53.1 to
52.3 out of 100), and the Department ranks 17 out of 17 large agencies
in overall engagement, maintaining its dubious distinction as the
lowest-ranking large agency since 2012. The Department's highest score
was 58.6 out of 100 in 2010, which means its 2019 score represents an
overall 11 percent decline from their high mark in 2010. The Department
also ranks at the bottom in all but one of 14 categories and
subcategories that we measure, which include effective leadership,
employee skills-mission match, pay, support for diversity, and training
and development.
Some good news
Despite areas of concern, a few points of perspective give hope.
The 0.8 decline is a small tick down in a survey that was conducted on
the heels of a very trying time for the Department. Eighty-six percent
of the Department's employees continued to work without pay throughout
the 35-day Government shutdown.\3\ This shows the mission commitment
and the resiliency of the workforce, and our Nation owes a deep
gratitude to these DHS employees who kept their focus and kept our
country safe despite the difficult circumstances for them and their
families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Testimony of Angie Bailey, Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Homeland Security. Hearing on ``Solutions to Improve
Federal Hiring,'' Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal
Management, July 30, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/
imo/media/doc/Bailey%20TESTI- MONY1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the Government-wide score, the 2019 DHS score is essentially a
continuation of the status quo following 3 consecutive years of
improvement that began in 2015. And in the 14 categories we rank, the
Department did see slight improvements in all but 2--employee skills-
mission-match and pay, 2 categories which traditionally, after
leadership, are the major drivers of engagement. The Department also
increased its score by 1.2 points in the category of effective
leadership subcategory of senior leaders.
There are several subcomponent successes that should be celebrated:
The Office of Intelligence and Analysis saw a 13.1 point
increase in 2019 and the Office of the Secretary jumped 6.9
points.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which ranks 90 of
420 subcomponents, has an index score of 72.9 of 100 and has
improved 14 points from its 2005 low.
The U.S. Coast Guard improved its score, rising 2.7 points.
Of all 420 subcomponents across Government included in the
rankings, the Coast Guard remains the highest-ranked DHS
subcomponent--85th of 420 subcomponents.
The U.S. Secret Service is worth highlighting for its 8.9
point jump in 2019 for an index score of 52.9 of 100, a 61
percent improvement from its 2016 low score of 32.8.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has
improved in 5 of the last 6 years, from 36.2 in 2013 to 51.5 in
2019.
The Department should also be commended for its Employee and Family
Readiness Initiative, which is a new suite of programs to address
employee needs in areas such as stress, mental health, personal
relationships, and financial concerns.\4\ Many DHS employees face
extremely challenging circumstances in the workplace, which can also
create challenges in their personal lives. Helping both employees and
their families cope with these challenges should help improve
engagement and retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Testimony of Angie Bailey, Chief Human Capital Officer,
Department of Homeland Security. Hearing on ``Solutions to Improve
Federal Hiring,'' Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal
Management, July 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is also forward-leaning in its approach to hiring,
looking for smarter ways to bring in needed talent, while maintaining
merit system principles and making it easier for the Department to hire
veterans. This speaks directly to a major frustration heard in FEVS
responses, where only 36.2 percent of DHS employees agree that their
work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills, even lower
than the disappointing 41.9 percent of respondents who agreed
Government-wide.
Areas of concern
There is clearly much more work to be done, but progress is
possible. If every DHS subcomponent in this year's rankings had reached
its previous all-time high score, DHS's Best Places to Work score in
2019 would have been approximately 60.0 out of 100--a 15 percent
improvement upon its actual score this year. DHS would have jumped up
to rank 14th out of the 17 large agencies.
Explanations for why DHS morale is low include that it is a large
agency, with disparate components, and with a workforce that operates
under stressful conditions. These undoubtedly are all major challenges,
but they can be overcome. The Department of Veterans Affairs, larger
than DHS, ranks 6th among large agencies in the Best Places rankings,
with a score of 65.3. The Department of Commerce, also consisting of
many distinct components, is the 4th-ranked large agency, with a score
of 69.6. The intelligence community works under stressful conditions
and claims the third spot among large agencies, with a score of 69.9.
Areas of concern for DHS in 2019 include:
The Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD),
which has a critical mission with no margin for error, ranks at
the bottom of all subcomponents across the Government--420 out
of 420, with a score of only 18.1 out of 100.
The Office of the Inspector General declined 4.9 points,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined 3.7 points, and
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center declined 3.3
points.
Customs and Border Protection ranks 380th among the 420
subcomponents, and its score declined 2.1 points. The score is
up 9 points from its 2015 low, but is still down 22 percent
from its best score of 63.3 in 2010.
TSA's score dropped 1.1 points, from 45.7 to 44.6. TSA's
score is up 9.1 points or 25.6 percent since 2016, but it has
consistently struggled, never exceeding its highest score of
51.3 in 2010.
FEVS responses show that the Government, on average, struggles with
performance management, and DHS struggles a little more than most. When
asked if they agreed that, in their work unit, steps are taken to deal
with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve, 27.3 percent at
DHS agreed, compared to 30.2 percent Government-wide. Only 27.5 percent
at DHS agreed that promotions in their unit are based on merit,
compared to 36.2 percent Government-wide.
The Department also needs to make progress on creating a culture of
innovation. The Department's score in the Best Places innovation
category was up 0.9 but still last among large agencies in this
category. For context, DHS lags a full 26.4 points behind NASA, the
leader in this category. When asked whether innovation and creativity
are rewarded, only 32.7 percent of DHS respondents agree, compared to
41.4 percent Government-wide. NASA also had the highest score on this
question with 70 percent agreeing.
Also, DHS trails even further behind the Government overall on
engagement in comparison to the private sector, lagging 24.7 points
below the private-sector engagement score. This is troubling, given
that DHS must compete with the broader labor market for specialized
talent in fields such as cybersecurity.
why is dhs morale low?
You have asked me to comment on why DHS has been consistently low
over the entire life span of the Department. I will focus my response
on 3 areas--performance metrics, Congressional stewardship, and
leadership.
Data and Performance Metrics
While the FEVS is a valuable resource for leaders--from Cabinet
secretaries to front-line supervisors--it is only the beginning of the
conversation. The annual survey and the Best Places data highlight
areas of success or concern but provide little insight into the root
causes for changes in satisfaction or the preferences and motivations
of a diverse and multi-generational workforce. John Kamensky of the IBM
Center for the Business of Government has similarly noted that agencies
have plenty of data but are ``information poor,''\5\ meaning data is
most helpful when it can be turned into useful insights that inform
decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Kamensky, John. ``Government Is Data Rich, But Information
Poor.'' Editorial. Government Executive, June 12, 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/06/government-data-rich-
information-poor/148914/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, since FEVS rankings are administered annually they only
capture a single snapshot of agency health. The 2019 survey was
administered in 2 waves, beginning May 13 and May 20,\6\ meaning that
employee responses reflect morale and views during that time and can
only measure the questions asked. And agencies typically don't get
their FEVS results until many months after the survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Office of Personnel Management, ``2019 Government-wide
Management Report.'' Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/
governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/governmentwide-
report/2019/2019-governmentwide-management-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To fully understand the factors that contribute to employee morale
and performance, agency leaders would benefit from a rich and diverse
menu of data, measures and information. The FEVS is one tool, but it
should be augmented with others like pulse surveys, focus groups, town
halls and interviews to better understand the complexities of the
employee experience behind the numbers. Exit interviews provide
valuable insight into the reasons people leave an organization.
Measures of hiring effectiveness provide insight into whether an agency
is able to recruit the talent it needs, and demographic information
helps determine whether an agency is employing and retaining a diverse
workforce. Customer satisfaction data are a valuable indicator of how
successfully agencies are serving the public, and trends in budget and
spending will reflect areas of investment and emphasis over time. All
of this and more should be leveraged to provide leaders with the
performance insights needed to make smart decisions for the Department
and its workforce. It is also important for Congress to use data, in
all its forms, to inform oversight and legislative activities.
Links between employee engagement scores and other performance
metrics are not always evident to agencies, but when they are, they can
be very powerful. For example, in our analysis of data from 150 VA
medical centers, over a 3-year period, we found that medical centers
with stronger employee engagement had higher patient satisfaction,
better call-center performance and lower turnover among registered
nurses.\7\ With 89.3 percent of all Federal employees, and 86.9 percent
of DHS employees, believing that their work is important, it stands to
bear that employee engagement and customer service are mutually
reinforcing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Partnership for Public Service and BCG, ``A Prescription for
Better Performance: Engaging Employees at VA Medical Centers,'' March
2019. Available at https://ourpublicservice.org/wp-content/uploads/
2019/03/BPTW18_VA-issue-brief.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VA call centers mentioned in our analysis are one of 25 Federal
Government services that have been identified by the Office of
Management and Budget as having a high impact on the public.\8\ DHS
provides 4 of these ``high-impact'' services--airport security
checkpoints (TSA), emergency and disaster assistance (FEMA),
immigration services (USCIS) and traveler services like the Trusted
Traveler Program (CBP). At the VA, strengthening employee engagement
has been a critical component of their strategy to improve services to
veterans, and partially due to these efforts, trust in the VA among
veterans has risen dramatically over the last few years. DHS components
have a similar opportunity to look holistically at a variety of data
sources to understand how employee engagement scores affect other key
performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ General Services Administration and the Office of Management
and Budget, ``Meet 25 of the nation's highest impact service
providers,'' December 2019. Retrieved from https://www.performance.gov/
cx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final analysis, data are a great tool to identify areas of
success or concern, and in turn this points agency leaders and Congress
where attention is most needed--but data alone does not solve problems.
Agencies, agency leaders and their Congressional committees need to use
the data to take action. This is especially true with respect to the
FEVS, where only 35.5 percent of employees at DHS believe that the
survey will be used to make meaningful improvements.
congressional stewardship
Congress also has responsibility for Federal employee morale
through its stewardship of Federal agencies.
Again, the overall FEVS score for DHS, with only a slight drop,
shows a remarkable resiliency of the Department's workforce in the
aftermath of a shutdown. Undoubtedly, though, budget instability--
shutdowns, threats of shutdowns, and continuing resolutions--are
detrimental to agencies.
Since its inception, DHS has been subject to 3 shutdowns--one of 16
days in fiscal year 2014, one of 2 days in fiscal year 2018, and the
35-day shutdown in fiscal year 2019. The Department has also operated
under 40 continuing resolutions over the last 10 years,\9\ many of
which have come to the brink of another shutdown until Congress
extended the life of the continuing resolution at the last minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Congressional Research Service, ``Continuing Resolutions:
Overview of Components and Practices,'' April 19, 2019, pp. 10-14,
retrieved at https://crsreports.Congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42647. In
addition to the continuing resolutions identified in this report, there
have been 2 continuing resolutions in fiscal year 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This constant budget instability requires leaders, managers, and
employees at all levels to divert attention from mission accomplishment
and management priorities (including employee engagement) to
contingency planning. Continuing resolutions make long-term planning
impossible, and even the threat of a Government shutdown results in a
huge waste of taxpayer dollars as agencies must notify grantees,
partners, vendors, and their own employees to prepare.
Following the most recent Government shutdown, many lawmakers
proposed or supported legislation to make Government shutdowns a thing
of the past. Ideas include automatic continuing resolutions when
Congress fails to pass appropriations bills on time, keeping Members of
Congress in Washington until appropriations bills are passed or making
appropriations bills the only business in order. We encourage you in
these efforts and believe that on-time appropriations and predictable
funding would improve morale at the Department and encourage innovation
and mission accomplishment.
The over-abundance of committees with jurisdiction over DHS also
complicates the management of the Department. With over 100 committees
and subcommittees having jurisdiction over the Department, its leaders
often receive conflicting directives that hinder the functioning of the
Department. This problem was recognized as early as the 9/11
Commission, which recommended consolidation of jurisdiction, but the
oversight of the Department today remains as splintered as when its
doors opened in 2003.
Leadership
Since the Best Places rankings began in 2003, one thing has been
clear--leadership is the No. 1 driver of employee engagement. Good
leaders motivate and advocate for their employees, build trust and
create the conditions necessary for employees to perform at their best.
In 2019, the Partnership developed the Public Service Leadership
Model. The model identifies the core values that leaders must
prioritize and the critical competencies they must master to achieve
their agencies' missions and desired impact. These include setting a
vision, empowering others and being accountable for results. We were
proud to create this model with a bipartisan group of distinguished
leaders from the public and private sectors, and in the months to come
we hope to work with Congress, the Executive branch, and others to
improve and measure overall leadership effectiveness.
While the DHS Best Places score for effective senior leadership
went up 1.2 points in 2019 (to 41.1), the Department still ranks below
13 other large agencies in that category. With a score of 49.3, the
Department ranks last among its large-agency peers in overall effective
leadership (an umbrella category that includes questions on senior
leaders, supervisors, fairness, and empowerment).
One factor that may exacerbate the leadership challenges at DHS is
the high degree of turnover in Senate-confirmed roles and the fact that
many are, and have been, vacant altogether. Currently, DHS has more
vacancies in Senate-confirmed positions than any other department, with
only 41 percent of those positions filled by a Senate-confirmed
appointee. The Department has been without a Senate-confirmed secretary
for 266 days, without a Senate-confirmed deputy secretary for 640 days,
and without a Senate-confirmed under secretary for management for 280
days, and there are no nominees for these positions. Other key
positions that are vacant with no nominee are the general counsel, the
under secretary for science and technology, and the director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Nominations for several other
positions are languishing in the Senate: The chief financial officer
(pending since March 2019), the director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (pending since May 2019), and the administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (pending since October 2019).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Senate is scheduled to consider the nomination for
administrator of FEMA this week so it is possible that this position
will be filled before this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While concurrent long-standing vacancies in the Department's
leadership have created a unique situation for the Department, unfilled
positions are not new. For example, at the time of Jeh Johnson's
nomination hearing for DHS Secretary in November 2013, there were 9
vacancies in PAS positions at DHS, including the positions of secretary
and deputy secretary.\11\ Then-nominee Johnson stated that if
confirmed, his immediate priority starting on the day he took the oath
would be to work with the White House and Senate to fill the vacancies
in senior leadership across the Department.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Statement of Senator Thomas R. Carper,'' Nomination of Hon.
Jeh C. Johnson to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
November 13, 2013. Retrieved from https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/Opening%20Statement-Carper-2013-11-131.pdf.
\12\ ``Statement of Jeh Johnson, on his nomination to serve as
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.'' Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, November 13, 2013.
Retrieved from https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Prepared%20State- ment-Johnson-2013-11-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality is that acting officials--even if they are seasoned and
highly regarded individuals--often lack the full perceived authority
that flows from Senate confirmation. Many acting officials do not feel
like it is their place to make long-term policy, operational, or
management decisions that will bind their successors.
I often make an analogy to substitute teachers here--they may be
skilled professionals who have much to offer the students but they are
not perceived by those around them as having the full authority of the
teacher, and they do not view themselves as having the right to make
decisions with long-term impact. Thad Allen, the former commandant of
the Coast Guard, has said that when there is a vacancy, ``people who
are in an acting capacity feel they do not have the power to make long-
term changes and do what they need to do.''\13\ Senior-level vacancies
stymie decision making, divert attention from management issues, slow
hiring decisions for other key positions, make employees feel uncertain
about the future or importance of their organization, and detract from
the mission as acting officials turn their focus to finding temporary
replacements to act in their own positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Partnership for Public Service, ``Government Disservice:
Overcoming Washington Dysfunction to Improve Congressional Stewardship
of the Executive Branch,'' September 2015. Retrieved from https://
ourpublicservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Government-
Disservice.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Partnership for Public Service launched the Political
Appointments Tracker with the Washington Post in 2017 to track roughly
700 key Executive branch nominations through the confirmation process.
These positions include secretaries, deputy and assistant secretaries,
C-suite positions, general counsels, and other positions that require
Senate confirmation. A look at DHS reveals a history of turnover in key
positions, and a grab-bag of nominations submitted and withdrawn,
announced but not formally submitted or waiting months for Senate
action.
While there are many reasons that positions subject to Senate
confirmation may be vacant, it is clear that the process for filling
these critical roles has become cumbersome, complex, and politicized to
the point that many jobs remain empty and talented people are reluctant
to serve. Congress, in particular the Senate given its advice and
consent role, has an opportunity to improve this process before the
next election and we would be pleased to share ideas with the
subcommittee if that would be of interest.
Vacancies are not the only leadership challenge in Government. Over
the years and across the Government, political leaders often have kept
their focus on policy and not the management of the agencies they lead,
which means employee morale is not a top priority. Political leaders
typically have shorter tenures in office which do not align to the
long-term efforts needed to improve employee engagement or address
management challenges.
At the same time, many senior career leaders who are tasked with
management and employee engagement are technical experts in their field
who lack strong management skills. Government-wide, only 41.8 percent
(and only 33.8 percent at DHS) believe that leaders in their
organization generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce. This underscores the importance of choosing only people who
have the desire and aptitude to manage people for Executive-level
management roles and equipping Federal leaders with the tools and
training necessary to lead people effectively.
recommendations
Both the Department and Congress have a role to play in efforts to
improve employee satisfaction.
For its part, Congress should:
Continue oversight.--The subcommittee today is helping to
identify long-standing problems with DHS morale and find
solutions. We encourage you to make this hearing an annual
occurrence. The subcommittee could follow up by holding a
hearing on DHS subcomponents that are doing well with employee
engagement, to help celebrate success and encourage
replication. Members of Congress should also visit the
Department's offices, both in the National Capital Region and
in the field, to get insight from managers and employees on the
front lines.
Hold leaders accountable.--In addition to holding leaders
accountable through oversight, this committee may want to
consider the approach taken by the VA Choice and Quality
Employment Act of 2017, which requires performance plans for VA
political employees.\14\ Performance plans for political
appointees should include managing their organizations and not
just implementing policy, and supporting efforts to recruit and
retain highly qualified talent, develop future leaders, engage
employees, and hold subordinate managers accountable for
addressing performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Pub. L. 115-46, VA Choice and Quality Improvement Act (Aug.
12, 2017), Section 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide continuity in management positions.--To help provide
continuity of operations and a long-term vision for the
Department, this committee should consider converting political
positions responsible for overall management and operations--
for example, some of the C-suite positions--to career executive
positions to be filled by individuals who are experts in their
field, with fixed terms and performance contracts. Another
approach would be to change the expectation that certain
politically-appointed positions turn over with a change in
administration; inspectors general are appointed without regard
to political affiliation and in general they are not asked to
resign at the end of a President's term. The IGs provide a
useful model for other roles where the duties are management
and operations versus policy, and where sustained leadership
and institutional knowledge would improve the Department's
ability to implement changes over time. The position of under
secretary for management is one position that might benefit
from a new model. In the span of the last 5 years, the position
has changed hands 5 times, as leadership has bounced from
confirmed to acting leaders. A long-term position, whether by
statute or expectation, to span administrations could set the
expectation that the office holder is driving long-term
management initiatives and should be insulated to some extent
from political whirlwinds. The position of comptroller general
at the Government Accountability Office is one such model.
Provide budget stability.--Bipartisan legislation \15\
introduced by Senators James Lankford and Maggie Hassan would
provide for an automatic continuing resolution at prior year
spending levels when Congress and the President fail to agree
on spending levels before expiration of existing
appropriations. The bill would also prohibit official travel
and require Congress to prioritize consideration of
appropriations until new spending bills are enacted. This bill
is an effective mix of carrots and sticks to avoid shutdowns.
Congress should also consider other budget process reforms,
such as adoption of a biennial budget resolution and multi-year
appropriations, to provide more budget stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ S. 3009, the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act of 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidate Congressional jurisdiction over DHS.--The
leaders of the House and Senate should streamline committee
jurisdiction over the Department or, at a minimum, initiate a
review. A bipartisan review commission was proposed in the last
Congress as part of the Department of Homeland Security
Authorization Act, which did not see final passage.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Department of Homeland Security Reauthorization Act, H.R.
2825, Title VII, 116th Congress, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Retrieved from https://
www.Congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt351/CRPT-115srpt351.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernize the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.--The
statute requiring annual employee satisfaction surveys dates to
2003.\17\ Congress should modernize the law to ensure that the
FEVS continues, that all agencies participate in the survey and
that the data is comparable across agencies and agency
components. The survey itself should be easy for Federal
employees to take, including employees in the field like border
patrol agents and TSA screeners, and agencies should receive
their data in a timely way that allows them to act on the
results before the next survey is in the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Pub. L. 108-136, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Nov. 24, 2003), Section 1128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS should:
Continue to improve data and metrics.--In its last High-Risk
update, GAO found that DHS has made progress establishing
metrics of success within components' action plans for
addressing employee satisfaction problems. This is never a one-
and-done exercise.\18\ The Department will need to continue to
use the data to probe frustrations with workforce processes,
technology or norms, including by soliciting feedback from
employees and employee organizations. Pulse surveys and exit
surveys are also useful tools to supplement the FEVS. Leaders
then need to work with managers and employees to translate the
vision into action, with a clear and effective communications
strategy. Finally, leaders must hold themselves accountable
through their performance plans, and celebrate success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series:
Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk
Series (March 2019), p. 188. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/
700/697245.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensure that political leaders are focused on engagement and
management.--The Department's senior political leaders should
be individuals who have experience managing large organizations
and accept responsibility for the performance and operations of
the Department. They should be held accountable for management,
including employee engagement, in their performance plans. The
Department should also maintain a robust orientation program
for new political appointees--some of whom may be new to the
Federal Government. This would improve political appointees'
ability to increase employee engagement, improve retention,
enhance performance, and work within and across agencies to
achieve results.
Enhance career leadership development.--DHS should be
commended for its commitment to leadership development efforts
such as the DHS Executive Capstone program, training for DHS
executives that focuses on the development of key leadership
qualities but also looks to broaden the executives' awareness
of leadership decision making and their role across Government.
The Partnership is proud to work with DHS in delivering the
curriculum for this program. The Department should continue to
strengthen and invest in leadership training at all levels to
improve the skills of existing leaders and develop the next
generation of leaders. These efforts should include manager and
supervisor training, rotation requirements for aspiring leaders
(so that they understand the Department as a whole), and other
mobility opportunities that give leaders a greater depth of
experience.
Create a culture of continual learning, reskilling, and
upskilling.--The Department's scores on training and
development have been trending up since 2015, but once again
this is a category where DHS ranks last among large agencies.
Only 33.4 percent of DHS employees are satisfied with their
opportunity to get a better job within their organization. Our
recent look at reskilling and upskilling in both Government and
the private sector reaffirms these efforts in the President's
Management Agenda.\19\ Opportunities for rotations, public-
private talent exchanges, and other professional development
opportunities not only speak to a workforce that increasingly
expects mobility in careers, but also helps break down
stovepipes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Partnership for Public Service and General Assembly, ``Looking
Inward for Talent: Retraining Employees for Tomorrow's Jobs,''
September 2019. Retrieved from https://ourpublicservice.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/09/Looking-Inward-for-Talent.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Executive and Legislative branches should:
Work to fill vacancies.--While the President has the
responsibility for making nominations, Congress should, where
appropriate, convert Senate-confirmed positions to Presidential
appointments not requiring confirmation, and should work to
reduce the overall number of appointments. This would allow the
White House to focus on the most important appointees. The
Partnership has also recommended that the Senate revisit its
``privileged nomination'' process to make it the streamlined
process it was intended to be for nominations that are not
controversial, and to work with the Executive branch to
streamline the paperwork required of nominees. Congress should
also reexamine the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to ensure
clarity in the law, including surrounding the interplay of the
FVRA and agency-specific succession acts.
conclusion
As recently as 2017, the Partnership recognized DHS as the most
improved large agency in our rankings. With attention to the
recommendations discussed today--and with the help and support of
Congress--the Department could reclaim that mantle and make even
further progress. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
the subcommittee today. I look forward to continuing to work with both
the subcommittee and the Department in support of strengthening DHS
employment engagement.
Ms. Torres Small. Wow, impeccably timed, Mr. Stier. That
was well-done.
I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel.
I will now recognize myself for questions.
According to the ``Best Places to Work'' rankings produced
by the Partnership for Public Service since 2012, the
Department of Homeland Security has ranked last among all large
Federal agencies. It also ranks, as I mentioned before, last
among agencies involved in the National security space.
I want to start with Mr. Currie, and then I will go to Ms.
Bailey.
What are your reactions to these rankings?
Actually, I will start with you, Ms. Bailey. What are your
reactions to these rankings? Do you believe the Department
suffers from low morale?
Ms. Bailey. I appreciate the question, Chairwoman.
With regard to the rankings, it is something that
absolutely that we pay attention to, as well as we pay
attention to the FEVS scores in total. One of the things that
we try to do is pivot off of that and look down into the root
causes, get out into the field and actually talk not only to
the leadership, but talk to the employees themselves.
I have gone down to the border several times. I have gone
out to the FEMA installations, to TSA, to a variety of places,
and sat down with the employees and really talked through with
them, not so much about our--I am sorry.
Ms. Torres Small. Just to make sure, do you believe that
DHS does suffer from low morale?
Ms. Bailey. I believe that we certainly have room for
improvement, but as far as from a morale standpoint, I think
one of the other things that we also look at is the fact that--
and I believe it was mentioned earlier--that 86 percent of our
employees will put in the extra effort to get the job done,
that they believe in the mission that they are doing.
So even despite everything that they are doing, the austere
conditions, the difficult work, and sometimes thankless job
that they have, they still every day come to work and try to do
the very best that they possibly can.
Ms. Torres Small. It is clear you have some exceptional
employees, and we need to recognize that as we work to improve
morale so that folks feel supported in their jobs.
Mr. Currie, Ms. Bailey mentioned a few of the reasons, the
austere conditions, the difficult job. Do you feel like that is
a full and complete explanation for the low morale challenges?
Mr. Currie. Oh, no way. I mean, I think there are a lot of
agencies across Government that have extremely difficult
missions and that are under intense public and Congressional
scrutiny, too. So it is not enough just to chalk the reasons up
to those reasons.
What we see in the root cause analysis and in the responses
to the survey is there are a lot of just core management issues
that come into play here, things that all of us want in a
workplace that we come to every day. Do I trust my supervisor?
Does management communicate with me? Is there transparency? Do
I understand how I am rated? Are other employees held
accountable for their performance?
I mean, these are core management issues that all agencies,
private and public, face. I think DHS has made a lot of
progress over the years maturing as a Department, but I think
where they are with the scores now shows that they still have a
long way to go.
Ms. Torres Small. Mr. Stier, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Stier. I think that the real issue again is leadership.
We see in our research that about two-thirds of the employee
engagement scores are driven by perceptions of leadership. I
think that is where the biggest gain can be made here.
So, again, really important to give kudos to the good
things that they have done already and to understand that we
are talking about an average when we talk about DHS, that you
have got components that are exceptional and then you have ones
that are struggling more. So pulling that apart is very
valuable.
The other piece I would suggest is, even within those
components, when you pull them apart you can actually see huge
variation, and that tells you a lot about what actually is
possible.
So just a mind exercise. If you took every component in DHS
at their highest score over the course of the rankings we have
done, they would be actually at 15 percent points higher, they
would be a number at 60. So we know there is a higher ceiling
there. Given other externalities, there still is a higher
ceiling.
Ms. Torres Small. Great. So we are talking about the higher
ceiling there.
Mr. Currie, in terms of the current situation about where
we are, what are the risks associated with not going back to
that high ceiling or finding those moments for increased
morale?
Mr. Currie. Well, I think that this is one of the things I
wanted to mention today, is that I think sometimes there tends
to be a tendency to look at human capital matters and morale
separately from the mission, and they are not separate. It has
been proven that places that have much higher morale and
employee engagements do better work, they are more productive,
and they have less turnover, which is a huge problem, for
example, in Customs and Border Protection with agent turnover.
So morale has a huge impact on the mission.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
I will yield my time for now since I don't have time for
another question. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Again, thank you all for being here.
I want to start with flexibility in hiring and firing. It
is one of the major issues that CBP, FPS, and other components
face, is their authorized strength and meeting the billets that
they have. That is one reason I proposed H.R. 1609, the Anti-
Border Corruption Improvement Act, which would streamline
hiring in CBP by giving waivers to law enforcement and military
as far as the polygraph requirement goes.
There is, of course, an issue with underperformers and how
you deal with that, and how underperformers can sap the morale
and energy of an organization.
So, beginning with Ms. Bailey, maybe you could address that
and how that does affect morale. I will leave it to the rest of
the panel as well.
Ms. Bailey. There is no doubt that underperformers affect
the morale of a work force. It is not just really a supervisor
issue. It is a colleague issue as well. So it is something that
we do focus our attention on.
In fact, one of the things that we just established is a
disciplinary process management oversight council that I am co-
chair actually with Chief Huffman out of CBP.
Every single component participates on that. We brought in
our offices of professional responsibility as well as our
security offices to really look at all of the allegations, look
at how we are handling those disciplinary actions, performance-
based actions, and making sure that it is not just that we are
consistent, but that we are actually handling those things in a
timely fashion so that they are not just hanging out there.
Because nothing is worse than us not just taking the
action, but then not doing it in a timely fashion. So it is
something that we are pretty dogged about in making sure that
we address.
Mr. Crenshaw. If there is an action that would warrant
removal of that employee, how long does it generally take to
actually fire that employee?
Ms. Bailey. We actually looked into that. It can take
anywhere from 120 to 240 days to actually remove an employee.
Mr. Crenshaw. What about hiring? Flexibility in hiring, how
would that improve DHS morale?
Ms. Bailey. Well, one of the things that we have actually
introduced is the DHS Enhanced Hiring Act, and it has a two-
prong approach to it that I think would actually help us to
enhance our flexibility with hiring.
One is that right now there are multiple ways for veterans
to be able to be hired, all kinds of different hiring
authorities. What we would love to do is consolidate that down
to 1 so that we could hire any veteran, whether we are at a
military transition center, a university, a black hat event,
wherever we are at, our ability to hire a veteran.
We have talked to our own Veteran Service Organizations,
and we have talked to the National Veterans Organizations as
well with regard to this, because we really think it is
important that we have the ability to hire veterans as
efficiently as possible.
The second prong of this is that once we maintain 20
percent or more of our veterans on board, which DHS is at
almost 30 percent, that we have the ability then, through any
source, to be able to hire the rest of our employees.
Mr. Crenshaw. That is excellent.
We are going to come back to black-hat hiring, but before
we do, Mr. Currie and Mr. Stier, do you have anything to add to
the hiring and firing flexibility?
Mr. Currie. Well, I think your bill, I think one of the
things it does is to allow people that we know are already
vetted to not have to undergo all the vetting again. I think
there is no way to argue that doesn't make sense.
The other thing I would say is hiring and firing, those are
very concrete things, but I think organizations that have a
strong performance culture where even if you can't fire people
or it takes a year to fire someone, if they know their leaders
are giving real feedback to people and they are being held
accountable even within the agency, that makes a huge
difference for people's morale, too.
Mr. Stier. I think that this is deeply entwined with the
morale of the organization, because they are mission-based
organizations, and having the right people doing the work well
is fundamental to your connection to the ability to get stuff
done.
So I do think these are issues that ought to be focused on.
I think Ms. Bailey, the legislation she talked about is an
important step in the right direction. On the hiring side, it
is way, way too challenging.
On the firing side, one thing I would advocate for is--and
actually in both instances--that this is, in my view, the core
part of this is actually a management problem as opposed to a
rule problem, that managers aren't actually either selected for
their capabilities around hiring and firing people, giving good
performance feedback, and they are not held accountable for it.
There are also some ways that you might do things that are
easier to change the overall system. So one proposal we have
had is you have a year typical probation period. After that
year, you become nonprobationary. Our perspective is, why?
Shouldn't there have to be an affirmative choice by a manager
that you meet the qualifications necessary to stay rather than
having that done by default, so managers are actually doing
their job. Did they, in fact, bring the right talent on board?
If you do that, you are going to have many fewer people that
you are going to have to fire.
So I think there are solutions to this that are more than
just, hey, let's just make this simpler to fire people faster,
that get at those management issues.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with our
committee rules, I will recognize Members who are present at
the start of the hearing, based on seniority on the
subcommittee, alternating between Majority and Minority. Those
Members coming in later will be recognized in order of their
arrival.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California,
Congresswoman Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bailey, did you take the survey?
Ms. Bailey. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. So the first question on the survey says:
Would you recommend your organization as a good place to work?
Ms. Bailey. Absolutely.
Ms. Barragan. The second question is: Considering
everything, how satisfied are you with your job, very
satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied, dissatisfied, or very
dissatisfied?
Ms. Bailey. Very satisfied.
Ms. Barragan. Considering everything, how satisfied are you
with your organization?
Ms. Bailey. Very satisfied.
Ms. Barragan. Why do you think your responses are so very
different than those of your colleagues in your Department
where you work, in your part of the organization, given that it
ranked so low? Any idea?
Ms. Bailey. Well, one part of this is that I think my
scores are reflective of many employees within DHS. As we have
said before, you have USCIS, Coast Guard, who have some of the
highest-ranking component scores. We have Secret Service that
has gone up by 15 points.
Ms. Barragan. Ms. Bailey, I am asking specifically about
DHS's Management Directorate itself, which houses the Office of
Chief Human Capital Officer. Is that where you work?
Ms. Bailey. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. It is ranked in the bottom 25 percent of
Federal offices and has seen employee morale decrease over the
last 2 years. So I am asking, why do you think your responses
are so very different than your colleagues? Do you have any
idea why that might be the case?
Ms. Bailey. One of the things that we really need to do is
dig in a little bit deeper from the management level. I will
tell you that we spend a tremendous amount of our time looking
at the components and seeing where they are going, addressing
their root causes.
So I would say that one of the areas that I would like to
focus my attention on is digging in deeper into that issue.
Why are my scores this way? Because I absolutely have
fantastic leadership that supports me every step of the way,
get the money that I need with regard to our Employee and
Family Readiness programs. I have top-level support for what we
are trying to do for the employees throughout the Department.
That is the viewpoint I see.
Ms. Barragan. Are those efforts that are being made now the
ones you are mentioning that you want to see? Do you know if
there is something being done on that to dig deeper?
Ms. Bailey. Absolutely, I know that those programs are
being deployed. They are being deployed as we speak across the
Department.
Ms. Barragan. OK. So you testified in your opening
statement that workers are simply doing their job. Do you
remember saying that?
Ms. Bailey. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. Well, employees in the Department have been
asked to carry out policies, some of which they don't agree
with. What do you think that does to employee morale?
Ms. Bailey. As employees of the Department of Homeland
Security it is really--and as civil servants--it is our
responsibility to carry out the policies of the administration.
Ms. Barragan. But do you think that carrying out a policy
you don't agree with decreases employee morale?
Ms. Bailey. I believe that there are areas in which we can
work with our employees to help them better understand our
policies, to ensure that they are able to carry those out to
the best of their ability.
Ms. Barragan. Well, then let's talk about the separation of
women and children. How has the policy of separating women and
children from their parents affected DHS employee morale? You
just said, let's help them understand why they should do that.
There is a good example of policy where we heard people did not
agree with. They had to carry it out. How do you explain to
that employee and say, this is why you should be doing this and
this is why it is good policy?
Ms. Bailey. One of the things that we do is--and we really
do sit down with the employees and just have a conversation
with regard to the policies, make sure that they are able to
carry out these policies.
Ms. Barragan. I am asking a very specific question, Ms.
Bailey. It is a very specific question. Do you think that
employees who have to carry out this inhumane policy to
separate children from their parents, do you think that helped
employee morale? It is a yes or no.
Ms. Bailey. You know, without the data to actually look at
that----
Ms. Barragan. You don't know the data about the impact that
it had on children and parents and what that has done to
employees?
You, yourself, mentioned, Ms. Bailey, that these employees
are mothers and fathers. You don't think there was an impact,
that there was an employee who has children, to see these
children ripped away from their parents, as parents themselves?
You don't--you want to see data on that? Really?
That is kind-of sad, because you have just got to look at
parents and ask them, and your coworkers. There is not data to
look at here, although there is plenty of data about the mental
health impacts this has had on children and parents. So if you
don't start by identifying that, then I think that is a
concern.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam, gentlemen, thank you for appearing today. I have a
couple of phases to my questions, so we are going to move
rather quickly.
One is referencing the responsibility of inflammatory or
vitriolic rhetoric coming out of this body directed at DHS and
how that might affect morale.
Before I go there, let me ask, just yes or no across the
board, have any of you ever been a member of the military or a
member of, say, a paramilitary organization like a police
force?
Madam.
Ms. Bailey. No, but I was married to an Army veteran.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Let me clarify. Outside of administration,
have you worked the street or been in the field? It is not a
derogatory question. We just need to clarify.
Sir.
Mr. Currie. No, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Sir.
Mr. Stier. No.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Well, let me share with you that my
experience, and I believe certainly my veteran colleagues on
this committee would likely agree, morale has a tendency to be
unit-specific or company-specific when measured generally.
Platoon-specific, even individual-specific. That there is
always that guy that is the light of the group and lends
increased morale to his colleagues, his brothers and sisters
that he serves with. So the vastness of the DHS and how it is
structured or not structured I am going to get to.
Before I get there, let's talk about inflammatory and
vitriolic statements. Members of this Congress, for example,
have made accusations that DHS was intentionally killing young
immigrant children, made comments that DHS exists within a
culture of violence and racism, made comments that DHS is a
rogue agency operating beyond the bounds of the law, made
comments that DHS is running concentration camps along the
Southern U.S. Border.
On top of that, months of denial that a crisis at our
Southern Border even existed, followed by months of delay to
issue supplemental funding to address it.
So I ask the panel, yes or no, do you acknowledge that
vitriol from elected officials has no doubt contributed to the
very morale that we are discussing? Do you think demonizing
rhetoric coming from Members of Congress and shared heavily by
the media can have damaging effects on morale at DHS?
Ms. Bailey.
Ms. Bailey. Yes, and I have seen the personal effects of
it.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Currie.
Mr. Currie. Well, I don't have any way of measuring it, but
I don't see how it could help.
Mr. Higgins. Good answer.
Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. Certainly public figures who denigrate civil
servants, that will cause a reduction in morale.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Thank you, madam and gentlemen.
Moving quickly to my next phase. Of the 17 agencies, Mr.
Stier, that you state that DHS ranked 17 of 17, quote/unquote,
large agencies in the matrix that you measure, does DHS have
the dubious distinction of being the only large agency that has
never been fully authorized by this Congress?
Mr. Stier. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Higgins. I believe you are correct in your answer, sir.
Mr. Stier. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. In the 115th Congress, under Chairman McCaul,
we passed a bill through this House granting full authorization
for DHS which didn't go anywhere. Many Members of this
Congress, my colleagues across the aisle, voted against that
full authorization, and it could not get past cloture in the
Senate to get to the floor vote.
So DHS in your opening statement you said operates under an
overabundance of committees with jurisdiction over DHS. This is
precisely what full authorization of DHS would fix, because it
currently exists as a fractured agency reflective of the many
agencies that existed prior to the manifestation of DHS. You
have jurisdiction across 8 or 9 committees rather than focused
on one central control and command and one committee, which
should be this committee, Madam Chair, this committee as a
whole, with oversight responsibilities for DHS.
So I would suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle that we focus on fixing the problems that we know to
exist, that we should function as a Congress and bring full
authorization to DHS, and address the words that we use out of
this body to discuss these men and women.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you very much.
We are going to do a second round of questions if folks
want to stick around. I appreciate the comment, in terms of
focusing on the things we can change.
With that, Mr. Stier, you mentioned in your opening
comments some of the improvements that have been made through
components like the Coast Guard, Cyber--CISA, as well as the
Secret Service. Can you provide some highlights and some top
lines for lessons learned there that might be applied more
Department-wide?
Mr. Stier. Certainly. I think it again comes down to
leaders who are doing great jobs. I would point to Tex Alles
again, who was the--he may have been the first non-Secret
Service agent to become the head of that component. I think he
turned it around and did a fabulous job. He is now the acting
under secretary.
It underscores another one of the recommendations, which
would be if you had someone like that who was there for 5, 6,
7, 8 years in the under secretary for management position, I
think you would see all kinds of great things that could
happen.
It begins with the point that Chris made, which is a
recognition that, fundamentally, mission is about people, that
mission is about having people who are the right folks in the
job, who are supported in doing what they care about.
One other I think stat that we have not yet cited which I
think is so phenomenally powerful, and it is true at DHS and it
is true across the entire Government, and that is that the
people are there for the mission. So it is close to 94 percent
of the DHS work force would go the extra mile in order to get
the job done.
What is interesting is NASA is the No. 1 agency in our
rankings. Those numbers are not really any fundamentally
different. The mission commitment numbers are the same. It is
really the leadership numbers that change.
So you asked for specific examples, and I think it begins
at the top. It begins with leaders who see this as a primary
part of their function, and it is about creating that
relationship of trust with their work force, so that they are
able to believe that their voice is being heard and being
responded to in a fundamental way.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
Mr. Stier. So a lot of this stuff seems very
straightforward and basic, but, in truth, it is and it is also
not done all that often.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Stier.
Mr. Currie, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Currie. I would like to piggyback off that issue of
trust. I think one of the things we have noticed in components
that have increased their scores is that there has been a
concerted effort by the leadership to listen to the employees,
and not just listen to the employees, but actually show them
how they are implementing their suggestions and implementing
their feedback, because that builds trust. There are a lot of
very specific things you can do to address that.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Currie.
Ms. Bailey, can you explain any efforts that you have on-
going to listen to the employees and then show that you are
responding to their feedback?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, absolutely. I think one of them is our
Employee and Family Readiness initiative actually is something
I would really like to talk about, because the FEVS scores
really only tell you a bit of the picture. Going down and
actually sitting down with the employees and talking to them
and trying to understand what it is that really could help them
not just on the job but also help them as a whole person.
So some of the things that we have really looked at is the
general stress. When you are out on the border--and I have
witnessed agents whose hands are shaking as they are trying to
in-process a 6-year-old that they found abandoned in the
desert. I have witnessed when they--I have not witnessed, but I
get the suicides that come across my desk. Just today, right
before I came in here, another Border Patrol agent died.
So, seeing all of these kinds of things, we know that we
have to treat this issue as the whole person. So it is not just
about the employee----
Ms. Torres Small. I am sorry, I just want to make sure I
can get specifically how you have shown that you are responding
to employee feedback.
Ms. Bailey. So in meeting with them, we know that general
stress, dealing with their personal relationship issues. We
have delivered training for them, mindfulness training, to help
them with their general stress. We have delivered stronger
bonds training to help them with their personal relationships.
We have delivered financial literacy for them to help them
with their financial concerns. We have also created a mental
health website to help them with their mental health as well
and introduce them to employee assistance programs and
dependent care as well.
So those are examples of how we have listened to them and
we have deployed what they have asked for.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Ms. Bailey.
Just quickly, one of the main concerns that was highlighted
was the failure in leadership opportunity and creating training
within leadership. So can you explain any plans you have for
new programs within that space?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, absolutely.
So with regard to leadership development, it is not just
about our SES. We have fantastic programs for our SES, in fact,
some of the best I have seen in my 38 years.
But one of the other things that we are doing is trying to
go down much deeper into the organization and provide
leadership development training for all of our employees. So we
have things called joint fellows programs, joint duty programs,
bridges programs that help at the 7/9/11 level.
So the point is is that what we are really trying to do is
create a leadership cadre with every employee, not just our
leadership.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you very much.
My time has expired. I now recognize my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Regarding the question, assuming it was asked in good
faith, about the decrease in morale because of policies needed
to be implemented by the administration, it is worth pointing
out the child separation policy was ended in June 2018, and yet
2019 we had a decrease in ICE and CBP morale.
I don't yell at CBP agents; I talk to them. I talk to
hundreds of them. It is pretty obvious to me what worries them.
The fact that people are literally attacking ICE facilities and
verbally attacking them from the highest places in Government,
it is pretty obvious what keeps them awake at night.
But back to what is working. I mentioned before I wanted to
get to the black hat hiring. A lot of people don't realize what
that is, but that involves cyber work force, which is extremely
important considering what will inevitably be an increase in
cyber attacks on the homeland as we engage with actors like
Russia, China, Iran, and nonstate actors, and the need to
protect our infrastructure and private industry.
So tell me about black hat hiring and how that is
increasing our hiring flexibility and helpful toward Homeland
Security.
Ms. Bailey. Yes, Congressman.
Well, one of the things that we did--and thank you to
Congress--actually is we received Title 6 authority, which gave
us the authority to basically look at our cybersecurity work
force and recreate everything about the way that we recruit,
hire, retain, pay, compensate our cyber work force.
We have taken absolute full advantage of that, giving us
the opportunity now to be able to go into some of these
different conferences, hold job hiring events at that point,
and be able to hire these folks on the spot. We are able to do
market-sensitive pay, so that we can pay them in accordance
with what they should be paid and not be tied to the antiquated
GS system.
We will also eliminate the classification and the
qualification. It is based on a 1929 system that doesn't work
for anybody. So instead, what we are going to do, we have
worked with our subject-matter experts to make sure that the
capabilities that we are going to hire folks for actually match
the mission in which we have a need for.
So, with that--and I have full support of CISA as well as
our CIO community, and we will implement that this year.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. How many more employees do you expect to
hire under that new program?
Ms. Bailey. I think roughly--I am not sure it is going to
be more employees. More so it is going to be that we are going
to start--well, let me put it this way. We will hire probably
about 150 this year, add another 350 next year.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mostly under CISA?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, mostly CISA. Then also our CISO community,
that is our chief information security officer community,
throughout the Department.
Mr. Crenshaw. One question that has come up to me before
is, thinking outside the box here and the ability of Border
Patrol and ICE, there to be more flexibility between switching
between Border Patrol and ICE, namely because of the locational
preference.
Ms. Bailey. Right.
Mr. Crenshaw. Sort-of like if you think of the military on
shore duty versus sea duty.
Has there been any discussion of that? Is that feasible at
all and would that help morale?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, actually, and we track all of that. So one
of the things that we have done for CBP--because you are
absolutely right. After serving so much time on the border, it
is kind-of like a deployment, if you will. Then what we have is
a rotation program in which they can then opt to go to a
different location. Or we work with them. ICE has a lot of more
urban locations. So that way their spouses and their families
have opportunities that they might not have had on a border
town. So we have a lot of these.
We also have instituted retention incentives, as well as
special pay, critical pay, everything that we can think of to
ensure that they are given what they need to do the job.
Mr. Crenshaw. Excellent.
In my limited time left, recently there was I think a win
for paid family leave in the Federal Government. How do you
anticipate that playing out on both morale and also readiness?
Ms. Bailey. Well, I think it goes into effect in October.
So OPM will regulate it, and we will have to see with that.
But with us, I think it is just like any other flexibility.
I mean, today they can use Family Medical Leave Act, they can
use sick leave, annual leave, a variety of leave.
So I think we will manage it the same way we do every other
flexibility. I don't anticipate that we are going to have a lot
of difficulty, because we will at least be able to plan--
hopefully 9 months in advance, right?--that we can plan for the
readiness that we will need to address.
Mr. Crenshaw. Excellent. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
I now recognize for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Stier and Mr. Currie, the U.S. Secret Service is one of
the departments, one of the areas that had been experiencing
some negative morale, bad morale, maybe the best way to say it
is a decrease in morale. For the last several years there has
been a turnaround there. The U.S. Secret Service Director, Mr.
Randolph Alles, was part of the turnaround and was there when
that was occurring.
I want to talk a little bit about when you denigrate
employees. The President of the United States was doing that
with the director of the U.S. Secret Service while he was
turning it around. He ridiculed him, calling him names before
he fired him.
What do you think that does to employee morale?
Mr. Currie. Well, as I said when I answered Mr. Higgins, I
don't think it can help. But I think employee morale, frankly,
is a lot more complicated when you are looking at an agency
across 15,000 to 20,000 people. There are just a number of
factors that go into how people answer that survey.
Ms. Barragan. I understand. I am trying to ask, you don't--
do you think there is a negative impact when the President of
the United States is basically calling names of the director of
the U.S. Secret Service who has been turning around the Secret
Service to increase morale?
Mr. Currie. Well, ma'am, I don't have any data showing what
sort of impact that has on morale across such a large
organization. It certainly doesn't help morale, but I think
there are so many factors that go into an individual's morale
as a component and a component morale that I think it is a
difficult question to answer.
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Stier, do you have an opinion?
Mr. Stier. So, Congresswoman, I think there is no question
that when senior leaders in any aspect of our society, but
certainly ones that are actually running the Government, have
negative things to say about their employees or the civil
servants that are there as career merit-based employees, it is
a bad thing.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Thank you for saying that.
Mr. Stier. We ought to have political leaders across the
board and just understand that this is a problem that we have
seen not just now, but it is one that we have seen for decades.
I think it is a mistake, because fundamentally these are folks
that are working for the American people. They are working not
for any particular policy that the political leadership
decides. They are working on the basis of supporting the
Constitution of the United States.
So fundamentally one of the things that we do as an
organization is the Service to America medals, where we try to
highlight great stories of Federal employees. We would
welcome--we are actually getting nominations right now--we
would welcome nominations from any of you on the panel.
We need to create a culture of recognition. In my view,
again, focus on the good, you are going to create more uplift
than anything else that is possible to get done.
Ms. Barragan. Great.
Mr. Stier, there are currently 13 senior positions vacant
throughout the Department from the Secretary and deputy
secretary to the heads of CBP and ICE. Most of these role are
filled by acting officials.
Mr. Stier. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. What effect does a lack of permanent
leadership have in an organization's ability to promote that
positive change you are talking about?
Mr. Stier. The metaphor for me, it is like the substitute
teacher we have all experienced before. You can be an amazing
educator, but if you are the substitute teacher you don't,
yourself, perceive your job as the long-term difficult
problems, and those on the outside, the class, the children,
other teachers, don't see you as that long-term partner either.
So it diminishes the ability of leadership to do their job
well, and it is a mistake.
So I would say that part of the problem here is a systemic
one. We have 1,200 Senate-confirmed positions. That is too many
to actually get through the Senate. So one of the things we
would advocate for is fewer Senate-confirmed positions. Then
disaggregating them, taking the operating ones, like the under
secretary for management, away from the policy ones, and trying
to create long-term continuity among them.
One of the best things this committee could ever do for the
Department of Homeland Security is to keep Tex Alles in the job
of under secretary for management as the confirmed individual
in there for a lengthy period of time. You would see huge
improvement. So creating that as a structural option would be
fantastic.
Ms. Barragan. Great.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bailey, would you clarify for the committee and for the
American people watching the survey that we are referring to
across the agencies of DHS, how exactly is that survey
administered to the employees?
Ms. Bailey. The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Bailey. It goes out by OPM to every employee who is on
the rolls by, I think it is October 1.
Mr. Higgins. So it is on-line?
Ms. Bailey. It is on-line.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Is it mandatory or voluntary?
Ms. Bailey. It is voluntary.
Mr. Higgins. All right. In your experiences, folks that are
unhappy make a little more noise than folks that are happy?
Ms. Bailey. We make a tremendous effort to make sure
everybody fills out that Employee Viewpoint----
Mr. Higgins. What kind of effort? Is there a great deal of
encouragement to fill out the--you said it is voluntary.
Ms. Bailey. Yes. So sometimes we hold contests. We do
different things that we have leadership really support----
Mr. Higgins. I see. So at the field level, there is a
creative interaction----
Ms. Bailey. Yes.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Within that unit to encourage
participation in the survey?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, because it gives us valuable information
that allows us to at least have a jumping-off point to----
Mr. Higgins. OK. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify for
all of us and for those watching that this is a voluntary
survey, and DHS is doing its best to force it to--to permeate
it through the entire agency.
Ms. Bailey. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. It is quite a challenge to get everyone to
fill out that survey, isn't it?
Ms. Bailey. Well, yes, it is absolutely a challenge because
not everybody has a computer. It is not Washington, DC.
Mr. Higgins. Thank God.
Ms. Bailey. I can tell you, pulling a TSO off the line to
take this can be a little bit challenging. But we have figured
out a way to do it.
Mr. Higgins. So let me ask your opinion about stress, Mr.
Stier. Generally speaking, is it your experience that when an
individual is in a period of stress they will be less satisfied
with their job, especially if that is the cornerstone of what
is creating the stress at their job? Would they be less
satisfied with their job or more satisfied?
Mr. Stier. So I am going to just offer you a quick anecdote
why I am going to give an answer that may not be what you are
expecting.
When we first did the ``Best Places to Work'' rankings, the
very first year, the Office of Management and Budget was the
No. 1 ranked agency. It was before we made small, medium, and
large. No. 1 overall employee engagement. They were the last on
work-life balance.
The reason why they were No. 1 was they were working as
hard as possible, they were working like dogs, but they knew
that when they did was important and they felt important.
So I would say to you, it depends on the nature of the
stress. This is a mission-oriented work force. They care about
what they are doing. Sometimes stress is part and parcel of
achieving mission, and then it is going to be OK. If it is
stress for wrong reasons, when you don't know who your boss is
going to be, when you don't have the information you need to do
your job well, if you don't think you are going to get the help
that you need, that kind of stress, not good for morale.
Mr. Higgins. In the Department of Homeland Security some of
the stresses we are dealing with, a complex woven web of
challenges for the men and women, on the border dealing with
remote areas, difficult to have opportunities for a family
there, dealing with incredible volumes of crossings on the
border that we have never seen before. The types of crossings,
it certainly changed over the course of the last several years.
I will leave you with this question, Mr. Stier, in my
remaining time. If any reasonable person could have projected
the kind of volumes of crossings that we are dealing with on
the border and the totality of circumstance that DHS is dealing
with, and if one would have presumed, say, 5 or 6 years ago,
that the Department would still have remained not fully
authorized by Congress, would a reasonable perspective from 5
or 6 years ago have projected a decline in morale, a challenged
morale within the agency, based upon what we are dealing with
right now?
Mr. Stier. I think it is entirely dependent upon the
leadership.
So I am with you on the issue of the only recommendation
from the 9/11 Commission that hasn't been enacted is the one
you are describing, which is Congress should create a mirror to
the Executive branch. So entirely with you that that creates a
lot of trouble for the Department, to have multiple oversight
bodies. There shouldn't be. There should be one.
But I would say to you that all the challenges you are
describing, good leaders can manage them, and good leaders that
are both political and career, that have continuity, because,
again, I think it is the short-term nature of the leadership
that is a source point of a lot of the challenge, would be able
to manage the kinds of difficulties you are describing very
well.
Mr. Higgins. Excellent. Very thoughtful and insightful
answers.
Madam Chair, I yield, and thank you for holding this
hearing.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
I thank all the witnesses for their valuable testimony and
the Members for their questions.
Before adjourning, I ask unanimous consent to submit two
statements for the record. The first is from the National
Treasury Employees Union, which represents Customs and Border
Protection officers. The second statement is from the American
Federation of Government Employees, which represents nearly
100,000 DHS employees.
Without objection, so admitted.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
January 14, 2020
Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit
this statement for the record. As president of the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that
represents over 27,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of
Field Operations (OFO) employees, including CBP Officers, Agriculture
Specialists and trade enforcement personnel stationed at 328 land, sea,
and air ports of entry across the United States (U.S.) and 16
Preclearance stations in Ireland, the Caribbean, Canada, and United
Arab Emirates airports. CBP's OFO pursues a dual mission of
safeguarding American ports, by protecting the public from dangerous
people and materials, while enhancing the Nation's global and economic
competitiveness by enabling legitimate trade and travel. CBP OFO
employees are responsible for border security, including anti-
terrorism, immigration, anti-smuggling, trade compliance, and
agriculture protection at U.S. ports of entry.
CBP OFO employees at the ports of entry are the second-largest
source of revenue collection for the U.S. Government. In 2018, CBP
processed more than $2.8 trillion in imports and collected
approximately $44 billion in duties, taxes, and other fees. Their role
of facilitating legal trade and travel is a significant economic driver
for private-sector jobs and economic growth. According to CBP, for
every 1,000 CBP Officers hired there is an increase in the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of $2 billion; $642 million in opportunity costs
are saved (the amount of time that a traveler could be using for
purposes other than waiting in line, such as working or enjoying
leisure activities); and 33,148 annual jobs are added.
In addition, according to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the
volume of commerce crossing our borders has more than tripled in the
past 25 years. Long wait times lead to delays and travel time
uncertainty, which can increase supply chain and transportation costs.
According to the Department of Commerce, border delays result in losses
to output, wages, jobs, and tax revenue due to decreases in spending by
companies, suppliers, and consumers. JEC research finds border delays
cost the U.S. economy between $90 million and $5.8 billion each year.
on-going morale issues at dhs
Adequate staffing at CBP ports of entry is critical to our Nation's
economic vitality. In order to attract talented applicants, however,
Federal agencies must also recognize the importance of employee
engagement and fair treatment in their workplace. Unfortunately, low
morale has been a consistent challenge at DHS. For 6 consecutive years
the Partnership for Public Service (PPS) Best Places to Work in the
Federal Government ranked DHS last among large agencies surveyed. In
2019, PPS ranked CBP as 380th out of 420 component agencies surveyed
with a drop of 2.1 percent from 51.6 percent in 2018 to 49.5 percent in
2019.
The Best Places to Work results raise serious questions about the
Department's ability to recruit and retain the top-notch personnel
necessary to accomplish the critical missions that keep our country
safe. If the agency's goal is to build a workforce that feels both
valued and respected, these results show that the agency needs to make
major changes in its treatment of employees. Wide-spread
dissatisfaction with DHS management and leadership creates a morale
problem that affects the safety of this Nation.
Of particular concern to NTEU is the increase in suicides as the
reported cause death of Federal employees. New data released by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the past month shows that
Federal employee suicides are at their highest level in at least 15
years, with suicides accounting for 28 percent of the 124 Federal
employee job-related deaths in 2018. BLS records the event as a job-
related suicide if the suicide occurred at work or if it occurred
elsewhere but can be definitively linked back to work. Since 2011, the
number of self-inflicted intentional fatalities among Federal workers
has more than doubled to 35, although the Federal workforce has
remained approximately the same size.
Most suicides continue to involve Federal employees in work related
to law enforcement, such as CBP. In 2016, 15 of the 16 reported
suicides were by Federal workers employed at a National security-
related agency. At CBP, more than 100 employees died by suicide between
2007 and 2018, according to the agency itself. NTEU applauds CBP for
seeking additional funding for their Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
We also appreciate that CBP agreed to add NTEU representatives to a CBP
workgroup that is working to address the unacceptably high rate of
suicides among CBP personnel and develop a ``Suicide Prevention
Strategy.'' It is vital that this workgroup continue to include rank-
and-file members' input as it develops a strategy to reduce the number
of job-related suicides at CBP.
NTEU also strongly supports H.R. 1433, the DHS Morale, Recognition,
Learning and Engagement Act or the DHS MORALE Act. The MORALE Act was
approved by the full House last year and is awaiting action by the
Senate. The bill directs the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) to
analyze Government-wide Federal workforce satisfaction surveys to
inform efforts to improve morale, maintain a catalogue of available
employee development opportunities, and authorize the designation of a
Chief Learning and Engagement Officer to assist the CHCO on employee
development.
H.R. 1433 also authorizes the establishment of an Employee
Engagement Steering Committee comprised of representatives from across
the Department, as well as individuals from employee labor
organizations that represent DHS employees. Last, the bill authorizes
the Secretary to establish an annual employee awards program to
recognize non-supervisory DHS employees who have made a significant
contribution to the Department. In our collective bargaining agreement
with CBP, NTEU negotiated an extremely popular employee joint awards
program. The Agency retains the discretion to determine how much of its
budget will be allocated for awards, but 85 percent of the total awards
budgeted are recommended by a joint union/management awards committee
to be distributed proportionately among bargaining unit employees. NTEU
recommends that DHS look at the negotiated CBP joint awards program as
a model for an agency-wide program.
While a major factor contributing to low morale at CBP is
insufficient staffing and resources at the ports of entry, the
provisions in the DHS MORALE Act will help to address non-staffing
issues that affect employee morale by improving front-line employee
engagement and establishing a statutory annual employee award program.
NTEU commends the committee and the House for approving the DHS MORALE
Act and urges the Senate to expeditiously do the same.
Many of the sources of on-going employee morale issues at DHS are
long-standing, but some are recent developments. A more recent cause is
the lack of Senate-confirmed leaders at the top of the agency and among
many of the components.
Between 2003, when the agency was formed, and April 2019, there
have been 6 Senate-confirmed DHS Secretaries. In November, the
administration named Chad Wolf as Acting Homeland Security Secretary,
the third person to hold the Department's top job since April. The
agency also has no official deputy secretary, and multiple components--
including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border
Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services--lack a permanent leader. As you know, without
Senate confirmation, agency leaders' ability to effectively carry out
the duties of a Cabinet official and component head is compromised.
Keeping an acting official in an important position can be
interpreted as a signal that the administration may not care much about
that agency or that the acting agency head does not have the
President's full support. Morale takes a hit when senior positions go
unfilled. Such conditions can lead to poor productivity and a weakened
chain of command. NTEU urges Congress to insist that the administration
stop the practice of filling DHS leadership vacancies with personnel
operating in an ``acting'' capacity and send up nominations for
confirmation by the Senate.
A second source of uncertainty that undermines morale at CBP are
the administration's workforce proposals that roll back existing civil
service protections and benefits and Executive Orders (EOs) that
severely disrupt labor and employee relations in the Federal workplace.
NTEU believes in and strongly supports the Merit System Principles,
which ensure that individuals are hired to work for the Federal
Government based on merit, without regard to their race, age, gender,
political views, or relationship with the hiring official. NTEU also
fully supports the application of veteran's preference in hiring
decisions as part of our obligation to help those who have worked so
hard to defend our Nation and our freedom. DHS, in particular, has
stated that it is committed to providing employment opportunities for
our veterans and service members returning home from active duty and
that it is the ideal employer to maximize the skills and training
veterans have acquired while serving our country, as well as the
commitment to serve and protect our Nation.
At the same time, NTEU recognizes that the process used to hire new
employees can be onerous. However, in our experience, some of the
things that make the process onerous are the complicated extra steps
that agencies include in their hiring process due to long-standing
practice or fear of future litigation rather than requirements directly
tied to the statute. For example, over the years NTEU has had
significant concerns about the slow pace of hiring CBP Officers, some
of which was due to concerns over how the polygraph test was being
administered. While CBP has been making progress in reducing CBP
Officer vacancies, they still struggle with a lack of funding to
address on-going staffing shortfalls.
Furthermore, despite on-going Congressional efforts to provide
additional flexibilities to agencies to improve the hiring process and
the time it takes to hire a new employee, agencies rarely use more than
a few of the multiple tools available to them. It is critical that any
effort to improve the hiring process include sustained and
comprehensive training for all agency Human Resources (HR)
professionals and opportunities for H.R. professionals in various
agencies, not just the CHCOs, to meet with each other and experts at
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and share best practices and
challenges they are facing.
Proposals to ensure that hiring managers and subject-matter experts
are part of the hiring process from the beginning and requiring part of
a supervisor's performance evaluation to be based on personnel
management, recruiting, hiring, and human capital responsibilities also
have merit and can help in reducing the time to hire.
However, NTEU remains concerned with proposals to expand non-
competitive eligibility and hiring authorities such as that proposed in
draft legislation that DHS provided to the Hill entitled, the
Department of Homeland Security Enhanced Hiring Act. History has shown
that agencies have abused such flexibility; using these programs as the
only method of hiring, which undermined veterans' preference and civil
service protections. Sweeping exemptions to hiring rules and
regulations are extremely concerning as it could undermine the very
principles that ensures that the civil service is non-partisan, based
on merit, and reflects the citizenry it serves.
Despite the challenges in on-boarding, changes to the hiring
process will be of little help if the Government cannot recruit and
retain talented individuals. Government shutdowns, unnecessary forced
relocations and proposed agency closures, disparagement by Government
leaders who refer to Federal employees as bureaucrats or swamp
creatures, pay freezes, threatened cuts to employee benefits,
elimination of key work-life balance benefits such as telework, and on-
going efforts to roll back employee collective bargaining and due
process rights and protections all make it harder to recruit a new
generation of civil servants and have led talented Federal employees to
leave Federal service.
Furthermore, recent OPM Employee Viewpoint Survey results show a
drop in employee engagement scores, nearly 15 points below that of the
private sector. Importantly, employee engagement is an outcome that
depends on the actions of an organization, particularly the actions
driven by leadership, managers, and those responsible for recruitment,
on-boarding, and other human resources functions. The extent to which
employees feel passionate about their jobs and are committed to the
organization has a direct link to the ability of agencies to recruit
and retain skilled employees, improve performance, and meet their
missions.
federal employee pay and benefits
Federal employee pay also plays a significant role in improving
morale and the Government's ability to attract and retain top talent.
Unfortunately, according to the President's Pay Agent, years of below-
market pay raises and pay freezes have increased the pay disparity
between the Federal Government and the private sector to 32.71 percent,
despite a 1990 Federal law aimed at reducing the pay gap to 5 percent.
This has a significant impact. While many Federal employees believe in
Government service and agency mission is often listed as the No. 1
reason they work for the Federal Government, massive pay disparities
with the private sector undermine morale and efforts to recruit and
retain skilled individuals who are drawn to public service.
While the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request called for
another pay freeze, NTEU is pleased that the President reversed course
and, that in the end Federal employees received an average 3.1 percent
increase, comprised of a 2.6 percent across-the-board raise with 0.5
percent for locality pay, in the final fiscal year 2020 funding
agreement. Federal employees, like all other Americans, face rising
food, utility, college, and health care costs. Adding to employees'
concerns over pay are the administration's proposals to slow the
frequency of within grade step increases and limit the distribution of
awards.
Last year, the administration also proposed plans to issue guidance
to agencies to change the way they allocate performance awards so that
they are given to their most critical employees with the best
performance instead of to all employees, regardless of occupation, that
perform outstanding work. By focusing on the ``most critical
employees'' for pay increases, we fear that agencies will focus on
high-demand skill sets, but ignore critical jobs needed to make
agencies work. Employees in all jobs, at every level, are critical to
an agency's success and by denying opportunities for awards and pay
increases, agencies risk an increase in the number of career Federal
employees who leave the Government and take their institutional
knowledge with them. A pay system that limits compensation to randomly
selected occupations will prohibit agencies from executing a whole-of-
Government approach to operations and will threaten agency performance
and adversely impact recruiting and retention.
It is important to note that when CBP was created in March 2003, it
was decided that all CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists would be
placed under one compensation system both for base pay and for overtime
and premium pay. The Customs Officers Pay Reform Act (COPRA) is a
critical part of the CBP OFO pay system. Under COPRA, overtime hours
are directed (i.e. specifically assigned) and are user fee-funded.
COPRA has been extremely effective in ensuring that international ports
of entry have overtime funding to staff ports during high-volume
periods and where needed to ease wait time due to staffing shortages.
COPRA ranks high on employee satisfaction surveys and is critical to
employee morale at the ports of entry. NTEU would strongly oppose any
changes to the COPRA pay system.
The administration's fiscal year 2020 budget proposal also included
several proposals to cut Federal employee and retiree benefits that, if
adopted, would exacerbate the existing hiring and retention challenges.
Once again, Federal employees were being asked to pay for unrelated
funding decisions by paying more for their benefits while
simultaneously reducing the value of those benefits.
NTEU opposes proposals that would negatively impact Federal
employee retirement benefits, including proposals to: (1) Significantly
increase Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) employee
contributions by about 1 percentage point each year until they equal
the agency contribution rate, resulting in a 6 percent pay cut for most
employees, (2) base future Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and
FERS retirement benefits on the average of the high 5 years of salary
instead of the current high 3, thereby lowering the value of the
benefit, (3) eliminate the FERS supplement which approximates the value
of Social Security benefits for those who retire before age 62,
including for those, like CBP Officers, who must retire early due to
their law enforcement work, (4) eliminate the annual cost of living
adjustments (COLA) for the pensions of current and future FERS retirees
and significantly reducing the COLA for the pensions of current and
future CSRS retirees by about 0.5 percent annually, and (5) reduce the
G Fund interest rate under the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), thereby
lowering the value of this TSP option.
The average Federal employee cannot absorb the 6 to 7 percent pay
cut most would receive with the increased retirement contributions and
annuitants need their COLA to keep up with the cost of living when on a
fixed income. Federal employees are predominantly middle-class workers
who cannot afford a retirement benefit that fails to keep up with
inflation and will require them to work long into their senior years.
NTEU also opposes the administration's proposal to change the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) by significantly
modifying the Government contribution rate by tying it to each plan's
performance rating. For many FEHBP enrollees, this would mean that the
Government's overall contribution rate would be lower than it is now,
requiring enrollees to pay significantly higher premiums. Such a change
would force employees to drop coverage or move to cheaper plans that
provide less coverage and fail to meet the health care needs of their
families.
According to the 2017 OPM Federal Benefits Survey, employees
expressed that their TSP, FERS/CSRS and FEHBP benefits were extremely
important to them (96.1 percent, 94.2 percent and 90.6 percent of
respondents respectively). In fact, not only is the availability of a
retirement annuity important to employees, the benefit has been shown
to play a key role in recruiting and retaining them.
The FEHBP also has a significant impact on recruitment and
retention. In 2017, 71.2 percent of survey respondents reported that
the availability of health insurance through the FEHBP influenced their
decision to take a Federal job to a ``moderate'' or ``great'' extent,
while 80.9 percent of respondents reported that the availability of
health insurance through the FEHBP influences their decision to stay
with their job to a ``moderate'' or ``great extent.''
Given the popularity of these critical retirement and health care
benefits, efforts to reduce them will have a significant impact on the
ability of the Federal Government to recruit and retain skilled workers
at CBP and other agencies and NTEU urges Congress to oppose such
efforts.
federal employee rights and protections
Another significant cause of CBP employees' concern are recent EOs
that undermine Federal employee unions and our ability to operate in
Federal workplaces. These EOs are currently being implemented at the
bargaining table for agencies that are engaged in negotiations with
their respective unions but are being challenged in the courts. Federal
law clearly states that the right of employees to organize, bargain
collectively, and participate through labor organizations in decisions
which affect them safeguards the public interest and contributes to the
effective conduct of public business. Front-line employees and their
union representatives have ideas and information that are essential to
improving the delivery of quality Government services to the public.
Through the collective bargaining process and the use of pre-decisional
involvement, employees can have meaningful input resulting in better
quality decision making, more support for decisions, timelier
implementation, and better results for the American people. It is
important that these rights are maintained, and employees continue to
have a voice in their workplace.
However, the administration has engaged in an all-out assault on
employee rights and protections--ignoring requirements to bargain in
good faith, gutting collective bargaining agreements, imposing one-
sided contracts, undermining employees' rights in the grievance
process, giving greater deference to agency management in disputes, and
eliminating opportunities for employees to have a voice in their places
of work. NTEU opposes all efforts to roll back the limited rights
provided to Federal labor unions, including limits on our ability to
represent employees to ensure they are treated fairly and have a voice
in the workplace. Such changes eliminate opportunities for employees to
feel engaged and comfortable working with their agency leaders, thereby
impacting retention.
Moreover, we oppose changes to employee due process rights, such as
shortening the length of certain notice and response periods, limiting
the ability of the Merit Systems Protection Board to mitigate
penalties, and providing agencies with additional flexibility to use
longer probationary periods, making those employees essentially at-
will. These efforts can be used to intimidate workers into silence out
of fear of retaliation for disclosing waste, fraud, and abuse.
Imposing anti-worker policies that eliminate fair and equitable
treatment and instead create a culture of fear and mistrust is no way
to attract and retain talented workers. NTEU is strongly opposed to
these EOs and asks that Congress move to protect Federal employee
collective bargaining rights. Recently, 24 Senators introduced S. 3146,
legislation that mirrors provisions in the House-passed fiscal year
2020 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill
(H.R. 3351), that would prohibit agencies from implementing any
collective bargaining agreement that was not mutually and voluntarily
agreed to by all parties or the result of binding arbitration. NTEU
strongly supports these efforts that would help address the
administration's assault on collective bargaining rights and ensure
that agencies fulfill their statutorily-mandated responsibilities to
bargain in good faith.
NTEU also seeks the passage of H.R. 1316, the Federal Labor-
Management Partnership Act of 2019, which would bring front-line
employee voices and representatives back to the table at Federal
agencies, allowing employees and management to collaborate on workplace
solutions and improvements.
cbp staffing shortages at the ports of entry
Finally, on-going staffing shortages at the ports of entry continue
to undermine morale at CBP. NTEU was pleased that the final fiscal year
2020 funding agreement provides $104 million for 800 new CBP OFO
positions, including 610 CBP Officer and CBP Agriculture Specialist new
hires to help address the fiscal year 2020 on-board staffing shortage
of 2,700 CBP Officers and 721 CBP Agriculture Specialists. NTEU
strongly supports the funding level for CBP OFO employees in the fiscal
year 2020 DHS final funding agreement and urges Congress to increase
these numbers in fiscal year 2021 to address on-going staffing
shortages at the ports of entry. According to CBP on-board staffing
data, even with the fiscal year 2020 funding for CBP OFO new hires,
there remains a shortage of approximately 2,000 CBP Officers at the
ports of entry.
Due to the on-going current staffing shortage, CBP Officers Nation-
wide are working excessive overtime to maintain basic port staffing.
All CBP Officers are aware that overtime assignments are an aspect of
their jobs. However, long periods of overtime hours can severely
disrupt an officer's family life, morale, and ultimately their job
performance protecting our Nation.
The U.S. agriculture sector is a crucial component of the American
economy, generating over $1 trillion in annual economic activity. CBP
Agriculture Specialists play a vital role in both trade and travel
safety and prevent the introduction of harmful exotic plant pests and
foreign animal diseases, and potential ag/bioterrorism into the United
States. Unfortunately, even with fiscal year 2020 funding for new
hires, there remains a shortage of Agriculture Specialist at the ports
of entry as determined by CBP's own Agriculture Specialist Resource
Allocation Model.
To address the shortage of Agriculture Specialists who protect our
food supply and agricultural industries at the border, legislation has
been introduced in both the House and Senate. S. 2107 and H.R. 4482,
the Protecting America's Food & Agriculture Act of 2019, would ensure
the safe and secure trade of agricultural goods across our Nation's
borders by authorizing the annual hiring of 240 Agriculture Specialists
and 200 Agriculture Technicians a year until the workforce shortage is
filled. S. 2107 was recently approved by the full Senate and its
companion bill, H.R. 4482, is awaiting House action. Because of CBP's
mission to protect the Nation's agriculture from pests and disease,
NTEU urges the committee to quickly consider and approve this important
legislation.
nteu recommendations
Ensuring that DHS can recruit and retain the best and brightest is
essential for the safety and security of all Americans. In order to
achieve the long-term goal of improving employee morale and securing
the proper staffing at CBP, NTEU recommends that Congress take the
following actions:
Support passage of H.R. 1316, the Federal Labor-Management
Partnership Act, which would bring front-line employee voices
and representatives back to the table at Federal agencies,
allowing employees and management to collaborate on workplace
solutions and improvements;
Support legislation and other efforts to preserve collective
bargaining rights for Federal employees;
Encourage passage of H.R. 1433, the DHS MORALE Act by the
Senate;
Support fiscal year 2021 funding for 1,200 CBP Officer, 240
Agriculture Specialist, and additional mission support new
hires at CBP OFO;
Approve H.R. 4482 to authorize the funding of CBP
Agriculture Specialist new hires up to the number specified in
CBP's own Agriculture Specialist Resource Allocation Model; and
Introduce and enact legislation to authorize the funding of
CBP Officer new hires up to the number specified in CBP's own
CBP Officer Workload Staffing Model.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share NTEU's views on how
DHS can build the most effective workforce, attract skilled and
talented individuals, and engage Federal employees throughout their
careers.
______
Statement of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
January 14, 2020
Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members of
the subcommittee, on behalf of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), which represents more than 700,000 Federal
and District of Columbia employees who serve the American people in 70
different agencies, including the nearly 100,000 employees at agencies
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who protect America
every day, we appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement for the
record on addressing morale at DHS.
Many of the DHS employees AFGE represents put their lives on the
line at work every day. They also interact with the public during some
of their most challenging and stressful moments. These factors make it
essential that the management of DHS place a high priority on employee
engagement and morale. And the best way to create engagement and high
morale is to participate in effective, collaborative dispute
resolution. The resultant improvement in morale would lead to
excellence on the job, and a safer and more focused workforce. Every
employee at DHS should go to work believing their employer has their
back while they have America's back.
Unfortunately, workforce surveys have shown annually that DHS does
not promote good morale, and it places a low priority on employee
satisfaction or engagement.
While low morale and poor employee engagement plague DHS as a
whole, there is variation among the components of the Department. Some
agency-specific concerns are described below.
federal emergency management agency (fema)
FEMA employees are hired through a rigorous, competitive, merit-
based examination process that includes application of veteran's
preference. The number of permanent full-time employees needed to carry
out successful emergency management and preparedness cannot be short-
changed. Our employees are over-worked, under-resourced, understaffed,
and frequently deployed to disaster zones without adequate recuperation
time. Permanent full-time employees are outnumbered at FEMA by non-
permanent employees.
In 1988 the Stafford Act created 2 sets of non-permanent employees
to be hired during disasters: These include (1) Cadre of On-Call
Recovery/Response Employees (CORE) and (2) Disaster Response Workers
(DRW) Temporary Workers. CORE and DRW employees are brought on using an
expedited hiring process during disasters.
Stafford Act employees are used to supplement permanent employees,
which too often results in vacancies for permanent full-time positions
going unfilled for extensive periods of time. The agency keeps Stafford
Act employees on for much longer than their 2- to 4-year contracts.
Stafford Act employees should be deployed to disaster zones for a
specified amount of time to respond to a specific disaster. These
positions were not designed to work with or replace permanent full-time
employees on non-disaster work; however, because there is such a need
for permanent full-time employees at FEMA, it is not uncommon for
Stafford Act employees to work outside of their job descriptions.
Identifying permanent full-time vacancies and filling them would help
improve FEMA emergency management and preparedness and improve morale.
transportation security administration (tsa)
The TSA Modernization Act, included in the Federal Aviation
Authorization Act of 2018, required the TSA administrator to convene a
Working Group consisting of representatives of TSA and AFGE. Its charge
was to recommend reforms to TSA's personnel management system,
including appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The
union made proposals regarding discipline, grievance, fitness for duty
and pay in an agency with virtually no workforce protections. AFGE
representatives proposed that a representative of the union take part
in briefings on Discipline Reform Adverse Actions recommendations. TSA
declined this recommendation for engagement, stating that the Working
Group was the only forum for input on this matter. When addressing
reforms to Fitness for Duty, the union proposed an independent medical
examination to ensure transparency. TSA simply responded that it is not
needed. Most notably, the agency did not give consideration to access
to MSPB or any neutral third-party review of grievances in its
personnel management system, which was specifically required in the law
and would greatly improve employee morale.
Undermining morale within the TSO workforce is the fact that they
are not governed by title 5 U.S.C., a code that applies to most of the
Federal workforce and specifies employee and management rights and
responsibilities, including due process and a reasonable and fair
grievance procedure. Congress should enact Chairman Thompson's H.R.
1140, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act, according
title 5 rights to TSOs and placing them on the General Schedule (GS)
pay system.
Additionally, TSA drastically changed the terms of health insurance
coverage for part-time TSOs to pro-rate the employee share of the
premium. TSA was granted and widely uses its authority to have a large
portion of its workforce on part-time status to maximize flexibility.
Making the part-time TSO workforce pay much more for health care by
increasing their share of the premium does not promote good staff
morale or a professional workforce. This new policy should be reversed
immediately.
u.s. citizenship and immigration services (uscis)
USCIS has grown at a rapid rate over the past 7 years, resulting in
management rushing through processes and policies often directed at
short-term crises rather than long-term management needs. Even with
growth, the agency has a large case backlog dating back to the 1990's,
with managers requiring employees to meet higher performance numbers by
working through lunch and breaks. Being rushed through their workload
leads to stress among officers who feel their charge should be National
security, not meeting arbitrary benchmarks.
The agency and the union are currently engaged in contract
bargaining. Management repeatedly asserts that the 14,000 employees in
the bargaining unit can be easily replaced and proposes arbitrary
discipline measures up to the point of termination for even small
infractions.
When Acting Director Cuccinelli was appointed, one of his first
acts was to tell Asylum Officers they were approving too many
applications. These employees were making determinations based on their
professional training and the law. Serving as an Asylum Officer is a
stressful job under the best of circumstances. Being undermined by top
management is a poor strategy that does not serve the workforce, the
Nation's security, or the underlying values of this country. When USCIS
Local 1924 Vice President Charles Tjersland was asked in an NPR radio
interview whether colleagues had quit as a result of working conditions
said, ``We're driving away some of the brightest minds, most motivated
hearts.'' To improve employee morale, the agency should be properly
resourced and fully authorized to carry out the provisions of the
Immigration and Nationality Act without politically-motivated
interference.
u.s. coast guard (uscg)
Just last month, the full committee heard testimony from a Coast
Guard officer about the race and gender discrimination and sexual
harassment she endured. She publicly acknowledged others in the room,
including civilian workers at USCG represented by AFGE, who reported
similar discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Fear of continued
oppression and reprisal engenders the very opposite of morale in the
workplace, and its reverberations are experienced throughout the
agency. USCG, and the entire Department of Homeland Security should
hold managers accountable for rooting out any sexual, gender, or racial
discrimination and enforce a no-tolerance policy in accordance with the
law.
federal protective service (fps)
Federal Protective Service (FPS) agency staffing of uniformed, non-
supervisory law enforcement officers is lower now than it has been
since before 9/11/2001. There are only 500 operational, uniformed, non-
supervisory Law Enforcement Officers in the field. This is not enough
staff to effectively or safely carry out the mission of the agency. For
example, in FPS Region 6, Western District, between 2015 and 2020 the
number of fully-trained inspectors decreased by 75 percent from 16 to
only 4 officers. This is not sufficient to carry out the job and risks
the lives of officers and public safety. AFGE recommends an additional
400 operational, uniformed, non-supervisory Law Enforcement Officers be
hired and stationed in the field to reach a total of at least 900
officers.
Instead of dedicating sufficient resources to staff the agency with
uniformed, non-supervisory personnel, many new non-uniformed, non-law
enforcement positions have been created since 2012. FPS should hire the
uniformed, non-supervisory law enforcement officers needed to perform
the mission of this law enforcement agency.
The Department of Homeland Security has serious failings in its
management and leadership throughout its agencies, resulting in low
employee morale. There are reports of sexual harassment complaints to
managers; issues of low pay have not been addressed; staffing models
need to be updated; hiring processes are inconsistent; unfair, unequal,
and inappropriate discipline is imposed; and managers engage in
reprisals against those who seek relief. Moreover, they reject
opportunities for greater employee engagement.
AFGE believes that Chairman Thompson's Department of Homeland
Security Morale, Recognition, Learning, and Engagement Act (DHS MORALE
Act), H.R. 1433, would take significant steps to address the issues of
low morale faced by the Department's workforce. Most importantly, the
promotes employee involvement, including those represented by labor
unions, in the decisions that affect their work, and in the case of
DHS, sometimes their very lives. We commend Chairman Thompson for
expressly including involvement of representatives of employee labor
unions in productive employee engagement and improvement in the
workplace.
AFGE hopes the committee will advance H.R. 1433 and continue in its
crucial oversight of the management of the DHS workforce.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ms. Torres Small. The Members of the subcommittee may have
additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you
respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. Without
objection, the committee record shall be kept open for 10 days.
Having no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Angela Bailey
Question 1. As noted during the hearing, there are currently 12
senior positions vacant throughout the Department. Testimony from Mr.
Stier indicated that acting officials filling these roles are less
empowered to enact organizational change required to improve morale at
DHS. Has DHS undertaken any work to identify what effect the
pervasiveness of acting officials in leadership roles has on employee
engagement and morale? If so, what has the Department found?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. During the hearing, you were asked about low morale
within the Management Directorate. What specific actions, if any, is
the Department taking to address low morale within this office?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. One of my first acts of this Congress was to introduce
the DHS Morale, Recognition, Learning, and Engagement Act (DHS MORALE
Act). Among other things, the bill would require the Department to
create a committee to identify and address issues affecting morale.
During your testimony, you noted the Department had recently launched
an Employee and Family Readiness Council to receive and address
feedback on employee concerns.
When was this effort launched?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. Will DHS commit to making the Council (or an entity
like it) a more permanent fixture at the Department whether or not the
DHS MORALE Act is signed into law?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Angela Bailey
Question 1a. During the hearing, the committee heard testimony
regarding some of the successes seen at at the Secret Service and
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency with respect to improvements in
employee morale.
Has the Department taken any action to review the recent successes
at Secret Service or CISA? If so, what has it found?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. Does the Department have any plans to use the Secret
Service or CISA as a model for improving morale elsewhere at the
Department?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. What is DHS Headquarters doing to monitor morale at the
component level and drive action at the level to improve employee
morale?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. In 2018 and 2019, the Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Office (CWMD) and its predecessor--the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO)--ranked as the worst place to work in Federal
Government. In 2019, CWMD had the highest response rate Government-wide
(82.7 percent) indicating that low morale is prevalent throughout the
agency. Previously, the morale at CWMD/DNDO had ranked in the top
quartile of the Federal Government.
What is being done to improve morale at CWMD?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Angela Bailey
Question 1. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ranked in the
bottom quartile for employee satisfaction and morale (as was the case
in 2018). In speaking to the union that represents front-line CBP
officers across the Nation, 2 major grievances came to the forefront.
The first is the chronic staffing shortage that CBP continues to
grapple with. Not only is a staffing shortage detrimental to an
airport's ability to court new air service, it is also draining for CBP
employees who are constantly asked to perform overtime with no end in
sight.
The second is a lack of training for management. Officers feel that
leadership does not entirely understand their work, tends to focus on
the quantity of screenings rather than the quality, and possesses an
underwhelming knowledge of how to work with the union. Workers say they
have received multiple assurances from the top that these issues will
be addressed, but year after year, they encounter many of the same
issues.
How do staffing shortages and ill-equipped managers impact morale
and turnover at Customs and Border Protection?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. How does the Department engage CBP officers and their
union to get feedback on what policies have positive impacts on morale?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers for Angela Bailey
Question 1. Ms. Bailey, when did DHS begin creating action plans to
address employee engagement after the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS)?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Does your office assist components with their own
component-level engagement action plans following the annual FEVS? How
does the Department monitor components' adherence to their engagement
action plans?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Do you have metrics in place to track progress or
completion of employee engagement action plans for DHS-wide and
individual components?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Chris Currie
Question. What benefits would the Department likely see from a
dedicated steering committee responding to and addressing issues that
affect employee morale?
Answer. A dedicated Department of Homeland Security (DHS) steering
committee that oversees issues related to employee morale will help
ensure continued Department and component leadership commitment to
employee morale efforts. DHS formed an Employee Engagement Steering
Committee in 2015 that has met periodically since and as recently as in
fiscal year 2020. Attendees at the steering committee meetings
generally include officials from the DHS Office of the Chief Human
Capital Officer, DHS component agencies, and at times the DHS under
secretary for management. DHS uses this committee to guide and monitor
implementation of DHS-wide employee engagement initiatives. In
addition, during past meetings, the Employee Engagement Steering
Committee has discussed the results of the Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS) and DHS components' employee engagement action plans. It
is important for DHS to maintain top leadership support and sustained
commitment to the Employee Engagement Steering Committee to continue
overseeing these component and DHS-wide efforts. As part of on-going
work on DHS employee morale, GAO plans to obtain additional information
on the role and actions of the Employee Engagement Steering Committee
and its role in monitoring component efforts to improve morale and
facilitate sharing best practices across the Department.
Question From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Chris Currie
Question. Through GAO's on-going work, what have you found with
respect to why actions taken by the Department over the years have
failed to have any significant or lasting impact on employee morale?
Answer. GAO's work has identified the importance of identifying
root causes to effectively target actions to address those causes. In
2012, we found that DHS's Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and
DHS components had not consistently used 3 survey analysis techniques
when analyzing employee survey results--comparisons of demographic
groups, benchmarking against similar organizations, and linking root
cause findings to action plans.\1\ In response to our recommendation,
in January 2018, DHS and its component agencies incorporated these 3
into their employee engagement action planning. DHS components
continued to leverage root cause information in their 2019 employee
engagement action plans. For example, the Transportation Security
Administration identified the performance of managers, time constraints
and understaffing, and lack of manager and leadership accountability
for change as root causes of the component's engagement scores in
recent years. Another component, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, identified in 2019 that the areas of leadership performance,
accountability, transparency, and training and development
opportunities were 2018 engagement score root causes. GAO has recently
initiated work to examine challenges that DHS and its component
agencies face with regard to employee morale. Through this work, GAO
plans to discuss the key drivers of employee morale at DHS as well as
actions DHS and its component agencies have taken with respect to
morale and any associated effect of those actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to
Better Determine Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting
Action Plans, GAO-12-940 (Washington, DC: Sept. 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Chris Currie
Question 1a. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ranks
398th out of 420 Government offices and is last in employee
satisfaction on pay. The last collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
between TSA and the Association of Federal Government Employees (AFGE),
which represents Transportation Security Officers, expired in December.
How does the inability to bargain over basic things like pay,
benefits, and grievance procedures impact TSA workers' morale?
Answer. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) directs
the TSA administrator to, among other things, establish the levels of
compensation and other benefits for individuals employed by the Federal
Government to carry out the agency's screening functions.\2\ In
general, while TSA employees have never been prohibited from joining a
union, representation for the purpose of collective bargaining was not
permitted, and such representation did not exist, until 2011. However,
consistent with TSA's broad authority to establish a personnel system
that is not bound by the provisions of Title 5, United States Code, and
other Federal personnel statutes,\3\ the TSA administrator determined
that bargaining is not permitted on topics that might affect security,
such as pay, pensions, and other forms of compensation, proficiency
testing, and discipline standards, among others.\4\ Some results touted
by the TSA employees' union include a contract that ensures
performance-rating payouts are based on a consistent assessment system,
expansion of the parking subsidy program at participating airports, a
nearly-doubled uniform allowance, a provision that stops TSA from
denying leave without an appropriate reason or as a form of discipline,
and a provision that that allows TSA supervisors to excuse tardiness
for up to 30 minutes, among others. How, if at all, these results
through collective bargaining have affected TSA employee morale, and
what impact the inability to bargain over things like pay, benefits,
and grievance procedures is beyond the scope of the work GAO has
performed with regard to the TSA workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Pub. L. No. 107-71, 111(d), 115 Stat. 597, 620 (2001); 49
U.S.C. 44935 note.
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 114(n).
\4\ Pursuant to ATSA, TSA employees are also prohibited from
striking. See 49 U.S.C. 44935(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1b. How much does pay affect TSA employee morale?
Answer. GAO has not published any reports specifically on TSA
employee morale; however, information from other Government findings
suggest pay has played an important role in TSA employee satisfaction.
First, the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey (FEVS) asks respondents how satisfied they are with their pay.
In 2019, about half of TSA employees (53 percent) who responded to the
FEVS reported that they were unsatisfied with their pay, compared to
about 1 in 5 Federal Government employees (20 percent).\5\ Second, In
March 2019, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector
General reported on TSA's employee retention efforts and found that
complaints about base pay, pay raises, bonuses, or the fairness of pay
compared with the work performed were among the most common responses
given by both full- and part-time transportation security officers
(TSO)--i.e., TSA-employed screening personnel--completing a voluntary
exit survey when they left the agency in fiscal years 2012-2017.\6\
Third, a May 2019 evaluation report of a Blue-Ribbon Panel on TSA's
human capital service delivery found TSO pay is a key issue for the
screening workforce, based on analysis of fiscal year 2018 exit survey
responses and focus group discussion. According to the study, TSOs work
long hours, have difficult working conditions, and their pay in some
locations lags behind industry counterparts. Moreover, the panel found
that TSO turnover in the first 3 years of employment--which may
indicate low morale--is high, consistent with other low-wage jobs in
the private sector with similar skill requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Office Personnel Management, Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
(2019).
\6\ Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector
General, TSA Needs to Improve Efforts to Retain, Hire, and Train its
Transportation Security Officers, OIG-19-35 (Washington, DC: March 28,
2019).
\7\ ICF Incorporated, LLC, Final Findings and Recommendations, Blue
Ribbon Panel for the Transportation Security Administration, Human
Capital Service Delivery Evaluation (Fairfax, VA: May 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1c. Will raising pay alone address TSA's workplace morale
challenges? What other action should TSA and DHS leadership be taking?
Answer. Although GAO has not published work on TSA workplace morale
challenges, our previous work on employee morale across the Federal
Government, data from FEVS, and TSA's Blue Ribbon panel study suggest
that pay is not the only factor that contributes to morale. As we
stated in our recent testimony on DHS employee morale, key drivers of
employee morale across the Government include holding constructive
performance conversations, career development and training
opportunities, work-life balance, an inclusive work environment,
employee involvement, and communication from management.\8\ According
to fiscal year 2019 data from FEVS, many TSA employees are unsatisfied
with career development opportunities. For example, 51 percent of TSA
respondents reported they did not believe that promotions in their work
unit were based on merit, and 42 percent reported they were unsatisfied
with their opportunity to get a better job in the agency. Similarly, in
its May 2019 evaluation, the Blue-Ribbon Panel on TSA's human capital
service delivery reported that if pay problems were reduced, other
issues would continue to affect morale. As a result, the Panel made
recommendations to TSA in a number of areas, including some related to
career development, such as recommendations to make changes to leader
selection and development and the promotion process. According to TSA's
2019 employee engagement action plan, TSA identified 3 root causes that
create or exacerbate challenges to employee morale or satisfaction,
based on focus groups: (1) Performance of mid-level managers related to
issues such as fairness, recognition, and professional development; (2)
constraints on time and other resources needed to complete tasks; and
(3) lack of accountability for enforcing desired changes. As of October
2019, TSA has taken some actions designed to address these root causes.
For example, TSA developed a supervisory training to improve
performance feedback conversations and developed a coaching pilot to
include training and coaching for leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Employee Morale Survey
Scores Highlight Progress and Continued Challenges, GAO-20-349T
(Washington, DC: Jan. 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Max Stier
Question. What benefits would the Department likely see from a
dedicated steering committee responding to and addressing issues that
affect employee morale?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Dina Titus for Max Stier
Question 1. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ranked in the
bottom quartile for employee satisfaction and morale (as was the case
in 2018). In speaking to the union that represents front-line CBP
Officers across the Nation, 2 major grievances came to the forefront.
The first is the chronic staffing shortage that CBP continues to
grapple with. Not only is a staffing shortage detrimental to an
airport's ability to court new air service, it is also draining for CBP
employees who are constantly asked to perform overtime with no end in
sight.
The second is a lack of training for management. Officers feel that
leadership does not entirely understand their work, tends to focus on
the quantity of screenings rather than the quality, and possesses an
underwhelming knowledge of how to work with the union. Workers say they
have received multiple assurances from the top that these issues will
be addressed, but year after year, they encounter many of the same
issues.
How do staffing shortages and ill-equipped managers impact morale
and turnover at Customs and Border Protection?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ranks
398th out of 420 Government offices and is last in employee
satisfaction on pay. The last collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
between TSA and the Association of Federal Government Employees (AFGE),
which represents Transportation Security Officers, expired in December.
How does the inability to bargain over basic things like pay,
benefits, and grievance procedures impact TSA workers' morale?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
[all]