With regard to the manner in which TSES separated (through resignation,  retirement, expiration of a limited term appointment, termination, or  transfer to another cabinet-level department), our analysis of CPDF data  shows that resignations were the most frequent type of TSES separation,  accounting for almost half of total separations over the 5-year period and  about two thirds of all separations during fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (see  table 4). Attrition among TSES Has Been Lower than that of All Other DHS SES, but Until Fiscal Year 2008, Higher than SES Attrition among Other Cabinet-level Departments

As shown in figure 2, the rate of attrition among TSES staff for fiscal years  2004 through 2008 was consistently lower than the rate of attrition among  all DHS SES. Former TSES Staff We Interviewed Primarily Cited Adverse Reasons for Leaving TSA; Current TSA Employees and Other Stakeholders Expressed Varying Views on the Impact of These Separations

In interviews with 46 of 95 TSES who separated from TSA from fiscal  years 2005 through 2008, most reported adverse reasons for leaving the  agency—that is, a reason related to dissatisfaction with some aspect of  their TSA experience, as opposed to a nonadverse reason, such as to  spend more time with family or pursue another professional opportunity. These interviewees defined  top leadership as the TSA Administrator or those reporting directly to him,  such as Assistant Administrators. However, inconsistent  with internal control standards, TSA did not always clearly document its  implementation of merit staffing requirements. However, TSA  does not list “TSES” among the answer choices, which precludes TSES  staff who fill out the survey from identifying their position rank. Without the ability to isolate the responses of TSES staff from  those of other staff, it will be difficult for TSA to use the results of the exit  survey to identify reasons for attrition specific to TSES staff, thus  hindering TSA’s ability to use exit survey data to develop a strategy for  retaining talented TSES staff with specialized skills and knowledge, and  ensuring continuity among the agency’s leadership. To better manage its TSES program, TSA also established in 2006 a hiring  process for TSES staff that incorporates merit staffing requirements;  however, TSA lacked documentation that would demonstrate whether  TSA is consistently following these requirements. Based upon our review, we found that for 20 of the 25 career TSES who  were hired competitively in calendar year 2006 and for 8 of the 16 TSES  who were hired competitively in calendar year 2008, documentation  identifying how TSA implemented at least one of the merit staffing  procedures was either missing or unclear. What has been the attrition rate among TSES staff for fiscal years 2004  through 2008, and how does it compare to attrition among SES staff in  other DHS components and cabinet-level departments? To what extent are current TSA efforts to manage TSES attrition  consistent with effective human capital practices and standards for  internal control in the federal government? Objective 3-The Extent to which TSA Efforts to Manage TSES Attrition and Improve Overall Management of Its TSES Workforce Are Consistent with Effective Human Capital Practices and Standards for Internal Control

To gather information on TSA efforts to address attrition, we interviewed  the Assistant Administrator and the Deputy Assistant Administrator of  TSA’s Human Capital Office to learn about the various initiatives they have  underway to address attrition and to improve management of their  executive resources.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Transportation Security Executive Service (TSES) consists of executive-level staff serving in key agency positions just below political appointees. Committees of Congress have raise questions about the frequency of turnover within the TSES and have directed GAO to examine turnover among TSES staff. Accordingly, this report examines: (1) TSES attrition and how it compares with that of Senior Executive Service (SES) staff in other DHS components and cabinet-level departments, (2) the reasons TSES staff separated from TSA, and (3) TSA efforts to mange TSES attrition consistent with effective management practices. To answer these objectives, GAO analyzed data within the Office of Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data File, reviewed TSA human capital policies and procedures, and interviewed former TSES staff. The results of these interviews are not generalizable, but represent the views of about half the TSES staff who separated from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.

What GAO Found

Separation data from fiscal years 2004 through 2008 show that attrition among TSA's TSES staff was consistently lower than the rate of attrition among all DHS SES staff and, through 2007, higher than SES attrition for all other cabinet-level departments. Separations among TSES staff peaked at 20 percent in fiscal years 2005, but declined each year thereafter, and resignations (as opposed to retirements, terminations, transfers to other cabinet level departments, or expirations of a term appointment) were the most frequent type of TSES separations over this period. In interviews with 46 former TSES staff, the majority (36 of 46) identified at least one adverse reason (that is, a reason related to dissatisfaction with some aspect of their experience at TSA) for leaving, as opposed to a nonadverse reason (such as leaving the agency for another professional opportunity). The two most frequently cited reasons for separation were dissatisfaction with the leadership style of the TSA administrator or those reporting directly to him (14 of 46) and to pursue another professional opportunity (14 of 46). To better address TSES attrition and manage executive resources, TSA has implemented measures consistent with effective human capital management practices and standards for internal control in the federal government. These measures include, among other things, reinstating an exit survey and establishing a process for hiring TSES staff that encompasses merit staffing requirements. However, TSA could improve upon these measures. For example, due to TSA officials' concerns about respondents' anonymity, TSA's new exit survey precludes TSES staff from identifying their position. Without such information, it will be difficult for TSA to identify reasons for attrition specific for TSES staff. Moreover, inconsistent with internal control standards, TSA did not document its adherence with at least one merit staffing procedure for 20 of 25 TSES hired in calendar year 2006 and 8 of 16 TSES hired in calendar year 2008. Although there are internal mechanisms that provide TSA officials reasonable assurance that merit staffing principles are followed, better documentation could also help TSA demonstrate to an independent third party, the Congress, and the public that its process for hiring TSES staff is fair and open.