DHS Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Misconduct and Discipline (5 I- D. U) LI. 0 LI.I 2 LI. LI. 0 June 17, 2019 GIG-19-48 DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS DHS Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Misconduct and Discipline June 17, 2019 Why We Did This Audit We conducted this department-wide audit to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security has sufficient processes and procedures to address conduct issues. This report presents our findings on DHS oversight and the results of our employee survey. What We Recommend We made eight recommendations to ensure effective Department oversight of efforts to address conduct issues. For Further Information: Contact our Office of Public Affairs at (202) 981-6000, or email us at DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov What We Found DHS does not have sufficient policies and procedures to address employee misconduct. Specifically, the Department’s policy does not include procedures for reporting allegations of misconduct, clear and specific supervisor roles and expectations, or clearly defined key discipline terms. These deficiencies occurred because DHS’ Employee Relations office has limited staff, who do not believe they are responsible for managing the allegation process. DHS also does not effectively manage the misconduct program throughout the Department, lacking data monitoring and metrics to gauge program performance. Without oversight through defined policies and program management, DHS cannot make informed decisions to improve the program and ensure all components manage the misconduct process consistently. Additionally, this shortcoming could lead to costly litigation due to inappropriate or unenforceable disciplinary determinations. We distributed a survey to identify how DHS employees perceive the Department’s disciplinary process. Although the results of the employee survey were overall favorable, respondents identified areas of weakness, including negative perceptions of senior leaders’ behavior and the need for more employee relations training for supervisors. Given the survey results and the lack of sufficient policies and procedures, the Department cannot ensure it treats all employees equally or that components have properly addressed or referred all misconduct allegations. DHS Response DHS concurred with all eight of our recommendations and has begun taking corrective action to address them. www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov -XQH MEMORANDUM FOR: Randolph D. Alles Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Management Department of Homeland Security FROM: Jennifer L. Costello Acting Inspector General SUBJECT: DHS Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Misconduct and Discipline Attached for your action is our final report, DHS Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Misconduct and Discipline. We incorporated the formal comments provided by DHS Management Directorate. The report contains eight recommendations aimed at improving the overall effectiveness of Management Directorate and Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer oversight of the misconduct program within DHS and its components. Your office concurred with eight recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider recommendations 5 and 6 open and unresolved. As prescribed by the Department of Homeland Security Directive 077-01, Follow-Up and Resolutions for the Office of Inspector General Report Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, please provide our office with a written response that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action plan, and (3) target completion date for each recommendation. Also, please include responsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to inform us about the current status of the recommendation. Until your response is received and evaluated, the recommendations will be considered open and unresolved. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider recommendations 1 through 4 and recommendations 7 and 8 open and resolved. Once your office has fully implemented the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendations. The memorandum should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions and of the disposition of any monetary amounts. Please send your response or closure request to OIGAuditsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post the report on our website for public dissemination. Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Sondra McCauley, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 981-6000. Attachment www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-19- OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Table of Contents Background .................................................................................................... 1 Results of Audit .............................................................................................. 2 Department Has Insufficient Policies and Procedures ............................ 3 DHS Does Not Effectively Manage Misconduct ....................................... 6 DHS Employee Survey Results............................................................... 9 Recommendations......................................................................................... 13 Appendixes Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 18 Appendix B: DHS Comments to the Draft Report ................................. 22 Appendix C: DHS OIG, GAO, and other DHS and Component Misconduct Reports ......................................................... 28 Appendix D: DHS Operational and Support Components ..................... 30 Appendix E: OIG Analysis of DHS Employee Survey Results ................ 31 Appendix F: Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report ........... 62 Appendix G: Report Distribution .......................................................... 63 Abbreviations CBP DNDO FEMA FLETC GAO HR HRMS I&A ICE IG Act NPPD OCHCO OIG OPM S&T TSA USCG USCIS USSS www.oig.dhs.gov U.S. Customs and Border Protection Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Government Accountability Office human resources Human Resources Management and Services Office of Intelligence & Analysis U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Inspector General Act of 1978 National Protection and Programs Directorate Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Office of Inspector General U.S. Office of Personnel Management Science and Technology Directorate Transportation Security Administration United States Coast Guard U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services United States Secret Service OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Background Within the Department of Homeland Security, managers, supervisors, and designees are responsible for assessing the conduct of employees and providing assistance, feedback, and corrective action. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) describes misconduct generally as the failure to follow workplace rules. Examples of misconduct include being absent without leave, improper use of a government-issued credit card, and sleeping on the job. Once an allegation of misconduct has occurred, components will gather the facts and determine whether to administer disciplinary or adverse action to correct behavior. Conduct standards are critical to maintaining the public’s confidence in the integrity of the Federal government. Between 2012 and 2016, seven Office of Inspector General (OIG), two Government Accountability Office (GAO), and three internal Department or component reports identified issues related to DHS and component misconduct or disciplinary programs. (See appendix C.) Although DHS has no department-wide misconduct allegation data, the Joint Intake Center for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received more than 16,368 allegations of misconduct and other reportable information in fiscal year 2014 alone.1 OPM Definitions Discipline: Measures intended to correct misconduct and encourage employee conduct in compliance with the standards of conduct, policies, goals, work procedures, and office practices of the agency. Adverse Action: Action taken against an employee for reasons such as poor attendance or inappropriate behavior, and includes suspensions without pay, reductions in grade or pay, furloughs of 30 days or less, and removal. Human Capital Policy and Programs’ Employee Relations (Employee Relations) within the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) assumed the responsibility for developing and Source: U.S. Office of Personnel administering policy and overseeing the Management disciplinary and adverse action program across DHS. Components have the decision-making authority on the type of disciplinary action to administer. Components may decide to reassign, demote, suspend, remove, furlough, detail, transfer, separate, or reduce the pay of employees. (See appendix D.) However, these decisions are subject to the oversight, direction, and the DHS policies issued by the Chief Human Capital Officer. Department of Homeland Security, Investigation of DHS Employee Corruption Cases, Fiscal Year 2015 Report to Congress, November 23, 2015 (jointly issued by DHS OIG, ICE, and CBP) 1 www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security In November 2016, Employee Relations issued its first directive and implementing instruction, Discipline and Adverse Actions Program, Directive 250-09. The directive established department-wide guidance for administering discipline and adverse actions in accordance with the OPM regulatory framework for processing discipline and adverse actions within the Federal government. In addition, DHS Management Directive 0810.1, The Office of Inspector General, assigns DHS OIG the responsibility to receive and investigate certain categories of allegations of misconduct or fraud. DHS OIG may decide to initiate an investigation or refer the allegation to the component for review. The categories of allegations that require referral to OIG include: x x x criminal misconduct allegations against a DHS employee; misconduct allegations against employees at the GS-15 level or higher; and visa fraud allegations by DHS employees working in the visa issuance process. Our objective was to determine whether the Department has sufficient processes and procedures to address employee misconduct. This report addresses the Department’s oversight of DHS components’ disciplinary processes. This report also contains results of our survey on DHS employees’ perception of the disciplinary process. We previously issued reports on the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Federal Air Marshal Service2 and the Department’s support component3 processes for reporting and addressing misconduct. Results of Audit The Department does not have sufficient policies and procedures to address employee misconduct. Specifically, the Department’s policy does not include procedures for reporting allegations of misconduct, clear and specific supervisor roles and expectations, or clearly defined key discipline terms used across the components. These deficiencies occurred because the Employee Relations office has limited staffing to perform these functions and staff do not believe they are responsible for managing the allegation process. DHS also does not effectively manage the misconduct program throughout the Department, 2 The Federal Air Marshal Service Has Sufficient Policies and Procedures for Addressing Misconduct, OIG-17-104, September 13, 2017 3 DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and Procedures to Address Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018 www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security lacking data monitoring and metrics to gauge program performance. Without oversight through defined policies and program management, DHS cannot make informed decisions to improve the program and ensure all components manage the misconduct process consistently. Additionally, this shortcoming could lead to costly litigation due to inappropriate or unenforceable disciplinary determinations. We distributed a survey to identify how DHS employees perceive the Department’s disciplinary process. Although the results of our employee survey were overall favorable, respondents identified areas of weakness, including negative perceptions of senior leaders’ behavior and the need for more disciplinary training for supervisors. Given the survey results and the lack of sufficient policies and procedures, the Department cannot ensure it treats all employees equally or that components have properly addressed or referred all misconduct allegations. Department Has Insufficient Policies and Procedures The Department does not have sufficient policies and procedures to address misconduct. Specifically, Directive 250-09, Discipline and Adverse Actions Program (Policy) does not include procedures for reporting allegations of misconduct or clearly define key discipline terms used across the components. Employee Relations’ staff do not oversee the misconduct process because they do not believe they are responsible for overseeing allegations. Further, they believe other aspects of the disciplinary process are already defined or unimportant. Without comprehensive department-wide procedures, DHS cannot ensure all components address allegations properly or administer disciplinary actions consistently. Additionally, this could lead to costly litigation from inappropriate or unenforceable discipline. DHS Has Not Established Comprehensive Guidance for the Misconduct Process The Department has not created a comprehensive policy that includes guidance for the entire misconduct process — from allegations of misconduct to disciplinary procedures. There are multiple offices and processes for managing allegations of misconduct at DHS. The Chief Human Capital Officer is responsible for establishing and administering department-wide human resources policy and procedures. The Chief Human Capital Officer also oversees and directs component disciplinary actions. However, the Policy does not define misconduct, how to report allegations of misconduct, or to whom allegations should be reported. Employee Relations also does not require components to report allegation data and has analyzed Department discipline www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security data once. Periodic collection and analysis of this information is necessary for Employee Relations to carry out its oversight functions. Instead, the Policy focuses on the disciplinary process and a table of offenses and penalties. Employee Relations does not oversee the allegation process because, according to staff, it is not part of the formal disciplinary process and is therefore outside of Employee Relations’ area of responsibility. Rather, Employee Relations staff believe OIG is responsible for overseeing misconduct allegations. In actuality, OIG and DHS components have some overlapping responsibilities in this area. The Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act) authorizes OIG to receive and investigate complaints of waste, fraud, and abuse, including complaints of misconduct by Department employees.4 Under the IG Act, OIG also oversees internal investigations performed by DHS components with investigative authority to ensure that those components comply with generally accepted investigative practices.5 OIG does not have sole responsibility for investigating and overseeing allegations of misconduct. Although DHS Management Directive 0810.1 identifies categories of allegations that DHS and its components must report immediately to OIG, OIG can refer any allegation in those categories back to the appropriate component, should it decide not to investigate. Management Directive 0810.1 also describes categories of allegations for which DHS components must open administrative investigations and provide notice of the investigations to OIG within 5 days. For these categories of allegations, the DHS component controls the investigation, unless the OIG notifies DHS or the relevant component of its intent to assume control of the investigation. The authority granted to OIG in the IG Act and reaffirmed in Management Directive 0810.1 does not eliminate the Department’s responsibility to oversee its misconduct process. However, because the Department has not created a comprehensive policy that includes guidance for the entire misconduct process, it cannot ensure that components have addressed or referred all misconduct allegations to the appropriate offices. DHS’ Policy Does Not Include Critical Definitions Employee Relations has not defined critical discipline terms in the Policy. Although the Policy includes definitions for days, furlough, indefinite suspension, and suspension, it only refers to, but does not define, discipline or 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) App. 3, §§ 4, 7. Additionally, OIG has the duty and responsibility to, among other things, conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations, and recommend policies for other activities carried out by the Department for the purpose of preventing and detecting fraud and abuse. 5 5 U.S.C. App. 3, § 8I(e) 4 www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security progressive discipline. Further, Employee Relations has neither defined alternative discipline nor covered the parameters for using it, even though four components implement or address alternative discipline. Additionally, OPM and the Merit Systems Protection Board support guidance to establish alternative discipline policies and understand the legal complexities.6 Table 1 illustrates gaps in DHS guidance and component policies. Table 1. Inclusion of Key Definitions and Concepts in DHS and Component Policies DHS TSA USCIS* USCG† CBP FEMA ICE USSS‡ Progressive Discipline } z } z } z } z Discipline } } z z z z z z ´ ´ Alternative ´ } z } ´ z Discipline Table Key: } Undefined, but referred to as a practice z Defined ´ Undefined Source: DHS OIG analysis of DHS and component policies Note: * U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; † United States Coast Guard; ‡ United States Secret Service DHS’ Policy lacks critical definitions, because, according to Employee Relations officials, additional definitions were not important or are already included in Federal regulations. Officials also believe supervisor performance standards provide guidance and expectations. The standards require supervisors to address conduct in a timely and appropriate manner and promptly address allegations with appropriate action. However, the Department’s Policy does not give supervisors guidance or clarify expectations such as “timely,” “appropriate,” and “promptly.” These terms are vague and supervisors may interpret them inconsistently. Without department-wide procedures, DHS cannot ensure supervisors administer disciplinary actions consistently and may leave itself vulnerable to costly litigation over inappropriate disciplinary action or unenforceable agreements. 6 Alternative Discipline: Creative Solutions for Agencies to Effectively Address Employee Misconduct, Merit Systems Protection Board, July 2008. The Merit Systems Protection Board is an independent, quasi-judicial agency that adjudicates individual employee appeals and conduct non-partisan studies on merit and effective management of the Federal workforce. www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security DHS Does Not Effectively Manage Misconduct The Department does not oversee components to ensure they are addressing misconduct. Specifically, DHS does not ensure component policies comply with Department policy, does not collect allegation data or monitor misconduct data, and has not created performance measures, goals, or objectives to assess the program’s effectiveness. As a result, DHS cannot make informed decisions and may be missing opportunities to improve the program. DHS Has Not Ensured Component Policies Comply with Department Policy The Department’s Policy allows each component to develop and administer its own policy; however, Employee Relations has not ensured the components’ existing disciplinary policies are consistent with the Department’s policy. During the course of our audit, components provided more than 90 conduct and discipline-related policies. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 emphasizes the importance of coordinating department-wide policy development to promote quality and consistency across components.7 Further, according to internal control standards, agencies benefit from procedures to continually reassess and improve guidance processes and documents.8 In November 2016, when DHS issued its Policy (Directive 250-09, Discipline and Adverse Actions Program), Employee Relations had no plans to monitor or evaluate components’ policies. According to Employee Relations officials, they assumed the new policy was broad enough that all existing component policies should already comply. Without monitoring and evaluating component guidance, DHS cannot assess whether components are applying the guidance in its Policy consistently. DHS Does Not Collect or Monitor Components’ Misconduct Data The Department does not collect or monitor the components’ data to understand the number of allegations, types of misconduct reported, or trends across the Department. According to GAO, Federal agencies should design their controls to include continual monitoring built into operations. Monitoring may include automated tools, which can increase objectivity and efficiency by electronically compiling evaluations. To ensure the Department and its components are addressing misconduct and for effective oversight and National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, Public Law 114-328, § 1902, 130 Stat. 2670 (amending the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107−296, 116 Stat. 2135, by adding “Sec. 709. Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans”) 8 Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G, September 2014 7 www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security informed decisions, Employee Relations should know the number of allegations per component, the types of allegations reported, and if appropriate, the disciplinary action administered. The Department does not have a system to collect or track misconduct information, nor does it have a process to review component allegations to ensure components responded appropriately when determining whether to apply discipline. Employee Relations personnel stated that their office collects some information regarding discipline and adverse actions through a yearly data call, but must manually compile responses to prepare a department-wide response. This process is inefficient for Employee Relations’ limited staff of three people, and the data the office reports to stakeholders is susceptible to human error. In a previous report on DHS support components, we noted the Human Resources Management and Services (HRMS) office within OCHCO had not tracked allegations or properly referred all cases to OIG.9 If the Department had better data and oversight of the process, DHS could have potentially discovered and addressed these problems more proactively. Employee Relations has not identified trends in disciplinary actions taken throughout the Department. Failing to monitor component data impedes the Department’s ability to identify and address trends in employee misconduct, as well as oversee components’ efforts to address misconduct. Trend analysis of disciplinary data could provide insight on training issues or help mitigate systemic misconduct issues. The Department has not analyzed trends to determine whether misconduct issues are systemic. Identifying systemic issues and their causes would allow the Department to develop and apply corrective actions that could improve department-wide program effectiveness. For example, DHS has not analyzed trends for the numerous issues cited in reports on DHS’ conduct and discipline programs. (See appendix C.) Further, in a 2015 DHS Human Resources Management Evaluation, OPM recommended that the Department consider consolidating human capital accountability reports to inform OCHCO program managers of any overarching themes across the components. However, during our audit, Employee Relations officials said they did not believe conducting these types of analysis would provide useful results. By not analyzing trends, DHS is missing opportunities to identify potential problems and mitigate problems before they become repetitive and costly. 9 DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and Procedures to Address Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018. OCHCO’s Human Resources Management and Services provides human capital services to most DHS support components. www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security OCHCO Has Not Defined Responsibilities for the Employee Relations Office Although Employee Relations assumed the responsibility for administering the discipline and adverse action policy for DHS, OCHCO has not provided Employee Relations with specific roles and responsibilities. During the audit, Employee Relations officials could not provide any written document outlining the office’s objectives. Instead, they described their primary oversight activities as: x x x x reviewing and commenting on draft legislation; discussing changes in law and OPM guidance with components (e.g., National Defense Authorization Act of 2017); liaising between OPM and Congress; and responding to congressional requests. In addition, Employee Relations has not developed standard operating procedures and has not reported any performance metrics to OCHCO for its operational activities. Employee Relations officials said much of what they do is respond to congressional requests and these ad hoc activities make it difficult to create standard operating procedures or measure results. According to internal control standards, establishing goals and objectives ensures an agency meets its mission, strategic plan, and goals so it can assess performance. Without defined objectives, performance metrics, and standard operating procedures, and with limited Employee Relations officials, DHS risks operational inconsistencies and losing important organizational knowledge. DHS Has Not Measured the Effectiveness of Its Disciplinary Program Employee Relations has not established performance measures or goals to assess the effectiveness of the Department’s disciplinary program. According to the Department’s Policy, the Chief Human Capital Officer must regularly evaluate the Department’s disciplinary and adverse actions program. We requested documentation showing how the office complies with the Policy by assessing the Department’s effectiveness, but the office could not provide any measures or reports documenting how it has evaluated the program. The OCHCO Accountability Office conducts human capital audits, including a review of a sample of disciplinary denials of within grade increases, reductions in grade, and removal cases as part of a high-level review of all types of human relations activity. The audits, however, do not evaluate the effectiveness or efficiency of components’ disciplinary programs. OPM requires these human www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security capital audits, and an OPM official suggested that human capital auditing should also review specific issue areas, such as the timeliness of misconduct investigations. An October 2014 Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute report, Measuring for Results: Key Concepts for Understanding the Performance of DHS Programs and Activities, noted that measuring program results can drive program improvements. By not evaluating its performance, DHS cannot make informed decisions and may be missing opportunities to improve the program. DHS Employee Survey Results We conducted a department-wide survey of civilian employees to establish a baseline of employee views for elements of conduct and discipline. We sent 192,495 survey invitations to DHS employees and received 54,108 anonymous responses, a 28 percent response rate. Appendix E contains a complete list of survey questions and a compilation of responses. Our analysis showed favorable results for a majority of questions, but room for improvement on perceptions of senior leader conduct and discipline and greater need for supervisor training on this topic. DHS should review the survey results for opportunities to encourage better operation as a single entity and to promote consistency among components through policy and oversight. Our analysis showed favorable results to 59 percent of questions.10 For example, knowledge of workplace rules and standards of conduct, including reporting misconduct, is a key component of conduct and discipline, which we addressed in Questions 7 to 21. Failure to uphold standards can affect employees’ or DHS’ ability to accomplish their work. Out of 54,108 respondents: x x 92 percent knew what types of behavior are considered misconduct in the workplace; 11 81 percent knew where to find standards of conduct or other policies on We define a “favorable” result as a response to a question in which 50 percent or more of respondents selected “agree” or “strongly” agree,” or 50 percent or more selected “yes” to a yes or no question, except for Questions 10, 33, and 54. For Questions 10, 33, and 54, we defined a “favorable” result as a response in which 50 percent or more of respondents selected “disagree” or “strongly disagree.” We excluded demographic and profile questions, and questions for which the outcome was neither positive nor negative (e.g., Questions 11, 20, 24, and 32). See appendix E for a complete list of survey questions and responses. 11 Question 14: 49,662 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E. 10 www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security x workplace behavior;12 and 71 percent would report if they suspected that a co-worker or supervisor was engaged in misconduct.13 However, a number of results highlight problems with how respondents view conduct and discipline of senior leaders. Setting the tone at the top demonstrates a commitment to integrity while minimizing fraud and improving morale. Out of 54,108 respondents, 45 percent did not agree that employees at all levels are held accountable for conduct at their component.14 Components with the largest number of respondents who did not agree include: x x x 53 percent of TSA respondents (7,614 out of 14,419) 47 percent of CBP respondents (7,504 out of 16,003) 47 percent of ICE respondents (2,484 out of 5,241) In addition to concerns about employee accountability, 49 percent of respondents felt that senior leaders at their components were less likely to be disciplined for violating workplace rules, regulations, or standards of conduct than other employees.15 For example, 58 percent of TSA respondents felt that component senior leaders were less likely to be disciplined.16 In January 2018, we issued a report confirming that TSA senior leaders deviated from standard policy and practice in a number of key respects indicating that a Senior Executive Service employee received unusually favorable treatment in the resolution of a disciplinary matter.17 At the DHS support components,18 40 percent of respondents felt that their senior leaders were less likely to be disciplined for violating workplace rules, regulations, or standards of conduct than other employees.19 In our report on OCHCO’s services, we noted the lack of internal controls at HRMS, which was Question 15: 43,940 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E. Question 19: 38,267 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E. 14 Question 9: 24,379 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E. 15 Question 10: 26,569 of 54,108. See appendix E. 16 Question 10: 8,330 of 14,419 TSA respondents. See appendix E. 17 OIG-18-35, TSA’s Handling of the 2015 Disciplinary Matter Involving a TSES Employee (Redacted), January 8, 2018 18 We define DHS support components as those components serviced by HRMS. This grouping includes respondents who identified being from: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), Management Directorate, Directorate for Science and Technology (S&T), and respondents who selected “Other Headquarters Components.” 19 Question 10: 846 of 2,117. See appendix E. 12 13 www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security unable to produce any disciplinary case files or records on Senior Executive Service employees.20 Our survey contained a question demonstrating that the behavior of senior leaders affects respondents’ behavior at work. Across the Department, 45 percent of respondents’ behavior was affected by how senior leaders behave at work.21 DHS should evaluate why many respondents felt that senior leaders were less likely to be disciplined for violating workplace results, regulations, or standards of conduct than other employees. It should also evaluate why so many respondents did not report that employees at all levels are held accountable for conduct at their component and why, at certain components like TSA, CBP, and ICE, the negative response rate for this survey question was higher than the Department’s overall response rate. Finally, DHS should review how both of these issues may potentially affect employee behavior. In addition to evaluating perceptions of senior leaders, DHS should examine its supervisory training on conduct and discipline. Receiving proper training helps supervisors understand their responsibility and authority to address misconduct. Supervisors who mishandle misconduct issues may have problems implementing discipline or have disciplinary decisions overturned. Supervisor and specialist22 respondents also indicated a need for additional supervisor training on handling misconduct issues. At DHS, 50 percent (6,112 of 12,190) of supervisor respondents said that they need more training on how to handle misconduct and take disciplinary actions.23 As shown in table 2, supervisors at some components responded with even higher rates. DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and Procedures to Address Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018 21 Question 11: 24,252 of 54,108 respondents. See appendix E. 22 We defined specialists as respondents who identified themselves as currently working in human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility, or other similar office and responded that they handle disciplinary actions. (Question 43; see appendix E.) 23 Question 11; see appendix E. 20 www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Table 2. Supervisors and Specialists Respondents Need More Training Percentage who agreed and strongly agreed Number of Total number of respondents respondents who answered who agreed and strongly this question agreed Q33. I need more training on how to handle misconduct and take disciplinary actions. (Questions for Supervisors) * DHS 50% 6,112 12,190 CBP 58% 2,318 4,029 ICE 51% 476 940 HRMS-Serviced 51% 218 428 Support Components Q54. I need more training on misconduct and disciplinary actions. (Questions for Specialists) DHS 46% 635 1,367 * We highlighted select components with the highest percentage of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed. These components are a partial subset of the total number of DHS respondents. Source: Excerpt from survey results; see appendix E. We asked specialists whether supervisors were adequately trained in disciplinary actions.24 Of 1,367 specialist respondents, only 32 percent agreed that supervisors were adequately trained in disciplinary actions. Specialist respondents also reported that they needed more training on misconduct and disciplinary actions.25 DHS should evaluate why responses about training needs are inconsistent. DHS should also evaluate the content and frequency of its training to supervisors on misconduct and discipline to ensure they understand how to identify and address misconduct without risking having their decisions overturned. All chief human capital officers have a statutory responsibility to “identif[y] best practices and benchmarking studies.”26 The DHS Chief Human Capital Officer should consider using these results as it studies positive results about standards of conduct. The results could also aid in addressing negative perceptions about conduct and discipline of senior leaders and the training needs of supervisors. 24 25 26 Question 56; see appendix E. Question 54; see appendix E. 5 U.S.C. §1402(a)(5) www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Recommendations Recommendation 1: We recommend the Under Secretary for Management designate or establish an entity with sufficient size and authority to oversee the Department’s entire misconduct process from allegations to disciplinary actions. Recommendation 2: We recommend the Under Secretary for Management ensure the designated entity implement a formal reporting process, with documented procedures for handling and reporting all misconduct allegations. Recommendation 3: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer revise the DHS Discipline and Adverse Actions Program directive and instruction to provide comprehensive guidance, including definitions for key misconduct terms and the use of alternative discipline. Recommendation 4: We recommend the Under Secretary for Management require that the designated misconduct oversight entity conduct a comprehensive assessment of components’ policies to establish a baseline for handling allegations and disciplinary actions that promotes quality and consistency across components. Recommendation 5: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer work with the Under Secretary for Management to require the designated misconduct oversight entity: a. identify all offices that receive misconduct allegations or identify potential misconduct; and b. establish a system of record and process to routinely capture, manage, and monitor components’ management of misconduct. Recommendation 6: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer establish objectives and performance metrics for the Employee Relations office and implement written standard operating procedures defining the office’s responsibilities. Recommendation 7: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer develop and implement a process to assess the effectiveness of the Department’s disciplinary program. The process should include documented procedures, measurable goals, and periodic trend analyses. www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Recommendation 8: We recommend the Chief Human Capital Officer work with the Under Secretary for Management to evaluate survey responses and develop a corrective action plan to address unfavorable results. DHS Comments and OIG Analysis DHS concurred with all eight of our report recommendations. We incorporated the Department’s comments, responses to our recommendations, and our analysis with the applicable recommendations in the report. We also included a copy of the management comments in their entirety in appendix B. DHS also provided technical comments to our draft report, and we revised the report where appropriate. In its comments to the report, DHS expressed concern that implementing the report recommendations could have the unintended consequence of transferring some of OIG’s investigative oversight authority to the Chief Human Capital Officer. For example, DHS expressed concern that implementing our recommendation could require the Chief Human Capital Officer to oversee OIG investigations referred to OIG pursuant to DHS Management Directive 0810.1. DHS does not believe that this transfer of authority is appropriate. We are not recommending that the Chief Human Capital Officer oversee OIG activity, as OIG is independent from the Department and not subject to the Chief Human Capital Officer’s authority. Rather, our recommendations relate to providing oversight of allegations and investigations for which the Department is responsible, including: x x x x referral of allegations or complaints to OIG; administrative inquiries or investigations for categories of allegations that DHS components must open under Management Directive 0810.1; allegations referred back to DHS components by OIG; and administrative action undertaken as a result of DHS and OIG investigations, including those involving senior leaders. The Department also stated that our audit did not demonstrably prove that the Department’s misconduct process is ineffective. We believe the Department bears the responsibility for demonstrating that it has managed misconduct effectively through performance measures, which it has not done and cannot do without data and oversight. DHS Response to Recommendation 1: Concur. The Deputy Under Secretary for Management will convene a working group of representatives from the OCHCO, Office of the Chief Security Officer, Office of General Counsel, and www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Component investigative offices to determine what enhancements can be made to the entirety of the misconduct allegation, investigation, and disciplinary process. Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2020. OIG Analysis: We consider DHS’ actions responsive to the intent of this recommendation. We consider this recommendation resolved and open. The recommendation will remain open until DHS establishes and assigns an entity to provide oversight for the Department’s misconduct process. DHS Response to Recommendation 2: Concur. The working group that the Deputy Under Secretary for Management convenes will document reporting processes and procedures for handling and reporting misconduct allegations. Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2020. OIG Analysis: We consider DHS’ actions responsive to the intent of this recommendation. We consider this recommendation resolved and open, pending implementation of a formal reporting process and review of the documented procedures for handling and reporting all misconduct allegations. DHS Response to Recommendation 3: Concur. DHS will update Directive 250-09, “Discipline and Adverse Actions Program,” to include additional definitions. The Department noted that the current directive and instruction comport with OPM policies and procedures for taking adverse action. Estimated Completion Date: September 30, 2019. OIG Analysis: The Department maintains that its policy complies with statutory and government-wide regulations for taking adverse action. However, it has also acknowledged that components are empowered to establish more specific disciplinary policies. Our audit confirmed that components have done so in key areas. The Department is also responsible for providing a unified policy in order to encourage consistency among components and offer additional guidance about the Department’s intended disciplinary approach. We consider this recommendation resolved and open, pending completion and receipt of a revised, comprehensive directive and instruction, including key definitions. DHS Response to Recommendation 4: Concur. DHS responded that the OCHCO has not been designated to oversee the processes that various investigative offices use to handle allegations of misconduct. DHS stated that the working group established under the Deputy Under Secretary for Management in response to Recommendation 1 will also examine whether additional policies are necessary for handling allegations of misconduct. Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2020. www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security OIG Analysis: In response to DHS’ comments to our draft report, we revised this recommendation to be directed to the Deputy Under Secretary for Management. We consider this recommendation resolved and open. The recommendation will remain open until DHS provides documentation of the assessment of component policies for handling allegations to promote quality and consistency across components. DHS Response to Recommendation 5: Concur. According to the Department, OCHCO is developing a case tracking system that will track disciplinary and adverse actions across all components and will develop a reporting process to capture, manage, and monitor component’s management of discipline and adverse action. Estimated Completion Date: March 31, 2022. OIG Analysis: Although DHS has described a system that tracks disciplinary actions, this system should also capture allegations of misconduct. Without misconduct allegation data, the Department cannot provide oversight or conduct trend analysis to determine whether components are effectively addressing substantiated allegations through the disciplinary program. We consider this recommendation unresolved and open, pending implementation of a new case management system and a new documented, formal reporting process with procedures for handling and reporting all misconduct allegations. DHS Response to Recommendation 6: Concur. According to DHS, OCHCO developed a standard operating procedure following our audit, which DHS provided to OIG in response to our draft. The Department also maintains that OCHCO has employee performance plans. DHS requested closure of this recommendation. OIG Analysis: The Employee Relations Office’s standard operating procedure is an important improvement and responsive to the intent of part of our recommendation. However, DHS has not provided its objectives and performance metrics for the Employee Relations office. While employee performance plans are important tools to evaluate individual performance, they are not a substitute for developing specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely performance goals for the Employee Relations office. We consider this recommendation unresolved and open. This recommendation will remain open until we receive the Employee Relations office develops and implement performance goals that it will report to its management. DHS Response to Recommendation 7: Concur. According to DHS, OCHCO has established a yearly review of disciplinary and adverse action trends. It provided documentation of its first two assessments produced in 2017 and www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security 2018, which it distributed to components through its Human Capital Leadership Council. DHS requested closure of this recommendation. OIG Analysis: We reviewed the Department’s August 2017 assessment covering fiscal years 2013-2016 during the course of our audit and did not find that it provided a trend analysis. However, the Department’s March 2018 assessment of fiscal year 2017 is an improvement, containing trend analysis and observations about changes from prior years. The assessment also included recommendations with timeframes for implementation. Although the Department has requested closure of this recommendation, it has not provided documented procedures on how this analysis should be conducted, who should conduct it, how often it should be conducted, and who should review it. We consider this recommendation resolved and open, pending documentation of the Department’s process for completing the analysis. DHS Response to Recommendation 8: Concur. The Chief Human Capital Officer will review survey responses and develop a corrective action plan to address unfavorable results. Estimated Completion Date: October 31, 2019. OIG Analysis: The Department’s corrective action is responsive to the recommendation. The recommendation will remain open and resolved until the Department provides evidence to support that corrective actions are completed. www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix A Objective, Scope, and Methodology The DHS Office of Inspector General was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107−296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. The objective of this department-wide audit of conduct and discipline was to determine whether DHS and its components have sufficient processes and procedures to address conduct issues. To address the audit objective, the team developed three sub-objectives to target its work: x x x the Department’s oversight of the components’ disciplinary process; the Department and the components’ process for reporting and addressing misconduct; and how the disciplinary process is perceived by employees at all levels across the Department. To address the first sub-objective, we reviewed and analyzed Federal laws and regulations, guidance, and reports, including guidance from the Merit System Protection Board and the Office of Personnel Management. We reviewed DHS policies and procedures to determine any effort to establish and provide guidance on the DHS disciplinary process. We also analyzed other relevant DHS policies and procedures for handling conduct, including: x x x x DHS Management Directive 0810.1, The Office of Inspector General; DHS Management Directive 250-09, Discipline and Adverse Actions Program; DHS Instruction No. 250-09-001, Discipline and Adverse Actions Program; and the CHCO HRMS Employee Relations standard operating procedures. We interviewed officials from the Office of Personnel Management and DHS officials from the: x x x x x x x Office of the Chief Financial Officer; Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer; Office of the Chief Information Officer; Office of the Chief Security Officer; Office of General Counsel; DHS Privacy Office; and Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security We interviewed officials with TSA Federal Air Marshal Service and TSA Headquarters. We judgmentally selected supervisors using a variety of criteria from the S&T; I&A; and Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. We also examined allegation and disciplinary case file reviews to determine whether HRMS and components followed Federal and DHS requirements and policy. We selected the top five most common types of misconduct allegation categories in FYs 2014–2016 at TSA Federal Air Marshal Service and the DHS support components. For each type of misconduct allegation, we randomly selected five judgmental case files/samples using a random number generator. The team used GAO’s standards for internal control to assess the program, with specific focus on the following standards: x Objectives in specific terms, clearly defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and timeframes for achievement, with objectives in alignment with the organization’s mission, strategic plan, and performance goals. x Objectives that are measurable so that performance toward achieving them can be assessed. x Management documentation of policies for each unit in its area of responsibility and with the appropriate level of detail to allow management to effectively monitor activity. x Documentation that provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel, as well as a means to communicate the knowledge as needed to external parties, such as external audits. x Importance of periodically reviewing policies for continued relevance and effectiveness in addressing related risks. We addressed the second sub-objective in two separate reports: x x The Federal Air Marshal Service Has Sufficient Policies and Procedures for Addressing Misconduct, OIG-17-104, September 13, 2017 DHS Support Components Do Not Have Sufficient Processes and Procedures to Address Misconduct, OIG-18-81, September 26, 2018 To address the third sub-objective, we conducted interviews and sought responses to a department-wide survey. We sent the survey to all DHS employees (excluding contractors and active military). The team consulted DHS OCHCO regarding Union Notifications. To establish our survey population, we requested and relied upon employee rosters from the National Finance Center www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security for each component. The team developed survey questions for three subsets of employees: x employees, x supervisors/managers, and x employee relations and human resources (HR) specialists. OPM research psychologists reviewed our survey methodology and questions for bias prior to issuance. We used a web-based survey software approved by DHS Office of Privacy and the Chief Information Security Officers at DHS and OIG. We issued 192,495 surveys between June 29, 2017, and July 14, 2017. We received 54,108 completed surveys for a response rate of 28.11 percent. We assumed employees answered the survey candidly and correctly, including their component identification. Upon receiving the results, we categorized component responses. We compiled results from components with fewer than 3,000 responses into one grouping to protect respondent anonymity. Respondents categorized in the “Components with <3,000 Respondents” are the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), U.S. Secret Service (USSS), and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) civilians. We also grouped responses from Management Directorate, DNDO, S&T, I&A, and respondents who selected “other Headquarters components” under “HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents,” because employees from these components all receive human resources services from DHS OCHCO. We reported complete responses. During our analysis of survey results, we discovered that seven questions contained an error. As such, the survey added one to three responses for each question that we were unable to correct. These questions are noted in a footnote in appendix E. We were unable to conduct data reliability testing of SurveyMonkey data, because the survey responses were anonymous. We reviewed the data and performed limited testing for completeness and errors. During our review, we discovered that some non-supervisors and non-HR specialists were provided some questions in those sections. We were able to eliminate this error by using two control questions. For the supervisory section, we only reported instances when the respondents replied they were supervisors or executives for question 5 and answered yes to question 29. For HR specialists, we reported responses when respondents indicated yes, they worked in a human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility or other similar office, and also that their www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security work includes handling disciplinary decisions. We used a Rating Scale or Likert Scale for some questions. SurveyMonkey automatically calculated a weighted average based on a 1-to-5 Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree response scale; the answer choices “do not know/no basis to judge,” “I don’t know,” and “I do not know” were not factored into calculating the rating average. Lastly, we note that the reported percentages may not always add up to 100 percent due to rounding errors. We conducted this performance audit between March 2016 and March 2018 pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix B DHS Comments to the Draft Report www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-19-48 ART 0M4.) OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 31? Department of Homeland Security 0? (I k?Ty {0 (x ?Inspector General Act of 19798 (as amended)? (IG Act) requirements, the 01G also has ?oversight responsibility for the internal investigations? conducted by Component investigative of?ces. In addition, MD 0810.1 requires that each organizational element, or Component, refer certain categories of misconduct, including all allegations of misconduct against employees at or above the 68-15 level, to the 01G. Once allegations are substantiated, they are typically provided to the supervisor. The employee relations staff advises on appropriate action at the Component level. The CHCO, in turn, reviews aggregate disciplinary data, by Component, at the Department level. It appears that recommendations would give the CHCO authority to oversee OIG misconduct?related activities at some level, in addition to those of other investigative of?ces across the Department. While the Department agrees that the process for investigating, substantiating and reporting allegations of misconduct could be strengthened, senior DHS leadership does not believe it would be: (1) consistent with the IG Act to transfer any 01G responsibility to the CHCO given the unique and independent status 01G occupies within the Department, nor (2) appropriate to spend a substantial amount of money to do this, such as creating a new oversight office to oversee the process, until all of the requirements for strengthening the process are fully examined and substantiated, which audit did not accomplish. The draft report contained eight recommendations, with which the Department concurs. Attached ?nd our detailed response to each recommendation. Technical comments were previously provided under separate cover. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. Attachment dhs. gov 23 19?48 2U OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Attachment: Management Response to Recommendations Contained in the Report for Project No. 16-025-AUD-DHS The 010 recommended that: Recommendation 1: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer work with the Under Secretary for Management to designate or establish an entity with suf?cient size and authority to oversee the Department?s entire misconduct process from allegations to disciplinary actions. Response: Concur. As noted in the technical comments CHCO provided in response to draft report, the CHCO has authority, carried out through the Department?s operating Components, for the disciplinary process across the Department. This process, which is heavily prescribed by statute and regulation, begins once allegations of misconduct have been substantiated. Consistent with MD 0810.1, allegations of misconduct are made in substantive part to OIG and Component investigative of?ces. The report does not explain how effectively transferring some level of oversight responsibility to the CHCO would be consistent with the 1G Act, MD 0810.1, nor does the report detail the expected costs and bene?ts of establishing the recommended entity. For example, the OlG?s employee survey ?ndings re?ect concern that allegations of misconduct against members of the Senior Executive Service a group whose misconduct allegations must be reported to the OIG per MD 0810.1 are not resulting in disciplinary action. Since the OIG has the right of ?rst refusal on these cases, it seems that this recommendation would create a situation where the Management Directorate and the CHCO would be overseeing OIG action(s), which senior DHS leadership does not believe is appropriate. In addition, DHS does not believe the draft report demonstrably proves that the intake, investigation, and substantiation of allegations of misconduct by investigative bodies in the Department is ineffective. While there may be some merit to establishing an oversight entity for the entire process from misconduct allegation/investigation through to disciplinary action establishing such an entity would be costly, perhaps more than $2 million annually. DHS would not be a good steward of taxpayer funds if it committed to this expenditure before fully understanding what misconduct and discipline process shortfalls exist. To this end the Deputy Under Secretary for Management will convene a workgroup of representatives from the DHS Of?ce of the Chief Human Capital Of?cer (OCHCO), Of?ce of the Chief Security Of?cer (OCSO), Of?ce of the General Counsel (OGC), and Component investigative of?ces to determine what enhancements can be made to the process to most appropriately address concerns. Recognizing the role in the dhs. gov 24 19?48 24M OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security process, we believe it critical that a representative from also participate in this workgroup in a way that does not compromise the individual?s or organization?s independence. Estimated Completion Date (ECD): May 31, 2020. Recommendation 2: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer work with the Under Secretary for Management to ensure the designated entity implement a formal reporting process with documented procedures for handling and reporting all misconduct allegations. Response: Concur. As stated in the response to Recommendation 1, the Deputy Under Secretary for Management will convene a workgroup of representatives from the OCHCO, OCSO, OGC, and Component investigative of?ces (and hopefully 01G) to determine what enhancements can be made to the process to most appropriately address OlG?s concerns. As part of its efforts, the workgroup will document the reporting process and procedures for handling and reportng all misconduct allegations. ECD: May 31, 2020. Recommendation 3: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer revise the DHS directive and instruction to provide comprehensive guidance including de?nitions of key misconduct terms and the use of alternative discipline. Response: Concur. It is important to note that the current DHS policy Directive 250-09, ?Discipline and Adverse Actions Program?) conforms to statutory and government-wide regulations. Speci?cally, as explained by the US. Of?ce of Personnel Management (0PM), ?there is no general de?nition of the term ?misconduct? in statute or govemment-wide regulations. OPM promulgates and DHS policy comports with higher level policies and procedures for taking adverse actions under chapter 75 of title 5 The CHCO will, however, update the policy to include de?nitions for ?alternative discipline? and ?progressive discipline.? ECD: September 30, 2019. Recommendation 4: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer work with the Under Secretary for Management to require that the designated oversight of?ce conduct a comprehensive assessment of components? policies to establish a baseline for handling allegations and disciplinary actions that promotes quality and consistency across components. Response: Concur. The CHCO has been designated by the Under Secretary for Management as responsible for overseeing disciplinary and adverse actions taken across the Department. OCHCO will continue to annually assess trends and communicate results to the Department?s Human Capital Leadership Council. For example, the OCHCO performed a review of Component Discipline and Adverse Action policies in February of 201 8 and found that Components are meeting legal, regulatory, and DHS policy compliance requirements. dhs. gov 25 19?48 . ART 0M4, . 12% OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ?mac. Department of Homeland Security However, as discussed during audit ?eldwork, the disciplinary process in the Federal Government is governed by a prescriptive set of standards set out in chapter 75 of title 5, U.S.C. The law, govemment-wide regulations, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board case law, and Component Tables of Penalty form the baseline for taking disciplinary action across the Department. As to consistency across Components, it is important to recognize that in determining the individual penalty, agencies are required to apply the Douglas Factors (included as Appendix of the DHS Disciplinary and Adverse Actions Program Instruction), thereby taking into consideration factors such as supervisory status, prior discipline, mitigating circumstances, notoriety of the offense, etc.I Although one factor is consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses, applying the 1 other factors can create inconsistency, but deliver a penalty that is ?fair? given the speci?c facts and circumstances of the case. The Table of Penalties within a given Component is meant to ensure some level of consistency in the penalties for disciplinary action taken within each Component. OCHCO has not been designated to oversee the processes that various investigative of?ces use to handle allegations of misconduct. As stated in response to Recommendation 1, the Deputy Under Secretary for Management will convene a workgroup comprised of representatives from OCHCO, OCSO, OGC and Component investigative of?ces (and hopefully 016) to determine what enhancements can be made to the process to most appropriately address OlG?s concerns. As part of its efforts, the workgroup will determine whether additional policies are necessary for handling allegations of misconduct. ECD: May 31, 2020. Recommendation 5: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer work with the Under Secretary for Management to require the designated oversight of?ce: a. identify all of?ces that receive misconduct allegations or identify potential misconduct; and b. establish a system of record and process to routinely capture, manage, and monitor component?s management of misconduct. Response: Concur. The CHCO has identi?ed all of?ces that receive misconduct allegations. The OCHCO is developing a case tracking system that will track disciplinary and adverse actions across all Components and will develop a reporting process to capture, manage, and monitor Component?s management of these actions. Current plans are to select a software provider by July 30, 2019, and to complete development of the tracking system by March 31, 2020; however, if an external acquisition process is I See GAO-18-48, ?Federal Employee Misconduct: Actions Needed to Ensure Agencies Have Tools to Effectively Address Misconduct,? July 16, 2018, pp 8 - 13. dhs. gov 26 19?48 2U OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security necessary it may take until March 31, 2022 to complete the system. ECD: March 31, 2022. Recommendation 6: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer establish objectives and performance metrics for the Employee Relations Of?ce and implement written standard operating procedures de?ning the of?ce?s responsibilities. Response: Concur. In addition to the goals and objectives provided within the employee performance plan, in April of 201 8 the OCHCO Human Capital Policy and Programs (HCPP) Labor and Employee Relations staff developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the HCPP Employee Relations function. A copy of this SOP was provided to the OIG under separate cover. We request that 01G consider this recommendation resolved and closed as implemented. Recommendation 7: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer develop and implement a process to assess the effectiveness of the Department?s disciplinary program. The process should include documented procedures, measurable goals, and periodic trend analyses. Response: Concur. In 2016, the OCHCO established a procedure for yearly review of disciplinary and adverse action trends. On August 30, 2017, the CHCO issued an Assessment of DHS Discipline and Adverse Actions that covered ?scal years (FY) 2013- 2016. On March 26, 2018, the CHCO issued the Assessment of DHS Discipline and Adverse actions for FY 2017. For these assessments, OCHCO HCPP Labor and Employee Relations staff gathered Component data that was analyzed and then validated with Component Employee Relations Chiefs. Component Employee Relations points of contact, led by OCHCO HCPP Labor and Employee Relations Staff, identi?ed trends at the Component and Department level and corrective action plans were developed and implemented. Reports were distributed through the Human Capital Leadership Council. We note that as prescribed in the Department?s December 2016 Human Capital Accountability Plan and in accordance with OPM guidance, DHS Component performance management programs, which include discipline and adverse actions, are evaluated by the OCHCO Accountability Of?ce on a ?ve-year cyclical basis to ensure compliance with federal law. Copies of relevant documents were provided to OIG under separate cover. We request that 016 consider this recommendation resolved and closed as implemented. Recommendation 8: The Chief Human Capital Of?cer work with the Under Secretary for Management to evaluate survey responses and develop a corrective action plan to address unfavorable results. Response: Concur. The CHCO will review the survey responses and develop a corrective action plan to address unfavorable results. ECD: October 31, 2019. dhs. gov 27 19?48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix C DHS OIG, GAO, and other DHS and Component Misconduct Reports Author/Report Number OIG-12-28 OIG-12-96 OIG-13-05 GAO-13-59 OIG-13-24 Professionalism Reinforcement Working Group GAO-13-624 OIG-14-20 www.oig.dhs.gov Component Title Reviewed TSA Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service TSA Review of Allegations of Misconduct and Mismanagement Within TSA’s Office of Global Strategies TSA Personnel Security and Internal Control at TSA's Legacy Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing Office CBP Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen CBP Efforts to Mitigate Risk of Employee Corruption and Misconduct USSS Adequacy of USSS’ Internal Investigation of Alleged Misconduct in Cartagena, Colombia USSS A Report to U.S. Secret Service (USSS) Director Mark Sullivan Date TSA July 2013 USSS Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Could Strengthen Monitoring of Allegations of Employee Misconduct Adequacy of USSS' Efforts To Identify, Mitigate, and Address Instances of Misconduct and Inappropriate BehaviorRedacted 28 January 2012 July 2012 October 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 December 2013 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security OIG-15-04-IQO FLETC OIG-15-108-IQO NPPD Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC CBP Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration for the U.S. Secret Service USSS Oversight Review of the Department of Homeland Security Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Office of Professional Responsibility Oversight Review of the National Protection and Programs Directorate, Internal Affairs Division U.S. Customs and Border Protection Complaints and Discipline Systems Review Review of Organizational Change Efforts October 2014 June 2015 January 2016 October 2016 Source: OIG analysis of GAO, OIG, and component reports www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix D DHS Operational and Support Components DHS Operational Components U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services U.S. Secret Service U.S. Coast Guard Transportation Security Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency DHS Support Components Management Directorate Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Intelligence & Analysis Science & Technology Directorate Office of Public Affairs Office of Operations Coordinator National Protection & Programs Directorate Office of the Inspector General Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman Office of Policy Office of Health Affairs Privacy Office Office of the General Counsel Office of Partnership & Engagement Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers Office of the Executive Secretary Office of the Chief Financial Officer Source: OIG analysis www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix E OIG Analysis of DHS Employee Survey Results Questions 1 through 28 were answered by all respondents. Q1. Component (For other support components not listed, please select "Other Headquarters Components") Answer Choices Responses27 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)28 11.57% 6258 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 4.05% 2189 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 29.58% 16003 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) 0.12% 63 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 8.60% 4655 Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) 1.03% 556 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 9.69% 5241 Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) 0.46% 251 Management Directorate (MGMT) 1.01% 549 National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 2.21% 1194 Science & Technology (S&T) 0.42% 226 U.S. Secret Service (USSS) 2.73% 1476 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 26.65% 14419 Other Headquarters Components 1.90% 1028 Total DHS Respondents 54108 Throughout this appendix, response percentages for each question may not always add up to 100 percent due to rounding. In our original survey, we used informal names for components. For clarity, we listed the components by full title and abbreviation in this appendix. 27 28 www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q2. Time in Agency Less than 1 year 1-4 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years Total DHS Respondents 3.92% 2120 14.84% 8027 31.07% 16812 27.92% 15105 10.79% 5838 USCIS 5.08% 318 28.52% 1785 28.67% 1794 15.18% 950 9.67% 605 CBP 1.69% 270 8.34% 1335 32.03% 5125 24.22% 3876 16.13% 2582 FEMA 8.68% 404 22.43% 1044 30.96% 1441 23.93% 1114 6.51% 303 ICE 0.31% 9.22% 36.20% 20.19% 16.81% 16 483 1897 1058 881 TSA 4.70% 13.74% 29.75% 46.61% 4.76% 21-25 years Greater than 25 years 5.01% 6.46% 5.58% 7.30% 8.29% 9.30% 4.30% 3.20% 8.99% 8.30% 471 435 0.23% 0.21% 2713 3493 349 457 1327 1488 200 149 Components with <3,000 Respondents29 Support Components30 678 1981 4290 6720 687 4.65% 17.40% 25.80% 17.89% 12.80% 252 942 1397 969 693 8.60% 21.59% 41.00% 19.74% 4.11% 182 457 868 418 87 33 30 5.34% 16.12% 289 873 2.08% 2.88% 44 61 Q3. Where is your work location Total DHS Respondents Headquarterslevel office Field Office 22.15% 77.85% 11987 42121 USCIS 26.73% 73.27% 1673 4585 CBP 14.95% 85.05% FEMA 2392 13611 39.81% 60.19% ICE 1853 2802 16.24% 83.76% Components with <3,000 Respondents TSA 851 4390 11.26% 88.74% 1623 12796 39.00% 61.00% 2112 3303 Support Components 70.05% 29.95% 1483 634 Q4. Are you a law enforcement officer? Yes No Total DHS Respondents 32.53% 17600 67.47% 36508 USCIS 5.85% 366 94.15% 5892 CBP 67.46% 10795 32.54% 5208 FEMA 0.64% 30 99.36% 4625 ICE 62.87% 3295 37.13% 1946 TSA 9.52% 1373 90.48% 13046 Components with <3,000 Respondents 28.07% 1520 71.93% 3895 Support Components 10.44% 221 89.56% 1896 All instances noted as “Components with <3,000 Respondents” includes respondents who identified being from USCG, FLETC, NPPD, and USSS. 30 All instances noted as “Support Components” in this appendix reference specifically HRMS-Serviced Support Components. Those included respondents who identified being from: DNDO, I&A, Management Directorate, S&T, and respondents who selected “Other Headquarters Components.” 29 www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q5. Supervisory Status Total DHS Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE Components with <3,000 Respondents TSA Support Components Non-supervisory 76.39% 41333 81.40% 5094 73.75% 11802 74.61% 3473 81.45% 4269 75.05% 10821 77.84% 4215 78.37% 1659 Supervisory 22.34% 12087 17.58% 1100 25.48% 4077 24.49% 1140 17.25% 904 23.20% 3345 20.79% 1126 18.66% 395 1.27% 688 1.02% 64 0.77% 124 0.90% 42 1.30% 68 1.75% 253 1.37% 74 2.98% 63 Executive Q6. Do you work in human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility, or other similar office? Total DHS Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE Components with <3,000 Respondents TSA Support Components Yes 9.70% 5248 10.99% 688 9.32% 1491 13.10% 610 8.93% 468 8.31% 1198 9.36% 507 13.51% 286 No 90.30% 48860 89.01% 5570 90.68% 14512 86.90% 4045 91.07% 4773 91.69% 13221 90.64% 4908 86.49% 1831 Q7. My Component’s senior leaders communicate their expectations about standards of conduct to employees. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Disagree 8.79% 550 12.55% 2009 11.19% 521 13.03% 683 13.31% 1919 Neither agree nor disagree 12.11% 758 13.58% 2173 14.50% 675 15.13% 793 14.36% 2070 Agree 42.94% 2687 44.12% 7060 44.43% 2068 41.96% 2199 44.11% 6360 Strongly agree 29.59% 1852 22.04% 3527 21.74% 1012 21.43% 1123 19.07% 2749 Do not know / no basis to judge 2.22% 139 1.09% 175 2.60% 121 1.60% 84 0.79% 114 336 10.47% 567 12.43% 673 39.69% 2149 29.94% 1621 1.27% 69 5415 3.78 170 3661 12.71% 12.05% 269 6518 16.20% 13.83% 343 7485 39.96% 43.19% 846 23369 21.02% 22.79% 445 12329 2.08% 1.38% 44 746 2117 54108 3.54 3.64 Strongly disagree 4.35% 272 6.62% 1059 5.54% 258 6.85% 359 8.37% 1207 6.20% 8.03% 6.77% Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 Weighted Average31 3.87 3.63 3.67 3.59 3.53 31 For rating scale or Likert Scale questions throughout the survey, SurveyMonkey automatically calculated a weighted average based on a 1-to-5 Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree response scale. Answer choices “do not know / no basis to judge,” “I don’t know,” and “I do not know” were not factored into calculating the rating average. www.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q8. My Component’s senior leaders model behavior that is consistent with our standards of conduct. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly agree 30.17% 1888 16.58% 2654 21.42% 997 18.68% 979 13.84% 1996 Do not know / no basis to judge 5.58% 349 4.27% 684 5.93% 276 6.26% 328 3.16% 456 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 Strongly disagree 6.57% 411 13.13% 2101 8.36% 389 12.04% 631 16.86% 2431 Disagree 9.84% 616 18.20% 2913 11.49% 535 15.30% 802 21.45% 3093 Neither agree nor disagree 14.22% 890 16.98% 2717 17.06% 794 17.57% 921 17.31% 2496 12.30% 666 14.11% 764 14.18% 768 28.99% 1570 26.09% 1413 4.32% 234 5415 3.44 10.44% 12.66% 221 6850 12.90% 16.63% 273 8996 17.24% 16.54% 365 8951 31.88% 30.45% 675 16474 23.10% 19.25% 489 10416 4.44% 4.47% 94 2421 2117 54108 3.46 3.28 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 Agree 33.62% 2104 30.83% 4934 35.75% 1664 30.15% 1580 27.37% 3947 Weighted Average 3.75 3.2 3.54 3.3 3 Q9. In my Component, employees at all levels are held accountable for their conduct. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Agree 29.05% 1818 23.47% 3756 27.58% 1284 22.40% 1174 21.08% 3040 Strongly agree 17.79% 1113 11.67% 1867 12.29% 572 11.70% 613 9.66% 1393 Do not know / no basis to judge 6.94% 434 3.04% 486 6.06% 282 4.22% 221 2.66% 384 Strongly disagree 11.30% 707 19.61% 3138 14.20% 661 21.14% 1108 24.31% 3505 Disagree 19.34% 1210 27.28% 4366 23.74% 1105 26.25% 1376 28.50% 4109 Neither agree nor disagree 15.60% 976 14.93% 2390 16.13% 751 14.29% 749 13.79% 1988 18.61% 1008 23.79% 1288 13.92% 754 24.12% 1306 15.22% 824 4.34% 235 5415 2.93 15.68% 332 22.01% 466 16.44% 348 25.08% 531 13.98% 296 6.80% 144 2117 3 19.33% 10459 25.73% 13920 14.70% 7956 23.86% 12909 12.34% 6678 4.04% 2186 54108 2.83 www.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-19-48 Weighted Average 3.24 2.8 3 2.76 2.62 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q10. Senior leaders in my Component are less likely to be disciplined for violating workplace rules, regulations or standards of conduct than other employees. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 7.19% 450 5.80% 928 5.84% 272 5.25% 275 5.92% 854 7.44% 7.56% 6.18% Strongly agree 15.56% 974 26.78% 4285 17.08% 795 24.79% 1299 31.76% 4580 Do not know / no basis to judge 20.23% 1266 10.87% 1740 18.11% 843 13.45% 705 8.59% 1238 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 Weighted Average 3.25 3.61 3.37 3.57 3.73 1228 24.21% 1311 12.39% 671 5415 3.47 441 12920 19.13% 25.23% 405 13649 17.67% 12.64% 374 6837 2117 54108 3.36 3.56 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 Weighted Average 3.3 3.1 3.27 3.09 3.22 Disagree 16.20% 1014 12.81% 2050 13.98% 651 12.88% 675 10.78% 1554 Neither agree nor disagree 21.33% 1335 18.47% 2955 23.31% 1085 20.21% 1059 16.94% 2443 Agree 19.48% 1219 25.28% 4045 21.68% 1009 23.43% 1228 26.01% 3750 403 15.16% 821 18.12% 981 22.68% 160 3342 14.74% 13.08% 312 7077 20.08% 19.00% 425 10283 20.83% 23.88% Q11. The behavior of my senior leaders affects how I behave at work. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Disagree 17.27% 1081 21.27% 3404 19.72% 918 21.92% 1149 20.31% 2928 Neither agree nor disagree 19.69% 1232 19.33% 3094 19.68% 916 20.82% 1091 20.74% 2990 Agree 27.79% 1739 24.60% 3936 28.87% 1344 24.59% 1289 24.84% 3582 Strongly agree 21.30% 1333 18.25% 2921 19.01% 885 16.68% 874 20.71% 2986 Do not know / no basis to judge 2.25% 141 1.41% 226 2.45% 114 2.18% 114 1.19% 171 746 20.78% 1125 21.83% 1182 24.41% 1322 17.69% 958 1.51% 82 5415 3.12 259 7123 15.92% 20.22% 337 10942 19.27% 20.17% 408 10913 29.95% 25.59% 634 13846 21.21% 19.23% 449 10406 1.42% 1.62% 30 878 2117 54108 3.32 3.18 Strongly disagree 11.70% 732 15.13% 2422 10.27% 478 13.81% 724 12.22% 1762 13.78% 12.23% 13.16% www.oig.dhs.gov 35 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q12. My supervisor keeps me informed of workplace rules, regulations, and standards of conduct.32 USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 3.08% 193 4.30% 688 4.21% 196 5.34% 280 4.83% 696 4.23% 5.10% 4.42% Strongly agree 33.48% 2095 22.86% 3658 26.77% 1246 22.34% 1171 23.44% 3380 Do not know / no basis to judge 0.54% 34 0.22% 35 0.54% 25 0.42% 22 0.21% 31 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 2382 29.31% 1587 0.42% 23 5415 3.86 951 25379 25.98% 25.30% 550 13687 0.38% 0.33% 8 178 2117 54108 3.77 3.79 Disagree 7.24% 453 10.00% 1601 9.52% 443 10.91% 572 9.72% 1402 Neither agree nor disagree 11.70% 732 14.22% 2276 12.74% 593 15.13% 793 13.29% 1916 Agree 43.96% 2751 48.40% 7745 46.25% 2153 45.85% 2403 48.51% 6994 229 8.81% 477 13.24% 717 43.99% 108 2390 9.59% 9.52% 203 5151 14.03% 13.54% 297 7324 44.92% 46.90% Weighted Average 3.98 3.76 3.82 3.69 3.76 Q13. I am held accountable for my behavior in the workplace. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 32 Strongly disagree 0.78% 49 1.46% 233 1.18% 55 1.66% 87 0.98% 142 1.27% 1.42% 1.23% 2826 7726 2290 2579 7025 Strongly agree 45.05% 2819 38.12% 6100 37.57% 1749 35.91% 1882 41.72% 6016 Do not know / no basis to judge 1.68% 105 1.21% 194 1.76% 82 1.70% 89 0.83% 120 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 46.78% 2533 41.16% 2229 1.50% 81 5415 4.26 48.75% 48.07% 1032 26011 38.31% 39.93% 811 21606 1.75% 1.31% 37 708 2117 54108 4.23 4.25 Disagree 1.53% 96 3.11% 498 2.66% 124 3.11% 163 1.69% 243 Neither agree nor disagree 5.80% 363 7.82% 1252 7.63% 355 8.41% 441 6.05% 873 Agree 45.16% 48.28% 49.19% 49.21% 48.72% 69 2.03% 110 7.26% 393 30 665 1.84% 2.35% 39 1273 7.94% 7.11% 168 3845 SurveyMonkey confirmed that their calculations caused one additional respondent to be added to this question in error. www.oig.dhs.gov 36 OIG-19-48 Weighted Average 4.34 4.2 4.21 4.17 4.3 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q14. I know what types of behavior are considered misconduct in my workplace.33 USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 1.02% 64 1.16% 185 1.27% 59 1.58% 83 1.86% 268 1.59% 1.70% 1.44% 2695 7443 2171 2463 6579 Strongly agree 49.44% 3094 46.58% 7454 44.49% 2071 44.23% 2318 45.12% 6506 Do not know / no basis to judge 0.40% 25 0.14% 23 0.45% 21 0.27% 14 0.24% 34 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 42.38% 2295 49.38% 2674 0.13% 7 5415 4.36 45.63% 45.49% 966 24612 44.07% 46.30% 933 25050 0.47% 0.25% 10 134 2117 54108 4.28 4.33 Disagree 2.19% 137 1.85% 296 2.84% 132 2.54% 133 2.80% 404 Neither agree nor disagree 3.88% 243 3.77% 603 4.32% 201 4.39% 230 4.36% 628 Agree 43.06% 46.51% 46.64% 46.99% 45.63% 86 2.42% 131 4.10% 222 36 781 2.88% 2.39% 61 1294 5.24% 4.14% 111 2238 Weighted Average 4.38 4.36 4.31 4.3 4.3 Q15. I know where to find standards of conduct or other policies on workplace behavior. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 33 Strongly disagree 1.77% 111 1.95% 312 2.73% 127 2.65% 139 2.13% 307 Disagree 9.33% 584 7.75% 1240 11.08% 516 10.21% 535 5.16% 744 Neither agree nor disagree 8.93% 559 7.94% 1270 9.62% 448 9.04% 474 6.06% 874 Agree 45.97% 2877 47.59% 7616 47.15% 2195 49.30% 2584 49.64% 7157 Strongly agree 33.06% 2069 34.27% 5485 28.46% 1325 28.12% 1474 36.68% 5289 Do not know / no basis to judge 0.93% 58 0.51% 81 0.95% 44 0.67% 35 0.33% 48 2.62% 142 8.13% 440 8.66% 469 46.17% 2500 33.85% 1833 0.57% 31 5415 4.01 3.31% 70 12.52% 265 10.72% 227 46.39% 982 26.17% 554 0.90% 19 2117 3.8 2.23% 1208 7.99% 4324 7.99% 4321 47.89% 25911 33.32% 18029 0.58% 316 54108 4.03 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 SurveyMonkey confirmed that their calculations caused one additional respondent to be added to this question in error. www.oig.dhs.gov 37 OIG-19-48 Weighted Average 4 4.05 3.88 3.91 4.14 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q16. I can report misconduct to my supervisor without fear of retaliation. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Do not know / no basis to judge Total Weighted Average USCIS CBP 8.98% 12.27% 562 1964 9.20% 12.40% 576 1984 13.04% 15.32% 816 2452 31.67% 32.33% 1982 5173 31.94% 23.58% 1999 3774 5.16% 4.10% 323 656 6258 16003 3.72 3.44 FEMA ICE 12.37% 14.21% 576 745 11.36% 11.51% 529 603 15.45% 13.18% 719 691 33.32% 31.81% 1551 1667 22.69% 25.19% 1056 1320 4.81% 4.10% 224 215 4655 5241 3.45 3.44 TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 17.30% 2494 15.36% 2215 16.01% 2309 28.68% 4135 19.78% 2852 2.87% 414 14419 3.19 12.45% 674 11.25% 609 13.55% 734 30.08% 1629 28.07% 1520 4.60% 249 5415 3.52 11.48% 243 11.20% 237 13.04% 276 31.84% 674 26.92% 570 5.53% 117 2117 3.55 Total DHS Respondents 13.41% 7258 12.48% 6753 14.78% 7997 31.07% 16811 24.19% 13091 4.06% 2198 54108 3.42 Q17. I am confident my supervisor would take appropriate action to correct misconduct in the workplace no matter who committed the offense. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 9.99% 625 15.62% 2500 13.36% 622 16.22% 850 18.51% 2669 14.24% 12.28% 15.33% Strongly agree 28.28% 1770 18.35% 2936 19.16% 892 21.48% 1126 16.50% 2379 Do not know / no basis to judge 5.02% 314 3.17% 507 4.43% 206 3.47% 182 2.23% 322 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 Weighted Average 3.59 3.17 3.29 3.25 3.03 1546 24.71% 1338 4.10% 222 5415 3.38 641 15244 23.76% 20.23% 503 10944 4.20% 3.40% 89 1842 2117 54108 3.4 3.23 Disagree 11.06% 692 17.50% 2800 15.02% 699 15.00% 786 19.12% 2757 Neither agree nor disagree 15.21% 952 17.20% 2753 17.14% 798 15.21% 797 17.93% 2585 Agree 30.44% 1905 28.16% 4507 30.89% 1438 28.62% 1500 25.71% 3707 771 13.35% 723 15.05% 815 28.55% 260 8297 14.55% 16.20% 308 8765 14.93% 16.66% 316 9016 30.28% 28.17% www.oig.dhs.gov 38 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q18. I am confident my supervisor would handle an employee misconduct allegation discreetly and professionally. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 7.49% 469 12.63% 2021 10.61% 494 13.34% 699 15.07% 2173 11.23% 9.83% 12.33% Strongly agree 32.33% 2023 21.08% 3374 23.18% 1079 24.54% 1286 18.59% 2680 Do not know / no basis to judge 4.01% 251 3.27% 523 3.78% 176 3.45% 181 2.28% 329 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 Weighted Average 3.79 3.37 3.53 3.46 3.25 1771 27.74% 1502 3.99% 216 5415 3.58 699 17731 27.54% 23.15% 583 12527 4.20% 3.26% 89 1765 2117 54108 3.6 3.44 Disagree 7.99% 500 13.19% 2110 9.88% 460 10.86% 569 14.47% 2086 Neither agree nor disagree 14.19% 888 17.34% 2775 16.41% 764 15.00% 786 18.16% 2619 Agree 33.99% 2127 32.49% 5200 36.13% 1682 32.82% 1720 31.43% 4532 608 9.77% 529 14.57% 789 32.71% 208 6672 10.68% 11.98% 226 6480 14.74% 16.51% 312 8933 33.02% 32.77% Q19. If you suspected that a co-worker or supervisor was engaged in misconduct, would you report it? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Yes, always 70.76% 4428 77.52% 12406 58.47% 2722 72.89% 3820 70.48% 10162 Maybe, depending on the circumstances 27.05% 1693 20.81% 3331 37.74% 1757 24.08% 1262 26.80% 3864 No 2.19% 1.66% 3.78% 3.03% 2.73% 137 266 176 159 393 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 61.92% 3353 34.87% 1888 3.21% 174 5415 65.00% 70.72% 1376 38267 32.12% 26.75% 680 14475 2.88% 2.52% 61 1366 2117 54108 www.oig.dhs.gov 39 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q20. What deters you from reporting misconduct? (select all that apply)34 Total DHS Respondents I do not want to get involved I do not want to get anyone in trouble I fear that my peers will retaliate against me I fear that my supervisor will retaliate against me It is not my responsibility I do not believe that any action would be taken to address the situation. I have raised similar issues before and do not want to go through the process again. I do not know N/A – I would always report misconduct no matter the circumstances Other (please specify) USCIS CBP FEMA 35 ICE Components with <3,000 Respondents TSA Support Components 22.31% 3560 26.68% 492 23.23% 842 20.05% 391 23.29% 334 21.27% 911 19.88% 413 23.73% 177 14.39% 2297 18.87% 348 14.48% 525 13.90% 271 15.90% 228 13.38% 573 11.56% 240 15.01% 112 31.55% 5035 29.93% 552 33.54% 1216 27.03% 527 35.08% 503 34.80% 1491 26.24% 545 26.94% 201 44.15% 7046 35.95% 663 44.44% 1611 38.00% 741 47.84% 686 52.31% 2241 39.48% 820 38.07% 284 4.06% 648 3.58% 66 4.03% 146 5.03% 98 3.77% 54 3.52% 151 4.77% 99 4.56% 34 56.14% 8960 48.64% 897 58.46% 2119 53.03% 1034 61.30% 879 59.62% 2554 51.61% 1072 54.29% 405 22.78% 3635 19.36% 357 23.70% 859 19.23% 375 23.50% 337 27.17% 1164 19.64% 408 18.10% 135 5.29% 845 5.69% 105 4.97% 180 6.87% 134 3.77% 54 4.25% 182 7.17% 149 5.50% 41 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 29.17% 4656 29.93% 552 29.93% 1085 29.59% 577 29.15% 418 27.03% 1158 30.96% 643 29.89% 223 For all questions in this appendix that are marked “select all that apply,” percentages will total more than 100 percent because respondents could select multiple answers. 35 Throughout the survey, some questions will have a smaller number of responses because for some questions, depending on their answers, only some employees are moved to another question. For example, this question only appeared to respondents who selected “no” or “maybe, depending on the circumstances” to Question 19. 34 www.oig.dhs.gov 40 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q21. Where would you report misconduct? (Select all that apply) My direct supervisor Another supervisor other than my direct supervisor The manager above my direct supervisor DHS Office of Inspector General My Component's Human Capital, Human Resources, or Employee Relations Office My Component's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office My Component's Ombudsman My Component's Internal Affairs, Inspections, or Office of Professional Responsibility DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties I do not know I would never report misconduct Other (please specify) Total DHS Respondents 79.45% 42990 USCIS 83.35% 5216 CBP 78.30% 12531 FEMA 80.15% 3731 ICE 76.82% 4026 TSA 79.32% 11437 Components with <3,000 Support Respondents Components 80.74% 4372 79.22% 1677 27.73% 15005 27.02% 1691 31.71% 5075 19.08% 888 21.39% 1121 32.10% 4628 22.49% 1218 18.14% 384 41.27% 22333 43.75% 2738 37.94% 6071 37.12% 1728 32.23% 1689 50.47% 7277 36.57% 1980 40.15% 850 33.62% 18192 38.41% 2404 38.23% 6118 25.11% 1169 44.02% 2307 26.50% 3821 27.74% 1502 41.14% 871 12.64% 6837 12.27% 768 6.31% 1009 21.89% 1019 7.25% 380 15.87% 2288 16.36% 886 23.00% 487 19.63% 10619 19.14% 1198 16.65% 2664 27.02% 1258 20.70% 1085 19.18% 2766 21.14% 1145 23.76% 503 6.93% 3752 3.85% 241 1.62% 260 4.02% 187 1.41% 74 16.33% 2354 9.09% 492 6.80% 144 28.32% 15322 18.49% 1157 45.53% 7286 9.26% 431 47.13% 2470 18.57% 2678 17.89% 969 15.64% 331 9.07% 2.37% 4905 1282 6.68% 2.14% 418 134 5.64% 1.95% 903 312 9.28% 3.46% 432 161 7.08% 2.16% 371 113 13.95% 2.49% 2011 359 9.23% 2.51% 500 136 12.75% 3.16% 270 67 0.44% 9.80% 239 5302 0.61% 8.72% 38 546 0.25% 11.87% 40 1900 0.45% 9.22% 21 429 0.57% 10.28% 30 539 0.42% 8.16% 60 1177 0.63% 9.27% 34 502 0.76% 9.87% 16 209 www.oig.dhs.gov 41 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q22. Have you personally observed misconduct in your workplace in the last 3 years? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Yes 31.75% 33.50% 41.78% 32.67% 48.89% 3702 9215 2304 3069 6157 I do not know 9.09% 569 8.92% 1427 8.72% 406 8.78% 460 8.41% 1213 Other (please specify) 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 56.92% 3082 7.57% 410 0.00% 0 5415 55.69% 53.06% 1179 28708 9.02% 8.64% 191 4676 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 2117 54108 1987 5361 1945 1712 7049 No 59.16% 57.58% 49.50% 58.56% 42.70% 35.51% 1923 35.29% 38.30% 747 20724 Q23. How many times have you observed misconduct in the last three years? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA 1 time 14.31% 9.40% 10.69% 9.63% 6.69% 289 508 209 166 474 2 times 16.09% 325 13.06% 706 16.06% 314 12.83% 221 11.22% 795 3 times 12.62% 255 10.01% 541 11.46% 224 10.50% 181 9.47% 671 4 or more times 41.49% 838 46.88% 2535 45.78% 895 48.64% 838 52.01% 3685 I have not observed misconduct 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Components with <3,000 Respondents 10.16% 197 14.54% 282 11.45% 222 46.52% 902 0.00% 0 17.33% 336 1939 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 11.13% 84 15.76% 119 11.66% 88 43.97% 332 0.00% 0 17.48% 132 755 9.23% 1927 13.23% 2762 10.45% 2182 48.00% 10025 0.00% 0 19.10% 3988 20884 Total DHS Respondents www.oig.dhs.gov 42 I do not know 15.50% 313 20.66% 1117 16.01% 313 18.40% 317 20.61% 1460 Total 2020 5407 1955 1723 7085 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q24. Have you been disciplined for misconduct in the last three years? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Yes 3.10% 194 5.96% 953 2.30% 107 5.61% 294 9.40% 1355 3.43% 186 No 96.02% 6009 92.85% 14859 96.69% 4501 93.74% 4913 89.25% 12869 96.01% 5199 I do not know 0.88% 55 1.19% 191 1.01% 47 0.65% 34 1.35% 195 0.55% 30 Total 6258 16003 4655 5241 14419 5415 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 3.50% 5.85% 95.61% 93.10% 0.90% 1.06% 2117 54108 74 3163 2024 50374 19 571 Q25. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor clearly informed me of his or her dissatisfaction with my behavior. Total 199 961 109 295 Weighted Average 3.06 3.1 3.36 2.9 482 13.62% 186 1.83% 25 1366 3.08 30.16% 57 17.46% 33 2.65% 5 189 3.01 11 28.38% 21 20.27% 15 8.11% 6 74 3.34 436 33.07% 1056 15.41% 492 2.19% 70 3193 3.08 Disagree 13.07% 26 15.71% 151 14.68% 16 15.25% 45 Agree 33.67% 67 32.78% 315 34.86% 38 25.76% 76 272 15.01% 205 14.35% 196 35.29% 25.93% 49 12.70% 24 11.11% 21 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 9.46% 7 18.92% 14 14.86% Total DHS Respondents 20.61% 658 15.06% 481 13.65% TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents 19.91% Strongly agree 14.57% 29 16.02% 154 22.94% 25 16.95% 50 Do not know / no basis to judge 3.52% 7 1.87% 18 2.75% 3 2.03% 6 Neither agree nor disagree 13.07% 26 13.94% 134 9.17% 10 12.88% 38 USCIS CBP FEMA ICE Strongly disagree 22.11% 44 19.67% 189 15.60% 17 27.12% 80 www.oig.dhs.gov 43 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q26. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor provided suggestions on how to improve the problem behavior. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 26.63% 53 28.10% 270 21.10% 23 35.93% 106 25.40% 347 34.92% Strongly agree 14.57% 29 11.65% 112 12.84% 14 10.17% 30 8.42% 115 Do not know / no basis to judge 2.51% 5 2.50% 24 1.83% 2 1.36% 4 1.98% 27 Total 199 961 109 295 1366 Weighted Average 2.85 2.74 2.96 2.56 2.73 35 11.11% 21 2.12% 4 189 2.51 22.97% 17 13.51% 10 8.11% 6 74 2.85 26.24% 838 10.37% 331 2.25% 72 3193 2.72 Disagree 15.08% 30 18.52% 178 18.35% 20 15.25% 45 20.50% 280 Neither agree nor disagree 16.58% 33 13.42% 129 14.68% 16 14.24% 42 15.37% 210 Agree 24.62% 49 25.81% 248 31.19% 34 23.05% 68 28.33% 387 66 19.05% 36 14.29% 27 18.52% 24.32% 18 14.86% 11 16.22% 12 27.65% 883 18.79% 600 14.69% 469 Q27. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor gave me the opportunity to correct the problem. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 31.16% 62 31.22% 300 30.28% 33 39.32% 116 32.72% 447 Disagree 15.08% 30 17.38% 167 17.43% 19 16.61% 49 18.37% 251 Neither agree nor disagree 15.58% 31 15.71% 151 10.09% 11 15.25% 45 15.45% 211 Agree 21.11% 42 21.85% 210 22.94% 25 14.58% 43 22.91% 313 Strongly agree 13.07% 26 11.45% 110 17.43% 19 12.20% 36 7.76% 106 Do not know / no basis to judge 4.02% 8 2.39% 23 1.83% 2 2.03% 6 2.78% 38 44.44% 84 14.81% 28 8.47% 16 19.05% 36 11.11% 21 2.12% 4 189 2.36 31.08% 33.35% 23 1065 14.86% 17.38% 11 555 14.86% 14.91% 11 476 17.57% 21.36% 13 682 13.51% 10.27% 10 328 8.11% 2.72% 6 87 74 3193 2.65 2.57 www.oig.dhs.gov 44 Total 199 961 109 295 1366 Weighted Average 2.69 2.64 2.79 2.43 2.53 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q28. When I was disciplined for misconduct, my supervisor imposed discipline in a discreet manner. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Do not know / no basis to judge Total Weighted Average USCIS 24.62% 49 10.55% 21 19.60% 39 27.64% 55 12.06% 24 5.53% 11 199 2.91 CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 25.39% 29.36% 35.25% 26.57% 244 32 104 363 14.46% 13.76% 11.86% 14.71% 139 15 35 201 14.98% 15.60% 11.19% 16.98% 144 17 33 232 30.28% 23.85% 25.42% 30.97% 291 26 75 423 12.90% 14.68% 14.58% 9.08% 124 16 43 124 1.98% 2.75% 1.69% 1.68% 19 3 5 23 961 109 295 1366 2.91 2.8 2.72 2.81 31.75% 60 10.05% 19 16.93% 32 24.34% 46 13.76% 26 3.17% 6 189 2.78 24.32% 27.25% 18 870 14.86% 13.81% 11 441 13.51% 15.88% 10 507 27.03% 29.31% 20 936 14.86% 11.53% 11 368 5.41% 2.22% 4 71 74 3193 2.93 2.84 Data for Questions 29 through 42 only show respondents who answered that they are a supervisor or executive to Question 5 and answered yes to Question 29. Q29. Just to confirm, do you currently supervise other Federal employees? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents www.oig.dhs.gov Yes 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 1130 428 12190 No 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 1130 428 12190 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q30. I hold employees accountable for their behavior in the workplace. Yes, always 93.69% 1055 92.50% 3727 94.11% 1022 92.77% 872 94.49% 3261 USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Sometimes, depending on the circumstances 6.04% 68 7.32% 295 5.71% 62 7.13% 67 5.42% 187 No 0.27% 0.17% 0.18% 0.11% 0.09% 3 7 2 1 3 Total 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 93.98% 1062 5.84% 66 0.18% 2 1130 94.63% 93.55% 405 11404 5.37% 6.30% 23 768 0.00% 0.15% 0 18 428 12190 Q31. Do you know where to go to get policies and procedures on disciplinary actions? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Yes 93.34% 96.00% 91.71% 94.57% 97.62% 95.40% 1051 3868 996 889 3369 1078 No 6.66% 4.00% 8.29% 5.43% 2.38% 4.60% 75 161 90 51 82 52 Total 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 1130 90.65% 95.48% 388 11639 9.35% 4.52% 40 551 428 12190 www.oig.dhs.gov 46 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q32. When was the last time you received training on misconduct and how to take disciplinary actions? I have never received training on misconduct or disciplinary actions 3.37% 38 5.61% 226 11.79% 128 4.68% 44 9.94% 343 Within the last year 69.09% 778 43.24% 1742 50.74% 551 54.47% 512 49.93% 1723 1 to 2 years ago 17.67% 199 25.29% 1019 23.94% 260 22.02% 207 21.85% 754 3 or more years ago 5.60% 63 20.97% 845 9.21% 100 14.79% 139 13.45% 464 48.67% 550 25.66% 290 11.33% 128 9.20% HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 36.21% 155 25.23% 108 17.29% 74 Total DHS Respondents 49.31% 6011 23.27% 2837 14.87% 1813 USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents I do not know 4.26% 48 4.89% 197 4.33% 47 4.04% 38 4.84% 167 Total 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 104 5.13% 58 1130 11.92% 51 9.35% 40 428 7.66% 934 4.88% 595 12190 Q33. I need more training on how to handle misconduct and take disciplinary actions. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 7.28% 82 Disagree 19.63% 221 Neither agree nor disagree 28.51% 321 Agree 33.93% 382 Strongly agree 9.95% 112 I do not know 0.71% 8 Total 1126 4.34% 4.70% 5.74% 6.00% 175 51 54 207 15.79% 21.92% 21.06% 20.43% 636 238 198 705 22.19% 26.70% 22.55% 26.22% 894 290 212 905 39.39% 34.81% 35.43% 33.00% 1587 378 333 1139 18.14% 11.69% 15.21% 14.11% 731 127 143 487 0.15% 0.18% 0.00% 0.23% 6 2 0 8 4029 1086 940 3451 3.51 3.27 3.33 3.29 8.14% 92 25.84% 292 23.54% 266 32.65% 369 9.38% 106 0.44% 5 1130 3.09 4.91% 5.59% 21 682 19.39% 19.47% 83 2373 24.53% 24.55% 105 2993 37.38% 35.67% 160 4348 13.55% 14.47% 58 1764 0.23% 0.25% 1 30 428 12190 3.35 3.34 www.oig.dhs.gov 47 OIG-19-48 Weighted Average 3.2 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q34. Employees have reported suspected misconduct to me. Yes 44.32% 54.63% 51.01% 49.36% 72.12% 45.66% 44.16% 56.70% USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 499 2201 554 464 2489 516 189 6912 No 55.68% 45.37% 48.99% 50.64% 27.88% 54.34% 55.84% 43.30% 627 1828 532 476 962 614 239 5278 Total 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 1130 428 12190 Q35. How many times have employees reported suspected misconduct to you in the last three years? 1 time 2 times 3 times 4 or more times I have not received any reports I do not know TSA 13.61% 341 18.83% 472 10.26% 257 Components with <3,000 Respondents 21.26% 111 31.61% 165 10.54% 55 Support Components 24.61% 47 24.61% 47 15.18% 29 108 38.79% 972 22.99% 120 21.47% 41 0 89 0.00% 18.52% 0 464 0.00% 13.60% 0 71 0.00% 14.14% 0 27 Total DHS Respondents 19.26% 1340 22.85% 1590 11.41% 794 USCIS 27.47% 139 27.47% 139 13.04% 66 CBP 21.65% 479 22.65% 501 12.07% 267 FEMA 20.72% 115 28.29% 157 12.43% 69 ICE 23.23% 108 23.44% 109 10.97% 51 29.71% 2067 20.95% 106 25.90% 573 26.49% 147 23.23% 0.00% 16.76% 0 1166 0.00% 11.07% 0 56 0.00% 17.72% 0 392 0.00% 12.07% 0 67 0.00% 19.14% www.oig.dhs.gov 48 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q36. I am aware of the types of disciplinary actions I can initiate. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 1.33% 15 1.66% 67 2.30% 25 1.81% 17 1.94% 67 Disagree 6.22% 70 4.84% 195 7.73% 84 6.38% 60 4.52% 156 Neither agree nor disagree 11.28% 127 8.74% 352 11.51% 125 8.83% 83 8.64% 298 0.97% 11 5.40% 61 9.91% 1.17% 1.70% 5 207 8.64% 5.44% 37 663 12.38% 9.43% 667 2528 646 595 1966 Strongly agree 20.96% 236 21.62% 871 18.14% 197 19.04% 179 27.41% 946 I don't know 0.98% 11 0.40% 16 0.83% 9 0.64% 6 0.52% 18 Total 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 58.32% 659 24.96% 282 0.44% 5 1130 4.01 58.64% 59.98% 251 7312 17.76% 22.86% 76 2787 1.40% 0.58% 6 71 428 12190 3.84 3.97 Agree 59.24% 62.75% 59.48% 63.30% 56.97% 112 53 1150 Q37. Have you taken disciplinary action? Yes 44.67% 63.32% 51.66% 58.30% 74.36% 503 2551 561 548 2566 No 55.33% 36.68% 48.34% 41.70% 25.64% 623 1478 525 392 885 Total 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 54.51% 616 45.49% 514 1130 HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents 49.30% 211 50.70% 217 428 Total DHS Respondents 61.99% 7556 38.01% 4634 12190 USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents www.oig.dhs.gov 49 OIG-19-48 Weighted Average 3.93 3.98 3.84 3.92 4.04 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q38. Please indicate which actions you have taken for misconduct. (Select all that apply.) Total DHS Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Support Components Verbal Counseling 91.99% 6967 90.32% 457 94.32% 2410 92.17% 518 93.25% 511 89.79% 2312 91.41% 564 92.42% 195 Letter of Counseling 78.99% 5983 75.69% 383 79.02% 2019 62.99% 354 75.36% 413 86.80% 2235 70.34% 434 68.72% 145 Letter of Reprimand Suspension Demotion Removal Other (please specify) 53.82% 34.49% 6.09% 24.35% 4076 2612 461 1844 39.72% 32.02% 6.92% 26.09% 201 162 35 132 49.75% 25.95% 3.76% 14.52% 1271 663 96 371 40.75% 24.02% 1.96% 28.47% 229 135 11 160 46.17% 34.49% 4.93% 22.81% 253 189 27 125 68.50% 47.46% 10.37% 32.93% 1764 1222 267 848 44.89% 32.58% 3.24% 26.26% 277 201 20 162 38.39% 18.96% 2.37% 21.80% 81 40 5 46 8.65% 655 9.88% 50 8.38% 214 12.63% 71 8.76% 48 7.88% 203 7.94% 49 9.48% 20 Q39. For which of the following disciplinary actions do you consult human resources, employee relations, or other similar office? (Select all that apply) Total DHS Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Support Components Verbal Counseling 34.99% 2645 50.00% 252 38.65% 986 53.48% 300 48.18% 264 18.10% 465 42.05% 259 56.40% 119 Letter of Counseling Letter of Reprimand Suspension Demotion Removal 67.02% 82.54% 78.11% 63.92% 71.75% 5067 6240 5905 4832 5424 83.53% 84.92% 81.75% 74.21% 79.56% 421 428 412 374 401 68.37% 82.28% 75.42% 61.82% 67.35% 1744 2099 1924 1577 1718 72.19% 79.50% 72.01% 58.65% 71.84% 405 446 404 329 403 75.00% 84.12% 78.28% 65.51% 70.99% 411 461 429 359 389 56.64% 82.06% 81.20% 63.92% 73.69% 1455 2108 2086 1642 1893 75.32% 85.71% 79.71% 66.56% 74.68% 464 528 491 410 460 79.15% 80.57% 75.36% 66.82% 75.83% 167 170 159 141 160 None of the above I do not know All of the above 3.37% 1.64% 0.00% 255 122 2 2.58% 0.79% 0.00% 13 4 0 3.06% 1.96% 0.00% 78 50 0 2.50% 1.96% 0.00% 14 11 0 2.55% 1.28% 0.00% 14 7 0 4.59% 1.83% 0.00% 118 47 0 1.95% 0.49% 0.00% 12 3 0 2.84% 0.00% 0.95% 6 0 2 www.oig.dhs.gov 50 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q40. Does your immediate supervisor support your efforts to take disciplinary actions when warranted? Sometimes, depends on the circumstances Yes, always USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 52.49% 50.88% 45.30% 51.49% 52.27% 53.54% 45.09% 51.02% 591 2050 492 484 1804 605 193 6219 21.76% 29.64% 26.61% 23.72% 33.99% 21.77% 21.73% 28.41% 245 1194 289 223 1173 246 93 3463 I do not know / no basis to judge No 2.93% 5.24% 4.51% 5.85% 5.07% 3.72% 5.14% 4.82% 33 211 49 55 175 42 22 587 22.82% 14.25% 23.57% 18.94% 8.66% 20.97% 28.04% 15.76% Total 257 574 256 178 299 237 120 1921 1126 4029 1086 940 3451 1130 428 12190 Q41. What actions have you taken with employees in lieu of discipline? (Select all that apply) DHS Allowed employees to resign with no indication of disciplinary action on their record Detailed employees to other positions or offices Relieved employees of certain responsibilities Relieved employees of supervisory duties Transferred employees to other positions at same grade I have not taken any actions in lieu of discipline I have not needed to take disciplinary action Other (please specify) USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Support Components 7.33% 894 6.22% 70 4.49% 181 8.20% 89 6.81% 64 10.95% 378 7.96% 90 5.14% 22 5.45% 664 4.88% 55 5.53% 223 7.64% 83 6.17% 58 4.09% 141 7.08% 80 5.61% 24 18.15% 2212 14.83% 167 17.72% 714 24.49% 266 17.98% 169 16.69% 576 21.06% 238 19.16% 82 4.39% 535 4.26% 48 3.25% 131 6.26% 68 2.87% 27 5.59% 193 4.60% 52 3.74% 16 4.19% 511 5.24% 59 3.75% 151 7.09% 77 5.96% 56 2.67% 92 4.60% 52 5.61% 24 65.90% 8033 68.03% 766 69.02% 2781 56.91% 618 68.62% 645 64.71% 2233 63.54% 718 63.55% 272 0.00% 11.96% 0 1458 0.00% 14.21% 0 160 0.00% 11.44% 0 461 0.00% 13.54% 0 147 0.00% 9.68% 0 91 0.00% 12.23% 0 422 0.00% 10.62% 0 120 0.00% 13.32% 0 57 www.oig.dhs.gov 51 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q42. Have you wanted to take disciplinary action but chose not to because . . . (Select all that apply) Total DHS Respondents I was fearful of an employee grievance I was fearful of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint I did not want to offend the employee I feared retaliation by the employee I lacked knowledge of the disciplinary process I thought the case would be settled anyway because similar actions were settled in the past It took time away from other duties Management mitigated (decreased the penalty) on similar actions in the past I did not believe management would support my efforts The employee was a good performer Not applicable - I have not wanted to take disciplinary action -OR- I have always chosen to take disciplinary action Other (please specify) USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Support Components 4.50% 548 4.88% 55 4.47% 180 6.72% 73 6.81% 64 2.61% 90 5.13% 58 6.54% 28 5.52% 673 3.91% 44 5.41% 218 9.48% 103 7.66% 72 3.94% 136 5.93% 67 7.71% 33 0.64% 78 0.53% 6 0.69% 28 1.38% 15 0.21% 2 0.41% 14 0.88% 10 0.70% 3 4.44% 541 4.17% 47 3.82% 154 7.37% 80 4.68% 44 3.97% 137 4.69% 53 6.07% 26 5.51% 672 3.37% 38 6.90% 278 5.52% 60 4.68% 44 5.13% 177 4.07% 46 6.78% 29 4.51% 550 2.58% 29 6.40% 258 4.14% 45 5.96% 56 3.68% 127 2.12% 24 2.57% 11 4.03% 491 3.46% 39 4.05% 163 5.25% 57 5.74% 54 2.64% 91 5.75% 65 5.14% 22 14.75% 1798 9.15% 103 16.65% 671 9.12% 99 13.40% 126 19.21% 663 8.50% 96 9.35% 40 17.78% 2167 13.23% 149 19.36% 780 18.51% 201 19.36% 182 17.99% 621 14.42% 163 16.59% 71 5.33% 650 2.13% 24 6.70% 270 3.68% 40 4.04% 38 6.46% 223 3.81% 43 2.80% 12 61.27% 10.40% 7469 1268 69.36% 10.83% 781 122 58.35% 11.22% 2351 452 61.33% 10.50% 666 114 64.15% 9.36% 603 88 57.95% 10.66% 2000 368 69.65% 8.05% 787 91 65.65% 7.71% 281 33 www.oig.dhs.gov 52 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Data for Questions 43 through 58 only show respondents who answered affirmatively in Question 6 that they currently work in human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility or other similar office and responded yes, they handle disciplinary actions to Question 43. Q43. You indicated that you work in a human resources, employee relations, professional responsibility, or other similar office. Does your work include handling disciplinary actions? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Yes 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 178 387 138 115 391 No 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 178 387 138 115 391 100.00% 111 0.00% 0 111 100.00% 100.00% 47 1367 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 47 1367 www.oig.dhs.gov 53 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q44. What factors deter supervisors in your servicing area from disciplining employees? (Select all that apply) Cases will be settled anyway Lack of support from management Reluctance to deal with potential equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints Reluctance to deal with potential grievances The disciplinary process is too time-consuming None of the above I do not know Other (please specify) 34 Components with <3,000 Respondents 13.51% 15 Support Components 8.51% 4 35.81% 140 34.23% 38 27.66% 13 53 35.29% 138 36.94% 41 51.06% 24 44.35% 51 33.50% 131 38.74% 43 55.32% 26 33.04% 0.00% 26.96% 17.39% 38 0 31 20 38.36% 0.00% 22.51% 24.04% 150 0 88 94 31.53% 0.00% 26.13% 28.83% 35 0 29 32 51.06% 0.00% 25.53% 19.15% 24 0 12 9 Total DHS Respondents 15.73% 215 USCIS 11.24% 20 CBP 25.06% 97 FEMA 12.32% 17 ICE 24.35% 28 8.70% 34.97% 478 29.21% 52 34.88% 135 44.93% 62 33.04% 38 38.33% 524 32.02% 57 36.18% 140 51.45% 71 46.09% 40.16% 549 35.96% 64 44.44% 172 44.93% 62 36.06% 0.00% 25.31% 21.87% 493 0 346 299 35.39% 0.00% 30.90% 20.79% 63 0 55 37 36.69% 0.00% 26.61% 22.22% 142 0 103 86 29.71% 0.00% 20.29% 15.22% 41 0 28 21 TSA Q45. Does your component have a Table of Penalties? Yes USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 56.74% 85.53% 19.57% 85.22% 88.24% 101 331 27 98 345 No 2.25% 1.29% 23.91% 3.48% 2.56% 4 5 33 4 10 I do not know 41.01% 73 13.18% 51 56.52% 78 11.30% 13 9.21% 36 59.46% 66 8.11% 9 32.43% 36 111 46.81% 22 8.51% 4 44.68% 21 47 72.42% 990 5.05% 69 22.53% 308 1367 www.oig.dhs.gov 54 Total 178 387 138 115 391 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q46. My component’s Table of Penalties provides sufficient guidance on charge selection.36 USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 3.96% 4 2.11% 7 3.70% 1 3.06% 3 2.02% 7 Disagree 4.95% 5 10.24% 34 0.00% 0 5.10% 5 7.20% 25 Neither agree nor disagree 13.86% 14 9.04% 30 22.22% 6 14.29% 14 8.36% 29 Agree 41.58% 42 53.01% 176 59.26% 16 52.04% 51 57.35% 199 Strongly agree 33.66% 34 23.80% 79 11.11% 3 24.49% 24 23.63% 82 I don't know 1.98% 2 1.81% 6 3.70% 1 1.02% 1 1.44% 5 Total 101 332 27 98 347 Weighted Average 3.98 3.88 3.77 3.91 3.95 3.03% 2 3.03% 2 12.12% 8 53.03% 35 24.24% 16 4.55% 3 66 3.97 0.00% 2.42% 0 24 9.09% 7.35% 2 73 9.09% 10.37% 2 103 77.27% 53.98% 17 536 0.00% 23.97% 0 238 4.55% 1.91% 1 19 22 993 3.71 3.91 Q47. My component’s Table of Penalties provides a list of charges that is specific enough. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents 36 Strongly disagree 3.96% 4 1.81% 6 3.70% 1 5.10% 5 1.73% 6 Disagree 5.94% 6 13.86% 46 3.70% 1 1.02% 1 7.49% 26 Neither agree nor disagree 18.81% 19 9.94% 33 37.04% 10 16.33% 16 8.36% 29 Agree 40.59% 41 50.60% 168 40.74% 11 58.16% 57 60.52% 210 Strongly agree 27.72% 28 21.99% 73 11.11% 3 19.39% 19 20.75% 72 I don't know 2.97% 3 1.81% 6 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 1.15% 4 Total 101 332 27 98 347 Weighted Average 3.85 3.79 3.54 3.86 3.92 1.52% 1 4.55% 3 12.12% 8 56.06% 37 21.21% 14 4.55% 3 66 3.95 0.00% 2.32% 0 23 13.64% 8.66% 3 86 9.09% 11.78% 2 117 72.73% 54.38% 16 540 0.00% 21.05% 0 209 4.55% 1.81% 1 18 22 993 3.62 3.85 SurveyMonkey confirmed that an error caused three additional respondents to be added to Questions 46–50. www.oig.dhs.gov 55 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q48. My component’s Table of Penalties provides sufficient guidance on penalty selection. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 3.96% 2.11% 3.70% 3.06% 2.31% Neither agree nor disagree 15.84% 16 13.25% 44 29.63% 8 14.29% 14 10.37% 36 4 7 1 3 8 Disagree 12.87% 11.75% 0.00% 8.16% 8.93% 13 39 0 8 31 3.03% 2 3.03% 2 18.18% 0.00% 2.52% 0 25 13.64% 9.67% 3 96 9.09% 13.29% Total 101 332 27 98 347 Weighted Average 3.72 3.79 3.69 3.81 3.86 4 66 3.87 1 19 22 993 3.62 3.81 Agree 36.63% 37 49.40% 164 51.85% 14 54.08% 53 55.91% 194 Strongly agree 26.73% 27 21.99% 73 11.11% 3 20.41% 20 21.33% 74 I don't know 3.96% 4 1.51% 5 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 1.15% 4 12 48.48% 32 21.21% 14 6.06% 2 132 72.73% 51.36% 16 510 0.00% 21.25% 0 211 4.55% 1.91% Q49. My component’s Table of Penalties contains adequate guidance on progressiveness of penalties. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 4.95% 5 2.71% 9 3.70% 1 4.08% 4 3.17% 11 Disagree 11.88% 12 13.55% 45 0.00% 0 4.08% 4 11.24% 39 Neither agree nor disagree 11.88% 12 10.84% 36 22.22% 6 11.22% 11 10.66% 37 Agree 39.60% 48.49% 59.26% 61.22% 54.47% 6.06% 4 3.03% 2 13.64% 9 0.00% 3.42% 0 34 13.64% 10.57% 3 105 18.18% 11.58% 4 115 www.oig.dhs.gov Total 101 332 27 98 347 Weighted Average 3.79 3.76 3.77 3.88 3.76 3 66 3.83 1 18 22 993 3.52 3.77 40 161 16 60 189 Strongly agree 29.70% 30 22.59% 75 11.11% 3 19.39% 19 19.02% 66 I don't know 1.98% 2 1.81% 6 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 1.44% 5 51.52% 34 21.21% 14 4.55% 63.64% 51.76% 14 514 0.00% 20.85% 0 207 4.55% 1.81% 56 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q50. My component’s Table of Penalties contains a range of penalties that is appropriate. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 3.96% 4 2.11% 7 3.70% 1 6.12% 6 2.31% 8 Disagree 12.87% 13 10.54% 35 0.00% 0 7.14% 7 4.32% 15 Neither agree nor disagree 13.86% 14 12.35% 41 25.93% 7 12.24% 12 10.09% 35 Agree 39.60% 51.81% 55.56% 57.14% 60.81% 40 172 15 56 211 Strongly agree 27.72% 28 21.69% 72 11.11% 3 17.35% 17 21.04% 73 I don't know 1.98% 2 1.51% 5 3.70% 1 0.00% 0 1.44% 5 Total 101 332 27 98 347 Weighted Average 3.76 3.82 3.73 3.72 3.95 3.03% 2 4.55% 3 15.15% 10 48.48% 32 22.73% 15 6.06% 4 66 3.89 0.00% 2.82% 0 28 13.64% 7.65% 3 76 18.18% 12.39% 4 123 63.64% 54.38% 14 540 0.00% 20.95% 0 208 4.55% 1.81% 1 18 22 993 3.52 3.85 Q51. In general, who selects the initial penalty in a disciplinary action related to misconduct? (Select all that apply) Total DHS Respondents The employee's first-line supervisor The employee's secondline supervisor A specialist like myself in human resources, employee relations, or other similar office I do not know Other (please specify) USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Support Components 32.87% 448 25.84% 46 19.74% 76 48.55% 67 15.79% 18 44.87% 175 45.95% 51 31.91% 15 15.92% 217 11.24% 20 18.44% 71 10.14% 14 17.54% 20 18.97% 74 13.51% 15 6.38% 3 13.13% 15.11% 22.96% 179 206 313 11.80% 20.79% 30.34% 21 37 54 18.70% 15.32% 27.79% 72 59 107 13.77% 18.84% 8.70% 19 26 12 7.89% 19.30% 39.47% 9 22 45 11.79% 8.46% 15.90% 46 33 62 4.50% 18.02% 18.02% 5 20 20 14.89% 19.15% 27.66% 7 9 13 www.oig.dhs.gov 57 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q52. Which of the following scenarios describes how letters regarding disciplinary actions are prepared? (Select all that apply) Total DHS Respondents Human Resources (HR), Employee Relations (ER), or other similar office provides a template letter for supervisors to complete HR, ER, or similar office writes letters based on the facts given by the supervisors Supervisors prepare letters and send them to HR, ER, or similar office to review Supervisors do not involve HR, ER, or other similar office in the process I do not know Other (please specify) USCIS CBP FEMA ICE Components with <3,000 Respondents TSA Support Components 33.50% 458 24.16% 43 33.33% 129 32.61% 45 26.96% 31 41.69% 163 31.53% 35 25.53% 12 41.26% 564 37.64% 67 51.94% 201 34.06% 47 43.48% 50 34.53% 135 37.84% 42 46.81% 22 36.28% 496 28.09% 50 25.58% 99 35.51% 49 24.35% 28 58.06% 227 28.83% 32 23.40% 11 3.29% 15.95% 45 218 3.93% 24.16% 7 43 2.07% 15.76% 8 61 5.80% 24.64% 8 34 1.74% 20.87% 2 24 4.09% 5.63% 16 22 3.60% 19.82% 4 22 0.00% 25.53% 0 12 7.83% 107 8.99% 16 6.46% 25 2.90% 4 11.30% 13 8.18% 32 10.81% 12 10.64% 5 www.oig.dhs.gov 58 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q53. When was the last time you attended training on misconduct and disciplinary actions? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Within the last year 55.06% 98 39.79% 154 50.00% 69 50.43% 58 50.64% 198 1 to 2 years ago 15.17% 27 18.60% 72 19.57% 27 19.13% 22 17.65% 69 3 or more years ago 12.36% 22 18.60% 72 7.97% 11 14.78% 17 17.65% 69 Never 9.55% 13.70% 18.12% 13.91% 9.72% 17 53 25 16 38 I do not know 7.87% 14 9.30% 36 4.35% 6 1.74% 2 4.35% 17 Total 178 387 138 115 391 32.43% 36 21.62% 24 18.92% 21 20.72% 23 6.31% 7 111 44.68% 21 21.28% 10 14.89% 7 10.64% 5 8.51% 4 47 46.38% 634 18.36% 251 16.02% 219 12.95% 177 6.29% 86 1367 Q54. I need more training on misconduct and disciplinary actions. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 12.36% 22 8.79% 34 7.25% 10 9.57% 11 5.12% 20 8.11% 10.64% 8.12% 49 126 57 24 121 Strongly agree 12.36% 22 18.60% 72 10.87% 15 15.65% 18 16.88% 66 Do not know / no basis to judge 1.12% 2 1.29% 5 0.00% 0 0.87% 1 0.51% 2 Total 178 387 138 115 391 Weighted Average 3.14 3.34 3.33 3.04 3.34 34.23% 38 8.11% 9 0.90% 1 111 3.09 25.53% 31.24% 12 427 12.77% 15.22% 6 208 4.26% 0.95% 2 13 47 1367 3.13 3.26 Disagree 14.04% 25 19.12% 74 15.22% 21 29.57% 34 20.46% 80 Neither agree nor disagree 32.58% 58 19.64% 76 25.36% 35 23.48% 27 26.09% 102 Agree 27.53% 32.56% 41.30% 20.87% 30.95% 9 25.23% 28 23.42% 26 5 111 17.02% 19.75% 8 270 29.79% 24.73% 14 338 www.oig.dhs.gov 59 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q55. My office has sufficient staff to assist management with disciplinary actions in a timely manner. USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Strongly disagree 4.49% 8 14.47% 56 6.52% 9 10.43% 12 14.83% 58 14.41% 8.51% 11.92% 79 127 70 42 134 Strongly agree 15.17% 27 10.85% 42 7.97% 11 16.52% 19 9.46% 37 Do not know / no basis to judge 4.49% 8 6.20% 24 2.90% 4 5.22% 6 2.30% 9 Total 178 387 138 115 391 Weighted Average 3.55 3.06 3.44 3.39 3.01 33.33% 37 11.71% 13 4.50% 5 111 3.08 55.32% 37.67% 26 515 4.26% 11.05% 2 151 6.38% 4.32% 3 59 47 1367 3.39 3.19 Disagree 12.92% 23 19.64% 76 10.87% 15 12.17% 14 22.51% 88 Neither agree nor disagree 18.54% 33 16.02% 62 21.01% 29 19.13% 22 16.62% 65 Agree 44.38% 32.82% 50.72% 36.52% 34.27% 16 19.82% 22 16.22% 18 4 163 10.64% 17.78% 5 243 14.89% 17.26% 7 236 Q56. Supervisors are adequately trained in disciplinary actions. Strongly disagree 10.11% 18 15.76% 61 12.32% 17 13.04% 15 16.37% 64 9.91% HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Do not know / no basis to judge 9.55% 17 5.68% 22 3.62% 5 8.70% 10 1.79% 7 Disagree 16.85% 30 31.01% 120 20.29% 28 24.35% 28 30.18% 118 Neither agree nor disagree 29.21% 52 17.57% 68 28.26% 39 19.13% 22 22.51% 88 Agree 26.40% 23.51% 31.16% 30.43% 24.55% 47 91 43 35 96 Strongly agree 7.87% 14 6.46% 25 4.35% 6 4.35% 5 4.60% 18 11 19.82% 22 20.72% 23 34.23% 38 6.31% 7 9.01% 10 111 3.08 14.89% 7 21.28% 10 29.79% 14 25.53% 12 2.13% 1 6.38% 3 47 2.77 14.12% 193 26.04% 356 22.38% 306 26.48% 362 5.56% 76 5.41% 74 1367 2.82 www.oig.dhs.gov 60 Total 178 387 138 115 391 OIG-19-48 Weighted Average 3.06 2.72 2.95 2.88 2.7 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Q57. Do your component's senior leaders support your efforts to recommend or take disciplinary actions when warranted? USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents HRMS-Serviced Support Component Respondents Total DHS Respondents Yes, always 33.15% 59 32.82% 127 25.36% 35 31.30% 36 32.23% 126 28.83% 32 23.40% 11 31.16% 426 Sometimes, depends on the circumstances 28.65% 51 36.43% 141 39.13% 54 25.22% 29 42.97% 168 33.33% 37 36.17% 17 36.36% 497 No 12.92% 8.01% 11.59% 13.04% 10.49% 12.61% 10.64% 10.61% 23 31 16 15 41 14 5 145 I do not know / no basis to judge 25.28% 45 22.74% 88 23.91% 33 30.43% 35 14.32% 56 25.23% 28 29.79% 14 21.87% 299 Total 178 387 138 115 391 111 47 1367 Q58. What actions have been taken with employees in lieu of discipline? (Select all that apply) Total DHS Respondents Employees were allowed to resign with no indication of disciplinary action on their record Employees were detailed to other positions or offices Employees were relieved of certain responsibilities Employees were relieved of supervisory duties Employees were transferred to other positions at same grade I am not aware of any actions taken in lieu of discipline None of the above I do not know Other (please specify) USCIS CBP FEMA ICE TSA Components with <3,000 Respondents Support Components 41.11% 562 33.15% 59 41.09% 159 31.88% 44 42.61% 49 48.34% 189 43.24% 48 29.79% 14 29.41% 402 24.72% 44 33.85% 131 35.51% 49 37.39% 43 19.44% 76 43.24% 48 23.40% 11 32.99% 451 31.46% 56 36.43% 141 29.71% 41 34.78% 40 28.64% 112 40.54% 45 34.04% 16 26.34% 360 28.09% 50 29.46% 114 22.46% 31 25.22% 29 23.53% 92 30.63% 34 21.28% 10 25.24% 345 24.72% 44 26.87% 104 28.26% 39 29.57% 34 17.90% 70 36.94% 41 27.66% 13 34.97% 0.00% 0.00% 12.58% 478 0 0 172 38.20% 0.00% 0.00% 11.80% 68 0 0 21 35.40% 0.00% 0.00% 13.18% 137 0 0 51 34.78% 0.00% 0.00% 10.87% 48 0 0 15 32.17% 0.00% 0.00% 12.17% 37 0 0 14 35.29% 0.00% 0.00% 11.00% 138 0 0 43 28.83% 0.00% 0.00% 18.02% 32 0 0 20 38.30% 0.00% 0.00% 17.02% 18 0 0 8 www.oig.dhs.gov 61 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix F Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report The Office of Audits contributors to this report are: Christine Haynes, Director Anne Mattingly, Audit Manager Michael Staver, Audit Manager Heidi Einsweiler, Analyst in Charge Philip Emswiler, Analyst in Charge Tessa Clement, Program Analyst Jeanette Hyatt, Auditor Kathleen Hyland, Auditor Nancy Pergolizzi, Auditor Kendra Starkus, Program Analyst M. Faizul Islam, Ph.D., Statistician Kelly Herberger, Supervisory Communications and Policy Analyst Lindsey Koch, Communications Analyst Dana Barnett, Independent Referencer Connie Tan, Independent Referencer www.oig.dhs.gov 62 OIG-19-48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix G Report Distribution Department of Homeland Security Secretary Deputy Secretary Chief of Staff General Counsel Executive Secretary Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Management Chief Human Capital Officer Office of Management and Budget Chief, Homeland Security Branch DHS OIG Budget Examiner Congress Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees www.oig.dhs.gov 63 OIG-19-48 Additional Information and Copies To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov. For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. OIG Hotline To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at (800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 Attention: Hotline 245 Murray Drive, SW Washington, DC 20528-0305