To protect the over 1  million federal employees and about 9,000 GSA facilities from the risk of  terrorist and criminal attacks, in fiscal year 2007, FPS had about 1,100  employees, of which 541, or almost 50 percent, were inspectors, as shown  in figure 1. FPS also has about 15,000 contract guards. FPS provides law enforcement and physical security services to its  customers. FPS’s Ability to Accomplish Its Mission Is Hampered by Operational Challenges and Its Actions May Not Fully Resolve These Challenges

FPS currently faces several operational challenges, such as a decrease in  staff, that make it difficult to accomplish its facility protection mission. FPS is taking steps to address these challenges. However, since transferring from GSA to  DHS, FPS’s staff has declined and the agency has managed its staffing  resources in a manner that has diminished security at GSA facilities and  increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks at many GSA facilities. For example, according to FPS, it  has investigated significant crimes at multiple level IV facilities, but the  security cameras installed in those buildings were not working properly,  preventing FPS investigators from identifying the suspects. However, these actions may not fully resolve its operational challenges  because, for example, some inspectors may not be able to perform both  law enforcement and physical security duties simultaneously. According to FPS, this approach will provide it with  the capabilities and flexibility to perform law enforcement and physical  security services. FPS Faces Funding Challenges, and Its Actions to Address Them Have Had Adverse Implications

FPS’s collections have not been sufficient to cover its projected  operational costs in recent years, and FPS has faced projected shortfalls  twice in the last 4 years. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the  Federal Buildings Fund provided for the approximately $140 million  difference between FPS’s collections and costs. In fiscal year 2008, the basic security fee  increased to 62 cents per square foot, and FPS is projecting that the fee  will be sufficient to cover its operational costs and that it will not have to  implement any cost-saving measures, although a FPS official noted that  the loss of staff in recent years has helped decrease its operational costs. FPS’s Basic Security Fee Does Not Account for Risk and Raises Questions about Equity

FPS’s primary means of funding its operations is the fee it charges tenant  agencies for basic security services, as shown in figure 7. However,  since transferring to DHS, FPS has not complied with this schedule. Several Stakeholders Have Expressed Concern about FPS’s Ability to Determine Its Costs of Providing Security Services

Several stakeholders have raised questions about whether FPS has an  accurate understanding of the cost of providing security at GSA facilities. These measures include  determining whether security countermeasures have been deployed and  are fully operational, the amount of time it takes to respond to an incident,  and the percentage of BSAs completed on time. However, FPS has not developed outcome  measures to evaluate the net effect of its efforts to protect GSA facilities. While output measures are helpful, outcome measures are also important  because they can provide FPS with broader information on program  results, such as the extent to which its decision to move to an inspector- based workforce will enhance security at GSA facilities or help identify the  security gaps that remain at GSA facilities and determine what action may  be needed to address them. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve its ability to address its operational and funding challenges  and to ensure that it has useful performance measures and reliable  information to assess the effectiveness of efforts to protect GSA facilities,  we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the  Director of FPS to take the following six actions:    develop and implement a strategic approach to manage its staffing  resources that, among other things, determines the optimum number of  employees needed to accomplish its facility protection mission and  allocate these resources based on risk management principles and the  agency’s goals and performance measures;   clarify roles and responsibilities of local law enforcement agencies in  regard to responding to incidents at GSA facilities; improve FPS’s use of the fee-based system by developing a method to  accurately account for the cost of providing security services to tenant  agencies and ensuring that its fee structure takes into consideration the  varying levels of risk and service provided at GSA facilities;   evaluate whether FPS’s current use of a fee-based system or an alternative  funding mechanism is the most appropriate manner to fund the agency;   develop and implement specific guidelines and standards for measuring its  performance, including outcome measures to assess its performance and  improve the accountability of FPS; and  improve how FPS categorizes, collects, and analyzes data to help it better  manage and understand the results of its efforts to protect GSA facilities. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine any operational challenges the Federal Protective Service  (FPS) faces in protecting General Services Administration (GSA) facilities  and actions it has taken to address those challenges, we interviewed about  170 FPS police officers, inspectors, special agents, support personnel, and  administrators at headquarters and at 7 of FPS’s 11 regions.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2003, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) transferred from the General Services Administration (GSA) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FPS provides physical security and law enforcement services to about 9,000 GSA facilities. To accomplish its mission of protecting GSA facilities, FPS currently has an annual budget of about $1 billion, 1,100 employees, and 15,000 contract guards located throughout the country. Recently, FPS has faced several challenges protecting GSA facilities and federal employees. This report provides information and analysis on (1) FPS's operational challenges and actions it has taken to address them, (2) funding challenges FPS faces and actions it has taken to address them, and (3) how FPS measures the effectiveness of its efforts to protect GSA facilities. To address these objectives, we conducted site visits at 7 of FPS's 11 regions and interviewed FPS, GSA, tenant agencies, and local law enforcement officials.

What GAO Found

FPS faces several operational challenges that hamper its ability to accomplish its mission, and the actions it has taken may not fully resolve these challenges. FPS's staff decreased by about 20 percent between fiscal years 2004 and 2007. FPS has managed the decreases in its staffing resources in a manner that has diminished security at GSA facilities and increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks at many GSA facilities. For example, with the exception of a few locations, FPS no longer provides proactive patrols at GSA facilities to detect and prevent criminal incidents and terrorism-related activities. FPS also continues to face problems with managing its contract guard program and ensuring that security countermeasures, such as security cameras and magnetometers, are operational. For example, according to FPS, it has investigated significant crimes at multiple high-risk facilities, but the security cameras installed in those buildings were not working properly, preventing FPS investigators from identifying the suspects. To address some of its operational challenges, FPS is moving to an inspector-based workforce, which seeks to eliminate the police officer position and rely primarily on FPS inspectors for both law enforcement and physical security activities. FPS believes that this change will ensure that its staff has the right mix of technical skills and training needed to accomplish its mission. FPS is also hiring an additional 150 inspectors and developing a new system for completing building security assessments. However, these actions may not fully resolve FPS's operational challenges because, for example, inspectors might not be able to fulfill both law enforcement and physical security roles simultaneously. FPS also faces funding challenges, and the actions it has taken to address them have had some adverse implications. To fund its operations, FPS charges each tenant agency fees for its security services. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, FPS's projected expenses exceeded its collections and DHS had to transfer funds to make up the difference. FPS also instituted cost-saving measures such as restricting hiring and travel and limiting training and overtime. According to FPS, these measures have affected staff morale, safety and increased attrition. FPS has been authorized to increase the basic security fee four times since it transferred to DHS, currently charging tenant agencies 62 cents per square foot for basic security services. Because of these actions, FPS's collections in fiscal year 2007 were sufficient to cover costs, and FPS projects that collections will also cover costs in fiscal year 2008. However, FPS's primary means of funding its operations--the basic security fee--does not account for the risk faced by specific buildings, the level of service provided, or the cost of providing services, raising questions about equity. Several stakeholders also expressed concern about whether FPS has an accurate understanding of its costs to provide security at federal facilities. FPS has developed output measures, but lacks outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of its efforts to protect federal facilities. Its output measures include determining whether security countermeasures have been deployed and are fully operational. However, FPS has not developed outcome measures to evaluate its efforts to protect federal facilities that could provide FPS with broader information on program results. FPS also lacks a reliable data management system for accurately tracking performance measures.