This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-658 
entitled 'Federal Uniformed Police: Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, 
and Retention at 13 Police Forces in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan 
Area' which was released on June 13, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

June 2003:

Federal Uniformed Police:

Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, and Retention at 13 Police Forces in 
the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area:

GAO-03-658:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-658, a report to Congressional Requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study:

Officials at several federal uniformed police forces in the Washington, 
D.C., metropolitan area have raised concerns that disparities in pay 
and retirement benefits have caused their police forces to experience 
difficulties in recruiting and retaining officers. These concerns have 
increased during the past year with the significant expansion of the 
Federal Air Marshal Program, which has created numerous relatively 
high-paying job opportunities for existing federal uniformed police 
officers and reportedly has lured many experienced officers from their 
uniformed police forces. GAO’s objectives were to (1) determine the 
differences that exist among selected federal uniformed police forces 
regarding entry-level pay, retirement benefits, and types of duties; 
(2) provide information on the differences in turnover rates among 
these federal uniformed police forces, including where officers who 
separated from the police forces went and the extent to which human 
capital flexibilities were available and used to address turnover; and 
(3) provide information on possible difficulties police forces may 
have faced recruiting officers and the extent to which human capital 
flexibilities were available to help these forces recruit officers. 

What GAO Found:

During fiscal year 2002, entry-level police officer salaries varied by 
more than $10,000 across the 13 police forces, from a high of $39,427 
per year to a low of $28,801 per year. Four of the 13 police forces 
received federal law enforcement retirement benefits. Between October 
1, 2002, and April 1, 2003, 12 of the 13 police forces received pay 
increases, which narrowed the pay gap for entry-level officers at some 
of the 13 forces. Officials at the 13 police forces reported that 
while officers performed many of the same types of duties, the extent 
to which they performed specialized functions varied.

Total turnover at the 13 police forces nearly doubled (from 375 to 
729) between fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Additionally, during fiscal 
year 2002, 8 of the 13 police forces experienced their highest annual 
turnover rates over the 6-year period, from fiscal years 1997 through 
2002. Sizable differences existed in the turnover rates among the 13 
federal uniformed police forces during fiscal year 2002. The 
availability and use of human capital flexibilities to retain 
employees, such as retention allowances, varied.

GAO found that the increase in the number of separations (354) across 
the 13 police forces between fiscal years 2001 and 2002 almost equaled 
the number of officers (316) who left their forces to join the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Given that the buildup 
in staffing for TSA’s Federal Air Marshal Program has been 
substantially completed, the increase in turnover experienced in 
fiscal year 2002 at 12 of the 13 police forces may have been a 
one-time occurrence.

Officials at 9 of 13 police forces reported at least some difficulty 
recruiting officers. However, none of the police forces used important 
human capital flexibilities, such as recruitment bonuses and student 
loan repayments, during fiscal year 2002. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-658.

To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Richard M. Stana, (202) 
512-8777, or stanar@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Scope and Methodology:

Entry-Level Pay and Benefits Varied among the Police Forces:

Sizable Differences in Turnover Rates among the 13 Police Forces:

Most Forces Experienced Recruitment Difficulties:

Conclusions:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Counties and Cities Included in the Washington Metropolitan 
Statistical Area:

Appendix II: Selected Turnover Data for the 13 Police Forces:

Appendix III: Use of Human Capital Flexibilities:

Appendix IV: Recruiting Strategies and New Hire Selection Process:

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

Appendix VI: Comments from the National Institutes of Health:

Appendix VII: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:

Appendix VIII: Comments from the United States Secret Service:

Appendix IX: Comments from the Supreme Court of the United States:

Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Federal Uniformed Police Forces with 50 or More Officers 
Stationed in the Washington MSA:

Table 2: Types of Duties Performed by Officers at Each of the 13 Police 
Forces Located in the Washington MSA:

Table 3: Specialized Functions Performed by Officers at Each of the 13 
Police Forces:

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2002 Turnover Rates and Separations Data for Each 
of the 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Table 5: Summary of Where Officers Who Voluntarily Separated from the 
13 Police Forces in Fiscal Year 2002 Went:

Table 6: Extent to Which Police Forces Reported Experiencing 
Recruitment Difficulties in the Washington MSA:

Table 7: Number of Separations and Turnover Rates of Uniformed Police 
Officers in the Washington MSA for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2002:

Table 8: Fiscal Year 2002 Voluntary Separations by Years of Experience 
on a Police Force for 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Table 9: Separations to TSA in Fiscal Year 2002 by Police Force and 
Years of Service on a Force for 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Table 10: Separations to Other Federal Law Enforcement Positions, 
Excluding TSA, in Fiscal Year 2002 by Years of Service on a Force for 
13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Table 11: Extent to Which Police Forces Reported Experiencing Retention 
Difficulties in the Washington MSA:

Table 12: Reported Availability and Use of Human Capital Flexibilities 
at 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Table 13: Use of Recruiting Strategies as Reported by the 13 Police 
Forces in the Washington MSA:

Table 14: Minimum Qualification Requirements and Selection Process 
Reported by 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Figures:

Figure 1: Pay for Entry-level Officers and Retirement Benefits for Each 
of the 13 Police Forces with 50 or More Officers Stationed in the 
Washington MSA as of September 30, 2002:

Figure 2: Fiscal Year 2003 Pay Increases for Entry-Level Officers for 
Each of the 13 Police Forces with 50 or More Officers Stationed in the 
Washington MSA as of April 1, 2003:

Figure 3: Total Number of Separations for 13 Police Forces in the 
Washington MSA during Fiscal Years 1997-2002:

Figure 4: Percentage Breakdown of Where 599 Officers Who Voluntarily 
Separated during Fiscal Year 2002 Went:

Figure 5: Voluntary Separations, Excluding Retirements and Disability, 
by Years of Service on a Force in Fiscal Year 2002:

Abbreviations:

DHS: Department of Homeland Security:

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:

FERS: Federal Employees Retirement System:

MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area:

NIH: National Institutes of Health:

OPM: Office of Personnel Management:

TSA: Transportation Security Administration:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

June 13, 2003:

The Honorable George V. Voinovich Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of 
Columbia Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate:

The Honorable Dan Burton The Honorable Dave Weldon, M.D. House of 
Representatives:

Recent events, including the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 
have highlighted the importance of ensuring proper security at federal 
facilities. As the headquarters location for many federal agencies, the 
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is home to numerous federal 
uniformed police forces. Officials at some of these police forces have 
raised concerns that disparities in pay and retirement benefits have 
caused their police forces to experience difficulties in recruiting and 
retaining officers. These concerns increased with the significant 
expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Program, which created numerous 
relatively high-paying job opportunities for existing federal uniformed 
police officers and reportedly lured many experienced officers from 
their uniformed police forces.

This report responds to your request that we review recruitment and 
retention issues at selected federal uniformed police forces in the 
Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).[Footnote 1] As agreed 
with your offices, our objectives for this report were to (1) determine 
the differences that exist among these federal uniformed police forces 
regarding entry-level pay, retirement benefits, and types of duties; 
(2) provide information on the differences in turnover rates among 
these federal uniformed police forces, including where officers who 
separated from the police forces went and the extent to which human 
capital flexibilities[Footnote 2] were available and used by the police 
forces to address turnover; and (3) provide information on the possible 
difficulties police forces may have experienced in recruiting police 
officers and the extent to which human capital flexibilities were 
available to help these police forces to recruit officers.

As agreed with your offices, we limited the police forces in our review 
to the 13 federal uniformed police forces with 50 or more officers in 
the Washington MSA as of September 30, 2001, because we wanted to focus 
on the forces with the largest number of officers. To address our 
objectives, we interviewed officials from and reviewed documents 
provided by the following federal uniformed police forces: Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing Police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) Police, Federal Protective Service, Government Printing Office 
Police, Library of Congress Police, National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
Police, Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Supreme Court Police, U.S. 
Capitol Police, U.S. Mint Police, U.S. Park Police, U.S. Postal Service 
Police,[Footnote 3] and the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division. We 
also interviewed officials at the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). We 
developed a data collection instrument (survey) regarding recruitment 
and retention and distributed the survey to the 13 federal uniformed 
police forces. We analyzed the results and followed-up with agency 
officials when data were incomplete or inconsistent. We performed our 
work in Washington, D.C.; Maryland; and Virginia between August 2002 
and May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

Results in Brief:

Entry-level pay and retirement benefits varied significantly among the 
13 federal police forces as of September 30, 2002. Entry-level police 
officer salaries varied by more than $10,000 across the 13 police 
forces.[Footnote 4] At $39,427 per year, the U.S. Capitol Police, 
Library of Congress Police, and Supreme Court Police forces had the 
highest starting salaries for entry-level officers, while entry-level 
officers at the NIH Police and Federal Protective Service received the 
lowest at $28,801 per year. The annual salaries for officers at the 
remaining 8 police forces ranged from $29,917 to $38,695 per year. 
However, between October 1, 2002, and April 1, 2003, 12 of the 13 
police forces (all except the U.S. Postal Service Police), received pay 
increases, which narrowed the pay gap for entry-level officers at some 
of the 13 forces. In addition, officers at 4 of the 13 police forces 
(U.S. Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police, U.S. Park Police, and 
Secret Service Uniformed Division) received federal law enforcement 
retirement benefits, which allowed them to retire at age 50 with a 
minimum of 20 years of service and required retirement at age 57. 
Officers at the remaining 9 police forces received standard federal 
employee retirement benefits.[Footnote 5] Officials at the 13 police 
forces reported that officers on these forces performed many of the 
same types of duties, such as protecting people and property and 
conducting entrance and exit screenings.[Footnote 6] However, police 
force officials noted that the extent to which officers performed 
specialized functions, such as K-9 and SWAT, varied.

Total turnover at the 13 police forces nearly doubled from fiscal years 
2001 to 2002. Additionally, during fiscal year 2002, 8 of the 13 police 
forces experienced their highest annual turnover rates over the 6-year 
period, from fiscal years 1997 through 2002. During fiscal year 2002, 
significant differences existed in the turnover rates among the 13 
federal uniformed police forces. Turnover ranged from a low of 11 
percent for the Library of Congress Police to a high of 58 percent at 
the NIH Police. The turnover rates for the remaining 11 police forces 
ranged from 13 percent to 41 percent. Of the 729 officers who separated 
from the 13 police forces in fiscal year 2002, 599 (about 82 percent) 
voluntarily separated.[Footnote 7] Of these 599 officers, 316 (about 53 
percent) went to TSA--nearly all (313 of 316) to become Federal Air 
Marshals where they were able to earn higher pay, federal law 
enforcement retirement benefits, and a type of pay premium for 
unscheduled duty equaling 25 percent of their base salary. 
Additionally, 148 officers (about 25 percent) took other federal law 
enforcement positions; 32 officers (about 5 percent) took nonlaw 
enforcement positions; and 51 officers (about 9 percent) took positions 
in state or local law enforcement or separated to, among other things, 
continue their education.[Footnote 8] About 65 percent of the officers 
who voluntarily separated from the 13 police forces during fiscal year 
2002 had fewer than 5 years of service on their police forces. While 
officials from the 13 forces reported a number of reasons that officers 
had separated, including to obtain better pay and/or benefits at other 
police forces, less overtime, and greater responsibility, we were 
unable to discern any clear patterns between employee turnover and pay. 
That is, turnover varied significantly among police forces that had 
similar pay for entry-level officers. The use of human capital 
flexibilities to reduce turnover varied among the 13 police forces. For 
example, 3 of the 13 police forces reported that they paid retention 
allowances ranging from about $1,000 to $4,200 during fiscal year 2002.

Officials from 9 of the 13 police forces reported that they were 
experiencing at least a little or some difficulty recruiting police 
officers. Officials at 4 of these police forces (Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing Police, the FBI Police, Federal Protective Service, and 
NIH Police) reported that they were having a great or very great deal 
of difficulty recruiting officers and cited pay as a major contributor 
to their recruitment difficulties. Officials at 5 police forces 
reported that they were having difficulty recruiting officers to a 
little or some extent or to a moderate extent. Conversely, officials at 
4 of the 13 police forces (Library of Congress Police, Supreme Court 
Police, U.S. Mint Police, and U.S. Postal Service Police) reported that 
they were not having any difficulty recruiting officers. Although many 
of the police forces reported facing recruitment difficulties, none of 
them used human capital recruitment flexibilities, such as recruitment 
bonuses and student loan repayments, in fiscal year 2002.

We provided a draft of this report to officials representing each of 
the 13 federal uniformed police forces included in our review, along 
with OPM, and received comments from 12 of the 13 police forces and 
OPM. Most of the police forces provided technical comments, which were 
included as appropriate. The U.S. Secret Service and OPM wrote detailed 
comments that are discussed in our Agency Comments section on pages 24 
and 25.

Background:

Although the specific duties police officers perform may vary among 
police forces, federal uniformed police officers are generally 
responsible for providing security and safety to people and property 
within and sometimes surrounding federal buildings. There are a number 
of federal uniformed police forces operating in the Washington MSA, of 
which 13 had 50 or more officers as of September 30, 2001. Table 1 
shows the 13 federal uniformed police forces included in our review and 
the number of officers in each of the police forces as of September 30, 
2002.

Table 1: Federal Uniformed Police Forces with 50 or More Officers 
Stationed in the Washington MSA:

Executive branch:

Department: Department of Defense; Uniformed police force: Pentagon 
Force Protection Agency; Number of officers on-board as of September 
30, 2002: 259.

Department: Department of the Interior; Uniformed police force: U.S. 
Park Police; Number of officers on-board as of September 30, 2002: 439.

Department: Department of Justice; Uniformed police force: Federal 
Bureau of Investigation Police; Number of officers on-board as of 
September 30, 2002: 173.

Department: Department of the Treasury; Uniformed police force: Bureau 
of Engraving and Printing Police; Number of officers on-board as of 
September 30, 2002: 120.

Uniformed police force: Department: U.S. Mint Police; Number of 
officers on-board as of September 30, 2002: Department: 52.

Uniformed police force: DepartmentGeneral Services Administration: 
U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division; Number of officers on-board as 
of September 30, 2002: DepartmentGeneral Services Administration: 
1,072.

Department: General Services Administration; Uniformed police force: 
Federal Protective Service; Number of officers on-board as of September 
30, 2002: 140.

Department: Department of Health and Human Services; Uniformed police 
force: National Institutes of Health Police; Number of officers on-
board as of September 30, 2002: 53.

Department: U.S. Postal Service; Uniformed police force: U.S. Postal 
Service Police; Number of officers on-board as of September 30, 2002: 
109.

Legislative branch:

Department: Government Printing Office; Uniformed police force: 
Government Printing Office Police; Number of officers on-board as of 
September 30, 2002: 52.

Department: Library of Congress; Uniformed police force: Library of 
Congress Police; Number of officers on-board as of September 30, 2002: 
129.

Department: U.S. Capitol Police; Uniformed police force: U.S. Capitol 
Police; Number of officers on-board as of September 30, 2002: 1,278.

Judicial branch:

Department: Supreme Court; Uniformed police force: Supreme Court 
Police; Number of officers on-board as of September 30, 2002: 122.

Total; Number of officers 
on-board as of September 30, 2002: 3,998.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the 13 police forces.

[End of table]

On November 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted 
into law.[Footnote 9] The act, among other things, restructured parts 
of the executive branch of the federal government to better address the 
threat to the United States posed by terrorism. The act established a 
new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes two uniformed 
police forces within the scope of our review--the Federal Protective 
Service and the Secret Service Uniformed Division. These police forces 
were formerly components of the General Services Administration and the 
Department of the Treasury, respectively. Another component of DHS is 
the TSA, which protects the nation's transportation systems. TSA, which 
was formerly a component of the Department of Transportation, includes 
the Federal Air Marshal Service, which is designed to provide 
protection against hijacking and terrorist attacks on domestic and 
international airline flights. The Federal Air Marshal Program 
increased significantly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist 
attacks, resulting in the need for TSA to recruit many Air Marshals 
during fiscal year 2002. By fiscal year 2003, the buildup in the 
Federal Air Marshal Program had been substantially completed. Federal 
Air Marshals are not limited to the grade and pay step structure of the 
federal government's General Schedule. As a result, TSA has been able 
to offer air marshal recruits higher compensation and more flexible 
benefit packages than many other federal police forces.

Federal uniformed police forces operate under various compensation 
systems. Some federal police forces are covered by the General Schedule 
pay system and others are covered by different pay systems authorized 
by various laws.[Footnote 10] Since 1984, all new federal employees 
have been covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System 
(FERS).[Footnote 11] Federal police forces provide either standard 
federal retirement benefits or federal law enforcement retirement 
benefits.[Footnote 12]

Studies of employee retention indicate that turnover is a complex and 
multifaceted problem. People leave their jobs for a variety of reasons. 
Compensation is often cited as a primary reason for employee turnover. 
However, nonpay factors, such as age, job tenure, job satisfaction, and 
job location, may also affect individuals' decisions to leave their 
jobs.

During recent years, the federal government has implemented many human 
capital flexibilities to help agencies attract and retain sufficient 
numbers of high-quality employees to complete their missions. Human 
capital flexibilities can include actions related to areas such as 
recruitment, retention, competition, position classification, 
incentive awards and recognition, training and development, and work-
life policies. We have stated in recent reports that the effective, 
efficient, and transparent use of human capital flexibilities must be a 
key component of agency efforts to address human capital 
challenges.[Footnote 13] The tailored use of such flexibilities for 
recruiting and retaining high-quality employees is an important 
cornerstone of our model of strategic human capital 
management.[Footnote 14]

Scope and Methodology:

To address our objectives, we identified federal uniformed police 
forces with 50 or more officers in the Washington MSA--13 in all. 
Specifically, we reviewed OPM data to determine the executive branch 
federal uniformed police forces with 50 or more police officers in the 
Washington MSA. We reviewed a prior report issued by the Department of 
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics and our prior reports to 
determine the judicial and legislative branches' federal uniformed 
police forces with 50 or more police officers in the Washington MSA.

In addressing each of the objectives, we interviewed officials 
responsible for human capital issues at each of the 13 police forces 
and obtained documents on recruitment and retention issues. Using this 
information, we created a survey and distributed it to the 13 police 
forces to obtain information on (1) entry-level officer pay and 
benefits, types of officer duties, and minimum entry-level officer 
qualifications; (2) officer turnover rates[Footnote 15] and the 
availability and use of human capital flexibilities to retain officers; 
and (3) difficulties in recruiting officers, and the availability and 
use of human capital flexibilities to improve recruiting. We reviewed 
and analyzed the police forces' responses for completeness and accuracy 
and followed-up on any missing or unclear responses with appropriate 
officials.

Where possible, we verified the data using OPM's Central Personnel Data 
File.[Footnote 16] In reviewing duties performed by police officers at 
the 13 police forces, we relied on information provided by police force 
officials and did not perform a detailed analysis of the differences in 
duties and responsibilities. Additionally, due to resource limitations, 
we did not survey officers who separated from the police forces to 
determine their reasons for leaving.[Footnote 17] We obtained this 
information from officials at the police forces. Although some of the 
police forces have police officers detailed at locations throughout the 
country, the data in this report are only for officers stationed in the 
Washington MSA. Therefore, these data are not projectable nationwide.

Entry-Level Pay and Benefits Varied among the Police Forces:

Entry-level pay and retirement benefits varied widely across the 13 
police forces. Annual pay for entry-level police officers ranged from 
$28,801 to $39,427, as of September 30, 2002. Officers at 4 of the 13 
police forces received federal law enforcement retirement benefits, 
while officers at the remaining 9 police forces received standard 
federal employee retirement benefits. According to officials, all 13 
police forces performed many of the same types of general duties, such 
as protecting people and property and screening people and materials 
entering and/or exiting buildings under their jurisdictions. Eleven of 
the 13 police forces had specialized teams and functions, such as K-9 
and/or SWAT. The minimum qualification requirements and the selection 
processes were generally similar among most of the 13 police forces.

At $39,427 per year, the U.S. Capitol Police, Library of Congress 
Police, and Supreme Court Police forces had the highest starting 
salaries for entry-level officers, while entry-level officers at the 
NIH Police and Federal Protective Service received the lowest starting 
salaries at $28,801 per year. The salaries for officers at the 
remaining 8 police forces ranged from $29,917 to $38,695. Entry-level 
officers at 5 of the 13 police forces received an increase in pay, 
ranging from $788 to $1,702, upon successful completion of basic 
training. Four of the 13 police forces received federal law enforcement 
retirement benefits and received among the highest starting salaries, 
ranging from $37,063 to $39,427. Figure 1 provides a comparison of 
entry-level officer pay and retirement benefits at the 13 police 
forces.

Figure 1: Pay for Entry-level Officers and Retirement Benefits for Each 
of the 13 Police Forces with 50 or More Officers Stationed in the 
Washington MSA as of September 30, 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[A] Pay increase after successful completion of basic training.

[End of figure]

Entry-level officers at 12 of the 13 police forces (all but the U.S. 
Postal Service Police) received increases in their starting salaries 
between October 1, 2002, and April 1, 2003. Entry-level officers at 
three of the four police forces (FBI Police, Federal Protective 
Service, and NIH Police) with the lowest entry-level salaries as of 
September 30, 2002, received raises of $5,584, $4,583, and $4,252, 
respectively, during the period ranging from October 1, 2002 through 
April 1, 2003. In addition, entry-level officers at both the U.S. 
Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police--two of the highest paid 
forces--also received salary increases of $3,739 during the same time 
period. These pay raises received by entry-level officers from October 
1, 2002, through April 1, 2003, narrowed the entry-level pay gap for 
some of the 13 forces. For example, as of September 30, 2002, entry-
level officers at the FBI Police received a salary $8,168 less than an 
entry-level officer at the U.S. Capitol Police. However, as of April 1, 
2003, the pay gap between entry-level officers at the two forces had 
narrowed to $6,323. Figure 2 provides information on pay increases that 
entry-level officers received from October 1, 2002, through April 1, 
2003, along with entry-level officer pay rates as of April 1, 2003.

Figure 2: Fiscal Year 2003 Pay Increases for Entry-Level Officers for 
Each of the 13 Police Forces with 50 or More Officers Stationed in the 
Washington MSA as of April 1, 2003:

[See PDF for image]

[A] In late April 2003, Supreme Court Police officers were granted a 
pay increase retroactive to October 1, 2002. This pay increase brought 
the entry-level pay of Supreme Court officers to the same levels as 
those of the Capitol Police and Library of Congress Police.

[End of figure]

Officers at the 13 police forces reportedly performed many of the same 
types of duties, such as protecting people and property, patrolling the 
grounds on foot, and conducting entrance and exit screenings. Police 
force officials also reported that officers at all of the police forces 
had the authority to make arrests. Table 2 displays the types of duties 
performed by officers at each of the 13 police forces.

Table 2: Types of Duties Performed by Officers at Each of the 13 Police 
Forces Located in the Washington MSA:

Uniformed police force: Library of Congress; Protection of people and 
property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: No; Patrol on foot: Yes; 
Patrol outside agency boundary: No; Entrance and/or exit 
screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Supreme Court; Protection of people and 
property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on foot: Yes; 
Patrol outside agency boundary: No; Entrance and/or exit 
screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Capitol; Protection of people and 
property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on foot: Yes; 
Patrol outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or exit 
screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Pentagon Force Protection Agency; Protection of 
people and property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on 
foot: Yes; Patrol outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or 
exit screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Secret Service; Protection of people and 
property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on foot: Yes; 
Patrol outside agency boundary: [a]; Entrance and/or exit screening: 
Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Park Police; Protection of people and property: 
Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on foot: Yes; Patrol 
outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or exit screening: 
Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Protection of 
people and property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on 
foot: Yes; Patrol outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or 
exit screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Mint; Protection of people and property: 
Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on foot: Yes; Patrol 
outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or exit screening: 
Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Government Printing Office; Protection of 
people and property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on 
foot: Yes; Patrol outside agency boundary: No; Entrance and/or 
exit screening: Yes; Crowd control: No; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Federal Bureau of Investigation; Protection of 
people and property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on 
foot: Yes; Patrol outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or 
exit screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Postal Service; Protection of people and 
property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on foot: Yes; 
Patrol outside agency boundary: No; Entrance and/or exit 
screening: Yes; Crowd control: No; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Federal Protective Service; Protection of 
people and property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on 
foot: Yes; Patrol outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or 
exit screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: National Institutes of Health; Protection of 
people and property: Yes; Patrol in vehicle: Yes; Patrol on 
foot: Yes; Patrol outside agency boundary: Yes; Entrance and/or 
exit screening: Yes; Crowd control: Yes; Arrests: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Total; Protection of people and property: 13; 
Patrol in vehicle: 12; Patrol on foot: 13; Patrol outside agency 
boundary: 8; Entrance and/or exit screening: 13; Crowd control: 11; 
Arrests: 13.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the 13 police forces.

[A] The Secret Service noted that the Uniformed Division has full 
police powers in Washington, D.C., and that it further has the 
authority to perform its protective duties throughout the United 
States.

[End of table]

Although there are similarities in the general duties, there were 
differences among the police forces with respect to the extent to which 
they performed specialized functions. Table 3 shows that 11 of the 13 
police forces reported that they performed at least one specialized 
function; 2 police forces (Government Printing Office Police and U.S. 
Postal Service Police) reported that they did not perform specialized 
functions.

Table 3: Specialized Functions Performed by Officers at Each of the 13 
Police Forces:

Uniformed police force: Library of Congress; K-9: No; SWAT: 
No; Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: No; Traffic: No; Bicycle: No; Other: No.

Uniformed police force: Supreme Court; K-9: Yes; SWAT: No; 
Criminal investigation: No; Chemical/ biological/ hazmat: 
Yes; Traffic: No; Bicycle: No; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Capitol; K-9: Yes; SWAT: Yes; 
Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ hazmat: 
Yes; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Pentagon Force Protection Agency; K-9: Yes; 
SWAT: Yes; Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: Yes; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Secret Service; K-9: Yes; SWAT: Yes; 
Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ hazmat: 
Yes; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Park Police; K-9: Yes; SWAT: Yes; 
Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ hazmat: 
Yes; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; K-9: No; 
SWAT: No; Criminal investigation: No; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: No; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: No.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Mint; K-9: No; SWAT: Yes; 
Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ hazmat: 
No; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: No.

Uniformed police force: Government Printing Office; K-9: No; SWAT: 
No; Criminal investigation: No; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: No; Traffic: No; Bicycle: No; Other: No.

Uniformed police force: Federal Bureau of Investigation; K-9: Yes; 
SWAT: Yes; Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: Yes; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: No; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Postal Service; K-9: No; SWAT: 
No; Criminal investigation: No; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: No; Traffic: No; Bicycle: No; Other: No.

Uniformed police force: Federal Protective Service; K-9: Yes; SWAT: 
No; Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: Yes; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: National Institutes of Health; K-9: Yes; 
SWAT: No; Criminal investigation: Yes; Chemical/ biological/ 
hazmat: Yes; Traffic: Yes; Bicycle: Yes; Other: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Total; K-9: 8; SWAT: 6; Criminal investigation: 
9; Chemical/ biological/ hazmat: 8; Traffic: 9; Bicycle: 8; Other: 8.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the 13 police forces.

[End of table]

The minimum qualification requirements and the selection processes were 
generally similar among most of the 13 police forces. As part of the 
selection process, all 13 police forces required new hires to have 
successfully completed an application, an interview(s), a medical 
examination, a background investigation, and a drug test. Each force 
also had at least one additional requirement, such as a security 
clearance or physical fitness evaluation. The U.S. Postal Service 
Police was the only force that did not require a high school diploma or 
prior law enforcement experience. For additional information on 
qualification requirements and the selection process for the 13 police 
forces, see appendix IV.

Sizable Differences in Turnover Rates among the 13 Police Forces:

Total turnover at the 13 police forces nearly doubled from fiscal years 
2001 to 2002. Additionally, during fiscal year 2002, 8 of the 13 police 
forces experienced their highest annual turnover rates over the 6-year 
period, from fiscal years 1997 through 2002. There were sizable 
differences in turnover rates among the 13 police forces during fiscal 
year 2002. NIH Police reported the highest turnover rate at 58 percent. 
The turnover rates for the remaining 12 police forces ranged from 11 
percent to 41 percent. Of the 729 officers who separated from the 13 
police forces in fiscal year 2002, about 82 percent (599), excluding 
retirements, voluntarily separated. About 53 percent (316) of the 599 
officers who voluntarily separated from the police forces in fiscal 
year 2002 went to TSA.[Footnote 18] Additionally, about 65 percent of 
the officers who voluntarily separated from the 13 police forces during 
fiscal year 2002 had fewer than 5 years of service on their police 
forces.

The total number of separations at all 13 police forces nearly doubled 
(from 375 to 729) between fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Turnover 
increased at all but 1 of the police forces (Library of Congress 
Police) over this period. The most significant increases in turnover 
occurred at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police (200 percent) 
and the Secret Service Uniformed Division (about 152 percent). In 
addition, during fiscal year 2002, 8 of the 13 police forces 
experienced their highest annual turnover rates over the 6-year period, 
from fiscal years 1997 through 2002. Figure 3 displays the total number 
of separations for the 13 police forces over the 6-year period.

Figure 3: Total Number of Separations for 13 Police Forces in the 
Washington MSA during Fiscal Years 1997-2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The turnover rates at the 13 police forces ranged from 11 percent at 
the Library of Congress Police to 58 percent at the NIH Police in 
fiscal year 2002. In addition to the NIH Police, 3 other police forces 
had turnover rates of 25 percent or greater during fiscal year 2002. 
The U.S. Mint Police reported the second highest turnover rate at 41 
percent, followed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police at 27 
percent and the Secret Service Uniformed Division at 25 percent. Table 
4 shows that at each of the 13 police forces, turnover was 
overwhelmingly due to voluntary separations--about 18 percent (130) of 
turnover was due to retirements, disability, and involuntarily 
separations.

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2002 Turnover Rates and Separations Data for Each 
of the 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Uniformed police force: Library of Congress; Turnover rate (in 
percent): 11; Retirements[A]: 5; Disability separations: 0; Voluntary 
separations: 9; Involuntary separations: 0; Total separations: 14.

Uniformed police force: Supreme Court; Turnover rate (in percent): 16; 
Retirements[A]: 3; Disability separations: 0; Voluntary separations: 
14; Involuntary separations: 0; Total separations: 17.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Capitol; Turnover rate (in percent): 13; 
Retirements[A]: 10; Disability separations: 1; Voluntary separations: 
143; Involuntary separations: 6; Total separations: 160.

Uniformed police force: Pentagon Force Protection Agency; Turnover rate 
(in percent): 13; Retirements[A]: 4; Disability separations: 1; 
Voluntary separations: 25; Involuntary separations: 3; Total 
separations: 33.

Uniformed police force: Secret Service; Turnover rate (in percent): 25; 
Retirements[A]: 39; Disability separations: 3; Voluntary separations: 
234; Involuntary separations: 1; Total separations: 277.

Uniformed police force: Park Police; Turnover rate (in percent): 13; 
Retirements[A]: 12; Disability separations: 3; Voluntary separations: 
36; Involuntary separations: 4; Total separations: 55.

Uniformed police force: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Turnover rate 
(in percent): 27; Retirements[A]: 1; Disability separations: 1; 
Voluntary separations: 32; Involuntary separations: 2; Total 
separations: 36.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Mint; Turnover rate (in percent): 41; 
Retirements[A]: 0; Disability separations: 0; Voluntary separations: 
21; Involuntary separations: 1; Total separations: 22.

Uniformed police force: Government Printing Office; Turnover rate (in 
percent): 16; Retirements[A]: 2; Disability separations: 1; Voluntary 
separations: 2; Involuntary separations: 3; Total separations: 8.

Uniformed police force: Federal Bureau of Investigation; Turnover rate 
(in percent): 17; Retirements[A]: 1; Disability separations: 0; 
Voluntary separations: 30; Involuntary separations: 1; Total 
separations: 32.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Postal Service; Turnover rate (in 
percent): 14; Retirements[A]: 7; Disability separations: 1; Voluntary 
separations: 7; Involuntary separations: 1; Total separations: 16.

Uniformed police force: Federal Protective Service; Turnover rate (in 
percent): 19; Retirements[A]: 7; Disability separations: 0; Voluntary 
separations: 21; Involuntary separations: 1; Total separations: 29.

Uniformed police force: National Institutes of Health; Turnover rate 
(in percent): 58; Retirements[A]: 0; Disability separations: 0; 
Voluntary separations: 25; Involuntary separations: 5; Total 
separations: 30.

Uniformed police force: Total; Turnover rate (in percent): Yes; 
Retirements[A]: 91; Disability separations: 11; Voluntary separations: 
599; Involuntary separations: 28; Total separations: 729.

Source: GAO analysis of turnover data provided the 13 police forces.

[A] Includes both mandatory and voluntary retirements.

[End of table]

There was no clear pattern evident between employee pay and turnover 
rates during fiscal year 2002. For example, while some police forces 
with relatively highly paid entry-level officers such as the Library of 
Congress Police (11 percent) and the Supreme Court Police (13 percent) 
had relatively low turnover rates, other police forces with relatively 
highly paid entry-level officers such as the U.S. Mint Police (41 
percent), Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police (27 percent), and 
Secret Service Uniformed Division (25 percent) experienced 
significantly higher turnover rates. Additionally, turnover varied 
significantly among the 5 police forces with relatively lower paid 
entry-level officers. For example, while the Federal Protective Service 
(19 percent) and NIH Police (58 percent) entry-level officers both 
received the lowest starting pay, turnover differed dramatically.

Likewise, no clear pattern existed regarding turnover among police 
forces receiving federal law enforcement retirement benefits and those 
receiving traditional federal retirement benefits. For example, entry-
level officers at the Library of Congress Police, U.S. Capitol Police, 
and Supreme Court Police all received equivalent pay in fiscal year 
2002. However, the Library of Congress (11 percent) had a lower 
turnover rate than the Capitol Police (13 percent) and Supreme Court 
Police (16 percent), despite the fact that officers at the latter 2 
police forces received federal law enforcement retirement benefits. In 
addition, while officers at both the Park Police (19 percent) and 
Secret Service Uniformed Division (25 percent) received law enforcement 
retirement benefits, these forces experienced higher turnover rates 
than some forces such as U.S. Postal Service Police (14 percent) and 
FBI Police (17 percent), whose officers did not receive law enforcement 
retirement benefits and whose entry-level officers received lower 
starting salaries.

More than half (316) of the 599 officers who voluntarily separated from 
the police forces in fiscal year 2002 went to TSA--nearly all (313 of 
316) to become Federal Air Marshals where they were able to earn higher 
salaries, federal law enforcement retirement benefits, and a type of 
pay premium for unscheduled duty equaling 25 percent of their base 
salary. The number (316) of police officers who voluntarily separated 
from the 13 police forces to take positions at TSA nearly equaled the 
increase in the total number of separations (354) that occurred between 
fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

About 25 percent (148) of the voluntarily separated officers accepted 
other federal law enforcement positions, excluding positions at TSA, 
and about 5 percent (32 officers) took nonlaw enforcement positions, 
excluding positions at TSA. Furthermore, about 9 percent (51) of the 
voluntarily separated officers took positions in state or local law 
enforcement or separated to, among other things, continue their 
education. Officials were unable to determine where the remaining 9 
percent (52) of the voluntarily separated officers went. Table 5 
provides a summary of where officers who voluntarily separated in 
fiscal year 2002 went.

Table 5: Summary of Where Officers Who Voluntarily Separated from the 
13 Police Forces in Fiscal Year 2002 Went:

Uniformed police force: Library of Congress; TSA: 3; Other federal law 
enforcement, excluding TSA: 4; State or local law enforcement: 1; Other 
federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; Other nonlaw enforcement: 
0; Other: 0; Unknown: 1; Total voluntary separations[A]: 9.

Uniformed police force: Supreme Court; TSA: 5; Other federal law 
enforcement, excluding TSA: 5; State or local law enforcement: 2; Other 
federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; Other nonlaw enforcement: 
1; Other: 1; Unknown: 0; Total voluntary separations[A]: 14.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Capitol; TSA: 66; Other federal law 
enforcement, excluding TSA: 36; State or local law enforcement: 14; 
Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; Other nonlaw 
enforcement: 5; Other: 11; Unknown: 11; Total voluntary separations[A]: 
143.

Uniformed police force: Pentagon Force Protection Agency; TSA: 10; 
Other federal law enforcement, excluding TSA: 10; State or local law 
enforcement: 2; Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 1; 
Other nonlaw enforcement: 2; Other: 0; Unknown: 0; Total voluntary 
separations[A]: 25.

Uniformed police force: Secret Service; TSA: 148; Other federal law 
enforcement, excluding TSA: 45; State or local law enforcement: 5; 
Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 1; Other nonlaw 
enforcement: 2; Other: 3; Unknown: 30; Total voluntary separations[A]: 
234.

Uniformed police force: Park Police; TSA: 22; Other federal law 
enforcement, excluding TSA: 6; State or local law enforcement: 0; Other 
federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 1; Other nonlaw enforcement: 
1; Other: 5; Unknown: 1; Total voluntary separations[A]: 36.

Uniformed police force: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; TSA: 12; 
Other federal law enforcement, excluding TSA: 12; State or local law 
enforcement: 3; Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; 
Other nonlaw enforcement: 0; Other: 0; Unknown: 5; Total voluntary 
separations[A]: 32.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Mint; TSA: 18; Other federal law 
enforcement, excluding TSA: 3; State or local law enforcement: 0; Other 
federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; Other nonlaw enforcement: 
0; Other: 0; Unknown: 0; Total voluntary separations[A]: 21.

Uniformed police force: Government Printing Office; TSA: 0; Other 
federal law enforcement, excluding TSA: 1; State or local law 
enforcement: 0; Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; 
Other nonlaw enforcement: 0; Other: 0; Unknown: 1; Total voluntary 
separations[A]: 2.

Uniformed police force: Federal Bureau of Investigation; TSA: 16; Other 
federal law enforcement, excluding TSA: 1; State or local law 
enforcement: 0; Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 13; 
Other nonlaw enforcement: 0; Other: 0; Unknown: 0; Total voluntary 
separations[A]: 30.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Postal Service; TSA: 0; Other federal law 
enforcement, excluding TSA: 7; State or local law enforcement: 0; Other 
federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; Other nonlaw enforcement: 
0; Other: 0; Unknown: 0; Total voluntary separations[A]: 7.

Uniformed police force: Federal Protective Service; TSA: 7; Other 
federal law enforcement, excluding TSA: 10; State or local law 
enforcement: 0; Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 0; 
Other nonlaw enforcement: 1; Other: 0; Unknown: 3; Total voluntary 
separations[A]: 21.

Uniformed police force: National Institutes of Health; TSA: 9; Other 
federal law enforcement, excluding TSA: 8; State or local law 
enforcement: 4; Other federal nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 4; 
Other nonlaw enforcement: 0; Other: 0; Unknown: 0; Total voluntary 
separations[A]: 25.

Uniformed police force: Total; TSA: 316; Other federal law enforcement, 
excluding TSA: 148; State or local law enforcement: 31; Other federal 
nonlaw enforcement, excluding TSA: 20; Other nonlaw enforcement: 12; 
Other: 20; Unknown: 52; Total voluntary separations[A]: 599.

Source: GAO analysis of turnover data provided by the 13 police forces.

[A] Excludes voluntary retirements and disability.

[End of table]

Figure 4 shows a percentage breakdown of where the 599 officers who 
voluntarily separated from the 13 police forces during fiscal year 2002 
went.

Figure 4: Percentage Breakdown of Where 599 Officers Who Voluntarily 
Separated during Fiscal Year 2002 Went:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Although we did not survey individual officers to determine why they 
separated from these police forces, officials from the 13 forces 
reported a number of reasons that officers had separated, including to 
obtain better pay and/or benefits at other police forces, less 
overtime, and greater responsibility. Without surveying each of the 599 
officers who voluntarily separated from their police forces in fiscal 
year 2002, we could not draw any definitive conclusions about the 
reasons they left. For additional details on turnover at the 13 police 
forces, see appendix II.

The use of human capital flexibilities to address turnover varied among 
the 13 police forces. For example, officials at 4 of the 13 police 
forces reported that they were able to offer retention allowances, 
which may assist the forces in retaining experienced officers, and 3 of 
these police forces used this tool to retain officers in fiscal year 
2002. The average retention allowances paid to officers in fiscal year 
2002 were about $1,000 at the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, $3,500 
at the Federal Protective Service, and more than $4,200 at the NIH 
Police. The police forces reported various reasons for not making 
greater use of available human capital flexibilities in fiscal year 
2002, including:

* lack of funding for human capital flexibilities,

* lack of awareness among police force officials that the human capital 
flexibilities were available, and:

* lack of specific requests for certain flexibilities such as time-off 
awards or tuition reimbursement.

The limited use of human capital flexibilities by many of the 13 police 
forces and the reasons provided for the limited use are consistent with 
our governmentwide study of the use of such authorities. In December 
2002, we reported that federal agencies have not made greater use of 
such flexibilities for reasons such as agencies' weak strategic human 
capital planning, inadequate funding for using these flexibilities 
given competing priorities, and managers' and supervisors' lack of 
awareness and knowledge of the flexibilities.[Footnote 19] We further 
stated that the insufficient or ineffective use of flexibilities can 
significantly hinder the ability of agencies to recruit, hire, retain, 
and manage their human capital. Additionally, in May 2003, we reported 
that OPM can better assist agencies in using human capital 
flexibilities by, among other things, maximizing its efforts to make 
the flexibilities more widely known to agencies through compiling, 
analyzing, and sharing information about when, where, and how the broad 
range of flexibilities are being used, and should be used, to help 
agencies meet their human capital management needs.[Footnote 20] For 
additional information on human capital flexibilities at the 13 police 
forces, see appendix III.

Most Forces Experienced Recruitment Difficulties:

Nine of the 13 police forces reported difficulties recruiting officers 
to at least a little or some extent. Despite recruitment difficulties 
faced by many of the police forces, none of the police forces used 
important human capital recruitment flexibilities, such as recruitment 
bonuses and student loan repayments, in fiscal year 2002. Some police 
force officials reported that the human capital recruitment 
flexibilities were not used for various reasons, such as limited 
funding or that the flexibilities themselves were not available to the 
forces during the fiscal year 2002 recruiting cycle.[Footnote 21]

Officials at 4 of the 13 police forces (Bureau of Engraving and 
Printing Police, the FBI Police, Federal Protective Service, and NIH 
Police) reported that they were having a great or very great deal of 
difficulty recruiting officers. In addition, officials at 5 police 
forces reported that they were having difficulty recruiting officers to 
a little or some extent or to a moderate extent. Among the reasons 
given for recruitment difficulties were:

* low pay;

* the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area;

* difficulty completing the application/background investigation 
process; and:

* better retirement benefits at other law enforcement agencies.

Conversely, officials at 4 of the 13 police forces (Library of Congress 
Police, the Supreme Court Police, U.S. Mint Police, and U.S. Postal 
Service Police) reported that they were not having difficulty 
recruiting officers. Library of Congress officials attributed their 
police force's lack of difficulty recruiting officers to attractive pay 
and working conditions and the ability to hire officers at any age 
above 20 and who also will not be subject to a mandatory retirement 
age.[Footnote 22] Supreme Court officials told us that their police 
force had solved a recent recruitment problem by focusing additional 
resources on recruiting and emphasizing the force's attractive work 
environment to potential recruits. U.S. Postal Service officials 
reported that their police force was not experiencing a recruitment 
problem because it hired its police officers from within the agency. 
Table 6 provides a summary of the level of recruitment difficulties 
reported by the 13 police forces.

Table 6: Extent to Which Police Forces Reported Experiencing 
Recruitment Difficulties in the Washington MSA:

Uniformed police force: Library of Congress; Very great extent: 
No; Great extent: No; Moderate extent: No; Little or 
some extent: No; No extent: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Supreme Court; Very great extent: No; 
Great extent: No; Moderate extent: No; Little or some extent: 
No; No extent: Yes.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Capitol; Very great extent: No; Great 
extent: No; Moderate extent: No; Little or some extent: 
Yes; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: Pentagon Force Protection Agency; Very great 
extent: No; Great extent: No; Moderate extent: Yes; 
Little or some extent: No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: Secret Service; Very great extent: No; 
Great extent: No; Moderate extent: Yes; Little or some extent: 
No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: Park Police; Very great extent: No; Great 
extent: No; Moderate extent: Yes; Little or some extent: 
No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Very great 
extent: Yes; Great extent: No; Moderate extent: No; 
Little or some extent: No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Mint Police; Very great extent: No; 
Great extent: No; Moderate extent: No; Little or some extent: 
No; No extent: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Government Printing Office; Very great extent: 
No; Great extent: No; Moderate extent: Yes; Little or 
some extent: No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: Federal Bureau of Investigation; Very great 
extent: No; Great extent: Yes; Moderate extent: No; 
Little or some extent: No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Postal Service; Very great extent: 
No; Great extent: No; Moderate extent: No; Little or 
some extent: No; No extent: Yes.

Uniformed police force: Federal Protective Service; Very great extent: 
No; Great extent: Yes; Moderate extent: No; Little or 
some extent: No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: National Institutes of Health; Very great 
extent: No; Great extent: Yes; Moderate extent: No; 
Little or some extent: No; No extent: No.

Uniformed police force: Total; Very great extent: 1; Great extent: 3; 
Moderate extent: 4; Little or some extent: 1; No extent: 4.

[End of table]

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the 13 police forces.

Although many of the police forces reported facing recruitment 
difficulties, none of the police forces used human capital recruitment 
tools, such as recruitment bonuses and student loan repayments, in 
fiscal year 2002. For more information on human capital flexibilities, 
see appendix III.

Conclusions:

Without surveying each of the 599 officers who voluntarily separated 
from their police forces in fiscal year 2002, we could not draw any 
definitive conclusions about the reasons they left. However, officials 
at the 13 police forces included in our review reported that officers 
separated from their positions for such reasons as to (1) obtain better 
pay and/or benefits at other police forces, (2) work less overtime, and 
(3) assume greater responsibility.

The number of separations across the 13 police forces included in our 
review increased by 354 between fiscal years 2001 and 2002. This 
increase almost equaled the number (316) of officers who voluntarily 
separated from their forces to join TSA. Given that TSA's Federal Air 
Marshal Program has now been established, and the buildup in staffing 
has been substantially completed, the increase in turnover experienced 
in fiscal year 2002 at 12 of the 13 police forces may have been a one-
time occurrence. Additionally, the recent pay increases received by 
officers at 12 of the 13 police forces, along with the potential 
implementation of various human capital flexibilities, might also help 
to address recruitment and retention issues experienced by many of the 
police forces.

Agency Comments:

We requested comments on a draft of this report from each of the 13 
federal uniformed police forces included in our review. We received 
written comments from 12 of the 13 police forces (the Federal 
Protective Service did not provide comments). Of the 12 police forces 
that commented, 11 either generally agreed with the information 
presented or did not express an overall opinion about the report.

In its comments, the U.S. Secret Service raised four main issues 
relating to the pay, retirement benefits, and job responsibilities 
information. First, it suggested that we expand our review to include 
information on the compensation packages offered to separating 
officers, particularly those moving to TSA. However, our objective was 
to provide information on pay, retirement benefits, types of duties, 
turnover, and the use of human capital flexibilities at 13 federal 
uniformed police forces in the Washington, D.C. area. Our aim was not 
to compare the officers' previous and new job pay, benefits, 
responsibilities, or training requirements.

Second, the U.S. Secret Service suggested that we report that a pattern 
existed between employee turnover and pay. However, our discussions 
with human capital officials in the 13 police forces found that 
separating officers provided them with a variety of reasons why they 
chose to leave their police forces, including increased pay, additional 
benefits, greater job satisfaction, and personal reasons. We did not 
contact separating officers to determine why they decided to move to 
other jobs and whether the new jobs was comparable in pay, benefits, 
and job responsibilities. Nevertheless, with the information we 
obtained, we were unable to discern any clear patterns between employee 
turnover and pay. That is, turnover varied significantly among police 
forces that had similar pay for entry-level officers.

Third, the U.S. Secret Service suggested that we calculate the 
differences in retirement benefits that would accrue to officers in the 
different forces. We noted in our report that different forces had 
different retirement plans with significant differences in benefits. 
However, calculating the retirement benefits of a hypothetical police 
officer at each of the forces was beyond the scope of our review.

Finally, the U.S. Secret Service noted that fundamental differences 
exist among the agencies' authorities, responsibilities, duties, and 
training requirements, and that this could account for differences in 
compensation. We agree that differences exist among the 13 agencies, 
and we captured many of these differences in the report. However, we 
did not attempt to determine the extent to which these differences 
accounted for differences in police officer compensation.

We also requested and received comments from OPM. OPM was concerned 
that the data provided in our report will lead to unintended 
conclusions, citing what it considered to be a lack of substantive 
analysis and comparisons of the pay systems involved. OPM further 
commented that the data and information we report must not serve as a 
basis for modifying the pay structure, salaries, or retirement system 
of any of the police forces.

Our report provides information on 13 federal uniformed police forces 
that had not been previously compiled, which is useful in comparing 
entry-level pay, retirement benefits, types of duties, turnover rates, 
and the use of human capital flexibilities. In preparing this report, 
we worked closely with these police forces to obtain reliable 
information on these items, as well as the conditions and challenges 
confronting their operations. Nevertheless, we agree that more 
comprehensive information would be useful in deciding how best to deal 
with pay, benefit, and retention issues. As the executive branch agency 
responsible for establishing human capital policies and monitoring 
their implementation, OPM is in a good position to perform the 
additional analysis it believes would be useful to draw conclusions on 
such issues.

Most of the police forces and OPM provided technical comments, which 
were incorporated in the report, where appropriate. The Department of 
the Interior (U.S. Park Police), NIH, OPM, and the U.S. Supreme Court 
provided formal letters, and the U.S. Secret Service provided an 
internal memorandum, which are included in appendixes V through IX.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, Secretary 
of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of the Interior, Chair of 
the Capitol Police Board, the Librarian of Congress, the Public 
Printer, the Marshal of the Supreme Court, the Postmaster General, the 
Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, and the Directors of 
NIH, OPM, and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency. We will also 
provide copies of this report to the directors of each of the 13 police 
forces, relevant congressional committees, and Members of Congress. We 
will make copies of this report available to other interested parties 
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or at stanar@gao.gov or Weldon McPhail, 
Assistant Director, at (202) 512-8644 or at mcphailw@gao.gov. See 
appendix X for additional GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments.

Richard M. Stana Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Counties and Cities Included in the Washington Metropolitan 
Statistical Area:

Washington, D.C.

Maryland counties:

Calvert County 
Charles County 
Frederick County 
Montgomery County 
Prince George's County:

Virginia counties and cities:

Counties:

Arlington County 
Clarke County 
Culpeper County 
Fairfax County 
Fauquier County 
King George County 
Loudoun County 
Prince William County 
Spotsylvania County 
Stafford County 
Warren County:

Cities:

Alexandria city 
Fairfax city 
Falls Church city 
Fredericksburg city 
Manassas city 
Manassas Park city:

West Virginia counties:

Berkeley County 
Jefferson County:

[End of section]

Appendix II: Selected Turnover Data for the 13 Police Forces:

Table 7 shows, among other things, that during fiscal year 2002, 12 of 
the 13 police forces experienced increased turnover from the prior 
fiscal year, while 8 of the 13 police forces experienced their highest 
turnover rates over the 6-year period, from fiscal years 1997 through 
2002.

Table 7: Number of Separations and Turnover Rates of Uniformed Police 
Officers in the Washington MSA for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[A] U.S. Mint Police reported that it used mainly contract police 
officers during fiscal years 1997 through 1999.

[B] Turnover rate cannot be calculated due to incomplete data.

[End of table]

Table 8 shows that officers with fewer than 5 years of experience on 
their forces accounted for about 65 percent of the voluntary 
separations in fiscal year 2002.

Table 8: Fiscal Year 2002 Voluntary Separations by Years of Experience 
on a Police Force for 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Library of Congress; Less than 2 yrs.: 4; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 
4; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 9.

Supreme Court; Less than 2 yrs.: 2; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 8; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 3; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 14.

U.S. Capitol; Less than 2 yrs.: 59; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 50; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 23; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 8; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 2; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 1; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 143.

Pentagon Force Protection Agency; Less than 2 yrs.: 12; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 10; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 
15 yrs.: 2; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 
yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 25.

Secret Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 88; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 42; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 34; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 67; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 3; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 234.

Park Police; Less than 2 yrs.: 3; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 11; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 9; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 12; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 1; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 36.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Less than 2 yrs.: 14; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 12; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 5; 10 yrs. to less than 
15 yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 1; 20 yrs. to less than 25 
yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 32.

U.S. Mint; Less than 2 yrs.: 6; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 12; 5 yrs. 
to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 2; 15 yrs. to 
less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 21.

Government Printing Office; Less than 2 yrs.: 1; 2 yrs. to less than 5 
yrs.: 0; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 1; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 2.

Federal Bureau of Investigation; Less than 2 yrs.: 9; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 9; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 8; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 4; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 30.

U.S. Postal Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 
5; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 1; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 7.

Federal Protective Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 2; 2 yrs. to less than 5 
yrs.: 10; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 9; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 21.

National Institutes of Health; Less than 2 yrs.: 10; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 8; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 4; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 2; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
1; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 25.

Total; Less than 2 yrs.: 210; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 181; 5 yrs. 
to less than 10 yrs.: 97; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 96; 15 yrs. to 
less than 20 yrs.: 13; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 2; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 599.

Source: GAO analysis of separations data provided by the 13 police 
forces.

[End of table]

Figure 5 shows that officers with fewer than 2 years of service on 
their forces accounted for about 35 percent of the voluntary 
separations in fiscal year 2002, and officers with 2 to 5 years of 
service comprised an additional 30 percent.

Figure 5: Voluntary Separations, Excluding Retirements and Disability, 
by Years of Service on a Force in Fiscal Year 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Table 9 shows that approximately half (316) of the 599 police officers 
who voluntarily separated from their forces in fiscal year 2002 went to 
TSA. Of the 316 officers who went to TSA, about 53 percent (166) had 
fewer than 5 years of experience on their forces. An additional 19 
percent (59) had 5 years to less than 10 years of experience on their 
forces.

Table 9: Separations to TSA in Fiscal Year 2002 by Police Force and 
Years of Service on a Force for 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Library of Congress; Less than 2 yrs.: 2; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 
1; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 3.

Supreme Court; Less than 2 yrs.: 1; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 1; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 2; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 5.

U.S. Capitol; Less than 2 yrs.: 13; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 27; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 17; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 6; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 2; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 1; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 66.

Pentagon Force Protection Agency; Less than 2 yrs.: 3; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 6; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 1; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 10.

Secret Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 39; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 21; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 22; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 63; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 3; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 148.

Park Police; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 8; 5 yrs. 
to less than 10 yrs.: 5; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 8; 15 yrs. to 
less than 20 yrs.: 1; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 22.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Less than 2 yrs.: 2; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 5; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 4; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 1; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 12.

U.S. Mint; Less than 2 yrs.: 4; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 11; 5 yrs. 
to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 2; 15 yrs. to 
less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 18.

Government Printing Office; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 
yrs.: 0; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 0.

Federal Bureau of Investigation; Less than 2 yrs.: 5; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 6; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 4; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 1; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 16.

U.S. Postal Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 
0; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 0.

Federal Protective Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 2; 2 yrs. to less than 5 
yrs.: 3; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 2; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 7.

National Institutes of Health; Less than 2 yrs.: 4; 2 yrs. to less than 
5 yrs.: 2; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 3; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 9.

Total; Less than 2 yrs.: 75; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 91; 5 yrs. to 
less than 10 yrs.: 59; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 81; 15 yrs. to 
less than 20 yrs.: 9; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 1; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 316.

Source: GAO analysis of separations data provided by the 13 police 
forces.

[End of table]

Table 10 shows that about 25 percent (148) of the 599 police officers 
who voluntarily separated from their forces in fiscal year 2002 took 
other federal law enforcement positions. Officers with fewer than 5 
years of experience on their forces accounted for about 79 percent 
(117) of the separations to other federal law enforcement positions, 
and officers with 5 years to less than 10 years of experience accounted 
for an additional 16 percent (23).

Table 10: Separations to Other Federal Law Enforcement Positions, 
Excluding TSA, in Fiscal Year 2002 by Years of Service on a Force for 
13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

Library of Congress; Less than 2 yrs.: 1; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 
2; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 4.

Supreme Court; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 5; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 5.

U.S. Capitol; Less than 2 yrs.: 18; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 13; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 4; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 1; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 36.

Pentagon Force Protection Agency; Less than 2 yrs.: 5; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 4; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 10.

Secret Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 16; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 17; 5 
yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 9; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 3; 15 yrs. 
to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 45.

Park Police; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 2; 5 yrs. 
to less than 10 yrs.: 2; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 2; 15 yrs. to 
less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 6.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Less than 2 yrs.: 7; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 5; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 12.

U.S. Mint; Less than 2 yrs.: 2; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 1; 5 yrs. 
to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. to 
less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or 
greater: 0; Total separations: 3.

Government Printing Office; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 
yrs.: 0; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 1; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 1.

Federal Bureau of Investigation; Less than 2 yrs.: 1; 2 yrs. to less 
than 5 yrs.: 0; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 
yrs.: 0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 
0; 25 yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 1.

U.S. Postal Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 
5; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 1; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 1; 15 
yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. 
or greater: 0; Total separations: 7.

Federal Protective Service; Less than 2 yrs.: 0; 2 yrs. to less than 5 
yrs.: 5; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 5; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 10.

National Institutes of Health; Less than 2 yrs.: 3; 2 yrs. to less than 
5 yrs.: 5; 5 yrs. to less than 10 yrs.: 0; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 
0; 15 yrs. to less than 20 yrs.: 0; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 
yrs. or greater: 0; Total separations: 8.

Total; Less than 2 yrs.: 53; 2 yrs. to less than 5 yrs.: 64; 5 yrs. to 
less than 10 yrs.: 23; 10 yrs. to less than 15 yrs.: 7; 15 yrs. to less 
than 20 yrs.: 1; 20 yrs. to less than 25 yrs.: 0; 25 yrs. or greater: 
0; Total separations: 148.

Source: GAO analysis of separations data provided by the 13 police 
forces.

[End of table]

Table 11 shows that of the 13 police forces surveyed, 11 reported 
problems ranging in severity from a little or some extent, to a very 
great extent, with retaining officers in the Washington MSA. Of these 
11 police forces, 4 characterized their agencies retention difficulties 
as a very great extent. Two police forces, the Government Printing 
Office Police and the Library of Congress Police, reported no 
difficulty with retention.

Table 11: Extent to Which Police Forces Reported Experiencing Retention 
Difficulties in the Washington MSA:

Uniformed police force: Library of Congress: No Extent.

Uniformed police force: Supreme Court; Moderate extent.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Capitol; Moderate extent.

Uniformed police force: Pentagon Force Protection Agency:
Little or some extent.

Uniformed police force: Secret Service; Very great extent.

Uniformed police force: Park Police; Great extent.

Uniformed police force: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; Very great 
extent.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Mint; Very great extent.

Uniformed police force: No extent.

Uniformed police force: Federal Bureau of Investigation; Great extent.

Uniformed police force: U.S. Postal Service; Great extent.

Uniformed police force: Federal Protective Service; Great extent.

Uniformed police force: National Institutes of Health; Very great 
extent.

Total; Very great extent: 4; Great extent: 4; 
Moderate extent: 2; Little or some extent: 1; No extent: 2.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the 13 police forces.

[End of table]

Police forces reporting difficulties indicated a number of 
commonalities in terms of why officers had left the forces. Among the 
reasons given were[Footnote 23]

* better pay at other agencies;

* better benefits, including law enforcement retirement, at other 
agencies;

* better morale at other agencies;

* more challenging work at other agencies;

* promotional opportunities at other agencies;

* too much overtime at their police forces; and:

* retirements from their police forces.

Library of Congress Police officials attributed their low turnover rate 
to pay, working conditions, and the fact that the force does not have 
any age restrictions, which allows the force to hire older, more 
experienced officers. Each of the forces with retention difficulties 
reported steps taken to address the problem, including providing 
retention allowances, improving training, and improving working 
conditions. Additionally, officials from several police forces reported 
that they were considering providing increases in retention allowances 
and student loan repayments to address their retention difficulties.

Only two police forces, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency and the 
Supreme Court Police, reported that the measures they had taken had 
solved the retention problem to a great extent; the remaining police 
forces indicated either that the measures taken had had a little or no 
effect or that it was too early to determine whether the measures taken 
would solve the retention problem.

[End of section]

Appendix III: Use of Human Capital Flexibilities:

Table 12 illustrates the use of human capital flexibilities by the 13 
police forces included in our review. While agency officials reported 
that a variety of human capital flexibilities were available across the 
agencies, there was variation among agencies both in terms of the 
specific flexibilities available and in the frequency of use. For 
instance, only 3 of the 13 agencies reported the availability of 
recruitment bonuses, and none were given in fiscal year 2002. Ten of 
the 13 reported the availability of performance-based cash awards, and 
9 of these agencies made these awards in amounts averaging $109-$2,500.

Table 12: Reported Availability and Use of Human Capital Flexibilities 
at 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

[See PDF for table]

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the 13 police forces.

[A] The Federal Protective Service reported that it was unable to 
produce reliable data for this item.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Recruiting Strategies and New Hire Selection Process:

Table 13 provides information on the recruiting strategies used as 
reported by the 13 police forces during fiscal year 2002. A number of 
strategies were employed, including placement of announcements in 
various media sources. Also, in addition to agency and OPM Web sites, a 
number of agencies reported using various independent Web sites related 
to employment searches.

Table 13: Use of Recruiting Strategies as Reported by the 13 Police 
Forces in the Washington MSA:

[See PDF for image]

[End of table]

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the 13 police forces.

[End of table]

Table 14 shows that qualification requirements and the selection 
process used were similar across the agencies. The U.S. Postal Service 
Police was the only force that did not require a high school diploma or 
prior law enforcement experience. Additionally, as part of the 
selection process, all 13 police forces required new hires to have 
successfully completed an application, an interview(s), a medical 
examination, a background investigation, and a drug test. Each force 
also had at least one additional requirement, such as a secret 
clearance or physical fitness evaluation.

Table 14: Minimum Qualification Requirements and Selection Process 
Reported by 13 Police Forces in the Washington MSA:

[See PDF for image]

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

United States Department of the Interior:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240:

JUN 5 2003:

Mr. Richard M. Stana Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, N.W., Rm. 2A38 Washington, 
DC 20648:

Dear Mr. Stana:

Thank your for providing the Department of Interior the opportunity to 
review and comment on the U.S. General Accounting Office report 
entitled, "Federal Uniformed Police: Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, 
and Retention at 13 Police Forces in the Washington, D.C. Area" (GAO-
03-658).

The enclosed comments contain a few observations and language 
refinements. If you have any questions or comments please contact Chief 
Teresa Chambers, National Park Service, United States Park Police, at, 
202/619-7350.

Sincerely,

P. Lynn Scarlett 
Assistant Secretary 
Policy, Management and Budget:

Signed by P. Lynn Scarlett:

Enclosure:

[End of section]

Appendix VI: Comments from the National Institutes of Health:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES	Public Health Service:

National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland 20892:

www.nih.gov:

Mr. Richard Stana:

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 
20548:

Dear Mr. Stana:

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report 
entitled "Federal Uniformed Police: Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, 
and Retention at 13 Police Forces in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan 
Area" (GAO-03-658). Enclosed are the comments of the National 
Institutes of Health.

Sincerely,

Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.
Director:

Signed by Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.:

Enclosure:

Comments of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) On the U. S. 
General Accounting Office (GAO) Draft Report "Federal Uniformed Police: 
Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, and Retention at 13 Police Forces in 
the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area," GAO-03-658:

General Comments:

We appreciate this opportunity to review and provide comments on this 
draft report. This report confirms our own conclusions that the Federal 
pay and benefits that NIH Police officers receive are among the lowest 
in the Washington-Metropolitan area. This Congressional report 
highlights the severe difficulty that agencies, especially the NIH, are 
experiencing in recruiting and retaining officers due to disparities in 
pay and benefits, not only with outside entities but within the Federal 
sector itself. For example, the report illustrates that (with the 
exception of SWAT teams) the NIH police officers carry out all of the 
duties and specialized functions that are noted in this report, yet 
they are compensated less than any of the other reported agencies where 
comparable skills are required.

The NIH is not authorized to adjust special rate schedules of pay for 
our officers in order to offer competitive entry and career 
compensation or to provide Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) enhanced 
retirement, death, and disability benefits. As with any law enforcement 
organization, NIH police officers investigate crimes, make arrests and 
confiscate weapons, testify in courts, protect officials, and are 
subject to the potential of death and disability in the line of duty. 
Rigorous work involving primarily the investigation, apprehension, or 
detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against 
criminal statutes are the types of primary duties that are considered 
in determining whether or not the percentage of time that employees 
spend in carrying out these responsibilities is sufficient to meet LEO 
coverage. Time spent carrying out these primary duties for violations 
of both Federal and Maryland criminal statutes is to be considered in 
making LEO coverage decisions. LEO coverage criteria is a high 
statutory standard and several Federal jurisdictions that did not meet 
that standard outright gained LEO coverage by agency-specific statutory 
interventions. Post September 11, the NIH Office of Research Services 
management attests that the NIH Police Officers are regularly assigned 
these paramount duties, are expected to continue to be so assigned on a 
permanent basis in keeping with the White House report, Securing the 
Homeland, Strengthening the Nation, and estimate that 60 percent of 
their work time is spent in carrying out these responsibilities.

NIH has comments on several statements made in the draft GAO report. 
First, the report speculates that, because of the staffing buildup of 
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the increase in 
turnover experienced in fiscal year (FY) 2002 may be a one-time 
occurrence. NIH has had a long-standing problem of retaining officers 
because the agency does not have the statutory authority to provide 
competitive pay and benefits. Especially in a post September 11 world, 
security personnel are at a premium and competent officers will only 
build careers with agencies that can provide competitive pay and 
benefits.

Second, although the report indicates that no police forces used "human 
capital flexibilities" to recruit officers, NIH would like to state for 
the record that when surveying potential applicants to determine what 
financial incentives are of most value, applicants indicated they were 
more inclined to receive additional pay through retention allowances or 
increases in pay. To enhance the recruitment of skilled officers, NIH 
provides appointments above the minimum entry rates. This higher basic 
rate of pay also serves as a higher base on which compensated benefits 
such as retirement and overtime are made. These dollars are of greater 
long-term value to a career officer than a one time, lump-sum 
recruitment bonus. Nonetheless, if these higher entry rates are still 
less than the experienced officer is currently earning in the State, 
local, or private sector, a recruitment bonus may also be authorized. 
NIH has attempted to reduce attrition by undertaking a number of 
initiatives. In addition to implementing a special rate of pay from the 
Office of Personnel Management, NIH has increased retention allowances, 
is pursuing a request to designate NIH officers as Federal Marshals, 
and is requesting a delegation of authority to resolve jurisdictional 
problems to investigate crimes that occur off-campus. In addition, NIH 
submitted a FY 2004 legislative proposal, approved by the Department of 
Health and Human Services, to statutorily provide enhanced pay and 
benefits for the NIH Police as well as provide them with jurisdictional 
authority. NIH plans on resubmitting the proposal for FY 2005 and each 
subsequent fiscal year until this issue is favorably resolved. It 
should be noted that resolving the pay and benefit disparity at the NIH 
was the subject of legislation introduced in the 107TH Congress, but 
not considered.

Third, the report states that NIH was one of the seven police forces 
that received pay increases that narrowed the pay gap. However, it is 
important to note that the closing of the salary gap is only temporary. 
Without changes in the overall compensation structure to ensure equity 
among agencies, NIH police salaries will again fall substantially 
behind other jurisdictions as they continue authorizing raises under 
their own authorities.

As security needs increase, it is critical that NIH maintain a well-
trained, fully staffed force. Also essential is the need for continuity 
in that staff, something that eludes NIH due to uncompetitive pay and 
benefits. The 322-acre campus and its satellite facilities support 
approximately 3,000 research laboratories, 2,500 of which are approved 
for the use of radioisotopes. NIH has a total of 21 high-containment 
laboratories and two high-containment animal facilities. These 
laboratories handle the most hazardous materials and require extensive 
safety measures. As a part of its bio-defense activities, NIH expects 
to construct additional high-containment safety laboratories. NIH 
employs more than 27,000 people in total and about 18,000 people at the 
Bethesda campus alone. About 8,000 staff are located in Government-
owned facilities locally, and the remainder at satellite facilities. 
Also, there are as many as 6,000 visitors and patients on the NIH 
Bethesda campus daily. Some of our leading scientists not only work at 
NIH but also reside on the compound. The Special Events Team of the NIH 
Police handles over 300 events per year involving high-level visiting 
dignitaries, including the President of the United States and Members 
of Congress.

Under current conditions, it is apparent that security is paramount and 
requires additional competent personnel to meet the demands of the 
future. Consistent with the President's goal to protect the country 
from terrorist attacks, we at NIH are prepared to do our part.

Technical Comment:

Page 4, paragraph 2, line 10: "NIH Police" should be replaced with 
"U.S. Postal Service Police.":

[End of section]

Appendix VII: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: Comments from the United States Secret Service:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20223:

May 23, 2003:

MEMORANDUM FOR ANNA F. DIXON:

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY:

FROM: Brian K. Nagel Assistant Director Office of Inspection:

SUBJECT: Federal Uniformed Police (GAO Job #440126):

Reference is made to your request for the Secret Service to review a 
General Accounting Office draft report entitled Federal Uniformed 
Police: Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, and Retention at 13 Police 
Forces in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area (Rept. No. GAO-03-
658).

The following comments are provided by our Office of Protective 
Operations:

* The report intimates that the increase in fiscal year 2002 attrition 
in the Federal Uniformed Police agencies was primarily a result of the 
creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Is this a 
conclusion of the report?

* The Secret Service suggests that the report include salary information 
from TSA. Since such a large number of employees transferred to TSA, we 
feel it would be prudent to include information concerning the 
compensation package that was offered to separating members. We believe 
this data is relevant.

On page 1, the objectives of the report are clearly identified. 
Included in those objectives were starting salary information and 
retirement benefits information. The Secret Service suggests that the 
data presented did not provide a full perspective of the retirement 
benefits. For example, the Secret Service Uniformed Division and the 
U.S. Capitol Police have the federal law enforcement retirement 
benefit. However, based on the April 1, 2003, rate of pay, a Capitol 
Police officer will earn in excess of $144,000 over a Uniformed 
Division officer during a 25-year career. This is the result of higher 
salaries, and faster increases in service steps. When compounded, 
additional contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan can create large 
discrepancies in retirement savings. In addition, pension payments are 
based on the last three years of an employee's salary, i.e., lower 
annual salaries mean lower pension payments. The Secret Service 
suggests that GAO provide more in-depth data concerning retirement 
benefits. Simply identifying the retirement system does not provide 
readers with a full understanding of retirement benefits.

* On page 4, in the second paragraph, the report indicates the NIH 
police are having a great or very great deal of difficulty recruiting 
officers. Later in the same paragraph, it indicates the NIH police are 
not having any difficulty recruiting officers.

* On page 4, it is reported that, "While officials from the 13 forces 
reported a number of reasons that officers had separated, including 
better pay and/or benefits at other police forces, less overtime, and 
greater responsibilities, we have been unable to discern any clear 
patterns between employee turnover and pay." (emphasis added) However, 
page three states, "Of the 729 officers who separated from the 13 
police forces in fiscal year 2002, 599 (about 82 percent) voluntarily 
separated. Of these 599 officers, 316 (about 53 percent) went to TSA - 
nearly all (313 of 316) to become Federal Air Marshals where they were 
able to earn higher pay, federal law enforcement retirement benefits, 
and a type o pay premium for unscheduled duty equaling 25 percent of 
their base salary." (emphasis added) It seems that the comments on page 
3 of the report support a pattern between employee turnover and pay.

On page 6, it is reported that the "Federal Air Marshals are not 
limited to the grade and step structure of the federal government's 
General Schedule. As a result, TSA has been able to offer air marshal 
recruits higher compensation and more flexible benefit packages than 
other police forces." The report continuously refers to the limited use 
of human capital flexibilities in the 13 police agencies. It would 
appear that a system similar to the Air Marshals pay system would 
provide the 13 agencies with greater human capital flexibility.

* On the chart on page 13, the Secret Service responded negatively to 
the question concerning patrol outside the agency's boundaries because 
the Uniformed Division has full police powers in Washington, D.C. The 
Secret Service Uniformed Division's authority derives from U.S. Code 
Title 3 § 202, which states, "The members of such force shall possess 
privileges and powers similar to those of the members of the 
Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia." The Uniformed 
Division also has federal authority, under Title 18, U.S.C., 3056, to 
perform its protective duties outside the District of Columbia and 
throughout the United States, in addition to the applicable peace 
officer status. Therefore, we feel that there are no geographical 
agency boundaries, provided we stay within our legal authority. 
Congress authorized these powers for the Uniformed Division because of 
its duties and responsibilities.

* On the chart on page 14, it is requested that an answer regarding 
specialized functions 
performed by officers under the category of "Criminal Investigation" be 
changed to "yes" to reflect our duties within the District of Columbia.

* On page 17, it is reported that, "There was no clear pattern evident 
between employee pay and turnover rates during fiscal year 2002. For 
example, while some police forces with relatively highly paid entry-
level officers such as the Library of Congress Police and the Supreme 
Court Police had relatively low turnover rates, other police forces 
with relatively highly paid entry level officers such as the U.S. Mint 
Police, Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police, and Secret Service 
Uniformed Division experienced significantly higher turnover rates." 
TSA greatly impacted the Secret Service:

Uniformed Division. As reported, the Uniformed Division lost 148 
members to TSA. The experience levels of those officers varied and were 
broken down as follows:

* Less than 2 years; 39 (26%).

* 2 - 5 years; 21(14%).

* 5 -10 years; 22(15%).

* 10 - 15 years; 63(43%).

* 15 - 20 years; 3(2%).

[End of table]

While we recognize that the report compared all agencies collectively, 
we feel that there are fundamental differences in each of the 13 police 
agencies. An agency's authority, responsibilities, duties, and training 
requirements are critical skills, and can be highly marketable. As 
reflected in the chart above, TSA placed tremendous value on the 
experience and skills of the Secret Service Uniformed Division. The 
Secret Service suggests that the report reflect the fundamental 
differences in each of the agencies, and how these differences may have 
impacted on the agency's attrition.

The following comments are provided by our Office of Human Resources 
and Training:

While the Secret Service Uniformed Division was experiencing 25% 
voluntarily separations in fiscal year 2002, we immediately began an 
enhanced Uniformed Division recruitment effort. This effort was not 
only to fill the vacated positions but to also recruit for new 
Uniformed Division positions.

In fiscal year 2003, the Secret Service expanded its specialized teams 
and increased the number of opportunities to qualify for those teams. 
This is an effort to enhance our capabilities and further encourage 
retention among our officers with fewer than five years of service.

The Secret Service anticipates an additional increase in the size of 
its Uniformed Division in fiscal year 2004. We are planning to use a 
number of human capital flexibilities, such as retention allowances, 
recruitment bonuses (for foreign language abilities), as well as to 
continue with performance based awards, to assist with the recruitment 
of new officers and with the retention of experienced officers.":

Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please 
contact Special Agent in Charge Roger Goodes or Staff Analyst DeDee 
Hayes, Office of Inspection, at 202/406-5766.

Attachments:

[End of section]

Appendix IX: Comments from the Supreme Court of the United States:


Office of the Marshal 
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C.20543

202-479-3333:

May 20, 2003:

FAX 202-479-2971:

VIA FACSIMILE:

Richard M. Stana:

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues United States General 
Accounting Office:

441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Stana:

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in and comment on the 
United States General Accounting Office study and report on Federal 
Uniformed Police: Selected Data on Pay, Recruitment, and Retention at 
13 Police Forces in the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area.

The report is clearly the result of much hard work and careful 
analysis. I hope it will be helpful to Congress and to interested law 
enforcement entities.

Sincerely,

Pamela Talkin,
Marshal:

Signed by Pamela Talkin:

[End of section]

Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Richard M. Stana (202) 512-8777 Weldon McPhail (202) 512-8644:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the persons named above, Leo M. Barbour, Susan L. 
Conlon, Evan Gilman, Kimberley Granger, Geoffrey Hamilton, Laura Luo, 
Michael O' Donnell, Doris Page, George Scott, Lou V.B. Smith, Edward H. 
Stephenson, Jr., Maria D. Strudwick, Mark Tremba, and Gregory H. 
Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Washington MSA, as defined by the Office of Management and 
Budget, includes the District of Columbia and many adjacent counties 
and cities. However, the Washington MSA does not include Baltimore, 
Annapolis, or Howard County. For a full list of all the cities and 
counties included in the Washington MSA, see appendix I.

[2] In broad terms, human capital flexibilities represent the policies 
and practices that an agency has the authority to implement in managing 
its workforce to achieve its goals. These flexibilities can include 
retention allowances, recruitment bonuses, tuition reimbursement, on-
site childcare facilities, and performance-based awards, among others.

[3] According to U.S. Postal Service officials, the official name of 
their police force is the U.S. Postal Service Security Force. For this 
report, the U.S. Postal Service Police refers to the U.S. Postal 
Service Security Force.

[4] Throughout the report, all salary figures are as of September 30, 
2002, unless otherwise noted. 

[5] To retire with full standard federal retirement benefits, employees 
generally must be at least between ages 55 and 57 with 30 years of 
service. The age at which they are eligible to retire with unreduced 
retirement benefits depends on the year of their birth and the specific 
retirement plan they are covered by (the Civil Service Retirement 
System or the Federal Employees Retirement System). Employees age 60 
can retire with 20 years of service; and employees age 62 can retire 
with 5 years of service.

[6] We did not attempt to assess the relative difficulty of performing 
these duties.

[7] For this report, voluntary separation includes leaving for any 
reason other than retirement, disability, or involuntary separation, 
such as death, reduction-in-force, or misconduct.

[8] Officials were unable to determine where the remaining 52 (about 9 
percent) of the voluntarily separated officers went.

[9] P.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).

[10] The General Schedule system consists of 22 broad occupational 
groups. Each group includes separate series that represent occupations 
in that group. The police series (GS-0083) is within the Miscellaneous 
Occupations group. OPM defines the police series as positions in which 
the primary duties are the performance or supervision of law 
enforcement work in the preservation of the peace; the prevention, 
detection, and investigation of crimes; the arrest or apprehension of 
violators; and the provision of assistance to citizens in emergency 
situations, including the protection of civil rights. 

[11] FERS benefits are derived from three components: an annuity, a 
thrift savings plan, and Social Security. The basic annuity provided 
under FERS is computed on the basis of (1) years of service and (2) the 
3 years of service with the highest annual salaries (high 3). Congress 
intended that the second component of FERS--the Thrift Savings Plan--be 
a key element of FERS. The Thrift Savings Plan provides for an employer 
contribution, including an automatic contribution of 1 percent of 
salary, along with a matching contribution of up to 5 percent. Social 
Security benefits make up the third component of the retirement 
package. The Civil Service Retirement System annuity, which applies to 
individuals hired prior to January 1, 1984, is a stand-alone annuity 
based on age and years of service.

[12] Under FERS, officers receiving federal law enforcement retirement 
benefits receive 1.7 percent of their high 3 multiplied by the first 20 
years of service and 1 percent multiplied by each year of service 
greater than 20 years. Thus, a police officer who retires at age 50 
with 20 years of service would receive 34 percent of the officer's high 
3. After 30 years of service, the benefit would be 44 percent of the 
officer's high 3. Officers retiring under FERS would also receive 
benefits from their Thrift Savings Plan accounts and Social Security.

[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: Strategic Human 
Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).

[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital 
Management, Exposure Draft, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 
2002).

[15] To calculate the turnover rates, we divided the total number of 
police officers who separated from the police forces by the average of 
the number of officers on-board at the beginning of the fiscal year and 
the number of officers on-board at the end of the fiscal year. For each 
police force, we included as separations both those who left the police 
force, as well as those who transferred from the police officer series 
(GS-0083) to other job series within the force. 

[16] The Central Personnel Data File is a database that contains 
individual records for most executive branch federal employees and is 
the primary governmentwide source for information on federal employees.

[17] We did not have the resources to find and confirm the addresses of 
all 599 officers who voluntarily separated from the 13 police forces 
included in our review, which would have been necessary to conduct a 
survey.

[18] Of the 316 officers who went to TSA, 313 accepted law enforcement 
positions and 3 accepted nonlaw enforcement positions.

[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Effective Use of 
Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, 
GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2002).

[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: OPM Can Better 
Assist Agencies in Using Personnel Flexibilities, GAO-03-428 
(Washington, D.C.: May 2003).

[21] All executive branch agencies have the authority to use human 
capital flexibilities, such as recruitment bonuses and student loan 
repayments. However, agencies may choose not to offer them.

[22] Police forces that are not covered by federal law enforcement 
retirement benefits do not have a mandatory retirement age.

[23] The forces determined why officers were leaving primarily through 
exit interviews and other paperwork associated with resignations, as 
well as through anecdotal information.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: