In  recent years, several employee groups and unions representing law  enforcement-related personnel who have not been found by their  employing agencies and OPM to meet the applicable LEO definitions have  sought to obtain enhanced retirement benefits directly through separate  legislation. As of fiscal year 2008, approximately half of law  enforcement personnel receiving enhanced retirement benefits did not  receive these benefits through the application of the LEO definitional  criteria from their employing agency and OPM via the administrative  process, but received these benefits directly through legislation that either  (1) provided benefits similar to those received by LEOs or (2) added their  occupation to the statutory LEO definition. Finally,  providing enhanced retirement benefits to certain employee groups  directly through legislation has created perceived inequities across certain  law enforcement-related occupations and some agencies report that future  action to provide enhanced retirement benefits to certain employee groups  could affect their strategic workforce planning. However, when we asked the  employee groups and unions seeking enhanced retirement benefits for  those they represent for data to substantiate this rationale, they did not  consistently provide these data. Specifically,  the average government-wide attrition rate from fiscal years 2004 through  2008 for law enforcement-related personnel not receiving enhanced  retirement benefits was 4.7 percent, compared to 3.2 percent for law  enforcement personnel receiving enhanced retirement benefits and          3.5 percent for law enforcement-related personnel who received special  pay and no enhanced retirement benefits. However, analyzing attrition data alone may not fully indicate why  personnel are leaving a particular agency because, as we have previously  reported, a variety of organizational, personal, and economic factors, in  addition to compensation, influence separation decisions. Attorneys stated that, in addition to  addressing retention challenges, Assistant U.S. In addition, officials from the  Executive Office of U.S. Costs of Providing Enhanced Retirement Benefits to Law Enforcement Personnel are Generally Higher Than Those for Regular Federal Employees

Overall, the short-term costs to a federal agency for providing enhanced  retirement benefits for law enforcement personnel under FERS are higher  than providing retirement benefits to regular federal employees. Attorneys and  others. Using Human Capital Tools Could Offer A More Cost Efficient Alternative Than Granting Enhanced Retirement Benefits For Retaining Select Law Enforcement Related Personnel

Federal agencies, including those that employ law enforcement and law  enforcement-related personnel, such as DOJ, DHS, and Treasury, can use a  variety of human capital tools, such as student loan reimbursements and  monetary retention incentives, to retain such personnel. Agency Comments

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS, DOJ, IRS, and  OPM. OPM generally  concurred with the report. (2) What are the rationales and potential costs for  extending such benefits to additional occupations or employee groups? As agreed upon with your offices, our review focused on the Department  of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and  Department of the Treasury because these federal entities employed  approximately 84 percent of all law enforcement and law enforcement- related personnel in fiscal year 2008. To identify the processes that have been used to grant enhanced  retirement benefits to federal law enforcement personnel, we reviewed  relevant laws, regulations, as well as legislation introduced in the 110th  Congress that would have provided such benefits to additional employee  groups. We also obtained information on the extent to  which granting such benefits may affect other employees and agencies’  workforce planning. In  comments on the then pending 1948 legislation, the Civil Service  Commission noted that it was “not in favor of special legislation for  individual groups of employees, but inasmuch as Congress has approved  special legislation for the investigatory personnel of the Federal Bureau of  Investigation it would not oppose benefits for similar groups of  employees.” Committee report language noted that the “committee  believes it is only fair to grant such retirement benefits as are provided for  under the bill to law-enforcement agents in all parts of the Government at  an earlier age, because it is physically impossible to carry on the necessary  strenuous activities after reaching 50 years of age.”
Currently, law enforcement personnel performing certain specified types  of duties can fall within the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and  Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) statutory and regulatory  retirement-related definitions of the term “law enforcement officer” (LEO)  and thus be eligible for enhanced retirement benefits under the respective  retirement plans.
Why GAO Did This Study

From fiscal years 2000 through 2008, the number of persons employed by federal agencies who perform various law enforcement functions and receive either special pay or enhanced retirement benefits, in the form of a faster-accruing pension, has increased by 55 percent. In addition, as of September 2008, approximately 51,000 personnel were employed in law enforcement-related occupations that could seek enhanced retirement benefits in the future. GAO was asked to conduct a review of the retirement benefits provided to law enforcement personnel. This report addresses (1) the processes used to grant enhanced retirement benefits to federal law enforcement personnel, (2) the rationales and potential costs for extending benefits to additional occupations, and (3) the extent to which federal agencies used human capital tools to retain law enforcement and other related personnel. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and other documentation, such as agency reports describing the processes used to grant enhanced benefits, and interviewed officials from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) because these entities employed approximately 84 percent of all law enforcement and law enforcement-related personnel in fiscal year 2008. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS, DOJ and OPM generally concurred with the report. IRS stated that it had no comments on the report.

What GAO Found

In order for certain employees to receive enhanced retirement benefits, agencies generally determine that a certain group of employees meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)--which includes such activities as conducting investigations--and submit the determination to OPM. As of the end of fiscal year 2008, about half of federal employees receiving enhanced retirement benefits met the statutory and regulatory definitions. In recent years, several employee groups and unions representing law enforcement personnel whose agencies and OPM have determined that they do not meet the LEO definitions have sought such benefits directly through legislation. Currently, about half of law enforcement personnel receiving enhanced benefits have obtained these benefits directly through legislation. Law enforcement-related employee groups that sought enhanced retirement benefits directly through legislation have cited a number of rationales to justify receiving these benefits, including high attrition rates. The provision of such retirement benefits may result in additional costs to the agency and federal government because these costs are generally higher than providing retirement benefits to regular federal employees. GAO's analysis of available data showed that attrition for law enforcement-related personnel not receiving enhanced retirement benefits was higher than law enforcement personnel receiving such benefits but not as high as all other federal employees. While attrition data are available, when asked to provide such data, the employee groups and unions seeking enhanced retirement benefits did not consistently provide it to us. Analyzing attrition data alone may not fully indicate why personnel are leaving a particular agency because a variety of organizational and economic factors, as well as compensation, influence separation decisions. GAO's analysis also showed that such benefits increase agency short-term costs and could increase the government's long-term pension liability. Finally, providing such benefits to some groups but not others has created perceived inequities and DHS and DOJ acknowledge that it could affect their strategic workforce planning. Federal agencies have the authority to use human capital tools, such as retention incentives, to assist with their efforts to address specific retention challenges. Some department and agency officials to whom we spoke said these tools are effective for retaining law enforcement personnel, while others maintained they need enhanced retirement benefits to effectively retain law enforcement-related personnel. The targeted use of these tools may present a cost-efficient alternative for retaining law enforcement-related personnel.