Homeland Security
Information on Training New Border Patrol Agents Gao ID: GAO-07-540R March 30, 2007The U.S. Border Patrol is responsible for patrolling 8,000 miles of the land and coastal borders of the United States to detect and prevent the illegal entry of aliens and contraband, including terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Although the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of people entering the country illegally each year, several hundreds of thousands more individuals successfully enter the country illegally and undetected each year. In May 2006, the President called for comprehensive immigration reform that included strengthening control of the country's borders by, among other things, adding 6,000 new agents to the Border Patrol by the end of December 2008. This would increase the total number of agents from 12,349 to 18,319, an unprecedented 48 percent increase over the next 2 years. The Border Patrol plans to add these new agents to the southwest border while transferring up to 1,000 experienced agents to the northern border. Concerned about the ability of the Border Patrol's basic training program to accommodate this significant increase in Border Patrol agent trainees, Congress requested that we provide information on the content, quality, and cost of the Border Patrol's basic training program for new agents. This report addresses the following questions: To what extent does the Border Patrol's basic training program for new border patrol agents exhibit the attributes of an effective training program and how has the training program changed since September 11, 2001? How much does it cost to train a new Border Patrol agent? How does the Border Patrol's basic training program and cost compare to those of other similar federal and nonfederal law enforcement basic training programs? What plans, if any, has the Border Patrol developed or considered to improve the efficiency of its basic training program?
The Border Patrol's basic training program exhibits attributes of an effective training program. GAO's training assessment guide suggests the kinds of documentation to look for that indicate that a training program has a particular attribute in place, such as incorporating measures of effectiveness into its course designs. The Border Patrol had documentation that its training program had at least 1 key indicator in place for 31 of the 32 attributes of an effective training program. While we determined the presence of indicators of particular attributes, we did not assess the extent to which these attributes contributed to the quality of the training program. In addition, the Border Patrol is pursuing accreditation of its training program from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation organization. Our analysis of Border Patrol data showed that as of October 2006, the overall agent-to-supervisor ratios for southwest sectors, where the Border Patrol assigns all new agents, ranged from about 7 to 1 up to 11 to 1. However, given the large numbers of new agents the Border Patrol plans to assign to the southwest border over the next 2 years, along with the planned reassignment of experienced agents from the southwest border to the northern border, it will be a challenge for the agency to achieve the desired 5-to-1 ratio for new agents in all work units in those sectors receiving the largest numbers of new agents. In fiscal year 2006, the average cost to train a new Border Patrol agent at the academy was about $14,700. This cost represents the amounts expended by both the Border Patrol and FLETC. The Border Patrol paid about $6,600 for the trainee's meals and lodging, and a portion of the cost of instructors, and FLETC paid about $8,100 for tuition, a portion of the cost of instructors, and miscellaneous expenses such as support services, supplies, and utilities. The $14,700 cost figure does not include the costs associated with instructors conducting postacademy and field training in the sectors. Given the Border Patrol's unique mission and difficulties making direct comparisons with other federal and nonfederal law enforcement training programs, it appears that the Border Patrol's average cost per trainee at the academy is consistent with that of training programs that cover similar subjects and prepare officers for operations in similar geographic areas. However, differences in the emphasis of some subject areas over others dictated by jurisdiction and mission make a direct comparison difficult. Similarly, the Border Patrol does not provide instruction in investigation techniques while BIA, Arizona, and Texas require 139, 50, and 165 hours of such instruction, respectively. The Border Patrol is considering several alternatives to improve the efficiency of basic training delivery and to return agents to the sectors more quickly. According to Border Patrol officials, this could benefit about half of all trainees, because about half of all recruits already speak Spanish. The Border Patrol also plans to convert postacademy classroom training to computer-based training, allowing agents to complete the 1-day-a-week training at their duty stations rather than having to travel to the sector headquarters for this training. As a result, fewer senior agents will be required to serve as instructors for postacademy training. Finally, the Border Patrol is considering what other training it can shift from the academy to postacademy and field training conducted in the sectors, which could further reduce the amount of time trainees spend at the academy.
GAO-07-540R, Homeland Security: Information on Training New Border Patrol Agents
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-540R
entitled 'Homeland Security: Information on Training New Border Patrol
Agents' which was released on April 2, 2007.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 30, 2007:
The Honorable Mike Rogers:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Homeland Security: Information on Training New Border Patrol
Agents:
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The U.S. Border Patrol is responsible for patrolling 8,000 miles of the
land and coastal borders of the United States to detect and prevent the
illegal entry of aliens and contraband, including terrorists and
weapons of mass destruction. Although the Border Patrol apprehends
hundreds of thousands of people entering the country illegally each
year, several hundreds of thousands more individuals successfully enter
the country illegally and undetected each year.[Footnote 1] In May
2006, the President called for comprehensive immigration reform that
included strengthening control of the country's borders by, among other
things, adding 6,000 new agents to the Border Patrol by the end of
December 2008. This would increase the total number of agents from
12,349 to 18,319, an unprecedented 48 percent increase over the next 2
years. The Border Patrol plans to add these new agents to the southwest
border while transferring up to 1,000 experienced agents to the
northern border.
Concerned about the ability of the Border Patrol's basic training
program to accommodate this significant increase in Border Patrol agent
trainees, you requested that we provide information on the content,
quality, and cost of the Border Patrol's basic training program for new
agents. This report addresses the following questions:
* To what extent does the Border Patrol's basic training program for
new border patrol agents exhibit the attributes of an effective
training program and how has the training program changed since
September 11, 2001?
* How much does it cost to train a new Border Patrol agent?
* How does the Border Patrol's basic training program and cost compare
to those of other similar federal and nonfederal law enforcement basic
training programs?
* What plans, if any, has the Border Patrol developed or considered to
improve the efficiency of its basic training program?
To determine the extent to which the Border Patrol's training program
exhibited the attributes and characteristics of an effective training
program, we reviewed the Border Patrol's basic training curriculum,
including course materials, evaluation procedures and forms, and
syllabi and compared them with GAO's guide for assessing federal
training programs.[Footnote 2] We also visited the Border Patrol
Academy in Artesia, New Mexico, and observed training in progress and
discussed training content with the Academy Chief and course managers.
To determine what changes the Border Patrol made to the basic training
program since September 11, we obtained descriptions of new material
added in response to the terrorist attacks.
To determine the cost to train a new border patrol agent, we reviewed
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's (FLETC) methodology used
to calculate the average training cost per agent. To assess the
reliability of these training cost data, we discussed the data
collection methods and internal control processes for ensuring data
quality with responsible officials and staff, reviewed the data and
information for reasonableness, and reviewed relevant audits and
evaluations related to the data. We found that the data we used for our
analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We
also reviewed the model used by Customs and Border Protection's (CBP)
Office of Finance to formulate its budget for deploying a new border
patrol agent.
To compare the cost of the Border Patrol's basic training program to
that of other similar basic training programs (i.e., civilian, patrol-
based law enforcement training for operations in the southwest region
of the United States), we obtained course curricula and training cost
information from FLETC, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), the Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training
Center, and the Texas Department of Public Safety. We did not identify
any private firms offering a similar training program. Because the cost
information for BIA was calculated by FLETC using the same methodology
used to provide cost information for the Border Patrol Academy, we
determined that the information was sufficiently reliable for our
purposes. To assess the reliability of the cost information provided by
Arizona and Texas, we discussed how these cost estimates were derived
with knowledgeable state officials and obtained and reviewed
corroborating documentation for reasonableness. We determined that for
the purpose of this report, the estimates were sufficiently reliable.
To determine what plans the Border Patrol has, or considered, for
improving the efficiency of its basic training program, we interviewed
CBP officials in headquarters, including the Chief of the Border
Patrol; the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Training and Development;
and Chief Patrol Agents at the Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New
Mexico, and in El Paso and Tucson. We also obtained the views of these
officials, as well as selected supervisory and new Border Patrol agents
in the field regarding the training of new agents.
In February 2007, we discussed the results of our work with you. This
report conveys the information provided during that discussion (see
Enclosure I). We performed our work from September 2006 through March
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Background:
The U.S. Border Patrol, within the Department of Homeland Security's
(DHS) CBP, is responsible for patrolling 8,000 miles of the land and
coastal borders of the United States to detect and prevent the illegal
entry of aliens and contraband, including terrorists, terrorist
weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. As of October 2006, the
Border Patrol had 12,349 agents stationed in 20 sectors along the
southwest, northern, and coastal borders. FLETC is an interagency
training provider responsible for basic, advanced, and specialized
training for approximately 82 federal agencies, including CBP's Border
Patrol. Under a memorandum of understanding, FLETC hosts the Border
Patrol's training academy in Artesia, New Mexico, and shares the cost
of providing training with the Border Patrol. For example, FLETC
provides the facilities, some instructors (e.g., retired Border Patrol
agents), and services (e.g., laundry and infirmary) that are paid for
out of FLETC's annual appropriations. CBP's Office of Training and
Development designs the training curriculum (in conjunction with the
Border Patrol and with input from FLETC) for the academy, administers
the Border Patrol Academy, and provides permanent instructors and
staff.
Basic training for new Border Patrol agents consists of three
components: (1) basic training at the academy, (2) postacademy
classroom training administered by the academy but conducted in the
sectors, and (3) field training conducted on the job in the sectors.
The academy portion of the training is currently an 81-day program
consisting of 663 curriculum hours in six subject areas: Spanish, law/
operations, physical training, driving, firearms, and general training.
After graduating from the academy, new Border Patrol agents are
required to attend classroom instruction at their respective sectors in
Spanish and law/operations 1 day a week for a total of 20 weeks.
Finally, new agents are generally assigned to senior agents in a
sector's field training unit for additional on-the-job training
intended to reinforce new agents' skills in safely, effectively, and
ethically performing their duties under actual field conditions.
Results:
The briefing slides in the enclosure address each of our four questions
regarding the training of new border patrol agents. In summary, we
found the following:
* The Border Patrol's basic training program exhibits attributes of an
effective training program. GAO's training assessment guide suggests
the kinds of documentation to look for that indicate that a training
program has a particular attribute in place, such as incorporating
measures of effectiveness into its course designs. The Border Patrol
had documentation that its training program had at least 1 key
indicator in place for 31 of the 32 attributes of an effective training
program.[Footnote 3] While we determined the presence of indicators of
particular attributes, we did not assess the extent to which these
attributes contributed to the quality of the training program. For
example, we confirmed that the Border Patrol surveys all students at
the academy, but we did not verify how the agency used the results. In
addition, the Border Patrol is pursuing accreditation of its training
program from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation
organization. The core training curriculum used at the Border Patrol
Academy has not changed since September 11, but the Border Patrol added
new material on responding to terrorism and practical field exercises.
While Border Patrol officials are confident that the academy can
accommodate the large influx of new trainees anticipated over the next
2 years, they have expressed concerns over the sectors' ability to
provide sufficient field training. For example, officials are concerned
with having a sufficient number of experienced agents available in the
sectors to serve as field training officers and first-line supervisors.
CBP officials told us that a 5-to-1 agent-to-supervisor ratio is
desirable to ensure proper supervision of new agents, although the
desired ratio in certain work units with more experienced agents would
be higher. Our analysis of Border Patrol data showed that as of October
2006, the overall agent-to-supervisor ratios for southwest sectors,
where the Border Patrol assigns all new agents, ranged from about 7 to
1 up to 11 to 1. These ratios include some work units with a higher
percentage of experienced agents that do not require the same level of
supervision as new agents. However, given the large numbers of new
agents the Border Patrol plans to assign to the southwest border over
the next 2 years, along with the planned reassignment of experienced
agents from the southwest border to the northern border, it will be a
challenge for the agency to achieve the desired 5-to-1 ratio for new
agents in all work units in those sectors receiving the largest numbers
of new agents. In addition to concerns about having a sufficient number
of experienced agents, the Border Patrol does not have a uniform field
training program that establishes uniform standards and practices that
each sector's field training should follow. As a result, Border Patrol
officials are not confident that all new trainees receive consistent
postacademy field training. While the Border Patrol is in the process
of developing a uniform field training program, sectors currently
design and administer their own field training based on their
particular operational environment independent of the other sectors.
* In fiscal year 2006, the average cost to train a new Border Patrol
agent at the academy was about $14,700. This cost represents the
amounts expended by both the Border Patrol and FLETC. The Border Patrol
paid about $6,600 for the trainee's meals and lodging, and a portion of
the cost of instructors, and FLETC paid about $8,100 for tuition, a
portion of the cost of instructors, and miscellaneous expenses such as
support services, supplies, and utilities. The $14,700 cost figure does
not include the costs associated with instructors conducting
postacademy and field training in the sectors.
* Given the Border Patrol's unique mission and difficulties making
direct comparisons with other federal and nonfederal law enforcement
training programs, it appears that the Border Patrol's average cost per
trainee at the academy is consistent with that of training programs
that cover similar subjects and prepare officers for operations in
similar geographic areas. For example, the estimated average cost per
trainee for (1) a BIA police officer is $15,291; (2) an Arizona state
police officer, $15,555; and (3) a Texas state trooper, $14,739.
However, differences in the emphasis of some subject areas over others
dictated by jurisdiction and mission make a direct comparison
difficult. For example, while both the Border Patrol and the Texas
Department of Public Safety require Spanish instruction, the Border
Patrol requires 214 hours of instruction compared with 50 hours for a
Texas state trooper. Similarly, the Border Patrol does not provide
instruction in investigation techniques while BIA, Arizona, and Texas
require 139, 50, and 165 hours of such instruction, respectively.
* The Border Patrol is considering several alternatives to improve the
efficiency of basic training delivery and to return agents to the
sectors more quickly. For example, the Border Patrol is pilot-testing a
proficiency test for Spanish that will allow those who pass the test to
shorten their time at the academy by about 30 days. According to Border
Patrol officials, this could benefit about half of all trainees,
because about half of all recruits already speak Spanish. The Border
Patrol also plans to convert postacademy classroom training to computer-
based training, allowing agents to complete the 1-day-a-week training
at their duty stations rather than having to travel to the sector
headquarters for this training. As a result, fewer senior agents will
be required to serve as instructors for postacademy training. Finally,
the Border Patrol is considering what other training it can shift from
the academy to postacademy and field training conducted in the sectors,
which could further reduce the amount of time trainees spend at the
academy. However, these planned improvements may present trade-offs and
challenges. For example, some officials said that proficiency testing
for Spanish could diminish esprit de corps in that while at the
academy, those who already speak Spanish sometimes help non-Spanish
speakers learn the language, enhancing esprit de corps. In addition,
officials expressed concern about the sectors' ability to train and
supervise the nearly 6,000 new agents the Border Patrol anticipates
hiring over the next 2 years. This increase is nearly equivalent to the
number of agents gained over the past 10 years, from 5,878 at the end
of fiscal year 1996 to 12,349 at the end of fiscal year 2006.
Concluding Observations:
The Border Patrol's basic training program exhibits the attributes of
an effective training program, and the average cost to train a Border
Patrol agent is in line with that of other similar law enforcement
training programs. However, the Border Patrol's plan to hire an
unprecedented number of new agents over the next 2 years could strain
the sectors' ability to provide adequate supervision and training. The
large influx of new agents and the planned transfer of more experienced
agents to the northern border could further exacerbate the already
higher than desired agent-to-supervisor ratio in some southwest
sectors. Moreover, the field training new agents receive is not
consistent from sector to sector, a fact that has implications for how
well agents perform their duties. To ensure that these new agents
become proficient in the safe, effective, and ethical performance of
their duties, it will be extremely important that new agents have the
appropriate level of supervision and that the Border Patrol have a
standardized field training program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
On March 22, 2007, we received written comments on a draft of this
report from the Department of Homeland Security (see Enclosure II). DHS
said that we accurately stated the Border Patrol's concern about the
availability of sufficient supervisory personnel to address the rapid
influx of inexperienced new agents.
DHS pointed out that while a 5-to-1 agent-to-supervisor ratio is
desired for work units within a sector composed predominantly of new
agents, a higher ratio is appropriate for those units composed
predominantly of more experienced agents. The overall agent-to-
supervisor ratio of an entire sector would represent a combined average
ratio of all work units within the sector. This combined ratio results
in a higher ratio than if only those work units composed predominantly
of new agents were considered. While this may be true, officials we met
with in the field said that achieving the desired 5-to-1 ratio for new
agents has been a challenge. For example, one supervisory agent said
that about three-quarters of the 30 to 40 agents assigned to his duty
station had 3 or fewer years of experience and only three supervisors.
We modified our report as appropriate to reflect DHS's comment that the
5-to-1 ratio does not apply to all work units.
We are sending copies of this report to the Department of Homeland
Security and interested congressional committees. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8816 or by e-mail at Stanar@gao.gov. Key
contributors to this report were Michael Dino, Assistant Director; Mark
Abraham; E. Jerry Seigler; Julie Silvers, Ph.D; and Gladys Toro.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides:
Training New Border Patrol Agents: An Overview:
Briefing for the Honorable Mike Rogers, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight, House
Homeland Security Committee:
February 14, 2007:
Introduction:
The Border Patrol plans to increase the total number of Border Patrol
agents by 6,000 by December 2008.
To achieve this goal, the Border Patrol anticipates needing to hire and
train about 9,100 agents to account for these additional positions and
attrition.
You requested that we provide information on the Border Patrol's basic
training program for new agents.
Objectives:
Determine the extent to which the Border Patrol's basic training
program for new Border Patrol agents exhibits the attributes of an
effective training program as outlined in GAO's guide for assessing
training programs* and identify how it has changed since September
11,001.
Determine the cost to train a new Border Patrol agent.
Compare the Border Patrol's basic training program and cost to other
similar federal and non-federal law enforcement basic training
programs.
Identify any Border Patrol plans to improve the efficiency of its
current basic training program.
* U.S. Government Accountability Office, Human Capital: A Guide for
Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal
Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
Scope and Methodology:
Reviewed Border Patrol's basic training curriculum including course
materials, evaluation procedures and forms, and syllabi.
Compared documentation related to the Border Patrol's basic training
program with GAO's guide for assessing federal training programs to
determine the extent to which the Border Patrol's training program
exhibited the attributes and characteristics of an effective training
program.
Reviewed the methodology used by the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center FLETC) to determine the cost of basic Border Patrol training for
fiscal year 2006. To assess the reliability of FLETC's cost data, we
talked with agency officials about data quality control procedures and
reviewed relevant documentation. We determined the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Compared the length, content, and cost of the Border Patrol's basic
training pro ram to those of other similar basic training programs
(i.e., civilian patrol-based law enforcement training for operations in
the southwest region of the United States), including the Department of
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Southern Arizona Law
Enforcement Training Center, and the Texas Department of Public Safety.
We did not identify any private firms offering a similar training
program.
Visited the Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, New Mexico, and observed
training in progress, obtained training materials, and interviewed
FLETC officials, the Chief of the Academy, and course managers.
Interviewed the Chief of the Border Patrol, Assistant Commissioner for
Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of Training and
Development, and the Chief Patrol Agents and selected supervisory and
new Border Patrol agents, within the El Paso and Tucson sectors to
obtain their views and concerns regarding training of new agents.
Background:
FLETC is an interagency training provider responsible for basic
advanced, and specialized training for approximately 82 federal
agencies at four U.S. and five international locations.
FLETC hosts the Border Patrol's training academy in Artesia, New
Mexico, and shares the training cost with the Border Patrol.
* FLETC provides the facilities some instructors (e.g., retired border
patrol agents), and services (e.g., laundry and infirmary).
* CBP's Office of Training and Development designs the training
curriculum (in conjunction with the Border Patrol and with input from
FLETC), administers the Border Patrol Academy, and provides permanent
instructors and staff.
In July 2005 the Border Patrol launched a national recruiting campaign
to increase its ranks by an additional 6,000 new Border Patrol agents
by the end of December 2008.
All new agents are deployed along the southwest border while the Border
Patrol plans to reassign up to 1,000 experienced agents to the northern
border.
Projected number of Border Patrol agents:
Location: Southwest border;
September 2006: 11,032;
December 2008: 15,828;
Increase (number): 4,796;
Percentage increase: 43%.
Location: Northern border;
September 2006: 919;
December 2008: 1,975;
Increase (number): 1,056;
Percentage increase: 115%.
Location: Coastal border;
September 2006: 153;
December 2008: 205;
Increase (number): 52;
Percentage increase: 34%.
Location: Headquarters;
September 2006: 119;
December 2008: 185;
Increase (number): 66;
Percentage increase: 55%.
Location: Other offices within Customs and Border Protection;
September 2006: 126;
December 2008: 126;
Increase (number): 0;
Percentage increase: 0%.
Total;
September 2006: 12,349;
December 2008: 18,319;
Increase (number): 5,970[A];
Percentage increase: 48%.
Source: GAO analysis of Office of Border Patrol data.
Note: These allocations of agents are preliminary and subject to change
based on operational requirements.
[A] Total reduced by 30 agents to account for overhires in fiscal year
2006.
[End of table]
Projected Number of Border Agents in the Southwest Sectors, End of
Fiscal Years 2006-2008 and First Quarter 2009:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol data.
[End of figure]
Basic Border Patrol Agent training at the Border Patrol Academy in
Artesia, New Mexico:
Length:
16.2 weeks or 81 days:
Trainees on a 5-day/week schedule:
Content:
Consists of 663 curriculum hours in six subject areas:
* Spanish-214 hours:
* Law/operations-199 hours:
* Physical training-125 hours:
* Driving training-44 hours:
* Firearms training-67 hours:
* FLETC general training and administrative-14 hours:
Accountability * Integrity * Reliability:
Academy Graduation Requirements:
Spanish:
Maintain a minimum cumulative average of 70% (consists of 10 vocabulary
exams, 7 progress exams, 1 midterm exam, and 1 final exam).
Law/operations:
Maintain a minimum cumulative average of 70% (consists of three
operations and law exams).
Physical training:
Successful completion of three timed events (long-distance run, sprint,
obstacle course).
Achieve a minimum score of 70% on the final exam.
Achieve a minimum score of 80% in order to complete the pepper spray
certification (includes exam, skills, and use of force.
Driving:
Achieve a minimum score of 80% on three practical exercises including
Emergency Response (high-speed), Utility/Van Operations (formerly known
as nonemergency vehicle operations), and Skid Control. The 4x4 program
is not tested.
Firearms:
Achieve a minimum score of 70% in the handgun and shotgun courses of
fire.
Achieve a score of 100% in the Judgment Pistol Shooting course.
Over the past 3 years, about 73 percent of those entering the academy
have graduated.
Postacademy and Field Training:
After graduating from the academy, new Border Patrol agents are
required to attend classroom instruction at their respective sectors in
Spanish and law/operations 1 day a week for a total of 20 weeks.
New agents are also required to pass two probationary exams (the 7- and
10-month exams) administered in the sectors.
New agents are generally assigned to a field training unit, led by at
least one senior agent, for on-the-job training.
Border Patrol's Basic Training Program Contains the Attributes of an
Effective Training Program:
In March 2004, GAO issued a guide for assessing federal training
programs. GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training
and Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G
(Washington, D.C.: arch 2004).
The guide summarizes attributes of effective training and development
programs and presents related questions concerning the components of
the training and development process.
* Four broad components: (1) planning/front-end analysis, (2) design/
development, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation:
* Thirty-two key questions to consider when assessing the four
components:
* Indicators related to each key question:
- Indicators serve as guides for assessment and do not constitute a
complete or mandatory "set" of indicators needed in response to each
question.
* For example, under design/development a key question is "How well
does the agency incorporate measures of effectiveness into courses it
designs?" The guide suggests looking for indicators, such as:
- clear linkages between specific learning objectives and
organizational results, and:
- well-written learning objectives that are unambiguous, achievable,
and measurable.
GAO Attributes of an Effective Training Program:
Planning and front-end analysis: Training Goals are consistent with its
overall mission, goals, and culture. (Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Has strategic and annual performance
planning processes that incorporate human capital professionals.
(Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Determines the skills and competencies
of its workforce. (Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Identifies the appropriate level of
investment to provide for training. (Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Has measures to assess the
contributions that training efforts make toward individual mastery of
learning. (Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Incorporates employees' developmental
goals in its planning processes. (Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Integrates the need for continuous and
lifelong learning into its planning processes. (Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Considers governmentwide reforms and
other targeted initiatives to improve management and performance when
planning its training programs. (Check)
Planning and front-end analysis: Has a formal process to ensure that
strategic and tactical changes are promptly incorporated into training.
(Check)
Design and Development: Ensures that training is connected to improving
individual and agency performance in achieving specific results.
(Check)
Design and Development: The design of the training program is
integrated with other strategies to improve performance and meet
emerging demands. (Check)
Design and Development: Uses the most appropriate mix of centralized
and decentralized approaches for its training. (Check)
Design and Development: Uses criteria in determining whether to design
training programs in-house or obtain from a contractor or other
external source. (Check)
Design and Development: Compares the merits of different delivery
mechanisms (such as classroom or computer-based training) and
determines what mix to use to ensure efficient and cost-effective
delivery. (Check)
Design and Development: Determines a targeted level of improved
performance in order to ensure that the cost of a training program is
appropriate to achieve the anticipated benefit. (Check)
Design and Development: Incorporates measures of effectiveness into
courses it designs. (Check)
Implementation: Agency leaders communicate the importance of training
and developing employees, and their expectations for training programs.
(Check)
Implementation: Has a training and performance organization that is
held accountable, along with the line executive, for the maximum
performance of the workforce. (Check)
Implementation: Agency managers are responsible for reinforcing new
behaviors, providing useful tools, and identifying and removing
barriers to help employees implement learned behaviors on the job.
(Check)
Implementation: Selects employees (or provides the opportunity for
employees to self select) to participate in training and development
efforts. (N/A)
Implementation: The agency considers options in paying for employee
training and development and adjusting employee work schedules so that
employees can participate in these developmental activities. (Check)
Implementation: Take actions to foster an environment conducive to
effective training. (Check)
Implementation: Takes steps to encourage employees to buy into the
goals of training efforts. (Check)
Implementation: Collects data during implementation to ensure feedback
on its training programs. (Check)
Evaluation: Systematically plans for and evaluates the effectiveness of
its training efforts. (Check)
Evaluation: Uses the appropriate analytical approaches to assess its
training programs. (Check)
Evaluation: Uses performance data (including qualitative and
quantitative measures) to assess the results achieved through training
efforts. (Check)
Evaluation: Incorporates evaluation feedback into the planning, design,
and implementation of its training efforts. (Check)
Evaluation: Incorporates different perspectives (including those of
line managers and staff; customers; and experts in areas such as
financial, information, and human capital management) in assessing the
impact of training on performance. (Check)
Evaluation: Tracks the cost and delivery of its training programs.
(Check)
Evaluation: Assesses the benefits achieved through training programs.
(Check)
Evaluation: Compares its training investments, methods, or outcomes
with those of other organizations to identify innovative approaches or
lessons learned. (Check)
Check = indicators (in place or in development) of the attribute:
n/a = not applicable:
Source: GAO analysis based on GAO-04-546G.
[End of table]
The Border Patrol has changed its core curriculum for basic training
very little since 2001, but has added new classes:
* Anti-terrorism course-overview of terrorist groups, responding to
terrorism, weapons of mass effect, and personal radiation detector
(PRD) training.
* Practical field exercises-simulate situations involving a PRD alert,
or where agents might encounter surface-to-air missiles, biological
weapons, and improvised explosive devices (IED).
The Border Patrol is pursuing accreditation of its training program
from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation organization.
Concerns Regarding Training:
Border Patrol officials have some concerns regarding the uniformity of
field training.
Field training is not consistent from one sector to another and
therefore there is no assurance that all new trainees receive
consistent postacademy field training.
The Border Patrol is in the process of developing a uniform nationwide
field training program for sectors to use.
Border Patrol officials expressed concern about having a sufficient
number of experienced journeyman agents and first-line supervisors to
train and supervise new agents.
The sectors will need more experienced journeyman agents to serve as
field training officers to train the anticipated large influx of new
agents.
The sectors will also need more first-line supervisors to provide
adequate supervision to new agents.
* The desired agent-to-supervisor ratios vary among the sectors and
work units within sectors depending on the mix of experienced and new
agents as well as the special asks assigned to the work unit.
* As of October 2006 sectorwide agent-to-supervisor ratios for sectors
along the southwest border ranged from about 7 to 1 (Laredo) to 11 to 1
(El Paso).
* As new agents are hired over the next 2 years, the sectors will be
challenged to maintain the desired ratio of 5 new agents to 1
supervisor.
Cost to Train a New Agent:
* For fiscal year 2007, CBP budgeted $187,744 to bring on each new
Border Patrol agent.
Recruitment through hiring;
First year: $30,707.
Training[A];
First year: $3,836.
Equipment[B];
First year: $21,072.
Deployment[C];
First year: $74,338.
Infrastructural impact[D];
First year: $57,791.
Total;
First year: $187,744.
Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Note: With the exception of the $3,836 for training, GAO did not verify
these estimates.
[A] Training only includes the CBP's incremental cost for a trainee's
meals ($2,010) and lodging ($1,826) while attending the academy.
[B] Uniforms, firearms, radios, etc.
[C] Salaries and benefits, overtime, administrative services, etc.
[D] Vehicles, utilities, technical support, etc.
[End of table]
The total average cost to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for
training a new Border Patrol f 'ape agent at the academy was about
$14,700 for fiscal year 2006.
Tuition;
FLETC: $1,773;
CDP: 0;
Total cost to DHS: $1,773.
Meals;
FLETC: 0;
CDP: $2,010;
Total cost to DHS: $2,010.
Lodging;
FLETC: 0;
CDP: $1,826;
Total cost to DHS: $1,826.
Instructor cost per student;
FLETC: $3,069;
CDP: $2,805;
Total cost to DHS: $5,874.
Miscellaneous[A];
FLETC: $3,250;
CDP: 0;
Total cost to DHS: $3,250.
Cost per student;
FLETC: $8,092;
CDP: $6,641;
Total cost to DHS: $14,733.
Source: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Note: While FLETC's costs include the cost of training materials for
postacademy training conducted in the sectors, these costs do not
include the cost of postacademy instructors or field training conducted
in the sectors.
[A] Miscellaneous costs include items such as support services (health
unit, uniform laundry, janitorial), supplies (athletic trainer and
student supplies, utility uniforms), and utilities (garbage collection,
gas, electricity, and water and sewer).
[End of table]
Border Patrol Basic Training Compared to Similar Selected Federal and
non-Federal Law Enforcement Programs:
Class size (average);
Border Patrol Academy: 50;
Bureau of Indian Affairs: 50;
Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: 40;
Texas Department of Public Safety: 130.
Length of training (weeks);
Border Patrol Academy: 16;
Bureau of Indian Affairs: 16;
Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: 36;
Texas Department of Public Safety: 26.
Length of training (hours);
Border Patrol Academy: 663;
Bureau of Indian Affairs: 736;
Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: 680;
Texas Department of Public Safety: 1,246.
Cost per student(average);
Border Patrol Academy: $14,733;
Bureau of Indian Affairs: $15,291;
Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: $15,555;
Texas Department of Public Safety: $14,739.
Course curriculum: Spanish;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: 214;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: n/a;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: n/s;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 50.
Course curriculum: Law/operations;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: 191;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 152;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center:
223.5;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 567.
Course curriculum: Firearms training;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: 67;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 71.25;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: 70;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 119.5.
Course curriculum: Driving training;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: 44;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 104.5;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: 28;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 71.
Course curriculum: Basic investigative techniques;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: n/a;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 139;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: 50;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 165.
Course curriculum: Physical fitness and safety;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: 125;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 239.5;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center:
114.75;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 96.5.
Course curriculum: Anti-terrorism;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: 8;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 9;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center: 4;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 16.
Course curriculum: General training and administration;
Training hours: Border Patrol Academy: 14;
Training hours: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 21;
Training hours: Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center:
189.75;
Training hours: Texas Department of Public Policy: 161.
Source: GAO analysis of information received from FLETC, the Office of
Border Patrol, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Southern Arizona Law
Enforcement Training Center, and the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Note: Training hours may not add to length of training due to rounding.
[End of table]
Border Patrol's Plans to Improve Efficiency of Basic Training:
Use of proficiency tests for Spanish:
* reduces time at the academy by about 30 days and:
* could apply to about half of all trainees:
Moving to computer-based postacademy training:
* allows trainees to train at their duty stations rather than traveling
to the sector headquarters and:
* reduces number of instructors needed at the sector:
Considering shifting more training from the academy to postacademy and
field training, which may reduce the amount of time trainees spend at
the academy:
Trade-offs and Challenges:
The Border Patrol's plans for improving the efficiency of its basic
training program may involve trade-offs and challenges to overcome.
At the academy, native Spanish speakers sometimes help non-native
speakers learn the language, enhancing esprit de corps. Splitting
native and non-native Spanish speakers through proficiency testing
could negatively affect esprit de corps.
Officials are concerned with the sectors' ability to train and
supervise the large number of new agents the Border Patrol anticipates
hiring over the next 2 years.
Another challenge for CBP will be to realize a net gain of about 6,000
agents over approximately the next 2 years (by the end of December
2008, the first quarter of fiscal year 2000.
Over the next 3 fiscal years, the Border Patrol plans to increase its
number of agents by almost as much as it did over the previous 10
years.
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.
[End of figure]
Concluding Observations:
The average cost of training a new Border Patrol agent is in line with
that of other similar federal and non-federal law enforcement training
programs.
Plans for proficiency testing and shifting some training from the
academy to the sectors would allow the Border Patrol to put new agents
on the job more quickly, but there are concerns.
It will be a challenge for sectors along the southwest border to absorb
and provide adequate field training and supervision to large numbers of
new agents.
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
March 22, 2007:
Mr. Richard M. Stana:
Director:
Homeland Security and Justice:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
Re: Draft Report GAO-07-540R, Information on Training New Border Patrol
Agents.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) appreciated the opportunity to review and
comment on the subject draft report. The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) conducted this review in response to a request made by
Representative Mike Rogers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Management,
Integration, and Oversight, Committee on Homeland Security. Concerned
about the ability of the Border Patrol's basic training program to
accommodate a significant increase in Border Patrol agent trainees, Mr.
Rogers requested that GAO provide information on the content, quality,
and cost of the Border Patrol's basic training program for new agents.
GAO concluded that the Border Patrol's basic training program exhibits
attributes of an effective training program, and the average cost to
train a new Border Patrol agent is in line with similar law enforcement
training programs. However, GAO also concluded that the Border Patrol's
plan to hire an unprecedented number of new agents over the next two
years could strain the sectors' ability to provide adequate supervision
and training. GAO also observed that the large influx of new agents and
the planned transfer of more experienced agents to the northern border
could further exacerbate the already higher than desired agent-to-
supervisor ratio in some Southwestern sectors. Moreover, the field
training new agents receive is not consistent from sector to sector,
which has implications for how well agents perform their duties. The
draft report does not contain any recommendations:
After reviewing the draft report, CBP recommends that GAO modify its
report to include a more accurate explanation of the desired 5-to-1
ratio of agents to supervisors. Within the first paragraph on page 4,
GAO accurately states the Border Patrol's concern about the
availability of sufficient supervisory personnel to address the rapid
influx of inexperienced new agents. However, GAO neither conveys nor
captures the complete picture of the proper application of the desired
5 to 1 ratio of agents to supervisors. When looking at the supervisor
to agent ratio at the sector or national level, the results do not
portray the desired 5 to 1 ratio because the entire Border Patrol staff
is not made up of new agents. The 5 to 1 ratio would be applied in
areas where the agent population is mostly comprised of new agents. It
would be inefficient and unnecessary to obtain or maintain this same
ratio level for journeyman agents. Therefore, not all units within a
sector, or even at the station level, would require this ratio, which
would result in a combined average higher than 5 to 1.
In general, the agent workforce within a station is made up of several
patrol groups (shifts) that are broken down into individual units, as
well as specialty units (all terrain vehicle units, tracking units,
liaison units, etc). New agents, after participating in the field
training unit, will eventually be assigned to a unit in one of the
patrol groups. Depending on the actual number of new agents assigned,
these units may require the higher number of supervisors compared to
agents. The specialty units are generally made up of experienced
journeyman agents and do not require this same level of supervision. In
addition, as the new agents gain experience, they too would no longer
require the 5 to 1 ratio.
At the sector level, the specialty units (Border Patrol Search, Trauma
and Rescue; Special Response Team; asset forfeiture; air mobile unit;
etc) would normally never have a new agent as part of their workforce.
As a result, these units do not require the same level of supervisory
attention. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there may be
specialized units that require an even higher (or lower depending on
your view) ratio of supervisors to agents, regardless of the experience
level. When comparing all of these units at the sector or station
level, you would see that the 5 to l ratio does not apply unilaterally
based on the explanations above. CBP recommends that GAO modify the
report to reflect the more accurate explanation of the Border Patrol's
recommended ratio of 5 new agents to 1 supervisor.
CBP did not identify any sensitive information that would require a
"For Official Use Only" designation or warrant protection under the
Freedom of Information Act.
We thank you again for the opportunity to review this report and
provide clarifying comments and technical changes.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Congressional Research Service, Border Security: The Role of the
U.S. Border Patrol, RL32562 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2006).
[2] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004).
[3] One attribute dealing with the selection or voluntary self-
selection of employees was not applicable because basic training is
mandatory for all new Border Patrol agents.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
