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. ***