Homeland Security: Agriculture Specialists' Views of Their Work  
Experiences After Transfer to DHS (14-NOV-06, GAO-07-209R).	 
                                                                 
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred responsibility for 
certain port inspections from the U.S. Department of		 
Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service  
(APHIS) to the newly created Department of Homeland Security's	 
(DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Specifically, the act 
transferred the responsibility for inspecting passengers,	 
baggage, cargo, and mail entering the country in airplanes,	 
ships, trucks, and railcars for prohibited agricultural materials
that may serve as carriers of foreign pests and diseases. USDA	 
estimates that these biological invaders cost the American	 
economy tens of billions of dollars annually in lower crop	 
values, eradication programs, and emergency payments to farmers. 
Beginning in March 2003, more than 1,800 agriculture specialists 
who had formerly reported to USDA became CBP employees, as CBP	 
incorporated the protection of U.S. agriculture into its primary 
antiterrorism mission. In addition to protecting U.S.		 
agriculture, CBP's mission is to detect and prevent terrorists	 
and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, interdict 
illegal drugs and other contraband, and apprehend individuals who
are attempting to enter the United States illegally. Responding  
to congressional concerns that the transfer of agricultural	 
inspections to CBP could shift the focus away from agriculture to
CBP's other mission priorities, GAO reported in May 2006 on the  
coordination of USDA and DHS to ensure that U.S. agriculture is  
protected from accidentally or intentionally introduced pests and
disease. In preparing this report, we surveyed a representative  
sample of CBP's agriculture specialists on their work experiences
before and after the transfer and included the responses to the  
survey's 31 multiple-choice questions in the report. The survey  
also asked two open-ended questions: (1) What is going well with 
respect to your work as an agriculture specialist? and (2) What  
would you like to see changed or improved with respect to your	 
work as an agriculture specialist? Congress asked us to analyze  
the content of the narrative responses to the open-ended	 
questions contained in the survey. Specifically, Congress asked  
us to identify the common themes in the narrative responses and  
determine the percentage of agriculture specialists giving	 
answers consistent with each theme. We provided Congressional	 
staff with a formal briefing on our findings on October 17, 2006.
This report summarizes the results of that briefing, including	 
the five most common themes for each question.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-209R					        
    ACCNO:   A63326						        
  TITLE:     Homeland Security: Agriculture Specialists' Views of     
Their Work Experiences After Transfer to DHS			 
     DATE:   11/14/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Agricultural industry				 
	     Agricultural workers				 
	     Employees						 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Job satisfaction surveys				 
	     Occupational surveys				 
	     Port security					 
	     Job satisfaction					 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-209R

   

     * [1]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

          * [2]Order by Mail or Phone

November 14, 2006

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte

Chairman

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

Subject: Homeland Security: Agriculture Specialists' Views of Their Work
Experiences After Transfer to DHS

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred responsibility for certain
port inspections from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to the newly created
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and Border Protection
(CBP).^1 Specifically, the act transferred the responsibility for
inspecting passengers, baggage, cargo, and mail entering the country in
airplanes, ships, trucks, and railcars for prohibited agricultural
materials that may serve as carriers of foreign pests and diseases. USDA
estimates that these biological invaders cost the American economy tens of
billions of dollars annually in lower crop values, eradication programs,
and emergency payments to farmers.

Beginning in March 2003, more than 1,800 agriculture specialists who had
formerly reported to USDA became CBP employees, as CBP incorporated the
protection of U.S. agriculture into its primary antiterrorism mission. In
addition to protecting U.S. agriculture, CBP's mission is to detect and
prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States,
interdict illegal drugs and other contraband, and apprehend individuals
who are attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Responding to congressional concerns that the transfer of agricultural
inspections to CBP could shift the focus away from agriculture to CBP's
other mission priorities, GAO reported in May 2006 on the coordination of
USDA and DHS to ensure that U.S. agriculture is protected from
accidentally or intentionally introduced pests and disease.^2 In preparing
this report, we surveyed a representative sample of CBP's agriculture
specialists on their work experiences before and after the transfer and
included the responses to the survey's 31 multiple-choice questions in the
report. The survey also asked two open-ended questions: (1) What is going
well with respect to your work as an agriculture specialist? and (2) What
would you like to see changed or improved with respect to your work as an
agriculture specialist?

^1Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). The act also transferred two
other agencies to CBP: the Department of the Treasury's U.S. Customs
Service and the Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization
Service.

You asked us to analyze the content of the narrative responses to the
open-ended questions contained in the survey. Specifically, you asked us
to identify the common themes in the narrative responses and determine the
percentage of agriculture specialists giving answers consistent with each
theme. We provided your staff with a formal briefing on our findings on
October 17, 2006. This report summarizes the results of that briefing,
including the five most common themes for each question,^3 and enclosure I
presents our briefing slides.^4 Enclosure II describes our scope and
methodology. We performed our work from September through October 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

In summary, the narrative responses to the open-ended questions suggest
morale issues among CBP agriculture specialists. Respondents typically
provided more examples or went into greater detail in answering our
question on what needs to be changed or improved. This question generated
a total of 185 pages of comments--roughly 4 times more than that generated
by the responses to our question on what is going well. Further, "Nothing
is going well" was the second most frequent response to the question on
what is going well. In addition, the narratives generally corroborate the
responses to the relevant multiple-choice questions in the survey. For
example, related to the specialists' perception that the agriculture
safety mission has been compromised, 59 percent of experienced specialists
indicated that they are doing either somewhat or many fewer inspections
since the transfer, and 60 percent indicated that they are doing somewhat
or many fewer interceptions. Similarly, related to working relationships,
64 percent of these specialists indicated that they do not believe that
CBP management respects their work.

Consistent with workforce concerns about the current agricultural
inspection operation, in response to our question on what is going well
with their work, relatively few agriculture specialists reported positive
feelings about their current situation. Specifically:

           o An estimated 18 percent of agriculture specialists cited the
           working relationship among agriculture specialists and
           nonagriculture inspectors and management as positive. These
           specialists cited increasing respect and interest by
           nonspecialists in the agriculture inspection mission, and the
           attentiveness of CBP management to agriculture specialists'
           concerns.

           o An estimated 13 percent of agriculture specialists reported that
           nothing is going well with their work. For example, some
           respondents noted that the agriculture inspection mission has been
           compromised under CBP and that agriculture specialists are no
           longer important or respected by management.

           o An estimated 10 percent of agriculture specialists expressed
           positive comments about their salary and benefits, with some
           citing increased pay under CBP, a flexible work schedule,
           increased overtime pay, and retirement benefits as reasons for
           their views.

           o An estimated 8 percent of agriculture specialists identified
           elements of classroom and on-the-job training as going well. Some
           observed that new hires are well trained and that
           agriculture-related classroom training at the Professional
           Development Center in Frederick, Maryland, is adequate for their
           duties.

           o An estimated 6 percent of agriculture specialists were generally
           satisfied with their jobs, reporting, among other things, that
           they were satisfied in their working relationships with CBP
           management and coworkers and that they believed in the importance
           of their work in protecting U.S. agriculture from foreign pests
           and disease.

^2GAO, Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase
the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease,
GAO-06-644 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006).

^3In our analysis, responses were weighted to account statistically for
all specialists in the population. Thus, the percentages given for each
theme can be generalized to the entire population of CBP agriculture
specialists and are expressed as estimates. The margin of error at the 95
percent confidence level varies by theme, but does not exceed plus or
minus 10 percent.

^4We also provided copies of these briefing slides to DHS and USDA.

In contrast, higher proportions of agriculture specialists identified
areas that should be changed or improved. Specifically:

           o An estimated 29 percent of agriculture specialists expressed
           concern about their working relationships with CBP's
           nonagriculture inspectors and management. Some wrote that
           nonagriculture inspectors at their ports view the agriculture
           mission as less important than CBP's other priorities, such as
           counternarcotics and antiterrorism activities. Others noted that
           CBP management is not interested in, and does not support,
           agriculture inspections. Many agriculture specialists expressed
           concern that CBP's management structure does not encourage two-way
           communication, and that management often ignores the agriculture
           mission in favor of other priorities.

           o An estimated 29 percent of agriculture specialists were
           concerned that the agriculture mission is declining because CBP
           has not given it adequate priority. Some respondents cited as
           evidence of a decline the increase in the number of cargo items
           and flights that are not inspected because of staff shortages,
           scheduling decisions by CBP port management, and the release of
           prohibited or restricted products by nonagriculture CBP
           inspectors.

           o An estimated 28 percent of agriculture specialists identified
           problems with the CBP chain of command that impede timely actions
           involving high-risk interceptions, such as a lack of managers with
           an agriculture background and the agency's rigid chain-of-command
           structure. For example, agriculture specialists wrote that
           requests for information from USDA pest identification experts
           must be passed up the CBP chain of command before they can be
           conveyed to USDA. 

           o An estimated 19 percent of agriculture specialists believed that
           training in the classroom and on the job is inadequate. For
           example, some respondents expressed concern that the Professional
           Development Center does not offer courses on DHS's targeting and
           database systems, which some agriculture specialists use to target
           high-risk shipments and passengers. Also, some agriculture
           specialists wrote that on-the-job training at their ports is poor,
           and that nonspecialists do not have adequate training to recognize
           when to refer items to agriculture specialists for inspection.

           o An estimated 17 percent of agriculture specialists were
           concerned about a lack of equipment and supplies. Some respondents
           wrote that the process for purchasing items under CBP results in
           delays in acquiring supplies and that there is a shortage of
           agriculture-specific supplies, such as vials, gloves, and
           laboratory equipment.

In closing, we note that morale issues, such as the ones identified above,
are not unexpected in a merger. To this end, in anticipation of the
creation of DHS, GAO convened a forum in 2002 to discuss lessons learned
from major private and public sector experiences with mergers that a DHS
could use to combine its various components into a unified department.^5
According to the forum participants, in their experience, productivity and
effectiveness decline in the period following a merger, in part because
employees worry about their place in the new organization.

.

                                    - - - -

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days
from the date of this letter. We will then send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees and the Secretaries of Agriculture and
of Homeland Security. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

^5See GAO, Mergers and Transformation: Lessons Learned for a Department of
Homeland Security and Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP (Washington,
D.C.: November 14, 2002) and Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation
Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669
(Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).

If you have any questions about this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected].
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to
this report are listed in enclosure III.

Sincerely yours,

Lisa Shames

Acting Director, Natural Resources
and Environment

Enclosures - 3

Enclosure I

              DHS Agriculture Specialists' Views about Their Jobs

Enclosure II

                             Scope and Methodology

To determine the areas in which Customs and Border and Patrol (CBP)
agriculture specialists believe that work is going well and in which it
needs change or improvement, we identified the major themes in the
narrative responses that CBP agriculture specialists provided to the
survey we conducted from November 2005 through January 2006. We surveyed
these specialists to obtain information on their work experiences since
the transfer from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and their
assessment of CBP's management, particularly with respect to the
agriculture inspection mission. The survey contained 31 multiple-choice
questions and two open-ended questions--"What is going well with respect
to your work as an agriculture specialist?" and "What would you like to
see changed or improved with respect to your work as an agriculture
specialist?"

To conduct the survey, we drew a representative sample of 827 agriculture
specialists from a total population of about 1,800 (as of October 14,
2005). We received 626 completed questionnaires, for a response rate of
approximately 76 percent. A majority of the survey respondents were
agriculture specialists, while the remaining respondents were supervisory
agriculture specialists and canine specialists, with a few categorizing
themselves as "other." Most of the respondents (71 percent) transferred to
CBP from USDA, while the others were hired directly by CBP (28 percent).^6
Each sampled agriculture specialist was subsequently weighted in the
analysis so that our results can be generalized statistically to the
entire population of agriculture specialists. The margin of error at the
95-percent confidence level varies by theme, but does not exceed plus or
minus 10 percent.

In analyzing the open-ended responses that are the focus of this report,
we first identified, through discussions among GAO team members, the major
themes in the responses. Two team members, working independently, then
identified the themes for each response. Where the two team members
disagreed, they discussed their decisions until they reached agreement.
Thus, there was 100-percent agreement between the two team members. The
number of responses for each theme was then calculated. Finally, the work
of the two team members was reviewed by a third team member. Results are
presented on pages 21 and 22 of this report.

We performed our work from September through October 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

^6 The percentage of specialists transferred from USDA and the percentage
hired by CBP do not total 100 due to rounding.

Enclosure III

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual listed above, James R. Jones, Jr., Assistant
Director; Gary T. Brown; Chad M. Gorman; Lynn M. Musser; Stephen C.
Rossman; Sidney H. Schwartz; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key
contributions to this report.

(360769)

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.

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

Congressional Relations

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

References

Visible links

*** End of document. ***