GovernmentExecutive.com

House lawmakers have expressed concern that the Federal Protective Service's placement in the Homeland Security Department might have caused budget and staffing problems resulting in dangerous security gaps.

The Government Accountability Office presented to lawmakers on Wednesday a report on the ability of FPS to meet its mission to protect 9,000 federal facilities. It stated the agency's management of dwindling budget and staffing levels "diminished security at facilities and increased the risk of crime or terrorist attacks." Formerly a component of the General Services Administration, FPS became part of DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau when the agency was created in 2003.

The report's author, Mark Goldstein, GAO's director of physical infrastructure issues, told the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management that virtually everyone auditors interviewed said the Federal Protective Service should not be a part of ICE because it wasn't getting its fair share of resources. Recommendations for proper placement varied, he said, but included returning the agency to GSA or moving it to another sector of Homeland Security, such as the Office of Infrastructure Protection.

Goldstein said FPS officers told GAO that the treatment they received was inferior to that of others law enforcement officials at ICE.

"There seems to be a bit of a second-class system, if you will, between ICE officers and FPS officers, according to various people in the field," Goldstein said. "They felt they're not being treated commensurate with other ICE officers in terms of pay, in terms of training and opportunity, and those kinds of things."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., chairwoman of the subcommittee, called the transfer of FPS to ICE "perhaps a fatal placement," which caused a "cosmic change" in terms of both staffing and funding management. She was especially concerned with disparate treatment of law enforcement officers within ICE.

"It's truly lethal to put police forces together, then make those distinctions," Norton said.

Goldstein said GAO was planning a systematic review of why FPS was placed within ICE, and the second phase of its investigation will focus in part on whether it should be moved.

The second phase also will include a review of the contract guard program, Goldstein said. The report showed that oversight of the 15,000-strong contract force was lacking, and some guard posts were inspected as infrequently as every 12 to 18 months.

The investigation of the contract guard program will include a review of liability issues. GAO reported that some contract guards refused to use their authority to detain individuals at federal facilities due to liability concerns, but Goldstein told the subcommittee he was unsure of the viability of these concerns or the legal ramifications for contract guards who exercised their authority.

FPS Director Gary Schenkel said the agency was making strategic shifts to improve its ability to fulfill its mission. He highlighted the move to workforce made up exclusively of inspectors rather than law enforcement officers and inspectors.

Schenkel said the shift will allow the agency to retain law enforcement authority while completing other responsibilities such as building security assessments and oversight of the contract guard program.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia will hold a hearing on Thursday to review the GAO report and hear witness testimony.

COMMENTS

• I realize that the contract guard union representatives, and some of the guards ARGUE they are as rigorously screened as the LE folks in FPS- but it just isn't so. They also claim they undergo more rigorous physical requirements, and again it just isn't so. The reality is that the LE acadamy, for FPOs and Inspectors is 13 weeks long and includes a very rigorous physical training program. The guard force has NO such training program. The LE folks have an FTO program, and the guards have no equivalent. The requirement for drug screening is set down in the contract under the provisions of the Drug free workplace act, and requiring drug screening for contract employees isn't an indication that their training or knowledge is equivalent to that of the LE folks. The reason for claiming that guards are equivalent to the LE foks? They want to be federalized- which means they would be federal employees. The question remains, WHY federalize a function that is not inherently governmental? The answer, of course, is that we should not. For more on why federalizing a guard force doesn't work, one need only look at TSA's operation. This is not to say that the FPS contract guard services aren't important, they just aren't inherently governmental. There is absolutely NO basis for making them federal employees. Cicero Posted August 22, 2008 7:59 AM
• I don't think the worry is about how many Guards have been killed in the line of duty. I have been here for 9 years and have never heard of a guard being killed in the line of duty. The problem is the authority that guards are allowed to have. Each state gives private security a differant level of authority. the prolem lays with the fact that we contract and dont hire. The state can give the authority to the company but not the government. So the company would have its authority at state level which will not transfer to federal level. Now again being contracted we can't give authority to a private company on federal property. So your authority is based on that as a private citizen. See where this is going? If we hired direct as federal guards we could give authority, But the pay would be alot less then what you get now. Maybe a GS-5 or 6. It's not as easy as it seems, not always black and white. FPO Posted August 5, 2008 2:52 PM
• In response to Cicero. I must agree with Ted T. on this one. No basis for federalizing the guard force under FPS? Your first arguement is that the contract guards do not meet the current qualifications and training of FPS and other federal law enforcement officers. As stated in my earlier post in some respects they must maintain higher qualifications than FPS officers as they are required to undergo periodic background checks and periodic physical examinations regardless of their length of employment on a post. The lack of periodic training of guards meeting the initial qualifications is appalling and the sole responsibility of FPS. Training is not something that should be contracted out. Guard companies exist only for profit. Guard companies do not wish to train individuals because it cuts into their net profit and their is a widespread belief (probably well founded) that extensive training will increase the corporate liability. Well trained guards will feel more confident to respond to emergency situations and courts would conclude that training is comensurate with duty and hence vicarious legal liability would attach to the guard corporations. Liability insurance rates would rise with each lawsuit. That is why the Internet is replete with stories of guards allowing felons to run past them, guards refusing to assist law enforcement officers, guards watching thefts is progress, guards being told by their supervisors to only observe and report,etc. (Something any host agency employee can do). It is also the reason why year after year congressional subcommittees must make time to hear over and over again similar stories of what went wrong somewhere between the mission of FPS and the lack of successful implementation on any of over 15,000 posts and where the money went! Your final arguement is "some jobs are just not inherently governmental." As I have already noted there are completely different missions between for profit security companies and government security personnel. I think what has happened here is government agencies are increasingly viewing themselves as contract managers and decision and policy makers and have become attenuated from their original goals of having employees provide basic services such as building security and the acceptance of liability inherent in providing those services. Ronald P. Parvanian J.D. Posted July 30, 2008 1:59 AM