International Air Passengers
Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved
Gao ID: GAO-05-663 July 15, 2005
While the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Protection Act repealed a 45 minute standard for inspecting international passengers, minimizing wait times at airports remains an area of concern for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Shortly after its creation in March 2003, CBP assumed inspection functions from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Department of Agriculture. The new agency's priority missions are to prevent terrorism and to facilitate travel and trade. To assess CBP's efforts to minimize wait times for international air passengers while ensuring security, this report answers the following questions: (1) What are the wait times at the 20 U.S. international airports that receive most of the international traffic and what factors affect wait times? (2) What steps have airports and airlines taken to minimize passenger wait times? (3) How has CBP managed staffing to minimize wait times across airports?
The amount of time passengers from international locations have to wait before completing CBP inspections to enter the United States varies within and across airports. On average, CBP processed passengers within 45 minutes during the 2-month period for which data were available, although some flights had significantly longer wait times. Based on our observations and analysis as well as our discussions with airport and CBP officials, we determined that the primary factors affecting wait time are passenger volume, the number of inspection stations available at an airport, and the number of CBP officers available to conduct inspections. These factors, in different combinations at each airport, affect passenger wait times. Three of the five international airports we visited had built new or expanded federal inspection facilities to accommodate future growth in passenger volume and minimize wait times for internationally arriving passengers. Additionally, some airports assigned staff to assist passengers in preparing documentation to minimize wait times. Airline officials we spoke to acknowledged that large volumes of arriving passengers may increase wait times, but said that, to accommodate market demand, airlines do not spread flight arrivals throughout the day. CBP, in its efforts to minimize passenger wait times at airports, has taken steps to increase the efficient use of existing staff at airports. For example, CBP is cross-training its officers so that they can conduct different types of inspections. CBP is also developing a staffing model to allocate staff among its ports. However, the new model fails to address weaknesses identified in assessments of staffing models used previously by Customs and INS, such as not including wait times as a performance measure. CBP also has not developed milestones for completing its staffing model and cross-training program at all ports. Until these weaknesses are addressed, CBP will be hampered in forming a basis for management decision-making concerning staff allocation and staff needs and providing budget justifications.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-05-663, International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-663
entitled 'International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport
Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved' which was released on July 15,
2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2005:
International Air Passengers:
Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved:
GAO-05-663:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-663, a report to the Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
While the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Protection Act repealed a
45 minute standard for inspecting international passengers, minimizing
wait times at airports remains an area of concern for U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP). Shortly after its creation in March 2003, CBP
assumed inspection functions from the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Department of Agriculture.
The new agency‘s priority missions are to prevent terrorism and to
facilitate travel and trade. To assess CBP‘s efforts to minimize wait
times for international air passengers while ensuring security, this
report answers the following questions: (1) What are the wait times at
the 20 U.S. international airports that receive most of the
international traffic and what factors affect wait times? (2) What
steps have airports and airlines taken to minimize passenger wait
times? (3) How has CBP managed staffing to minimize wait times across
airports?
What GAO Found:
The amount of time passengers from international locations have to wait
before completing CBP inspections to enter the United States varies
within and across airports. On average, CBP processed passengers within
45 minutes during the 2-month period for which data were available,
although some flights had significantly longer wait times. Based on our
observations and analysis as well as our discussions with airport and
CBP officials, we determined that the primary factors affecting wait
time are passenger volume, the number of inspection stations available
at an airport, and the number of CBP officers available to conduct
inspections. These factors, in different combinations at each airport,
affect passenger wait times.
Three of the five international airports we visited had built new or
expanded federal inspection facilities to accommodate future growth in
passenger volume and minimize wait times for internationally arriving
passengers. Additionally, some airports assigned staff to assist
passengers in preparing documentation to minimize wait times. Airline
officials we spoke to acknowledged that large volumes of arriving
passengers may increase wait times, but said that, to accommodate
market demand, airlines do not spread flight arrivals throughout the
day.
CBP, in its efforts to minimize passenger wait times at airports, has
taken steps to increase the efficient use of existing staff at
airports. For example, CBP is cross-training its officers so that they
can conduct different types of inspections. CBP is also developing a
staffing model to allocate staff among its ports. However, the new
model fails to address weaknesses identified in assessments of staffing
models used previously by Customs and INS, such as not including wait
times as a performance measure. CBP also has not developed milestones
for completing its staffing model and cross-training program at all
ports. Until these weaknesses are addressed, CBP will be hampered in
forming a basis for management decision-making concerning staff
allocation and staff needs and providing budget justifications.
Components of CBP‘s Calculated Wait Time:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that CBP address weaknesses in its staffing model,
and determine milestones for the completion of its staffing model and
cross-training activities.
CBP reviewed a draft of this report and concurred in part with GAO‘s
recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-663.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202)
512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
International Passengers' Wait Times Vary by Airport and Are Affected
by Three Primary Factors:
Some Airports and Airlines Expanded Facility Capacity to Minimize Wait
Times but Have Not Evenly Distributed Passenger Volume Due to Market
Demand:
CBP Has Improved Staffing Management through Increased Flexibilities,
but Plans for a Systematic Staffing Model Do Not Address Identified
Weaknesses:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
DHS's Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Comparison of Weaknesses in Legacy Staffing Models to Those in
CBP's Model under Development:
Figures:
Figure 1: Facilities within the Port of Houston/Galveston:
Figure 2: Federal Inspection Facility at the Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport (DFW) in Dallas:
Figure 3: Components of Wait Time Calculated by CBP as Part of the
Inspection Process:
Figure 4: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports from
January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005:
Figure 5: Percentage of Individual Flights with Wait Times Exceeding 60
Minutes for Primary Passenger Inspection from January 10, 2005, to
March 31, 2005, Arranged from Lowest to Highest Average Wait Times:
Figure 6: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports
Arranged from Lowest to Highest Annual Passenger Volume from January
10, 2005, to March 31, 2005:
Figure 7: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports
Arranged from the Lowest to Greatest Number of Inspection Stations from
January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005:
Figure 8: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports
Arranged from Lowest to Highest CBP Staffing Levels:
Figure 9: Old Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental
Airport:
Figure 10: New Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental
Airport:
Figure 11: Daily International Passenger Volume by Hour at Hartsfield
Atlanta Airport, May 13, 2005:
Abbreviations:
CBP: Customs and Border Protection:
DFO: Director of Field Operations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
INS: former Immigration and Naturalization Service:
US VISIT: U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 15, 2005:
The Honorable John N. Hostettler:
Chairman:
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
Every person entering the United States must be inspected to ensure he
or she is entering the country lawfully, and in fiscal year 2004, the
federal government spent over $1 billion inspecting air
travelers.[Footnote 1] That year, approximately 78 million passengers
wishing to enter the United States were inspected at 285 international
airports. About 75 percent of these passengers, or about 59 million,
were inspected at 20 of these airports. Since September 11, 2001, the
federal government has emphasized the need to thoroughly inspect all
international passengers so that terrorists do not enter the country.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is charged with inspecting
these international passengers to prevent terrorists and terrorists
weapons from entering the country while fulfilling its mission to
foster the nation's economic security through facilitation of lawful
international trade and travel.[Footnote 2] One way CBP fosters travel
is by processing international passengers through airport inspections
in a timely manner. If the inspections process impedes the flow of
individuals through the airport, then commerce and tourism could be
adversely affected.
The amount of time international passengers wait in line to complete
airport inspection was an area of concern for the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Customs Service (Customs).
Shortly after its creation in March 2003 through the combination of the
inspections functions from INS, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Agriculture), and Customs, CBP began developing a new staff allocation
model to help ensure that inspections facilities, such as those at
airports, are adequately staffed to inspect international passengers.
To assess CBP's efforts to minimize wait times for international air
passengers while ensuring security, we answered the following
questions: 1) What are the wait times at the 20 U.S. international
airports that receive most of the international traffic and what
factors affect wait times? 2) What steps have airports and airlines
taken to minimize passenger wait times? 3) How has CBP managed staffing
to minimize wait times across airports?
To determine wait times for international air passengers, we analyzed
CBP data on the wait times at the 20 U.S. airports that receive most of
the international traffic.[Footnote 3] Because the reliability of CBP
wait time data is significant to the findings of this review, we
evaluated the agency's internal controls and determined that the
required data elements are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of
this review. To determine the factors affecting wait times, we analyzed
and observed the inspections process and interviewed CBP officials
responsible for port management and certain airport and airline
officials involved with international passenger processing. To
determine the steps airports and airlines have taken to speed passenger
processing, we judgmentally selected and visited five international
airports based on their unique characteristics and geographic
dispersion.[Footnote 4] We interviewed airport and airline officials
who were involved in international-passenger processing and observed
the inspection facilities at the five airports we visited to compare
capacities and constraints to passenger processing. To assess how CBP
has managed staffing to minimize wait times across airports, we
interviewed CBP officials at headquarters and from the five selected
airports we visited. We also reviewed documentation on CBP's activities
for allocating staff to ports and spoke with agency officials
responsible for planning and implementing a staffing model to be used
to help manage staff. We reviewed our prior work and that of the
Department of Justice Inspector General on previous models used by
Customs and INS.
We performed our work from October 2004 to June 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The amount of time passengers from international locations have to wait
before entering the United States varies within and across 20 airports
at which CBP records wait times. CBP calculates wait time as the time
needed to process 98 percent of passengers on an individual flight
through primary inspection. Although wait times vary across airports,
on average, CBP processed passengers within 45 minutes during the
period for which data were available. Nonetheless, CBP has recorded
wait times for individual flights as long as 5 hours within a single
airport and 15 of the 20 airports had multiple flights that exceeded 60
minutes for processing international passengers through primary
inspection. Based on our analysis and observations of the inspections
process and discussions with airport and CBP officials, we determined
that the primary factors affecting wait time are passenger volume, the
number of inspection stations available at an airport, and the number
of CBP officers available to conduct inspections. However, none of
these factors, in isolation, necessarily determines how long passengers
must wait to complete primary inspection.
Some airports and airlines expanded facilities to facilitate projected
increases in passenger volume and minimize passenger wait times. For
example, three of the five international airports we visited built, or
plan to build, additional inspection stations since 2004. In locations
where airport inspections facilities were expanded, airport and airline
officials said that increasing the number of stations has helped to
reduce wait times, particularly when additional staff were made
available. Additionally, at four of the five airports we visited,
airport management or airlines have assigned staff to assist passengers
in preparing documentation while waiting in line. This preparation
helped to prevent delays caused when passengers are turned away from
the inspections station due to incomplete or incorrect documentation.
Airline officials at the airports we visited said that large volumes of
arriving passengers may increase wait times, but to accommodate market
demand, airlines do not spread flight arrivals evenly throughout the
day.
CBP has taken steps to increase management flexibility in assigning
staff to inspection functions and improve staff allocation in an effort
to minimize passenger wait times and ensure the most efficient use of
existing staff. For example, at some airports, facility managers have
arranged staff work schedules and used overtime to maximize the number
of staff conducting inspections during peak periods. CBP has introduced
its "One Face at the Border" program to increase staffing flexibility
so that staff can conduct different types of inspections within
airports. CBP plans to provide training materials to all ports to
support this program; however, CBP has not established milestones for
staff to complete the training at all ports. CBP is also developing a
national staffing model to more systematically allocate existing staff
levels at airports nationwide, however, the model does not address
weaknesses identified in Customs' and INS' staffing models in our and
the Department of Justice Inspector General's previous audit work.
Specifically, the new staffing model as currently planned (1) does not
include wait times as a performance measure; (2) will not include field
input on a regular basis in determining appropriate staffing levels;
and (3) will not be used to assess optimal staffing levels at airports.
Agency officials told us that the model was to be completed by April of
2005, however as of June 2005, it had not been finished and CBP
officials had not established milestones for completing and
implementing the model.
To help ensure that wait times are minimized and that staff are used as
efficiently as possible, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Homeland Security direct the Commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection to modify CBP's staffing model plans to better identify
personnel needs and capacities to deal with varying passenger volume
and to establish milestones for ports to complete its One Face at the
Border training program.
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection. The Department concurred with three of the recommendations
and partially concurred with the remaining two recommendations and said
that CBP planned to, or already had taken, steps to implement all five
of the recommendations. With regard to the two recommendations with
partial concurrence, the Department said that CBP agreed in concept
with the need to take action but believes further consideration is
needed. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that our recommendations,
if implemented, will help CBP to maximize the effectiveness of its
staffing allocation process.
Background:
CBP has two priority missions: (1) detecting and preventing terrorists
and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and (2)
facilitating the orderly and efficient flow of legitimate trade and
travel. CBP's supporting missions include interdicting illegal drugs
and other contraband; apprehending individuals who are attempting to
enter the United States illegally; inspecting inbound and outbound
people, vehicles, and cargo; enforcing all laws of the United States at
the border; protecting U.S. agricultural and economic interests from
harmful pests and diseases; regulating and facilitating international
trade; collecting import duties; and enforcing U.S. trade laws.
There are 317 official ports of entry into the United States. Each port
can be composed of one or more individual facilities, such as airports,
seaports, or land ports where CBP officers process arriving passengers.
The port of Buffalo, New York, for example, has airport, seaport, and
land port inspection facilities while the Port of Detroit has only the
facility at the Detroit International Airport. CBP headquarters
allocates staff to ports. A Director of Field Operations (DFO) is
responsible for port activities within a geographic area and serves as
a liaison between port management and headquarters.[Footnote 5] Within
ports with multiple port facilities (that may be spread across a wide
area), port directors decide whether officers are assigned to airport,
sea port or land port facilities and individual facility managers are
responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations. Port directors are
also responsible for ensuring that officers are appropriately cross-
trained to support the agency's mission and to allow for flexibility in
assigning officers to various inspections functions and locations
within a port. Figure 1 shows the Port of Houston/Galveston's multiple
sea ports and one airport.
Figure 1: Facilities within the Port of Houston/Galveston:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
At inspection facilities within airports, CBP officers inspect all
international passengers wishing to enter the United States mainly to
determine their admissibility into the country. Figure 2 shows
inspection stations within the inspection facility at Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport in Dallas, Texas.
Figure 2: Federal Inspection Facility at the Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport (DFW) in Dallas:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
After entering the inspection area, U.S. citizens (or permanent
residents) and foreign nationals are directed to two different lines.
Foreign national inspections are more complex than U.S. citizen
inspections because the inspecting officer has to be familiar with
different nations' passports and visas and be able to identify
fraudulent versions of these documents. In addition, foreign nationals
must present the I-94 Form.[Footnote 6] During this process, the
officer asks the foreign national passenger questions, such as his or
her residence abroad and while in the United States, and intended
length of stay. Generally, CBP takes longer to inspect foreign
nationals than U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
In addition to questioning the passenger and examining documentation,
the officer observes the passenger's behavior as part of his or her
assessment of the passenger's potential involvement in terrorism,
criminal activities, or violation of immigration status. The officer
also checks records in a variety of databases as well as any relevant
and available intelligence information[Footnote 7] to identify high-
risk passengers. If the CBP officer conducting the primary inspection
decides that a passenger requires further scrutiny, then that passenger
is referred to another CBP officer who conducts a more in-depth
secondary inspection. Secondary inspection can involve additional
interviews, document reviews, database queries, communication with
other law enforcement agencies, observational techniques, and
heightened physical inspections.
After primary or secondary inspection, passengers may be subject to
baggage inspection if they have items to declare, such as certain food
items or currency or if a CBP officer suspects that they may be
involved in illegal activity. Otherwise, if the inspecting officer
determines passengers have nothing to declare and do not pose a risk,
passengers are allowed to pick up their baggage and leave the
inspection facility through the exit control area, where a CBP officer
ensures that all passengers have undergone all necessary examinations.
In any inspection, if the officer determines that certain passengers
pose some risk, are engaged in illegal activity, or are otherwise
trying to enter the country unlawfully, they may be returned to their
originating country or detained for further legal proceedings.
CBP calculates average daily wait times for an airport based on an
average of the wait times of all flights that arrive on that day.
Because it is an average, this calculation does not represent the wait
times for each individual flight. In addition, the wait time recorded
for an individual flight does not represent the amount of time that
each individual passenger must wait for primary inspection. CBP
calculates passenger wait time for individual flights as the time
elapsed from the arrival of the first passenger on a flight into the
inspection facility to the completion of primary inspection for 98
percent of the passengers on the flight.[Footnote 8] For example, on a
flight that CBP records as having a wait time of 45 minutes, the first
passenger to enter the inspection facility may be able to pass through
the primary inspection area in less than 10 minutes, while the last 2
percent of passengers may wait more than an hour, because they arrived
later to the inspection facility or were mixed in line with other
flights. Figure 3 illustrates the steps arriving passengers take after
they deplane until they exit the federal inspection facility and
highlights the components of this process that CBP measures as
passenger wait times.
Figure 3: Components of Wait Time Calculated by CBP as Part of the
Inspection Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As illustrated in the figure, the wait time CBP calculates for primary
passenger inspection is divided into two components: (1) the time spent
waiting in line at the inspection facility and (2) the length of time
of the primary inspection. This measurement is focused on primary
inspection and does not include the time for passengers to deplane and
walk to the inspection area before the primary inspection and also does
not include the time needed for passengers to retrieve baggage and exit
the inspection facility after the primary inspection. In addition, this
measurement does not take into account time passengers may have to
spend in secondary inspection.
Prior to September 11, Congress had imposed wait time standards on the
INS for processing international passengers. Congress enacted
legislation in 1990 requiring INS to process incoming international
passengers within 45 minutes.[Footnote 9] Although the legislation was
not specific as to how INS should measure the 45 minutes, INS
originally interpreted this requirement to include time spent in line
in the inspections facility and the time for primary inspection---the
two components measured by CBP. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Protection Act of 2002 repealed the 45-minute standard as a requirement
for processing international passengers.[Footnote 10] It added a
provision requiring that staffing levels estimated by CBP in workforce
staffing models be based on a goal of providing immigration services
within 45 minutes.
International Passengers' Wait Times Vary by Airport and Are Affected
by Three Primary Factors:
The amount of time passengers from international locations have to wait
before completing CBP inspections to enter the United States varies
within individual airports and across the 20 airports at which CBP
records wait times. Although wait times vary across airports, on
average, CBP processed passengers within 45 minutes during the 2-month
period for which data were available. Nonetheless, within a single
airport, CBP has recorded wait times for individual flights as long as
5 hours for passengers to complete primary airport inspections and 15
of the 20 airports had one percent or more of their international
flights exceed 60 minutes for processing international passengers
through primary inspection. Based on our observations and analysis of
wait time data, as well as our discussions with airport and airline
officials, we concluded that the primary factors affecting wait time
are passenger volume, the number of inspection stations available at an
airport, and the number of CBP officers available to conduct
inspections. However, none of the three factors, in isolation, had a
decisive effect on passenger wait times.
Wait Times at Airports Vary but Generally Averaged 40 Minutes or Less
in 2005:
In January 2005, CBP began using its current methodology for recording
average daily wait times for international arriving flights at 20 of
the 285 airports that receive international air traffic. This
calculation is an average of the wait times of all flights that come in
that day. Because it is an average, this calculation does not represent
the wait time for each individual flight. In addition, the wait time
recorded for an individual flight does not represent the amount of time
that each individual passenger must wait for primary inspection. For
example, on a flight that CBP records as having a wait time of 45
minutes, the first passenger to enter the inspection facility may be
able to pass through the primary inspection area in less than 10
minutes while the last 2 percent of passengers may wait more than an
hour because they arrived later to the inspection facility or were
mixed in line with other flights. Figure 4 illustrates average daily
wait times at 20 international airports based on the average time
required for the 98th percentile passenger to complete primary
inspection at each airport (this applies to figures 4 through 8) and
shows that average wait times at 19 of the 20 airports for which CBP
maintained data were 40 minutes or less. Airline officials we spoke to
cautioned that this data on wait times was not recorded during the peak
June through September time periods. The officials stated that wait
times recorded during the summer months may be significantly higher
than those recorded during off-peak periods.
Figure 4: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports from
January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Generally, the longer of the two components of wait time calculated by
CBP is the time spent by passengers waiting in line to meet with a CBP
officer. According to CBP officials and our own observations, the time
spent by the passenger in the primary inspection station communicating
directly with the CBP officer is rarely more than 5 minutes, with
inspections for U.S. citizens lasting approximately 1 to 2 minutes and
for foreign nationals from 3 to 5 minutes. CBP officials told us that
if the officer conducting the primary inspection thinks it is taking an
unreasonable amount of time given the nature of the inspection and the
capacity of the secondary inspection area, he or she will refer the
passenger to secondary inspection to allow for a more thorough
examination of the passenger without unnecessarily holding up other
travelers.
While the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Protection Act removed the
45 minute standard as a requirement for processing international
passengers through inspection, it added a provision specifying that
staffing levels estimated by CBP in workforce models be based upon the
goal of providing immigrations services within 45minutes. As shown in
the figure above, only Miami International Airport has an average wait
time of over 45 minutes. However, Miami and other airports do sometimes
exceed 60 minutes for processing international passengers through
primary inspection and CBP maintains data on these flights. Figure 5
illustrates the percentage of flights that exceed 60 minutes for
processing international passengers at 20 airports where CBP records
wait times.
Figure 5: Percentage of Individual Flights with Wait Times Exceeding 60
Minutes for Primary Passenger Inspection from January 10, 2005, to
March 31, 2005, Arranged from Lowest to Highest Average Wait Times:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As figure 5 shows, at one airport, Miami, more than 20 percent of
flights exceeded 60 minutes to process passengers through primary
inspection while less than one percent of flights arriving at other
airports, such as Baltimore-Washington International Airport,
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport,
and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport exceeded 60 minutes during
that time frame.
Passenger Volume, Number of Inspection Stations, and CBP Staff Levels
Are the Primary Factors That Affect Wait Times at Airports:
Based on our analysis and observations, along with a general consensus
among CBP, airport, and airline officials, we determined that the
primary factors affecting wait time are passenger volume, the number of
inspection stations available at an airport, and the number of CBP
officers available to conduct inspections. Wait times can also be
affected by other factors such as the use of information technology.
However, none of these three factors, in isolation, directly impacts
passenger wait times across airports due to the variability of numerous
other factors that influence wait time at airports, such as passengers'
countries of origin and airport configuration.
Passenger volume is a primary factor that affects wait time for
passengers at airports because large volumes of passengers can lead to
more crowded inspection facilities and longer lines. Passenger volume
can vary by the time of day, day of the week, or time of year. For
example, according to airline officials, international passengers tend
to travel early or late in the day to accommodate work schedules. Also
they said international travel tends to be higher on Monday and Friday
than other days of the week, which concentrates passenger volume at
certain times of day and days of the week. Airline officials also told
us that people tend to travel more during the summer and over holidays
which can lead to more crowded inspection facilities and increased wait
times during the vacation season. An airport official said flights that
exceed 60 minutes for processing generally arrive during these peak
passenger volume periods. Figure 6 illustrates average wait times at
airports arranged from lowest to highest passenger volume.
Figure 6: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports
Arranged from Lowest to Highest Annual Passenger Volume from January
10, 2005, to March 31, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although passenger volume is a factor in wait times, it does not
directly correlate with wait times. For example, Dallas-Fort Worth and
Newark airports had about the same average daily wait times while
Newark had almost twice the passenger volume. Other factors, such as
the number of inspection stations or CBP officers on duty, also affect
wait times. According to CBP and airline officials, the number of
passengers who can be processed within a given time period may be
limited by the number of inspection stations available or open at some
airports. For example, if an airport has all of its inspection stations
in use by CBP officers, adding more officers will have little effect on
the number of passengers who can be processed within a given time.
Figure 7 lists average wait times at airports arranged from the lowest
to greatest number of inspection stations.
Figure 7: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports
Arranged from the Lowest to Greatest Number of Inspection Stations from
January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The inspection stations may or may not be fully staffed.
[End of figure]
As shown in the figure, the number of inspection stations also does not
necessarily impact wait times directly. For example, although average
wait times at Boston's Logan Airport are about the same as for
Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport has
about five times the number of inspection stations as Logan Airport.
The number of CBP staff available to perform primary inspections is
also a primary factor that affects wait times at airports. According to
CBP officials, the agency strives to place sufficient numbers of
officers to fulfill its missions of preventing terrorism and
facilitating trade and travel, and part of facilitating trade and
travel involves minimizing wait times. Figure 8 illustrates average
wait times arranged from lowest to highest CBP staffing levels at 20
airports where CBP records wait time data.
Figure 8: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports
Arranged from Lowest to Highest CBP Staffing Levels:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The number of CBP officers at individual airports is considered
security sensitive information.
[End of figure]
As figures 7, 8, and 9 illustrate, no single factor necessarily has a
direct impact on passenger wait times across airports; however, varying
combinations of the factors within an individual airport may have an
effect. For example, CBP and airline officials in Houston stated that
the increase in the number of inspection stations at George Bush
Intercontinental Airport, in combination with the addition of new CBP
officers has reduced passenger wait times.
Information technology systems used during the inspection process to
help CBP officers determine admissibility can potentially affect
passenger wait times. These systems can occasionally slow down
passenger processing when one or more systems become unavailable for
any length of time. Because CBP has procedures in place to continue
inspections while the system is brought back online, officials said
that this is not a major factor affecting wait times. The officials
added that system downtime did not occur frequently or for extended
periods. The main system used by CBP officers to process all passengers
is the Interagency Border Inspection System, which is designed to
facilitate and more effectively control entry of persons into the
United States by providing information on passengers' identities
through querying a variety of databases. The Interagency Border
Inspection System assists CBP officers in passenger processing and
records the results of secondary inspections. The U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT) program is another
system used by CBP to help the officer verify passenger identity.
Although wait time data kept by CBP does not capture the period prior
to the introduction of the US VISIT program, our analysis of available
data and discussions with CBP and airline officials indicate that the
program has not significantly increased wait times since the procedures
associated with the system are generally done concurrently with the CBP
officers' other inspection activities.
Some Airports and Airlines Expanded Facility Capacity to Minimize Wait
Times but Have Not Evenly Distributed Passenger Volume Due to Market
Demand:
Some airports and airlines took steps to facilitate future increases in
passenger volume and minimize passenger wait times. Specifically, three
of the five international airports we visited had built new or expanded
federal inspection facilities to accommodate future growth in passenger
volume and minimize wait times for internationally arriving passengers.
Additionally, three of these airports assigned staff to assist
passengers in preparing documentation to minimize wait times. Airline
officials we spoke to acknowledged that large volumes of arriving
passengers may increase wait times, but said that, to accommodate
market demand, airlines do not spread flight arrivals evenly throughout
the day.
Some Airports and Airlines Invested in Upgrades to Increase Capacity
and Took Additional Steps to Reduce Passenger Wait Times:
According to airport and CBP officials, facility upgrades that increase
the number of inspection stations help to minimize passenger wait times
by allowing for the more rapid and efficient processing of passengers
through inspection facilities. We visited three airports where airports
facilities had been upgraded to increase the number of inspection
stations and improve configuration of the inspection facility. For
example, in 2004 a total of 12 new CBP inspection stations were
constructed at Washington Dulles Airport. Airport and airline officials
there said that increasing the number of stations has helped reduce
wait times because passengers can now pass through the facility more
easily. However, the benefit of adding inspection stations has been
limited because, as of June 2003, CBP had not increased staffing
levels. However we were not able to verify this because of limited data
availability. According to airline officials, to fully maximize the
benefit of new or expanded inspections facilities, the number of
inspections personnel would need to be increased so that new inspection
stations could be staffed.
Construction of new terminals and inspection facilities has also taken
place at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. In
Houston, the airport authority financed the construction of a new
inspection facility, which opened in January 2005 and increased the
number of inspection stations from 34 to 80. Airport, airline, and CBP
officials agreed that the new facility, in combination with an increase
in officer staffing levels, has reduced wait times at the airport. They
stated that this is because the new inspection facility can more easily
accommodate the increased passenger volume at the airport and the
larger number of CBP officers allows more inspection stations to be
used to process international passengers during peak periods. The new
inspection facility at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport is scheduled for
completion in July 2005 and will increase the number of inspection
stations from 30 to 60. Airport officials stated that they expect that
the new facility will help to minimize wait times because it will
consolidate inspections activities in one area, whereas current
facilities divide inspection activities among three separate terminals.
Figures 9 and 10 compare the old and new inspection facilities at
George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.
Figure 9: Old Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental
Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 10: New Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental
Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Houston's new facility addresses one of the three factors that could
facilitate faster processing of international passengers by increasing
the number of inspection stations. The overall construction of the new
facility shows a more expansive configuration than the old facility.
According to airline and CBP officials, the new facility can
accommodate a larger number of passengers.
According to airport and airline officials, the new inspection
facilities at three of the five airports we visited were constructed to
increase capacity to accommodate current and projected passenger volume
and planning for them began years in advance and, in the case of
federal inspection facilities, were approved by CBP or its legacy
agencies in advance. CBP is responsible for reviewing and approving
design proposals for inspections facilities to ensure that they meet
the agency's security requirements. In each case, the airports or
airlines conducted studies estimating future passenger volume to
justify the cost of constructing these facilities. For example, the
total cost of the new facility in Houston was approximately $440
million, according to airport officials. Airport and airline officials
said that these projects were planned, funded, and completed with the
expectation that CBP would increase staff for the new facilities as
passenger volume increased. However, CBP officials stated that the
agency is not legally or contractually required to allocate new staff
when inspection facilities are constructed or expanded and the agency
is to make no commitment implicitly or explicitly regarding future
staffing levels in approving new inspection facility design proposals.
Airports and airlines also have taken other steps to minimize passenger
wait times. For example, at four of the five airports we visited,
airport and airline officials stationed personnel in the inspection
facility area to assist passengers in filling out required forms such
as the I-94 Forms as they wait in line for primary inspection.
According to airline officials, this assistance helps to reduce delays
caused when passengers are turned away from the primary inspections
stations due to incompletely or incorrectly filled out forms. Airport
officials at one airport placed Internet terminals in the inspection
area to allow passengers to search for address information required for
the I-94 form.
Airport and Airline Officials Cite Market Demand as a Limiting Factor
in Their Ability to Spread Out Flight Schedules to Minimize Wait Times:
CBP and airline officials we spoke with said that scheduling large
numbers of flights within a short time period, known as "peaking,"
could cause longer passenger wait times. According to airport and
airline officials, up to half of an airport's daily volume may arrive
within a few hours. For example, as figure 10 shows, over half of the
daily international passenger volume at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport
arrives between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Figure 11: Daily International Passenger Volume by Hour at Hartsfield
Atlanta Airport, May 13, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Airline officials said that market demand and international travel
patterns largely determine flight schedules, as follows. Passengers
generally leave their city of origin early in the morning or later in
the evening in order to work a full day at their destination. To deal
with this market demand for flights, airlines schedule their flights in
clusters referred to as "banks" that follow these business dynamics.
Consequently, they said they have little flexibility to spread out
flight schedules and still meet passenger demand for travel times. For
example, flights leaving western Europe in the morning generally arrive
at eastern U.S. airports between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. In addition,
according to airport officials, passengers prefer arriving during this
time frame because it allows them to make connecting flights to other
U.S. destinations.
CBP Has Improved Staffing Management through Increased Flexibilities,
but Plans for a Systematic Staffing Model Do Not Address Identified
Weaknesses:
CBP has taken steps to increase management flexibility in staffing
officers to various inspections functions and to improve the allocation
of existing staff in an effort to minimize international passenger wait
times and ensure that staff are being used as efficiently as possible.
For example, at some airports, facility managers have arranged staff
work schedules and used overtime to maximize the number of staff
conducting inspections during peak periods. CBP's One Face at the
Border training program is designed to train staff to perform different
inspection functions to increase staffing flexibility, but CBP has not
established milestones for completing the training. CBP is also
developing a national staffing model to help in allocating staff across
ports and airports nationwide; however, the model does not address
weaknesses in Customs and INS models identified in our and the
Department of Justice Inspector General's previous audit work. Agency
officials told us that the model was to be completed by April of 2005.
However, as of June 2005, it had not been finished and CBP officials
had not established milestones for completing and implementing the
model.
Local CBP Management Is Attempting to Minimize Wait Times through
Flexible Staffing but Lacks Milestones for Completing Training:
CBP has taken advantage of existing staffing flexibility to help
minimize passenger wait times. For example, CBP facility managers told
us that they plan their officer work shifts so that the most officers
available are working during peak hours. When the number of officers
available to be assigned during peak time shifts is inadequate for
passenger processing, the port director or CBP airport manager may use
overtime by asking officers to come in early or stay late. Overtime is
the most common tool management uses to address increases in passenger
volume.
CBP has not, however, established targets or milestones--such as having
a certain percentage of staff cross-trained by a set date--for port
directors to complete its One Face at the Border program to allow for
greater flexibility in assigning officers to various functions and
locations within airports. In July 2003, CBP began a cross-training
effort, One Face at the Border, to integrate the former inspections
workforces of Customs, INS, and Agriculture. The intent of this effort
was to train legacy Customs inspectors to perform "historical" INS and
agricultural inspection activities (such as processing passengers at
primary inspection and screening for restricted food items) and for
legacy INS inspectors to perform "historical" Customs and agricultural
inspection activities (e.g., inspecting passenger baggage) in order to
create a unified inspection force and a single primary processing point
at ports of entry. The officials told us that this effort would allow
officers to perform different inspection functions within airports as
well as across different facilities. In certain instances where
facilities are located geographically close to one another, inspections
officers may be transferred to different facilities within a port to
accommodate workload changes. For example, CBP officials at the port of
Baltimore told us that officers are stationed at the airport during
peak volume periods to inspect air passengers and may be moved to the
seaport at other times. Managers may also move cross-trained officers
among the various inspection functions performed within a specific port
facility. For example, two CBP port directors told us that during peak
volume periods, they may move officers from baggage or secondary
inspection to primary inspection stations, although some airport and
airline officials said this may actually increase wait time for
passengers picking up baggage or passing through exit control.
As of June 2005, CBP had developed and delivered some of the training
materials for the One Face at the Border program to all ports and
expects to develop and deliver all remaining training materials by the
end of 2005. CBP officials said this program is essential for
increasing staff flexibility so that staff can conduct different types
of inspections within airports. However, CBP officials said it could
take a number of years for officers nationwide to complete all required
training. While CBP monitors the progress of each port in completing
its required training, it has not established milestones for when ports
should complete the training program or goals for having some
percentage of staff complete the training. Milestones for completing
this training program would help CBP to assess progress in implementing
the program and determine when managers would be able to allocate
officers within their port to areas of greatest need. They would also
provide a basis to hold responsible officials accountable for
implementing the training program. Without milestones for measuring the
implementation status of its cross-training program, CBP has no
assurance that port directors have the flexibility needed to allocate
officers within and among facilities as efficiently as possible.
CBP Management Does Not Allocate Staff to Ports Systematically:
CBP does not systematically assess the number of staff required to
accomplish its mission at ports or airports nationwide or assure that
officers are allocated to airports with greatest need. CBP's current
approach to allocating officers does not determine the optimal use of
CBP inspection staff across all ports. Rather, it assumes the overall
allocations are static, and relies on port directors to determine the
number of staff necessary to accomplish CBP's mission at airports and
other port facilities within their purview.
In instances where port directors identify a need for additional staff,
for example due to a projected increase in international passenger
volume, they are to forward staffing requests to the Director of Field
Operations (DFO), who reviews the requests and determines whether they
should be forwarded to headquarters for review. CBP human resources
officials told us they review these requests and determine whether
funds are available to address needs through allocation of additional
staff. CBP Headquarters, however, has not provided formal, agencywide
guidance to the port directors or DFOs on what factors should be
considered to assess staffing needs or where staff should be allocated
within a port. Without uniform agency guidance, everyone involved in
the process from port directors to human resource officials must use
their own judgment to determine staffing needs, and CBP cannot be
assured that an individual port's staff needs are being evaluated
consistently or that staff are allocated to the ports with greatest
needs nationwide.
CBP Is Developing a Systematic Staffing Model, but Its Plans Do Not
Address Identified Weaknesses:
To provide a more systematic basis for allocating staff, CBP in October
2003 began developing a staffing model based on agencywide criteria to
help allocate staff to its ports. The intent of CBP's staffing model is
to reduce the degree of subjectivity in the process of determining
staffing needs. It will assist in allocating existing staff levels
across ports by using a uniform set of approximately 30 different
criteria, such as passenger and trade volume, that are weighted
according to their importance to CBP's mission. After assessing these
criteria, the model is to determine how to allocate the existing
officer workforce among ports.
CBP officials developing the model said they plan to incorporate
elements of two previous staffing models used by Customs and
INS.[Footnote 11] However, as shown in table 1, the new model fails to
address three weaknesses identified in our assessments of earlier
models used by the legacy agencies upon which CBP's model is based.
Specifically, the model 1) will not take passenger wait times into
account as a performance measure to help CBP assess whether staff
levels are sufficient to address passenger volume, 2) will not
regularly take into consideration field input in determining
appropriate staffing levels, and 3) will not be used to assess optimal
levels of staff to ensure security while facilitating travel at
individual ports and port facilities, including airports. CBP officials
told us that because 1) they do not want to risk security in order to
adhere to a time limit, 2) field requests for staffing changes should
be assessed by the DFO on an as-needed basis, and 3) it is unlikely
that additional inspection personnel will be forthcoming in the current
budget climate, they have not considered addressing these factors in
their staffing model. Table 1 summarizes these reported weaknesses and
CBP's views regarding the need to address them.
Table 1: Comparison of Weaknesses in Legacy Staffing Models to Those in
CBP's Model under Development:
Weaknesses identified in Resource Allocation Model used by Customs:
Customs' model did not consider passenger wait times and cargo
examination times as a performance measure in its assessment of
staffing needs[A];
Weakness identified in CBP's model under development: CBP's plans for
the model indicate it will not consider passenger wait times as a
performance measure in its assessment of staffing needs;
CBP officials' views regarding weakness identified relative to CBP's
model under development: CBP does not control all the factors
contributing to wait times and will not use wait times as a performance
measure because minimizing wait times is not its highest priority;
Consequence of not addressing weaknesses identified: Excluding wait
times as a performance measure in the staffing model prevents CBP from
identifying airports with the greatest disparity between optimal and
current staff allocation levels.
Weaknesses identified in Resource Allocation Model used by Customs:
Customs did not regularly include field components in decision-making
process[B];
Weakness identified in CBP's model under development: CBP does not plan
to regularly or formally solicit input from field staff for its planned
model;
CBP officials' views regarding weakness identified relative to CBP's
model under development: CBP officials said field requests for staffing
changes should be assessed and validated by the DFO and then provided
to headquarters. As a result, they did not see a need for regular,
formal field input from port directors or facility managers;
Consequence of not addressing weaknesses identified: A lack of formal
field input on a regular basis, will limit CBP's ability to align
staffing decisions with the needs and realities of the field
environment.
Weaknesses identified in Workforce Analysis Model used by INS: INS'
model did not detect overstaffed work shifts or project staff decreases
when needed[C];
Weaknesses identified in Resource Allocation Model used by Customs:
Customs' model was not used to reallocate resources from one location
or one function to another[C];
Weakness identified in CBP's model under development: CBP does not plan
to use its model to assess optimal staff levels for each port or
airport;
CBP officials' views regarding weakness identified relative to CBP's
model under development: CBP's planned model is to determine which
ports have positions that can be reallocated to other ports through
attrition; efforts to assess optimal staff levels would not be useful
in the current budget environment;
Consequence of not addressing weaknesses identified: Not identifying
optimal staffing levels prevents CBP from performing workforce gap
analyses, which could be used to justify budget and staffing requests
by connecting program goals and strategies with the budget and staff
resources needed to accomplish them.
Source: GAO.
Notes:
[A] GAO, U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected Operations and
Program Issues, GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20,
2000).
[B] GAO, Customs Service: Process for Estimating and Allocating
Inspectional Personnel, GAO/GGD-98-107 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998).
[C] GAO, U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected Operations and
Program Issues, GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2000)
and the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Immigration
and Naturalization Service, Workforce Analysis Model, Audit Report 97-
10 (Washington, D. C.: March 1997).
[End of table]
The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 repealed
the 45-minute standard for processing international air passengers
through inspection that was established for INS. However, it added a
provision requiring CBP to base staffing level estimates from its
workforce model on the goal of providing immigration services within 45
minutes. CBP officials said that minimizing wait times is not a high
priority because officials do not want to risk sacrificing security in
order to adhere to a time limit. However, when a flight exceeds 60
minutes for processing passengers through primary inspection, CBP
requires that port directors provide an explanation for why this
occurred and take corrective actions.[Footnote 12] Including a goal of
providing inspection services within 45 minutes for international air
passengers in its staffing model would assist CBP in determining the
number of officers required to fulfill its missions of facilitating
trade and travel while at the same time ensuring security and help
identify airports with the greatest disparity between staffing
requirements and current allocation levels.
Our prior work has shown that involving staff in all phases of
workforce planning can help improve its quality because staff are
directly involved with daily operations. Plans for CBP's model rely on
input from the ports and port facilities, including airports, regarding
passenger and trade volume; passenger and trade complexity variables,
such as number and value of cargo seizures; number of airport
terminals; mix of passengers; arrests; and level of on-board staff.
However, CBP's efforts to solicit information from field officials do
not occur formally on a regular basis or include guidance to port
directors and DFOs on how to assess staff levels, and as a result, CBP
does not receive timely and consistent input on critical staffing needs
to help them adjust staff levels to ensure that staff are used as
efficiently as possible. CBP officials said that they do not have
definite plans to ask for staff needs assessments on a regular basis.
For example, in November 2004 shortly after we initiated our review,
CBP headquarters issued its first formal letter since the agency's
creation in March 2003, soliciting DFOs for their input on critical
staffing needs. The solicitation did not include guidance or criteria
to DFOs or port directors on how to assess their staff levels to help
ensure that headquarters' staffing decisions are based on consistent
data from all ports. Furthermore, the request was not consistently
communicated to all CBP locations; facilities managers at two of the
five airports we visited after the solicitation was sent out said that
they were unaware of the request for information. CBP officials told us
that it is not headquarters' responsibility to evaluate staffing
requests from individual ports. Rather, it is the responsibility of the
DFOs to evaluate staffing needs at ports on an ongoing basis.
Nonetheless, regular, formal input from facility and port management
would help CBP headquarters ensure that staff are used as efficiently
as possible by aligning staffing decisions with the needs and realities
of CBP ports nationwide.
CBP's plans for the staffing model indicate it will be used to allocate
existing staff across ports, for example it will help reallocate
positions made available through attrition, but it will not determine
whether current staff levels are appropriate or determine an optimal
number of staff needed at individual ports or airports. CBP officials
stated they have not assessed overall staffing needs across ports or
airports and do not plan to do so with the proposed model because they
do not expect to receive any additional resources given the current
budget climate. However, according to our primary human capital
principles, agencies should identify gaps in their workforce to provide
a basis for proper staffing to meet program goals.[Footnote 13] These
workforce gap analyses can help justify budget and staffing requests by
connecting program goals and strategies with the budget and staff
resources needed to accomplish them. The model, when it is completed,
will not identify such gaps according to CBP officials because absent
additional resources, the only way to address these gaps would be to
relocate officers. The officials said this is not a viable solution
because of the costs associated with relocating CBP officers. According
to CBP, the cost of moving a single CBP officer from one port to
another is $60,400 on average. Determining an optimal number of
officers for airports will help CBP link its budget requests to mission
priorities, allowing the agency to determine which facilities have the
greatest disparity between staffing requirements and current allocation
levels and help ensure the most efficient allocation of new staff.
CBP officials told us that they set an original deadline of April 2005
for completing the proposed staffing model. As of June 2005, CBP had
not finalized its model and did not have revised milestones or a
schedule to measure their progress for completing and implementing the
model. Until CBP finalizes its staffing model and establishes a
schedule for completing and implementing its model, it is uncertain
when the model will be available to provide a regular and consistent
method for efficiently allocating staff.
Conclusions:
As it performs its official missions, CBP maintains two overarching and
sometimes conflicting goals: increasing security while facilitating
legitimate trade and travel. To help achieve these goals, CBP has taken
steps to increase staffing flexibility and improve the allocation of
staff to help ensure that wait times are minimized and that existing
levels of staff are being used as efficiently as possible. To that end,
CBP initiated its One Face at the Border program to cross-train
officers from its legacy agencies with the intention of providing more
flexibility in its placement of staff. However, CBP's lack of
milestones for ports to complete this cross-training makes it difficult
for the agency to determine when training will be completed within
individual ports and hold port directors accountable for having their
staff complete training. Furthermore, the lack of milestones affects
port directors' and facility managers' ability to allocate officers
within airports to different functions. We recognize that ports
experience different traffic flow patterns and demands, and that taking
staff offline to train them may require overtime or may increase
passenger wait times. Nevertheless with established milestones, CBP
would be better able to measure the progress of its cross-training
program across ports and maximize port staffing flexibility.
CBP is also developing a staffing model to assist in determining
officer allocation levels. In doing so, CBP has the opportunity to take
a proactive approach to managing its human capital and address
historical weaknesses of its legacy agencies' systems for allocating
personnel. Although CBP's staffing model is a step in the right
direction, we identified certain weaknesses that can affect CBP's
ability to place its staff to best advantage in addressing passenger
wait times. While most airports were able to process passengers within
45 minutes on average during the period of time we examined, wait times
for individual flights still exceeded 60 minutes five percent or more
of the time at four of the 20 airports where CBP records wait time
data. CBP's exclusion of wait time standards for inspecting
international air passengers in its planned model limits its ability to
manage staff to accomplish the second part of its dual mission
fostering international trade and travel. Furthermore, CBP's lack of
regular and formal input from airports and other port facilities limits
the agency's ability to ensure that its staffing decisions align with
the needs and realities of its ports nationwide. Using the planned
model to determine the allocation of existing staff without also
determining an optimal number of staff for airports limits the agency's
knowledge of ports that have the greatest gaps between optimal and
existing staff levels. Finally, CBP has not fully addressed what
factors will be included in its model currently under development or
set milestones for completing and implementing the model. By not
addressing these weaknesses, CBP is bypassing an opportunity to develop
information that would further enhance management decision-making
concerning staff allocation and staff needs and providing budget
justifications.
Recommendations:
To assist CBP in its efforts to develop a staffing model that will help
provide a basis for budget justifications and management decision-
making and to establish goals and performance measures to assess its
progress in completing its staffing model and its cross-training
program, we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security direct the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
to take the following five actions:
* provide ports with targets and milestones for having staff cross-
trained to measure the progress of its One Face at the Border program
while being sensitive to work demands in setting training schedules;
* incorporate wait time performance measures in the staffing model
currently under development as required by the Enhanced Border Security
and Visa Protection Act of 2002;
* use the staffing model under development to determine the optimal
number of staff at each airport nationwide;
* systematically solicit input from the field on staffing needs and
include uniform, agencywide guidance on how they should assess their
needs and environment; and:
* set out milestones for completing CBP's planned staffing model.
DHS's Comments and Our Evaluation:
DHS provided written comments on a draft of this report, and these
comments are reprinted in appendix II. DHS concurred with three of our
recommendations: to use CBP's staffing model to determine the optimal
number of staff at each airport nationwide, to systematically solicit
input from the field on CBP staffing needs, and to set milestones for
completing CBP's planned staffing model. DHS said that CBP had efforts
underway and additional plans to implement these recommendations.
DHS partially concurred with our remaining two recommendations. With
respect to our recommendation to provide ports with targets and
milestones for having staff cross-trained, DHS said that CBP believes
it is not advantageous to implement across-the-board milestones, citing
the need to coordinate training with appropriate work assignments so
that the training can be directly applied. CBP officials said that it
could take a number of years for officers to complete training
nationwide and noted that they plan to begin computing training
requirements through fiscal year 2007. We continue to believe it is
important to establish milestones for cross-training CBP staff. CBP
told us that the cross-training program is essential for increasing
staff flexibility and enabling staff to properly conduct different
types of inspections within airports. Having milestones for individual
ports to complete required training would help improve accountability
and planning. Given CBP's concern about workload demands and the timing
of training, the milestones could be established in consideration of
the training needs and operational environment of each port. The
planning process described by CBP could provide a basis for
establishing these milestones.
With regard to our recommendation that CBP incorporate wait time
performance measures in the staffing model currently under development,
DHS said that CBP will consider (DHS emphasis) incorporating wait times
for future resource allocation. We continue to believe that the wait
time standards should be incorporated into CBP's planned workforce
staffing model. We note that such action is required by the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Protection Act of 2002. In addition,
incorporating wait time standards would help CBP measure the extent to
which it is achieving its mission of facilitating trade and travel
while ensuring security. It would also allow CBP to identify airports
with the greatest disparity between optimal and existing staff
allocation levels.
We plan to provide copies of this report to the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, and interested congressional committees. We will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 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 concerning this report please
contact me at (202) 512-8777. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To assess CBP's progress in minimizing wait times for international air
passengers while ensuring security, we analyzed (1) the wait times at
the 20 U.S. international airports that receive most of the
international traffic and factors affecting wait times; (2) the steps
airports and airlines have taken to minimize passenger wait times; and
(3) how CBP has managed staffing to minimize wait times across
airports.
Specifically, to determine the wait times at U.S. airports and factors
affecting wait times, we analyzed CBP wait time data collected between
October 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005. CBP's calculation of wait time
changed on January 10, 2005, and we determined the difference in wait
times between the time periods of October 1, 2004, through January 9,
2005, and January 10, 2005, through March 31, 2005. We calculated
average wait times and average percent of flights exceeding 60 minutes
for 20 major U.S. airports based on CBP's data. We assessed the
reliability of the passenger volume, wait time, number of inspection
stations and inspection staffing data by (1) reviewing existing
information about the data and the systems that produced them, (2)
interviewing agency official knowledgeable about the data, and (3)
comparing what we observed at the selected airports visited with the
data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. For the purpose of calculating the percentage
of flights exceeding 60 minutes for primary passenger inspection, the
data are sufficiently reliable to compare airports but not sufficiently
reliable as a performance measure. We found high rates at some airports
of numerous flights with wait times of 59 or 60 minutes. If the
performance standard was changed to 59 or 60 minutes, the percentage of
flights exceeding this threshold would be different from that reported
in Figure 5. The data should be viewed as limited indicators of overall
wait times at airports, because the available data only spanned two and
one half months of wait times and did not include the peak travel
periods of June through September when wait times may be higher. To
determine the factors affecting wait times, we interviewed CBP
officials at both headquarters and at the port level, such as port
directors, who are responsible for overall management of the port,
including airports. We also interviewed selected airport and airline
officials who are involved with international passenger processing and
could provide perspective on what factors affected wait times at U.S.
airports. In addition, we interviewed officials at airport and airline
associations who provided us with international passenger volume
statistics and contacts for officials at the locations we visited.
To determine the steps airports and airlines have taken to minimize
passenger wait times, we visited five international airports based on
their unique characteristics and geographic dispersion. The airports
selected were George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport,
Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and Hartsfield Atlanta
International Airport. At these five airports, we interviewed airport
and airline officials who were involved in international passenger
processing issues to learn how they interacted with CBP to help speed
passenger processing. We also reviewed documentation provided to us by
officials at three airports on assessments they had produced on the
number of stations and CBP officers needed at their airports to process
passengers within certain time limits. We observed the inspection
facilities at each of the five airports visited to compare the
capacities and constraints to passenger processing at each.
Specifically, we observed facilities' upgrades where airports had
either built an entirely new facility or added inspection stations to
existing facilities.
To assess how CBP has managed staffing to minimize wait times across
airports, we interviewed CBP officials at headquarters and from the
five selected airports. For example, we interviewed port directors and
other field-level officials to gather perspectives on what options are
available to CBP field managers to manage staff to improve wait times
at airports. To analyze how CBP's cross-training program affects the
agency's ability to allocate staff to airports, we spoke with officials
responsible for developing and delivering training curriculums to the
various ports and we examined these curriculums and their delivery
schedule. To determine how CBP currently allocates staff, we spoke with
officials in the budget, human resource and planning offices in CBP's
Office of Field Operations. We also reviewed and evaluated
documentation on CBP's policies and procedures for allocating staff to
ports. To understand and evaluate CBP's staffing model under
development, we spoke with agency officials responsible for planning
and implementing the model's development and analyzed the criteria
associated with the model. We also reviewed our and the Department of
Justice Inspector General's prior work on previous models developed for
U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
compared these findings with the new model.
We performed our work from October 2004 to June 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
July 11, 2005:
Rich Stana:
Director:
Homeland Security and Justice:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stanna:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on draft report GAO-
05-663, International Air Passengers Staffing Model for Airport
Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved. The Department of Homeland
Security (DES) agrees with the overall findings that Customs and Border
Patrol (CBP) needs to take additional steps to address weaknesses in
its staffing model and determine milestones for the completion of a
staffing model and cross-training activities. DHS and CBP concur with
the recommendations in the draft report. The following represents the
Departmental response to the recommendations contained in the draft
report.
Recommendation 1: Provide ports with targets and milestones for having
staff cross-trained to measure the progress of its One Face at the
Border Program while being sensitive to work demands in setting
training schedules.
Concur in part: As an interim measure, CBP instituted a report card
system where CBP Headquarters provides the Directors of Field
Operations (DFOs) monthly reports that reflect the status of their
training efforts. On a quarterly basis, CBP Headquarters provides DFO
management with comments and suggested areas of improvement where
certain training modules were not aggressively rolled out.
In July 2005, CBP Headquarters will ask the DFOs to provide information
about staffing concerns, and the impact of staffing on mission
achievement and delivery of cross training modules. This information
will allow CBP Headquarters to compute training projections through
Fiscal Year 2007 and will provide the basis for future discussions with
the DFOs to sharpen field office specific goals and milestones.
CBP believes that it is not advantageous to implement across the board
milestones. To train all employees by a specific end of the year date,
while possible, would not be in CBP's best interest, if the training
cannot be directly applied in appropriate work assignments soon after
the training is delivered. It is CBP's goal to train all CBP Officers
once rotations are made and other courses for legacy Immigration
Inspectors are rolled out.
Recommendation 2: Incorporate wait time performance measures in the
staffing model currently under development as required by the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Protection Act of 2002.
Concur in part: CBP has established a Headquarters-level working group
to analyze what measures should be utilized for a staffing model that
captures the needs of all ports. While CBP will consider incorporating
the wait times in the model under development for future resource
allocation, CBP may only be able to give minimal consideration to wait
times at the beginning of fiscal year 2006. CBP will aggressively work
on automation during the next year and strive for a final product by
September 2006.
Recommendation 3: Use the staffing model under development to determine
the optimal number of staff at each airport nationwide.
Concur: CBP Headquarters has distributed a spreadsheet to each field
office that asks for specific information for use in the development of
the staffing model and decision making regarding staffing allocations.
CBP will input this information into the model to test the utility of
the model in improving projections of resource needs. To determine the
validity of information, CBP will conduct several analyses in the
coming months to determine if the model is producing the anticipated
results using the information gathered from the field.
Recommendation 4: Systematically solicit input from the field on
staffing needs and include uniform, agency wide guidance on how they
should assess their needs and environment.
Concur: The staffing model working group has already started to
systematically solicit input from the field offices on their staffing
needs. CBP Headquarters provided a spreadsheet to each field office
requesting specific information be filled in and returned to the group
by the end of June 2005. Examples of information being captured in the
spreadsheet include the number of crossings or other locations under a
duty location, the number of vehicle, cargo, rail and pedestrian lanes,
the number of primary lanes, whether or not it is air, land or sea, the
number of hours the location is staffed and how many staff are
dedicated to operations, etc. Preliminary information not previously
captured should provide additional data to utilize as a measure within
the model. A proposal was approved in May 2005 that would require field
offices update the spreadsheet quarterly until the Office of Field
Operations has complete confidence in the staffing model.
Recommendation 5: Set out milestones for completing CBP's planned
staffing model:
Concur: Since the new group has recently been designated, CBP has not
set future milestones for completing the planned staffing model. We
anticipate the fast milestone will be to set staffing levels for CBP
Officers and Agriculture Specialists. The working group will be meeting
within the next several months to develop milestones.
If you, or your staff, have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Ms. Arlene Lugo, CBP Audit Liaison, at 202-
344-1218.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777:
Acknowledgments:
Leo Barbour, Grace Coleman, Deborah Davis, Nancy Finley, Christopher
Keisling, Jessica Lundberg, Robert Rivas, and Gregory Wilmoth made
significant contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] All international passengers are subject to a primary inspection,
during which a CBP officer inspects identity and travel documents, such
as passports and visas, to determine their validity and authenticity.
[2] Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, border inspection
functions of a number of agencies, including the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Department of
Agriculture were transferred to the DHS. P.L. 207-296, §402. CBP is
responsible for carrying out these functions, such as passenger and
cargo inspections. The primary authorities for conducting inspections
at the border include 8 U.S.C §1225; 19 U.S.C. §§1467, 1581, 1582; and
the statutes specified in §421 of the HSA relating to agricultural
immigration activities.
[3] CBP collects wait time data for 21 airports, including one seasonal
airport--Orlando Sanford in Florida. For the purposes of this report,
we did not include Orlando Sanford in our analysis.
[4] We visited Washington Dulles International Airport, Baltimore-
Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport,
and Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport.
[5] All port directors report to a DFO who operates at one of 20
Offices of Field Operations.
[6] The I-94 arrival/departure record is the U.S. government's record
for aliens arriving in the United States. The information transcribed
on the form I-94 at the port of entry is the basis for all further
immigration related activity that a nonimmigrant may engage in while in
the country.
[7] Intelligence is provided to CBP by the National Targeting Center,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of State and local,
state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
[8] Wait time for an individual flight is not an average wait for all
passengers. It is a measure of how long it takes for 98 percent of
passengers to complete primary inspection. If the time between primary
inspections of passengers on the same flight exceeds some amount, such
as 10 minutes, port officials have discretion to end the measurement of
wait time for that flight because the latter passenger may have some
disability or other reason for falling behind other passengers.
[9] Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991, P.L. 101-515 (1990).
[10] P.L. 107-173, 8 U.S.C. §1752.
[11] The Resource Allocation Model used by U.S. Customs was intended to
estimate the number of inspectors and other personnel needed to process
passengers and inspect cargo at all ports of entry. It also predicted
what staffing levels would be needed agencywide and locally by
occupation and by core functions on a yearly basis. The Workforce
Analysis Model used by INS was intended to provide an objective means
to allocate staff at ports of entry. The model examined basic port
configurations and staffing schedules of immigration inspectors and
then projected staffing levels in total and on an hourly basis for
individual ports.
[12] When more than 20 percent of the airport's flights on a given day
exceed 60 minutes for processing, port directors must also include a
detailed explanation to headquarters of how they plan to reduce wait
times in the future.
[13] GAO, Human Capital: Primary Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 2003) and
GAO, Tax Administration: Workforce Planning Needs Further Development
for IRS's Taxpayer Education and Communication Unit, GAO-03-711
(Washington, D.C.: May 2003).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: