As FPS’s parent organization, NPPD has responsibility for managing and  overseeing FPS’s human capital efforts. FPS’s Human Capital Plan and Related Efforts Generally Align with Most Key Principles, but FPS Has Not Fully Developed Performance Measures to Evaluate Progress

FPS’s Plan and related human capital planning efforts generally align with  four of the five key principles for strategic workforce planning that we  identified. We found that FPS solicited input from its management and employees,  NPPD, and external stakeholders. FPS’s Plan describes five categories, each of which contains several  human capital strategies (i.e., programs, policies, and processes) (see  sidebar). Furthermore, FPS did not identify targets for the performance measures  identified in the Plan. For example, FPS did not  identify a desired target for the “attrition rate” measure (e.g., reduce new  hires’ attrition rate by 3 percentage points over fiscal years 2017 through  2020). However, the officials’ plans are not clear because they have not yet  established time frames for addressing the issues we identified on  performance measures. Furthermore, it will be difficult for stakeholders—such as  Congress and the public—to hold FPS accountable for achieving its  goals. FPS Designed Its Staffing Model to Align with Most Key Practices and Uses It to Make Management Decisions but Has Not Documented a Process to Ensure Data Quality

		FPS Designed Its Staffing Model Consistent with Most Key Practices

FPS issued its latest staffing model in August 2013, which identified the  number and composition of FTEs the agency needs to meet its mission,  based on various data inputs, assumptions, and analyses. A federal facility’s  security risk level determines the frequency with which FPS must  complete a facility’s security assessment. The model includes annual  targets for completing facility security assessments by facility security  level. Data quality: FPS officials took steps to ensure the quality of the data  used in the model. FPS headquarters officials also told us that the training  hours estimates in the model represent training requirements at the  time of developing the model and that when they update the model,  they plan to change the training hours used in the model to reflect  changes in training requirements. FPS Uses Its Staffing Model to Help Make Management Decisions but Has Not Yet Updated It to Reflect Current Operating Conditions

We found that FPS uses the staffing model in conjunction with other  management tools, professional judgement, and institutional knowledge  to help inform human capital planning and budget requirements, as  described below. Nonetheless, FPS and  NPPD have no specific time frames for updating the model. Because FPS officials did not document a process for  assuring data quality during the development of the model and without  relevant guidance, FPS may not be able to ensure that future updates to  its staffing model will provide accurate estimates of staffing needs, putting  FPS at risk of not fully understanding whether it has the staff it needs to  perform its mission. Moreover, FPS’s development of both the  Plan and model largely align with recognized key workforce-planning  principles and staffing model practices. FPS has not fully developed human capital  performance measures, and while both NPPD and FPS plan on taking  additional action in this area, future progress is uncertain because the  NPPD and FPS have not established a time frame for developing  additional measures. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help FPS enhance its strategic human capital planning efforts, we  recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under  Secretary of NPPD to work with the Director of FPS to take the following  three actions:  identify time frames for developing human capital performance  measures with targets that are explicitly aligned to FPS’s stated  human capital goals, establish a plan and time frames for updating FPS’s staffing model  regularly and for unexpected changes in operating conditions, and develop and document guidance on the process FPS will use to  ensure the quality of its staffing model data, such as guidance on how  to collect data, validate assumptions, and perform sensitivity analyses  to assess the assumptions. DHS concurred  with our recommendations and outlined steps it plans to take to address  them. To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations,  documents from FPS and the National Protection and Programs  Directorate (NPPD), and our prior work related to workforce planning and  human capital management. The five key principles  include:  1.  involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in  developing, communicating, and implementing a strategic workforce  plan;  2.  determining critical skills and competencies needed for employees;  3.  developing strategies tailored to address gaps and needs;  4.  building the organizational capability needed to support human capital  5.  developing performance measures to evaluate progress toward  reaching human capital or agency goals. Some  activities have a number of associated tasks.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal security workforce plays a crucial role in meeting the growing challenges of protecting federal facilities. FPS, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), worked with NPPD to develop a staffing model and a Plan in 2013 and 2015 to help FPS manage its workforce. A 2015 Senate Appropriations Committee report included a provision for GAO to review the Plan . The committee also asked GAO to evaluate the staffing model. GAO examined (1) FPS's Plan and related human capital planning efforts and (2) how FPS designed and uses its staffing model. GAO assessed FPS's Plan and model to determine if they aligned with key workforce-planning principles and practices for designing staffing models. GAO identified these principles and practices from prior work and other sources. GAO also interviewed NPPD and FPS officials in headquarters and three regions selected to obtain regional variation such as in the number of FPS staff.

What GAO Found

The Federal Protective Service (FPS)—which protects about 9,500 federal facilities—developed a Strategic Human Capital Plan ( Plan ) and engaged in related efforts that generally align with most key principles GAO identified for strategic workforce planning. Specifically, FPS
solicited input from key stakeholders, such as its employees and the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)—FPS's parent organization responsible for managing and overseeing FPS's human capital efforts;
determined critical skills and competencies;
developed human capital strategies (i.e., programs, policies, and processes) tailored to address identified gaps and needs in its workforce; and
identified actions that build the organizational capability to support the strategies.
However, FPS has not fully developed performance measures to evaluate progress toward goals, which is also a key principle for strategic workforce planning. For example, FPS has not identified performance measures for all of the Plan's strategies, has not included targets for the identified performance measures (e.g., a desired target for the “attrition rate” measure), and has not linked the measures to FPS's human capital goals. GAO's work on measuring program performance has found that targets and linkages are among the attributes of successful performance measures. FPS and NPPD officials said they plan on developing measures with targets and linkages but have not yet established time frames for completing these tasks. Without performance measures that have targets and linkages, it will be difficult for NPPD and FPS to assess whether the Plan and related efforts are helping achieve FPS's human capital goals and its facility protection mission.
FPS designed its staffing model—which identifies the federal workforce the agency needs to meet its mission—consistent with most key practices GAO identified for the design of staffing models, and FPS uses the model to help make management decisions. Specifically, FPS's model includes:
work activities and the time required to perform them;
facility risk levels, which determine the frequency with which FPS must complete facility security assessments; and
input from key stakeholders, including NPPD and some regional officials.
FPS officials said they took steps, such as reviewing work hour estimates, to ensure the quality of data used in the model—another key practice. FPS currently uses the model to help make human capital planning and other management decisions, but NPPD and FPS have not identified time frames for updating the model since its last update in August 2013. Furthermore, FPS cannot assure data quality in future updates to the model because it has no documented process for ensuring data quality. Without time frames for updating the model and guidance on ensuring data quality, NPPD and FPS may not have accurate estimates of staffing needs to make management decisions.

What GAO Recommends

To improve FPS's human capital planning, GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS direct NPPD and FPS to identify time frames for developing performance measures with targets that are explicitly aligned to FPS's goals, establish a plan and time frames for updating its staffing model, and develop and document guidance for ensuring the quality of staffing model data. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendations and outlined steps it plans to take to address them.