Border Patrol Hiring: Despite Recent Initiatives, Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring
Goal Was Not Met (Letter Report, 12/17/1999, GAO/GGD-00-39).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on Border
Patrol hiring, focusing on: (1) the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's (INS) ability to meet its 5-year goal to increase the Border
Patrol's onboard strength by 1,000 agents each year from fiscal years
(FY) 1997 through 2001; (2) INS' efforts to improve its recruiting
efforts and hiring process; (3) changes in the years of experience and
level of supervision of Border Patrol agents during INS' increased
hiring; and (4) the ability of INS' basic training program to support
the pace at which Border Patrol agents have been hired, including
whether the Border Patrol Academy anticipates having the capacity to
meet future growth.

GAO noted that: (1) INS' recruitment program yielded a net increase of
1,002 Border Patrol agents in FY 1997 and a net increase of 1,035 agents
in FY 1998 after accounting for attrition; (2) although INS succeeded in
increasing the Border Patrol's onboard strength by 1,000 agents each
year, it saw a net increase of only 369 agents in FY 1999 because it was
unable to recruit enough qualified applicants and retain them through
the hiring process; (3) for the 3-year period ending September 30, 1999,
INS experienced a net hiring shortfall of 594 agents; (4) INS has had
difficulties attracting and retaining qualified applicants; (5) few
individuals who apply to the Border Patrol successfully complete the
application process; (6) some fail to pass the rigorous entry
examination, medical examination, or background investigation, while
others withdraw from the process; (7) in FY 1999, failure and drop-out
rates were higher than in the past; (8) to address its hiring problems,
INS has redirected $2.2 million to enhance its recruitment program,
which includes: (a) initiatives to increase Border Patrol agents'
involvement in recruitment and fine-tuning INS' hiring process; (b)
surveying applicants for reasons why they register for the written
examination but do not report for testing to find out their reasons for
not reporting, as well as those who do report for testing for their
views on the initial part of the hiring process; and (c) asking
applicants their reasons for declining Border Patrol job offers; (9)
however, INS does not have plans to survey applicants who voluntarily
withdraw at other stages later in the process; (10) as hiring has
increased, the average experience level of Border Patrol agents has
declined agencywide, as well as along the southwest border; (11) the
percentage of agents along the southwest border with 2 years of
experience or less almost tripled--from 14 percent to 39
percent--between FY 1994 and FY 1998; (12) during the same period, 7
southwest border sectors experienced some increase in the average number
of nonsupervisory agents assigned to each supervisory agent; (13) the
Tucson sector experienced the greatest increase, with its ratio of
nonsupervisory agents to one supervisory agent rising from 8 to 1 in FY
1994 to about 11 to 1 in FY 1998; and (14) by relying on a temporary
training facility in Charleston, South Carolina since 1996, the Border
Patrol Academy has been able to provide newly hired agents with required
training and, according to a Border Patrol official, is prepared to meet
the training needs associated with future growth.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-39
     TITLE:  Border Patrol Hiring: Despite Recent Initiatives, Fiscal
	     Year 1999 Hiring Goal Was Not Met
      DATE:  12/17/1999
   SUBJECT:  Personnel recruiting
	     Human resources training
	     Immigration and naturalization law
	     Eligibility criteria
	     Employment or training programs
	     GS grade classification
	     Illegal aliens
	     Law enforcement personnel
	     Labor supply
	     Occupational surveys
IDENTIFIER:  INS National Recruitment Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 1999

GAO/GGD-00-39

BORDER PATROL HIRING
Despite Recent Initiatives, Fiscal Year 1999

Hiring Goal Was Not Met

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:

[email protected]

or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(183624)

Contents
Page 161GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal Not Met
Letter                                                                      1
                                                                             
Appendix I                                                                 20
Border Patrol Hiring and
Attrition Information
and Demographic Profile
of New Agents
                           Fiscal Year 1999 Monthly Hiring and             20
                           Attrition Data
                           Border Patrol Attrition                         20
                           Demographic Profile of New Border               21
                           Patrol Agents
                                                                             
Appendix II                                                                23
INS' Recruiting Efforts
and Hiring Process
                           Overview of Recruiting Program                  23
                           Recruiting and Hiring Problems                  23
                           New Recruiting and Hiring Initiatives           28
                                                                             
Appendix III                                                               33
Changes in Agents' Years
of Experience and Ratio
of Agents to Supervisor
                           Border Patrol Growth Led to Shifts in           33
                           Grade-Level Composition
                           Agents' Average Years of Experience             35
                           Declined
                           Average Number of Agents Per                    37
                           Supervisor Increased
                                                                             
Appendix IV                                                                39
Map of Border Patrol
Sectors Along the
Southwest Border
                                                                             
Appendix V                                                                 40
Border Patrol Academy's
Basic Training Capacity
                           Overview of Border Patrol Academy               40
                           Basic Training
                           Academy Instructors                             40
                           Basic Training Grades                           41
                           Charleston Facility As a Temporary              42
                           Training Site
                                                                             
Appendix VI                                                                43
GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Tables                     Table 1:  Annual Border Patrol Hiring            7
                           and Attrition, FYs 1990 Through 1999
                           Table I.1: Border Patrol Hiring and             20
                           Attrition Data, by Month, FY 1999
                           Table I.2: When Border Patrol                   21
                           Attrition Occurred, FYs 1994 Through
                           1998
                           Table I.3: Age, Sex, and Race of                21
                           Border Patrol New Hires, FYs 1994
                           Through 1998
                           Table I.4: Prior Experience of Border           22
                           Patrol New Hires, FYs 1994 Through
                           1998
                           Table I.5:  Education Level of Border           22
                           Patrol New Hires, FYs 1994 Through
                           1998
                           Table II.1: Number of Border Patrol             24
                           Applicants/Agents Hired, by FY
                           Table II.2: Results of Last Expedited           27
                           Hiring Sessions, as of July 14, 1999
                           Table III.1: Number and Percentage of           34
                           Agents by Grade Level in the
                           Southwest Border Sectors
                           Table III.2: Years of Service of All            36
                           Border Patrol Agents, FYs 1994 and
                           1998
                           Table III.3: Years of Service of                36
                           Border Patrol Agents on the Southwest
                           Border, FYs 1994 and 1998
                           Table III.4: Years of Service of                37
                           Border Patrol Agents in Southwest
                           Border Sectors, FYs 1994 and 1998
                           Table III.5:  Ratios of Nonsupervisory          38
                           Agents (GS-5 to GS-11) to a
                           Supervisory Agent (GS-12), FYs 1994
                           and 1998
                           Table V.1: Border Patrol Agents                 40
                           Receiving Basic Training, FYs 1994
                           Through 1999
                           Table V.2: Border Patrol Basic                  40
                           Training 5-Year Projection, FYs 2001
                           Through 2005
                           Table V.3: Number of Border Patrol              41
                           Instructors, FYs 1994 Through 1998
                           Table V.4:  Border Patrol Basic                 41
                           Training Final Grade Averages, FYs
                           1994 Through 1998
                                                                             
Figures                    Figure IV.1: Southwest Border Patrol            39
                           Sectors
                                                                             

Abbreviations

COP       Continuation of Pay
FLETC     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
FY        Fiscal Year
INS       Immigration and Naturalization Service
OPM       Office of Personnel Management

B-280858

Page 12GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal
Not Met
     B-280858

December 17, 1999

The Honorable Spencer Abraham
Chairman
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Immigration
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
 
 Illegal entry into the United States,
particularly along the southwest border, has
been a long-standing national problem. The
illegal alien population in this country,
estimated at more than 5 million people, is
estimated to be growing by 275,000 annually.1 As
such, concerns exist over the ability of the
Border Patrol, part of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), to defend our
borders. The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,2 among
other things, directed the Attorney General to
increase the number of Border Patrol agents
onboard by not less than 1,000 in each fiscal
year from 1997 through 2001.

     You asked us to review INS' efforts to
increase the number of new Border Patrol agents.
Specifically, we agreed to provide information and
analysis on (1) INS' ability to meet its 5-year
goal to increase the Border Patrol's onboard
strength by 1,000 agents each year from fiscal
years 1997 through 2001; (2) INS' efforts to
improve its recruiting efforts and hiring process;
(3) changes in the years of experience and level
of supervision of Border Patrol agents during INS'
increased hiring; and (4) the ability of INS'
basic training program to support the pace at
which Border Patrol agents have been hired,
including whether the Border Patrol Academy
anticipates having the capacity to meet future
growth.

Results in Brief
     INS' recruitment program yielded a net
increase of 1,002 Border Patrol agents in fiscal
year 1997 and a net increase of 1,035 agents in
fiscal year 1998 after accounting for attrition.
Although INS met its goal to increase the Border
Patrol's onboard strength by 1,000 agents each
year in these 2 years, it saw a net increase of
only 369 agents in fiscal year 1999 because it was
unable to recruit enough qualified applicants3 and
retain them through the hiring process. Thus, for
the 3-year period ending September 30, 1999, INS
experienced a net hiring shortfall of 594 agents.

INS has had difficulties attracting and retaining
qualified applicants. Although INS has attracted
large numbers of applicants, few individuals who
apply to the Border Patrol successfully complete
the application process. Some fail to pass the
rigorous entry examination, medical examination,
or background investigation, while others withdraw
from the process. In fiscal year 1999, failure and
drop-out rates were higher than in the past. To
address its hiring problems, INS has redirected
$2.2 million to enhance its recruiting and hiring
program, which includes initiatives to increase
Border Patrol agents' involvement in recruitment
and fine-tuning INS' hiring process. As part of
this effort, INS plans to survey Border Patrol
applicants who register for the written
examination-an early step in the hiring
process-but do not report for testing to find out
their reasons for not reporting, as well as those
who do report for testing to obtain their views on
the initial part of the hiring process. In
addition, INS officials said that, in April 1999,
staff began asking applicants their reasons for
declining Border Patrol job offers. However, INS
does not have plans to survey applicants who
voluntarily withdraw at other stages later in the
process-such as after passing the interview or the
background investigation. These additional surveys
could be beneficial because, at these later stages
in the hiring process, INS has invested funds in
medical examinations and initiated costly
background investigations for applicants. We are
recommending that INS collect information at key
junctures later in the hiring process to better
understand why applicants are withdrawing at these
points in the process.

INS assigns all new Border Patrol agents to the
southwest border, where 92 percent of all agents
are located. As hiring has increased, the average
experience level of Border Patrol agents has
declined agencywide, as well as along the
southwest border. The percentage of agents along
the southwest border with 2 years of experience or
less almost tripled-from 14 percent to 39
percent-between fiscal years 1994 and 1998. During
the same period, seven of the nine southwest
border sectors experienced some increase in the
average number of nonsupervisory agents (GS-5
through GS-11) assigned to each GS-12 supervisory
agent. The Tucson sector experienced the greatest
increase, with its ratio of nonsupervisory agents
to one supervisory agent rising from 8 to 1 in
fiscal year 1994 to about 11 to 1 in fiscal year
1998.

By relying on a temporary training facility in
Charleston, South Carolina since 1996, the Border
Patrol Academy has been able to provide newly
hired agents with required training and, according
to a Border Patrol official, it is prepared to
meet the training needs associated with future
growth. However, INS and Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC)4 officials have different
views on how long INS will need to rely on the
Charleston facility. FLETC believes the facility
can be closed by the end of fiscal year 2004, if
not earlier-as soon as FLETC has the capacity to
absorb the Border Patrol training that is taking
place at the Charleston facility. INS estimates it
will need to keep the facility open until sometime
between fiscal years 2004 and 2006-when it
believes FLETC will be ready to accommodate all of
INS' training needs, including any unanticipated
needs that might arise in the future.

Background
     The Border Patrol is the mobile, uniformed,
enforcement arm of INS. Its mission is to detect
and prevent the smuggling and illegal entry of
undocumented aliens into the United States and to
apprehend persons found in the United States in
violation of immigration laws. With the increase
in drug smuggling operations, the Border Patrol
has become the primary drug interdiction agency
along United States land borders between ports-of-
entry. Border Patrol agents perform their duties
near and along about 8,000 miles of United States
boundaries by land, sea, and air. The Border
Patrol is divided into 21 sectors, 9 of which are
along the southwest border. Sectors are further
subdivided into stations.

     To stem the growing flow of illegal entry
into the country, the Attorney General announced
in 1994 a five-part strategy that included
strengthening border enforcement. To support this
strategy, the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, among other
things, required that the Attorney General
increase the onboard strength of Border Patrol
agents by not less than 1,000 each year for fiscal
years 1997 through 2001. Deployment of new agents
to particular sectors along the southwest border
has generally corresponded with INS'
implementation of its border strategy.5 However,
because the strategy was designed to allow for
flexibility in responding to unexpected changes in
the flow of illegal immigration, some sectors have
received additional agents before the strategy was
implemented in their sectors. With increased
hiring, the Border Patrol has experienced dramatic
growth in recent years. From the end of fiscal
year 1994 to the end of fiscal year 1999, the size
of the Border Patrol nearly doubled-from 4,226 to
8,351.6

     INS uses a variety of approaches to attract
applicants to the Border Patrol, including
advertising in magazines and newspapers, on the
Internet, in movie theaters, and on billboards;
targeting key colleges and universities with
degree programs in law enforcement, criminal
justice, and police science; attending recruitment
events; and visiting military bases to recruit
departing military personnel. Although INS has
recruited in different parts of the country, it is
now focusing its efforts on locations near the
southwest border.

     Those applying to be Border Patrol agents
must initially complete a self-screening
questionnaire for basic eligibility (i.e., age,
education, and citizenship), after which they must
successfully complete a multistep hiring process.
This process is comprised of a written
examination, which includes a Spanish test or an
artificial language test designed to measure an
applicant's ability to learn a foreign language
(e.g., Spanish); a structured interview with a
panel of Border Patrol agents; a medical
examination; a drug screening; and a full
background investigation.

Scope and Methodology
     To determine if INS is on track in meeting
its hiring goals, we analyzed hiring and attrition
data from INS' Budget Office. We met with Human
Resources officials to discuss INS' latest hiring
shortfall projections.

     To learn about INS' recruiting efforts,
hiring process, and plans to meet future goals, we
met with INS officials in the National Recruitment
Program, Special Examining Unit, National Hiring
Center, and Office of Security. We attended two
hiring sessions and reviewed documents regarding
INS' recruiting and hiring processes. We did not
evaluate INS' criteria for hiring Border Patrol
agents. We also reviewed INS' recruiting and
hiring initiatives and discussed them with agency
officials. In addition, we discussed INS' hiring
process and personnel classification issues with
officials from the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM). Furthermore, to help put INS' processes and
experiences into perspective, we obtained
recruiting and hiring information from seven other
law enforcement agencies.7

     To provide information on how levels of
experience and supervision of Border Patrol agents
changed during INS' hiring build-up, we analyzed
INS budget data and compared fiscal year 1994 data
(before the hiring build-up began) to fiscal year
1998 data (2 years after the start of the hiring
mandate). To analyze experience, we used data on
Border Patrol agents' years of service with INS
because INS does not maintain data on agents'
length of service with the Border Patrol. However,
agency officials told us that most Border Patrol
agents begin their INS careers with the Border
Patrol, and it is unusual for other INS personnel
to transfer into the Border Patrol. To provide
information on supervision, we analyzed changes in
the ratio of nonsupervisory agents (GS-5 through
GS-11) to first-line supervisory agents (GS-12).
Such an analysis provides an indication of how
supervision may have changed as more agents have
been hired, although it may not provide a complete
picture of supervision. INS does not centrally
maintain data that would enable us to determine
the grade or experience of agents who are actually
assigned to work with new agents.

     To provide information on whether the Border
Patrol Academy has kept pace with increased hiring
and has the capacity to meet the basic training
needs associated with future growth, we visited
the Border Patrol Academy and FLETC in Glynco,
Georgia, and the Border Patrol's temporary
training facility in Charleston, South Carolina.
We met with the Chief of the Border Patrol
Academy, instructors, database managers, and FLETC
officials. We analyzed Academy databases
containing demographic profiles of newly hired
agents, final grades, and instructor data. In
addition, we reviewed Border Patrol training
projections and renovation plans for the
Charleston facility and FLETC. We discussed the
Charleston facility plans with INS and Border
Patrol officials, and we discussed FLETC plans
with Treasury officials.

     To verify the consistency of Border Patrol
Academy data, we performed reliability checks on
the Academy's demographic profile, final grade,
and instructor databases. We verified that the
data entry was complete and that data had not been
duplicated. Academy database managers told us that
they verify the data entry of all grade data, and
that demographic profile data are electronically
scanned from trainee-completed answer sheets. We
did not verify the accuracy of the grade or
instructor data with Academy class records.

     We conducted our work at INS Headquarters;
its training facilities in Glynco, Georgia, and
Charleston, South Carolina; and two hiring
sessions in San Diego, California, and El Paso,
Texas, from September 1998 to September 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. The Department of Justice
provided technical comments on a draft of this
report, which we incorporated where appropriate.

INS Did Not Meet Its Fiscal Year 1999 Border
Patrol Hiring Goal
     INS was able to increase the onboard strength
of the Border Patrol by more than 1,000 agents in
the first 2 years of its 5-year hiring goal, but
in the third year (fiscal year 1999) it was only
able to increase its onboard strength by 369
agents. This resulted in a net shortfall of 594
agents for the 3-year period ending September 30,
1999. Because of attrition, INS would have had to
hire 1,757 agents in fiscal year 1999 to meet that
year's hiring goal.

     As shown in table 1, to account for
attrition, INS has had to hire far more than 1,000
agents in each year to meet its hiring goal.
During fiscal year 1997, the first year of its
goal to increase the Border Patrol's onboard
strength by 1,000 agents, INS actually hired 1,726
agents, which resulted in a net increase of 1,002
agents. In fiscal year 1998, it hired 1,919 agents
for a net increase of 1,035. In fiscal year 1999,
INS hired 1,126 agents, but because 757 agents
left the Border Patrol during the year, the size
of the Border Patrol only increased by 369 agents.
The Border Patrol's 9-percent attrition rate for
fiscal year 1999 was actually lower than the 13
percent INS originally anticipated. According to
an INS official, during fiscal year 1999, some
Border Patrol agents applied for, and were
accepted to, other INS positions. However, in
August 1999, an INS official told us that due to
funding difficulties, INS would not be
transferring these agents until fiscal year 2000.
Had the agents transferred as planned, INS would
have faced an even larger shortfall of about 900
Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 1999.

Table 1:  Annual Border Patrol Hiring and
Attrition, FYs 1990 Through 1999
                 FY    FY     FY    FY    FY    FY     FY    FY    FY    FY
               1990  1991   1992  1993  1994  1995   1996  1997  1998  1999
Agents        3,781 3,733  3,651 4,076 3,965 4,226  4,881 5,878 6,947a 7,982
onboard at
start of
fiscal year
Agents hiredb   172   196    692   102   461 1,005  1,517 1,726 1,919 1,126
Attritionc      220   278    267   213   200   350    520   724   884   757
Percentage of    6%    7%     7%    5%    5%    8%    11%   12%   13%    9%
Attrition
Agents        3,733 3,651  4,076 3,965 4,226 4,881  5,878 6,880a 7,982 8,351
onboard at
end of fiscal
year
Net            (48)  (82)    425 (111)   261   655    997 1,002 1,035   369
gain/(loss)
Note: Border Patrol pilots are not included in
data for fiscal years 1990 through 1997; pilots
are included in data for fiscal years 1998 and
1999.
aThe number of agents onboard at the end of fiscal
year 1997 does not match the number onboard at the
start of fiscal year 1998 because, starting in
fiscal year 1998, INS began including Border
Patrol pilots in its hiring and attrition reports.
b Fiscal years 1990 through 1993 data on number of
agents hired provided by the Border Patrol
Academy. Fiscal years 1994 and 1995 data provided
by INS' Human Resources and Development Division.
All other years provided by INS' Budget Office.
c Fiscal years 1996 through 1999 attrition data
provided by INS' Budget Office. GAO calculated
attrition for all other years. Percentages are
rounded to the nearest whole number.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

     The attrition rate among Border Patrol agents
rose fairly steadily from fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1998, which increased the total number
of agents INS needed to hire each year to meet its
mandate. As shown in table 1, the annual attrition
rate for Border Patrol agents was 5 percent in
fiscal year 1994, but by 1998, the rate had risen
to 13 percent. Although INS maintains data on
categories of attrition, such as retirement and
termination, it has limited information on why
agents leave the Border Patrol. However, its data
do show that in fiscal years 1994 through 1998,
almost half of the agents who left the Border
Patrol left within their first 10 months of
service. Since fiscal year 1996, about one-third
of the Border Patrol's attrition occurred during
the initial 19-week training period at the Border
Patrol Academy. Appendix I contains additional
hiring and attrition data, as well as demographic
information on newly hired agents.

INS Cites Recruiting and Hiring Problems and Is
Making Changes
     A major goal of INS' National Recruitment
Program, which was established in 1996, has been
to generate enough qualified applicants to meet
INS' hiring goal. The program's efforts have
included tracking advertising sources that
generated the greatest applicant response and
identifying key schools at which it had past
success hiring Border Patrol agents. In the first
2 fiscal years of the program, INS met its hiring
goal. However, by November 1998, INS foresaw
difficulties in meeting its fiscal year 1999 goal
and was projecting a hiring shortfall. Much of the
problem was INS' inability to attract sufficient
numbers of eligible applicants8 and retain
qualified recruits through the hiring process. INS
has been initiating actions to improve both its
recruiting efforts and hiring process.

INS Was Not Able to Attract Enough Eligible
Applicants and Retain Enough Qualified Recruits
     Difficulties finding eligible applicants and
the high occurrence of applicants failing or
dropping out of the hiring process resulted in INS
not being able to meet its fiscal year 1999 hiring
goal. Officials believe that the country's strong
economy and job market have contributed
significantly to the agency's hiring troubles. INS
officials estimate that, historically, INS has
hired about 4 percent of eligible applicants, but
it hired only an estimated 2 percent in fiscal
year 1999. Thus, officials estimated that INS
would have needed to attract about 75,000 eligible
applicants-far more than in the past-to meet the
agency's fiscal year 1999 goal.

     Being able to hire only a small percentage of
applicants has clearly contributed to INS' hiring
difficulties, but based on our discussions with
other law enforcement agencies, this situation is
not unique to the Border Patrol. For example, the
Los Angeles Police Department typically hires
about 5 percent of its applicants, the Texas
Department of Public Safety about 3 percent of its
State Trooper applicants, and the U.S. Coast Guard
about 1 percent of its applicants, according to
officials of these organizations. The U.S. Customs
Service only hired 1 percent of its applicants for
inspector positions in fiscal year 1999, although
2 percent of the applicants who applied were
qualified to be hired.

     A small percentage of Border Patrol
applicants were hired because most failed the
written or physical examination, the interview, or
the background investigation, or they voluntarily
dropped out of the hiring process. However, INS
knows little about why some applicants chose to
withdraw from the process.

     The size of the Border Patrol's applicant
pool declines with each stage of the hiring
process, but losses are particularly heavy in its
early stages. However, in fiscal year 1999,
applicant losses were higher throughout the entire
process. INS officials estimated that in fiscal
year 1996, about half of those who were scheduled
to take the written examination actually showed up
for the test, and in fiscal years 1997 and 1998,
about 60 percent of those scheduled did not report
for testing. In contrast, INS estimated about 75
percent of applicants who were scheduled did not
report for the written examination in fiscal year
1999. According to an OPM official, a 50-percent
no-show rate for initial written testing has been
considered typical among government agencies. INS
officials do not know why INS' fiscal year 1999 no-
show rate increased.

     Furthermore, many Border Patrol applicants
failed a step of the hiring process in recent
years, and this was also true in fiscal year 1999.
INS estimated about 72 percent of those who took
the written test in fiscal year 1999 failed it,
and according to an INS official, failure rates
were even higher in the last quarter of the year.

     In addition, a greater percentage of
applicants failed the background investigation9 in
fiscal year 1999. INS estimated that about 15
percent failed the investigation in fiscal year
1998. However, it estimated about 40 percent of
applicants failed it in fiscal year 1999.
According to an INS official, the more stringent
security requirements instituted in May 1998 have
increased the background investigation failure
rate.10 INS instituted the tighter requirements to
address security concerns.

     INS officials cite other aspects of the
hiring process that may have also contributed to
INS' hiring difficulties. However, their
identification of these contributing factors is
largely based on anecdotal information from their
program staff, and not on any systematic data
collection effort. Officials believe that the
length of the standard hiring process--typically 6
months to 1 year-may be a factor in the agency's
inability to hire a greater percentage of Border
Patrol applicants. Although most of the other law
enforcement agencies we contacted had hiring
processes that fell within the range of 5 months
to 1 year, recent recruiting literature point out
that recruiters are shortening their hiring
processes to avoid losing qualified applicants.
Other aspects of the hiring process that INS
officials believe may have contributed to hiring
problems include the out-of-pocket costs
applicants incur during the hiring process and in
reporting for duty, and a lack of flexibility
regarding location and start dates for newly hired
agents. Appendix II contains additional
information on these and other factors that may
contribute to INS' problems attracting and hiring
applicants.

INS Is Taking Steps to Address Recruiting and
Hiring Problems
     To improve its ability to identify and
recruit applicants, INS has redirected $2.2
million to enhance its recruiting and hiring
initiatives and said it is prepared to redirect
additional funds, if needed. However, INS
developed these initiatives without adequate data
on why it had been unable to retain and hire more
Border Patrol applicants. Rather, INS officials
said that, in an effort to meet INS' fiscal year
1999 hiring goal, they based most of their
initiatives on their review of the hiring process
and past recruitment experiences.

Recruiting Initiatives
     INS' recruiting initiatives include training
more than 200 Border Patrol agents to serve as
local recruiters and establishing a recruitment
coordinator for each Border Patrol sector as part
of INS' overall strategy to increase sector
involvement in recruiting and attract more viable
recruits. According to an INS official, these
recruiting efforts have attracted more applicants,
but a greater proportion of recent applicants has
been failing the written examination.

     INS is also considering additional actions
that may help recruitment, such as providing
hiring bonuses for recruits, and the possibility
of raising the full performance level for Border
Patrol agents from GS-9 to GS-11. According to INS
officials, about 30 percent of the nonsupervisory
agents are at the GS-11 level. INS officials
believe the current classification standard could
support an across-the-board increase to the GS-11
level, but recognize that sufficient GS-11 work
must exist and be organized and assigned in a
manner that would support the GS-11 level. These
changes are being considered as part of a broader
effort to bring parity to all INS law enforcement
positions, as well as achieve parity with law
enforcement positions in other federal agencies.
Agency officials hope that raising the full
performance level will also make joining the
Border Patrol more attractive.

Hiring Initiatives
     Many of INS' hiring initiatives are geared
toward reducing the time it takes to hire an
agent, although INS does not have systematic data
that confirm its lengthy process has contributed
to its hiring difficulties. In addition, to better
understand why so many applicants who sign up for
the written examination never report for testing,
INS plans to conduct telephone surveys of those
applicants as part of its hiring initiatives. INS
also plans to survey applicants who took the
written examination to obtain feedback on the
initial steps of its application process. Since
April 1999, INS has been asking applicants their
reasons for declining offers to join the Border
Patrol. However, INS does not have plans to
collect data on why it is losing applicants at
other stages later in the hiring process. Losing
applicants at the later stages is costly to INS
because it has already committed Border Patrol
agents' time to conduct interviews, and it has
spent about $500 on each medical examination and
drug screening, and another $3,000 on each
background investigation. (See app. II for
additional information on INS' recruiting and
hiring initiatives.)

Agents' Average Years of Experience Declined and
Average Number of Agents Per Supervisor Increased
     As a result of the increased hiring of Border
Patrol agents in recent years, the average years
of experience among all Border Patrol agents has
declined. This is true among agents assigned to
all nine sectors of the southwest border. For
example, between fiscal years 1994 and 1998, the
percentage of agents stationed along the southwest
border with 2 years of experience or less almost
tripled, from 14 percent to 39 percent, and the
percentage of agents with 3 years of experience or
less more than doubled, from 26 percent to 54
percent.

     With increased hiring, the average number of
nonsupervisory agents (GS-5 through GS-11)
assigned to each GS-12 supervisory agent has
increased in seven of the nine southwest border
sectors. For example, in Arizona's Tucson sector,
which experienced the greatest increase, the ratio
of nonsupervisory agents to each supervisory agent
rose from 8 to 1 in fiscal year 1994 to about 11
to 1 in fiscal year 1998. In Texas' Marfa sector,
which had the lowest ratio of nonsupervisory
agents to one supervisory agent, this ratio
remained at about 6 to 1 over the same period. INS
requires that supervisors in the field supervise
at least eight subordinate Border Patrol agents.
Agencywide, from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year
1998, the ratio of nonsupervisory agents to one
supervisory agent increased from 7 to 1 to 8 to1.11

     Comparing the ratio of nonsupervisory agents
to one supervisory agent from fiscal year 1994 to
fiscal year 1998 may provide an indication of how
supervision may have changed with increased
hiring. However, this analysis may not provide a
complete picture of supervision within the Border
Patrol. New agents may be assigned to work with GS-
9 or GS-11 Field Training Officers who have
received special training, or with other
nonsupervisory agents. However, even though these
agents provide guidance to new agents, they are
not officially classified as supervisors.
Furthermore, according to Border Patrol officials,
new agents may be assigned to work with other
nonsupervisory agents who are not Field Training
Officers. Because of a lack of data regarding
agents who are assigned to work with new agents,
and because sectors differ in how they assign new
agents, we were unable to measure the level of
experience of agents who work with new agents or
analyze changes over time.

     See appendix III for additional analyses
comparing grade level and years of service of all
Border Patrol agents and those assigned to
southwest border sectors, for fiscal years 1994
and 1998. Appendix IV contains a map highlighting
the Border Patrol's southwest border sectors.

Training Capacity Has Kept Pace With Hiring
     In anticipation of increased hiring, INS
opened a temporary training facility in
Charleston, South Carolina, to supplement the
existing Border Patrol Training Academy, located
at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia. Between these two
facilities, the Border Patrol Academy has had the
capacity to meet the basic training needs
associated with its hiring goal. In fact, because
INS was unable to maintain its hiring levels in
fiscal year 1999, the Academy has had more than
enough capacity. The Academy cancelled 10 training
sessions in fiscal year 1999 because fewer agents
were hired than planned. Furthermore, none of the
28 sessions it conducted were filled to capacity.

     As of October 1999, the Academy was planning
to train about 1,900 new agents in fiscal year
2000, although it may revise this estimate as the
year progresses depending on the number of agents
INS is able to hire.12 According to a Border Patrol
official, this training projection should allow
the Academy to train new agents hired in fiscal
year 2000, any additional agents who must be hired
to replace those who leave the Border Patrol
during that year, and about 600 agents who must be
hired if INS is to make up for the fiscal year
1999 hiring shortfall.

     INS has renovated parts of the Charleston
facility to make it useable for training, and more
renovations are planned. Both INS and FLETC
officials have reaffirmed their commitment that
Charleston should serve as a temporary facility
and that FLETC should provide all INS training as
soon as it has the capacity to do so. Renovations
and expansions at FLETC are also planned. However,
the agencies have come to different conclusions
about when the Charleston facility can be closed.
FLETC's position is premised on when it will have
the capacity to absorb the Border Patrol training
that is currently held at the Charleston facility.
However, INS believes the facility cannot be
closed until FLETC can accommodate all of INS'
training needs, including any that might arise in
the future.

     Appendix V contains additional information on
the capacity of the Border Patrol Academy,
instructors, and trainees' class grades. It also
contains more information on the future of the
Charleston facility.

Conclusions
     INS has initiatives under way and is
considering taking additional actions to attract
more Border Patrol applicants and improve its
hiring process. The overall effectiveness of these
measures cannot be assessed until INS has fully
implemented them. However, even if INS is able to
increase the number of applicants, shorten the
hiring process, or upgrade the full performance
level of agents, experience indicates that these
actions alone may not ensure that INS can
compensate for the hiring shortfall that has
occurred and meet any future hiring goals that are
established. Too many Border Patrol applicants may
still be unable to pass the steps necessary to be
hired, or may not maintain their initial interest
in the Border Patrol throughout the hiring
process. In the face of these challenges, INS is
continuing to explore its options.

     When faced with an impending hiring shortfall
for fiscal year 1999, INS officials expanded their
recruiting and hiring efforts in an attempt to
meet INS' hiring goal. However, because INS had
limited information on why applicants withdrew
from the hiring process, it may or may not be
addressing all the causes for the shortfall. INS
plans to survey applicants who do and do not show
up to take the written examination as one step
toward helping the agency understand more about
its recruiting and hiring problems.

     At that early written examination stage of
the hiring process, INS has spent relatively few
funds on any one applicant. As an applicant moves
further along in the hiring process, INS invests
more of its resources, including making Border
Patrol agents available to interview the
applicant, and spending $3,000 for a background
investigation and almost $500 for a medical
examination and drug screening. In addition to
surveying those applicants who do not show up for
the written test and collecting information from
those who decline a job offer, INS could find it
informative and cost-effective to learn why some
applicants drop out at other stages later in the
hiring process. For example, INS could survey
applicants, or a sample of applicants, who
voluntarily withdraw from the process after
passing the interview or the background
investigation.

Recommendation
     We recommend that the INS Commissioner
broaden the agency's plans to survey applicants
who register for the written examination by also
collecting data on why applicants are withdrawing
at other key junctures later in the hiring
process.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
On November 22, 1999, we met with representatives
of the Department of Justice, including INS'
Assistant Commissioner for Human Resources and
Development, to obtain comments on a draft of this
report. They generally agreed with our report and
provided technical comments, which we incorporated
where appropriate. With respect to our
recommendation, they agreed that obtaining
additional information on why applicants are
withdrawing at other key junctures later in the
hiring process would be beneficial. They plan to
evaluate the feasibility of implementing the
recommendation.

Copies of this report are being sent to Senator
Orrin G. Hatch and Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary; Representative Henry
J. Hyde and Representative John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House
Committee on the Judiciary; and Representative
Lamar S. Smith and Representative Sheila Jackson
Lee, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. We
will also send copies of this report to the
Honorable Janet Reno, the Attorney General; the
Honorable Doris Meissner, Commissioner,
Immigration and Naturalization Service; the
Honorable Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the
Treasury; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew,
Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will
also make copies available to others upon request.

The major contributors to this report are
acknowledged in appendix VI. If you or your staff
have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me or James M. Blume, Assistant Director,
on (202) 512-8777.

Richard M. Stana
Associate Director
 Administration of Justice Issues

_______________________________
1 Not all illegal aliens have entered the United
States illegally. Some have entered legally but
violated their conditions for entry (e.g., over-
stayed their visa).
2 P.L. 104-208.
3 Throughout this report, we use the term
"qualified applicant" to refer to an applicant who
meets all INS' hiring criteria, including passing
an examination and background investigation.
4 FLETC is operated by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury and serves as an interagency law
enforcement training organization for over 70
federal agencies, including the Border Patrol.
5 The strategy deploys Border Patrol agents to the
nine sectors along the southwest border in three
phases. During phase I, which INS began
implementing in fiscal year 1994, agents were
deployed to the San Diego, CA, and El Paso, TX,
sectors. INS completed phase I and transitioned to
phase II in fiscal year 1998. Under phase II, INS
is deploying agents to the Tucson, AZ, sector and
three sectors in south Texas-Del Rio, Laredo, and
McAllen. Under phase III, INS plans to deploy
agents to El Centro, CA, Yuma, AZ, and Marfa, TX.
6 The 1994 fiscal year-end count of 4,226 does not
include Border Patrol pilots; the 1999 fiscal year-
end count of 8,351 does include pilots.
7 We judgmentally selected the following federal,
state, or local law enforcement agencies based on
factors such as the agencies having activities
similar to those of the Border Patrol or
recruiting from similar applicant pools: the U.S.
Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Texas
Department of Public Safety (which hires State
Troopers), and the Los Angeles and El Paso Police
Departments. We obtained information from each
agency through interviews or the agency's Internet
web site.
8 Throughout this report, we use the term
"eligible applicants" to refer to those applicants
who have passed an initial self-assessment screen
through INS' automated telephone or on-line
system. An applicant passes this initial
eligibility screening if he or she has 1 year of
qualifying experience or a bachelor's degree, is
under 37 years of age, is a U.S. citizen, and has
not been convicted of domestic violence or any
felony.
9 Background investigation failure rates include
those who failed to respond to investigators'
inquiries, as well as those who failed the
investigation.
10 The tighter requirements added a limited, second
background check for applicants just before being
hired. INS also added arrest incidents to its
criteria for disqualifying applicants. Earlier, in
1996, INS stopped issuing security "waivers" that
allowed INS to hire certain applicants before a
full background investigation was completed.
11 We did not evaluate how the Border Patrol
implemented the requirement for an 8-to-1
supervisory ratio within the agency.
12 This estimate represents a departure from the
training projection the Academy submitted to FLETC
in March 1999, which planned for training 2,970
new agents in fiscal year 2000. According to INS
officials, the revised projection more
realistically reflects attrition rates and INS'
ability to hire new agents.

Appendix I
Border Patrol Hiring and Attrition Information and
Demographic Profile of New Agents
Page 21GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal
Not Met
     This appendix provides an overview, by month,
of Border Patrol hiring and attrition in fiscal
year 1999; attrition information for fiscal years
1994 through 1998; and a demographic profile of
new agents hired from fiscal years 1994 through
1998. The demographic information covers agents'
age, sex, race, prior military and/or law
enforcement training experience, and education
level.

Fiscal Year 1999 Monthly Hiring and Attrition Data
The rate at which INS hired Border Patrol agents
fluctuated throughout fiscal year 1999. Table I.1
provides a monthly accounting of hiring and
attrition for the year. As the table shows, the
number of agents leaving the agency was greater in
some months than the number of agents hired.

Table I.1: Border Patrol Hiring and Attrition
Data, by Month, FY 1999
              Oct.  Nov.  Dec. Jan.  Feb. Mar. Apr.  May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept.
Agents       7,982 7,959 8,045 8,017 8,081 8,010 8,038 8,029 8,123     8,210 8,226
onboard at                                                    8,15
start of                                                        5
month
Agents          55   163    48  112     3   79   46  160   85 110   76  189
hired
Attrition       78    77    76   48    74   51   55   66   53  55   60   64
Percentage      1%    1%    1%   1%    1%   1%   1%   1%   1%  1%   1%   1%
of
attrition
Agents       7,959 8,045 8,017 8,081 8,010 8,038 8,029 8,123 8,155 8,21 8,226 8,351
onboard at                                                      0
end of
month
Net           (23)    86  (28)   64  (71)   28  (9)   94   32  55   16  125
gain/(loss
)
Note: Data were calculated by 2-week pay periods
to approximate monthly totals. Percentages are
rounded to the nearest whole number.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Border Patrol Attrition
Border Patrol annual attrition rates increased
from 6 percent in fiscal year 1990 to 9 percent in
fiscal year 1999, with some fluctuation in the
years between. In fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998, attrition rates reached 11 percent, 12
percent, and 13 percent, respectively.

As shown in table I.2, close to half of the agents
who left the Border Patrol between fiscal years
1994 and 1998 left by the end of their post-
Academy training-the period that follows 19 weeks
of basic training and concludes 10 months after
being hired.

Table I.2: When Border Patrol Attrition Occurred,
FYs 1994 Through  1998
             FY 1994      FY 1995      FY 1996       FY 1997      FY 1998
           Number Perce  Number Perce  Number Perce   Number Perce  Number Perce
                    nt           nt           nt            nt           nt
Academy        52  26%     103  29%     171  33%      226  31%     313  35%
basic
training
Post-          35   18      70   20      93   18       89   12     113   13
Academy
traininga
All other     113   57     177   51     256   49      409   56     458   52
Total         200  100     350  100     520  100      724  100     884  100
Note 1: Academy and post-Academy data provided by
the Border Patrol Academy. Total attrition data
provided by INS' Budget Office. GAO calculated the
number and percentage of the remaining ("All
other") agents who separated from the Border
Patrol. Fiscal year 1999 data were unavailable at
the time of our review. Percentages are rounded to
the nearest whole number.
Note 2: Percentages may not total to 100 due to
rounding.
aPost-Academy training takes place after agents
are assigned to the field. Once a week, agents
participate in Spanish and law classes that they
must pass to stay with the Border Patrol.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Demographic Profile of New Border Patrol Agents
Demographic profiles of new Border Patrol agents
have remained fairly constant during this period
of increased hiring, as shown in table I.3. Among
the changes that did occur from fiscal years 1994
through 1998 was a decline in the percentage of
newly hired Hispanic agents.1

Table I.3: Age, Sex, and Race of Border Patrol New
Hires, FYs 1994 Through 1998
                                                 FY FY 1995    FY    FY    FY
                                              1994 (n=1,00  1996  1997  1998
                                            (n=461     5) (n=1,4 (n=1,6 (n=1,9
                                                 )          74)   56)   01)
Age                                              29     27    28    27    27
(average)                                    years  years years years years
Sex (percent)                                                              
                                    Female       7%     8%    7%    5%    5%
                                    Male         93     92    93    95    95
Racea (percent)                                                            
                                    Asian/Pa      1      1     1     1     2
                                   cific
                                   Islander
                                    Blackb        2      3     2     2     2
                                    Hispanic     38     37    39    31    28
                                    Native        0      1     1     1     0
                                   American
                                    Whiteb       59     55    54    65    67
                                    Other         1      3     4     0     0
Note 1:  Fiscal year 1999 data were unavailable at
the time of our review. Percentages are rounded to
the nearest whole number.
Note 2: Percentages may not total to 100 due to
rounding.
a In fiscal year 1997, two records were missing,
which accounted for 0.12 percent of the total. In
fiscal year 1998, two records were missing, which
accounted for 0.11 percent of the total.
b Not of Hispanic origin.
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol Academy
data.

     As shown in table I.4, the percentages of new
agents who had prior military and/or law
enforcement training experience declined between
fiscal years 1994 and 1995. However, since then,
the percentages have remained fairly constant.

Table I.4: Prior Experience of Border Patrol New
Hires, FYs 1994 Through 1998
Type of experience                             FY     FY    FY     FY    FY
                                             1994   1995  1996   1997  1998
                                           (perce (perce (perce (perce (perce
                                              nt)    nt)   nt)    nt)   nt)
                                           (n=461 (n=1,0 (n=1,4 (n=1,6 (n=1,9
                                                )    05)   74)    56)   01)
Prior military experience                     47%    36%   36%    38%   36%
Prior law enforcement training experience      38     30    30     30    30
a
Note: Fiscal year 1999 data were unavailable at
the time of our review.
a Includes agents who had prior city, county,
state, military police, and/or federal law
enforcement training.
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol Academy
data.

Table I.5 shows the education level of new Border
Patrol agents hired from fiscal years 1994 through
1998. One notable change in the education profile
of new agents was an increase in the percentage of
agents who had a bachelor's degree when hired.

Table I.5:  Education Level of Border Patrol New
Hires, FYs 1994 Through 1998
Education level                              FY FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998
                                           1994 (percen (percen (percen (percen
                                          (perc     t)     t)     t)     t)
                                           ent) (n=1,00 (n=1,47 (n=1,65 (n=1,90
                                          (n=46     5)     4)     6)     1)
                                             1)
GED                                          2%     2%     2%     2%     2%
High school graduate                         12     10     11     11     10
Technical school graduate                     3      3      3      2      2
Some college                                 40     33     32     36     34
Associate's degree                            9      8      8      8      8
Bachelor's degree                            28     38     37     36     38
Some graduate school                          4      4      5      4      4
Master's degree                               2      1      2      2      2
Note 1: The following numbers of records were
missing in each year: one in fiscal years 1994 and
1996 (0.22 percent and 0.07 percent, respectively,
of the totals); five in fiscal year 1997 (0.30
percent of the total); and three in fiscal year
1998 (0.16 percent of the total). Fiscal year 1999
data were unavailable at the time of our review.
Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole
number.
Note 2: Percentages may not total to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol Academy
data.

_______________________________
1 Despite this decline, the actual number of
Hispanic agents hired increased as INS increased
its overall hiring of Border Patrol agents.

Appendix II
INS' Recruiting Efforts and Hiring Process
Page 29GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal
Not Met
     This appendix provides an overview of INS'
recruitment program, a summary of difficulties INS
has faced in trying to meet its hiring goals, and
a summary of new initiatives INS is implementing
to improve its ability to recruit and hire agents.

Overview of Recruiting Program
Since 1996, Border Patrol recruiting efforts have
been centralized in INS' National Recruitment
Program. One of the program's major goals is to
generate enough qualified recruits to reach INS'
hiring goals. INS' national recruitment program
includes a variety of activities:

ï¿½    Advertising through a variety of mediums,
including magazines, newspapers, the Internet,
movie theaters, and billboards.
ï¿½    Targeting key colleges and universities that
have substantial numbers of students graduating
with degrees in law enforcement, criminal justice,
and police science.
ï¿½    Attending recruiting events, such as job
fairs and law enforcement officer conferences.
ï¿½    Visiting military bases to recruit departing
military personnel who have an interest in law
enforcement.

In addition, to increase the diversity of the
Border Patrol's workforce, INS' national
recruitment program and equal employment
opportunity staff work with Border Patrol sectors.
Headquarters staff and Border Patrol agents work
with interest groups at the local level and
participate in conferences, job fairs, and other
career events in an effort to attract female and
minority applicants.

In the past, INS has had success recruiting Border
Patrol agents from areas near the southwest
border. In fiscal year 1998, INS focused its
recruiting efforts on the central and eastern part
of the country because it believed it might have
exhausted the applicant pool in the southwest.
However, recruiting in these other areas was not
as successful as INS had hoped. As a result, in
fiscal year 1999, INS once again focused its
recruiting efforts on locations near the southwest
border.

Recruiting and Hiring Problems
     INS officials believe a number of factors
exist that contribute to INS' difficulties in
recruiting and hiring Border Patrol agents.
Although not all are unique to the Border Patrol,
they nevertheless present recruiting and hiring
challenges, such as

ï¿½    difficulty attracting enough eligible
applicants,
ï¿½    high failure and withdrawal rates during the
hiring process,
ï¿½    lengthy hiring process,
ï¿½    expenses applicants incur, and
ï¿½    little flexibility in assigned location and
start date.

INS does not have data on the extent to which the
last three factors affect its recruiting and
hiring efforts.

Difficulty Attracting Enough Eligible Applicants
INS must attract far more Border Patrol applicants
than it intends to hire because most applicants
either do not pass all of the required hiring
steps or drop out during the process. However,
attracting enough eligible applicants has been
difficult. INS officials have pointed to the
country's strong economy and job market as a major
reason for INS' hiring problems. They believe the
Border Patrol is competing with private and public
employers who can offer jobs in better locations
and/or with better pay. As shown in table II.1,
the number of Border Patrol applicants increased
each year through fiscal year 1999, although the
number of agents INS hired increased only through
fiscal year 1998.

Table II.1: Number of Border Patrol
Applicants/Agents Hired, by FY
              FY    FY     FY    FY     FY    FY
             1994  1995   1996  1997   1998  1999
Eligible    12,78  23,965 31,387 43,172 48,674 53,441
applicants     5
Agents       461   1,005 1,517  1,674 1,971  1,126
hireda
aThe agents hired each fiscal year did not
necessarily apply in that same fiscal year.
Source: INS and OPM.

INS officials provided data on the number of
eligible applicants they attracted each year and
the number of agents they hired each year, but
they did not have data on the number of each
year's applicant pool that was hired in that same
year.1 However, using the data in table II.1, we
estimated that, in fiscal year 1999, INS hired
about 2 percent of its eligible applicants,
compared to 4 to 5 percent in prior years.
Although these percentages are estimates, they
nevertheless provide an indication of INS' need to
attract an increasing number of applicants each
year. According to an INS official, the agency
would have needed to attract about 75,000 eligible
applicants in fiscal year 1999 if it was to meet
its goal to increase the Border Patrol's onboard
strength by 1,000 agents.

High Failure and Withdrawal Rates
     The vast majority of applicants are not being
hired as Border Patrol agents-they either fail one
of the steps in the hiring process, or they choose
to withdraw. Although this is not unique to the
Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies
also hire few of their applicants, high dropout
rates have made it difficult for INS to meet its
hiring goals. To identify trends in the hiring
process and to estimate the number of eligible
applicants it would need to attract to increase
the onboard strength by 1,000 agents each year,
INS developed estimated dropout and failure rates
for recent years.2 According to INS' estimates:

ï¿½    Seventy-five percent of eligible applicants
did not show up for the written examination in
fiscal year 1999. The percentage of applicants who
did not report for testing increased most years
since fiscal year 1996, when INS estimated that 54
percent of eligible applicants did not show up for
the written examination.
ï¿½    Thirty percent of applicants who passed the
written examination in fiscal year 1999 did not
return for their interview. In fiscal year 1998,
43 percent did not return for their interview; in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, about half the
applicants did not return.
ï¿½    Forty percent of applicants who passed the
interview in fiscal year 1999 failed their
background investigation. In fiscal year 1998, 15
percent of applicants failed the investigation.
ï¿½    Sixteen percent of applicants who passed the
background investigation in fiscal year 1999
failed or did not show up for the medical
examination. In fiscal year 1998, 18 percent
failed or did not show up for the examination.
ï¿½    Six percent of those who received a final
offer in fiscal year 1999 declined it. In fiscal
year 1998, 10 percent declined a final offer.

Lengthy Hiring Process
     According to an INS hiring official, it has
typically taken 6 months to 1 year to hire a
Border Patrol agent under INS' standard hiring
process. Other law enforcement agencies have a
similarly long hiring process, but because Border
Patrol's full performance salary level is low
compared to some agencies, INS officials believe
its applicants may not be willing to wait 6 months
to a year for a Border Patrol job offer.

     Under the standard hiring process, most steps
or tests occur sequentially, with various amounts
of time elapsing between each. According to an INS
official, scheduling the interview and completing
the background investigation when suitability
issues arise are the main factors affecting the
time it takes to hire an agent. Other factors that
can increase the time it takes are health issues
or a lack of sufficient information provided by
the applicant.

     Prior to November 1998, INS' Special
Examining Unit oversaw the agency's hiring
functions. However, this unit did not closely
monitor the time it took to move an applicant
through each stage of the hiring process. Without
appropriate monitoring of the hiring process, INS
was limited in its ability to identify potential
inefficiencies and, thus, the process was longer
than necessary. For example, INS officials told us
that under INS' contract with OPM to schedule and
provide the written examination, OPM must offer
the examination within 5 weeks of an applicant's
registration. However, according to an INS
official, the Special Examining Unit was not
monitoring this step, and OPM was taking 6 weeks
or more to provide written testing. In addition,
the Special Examining Unit would rely on INS'
three administrative centers to schedule applicant
interviews, and the centers, in turn, would either
schedule the interviews themselves, or turn the
task over to the sectors. According to an INS
official, this scheduling process was averaging 8
weeks or more. INS officials said that the lack of
central oversight allowed for chronic delays that
significantly added to the total time it took to
hire an agent.

     INS also experienced delays in scheduling
preemployment medical examinations for applicants.
INS relies on an outside contractor for
applicants' medical examinations. However,
according to one INS official, the contractor was
slow in assigning applicants to clinics and did
not have a tracking system in place to identify
delays. In some cases, it was taking 90 days from
the time applicants passed their interview to the
time they received the results of their medical
examination. According to an INS official, at INS'
insistence, the contractor has since established a
self-monitoring system to avoid delays and
identify situations requiring special attention.

Expedited Hiring Session
In an attempt to shorten the hiring process and
attract a greater number of applicants, INS began
conducting expedited hiring sessions in fiscal
year 1996. These expedited sessions, which INS
offered in addition to the standard hiring
process, were scheduled periodically in higher-
activity locations. They allowed applicants to
complete the written examination, interview,
medical examination, drug screening, and
fingerprinting over the course of 2 days. In
fiscal year 1997, INS began arranging for media
attention in the areas where expedited sessions
would be held to heighten awareness of the Border
Patrol and increase the number of potential
applicants.

Initially, this strategy was fairly successful
both in expediting the hiring process-typically 2
to 3 months were saved-and increasing the number
of agents hired. In fiscal year 1997, 24 percent
of all agents hired were processed through
expedited hiring sessions, and 4 percent of those
who registered for the expedited sessions were
hired. But subsequently, these sessions produced
lower-than-expected turnouts and diminished
results. In fiscal year 1998, only 10 percent of
all agents hired resulted from the expedited
process and 2 percent of those who registered for
the expedited sessions were hired, according to
INS estimates. According to an INS official, the
expedited hiring sessions in fiscal year 1999 also
produced disappointing turnouts and results.
Because of poor results and the substantial costs
associated with administering the expedited
sessions, INS decided to discontinue them. INS
officials did not know why the expedited hiring
sessions held in fiscal years 1998 and 1999
yielded disappointing results.

INS held its last such session in May 1999. Table
II.2 shows the results, as of July 14, 1999, of
the last three expedited hiring sessions INS held.
As the expedited hiring process typically takes 3
to 9 months, additional agents may be hired from
these sessions.

Table II.2: Results of Last Expedited Hiring
Sessions, as of July 14, 1999
                     Tucson   New York  San Diego
                  Jan. 1999  Mar. 1999   May 1999
Scheduled for         2,900      1,553      1,430
expedited hiring     (100%)     (100%)     (100%)
sessions
Took written      497 (17%)  235 (15%)  303 (21%)
examination
Passed written     143 (5%)    63 (4%)    67 (5%)
examination
Passed interview   136 (5%)    54 (3%)    65 (5%)
Still being         81 (3%)    43 (3%)    62 (4%)
processed
Security/medical    64 (2%)    38 (2%)    42 (3%)
issues
Accepted final    14 (< 1%)   4 (< 1%)          0
offer
Hireda              32 (1%)   7 (< 1%)          0
a Numbers represent those hired as of July 14,
1999.
Source: GAO analysis of OPM and INS' National
Hiring Center data.

Expenses Applicants Incur
INS believes the expenses that applicants incur
during the hiring process serve as a deterrent
and, thus, have contributed to the agency's hiring
difficulties. According to INS, Border Patrol
applicants can spend up to $1,500 of their own
money travelling to the written examination site
and the interview site, and reporting for duty.
Recruits must get to their duty station at their
own expense, and once there, typically incur the
cost of several nights at a hotel before going to
the Border Patrol Academy.

Little Flexibility in Assigned Location and Start
Date
     INS officials believe that INS' lack of
flexibility in assigning location and start date
may have contributed to some applicants turning
down Border Patrol offers in the past. They
explained that INS provided newly hired agents
with little choice in the location to which they
were assigned, and provided short notice for new
agents to report for duty.

Traditionally, INS offered newly hired Border
Patrol agents little choice in their first duty
station, in part, because the Border Patrol wanted
new agents assigned to stations outside their home
state. According to a 1989 INS study,3 new agents
were not assigned to their home state out of
concern that those agents might be more
susceptible to bribery and corruption. However,
neither INS nor the Border Patrol had data to
support this conclusion, and the study strongly
recommended that the practice be eliminated.

According to a Border Patrol Academy official, as
hiring problems developed and filling training
classes became a problem, INS began giving newly
hired agents relatively little time to report for
duty and training. Officials told us they believed
that providing short notice might have been a
factor in Border Patrol recruits turning down job
offers.

The Border Patrol Academy conducted a survey of 10
training classes that took place in fiscal year
1998 and found that new hires received an average
of 14 days' notice to report for duty. The average
notice time for new hires in one of the 10 classes
was 7 days, and 1 agent said he received as little
as 1 day's notice. Traditionally, INS had tried to
give new hires 30 days' notice to make necessary
personal arrangements. Agency officials told us
that 30 days' notice seems appropriate, since
agents must report for a 19-week training program
in either Georgia or South Carolina within the
first days of coming on duty, and training is
typically followed by relocation.

New Recruiting and Hiring Initiatives
In the face of INS' hiring difficulties, the INS
Commissioner convened a working group in January
1999 to review INS' recruiting plan and hiring
process. The group made changes to both processes
and has plans for further short- and long-term
changes that it expects will improve INS' ability
to recruit and hire Border Patrol agents. The
Commissioner has redirected $2.2 million to
implementing these initiatives and is willing to
redirect more funds if needed. The $2.2 million
became available after INS cancelled 10 fiscal
year 1999 training classes due to insufficient
numbers of new hires.

The following new recruiting initiatives are
intended to increase Border Patrol sectors'
involvement in the recruiting process and increase
the number of people interested in the Border
Patrol:

ï¿½    training over 200 Border Patrol agents as
recruiters,
ï¿½    establishing recruitment coordinators in each
sector,
ï¿½    establishing a toll-free job information
line, and
ï¿½    considering future recruiting bonuses.

Most of the following hiring initiatives are
intended to reduce the time of the entire hiring
process, from the time the applicant signs up to
take the written examination, to the time INS
makes the applicant a final job offer:

ï¿½    conducting written tests sooner,
ï¿½    scheduling interviews centrally,
ï¿½    monitoring the scheduling of medical
examinations,
ï¿½    offering "compressed testing" at six
locations,
ï¿½    surveying applicants who did and did not show
up for the written test,
ï¿½    allowing more choice in job locations among
the southwest border sectors, and
ï¿½    allowing more flexibility in start dates.

Recruiting Initiatives
     The working group developed a series of
recruiting initiatives aimed at increasing local
outreach and heightening local awareness of the
Border Patrol. Even before INS developed these new
initiatives, it had significantly increased the
number of activities in which its National
Recruitment Program was involved during fiscal
year 1999.

     One of the major new initiatives involves
using Border Patrol agents as recruiters. INS
contracted with the same firm that trains U.S.
Marine Corps recruiters to train Border Patrol
agents as recruiters. In June and July 1999, the
contractor provided such training to more than 200
Border Patrol agents. INS also established
recruitment coordinators for each Border Patrol
sector, who have developed local recruiting plans
for the Border Patrol recruiters to implement.
These local plans include universities, colleges,
and community colleges; military bases and
facilities; and local events. According to an INS
official, these plans involve increased emphasis
at the local level, including more recruiting at
community colleges.

     In May 1999, INS established a toll-free job
information line for potential Border Patrol
applicants. The information line provides the
caller with the following information: how to
apply, answers to frequently asked questions,
duties and qualifications, physical requirements,
and an overview of the hiring process. According
to an October 1999 INS report, the toll-free line
was averaging more than 2,000 calls per week.

     As part of its initiatives, INS officials are
also considering providing recruiting bonuses.
Such a bonus would take the form of a "signing
bonus" for newly hired agents.

Hiring Initiatives
     INS officials have begun implementing a set
of hiring initiatives aimed at retaining more
applicants through the hiring process so that, in
the end, they hire a greater percentage of
applicants. Several of the initiatives are focused
on reducing the time it takes for an applicant to
move through the hiring process because officials
believe the length of the process has hurt INS'
ability to hire more Border Patrol agents. INS'
transfer of Border Patrol hiring functions to its
National Hiring Center in Twin Cities, Minnesota,
in early fiscal year 1999, has improved monitoring
of the hiring process.

     The hiring initiatives include a goal to
reduce INS' overall standard hiring process-from
the point an applicant is scheduled for the
written examination through the Telephone
Application Processing System to the point an
applicant receives a final job offer-by at least 1
to 2 months. Thus, an applicant could move through
the hiring process in 4 to 5 months if no issues
complicate the applicant's medical examination or
background investigation. One focus of INS'
initiatives has been to shorten the time from when
an applicant is first scheduled for the written
examination through the Telephone Application
Processing System to the time the applicant takes
the examination. INS' National Hiring Center has
been tracking OPM's efforts and working with OPM
to shorten this step by at least 1 week.

     INS also expects to reduce the hiring process
by 1 to 4 weeks through the centralized scheduling
of applicant interviews. Under the new
initiatives, INS' National Hiring Center is
working directly with the sectors to schedule
interviews, thus eliminating INS administrative
centers from the process. The National Hiring
Center has begun monitoring the time it takes
sectors to schedule interviews and is producing
internal reports that identify sectors that are
lagging behind.

     The National Hiring Center is now also
involved in the process of referring applicants to
INS medical contractors for the required medical
examination. With the center's involvement, and
its electronic tracking of this step, officials
anticipate they can cut in half-from 90 to 45
days-the time between an applicant passing the
interview and receiving the medical examination
results.

     In addition to its standard hiring process,
INS is now offering "compressed testing" to reduce
the time it takes to hire an agent. INS is
conducting compressed testing at six locations,
five of which are near the southwest border, that
collectively account for more than half of the
past Border Patrol applicants. Compressed testing
will allow the written examination and interview
to take place, independent of each other, at these
locations at 2-week intervals. Officials hope that
compressed testing will reduce the entire hiring
process to 3 to 4 months in cases where no issues
complicate the applicant's medical examination or
background investigation.

     In a further effort to improve hiring, INS
has contracted with a firm to conduct telephone
surveys of applicants who take the written
examination, as well as those who are scheduled to
take the written examination, but do not report
for testing. The survey of applicants who take the
examination will obtain feedback on the initial
part of the application process, such as the
amount of time that passed between applying to
take the written examination and taking the
examination. The survey of applicants who do not
report for testing will ask for the applicants'
reasons for not reporting. Officials hope these
efforts will help them improve the hiring process
and increase their understanding about why
potential recruits seem to lose interest before
the hiring process really begins. As of September
1999, the development of the two surveys was well
under way.

     Hiring initiatives also include allowing
recruits a choice of location among the southwest
border sectors to which they can be assigned in
the hope that more recruits will accept job
offers. INS has taken the position that the Border
Patrol needs to be more flexible on this matter if
hiring is to improve, and it is asking recruits to
identify two preferences out of four general
geographic locations along the southwest border.
Even before the new initiatives, the Border Patrol
agreed to begin allowing more flexibility, and
this has increased under the new initiatives.
Although new agents are not assigned to their home
station, they can now be assigned to their home
state or home sector.

As previously discussed, INS officials recognize
that providing recruits with little notice to
report for training may have contributed to job
declinations or resignations during basic
training. INS officials have the goal of providing
recruits with 30 days' notice to report for duty.
According to a National Hiring Center official,
this goal is not always achieved, but staff work
directly with recruits to arrange as much notice
as possible and find a mutually acceptable
reporting date.

_______________________________
1 Because INS does not track applicants across
fiscal years, officials could only provide us with
the number of eligible applicants in each year and
the number of agents hired in each year.
2 INS' estimates were limited, in part, because it
did not begin to track applicants across fiscal
years for all steps of the hiring process until
January 1999. Dropout and failure rates for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 are based on estimates; rates
for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 are based on a
combination of estimated and actual data.
3 Why Are We Losing Our Human Resources: A Review
of Attrition and Training Problems (U.S.
Department of Justice, Immigration and
Naturalization Service), October 1989.

Appendix III
Changes in Agents' Years of Experience and Ratio
of Agents to Supervisor
Page 35GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal
Not Met
This appendix provides information on how the
general composition of the Border Patrol has
changed as it has increased in size. As the
relative number of agents within each grade level
has changed, so too has the average level of
experience among agents. The average years of
service among agents has declined both agencywide
and in the sectors along the southwest border.
Also affected by the Border Patrol's rapid growth
has been the average number of nonsupervisory
agents assigned to each GS-12 supervisory agent.

Border Patrol Growth Led to Shifts in Grade-Level
Composition
Between fiscal years 1994 and 1998, the size of
the Border Patrol increased dramatically, causing
a considerable shift in agents' average years of
experience, both agencywide and along the
southwest border. At the start of fiscal year
1999, 92 percent of all Border Patrol agents were
assigned to the nine sectors along the southwest
border. (See app. IV for a map showing the
southwest border sectors.) Table III.1 provides
data on how the number and percentage of agents at
each grade level in the southwest border sectors
changed from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1998.
Almost all of the nine sectors experienced notable
increases in the number of agents onboard between
these years, with one sector-Tucson-more than
tripling the size of its workforce. More
significantly, because all new agents are deployed
to the southwest border after completing basic
training, the relative number of GS-5 and GS-7
agents in these sectors increased dramatically.

Table III.1: Number and Percentage of Agents by
Grade Level in the Southwest Border Sectors
Southwest border        Grade level of agents
sectors
                     GS-5         GS-7         GS-9
                  Numbe Perce  Numbe Perce  NumbePerce
                   r    nt     r    nt     r   nt
San Diego                                          
1994                227  18%     85   7%   640  50%
1998                123    5    371   16   968   43
El Centro                                          
1994                  0    0      0    0   103   56
1998                 50   13    120   32    76   20
Yuma                                               
1994                  0    0      0    0   120   59
1998                 29   13     46   21    53   24
Tucson                                             
1994                  0    0      0    0   178   64
1998                117   12    190   19   437   43
El Paso                                            
1994                 34    5     28    4   382   60
1998                 52    5    164   17   388   40
Marfa                                              
1994                  0    0      0    0    70   56
1998                 31   20      8    5    50   32
Del Rio                                            
1994                  0    0      0    0   167   59
1998                104   18     85   15   179   31
Laredo                                             
1994                  0    0      0    0   206   62
1998                120   19    107   17   173   28
McAllen                                            
1994                  0    0      2    1   256   66
1998                160   15    295   27   336   31

                     Grade level of agents                      Total number
                                                                  of agents
   GS-11         GS-12        GS-13       GS-14        GS-15               
Number Percen  Numbe Perce   NumbePerce   NumbePercen   NumbePercen 
         t      r     nt     r    nt     r     t      r     t
                                                                           
   158   12%    132   10%    16    1%    12     1%     2     0%       1,272
   530    23    201     9    48     2    14      1     1      0       2,257
                                                                           
    46    25     22    12     7     4     6      3     1      1         185
    77    20     37    10    10     3     7      2     1      0         378
                                                                           
    36    21     22    13     6     3     5      3     1      1         172
    53    24     29    13     6     3     7      3     1      0         224
                                                                           
    54    20     29    11     6     2     7      3     2      1         276
   152    15     80     8    23     2     9      1     2      0       1,010
                                                                           
   119    19     59     9     9     1     8      1     2      0         641
   222    23     98    10    27     3     8      1     2      0         962
                                                                           
    30    24     17    14     3     2     3      2     1      1         124
    38    24     21    13     4     3     5      3     1      1         158
                                                                           
    61    22     35    12    11     4     7      2     2      1         283
   125    22     64    11    14     2     7      1     2      0         580
                                                                           
    73    22     37    11     6     2     8      2     2      1         332
   143    23     59     9    11     2     8      1     2      0         623
                                                                           
    73    19     36     9     8     2     8      2     2      1         385
   187    17     99     9    13     1     8      1     2      0       1,100
Note: Data do not include Border Patrol pilots.
Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole
number.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Agents' Average Years of Experience Declined
     Agencywide, the percentage of relatively
inexperienced Border Patrol agents increased
significantly between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal
year 1998. As shown in table III.2, the percentage
of agents with 2 years or less experience almost
tripled agencywide, from 12 percent to 35 percent.
In contrast, the percentage of agents with 5 or
more years of service declined, from 74 percent of
all agents to 40 percent.

Table III.2: Years of Service of All Border Patrol
Agents, FYs 1994 and 1998
Years of service                                    FY 1994         FY 1998
1 or less                                                9%             20%
More than 1; up to 2                                      3              15
More than 2; up to 3                                     10              14
More than 3; up to 4                                      3               8
More than 4; up to 5                                      2               3
More than 5; up to 8                                     26               7
More than 8; up to 10                                    17               3
10 or more                                               31              30
Number of agents                                      4,226           7,904
Note: All data are as of the end of the designated
fiscal year. Data do not include Border Patrol
pilots. Percentages are rounded to the nearest
whole number.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Table III.3 shows changes in the level of
experience of agents assigned to the southwest
border. For example, between fiscal year 1994 and
fiscal year 1998, the percentage of agents with 3
years of service or less more than doubled, from
26 percent to 54 percent. In contrast, the
percentage of agents with 5 or more years of
experience declined, from 70 percent in fiscal
year 1994 to 36 percent in fiscal year 1998.

Table III.3: Years of Service of Border Patrol
Agents on the Southwest Border, FYs 1994 and 1998
Years of service                                    FY 1994         FY 1998
1 or less                                               10%             22%
More than 1; up to 2                                      4              17
More than 2; up to 3                                     12              15
More than 3; up to 4                                      3               9
More than 4; up to 5                                      2               3
More than 5; up to 8                                     28               7
More than 8; up to 10                                    17               3
10 or more                                               25              26
Number of agents                                      3,670           7,292
Note: All data are as of the end of the designated
fiscal year. Data do not include Border Patrol
pilots. Percentages are rounded to the nearest
whole number.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

As table III.4 demonstrates, between fiscal year
1994 and fiscal year 1998, all nine of the
southwest border sectors saw increases in the
percentage of relatively inexperienced agents,
with some sectors experiencing dramatic increases.
For example, in fiscal year 1994, 2 percent of the
agents at the El Centro sector had 2 years of
experience or less but, by fiscal year 1998, 59
percent of the agents had 2 years of experience or
less. The McAllen sector also experienced dramatic
increases-only 1 percent of its agents in fiscal
year 1994 had 2 years of experience or less but,
by fiscal year 1998, 54 percent of its agents had
2 years of experience or less. The percentage of
agents in the Tucson sector with 3 years of
experience or less increased from 18 percent in
fiscal year 1994 to 64 percent by fiscal year
1998.

Table III.4: Years of Service of Border Patrol
Agents in Southwest Border Sectors, FYs 1994 and
1998
Southwest                      Years of service                      Number
border                                                                   of
sectors                                                              agents
           1 or   More    More   More    More    More    More   More       
           less   than    than   than    than    than    than   than
                 1; up   2; up  3; up 4; up to 5; up to   8; up     10
                  to 2    to 3   to 4       5       8   to 10
San Diego                                                                  
1994        24%     5%     14%     6%      5%     19%     13%    15%  1,272
1998         12     18      25      8       8       8       4     18  2,257
El Centro                                                                  
1994          0      2       4      0       0      34      33     27    185
1998         39     20       4      6       2       2       1     25    378
Yuma                                                                       
1994          0      1       4      1       0      40      26     28    172
1998         31     12       2      5       1       3       1     45    224
Tucson                                                                     
1994          0      2      16      1       0      32      17     33    276
1998         20     18      26      8       1       5       1     21  1,010
El Paso                                                                    
1994         10      5       9      4       0      25      18     29    641
1998         15     14      14     12       3       7       3     33    962
Marfa                                                                      
1994          0      4       8      0       0      34      15     40    124
1998         24     13       6      8       0       7       2     40    158
Del Rio                                                                    
1994          0      0       0      0       0      40      25     35    283
1998         26     13       3     16       1       2       2     36    580
Laredo                                                                     
1994          0      4      14      0       0      38      17     27    332
1998         33     12       4     11       0       9       3     29    623
McAllen                                                                    
1994          0      1      22      3       0      29      16     28    385
1998         34     20       4      5       0       9       2     26  1,100
Note: Data do not include Border Patrol pilots.
Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole
number.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Average Number of Agents Per Supervisor Increased
As a result of the increased hiring of Border
Patrol agents, the ratio of nonsupervisory agents
(GS-5 through GS-11) to one GS-12 supervisory
agent increased across the Border Patrol-from 7 to
1 in fiscal year 1994 to 8 to 1 in fiscal year
1998. The ratio of nonsupervisory agents assigned
to one supervisory agent also increased among the
southwest border sectors, from 8 to 1 to 9.2 to 1.
Almost all of the nine southwest border sectors
saw the span of supervision increase. As table
III.5 illustrates, this increase varied among the
sectors. At one extreme, in the Tucson sector, the
ratio of nonsupervisory agents to one supervisory
agent increased from 8 to 1 to 11.2 to 1. In
contrast, in the El Paso sector, the ratio of
nonsupervisory agents to one supervisory agent
decreased between these years, from 9.5 to 1 to
8.4 to 1.

Table III.5:  Ratios of Nonsupervisory Agents (GS-
5 to GS-11) to a Supervisory Agent (GS-12), FYs
1994 and 1998
                                                    FY 1994         FY 1998
All Border Patrol                                   7.0 : 1         8.0 : 1
Southwest Border                                    8.0 : 1         9.2 : 1
Southwest Border Sectors                                                   
San Diego                                           8.4 : 1         9.9 : 1
El Centro                                           6.8 : 1         8.7 : 1
Yuma                                                6.3 : 1         6.2 : 1
Tucson                                              8.0 : 1        11.2 : 1
El Paso                                             9.5 : 1         8.4 : 1
Marfa                                               5.9 : 1         6.0 : 1
Del Rio                                             6.5 : 1         7.7 : 1
Laredo                                              7.5 : 1         9.2 : 1
McAllen                                             9.2 : 1         9.9 : 1
Note: Data do not include Border Patrol pilots.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

Appendix IV
Map of Border Patrol Sectors Along the Southwest
Border
Page 39GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal
Not Met
Figure IV.1: Southwest Border Patrol Sectors

     Source: U.S. Border Patrol.

Appendix V
Border Patrol Academy's Basic Training Capacity
Page 42GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal
Not Met
Overview of Border Patrol Academy Basic Training
New Border Patrol agents are sent to the Border
Patrol Academy for a 19-week basic training
program within days of reporting for duty at their
assigned sectors. The basic training program
covers six subject areas: (1) Spanish, (2) law,
(3) operations, (4) physical training, (5)
firearms, and (6) driver training, and agents must
pass all subjects to graduate. As shown in table
V.1, the number of agents who received basic
training has grown substantially since fiscal year
1994.

Table V.1: Border Patrol Agents Receiving Basic
Training, FYs 1994 Through 1999
Fiscal        Began Resigned                  Did not           Graduated
year       training       or      COPa       graduate
                   terminate
                           d
                                                             (number (percen
                                         (number) (percent         )      t)
                                                        )
1994            461       52        25         77     17%       384     83%
1995          1,005      103        27        130      13       875      87
1996          1,474      171        47        218      15     1,256      85
1997          1,654      226        33        259      16     1,395      84
1998          1,901      313        56        369      19     1,532      81
1999b           587      106        13        119      20       468      80
a Continuation of Pay (COP) represents trainees
who have been recycled to another Academy session
due to a compensable injury incurred during
training. No separation action was initiated and
they should return to a later Academy session.
b Fiscal year 1999 data reflect only classes that
had graduated as of September 30, 1999.
Source: INS and Border Patrol Academy.

Table V.I also shows the number and percentage of
agents who did not graduate each year. Agents who
do not graduate are those who (1) fail to receive
a passing grade of 70 percent in any subject area
and are, thus, terminated; (2) are injured during
training and receive COP; or (3) resign.

The Academy has developed a training projection
for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for planning
purposes. Table V.2 highlights the Academy's 5-
year training projection, which calls for a
gradually increasing number of new agents each
fiscal year.

Table V.2: Border Patrol Basic Training 5-Year
Projection, FYs 2001 Through 2005
Fiscal year                                                        Trainees
2001                                                                  2,300
2002                                                                  2,417
2003                                                                  2,534
2004                                                                  2,651
2005                                                                  2,768
Source: Border Patrol Academy.

Academy Instructors
The Academy relies on both permanent and detailed
instructors to provide basic training. Detailed
instructors are Border Patrol agents-GS-9 or
above-who are recruited from the field to work as
instructors on a temporary basis-usually for 1 or
2 of the 19-week sessions. Table V.3 shows the
number of Border Patrol instructors assigned to
the Academy for fiscal years 1994 through 1998.

Table V.3: Number of Border Patrol Instructors,
FYs 1994 Through 1998
                                            FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998
Permanent instructors                          33     40    63     82    80
Glynco, Georgia                                33     40    41     31    32
Charleston, South Carolina                  N/A a   N/Aa    22     51    48
Detailed instructors b                         42    183   159    225   267
Total                                          75    223   222    307   347
a Not applicable. Border Patrol training did not
begin at the Charleston facility until fiscal year
1996.
b Numbers only include detailed instructors who
taught Spanish, law, and operations. The Border
Patrol Academy could not provide the number of
detailed instructors who taught driver training,
firearms training, or physical training classes.
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol Academy
data.

As the number of trainees has increased, the
Academy has increasingly relied on detailed
instructors. In fiscal year 1995, the Academy more
than quadrupled the number of detailed instructors
onboard. In fiscal year 1998, more than 75 percent
of instructors who taught at the Academy were
detailed from the field. Because the Academy could
not provide us with data on all its detailed
instructors, these percentages actually
underrepresent the Academy's reliance on detailed
instructors.

Basic Training Grades
Trainees' overall grade averages have remained
relatively constant since fiscal year 1994, as
shown in table V.4, despite the large influx of
trainees and detailed instructors.

Table V.4:  Border Patrol Basic Training Final
Grade Averages, FYs 1994 Through 1998
                                          FY      FY FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998
                                       1994a   1995b (percen (percen (percen
                                     (percen (percen      t)     t)      t)
                                          t)      t)
Overall final grade averagec            87.6    86.5    86.6   86.5    86.2
Law grade average                       85.1    83.7    83.0   83.6    84.0
Spanish grade average                   89.3    88.3    88.8   88.1    87.8
a Data were not available for 1 of the 10 sessions
conducted in fiscal year 1994.
b Data were not available for 2 of the 20 sessions
conducted in fiscal year 1995.
c Includes grades for all six Academy subjects:
physical training, firearms training, driver
training, operations, law, and Spanish.
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol Academy
data.

Charleston Facility As a Temporary Training Site
     In fiscal year 1996, INS expanded its
existing Border Patrol training capacity by
opening a temporary, satellite training facility
at a former naval station in Charleston, South
Carolina. To make the facility suitable for
training, INS spent more than $5 million
constructing new firing and driving ranges and
reconfiguring existing structures into classrooms
and dormitories, as well as a fitness center. In
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, INS received about $16
million for additional facility renovations,
including the consolidation of management,
instructor, and administrative offices into a
single building, and the development of an "after-
hours" study facility and an athletic center.

     INS and FLETC officials have different views
on how long the Charleston facility will need to
remain open to provide training. When INS began
using the facility in fiscal year 1996, it
anticipated closing the Charleston facility once
FLETC had the capacity to accommodate all of INS'
training needs. At that time, both FLETC and INS
expected the facility to operate for about 3
years. However, in April 1999, FLETC indicated
that it would not be ready to assume the
Charleston facility's training load until fiscal
year 2001. In October 1999, a FLETC official told
us that FLETC had readjusted its April 1999
estimate to the end of fiscal year 2004, or
earlier if Border Patrol hiring is less than
expected or if funds are appropriated sooner. He
explained that the agency's estimate is based on
its ability to reabsorb all Border Patrol training
currently held at the Charleston facility. In
October 1999, an INS official told us that INS
expected the Charleston facility could be closed
sometime between fiscal years 2004 and 2006. INS'
estimate is premised on FLETC's ability to
accommodate all of INS' training needs, which are
dependent on INS' future hiring requirements and
its ability to meet those requirements.

Appendix VI
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 43GAO/GGD-00-39 Fiscal Year 1999 Hiring Goal
Not Met
GAO Contacts
Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777
James M. Blume, (202) 512-8777

Acknowledgments
     Lori A. Weiss
Barbara A. Guffy
Jennifer Y. Kim
Marianne C. Cantwell
David P. Alexander
Michelle A. Sager

*** End of Document ***