International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport	 
Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved (15-JUL-05, GAO-05-663).	 
                                                                 
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repealed a 45 minute standard for inspecting international	 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? 			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-663 					        
    ACCNO:   A30098						        
  TITLE:     International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport 
Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved				 
     DATE:   07/15/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Airport security					 
	     Airports						 
	     Baggage screening					 
	     Employee training					 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     International travel				 
	     Passenger screening				 
	     Passengers 					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Staff utilization					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Training utilization				 
	     Timeliness 					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-663

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Report to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

July 2005

INTERNATIONAL AIR PASSENGERS

        Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved

GAO-05-663

[IMG]

July 2005

INTERNATIONAL AIR PASSENGERS

Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can Be Improved

                                 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 United States Government Accountability
                                     Office

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

                                       1

                                      3 5

10

18

23 29 30 31

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 6 Figure 2:
Federal Inspection Facility at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
(DFW) in Dallas 7 Figure 3: Components of Wait Time Calculated by CBP as
Part of the Inspection Process 9 Figure 4: Average Daily Wait Times at 20
International Airports from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005 12

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 13

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 15

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 16

Figure 8: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports Arranged
from Lowest to Highest CBP Staffing Levels 17 Figure 9: Old Inspection
Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental Airport 20 Figure 10: New
Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental Airport 20 Figure
11: Daily International Passenger Volume by Hour at Hartsfield Atlanta
Airport, May 13, 2005 22

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

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. However, 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

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.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.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

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, S: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 S:1225; 19 U.S.C. S:S:1467, 1581, 1582; and the statutes specified
in S:421 of the HSA relating to agricultural immigration activities.

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.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.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

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.

Results in Brief

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.

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.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.

5 All port directors report to a DFO who operates at one of 20 Offices of
Field Operations.

Figure 1: Facilities within the Port of Houston/Galveston

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

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

Source: DFW International Airport - Terminal B.

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.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

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.

intelligence information7 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.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

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.

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.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 45minute
standard as a requirement for processing international passengers.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.

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

International Passengers' Wait Times Vary by Airport and Are Affected by
Three Primary Factors

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. S:1752.

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

Average daily wait times (in minutes)

                          PhoenixSan JuanInternational

                                 International

SeattleBaltimore-Washingtont

-TInternationalacoma o

aulP

PhiladelphiaInternationalInternationalInternational

                                       h

Newarkrpolitano

                                      eles

IntercontinentalBush Houston

InternationalBoston Logan

Hartsfield AtlantahingtonDulles

                                       re

oOrlando

                                uy International

Internationalit Meto

Detr

      InternationalInternational InternationalInternationalInternational K

                    InternationalInternationalInternational
                              San Francisc .enned
                                     John F

MiamiInternationalInternationalt.

Dallas-Fort WMinneapolis-S

Chica sWa

egGeor

Airport

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

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

  Percentage of flights exceeding 60 minutes for primary passenger inspection

PhoenixSan JuanInternational

International

                   OrlandoInternational Baltimore-Washington

t

                               Seattle-Tacoma aul

PPhiladelphiaInternationalInternational

                                       h

NewarkInternational International

International Detroit Metropolitan

                                               InternationalBoston LoganChica

                           InternationalInternational
                                 hington Dulles
                                      Har

                                    re lanta

KSan Francisco.ennedJohn F

                               elesInternational

Intercontinentale Bush Houston

HonoluluInternationalInternational

                                       y

o

InternationalInternationalDallas-Fort WMinneapolis-St.

                                 International

MiamiInternationalInternational

sWa

gGeorAirport

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

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

Average wait time in minutes Passenger volume

                                   10,000,000

60

50

40

30

20

10 0

                                   8,000,000

                                   6,000,000

                                   4,000,000

                                  2,000,000 0

Baltimore-Washington

                                 PhoenixOrlando

ston

IntercontinentalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternational
InternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalHartsfield Atlanta

                                 Seattle-Tacoma

a Detroit MetropolitanSan Juan

                                      h es

K.Los Angelesenned

InternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalJohn
F

                                       o

Newark re Chicago O'Ha

                                       y

aul

                             Minneapolis-St.PMiami

Wot t

a

Dallas-ForW

egGeor

                                    Airport

Wait times in minutes

Passenger volume

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

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

Average wait time in minutes

Number of inspection stations

PhoenixInternational

InternationalBoston Logan

InternationalSeattle-Tacoma

San Juan Baltimore-WashingtonInternationalInternational

aulInternational

                                      oht

                          OrlandoInternationalHonolulu

PhiladelphiaInternationalshington Dulles

                                 Chicago O'Hare

Miami NewarkBush HoustonInternationalIntercontinentalHartsfield Atlanta

                              Detroit Metropolitan

y

KLos Angeles.enned

                 San FranciscoInternationalInternationalJohn F

International

Dallas-Fort WMinneapolis-St.P

egGeor

aWAirport

Wait times in minutes

Inspection stations

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Note: The inspection stations may or may not be fully staffed.

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

                          Average wait time in minutes

Phoenix Baltimore-WashingtonInternationalInternational

Minneapolis-St. Paul

                              OrlandoInternational

Boston LoganSeattle-Tacoma

InternationalInternationalInternationalInternational Washington
DullesHonolulu

                       International Detroit Metropolitan

                         Dallas-Fort WorthInternational
                                 International
                               HartsfieldAtlanta

Intercontinental George Bush Houston

                                    San Juan

co

InternationalInternationalSan FrancisChicago O'Hare

                                       s

Los AngeleInternationalInternationalInternationalJohn F. Kennedy

                                       ia

NewarkInternational

                   International International International

iMiamAirport

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Note: The number of CBP officers at individual airports is considered
security sensitive information.

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 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 Expanded Facility Capacity to Minimize Wait
Times but Have Not Evenly Distributed Passenger Volume Due to Market
Demand

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

                        Source: Houston Airport System.

Source: GAO.

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.

Hourly passenger volume at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport 1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200 0 5:00 AM

                                    6:00 AM

M7:00 A

M8:00 A

                                9:00 AM 10:00 AM

M11:00 A

                            12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM

M3:00 P

                4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM

Hour

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

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.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)

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.

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 asneeded 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

                                                   CBP officials' 
                                                   views          
                                                   regarding      Consequence 
                                                   weakness                of 
    Weaknesses   Weaknesses          Weakness      identified             not 
    identified   identified          identified in relative to     addressing 
in Workforce  in Resource          CBP's model   CBP's model   weaknesses  
     Analysis    Allocation              under         under      
Model used by Model used by                                    identified  
        INS      Customs              development   development   

           Customs' model did not   CBP's plans for the model CBP does  
                                    not control all                     
          consider passenger wait   indicate it will not consider the   
                                    factors contributing to             
              times and cargo            passenger wait times as a wait 
                                                 times and will not use 
           examination times as a    performance measure in wait times  
                                                   as a                 
           performance measure in       its assessment of staffing      
                                            performance measure         
         its assessment of staffing needs. because minimizing wait      
                  needs. a                     times is not its highest 
                                                 priority.              

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.

Customs did not regularly CBP does not plan to include field components
regularly or formally solicit in decision-making input from field staff
for its

b

process. planned model.

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.

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.

                                                   CBP officials' 
                                                   views          
                                                   regarding      Consequence 
                                                   weakness                of 
    Weaknesses   Weaknesses          Weakness      identified             not 
    identified   identified          identified in relative to     addressing 
in Workforce  in Resource          CBP's model   CBP's model   weaknesses  
     Analysis    Allocation              under         under      
Model used by Model used by                                    identified  
        INS      Customs              development   development   

INS' model did not detect Customs' model was not CBP does not plan to use
overstaffed work shifts or used to reallocate its model to assess project
staff decreases resources from one optimal staff levels for when needed.c
location or one function to each port or airport.

                                       c

another.

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.

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:

aGAO, U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected Operations and
Program Issues, GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2000).

bGAO, Customs Service: Process for Estimating and Allocating Inspectional
Personnel, GAO/GGD-98-107 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998).

cGAO, 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).

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.12 Including a goal of providing inspection services within 45
minutes for international air passengers in its staffing model would
assist CBP in

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.

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.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.

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 crosstraining makes it difficult for the agency to determine
when training will be completed within individual ports and hold port
directors accountable

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).

Conclusions

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.

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

Recommendations

DHS's Comments and Our Evaluation

direct the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to take the
following five actions

o  	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;

o  	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;

o  	use the staffing model under development to determine the optimal
number of staff at each airport nationwide;

o  	systematically solicit input from the field on staffing needs and
include uniform, agencywide guidance on how they should assess their needs
and environment; and

o  set out milestones for completing CBP's planned staffing model.

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.

Richard M. Stana
Director, Homeland Security and Justice

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

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

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.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

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, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                                 RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***