To protect the over one  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. FPS’s Ability to Accomplish Its Mission Is Hampered by Operational Challenges and the Steps It Has Taken May Not Fully Resolve Them

FPS faces several operational challenges, including decreasing staff levels,  which has led to reductions in the law enforcement services that FPS  provides. While FPS has taken steps to address these challenges,  it has not fully resolved them. The decrease in FPS’s duty hours has  also jeopardized police officer and inspector safety, as well as building  security. However, ensuring the quality and timeliness of them is  an area in which FPS continues to face challenges. Similarly, one regional  supervisor stated that, in the course of reviewing a BSA for an address he  had personally visited, he realized that the inspector completing the BSA  falsified information and had not actually visited the site because the  inspector referred to a large building when the actual site was a vacant  plot of land owned by GSA. FPS Has Taken Some Actions To Resolve Operational Challenges But Its Actions May Not Fully Resolve These Challenges

According to FPS, it has a number of ongoing efforts that are designed to  address some of its longstanding challenges. For example, the approach does not  emphasize law enforcement responsibilities, such as proactive patrol. FPS’s Actions to Address Budgetary Challenges Have Had Adverse Implications

FPS funds its operations through the collection of security fees charged to  tenant agencies for security services. However, until recently these fees  have not been sufficient to cover its projected operational costs. Because of these actions, fiscal year 2007 was the first year FPS’s  collections were sufficient to cover its costs. FPS also projects that  collections will cover its costs in fiscal year 2008. 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 4. The basic security  fee does not include contract guard services. In fiscal year 2008,  FPS charged 62 cents per square foot for basic security and has been  authorized to increase the rate to 66 cents per square foot in fiscal year  2009. Many of these buildings rarely receive services from FPS  staff and rely mostly on local police for law enforcement services. Several stakeholders have raised questions about whether FPS has an  accurate understanding of the cost of providing security at GSA facilities. FPS Faces Limitations in Assessing Its Performance

To determine how well it is accomplishing its mission to protect GSA  facilities, FPS has identified some output measures, such as 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 results and the net effect of its efforts  to protect GSA facilities. FPS is also limited in its ability to assess the effectiveness of its efforts to  protect GSA facilities, in part, because it does not have a data management  system that will allow it to provide complete and accurate information on  its security program. Without a reliable data management system, it is  difficult for FPS and others to determine the effectiveness of its efforts to  protect GSA facilities or for FPS to accurately track and monitor incident  response time, effectiveness of security countermeasures, and whether  BSAs are completed on time. In the report we issued last week, we recommended that the  Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of FPS to develop and  implement a strategic approach to manage its staffing resources; clarify  roles and responsibilities of local law enforcement agencies in regards to  responding to incidents at GSA facilities; improve FPS’s use of the fee-base  dsystem by developing a method to accurately account for the cost of  providing security services to tenant agencies; assess whether FPS’s  current use of a fee-based system or an alternative funding mechanism is  the most appropriate manner to fund the agency; and develop and  implement specific guidelines and standards for measuring its  performance including the collection and analysis of data. This concludes our testimony.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for providing physical security and law enforcement services to about 9,000 General Services Administration (GSA) facilities. To accomplish its mission of protecting GSA facilities, FPS currently has an annual budget of about $1 billion, about 1,100 employees, and 15,000 contract guards located throughout the country. GAO was asked to provide information and analysis on challenges FPS faces including ensuring that it has sufficient staffing and funding resources to protect GSA facilities and the over one million federal employees as well as members of the public that work in and visit them each year. GAO discusses (1) FPS's operational challenges and actions it has taken to address them, (2) funding challenges, and (3) how FPS measures the effectiveness of its efforts to protect GSA facilities. This testimony is based on our recently issued report (GAO-08-683) to this Subcommittee.

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 has decreased by about 20 percent from fiscal years 2004 through 2007. FPS has also decreased or eliminated law enforcement services such as proactive patrol in many FPS locations. Moreover, FPS has not resolved longstanding challenges, such as improving the oversight of its contract guard program, maintaining security countermeasures, and ensuring the quality and timeliness of building security assessments (BSA). For example, one regional supervisor stated that while reviewing a BSA for an address he personally visited he realized that the inspector completing the BSA had falsified the information because the inspector referred to a large building when the actual site was a vacant plot of land owned by GSA. To address some of these operational challenges, FPS is currently changing 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 is also hiring an additional 150 inspectors. However, these actions may not fully resolve the challenges FPS faces, in part because the approach does not emphasize law enforcement responsibilities. Until recently, the security fees FPS charged to agencies have not been sufficient to cover its costs and the actions it has taken to address the shortfalls have had adverse implications. For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) transferred emergency supplemental funding to FPS. FPS restricted hiring and limited training and overtime. According to FPS officials, these measures have had a negative effect on staff morale and are partially responsible for FPS's high attrition rates. FPS was authorized to increase the basic security fee four times since it transferred to DHS in 2003, 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 buildings, the level of service provided, or the cost of providing services, raising questions about equity. Stakeholders also expressed concern about whether FPS has an accurate understanding of its security costs. 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 does not have measures to evaluate its efforts to protect federal facilities that could provide FPS with broader information on program outcomes and results. FPS also lacks a reliable data management system for accurately tracking performance measures. Without such a system, it is difficult for FPS to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of its efforts, allocate its limited resources, or make informed risk management decisions.