The FEVS is a tool that measures employees’ perceptions of  whether, and to what extent, conditions that characterize successful  organizations are present in their agencies, according to OPM. DHS Employees Reported Lower Morale than the Rest of the Federal Government, but Morale Varied across DHS Components and Employee Groups

Data from the 2011 FEVS show that DHS employees have lower average  levels of job satisfaction and engagement overall and across most  demographic groups available for comparison, such as pay grade, when  compared with the average for the rest of the federal government. Levels  of satisfaction and engagement vary across components, with some  components reporting satisfaction or engagement above the average for  the rest of the government. As shown in figure 2, comparisons of DHS with  non-DHS employees by supervisory status, pay group, and tenure  indicate that satisfaction and engagement are lower across many of the   For  DHS groups where statistically significant differences are evident.example, across pay categories DHS satisfaction and engagement were  lower than the scores for the same non-DHS employee pay groups, with  the exception of senior executives, senior leaders, employees with less  than 1 year of tenure, and General Schedule pay grades 1-6.job satisfaction and engagement scores for DHS management and non- management employees were lower than for the same non-DHS  employee groups. DHS Took Steps to Determine Root Causes of Morale Problems and Implemented Corrective Actions, but Could Strengthen Its Efforts

DHS and the selected components have taken steps to understand  morale problems, such as holding focus groups, implementing an exit  survey, and routinely analyzing FEVS results. On the basis of FEVS  results, DHS and the selected components planned actions to improve  FEVS scores. In addition, according to  DHS’s Integrated Strategy for addressing the implementing and  transforming high risk area, DHS has begun implementing activities to  address morale but has not yet improved DHS’s scores on OPM’s job  satisfaction index or its ranking on the Partnership’s Best Places to Work  in the Federal Government. According to our reviews of  OCHCO’s analyses, OCHCO’s DHS-wide analyses did not include  evaluations of demographic group differences on morale-related  issues for the 2011 FEVS. However, the extent to which DHS  and the components used root causes found through other analyses  to inform their action plans, such as quarterly exit survey results or  additional internal component surveys, was not evident in action plan  documentation (see appendix IV for a description of these additional  root cause analyses). Without a complete understanding of which issues are driving low  employee morale, DHS risks not being able to effectively address the  underlying concerns of its varied employee population. By not having specific metrics  within the action plans that are clear and measurable, it will be more  difficult for DHS to assess its efforts to address employee morale  problems, as well as determine if changes should be made to ensure  progress toward achieving its goals. Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen DHS’s evaluation and planning process for addressing  employee morale, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland  Security direct OCHCO and component human capital officials to take the  following two actions: examine their root cause analysis efforts and, where absent, add the  following: comparisons of demographic groups, benchmarking against  similar organizations, and linkage of root cause findings to action  plans; and establish metrics of success within the action plans that are clear and  measurable. Morale Differences Between DHS Employees and Employees at Other Agencies

One explanation for lower morale at DHS is that its employees could be  members of demographic groups that typically have lower morale across  all agencies. Components with lower morale include Federal Emergency Management  Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),  Intelligence and Analysis (IA), National Protection and Programs  Directorate (NPPD), Science and Technology (ST), and the TSA. Components that  existed prior to the creation of DHS may have had more time to develop  successful cultures and management practices than components that  policymakers created with the department in 2003. Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

The objectives for this report were to evaluate (1) how DHS employee  morale compares with that of other federal government employees and  (2) to what extent DHS and its selected components determined the root  causes of employee morale and developed action plans to improve  morale. We selected the four DHS components  based on their workforce size and how their 2011 job satisfaction and  engagement index scores compare with the non-DHS average. Components Have Also Conducted Some Root Cause Analyses Using FEVS Results

In addition to the DHS-wide efforts, the components we selected for  review—ICE, TSA, the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and CBP— conducted varying levels of analyses regarding the root causes of morale  issues to inform agency action planning efforts. TSA scored 40 percentage points lower on pay satisfaction  and 25 percentage points lower on performance appraisal satisfaction.
Why GAO Did This Study

DHS is the third largest cabinet-level department in the federal government, employing more than 200,000 staff in a broad range of jobs. Since it began operations in 2003, DHS employees have reported having low job satisfaction. DHS employee concerns about job satisfaction are one example of the challenges the department faces implementing its missions. GAO has designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as a high risk area, including its management of human capital, because it represents an enormous and complex undertaking that will require time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner. GAO was asked to examine: (1) how DHS's employee morale compared with that of other federal employees, and (2) the extent to which DHS and selected components have determined the root causes of employee morale, and developed action plans to improve morale. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed survey evaluations, focus group reports, and DHS and component action planning documents, and interviewed officials from DHS and four components, selected based on workforce size, among other things.

What GAO Found

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees reported having lower average morale than the average for the rest of the federal government, but morale varied across components and employee groups within the department. Data from the 2011 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)--a tool that measures employees' perceptions of whether and to what extent conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their agencies--showed that DHS employees had 4.5 percentage points lower job satisfaction and 7.0 percentage points lower engagement in their work overall. Engagement is the extent to which employees are immersed in their work and spending extra effort on job performance. Moreover, within most demographic groups available for comparison, DHS employees scored lower on average satisfaction and engagement than the average for the rest of the federal government. For example, within most pay categories DHS employees reported lower satisfaction and engagement than non-DHS employees in the same pay groups. Levels of satisfaction and engagement varied across components, with some components reporting scores above the non-DHS averages. Several components with lower morale, such as Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), made up a substantial share of FEVS respondents at DHS, and accounted for a significant portion of the overall difference between the department and other agencies. In addition, components that were created with the department or shortly thereafter tended to have lower morale than components that previously existed. Job satisfaction and engagement varied within components as well. For example, employees in TSA's Federal Security Director staff reported higher satisfaction (by 13 percentage points) and engagement (by 14 percentage points) than TSA's airport security screeners.
DHS has taken steps to determine the root causes of employee morale problems and implemented corrective actions, but it could strengthen its survey analyses and metrics for action plan success. To understand morale problems, DHS and selected components took steps, such as implementing an exit survey and routinely analyzing FEVS results. Components GAO selected for review--ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Protection--conducted varying levels of analyses regarding the root causes of morale to understand leading issues that may relate to morale. DHS and the selected components planned actions to improve FEVS scores based on analyses of survey results, but GAO found that these efforts could be enhanced. Specifically, 2011 DHS-wide survey analyses did not include evaluations of demographic group differences on morale-related issues, the Coast Guard did not perform benchmarking analyses, and it was not evident from documentation the extent to which DHS and its components used root cause analyses in their action planning. Without these elements, DHS risks not being able to address the underlying concerns of its varied employee population. In addition, GAO found that despite having broad performance metrics in place to track and assess DHS employee morale on an agency-wide level, DHS does not have specific metrics within the action plans that are consistently clear and measurable. As a result, DHS's ability to assess its efforts to address employee morale problems and determine if changes should be made to ensure progress toward achieving its goals is limited.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS examine its root cause analysis efforts and add the following, where absent: comparisons of demographic groups, benchmarking, and linkage of root cause findings to action plans; and establish clear and measurable metrics of action plan success. DHS concurred with our recommendations.