Capitol Police: Retirement Benefits, Pay, Duties, and Attrition Compared to Other Federal Police Forces

The Washington, D.C. metropolitan (DC metro) area is home to many federal police forces, including the United States Capitol Police (USCP), which maintain the safety of federal property, employees, and the public. Officials are concerned that disparities in pay and retirement benefits have caused federal police forces to experience difficulties in recruiting and retaining officers. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee proposed six changes to enhance the USCP benefit structure. GAO was asked to review USCP’s pay and retirement benefits and compare them to other federal police forces in the DC metro area. GAO (1) compared USCP to other forces with respect to retirement benefits, minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements; (2) compared attrition at USCP to other forces, and determined how, if at all, USCP and other forces used human capital flexibilities (e.g., retention bonus); and (3) determined what level of retirement income USCP benefits provide and the costs associated with the proposed benefit enhancements. GAO chose nine other federal police forces to review based on prior work, inclusion in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) police occupational series, and officer presence in the DC metro area. GAO analyzed laws, regulations, OPM data from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, and human capital data from the 10 police forces. GAO also surveyed the 10 forces.

USCP and the Office of Personnel Management generally agreed with our findings and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

USCP generally has enhanced retirement benefits, a higher minimum starting salary, and a wider variety of protective duties than other federal police forces in the DC metro area that GAO reviewed, but has similar employment requirements. Even though USCP, Park Police, Supreme Court Police, and Secret Service Uniformed Division are federal police forces, they provide enhanced retirement benefits similar to those offered by federal law enforcement agencies that have additional investigative duties. These enhanced benefits allow their officers to retire early and accrue retirement pensions faster than other federal police forces. USCP and these three forces also offered among the highest minimum entry-level salaries—ranging from $52,020 to $55,653—than the other six forces GAO reviewed, which had minimum entry-level salaries ranging from $38,609 to $52,018. USCP reported routinely having a wider variety of duties than most other forces. These duties ranged from routinely protecting members of Congress to protecting buildings. USCP and most of the forces generally have similar employment requirements, such as being in good physical condition.

USCP’s attrition rate is generally lower than the majority of the federal police forces in our review; and USCP and seven of the other nine police forces considered human capital flexibilities to be at least of some importance to recruiting and retaining qualified officers, but use of these flexibilities generally depends on recruiting needs, among other factors. From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, USCP had the fourth lowest attrition rate (6.5 percent) among the 10 police forces GAO reviewed; the attrition rates for the nine other forces ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent. Officials from USCP and four other forces GAO reviewed stated that, currently, attrition is not a problem because of the challenging economy. For example, officials from USCP and Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police stated that their officers want to retain their jobs in the challenging economy. In addition, USCP and other forces said that when their officers do leave the force, they generally do so either because of personal reasons or for better career advancement opportunities, and officers generally stay for reasons such as good working environment or appreciation for the agency’s mission. The extent to which retirement benefits, pay, and use of human capital flexibilities affect attrition can vary among forces given other factors—such as family issues—that could influence an employee’s decision to leave or remain with his or her employer.

If fully utilized, benefits for USCP officers who retire at the age of 57 under existing provisions generally would be within the range of retirement income targets suggested by some retirement experts. However, the level of benefits depends significantly on the level of employee retirement contributions. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee presented six proposals that would enhance the current USCP benefit structure. GAO’s analysis shows that five of the six would increase existing costs, GAO’s review found the other proposal, which urges the USCP Board to exercise its current authority to allow officers to voluntarily remain employed until age 60 rather than retire at age 57, as mandated, would have only a minimal impact on USCP costs and could increase officers’ retirement income.

As the epicenter for federal government operations, the Washington D.C.,  metropolitan area is home to many federal police forces—including the  United States Capitol Police (USCP)—which play a key role in  maintaining the safety and security of federal property, employees, and  the general public. Since 2003, officials at some of these police forces  have raised concerns that disparities in pay and retirement benefits have  caused their police forces to experience difficulties in recruiting and  retaining officers. For example, after the expansion of the Federal Air  Marshal Program in 2003, concerns about disparities in pay and  retirement benefits increased as the expansion created relatively high- paying job opportunities for existing federal police officers and reportedly  lured many experienced officers from their police forces. In 2010, the  USCP Labor Committee—the bargaining unit for USCP officers—raised  concerns about whether retirement benefits offered by the USCP are  adequate to attract and retain enough qualified officers, and it proposed  six changes related to the USCP retirement benefit structure intended to  improve retention. The USCP Labor Committee stated that a major factor  in officers’ decisions to leave the agency is insufficient retirement  benefits. We reported in July 2009 on the importance of considering a  variety of organizational, personal, and economic factors, as well as  compensation and human capital flexibilities, when assessing the need to  increase retirement benefits. We further reported that the presence or  absence of better retirement benefits may not fully indicate why personnel  leave a particular agency.

You requested that we review compensation and retirement benefits of  the USCP and compare them to those of other federal police forces in the  Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Specifically, this report addresses  the following questions:  (1) How does the USCP compare to other federal police forces in the  Washington, D.C. metropolitan area with respect to retirement benefits,  minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements?  (2) How does attrition at USCP compare to other federal police forces,  and how if at all, have USCP and other federal police forces used human  capital tools to recruit and retain qualified officers?  (3) What level of retirement income do current USCP benefits provide and  what costs are associated with the proposed benefit enhancements?

In addition to USCP, we selected nine other federal police forces to  include in our review, based on (1) prior work on federal police forces, (2)  inclusion in the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) occupational  series for police officers (0083), and (3) the number of officers located in  the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who receive Washington, D.C.  locality pay.functionally equivalent to police officers designated under OPM’s 0083   According to USCP officials, USCP police officers are  police series.located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. We selected nine  federal police forces that have officers who are part of, or functionally  equivalent to, OPM’s 0083 police series and who have at least 50 officers  who are located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or receive  Washington, D.C. locality pay. The nine federal police forces are:   Further, USCP has approximately 1,800 police officers

Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police (BEP Police),

Federal Bureau of Investigation Police (FBI Police),

Federal Emergency Management Agency Police (FEMA Police),

National Institutes of Health Police (NIH Police),

Pentagon Force Protection Agency Police (Pentagon Police),

United States Park Police (Park Police),

U.S. Postal Service Security Force (Postal Security Force) , and

U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division (Secret Service Uniformed  Division).

Sixteen federal police forces had 0083 police officers. Nine of these forces had 50 or  more police officers located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area or who received  Washington, D.C. locality pay. The remaining seven federal police forces with 0083  officers that did not meet these criteria, and therefore, were not included in our review are  forces with the Federal Protective Service, National Institutes of Science and Technology,  Smithsonian Institute, U.S. Mint, Government Printing Office, Veterans Health  Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service. officers’ retirement benefits, salaries, duties, employment requirements,  and the police forces’ use of human capital flexibilities. We used fiscal  year 2005 through 2010 separation data from OPM’s Central Personnel  Data File (CPDF) to determine the level of attrition among officers at  police forces that report to CPDF; and for forces that do not report to  CPDF—USCP, Supreme Court Police, and Postal Security Force—we  used fiscal year 2005 through 2010 separation data obtained directly from  them. We chose this time frame in order to obtain the most recent data  available for a full fiscal year. We also analyzed documentation and  interviewed human resources officials, senior police officers, and  executive officials from the police forces in our review regarding human  capital issues. Based on this information, we surveyed and received  responses from each of these police forces regarding issues such as  duties, retention, and human capital flexibilities. We analyzed the survey  results and followed up with these officials when information was  incomplete or inconsistent. We also interviewed human resources officials  at OPM to obtain information on retirement benefits and pay. We  assessed the reliability of the data the police forces provided in the survey  by reviewing agency responses to questions regarding the integrity of the  data sources. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for  our purposes.

These examples show officers hired as trainees who progress through the grades and  steps of the pay scale based on time in grade. We focused on grade 3 officers because in  2010, over 80 percent of all officers were grade 3 or on their way to grade 3. Grade 3  officers have the title of Private First Class. federal Thrift Savings Plan annuity (TSP). We examined outcomes for  three different TSP contribution levels as well as for retirement both at  ages 57 and 60. In addition, we analyzed the benefit changes proposed  by the USCP Labor Committee to identify which, if any, of the proposals  aligned with current trends in retirement benefits. To do this, we  discussed the proposals with officials from the USCP Labor Committee  and OPM, and reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and literature. To  examine the costs of these proposals, we reviewed the Congressional  Budget Office’s (CBO) cost estimates for comparable benefit provisions to  federal police forces, and interviewed OPM officials. We limited our  analysis to federal police forces and did not examine the benefit  structures of state or municipal police forces. To determine the costs to  the federal government and officers of proposed changes to the USCP  benefit structure, we obtained information from the USCP regarding  officers’ retirement trends and demographic data. We conferred with  OPM’s actuarial staff regarding information and data related to the entire  law enforcement officer (LEO) population. We conferred with OPM’s  actuarial staff regarding similar information and data related to the entire  LEO population. OPM calculated the cost impact of allowing later USCP  retirement using the aggregate entry age normal method. Appendix I  provides additional detail on our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 through January  2012 in accordance with 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 analysis based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based on our audit  objectives.

As federal employees, USCP and other federal police officers are eligible  to participate in one of the two federal retirement plans—the Civil Service  Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement  System (FERS). CSRS is available to employees entering federal service  before 1984, while FERS is available to employees entering federal  service on and after January 1, 1984. CSRS is a defined benefit plan— meaning that the employer promises a specified monthly benefit during  retirement that is predetermined by a formula; in the case of CSRS, the  benefit amount and eligibility depend on the employee’s earnings history,  tenure of service, and age. The defined benefit plan is funded by both  employee and agency contributions as well as additional contributions  from the U.S. Treasury. CSRS covered employment is generally not  considered covered employment for the purposes of Social Security;  hence, CSRS covered employees do not also receive Social Security  benefits. FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three  different sources: a defined benefit plan, Social Security, and TSP. As  with CSRS, the defined benefit portion of FERS is funded by both  employee and agency contributions, as well as additional contributions  from the U.S. Treasury.

Federal Law Enforcement Retirement Benefits

Both federal retirement systems provide different levels of benefits  depending on certain characteristics of covered employees. For example,  under statutory and regulatory retirement provisions, federal employees  who meet the retirement-related definitions of an LEO receive more  generous retirement benefits under CSRS and FERS than non-LEO  employees. Coverage under CSRS and FERS LEO definitional criteria  generally include those personnel whose duties have been determined by  the employing agency through an administrative process to be primarily  the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or  convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States. The  FERS definition of a LEO is more restrictive than the CSRS LEO  definition in that it expressly includes a rigorous duty standard, which  provides that LEO positions must be sufficiently rigorous such that  “employment opportunities should be limited to young and physically  vigorous individuals.” In general, neither LEO definitions under CSRS or  FERS have been interpreted by OPM to cover federal police officers.  Implementing OPM regulations for CSRS and FERS provide that the  respective LEO regulatory definitions, in general, do not include an  employee whose primary duties involve maintaining order, protecting life  and property, guarding against or inspecting for violations of law, or  investigating persons other than those who are suspected or convicted of  offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, which are akin to  the responsibilities of federal police officers. Federal police officers might  also be treated, for retirement purposes, as “law enforcement officers”  (that is, granted LEO-like status) under two additional scenarios. First,  over the years, certain other federal police forces whose duties have not  been determined by their employing agency to meet the LEO definitional  criteria under the administrative process have been explicitly added to the  CSRS or FERS statutory definitions so that they are considered LEOs for  retirement purposes. Second, certain other federal police forces whose  duties have not been determined by their employing agency to be within  the scope of the definitional criteria of a LEO or explicitly added by  amending statutory LEO definitions, have been provided retirement  benefits similar to that of LEOs directly through legislation.

Generally, federal LEOs (and officers with LEO-like status) have a higher  benefit accrual rate than most other federal employees, albeit over a  shorter period of time due to the mandatory retirement age for LEOs.  Officers in these categories also contribute 0.5 percent more for these  benefits than most other federal employees contribute—7.5 percent of  pay for CSRS and 1.3 percent of pay for FERS. As shown in table 1,  under both CSRS and FERS, statutory provisions provide for a faster  accruing defined benefit pension for LEO and LEO-like personnel than  that provided for most other federal employees.

Also under FERS, federal police officers receiving LEO-like defined  benefits are typically eligible for the same early and enhanced pension  benefits as LEOs. For example, LEOs receive FERS cost-of-living  adjustments beginning at retirement, even if retirement is earlier than age  62, instead of at age 62 when most other FERS retirees become eligible  for these adjustments. Under FERS, LEOs also qualify for an unreduced  early retirement benefit and may retire at age 50 with a minimum of 20  years of qualifying service, or at any age with at least 25 years of  qualifying service, which are also more generous than the corresponding  provisions for most other FERS participants. LEOs are also subject to  mandatory retirement at age 57 with 20 years of service. They are also  eligible to receive the special FERS supplement upon retirement that  mimics the Social Security retirement benefits earned during federal  government service. FERS retirees continue to receive the supplement  until they reach age 62 and become eligible to collect Social Security.  Police forces statutorily granted LEO-like status also typically receive  these same benefits. The standard Social Security benefits apply to all  federal LEOs.

In addition to varying retirement benefits, federal police forces may also  operate under different compensation systems. Some federal police  forces are covered by OPM’s General Schedule (GS) basic pay plan (i.e.,  standard basic pay plan). According to OPM, standard governmentwide  basic pay systems, including the GS system, are established under title 5  of the United States Code and most LEOs and other employees with  arrest authority are covered by standard basic pay systems. Under a  standard basic pay plan, OPM generally sets the basic pay ranges  (grades) and pay increases (steps) within each grade for the positions,  and federal police forces use these grades and steps to compensate their  employees. On the other hand, some federal police forces are covered  under non-standard basic pay plans authorized under separate  legislation. Generally, under non-standard basic pay plans, federal police  forces are authorized to, among other things, provide basic pay rates  different from those specified in a standard basic pay plan and thus have  the ability to offer higher minimum entry-level salaries than those provided  to police officers under a standard pay system.

USCP Has Enhanced Retirement Benefits, a Higher Minimum Starting Salary, and a Wider Variety of Duties Compared to Most Federal Police Forces

USCP has enhanced retirement benefits and a higher minimum entry- level salary than most other federal police forces GAO reviewed. Also, it  reported having a wider variety of protective duties such as routinely  protecting members of Congress and buildings, and routinely using a  variety of methods to carry out these duties, such as conducting entrance  and exit screening and patrolling in vehicles, than most other police  forces. However, USCP reported that its officers routinely engage in  similar activities, such as intelligence operations, and have similar  employment requirements for entry-level officers, such as being in good  physical condition, as most other federal police forces.

USCP and three other police forces—Park Police, Secret Service  Uniformed Division, and Supreme Court Police—have enhanced  retirement benefits, similar to those received by federal LEOs, where  officers can retire after fewer years of service and their retirement  annuities accrue faster than the other six federal police forces GAO  reviewed. Specifically, police officers within these four police forces are  authorized under CSRS and FERS to retire at age 50 with a minimum of  20 years of qualifying service and are subject to a mandatory retirement  age of 57, with some exceptions.

In 1988, the Park Police and the Secret Service Uniformed Division, both  of which had not been determined by OPM and their employing agencies  to be covered by the LEO definition, were explicitly added by statute to  the FERS definition of a LEO so that they are considered LEOs for  retirement purposes. Committee report language accompanying the 1988 legislation noted that “although these individuals are commonly  thought to be law enforcement officers, OPM says they do not meet the  FERS definition of ‘law enforcement officer’ under section 8401(17) and  thus do not qualify for FERS law enforcement officer benefits.” The  Committee report then provided that the 1988 legislation would ensure  that these individuals will receive FERS law enforcement officer benefits.

In comparison, rather than amending the statutory LEO definition,  separate legislation in 1990 and 2000 provided the USCP and the  Supreme Court Police, respectively, with enhanced retirement benefits  similar to those received by LEOs. language accompanying the 2000 Supreme Court legislation, for  example, explained that the new provision served to “bring the Supreme  Court Police into parity with the retirement benefits provided to the United  States Capitol Police and other federal law enforcement agencies.”  Federal police officers at the remaining six police forces in our review  receive standard federal employee retirement benefits.

Pub. L. No. 101-428, 104 Stat. 928 (1990); Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762 (2000). those reported by the other federal police forces. With respect to USCP,  for example, under its non-standard basic pay authority, the Capitol  Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police set basic pay rates (both  grades and steps) for USCP officers. Three other police forces (BEP  Police, Pentagon Police, and Postal Security Force) with standard federal  employee retirement benefits also operate non-standard basic pay plans,  by statute, while the remaining three police forces—FBI Police, FEMA  Police, and NIH Police—operate under the standard basic pay plans to  compensate their officers.

USCP and the three police forces with enhanced retirement benefits  offered among the highest minimum entry-level salaries, ranging from  $52,020 to $55,653, as shown in table 2. At $55,653, USCP and the  Supreme Court Police offered the highest minimum entry-level salaries to  their police officers. NIH Police and Postal Security Force offered the  lowest minimum entry-level salaries among the 10 police forces, at  $38,678 and $38,609, respectively.

USCP reported routinely having a wider variety of duties than other  federal police forces. These duties ranged from routinely protecting  members of Congress to buildings. For example, USCP officials stated  that their main focus is protecting life and property, and thus, in addition  to routinely protecting members of Congress, they also protect members’  families throughout the entire United States, as authorized, as well as  congressional buildings, parks, and thoroughfares.

Conversely, the Postal Security Force reported having fewer duties, and  the protective duties that it does have, including routinely protecting  employees and buildings, are ones that all or most of the police forces,  including the USCP, also have. Postal Security Force officials stated that  their officers’ primary duty is routinely protecting the United States Postal  Service buildings and mail processing facilities. Figure 1 identifies the  reported routine protective duties of USCP and the nine federal police  forces we reviewed.

In addition to the routine protective duties listed above, some of these  federal police forces, including the USCP, have shared jurisdiction with  other non-federal police forces. For example, Park Police officials said  that they have a shared understanding with the states of Maryland and  Virginia to investigate homicides in federal parks within these states.  Officials from USCP stated that they have statutory authority for extended  jurisdiction which is shared with the Metropolitan Police Department of the  District of Columbia (MPD). Additionally, BEP Police, FBI Police, and  Pentagon Police officials stated that they have a memorandum of  understanding (MOU) or cooperative agreement with MPD to patrol areas  beyond their primary jurisdiction. For example, as shown in figure 2, as a  result of the statutory authority for extended jurisdiction, USCP’s  jurisdiction extends several blocks beyond the grounds of the U.S. Capitol  complex.

Section 1202 of Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. (2011) provided, in general, that to the  extent to which the Director of the National Park Service has jurisdiction and control over  such specified area, such jurisdiction and control is transferred to the Architect of the  Capitol. In turn, under 2 U.S.C. § 1961, Capitol Police jurisdiction over United States  Capitol Buildings and Grounds includes, among other things, property acquired in the  District of Columbia by the Architect of the Capitol.

Police, Park Police, and Supreme Court Police also reported routinely  using other methods to carry out their duties, such as counter- surveillance horse patrol, and standing post. All 10 of the police forces we  reviewed reported routinely patrolling in vehicles and conducting entrance  or exit screenings, and all except the NIH Police reported patrolling on  foot. The NIH Police officials explained that their mission is protecting the  NIH facility of about 347 acres, including biological-safety laboratories  and responding to emergency calls, and thus, officers generally do not  stand post but are out at the facility patrolling in vehicles.

USCP also reported that it routinely engages in a variety of activities  similar to those reported by some of the nine federal police forces in  carrying out its protective duties. For example, USCP and seven of the  other nine police forces reported routinely conducting specialized  activities such as Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), K-9, or  Containment and Emergency Response Team (CERT) activities. Also,  USCP and eight of the other nine forces reported routinely conducting  traffic control and responding to suspicious activities, in particular,  suspicious packages and people. USCP officials indicated that suspicious  packages within the Capitol complex have typically been items such as  unattended backpacks that have not contained hazardous devices such  as bombs. Also, the Pentagon police, in noting that the Pentagon is still a  likely target since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, cited  incidents such as a March 2010 attack when a gunman tried to shoot his  way through the entrance of the building. In addition, USCP and the  Pentagon Police reported routinely responding to chemical, biological,  radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) or hazardous material (HAZMAT)  threats. Figure 4 summarizes the routine activities reported by each  police force.

USCP and most of the federal police forces in our review generally have  similar employment requirements for their entry-level police officers,  including eligibility requirements and requirements for the hiring process.  All of the police forces require applicants to be a U.S. citizen, in good  physical condition, have a valid driver’s license, and have no criminal  history in order to be eligible for employment. Also, most federal police  forces require some college experience or prior related experience, with  the exception of USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division, which  require their officers to have a high school diploma or General  Equivalency Diploma (GED) certificate. However, officials at USCP and  Secret Service Uniformed Division stated that they also receive applicants  with college or law enforcement experience. In addition, Postal Security  Force officials stated that their officers are not required to have a high  school diploma or GED certificate; however, they are required to have  been employed by the Postal Service for at least 1 year, and the position  that they held does not have to be law enforcement related. Most of the  police forces that offer enhanced retirement benefits also differ from the  other police forces in that they have a maximum age for applicants and  require applicants to have good character and leadership skills. Figure 5  provides the eligibility requirements for each federal police force in our  review.

Federal police forces generally have similar requirements for their hiring  processes. For example, as shown in figure 6, each police force requires  applicants to have an interview, medical examination, background  investigation, and training either pre or post hiring, primarily at the Federal  Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Furthermore, most of the  federal police forces, including USCP, require applicants to complete a  drug test and a written examination. USCP differs from the majority of  police forces, however, in that it does not require its officers to obtain a  security clearance, but it does require a psychological evaluation,  polygraph test, and a complete background investigation.

USCP Has Relatively Low Attrition and Reported No Difficulty with Recruiting

In addition to enhanced retirement benefits and a higher minimum entry- level salary, USCP has experienced lower attrition than six of the other  nine federal police forces, and USCP reported that attrition was not a  problem from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Also, USCP and some of  the other nine federal police forces reported that officers who voluntarily  separate for reasons other than retirement do so for personal reasons or  career advancement; few forces cited the desire for greater retirement  benefits or better salary as a reason why officers leave. While USCP and  seven of the other nine police forces said that human capital flexibilities  were important tools for recruiting and retaining police officers, their use  generally depends on need or budget, among other factors.

From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, USCP’s average attrition rate was  6.5 percent compared to the other nine federal police forces, which  ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent. Three of the other  nine police forces—BEP Police, NIH Police and Park Police—had lower  attrition rates than USCP, while the remaining six forces had higher  attrition rates during the same period, as shown in figure 7.

USCP as well as four other police forces reported that attrition was not a  problem, and the most common explanation officials offered was the  current economy. For example, USCP and BEP Police officials stated that  with fewer jobs available in the economy, officers were remaining  employed by their police forces. Specifically, from fiscal years 2005  through 2008, when the national unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, the  average attrition rate among the police forces in our review was about 9.2  percent. However, during fiscal years 2009 and 2010, when the national  unemployment rate was 9.1 percent—almost twice as high as the  preceding 4 years—the combined average attrition rate for the police  forces was lower, about 7.5 percent. The FBI Police was the only force  with a higher attrition rate (17.9 percent) from fiscal years 2009 through  2010. Two of the 10 police forces that reported that attrition was a great  problem—Secret Service Uniformed Division and the FBI Police—also  had the highest attrition rates. The Secret Service Uniformed Division  cited the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and  challenging demands of the job as reasons why attrition was a problem.  The FBI Police said better pay, positions, and benefits at other forces  were reasons why attrition was a problem. Figure 8 illustrates federal  police forces’ responses to our survey question on the extent to which  attrition was a problem.

Furthermore, USCP had no problem filling the vacant positions left by  officers leaving the force as they are able to attract qualified applicants.  USCP and three of the other nine police forces—Park Police, FEMA  Police and FBI Police—reported that they had no difficulty attracting  qualified applicants. Our analysis of USCP data indicates that from fiscal  year 2006 through 2010, USCP attracted, on average, 27 qualified  applicants for each available vacancy and maintained a vacancy rate of  2.6 percent.   During that time, the other nine federal police forces had  an average vacancy rate of 7.9 percent, ranging from 1.9 percent at BEP  Police up to 24.4 percent at FEMA Police. Only two of the other nine  forces—BEP Police and Supreme Court Police—had a lower vacancy  rate with 1.9 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. USCP officials cited  the slow economy and a competitive salary as reasons why they believe  that they have no problem attracting qualified applicants. On the other  hand, FBI Police, which has the highest attrition rate among the 10 police  forces, stated that it is able to attract a large pool of applicants due to the  reputation of the agency. FBI officials said that applicants view the police  officer position as an entry-level position with hopes of advancing within  the agency. In the case of FEMA Police, officials reported that they had  no difficulty attracting qualified applicants; however, they had the highest  vacancy rate among the 10 police forces. Officials explained that from  2004 through 2010 FEMA Police was building its force and during that  time management would periodically place a hold on hiring due to budget  constraints.

Primary Reasons Why Federal Police Officers Leave or Stay

Federal police forces said that their police officers generally leave their  forces either because of personal reasons or for better career  advancement opportunities, and officers generally stay because of  appreciation for the agency’s mission.other police forces indicated that most of their police officers leave for  personal reasons, such as the desire to work closer to home. At the same  time, five other police forces—Supreme Court Police, FBI Police, FEMA  Police, Pentagon Police, and Postal Security Force—cited career  advancement as the reason for officer attrition. Specifically, career  advancement, as stated by the agencies, was either the acceptance of a  higher level position at another agency or a transfer to an agency that has  greater potential for future promotion. For example, our analysis shows  that the majority of FBI’s voluntarily-separated officers transferred to  different positions within the agency, such as an agent or intelligence  analyst position. FBI Police officials said that applicants often view the  police officer position as a stepping stone to advance to these positions.

For example, USCP and three  Furthermore, USCP and three other police forces reported that quality-of- life was one of the main reasons police officers stay with their forces,  citing such underlying factors as the work environment and work-life  balance. USCP said that pay and job security were two other main  reasons that police officers remain employed by the force. Also, 6 of the  10 forces stated that agency mission was a key reason that officers stay  with their agencies. Figure 9 summarizes the primary reasons that federal  police force officials offered for why their officers leave or stay.

While the USCP Labor Committee asserted that inadequate retirement  benefits have contributed to attrition among USCP officers, USCP did not  report retirement benefits as a reason why its officers left, as shown in  figure 9. On the other hand, there were other police forces that identified  inadequate retirement benefits as a reason for officer attrition—BEP  Police, FBI Police, and Pentagon Police—which were among the police  forces that offer standard, as opposed to enhanced, retirement benefits.  However, our analysis suggests that the fact that a police force offers  enhanced retirement benefits does not necessarily mean that it will have  lower attrition compared to others police forces, and vice versa. For  example, the Secret Service Uniformed Division offers enhanced  retirement benefits, yet it had the second highest attrition rate among the  federal police forces, whereas NIH Police offers standard retirement  benefits and has one of the lowest attrition rates.  Further, none of the  police forces that offered enhanced retirement benefits cited those  benefits as a reason why officers stayed at their police force.

Although the difference in retirement benefits may not fully indicate why  officers leave a police force, it may influence the timing of when officers  leave. For all of the police forces with enhanced retirement benefits, a  greater percentage of the officers who left—73 percent—did so within the  first 5 years of service or after 20 years of service, compared to those  forces with standard retirement benefits, where 54 percent of separating  officers left either within the first 5 years of service or after 20 years of  service. The Director of USCP Human Resources stated that if an officer  stays with USCP beyond 5 years, that officer is likely to stay at least until  the individual reaches early retirement, generally after 20 or 25 years of  service. Figure 10 compares the timing of separation of police officers at  police forces with enhanced retirement benefits to those with standard  retirement benefits from fiscal years 2005 through 2010.

As with greater retirement benefits, desire for a better salary was not cited  by a majority of police forces as a reason why officers leave from or stay  with their forces. As shown in figure 9, only 2 of the 10 forces—FBI Police  and Postal Security Force—said that officers leave for better salaries, and  3 of the 10 forces—USCP, Park Police, and Pentagon Police—said that  officers stay for better salaries. Also, federal police forces with higher  minimum entry-level salaries did not always have lower attrition. For  example, USCP and Secret Service Uniformed Division were among the  highest paid federal police forces. USCP had among the lowest attrition,  and Secret Service Uniformed Division had among the highest. Further,  NIH Police, which offered one of the lowest minimum entry-level salaries,  maintained the second lowest attrition from fiscal years 2005 through  2010, as displayed in table 3.

Most of the police forces in our review stated that the use of human  capital flexibilities was of at least some importance for recruiting and  retaining officers. Five of the 10 federal police forces in our study,  including USCP, reported that human capital flexibilities were important or  very important to recruiting and retaining police officers, while two police  forces—Postal Security Force and FEMA Police—stated that they were  not important. The other forces—FBI Police, Park Police, and Supreme  Court Police—reported that human capital flexibilities are somewhat or  moderately important. Further, NIH Police was the sole police force that  reported a human capital flexibility as one of the primary reasons that  officers remained employed by their police force. Figure 11 identifies the  federal police forces’ views on the importance of human capital  flexibilities.

USCP and the other police forces offered a variety of human capital  flexibilities related to work-life balance, relocation and position  classification, and recruitment and retention, among others. For example,  all of the police forces, except the USCP, reported offering cash  performance bonuses to their officers. USCP officials noted that they did  not offer this particular flexibility because it was not necessary to recruit  and retain officers. Conversely, in some cases, flexibilities that were  available to police forces to use were not offered to police officers. For  example, three police forces—USCP, Park Police and FEMA Police— reported that they did not use all of the recruitment and retention  flexibilities available to them because they were not needed since they  have a sufficient number of applicants. USCP and Park Police officials  further stated that they did not offer these flexibilities due to budget  constraints. Other human capital flexibilities were not offered because  they were not available to police forces. Police forces generally reported  not having some flexibilities available to their agencies because they had  not requested that such flexibilities be made available, explaining that  they did not need them as they were able to attract qualified applicants  without offering more flexibilities. For example, the transportation subsidy  was not available to Postal Security Force because, according to Postal  Security Force officials, they did not need this flexibility to be made  available to their force as they did not have difficulty in attracting  applicants. Figure 12 provides information on federal police forces’  human capital flexibilities.

Even though human capital flexibilities are intended to be a tool to recruit  and retain employees, and most of the police forces considered them at  least somewhat important, the police forces that offered a wider variety of  human capital flexibilities did not always have lower attrition rates. For  example, NIH Police and Secret Service Uniformed Division were the two  forces that offered the widest variety of flexibilities. Yet, NIH Police had  the second lowest attrition rate, and Secret Service Uniformed Division  had the second highest attrition rate.

While retirement benefits, pay, and use of human capital flexibilities could  affect attrition, the extent to which they do so can vary for a given agency,  and other factors—such as family issues and promotion opportunities, as  previously discussed—could influence an employee’s decision to leave or  remain with his or her employer. Therefore, when an agency is  determining its strategy for recruiting and retaining qualified employees,  assessing the extent to which attrition is a problem, and developing  strategies that address the problem, will be important.

Benefits under Existing FERS Provisions Generally Meet Recommended Targets, if Fully Utilized, with TSP Balances Being a Significant Factor

The benefits of USCP officers retiring at the age of 57 under existing  FERS provisions, if fully utilized by USCP officers, would meet retirement  income targets generally recommended by some retirement experts.  However, the level of benefits depends significantly on the level of  employee TSP contributions. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee  presented six proposals that would enhance the current USCP benefit  structure. Five of the six would increase existing costs; our review found  that the other proposal, which urges the USCP Board to exercise its  current authority by allowing officers to voluntarily remain on the job until  age 60 rather than retire at 57, as mandated, would have a minimal  impact on costs to the federal government and could improve officers’  retirement benefits.

Existing FERS Benefits Vary Depending on Level of TSP Contributions

In June 2011 we reported that there was little consensus among experts  about how much income constitutes adequate retirement income. The  replacement rate is one measure some economists and financial advisors  use as a guide for retirement planning; it is the percentage of pre- retirement income that is received annually in retirement. Our review  showed that some economists and financial advisors considered  retirement income adequate if the ratio of retirement income to  preretirement income—the replacement rate—is from 65 to 85 percent.

To illustrate the effect of current FERS provisions on retirement income,  we analyzed retirement benefits for illustrative USCP workers hired at  ages 22, 27, and 37, retiring at age 57, and making three different levels   Overall, we found the  of TSP contributions, as described in appendix I.total replacement rates for retirement at age 57 ranged from a low of  about 54 percent for a worker hired at age 37 making no TSP  contributions to 91 percent for a worker hired at age 22 making 10  percent TSP contributions, as shown in figure 13. A worker hired at age  27, which is the average age at which individuals are hired by USCP,  retiring at age 57, and contributing 5 percent to TSP (and thereby getting  the maximum employer match) would have a replacement rate of 75  percent, which would be in the middle of recommended replacement rate  targets. Among our illustrative examples, only workers hired at age 37 or  those who made no contributions to their TSP accounts would have  replacement rates below 75 percent. Workers hired at age 37 may also  have retirement income through prior employment. These are examples  of individual workers, not households, since we had no basis for  simulating the income and retirement benefits of spouses. Any benefits  spouses received would add to household retirement income. These  examples also assume there is no leakage from the TSP accounts in the  form of TSP loans that are not repaid or lump-sum distributions that are  not used as retirement income.

Our analysis also shows that employee TSP contribution levels over the  course of a career can make a significant difference to total retirement  income. For workers hired at age 27, for example, increasing the  contribution rate from 0 to 5 percent over the entire career would increase  replacement rates at age 57 by 11 percentage points, bringing them from  just below the recommended target range to the middle of it. In general,  the longer a worker’s career, the more years they make contributions and  earn investment returns, and the greater a difference the contribution rate  makes. According to USCP data, in 2010, 12 percent of officers made no  contributions to TSP, and another 10 percent contributed less than 5  percent of pay, thereby forgoing some portion of the full employer  matching contribution, as shown in figure 14. However, the data suggest  that workers typically do increase their contributions over time, and 54  percent of officers contribute more than 5 percent of pay.

In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee provided selected members of  Congress with six proposed changes to further enhance the current  USCP benefit structure. None of the proposals included cost estimates,  nor have CBO or OPM estimated the costs of any of the proposed  changes. Based on our review, we found that five of the six proposals, if  adopted, would increase costs and increase current pay and benefit  disparities between USCP and other federal LEO and non-LEO groups.  One proposal, which suggests that the USCP Board further exercise its  current discretionary authority to allow officers to voluntarily remain on the  job until age 60, would have a minimal effect on costs. Table 4  discusses each proposal and its potential effect on costs to the federal  government and officers’ benefits.

The sixth and final proposal suggests that the USCP Board exercise its  authority to allow officers to remain employed until age 60. The Board  currently has the discretionary authority to exempt officers with 20 years  of service from the mandatory retirement age of 57 if an officer’s  continued service is deemed to be in the public interest. According to  USCP, the Board has approved 17 such exemptions since Sept. 30,  2006: 16 in 2008 and 1 in 2010. It is unclear how many current officers  would be affected by this proposal. According to USCP data, the average  age at which officers retired from 2005 through 2010 retired was 54—3  years before the mandatory retirement age of 57.

The actual costs associated with this proposal would be contingent on the  number of officers who chose to work longer. However, if the USCP  Board deemed it to be in the public interest to allow more officers to  voluntarily work past age 57, projections show a slight reduction in  pension costs and a slight increase in payroll costs, largely offsetting  each other and resulting in a minimal overall long-term cost impact.  However, according to OPM, the savings actually realized by USCP  directly due to reduced pension costs would be further minimized  because the costs and savings would be distributed across the entire  LEO population, under the cost allocation methodology used for FERS. In  terms of USCP payroll costs, the later retirements would result in a less  than 1 percent increase in total payroll throughout the projection period.  This increase in payroll costs would largely offset the savings in pension  costs, so that the overall net long-term cost effect to USCP of this  proposal could be a very small or minimal increase, depending on the  amount of pension costs allocated to USCP directly when distributed  across the LEO population. In addition, the costs associated with paying  agency matching contributions to officers’ TSP accounts would also be  minimal since the total increase could not exceed 5 percent of the less  than 1 percent increase in payroll costs.

According to our analysis, retiring at age 60 instead of 57 could  significantly increase retirement incomes—more through TSP  contributions than through the FERS annuity. The effect of later  retirement on the FERS basic annuity is fairly predictable; under the  FERS LEO provisions, the benefit formula provides 1 percent of final  average pay for each year of additional service after 20 years. The effect  on Social Security benefits would be relatively small, but could vary  somewhat depending on whether USCP officers continued to work in  Social Security covered employment after retiring from USCP. Retiring  later has the greatest effect on the TSP component of retirement income  for those who contribute to TSP. USCP officers would increase the  number of years they make TSP contributions, receive the agency match  and earn investment returns and reduce the number of years that they  would draw down their TSP accounts in retirement. Still the size of that  effect depends on the level of lifetime TSP contributions. As shown in  figure 15, taking all three FERS components into account, retiring at age  60 instead of 57 would increase total replacement rates by as little at  4 percentage points for workers making no TSP contributions and by as  much as 10 percentage points for workers contributing 10 percent of pay  to TSP.

Moreover, taking all three FERS components into account, employee  TSP contribution levels over the course of a career can make more of a  difference to retirement income than 3 additional years of service. In the  case of workers hired at age 22 and contributing a constant 5 percent of  wages to TSP, retiring at age 60 instead of 57 increases total  replacement rates by 8 percentage points from 83 percent to 91 percent.  In contrast, increasing the employee contribution rate from 0 to 5 percent  over the entire career would increase replacement rates by 14  percentage points if retiring at age 57.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to USCP and  the nine other federal police forces included in this review; the USCP  Labor Committee; and OPM. USCP and four other federal police forces— Secret Service Uniformed Division, Pentagon Police, FBI Police, and  Postal Security Force—did not provide written comments to be included  in this report, but provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. In emails received January 3 and 4, 2012, HHS and DOI  liaisons, respectively, stated that their departments, including NIH Police  and Park Police, had no comments on the report. In an email received  January 9, 2012, the DHS liaison confirmed that the FEMA Police had no  comments on the report. In emails received January 10, 2012, the BEP  Police and Supreme Court Police liaisons stated their agencies had no  comments on the report. We received comment letters from DHS, OPM,  and the USCP Labor Committee, which are reproduced in appendices II,  III, and IV, respectively.

In commenting on this report, DHS stated that it was pleased with GAO’s  recognition of its efforts to develop, implement, and deploy human capital  flexibilities. DHS also noted that the report does not contain any  recommendations for DHS.

In its letter, OPM made several comments regarding one of the proposals  that we analyzed in the report—the proposed increase in the mandatory  retirement age. OPM stated that the cost savings actually realized by  USCP from raising the mandatory retirement age for USCP personnel  would be small because the estimated reductions in annual pension costs  would be spread across all LEO-employing agencies under the cost  allocation methodology used for FERS. We revised our report to clarify  this point. OPM also states that increasing the mandatory retirement age  is unnecessary since LEO retirement benefits provide a higher annuity  rate in order to make early retirement at age 57 economically feasible and  inconsistent with other retirement provisions that provide enhanced  accrual rates for USCP in comparison to other, non-LEO federal  employees. We are not taking a position on whether or not to raise the  mandatory retirement age for USCP personnel in this report. Rather, the  report provides information on some of the possible effects of doing so,  namely that it could increase retirement security at a minimal cost. This  report also shows that, generally, the effect of greater employee  participation in TSP can provide a larger boost in post-retirement income  than the effect of working 3 additional years on the defined benefit portion  of retirement income. Finally, we recognize there are many other factors  to take under consideration when making such policy decisions, including  workforce planning needs; retirement trends across other agencies,  industries and occupations; and broader workforce trends in employee  health and longevity. OPM also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

In its letter, the USCP Labor Committee stated that, even though our  report indicates that child care is available to USCP officers, to its  knowledge, USCP does not have a child care program. It is the case that  USCP, itself, does not offer a child care program; however, according to  USCP officials, USCP police officers have access to child care through  the House and Senate Child Care Centers. We revised our report to  clarify this point. The letter also provided commentary on several of their  proposals that extended beyond the scope of our review.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending copies to USCP; the nine other federal  police forces included in this review; the USCP Labor Committee; and  OPM. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Eileen Larence at 202-512-8777 or by e-mail at LarenceE@gao.gov or  Charles Jeszeck at 202-512-7215 or by e-mail at JeszeckC@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to  this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

To understand how the United States Capitol Police (USCP) compares to  other federal police forces with regard to retirement benefits,  compensation, duties, employment requirements, attrition, human capital  flexibilities, and costs associated with the proposed benefit  enhancements, we addressed the following questions:  (1) How does the USCP compare to other federal police forces in the  Washington, D.C. metropolitan area with respect to retirement benefits,  minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements?  (2) How does attrition at USCP compare to other federal police forces,  and how if at all, have USCP and other federal police forces used human  capital tools to recruit and retain qualified officers?  (3) What level of retirement income do current USCP benefits provide and  what costs are associated with the proposed benefit enhancements?

For the first and second objectives, we identified other federal police  forces that were potentially comparable to USCP based on (1) prior work  on federal uniformed police forces, (2) inclusion in the Office of Personnel  Management’s (OPM) occupational series for police officers (0083), and  (3) the number of officers located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan  area or who receive Washington, D.C. locality pay.information, we selected nine federal police forces whose officers are part  of, or functionally equivalent to, the 0083 occupational series and who  have at least 50 officers who are located in the Washington, D.C.  metropolitan area or receive Washington, D.C. locality pay, as listed in   Based on this  table 5.to OPM’s 0083 occupational series—or police series—for which an  individual’s primary duties involve the performance or supervision of law  enforcement work in the preservation of the peace; the prevention,  detection, and investigation of crimes; the arrest or apprehension of  violators; and the provision of assistance to citizens in emergency  situations, including the protection of civil rights. Also, the primary duty  station for the approximately 1,800 USCP officers is Washington, D.C.  We excluded military police forces because our review is focused on  civilian federal police forces which have a civilian retirement benefit  system as opposed to a military retirement benefit system. We also  excluded police forces for intelligence agencies because, unlike other  executive branch police forces, they do not report their human capital  data to Central Personnel Data File (CPDF).

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Appendix IV: Comments from the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Kristy Brown, Assistant Director,  Kim Granger, Assistant Director, Jonathan McMurray, Analyst-in-Charge,  and Su Jin Yon, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. James  Bennett, R.E. Canjar, Geoffrey Hamilton, Lara Miklozek, Christopher  Ross, Rebecca Shea, Ken Stockbridge, Roger Thomas, and Frank  Todisco made significant contributions to this report. Nicole Harkin, Jeff  Jensen, Susanna Kuebler, Sara Margraf, Amanda Miller, and Gregory  Wilmoth also provided valuable assistance.

Question: How does the USCP compare to other federal police forces?

Answer: USCP generally has enhanced retirement benefits, a higher minimum starting salary, and a wider variety of protective duties than other federal police forces in the DC metro area that GAO reviewed, but has similar employment requirements.

Question: How do the retirement benefits compare?

Answer: Even though USCP, Park Police, Supreme Court Police, and Secret Service Uniformed Division are federal police forces, they provide enhanced retirement benefits similar to those offered by federal law enforcement agencies that have additional investigative duties.

Question: What is the positive outcome of the enhanced benefits?

Answer: These enhanced benefits allow their officers to retire early and accrue retirement pensions faster than other federal police forces.

Question: How does the USCP compare in its salary metrics?

Answer: USCP and these three forces also offered among the highest minimum entry-level salaries—ranging from $52,020 to $55,653—than the other six forces GAO reviewed, which had minimum entry-level salaries ranging from $38,609 to $52,018.

Question: How does the USCP measure regarding duties?

Answer: USCP reported routinely having a wider variety of duties than most other forces. These duties ranged from routinely protecting members of Congress to protecting buildings.

Question: What comparison exists regarding employment requirements?

Answer: USCP and most of the forces generally have similar employment requirements, such as being in good physical condition.

Question: How does the USCP compare to other police forces?

Answer: USCP’s attrition rate is generally lower than the majority of the federal police forces in our review; and USCP and seven of the other nine police forces considered human capital flexibilities to be at least of some importance to recruiting and retaining qualified officers, but use of these flexibilities generally depends on recruiting needs, among other factors.

Question: What characterizes the attrition rate comparison?

Answer: From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, USCP had the fourth lowest attrition rate (6.5 percent) among the 10 police forces GAO reviewed; the attrition rates for the nine other forces ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent.

Question: To what extent is attrition a current problem?

Answer: Officials from USCP and four other forces GAO reviewed stated that, currently, attrition is not a problem because of the challenging economy. For example, officials from USCP and Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police stated that their officers want to retain their jobs in the challenging economy.

Question: What motivates officers when choosing to leave or stay?

Answer: In addition, USCP and other forces said that when their officers do leave the force, they generally do so either because of personal reasons or for better career advancement opportunities, and officers generally stay for reasons such as good working environment or appreciation for the agency’s mission.

Question: Why do other such factors vary?

Answer: The extent to which retirement benefits, pay, and use of human capital flexibilities affect attrition can vary among forces given other factors—such as family issues—that could influence an employee’s decision to leave or remain with his or her employer.

USCP Has Relatively Low Attrition and Reported No Difficulty with Recruiting

Primary Reasons Why Federal Police Officers Leave or Stay

Question: To what extent to USCP benefits fulfill retirement income targets?

Answer: If fully utilized, benefits for USCP officers who retire at the age of 57 under existing provisions generally would be within the range of retirement income targets suggested by some retirement experts.

Question: Why does the level of benefits vary?

Answer: However, the level of benefits depends significantly on the level of employee retirement contributions.

Question: How has the USCP addressed this variation?

Answer: In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee presented six proposals that would enhance the current USCP benefit structure.

Question: What did GAO determine regarding this proposal?

Answer: GAO’s analysis shows that five of the six would increase existing costs, GAO’s review found the other proposal, which urges the USCP Board to exercise its current authority to allow officers to voluntarily remain employed until age 60 rather than retire at age 57, as mandated, would have only a minimal impact on USCP costs and could increase officers’ retirement income.

Benefits under Existing FERS Provisions Generally Meet Recommended Targets, if Fully Utilized, with TSP Balances Being a Significant Factor

Existing FERS Benefits Vary Depending on Level of TSP Contributions

Question: What police forces exist in DC metro?

Answer: The Washington, D.C. metropolitan (DC metro) area is home to many federal police forces, including the United States Capitol Police (USCP), which maintain the safety of federal property, employees, and the public.

Question: How has recruiting been affected by benefit and pay disparities?

Answer: Officials are concerned that disparities in pay and retirement benefits have caused federal police forces to experience difficulties in recruiting and retaining officers.

Question: In what way did the USCP Labor Committee address this issue?

Answer: In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee proposed six changes to enhance the USCP benefit structure.

Question: What was GAO asked to review?

Answer: GAO was asked to review USCP’s pay and retirement benefits and compare them to other federal police forces in the DC metro area.

Question: What did GAO assess in its review?

Answer: GAO (1) compared USCP to other forces with respect to retirement benefits, minimum entry-level salary, duties, and employment requirements; (2) compared attrition at USCP to other forces, and determined how, if at all, USCP and other forces used human capital flexibilities (e.g., retention bonus); and (3) determined what level of retirement income USCP benefits provide and the costs associated with the proposed benefit enhancements.

Question: How did GAO select other federal police forces for comparison?

Answer: GAO chose nine other federal police forces to review based on prior work, inclusion in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) police occupational series, and officer presence in the DC metro area.

Question: What other information did GAO use?

Answer: GAO analyzed laws, regulations, OPM data from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, and human capital data from the 10 police forces. GAO also surveyed the 10 forces.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology