We previously identified  several vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the oversight of both FPS’s  federal and contract workforces, and FPS is currently undertaking efforts  to address these weaknesses and improve management of its security  workforce. Most Selected Federal Agencies Use a Combination of In- house and Contract Security Positions to Meet Their Individual Facility Security Requirements

		Selected Federal Agencies Generally Use In-house Staff to Perform a Wide Range of Security Functions, While Contract Security Guards Typically Perform Routine Access Control

Eight of the nine federal agencies selected for our review currently use a  combination of both in-house and contract security personnel to secure  their facilities, and the distribution of in-house and contract staff vary  significantly (see fig. 1). 2). Officials  from other agencies reported using contract security guards for what they  consider to be lower-risk security posts, such as those providing visitor  assistance. For instance, FPS requires a high-school diploma, among other things, for  its contract security guards; however, it does not require a law  enforcement background or previous law enforcement experience. As a result, VA primarily uses  uniformed federal police officers to provide facility security and law  enforcement functions. Cited Benefits of Contract Security Staff Are Potential Cost Savings and Personnel Flexibility, While In-house Security Staff Are Viewed as Offering Increased Control over Staff Selection and Development

Representatives of the nine federal agencies and ten private sector  organizations with whom we spoke identified several issues that present  either benefits or challenges for using contract and in-house security staff,  as identified in table 5. For example, and as  discussed later, Smithsonian officials reported it uses contract security  guards at lower-risk areas of its facilities which has enabled it to staff five  posts with contract security guards for the same cost as three posts staffed  with federal security guards. Representatives from both federal agencies and private  sector organizations reported that in-house security staff offer increased  control over security staff selection—an important benefit to ensure a  qualified security workforce. Need for Upfront Planning in Determining Security and Staffing Needs and Better Oversight of Workforce Were Key Lessons Learned When Changing Staffing Approach

		Assessing and Determining Security and Staffing Needs Was Cited as a Key Lesson Learned When Changing a Security Workforce

Officials from the four selected federal agencies (Air Force, Army,  Smithsonian, and TSA) that had undergone a workforce transition cited  upfront planning in assessing facility security and staffing needs, including  administrative support and training requirements, as a key lesson learned  in facilitating a security workforce transition. Legislation has recently been introduced in Congress calling for the  implementation of a pilot program to examine the effectiveness of using  federal employees to staff the current contract security guard positions at  selected higher-risk federal facilities. Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, Smithsonian, VA, and the  Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice in order to  obtain comments from the nine agencies we studied. Smithsonian, VA, DOD, and DHS provided technical comments  that we incorporated where appropriate. Specifically, the objectives of  this report were to identify (1) approaches used by selected federal  agencies in staffing their facility security workforces; (2) federal agency  and private sector representatives’ views on the benefits and challenges of  using contract or in-house security staffing approaches; and (3) lessons  that the Federal Protective Service (FPS) can learn from other federal  agencies that have changed their security staffing approaches. Because the selected organizations are a  nonprobability sample, the information we obtained are not generalizable. We reviewed agency documents  and conducted semistructured interviews with agency officials on the  lessons learned in changing and staffing their security workforces.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides security and law enforcement services to over 9,000 federal facilities through its federal and contract security workforce. Over the years, GAO has made numerous recommendations to address significant weaknesses in FPS's oversight and management of its security workforce. Legislation has been introduced that would, among other things, have FPS examine the effectiveness of relying more on federal employees for security. As requested, this report examines: (1) nine federal agencies' approaches for staffing their security workforces; (2) federal and private sector representatives' views on the benefits and challenges of using contract and in-house security staff; and (3) lessons that FPS can learn from federal agencies that have changed their security staffing approaches. GAO reviewed agency documents and conducted interviews with representatives from federal agencies and private sector firms selected based on the use of security guards and experience in changing a security workforce, among other criteria. The selected agencies and private sector firms are a nonprobability sample, and the information we obtained is not generalizable.

What GAO Found

Eight of the nine selected federal agencies reported using a combination of contract and in-house facility security positions, and the distribution of their security staff varies significantly. Contract security staff are primarily used for routine access control functions, while in-house staff, such as federal security guards and inspectors, tend to perform a variety of security functions, such as patrol and risk assessment. Selected agency officials cited facility risk level and cost, among others, as factors considered when staffing a security workforce. Federal agencies used various types of security staff-- even at high-risk facilities--for protection. As a high-profile law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice uses armed contract security guards with prior law enforcement experience to protect its high-risk facilities. Federal and private sector representatives reported that contract and in-house security staff offer benefits and challenges for agencies to weigh when making staffing decisions. The two primary reported benefits of contract security staff were (1) potential cost savings and (2) flexibility to increase or reduce staff size. Conversely, these two issues were commonly cited as challenges in using in-house security staff. The reported benefits for in-house security staff were greater control to select qualified security staff and develop them to meet organizational needs. Early planning to determine security staffing needs and sufficient oversight were cited as key lessons learned when changing staffing approaches. For example, Smithsonian Institution had time to conduct risk-based assessments, which helped it decide to use contract staff only at lower-risk posts. Other agencies' experiences, as well as FPS's experience in transitioning to an inspector-based workforce, suggest that changing FPS's staffing approach could prove challenging. Early planning could help FPS address some of those challenges in the event a transition is desired or mandated, and sufficient oversight and management of its workforce will be critical to providing effective security. GAO provided the nine agencies with a draft of this report for comment. In response, agencies provided technical comments that were incorporated where appropriate.