Customs Service: Status of the Implementation of Blue Ribbon Panel
Recommendations (Letter Report, 09/03/96, GAO/GGD-96-163).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the U.S. Customs
Service's implementation of blue ribbon panel recommendations concerning
allegations of corruption and mismanagement by Customs employees.
GAO found that Customs: (1) accepted the findings of the panel and took
steps to rectify the problems identified by the panel; (2) restructured
its Office of Internal Affairs to address issues of political
corruption, mismanagement, and serious noncriminal misconduct; (3)
established a direct line of authority in its Office of Enforcement to
eliminate confusion among the many competing lines of authority noted by
the panel in its recommendations; (4) strengthened its policy on
managerial accountability; (5) created internal inspection programs to
ensure that employees' ethical conduct is in compliance with the panel's
recommendations; and (6) implemented its policy for protecting
whistleblowers, as recommended.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-96-163
TITLE: Customs Service: Status of the Implementation of Blue
Ribbon Panel Recommendations
DATE: 09/03/96
SUBJECT: Accountability
Whistleblowers
Ethical conduct
Customs administration
Political corruption
Inspectors General
Federal agency reorganization
Law enforcement personnel
Investigations by federal agencies
IDENTIFIER: Customs Service Internal Inspection 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. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** 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. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and
Means, House of Representatives
September 1996
CUSTOMS SERVICE - STATUS OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF BLUE RIBBON
PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
GAO/GGD-96-163
Customs Blue Ribbon Panel
(264434)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CMC - Customs Management Center
DD - District Director
DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration
EPAS - Employee Performance Appraisal System
EPP - Employee Proficiency Plan
EPR - Employee Proficiency Review
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
FLETC - Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
HRM - Office of Human Resources Management
IA - Office of Internal Affairs
IG - Inspector General
LER - Labor and Employee Relations
MID - Management Inspections Division
NLU - National-Louis University
OI - Office of Investigations
OOE - Office of Organizational Effectiveness
OMI - Office of Management Inspection
OPE - Office of Planning and Evaluation
OPR - Office of Professional Responsibility
OSC - Office of Special Counsel
SAC - Special Agent in Charge
SES - Senior Executive Service
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-271358
September 3, 1996
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In 1991, the Commissioner of Customs appointed a "blue ribbon" panel
to look into allegations of corruption and mismanagement by employees
in the U.S. Customs Service's Southwest Region. The panel found
fundamental weaknesses in Customs' management systems as well as a
lack of management accountability. The panel made many
recommendations designed to rectify the problems it identified.
At your request, we reviewed Customs' implementation of the panel's
recommendations. This report summarizes the problems that led to the
creation of the panel, presents our categorization of the status of
the recommendations made by the panel, and provides Customs' views on
whether the problems identified by the panel still exist.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Due to, among other things, (1) allegations of corruption,
harassment, and retaliation; (2) charges of mismanagement; and (3)
"old-boy"\1 network issues in Customs' Southwest Region,\2 the
Commissioner created the blue ribbon panel. The panel issued a
report of its 50 findings and 51 recommendations in August 1991.\3
The Commissioner said Customs accepted the findings and
recommendations and put together a comprehensive implementation plan.
In August 1995 Customs provided us with information on actions it had
taken in relation to each recommendation. It updated that
information in February 1996. We supplemented the information
through interviews with Customs officials in offices that were
involved in the actions Customs took. We determined that at the time
of our review, most of the recommendations were at least partially
implemented.
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs and the Assistant Commissioners
for the two offices on which the panel focused--the Office of
Investigations (OI)\4 and the Office of Internal Affairs
(IA)--generally believed that the problems identified by the panel
had diminished significantly. They believed that they had in place
or under development processes that would alert their offices to
systemic problem areas.
--------------------
\1 According to testimony by the chairman of the panel, the "old boy"
network refers to a system in which an individual, such as a Special
Agent in Charge, selects his friends to be supervisors. "The problem
with that system is (a) the individuals who are selected are not
necessarily well-suited for the supervisory responsibilities, and (b)
their loyalty is not to the organization itself, but to the person
who put them there, and perhaps even to the locality." (U.S. Customs
Service's Investigation into Allegations of Wrongdoing within the
Agency: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 102nd Cong.,
2nd Sess. 23 (July 31, 1991).)
\2 The Southwest Region covered Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas.
\3 Review of Integrity and Management Issues of the United States
Customs Service, Frank Keating, Chairman, et al., August 1991.
\4 The Office of Enforcement was renamed the Office of Investigations
in 1995.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Customs' mission is to ensure that all goods and persons entering and
exiting the United States do so in compliance with all United States
laws and regulations. The mission includes protecting the American
public from the introduction of illegal drugs into society. In
August 1995, Customs considered the Southwest border the drug
smugglers' area of choice, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of
cocaine and marijuana shipped from Mexico to the United States
yearly, according to intelligence estimates. According to Customs,
this environment, with narcotics being smuggled through ports of
entry and Customs inspectors seeking to prevent such illegal entries,
is typically dangerous, difficult, and contradictory. Customs
further stated that "enforcement strategies [were] producing more
determined, violent, smarter, organized, better equipped, and funded
violators because of the very high economic incentives to continue
their actions." In its 1994 reorganization report, Customs recognized
the continuing controversy over achieving the right balance between
enforcing the law and facilitating the flow of conveyances,
merchandise, and people into the country.
From the mid-1960s until the mid-1990s, Customs' organizational
structure included a headquarters, region and district offices,
Special Agent in Charge (SAC) offices, and ports of entry. In 1993,
Customs created a team to reorganize the Customs Service. Some
results of that effort were that Customs moved to a system of
management by process\5 and reorganized its field and headquarters
structures. In October 1995 Customs reorganized its headquarters,
which included creating an Office of Field Operations responsible for
overseeing the Customs Management Centers (CMCs) and ports. The
Office of Investigations' responsibilities continued to include
overseeing the Special Agents in Charge (SACs) in the field. The
October 1995 field organization changes included abolishing the
regions and districts and creating the CMCs to act as a single
management level between the ports and headquarters.
--------------------
\5 According to Customs' reorganization handbook, process management,
with its horizontal orientation across the agency, will help ensure
that all disciplines within the organization understand and value the
work of their counterparts, and that everyone strives to contribute
to overall agency goals.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To gain an understanding of the blue ribbon panel, why it was
created, and Customs' response to its report, we read the panel's
report and transcripts of congressional hearings that dealt with
Customs' Southwest Region problems and the panel. We also
interviewed three panel members--the former chairman, who was not a
Customs employee; and two others who were Customs employees during
the panel and continue to be Customs employees.
To determine the status of the implementation of the recommendations,
we reviewed a status report Customs prepared for us in August 1995 on
actions Customs took in response to each recommendation. In February
1996, Customs updated relevant portions of this report. We also
reviewed documents that Customs officials provided that were related
to actions taken to implement the recommendations. To expand on the
information provided in the Customs-prepared report and to determine
if Customs officials knew if the problems identified by the panel
still existed, we interviewed Customs officials from offices that
were at the time of our review responsible for areas covered by the
report, including the Offices of Investigations, Internal Affairs,
and Human Resources Management. We also interviewed officials in
Customs' Office of Planning and Evaluation and the Treasury
Department's Office of Inspector General (IG). However, we did not
verify the accuracy of the information provided or validate that
policies and procedures to which Customs officials referred were
being adhered to.
We did our work at Customs headquarters in Washington, D.C.; at the
San Diego Customs Management Center; and in Oklahoma City, OK. We
conducted this review between August 1995 and June 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained
written comments from Customs on a draft of this report. These
comments are discussed at the end of this report and reprinted in
appendix II.
CONDITIONS LEADING TO THE
CREATION OF THE PANEL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
In Customs' 1992 report on its implementation of the panel
recommendations, it stated that in early 1991 it had come under
intense scrutiny from national media and congressional oversight
committees because of allegations of corruption and mismanagement in
its Southwest Region. According to testimony by the Commissioner in
1992,\6 she created the panel when she became aware of the scope and
seriousness of the allegations in Texas.
According to the transcript of hearings held by the Commerce,
Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the House Committee on
Government Operations in 1992, a December 1992 Customs-prepared
response to that Subcommittee, and a 1991 Treasury IG report on
Customs' Southwest Region,\7 allegations included
-- mismanagement by the Special Agent in Charge,
-- harassment of and retaliation against whistleblowers,
-- conspiracy by management to cover up criminal conduct of
enforcement managers,
-- management suppression of a major drug investigation,
-- existence of an old-boy network,
-- improper associations or affiliations between Customs law
enforcement officers and individuals possibly involved with drug
trafficking and money laundering at the border, and
-- noncooperation by Customs management with other law enforcement
organizations.
Furthermore, according to the December 1992 Customs-prepared response
to the Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee, the
allegations focused on two Office of Enforcement field locations.
--------------------
\6 Serious Mismanagement and Misconduct in the Treasury Department,
Customs Service, and Other Federal Agencies and the Adequacy of
Efforts to Hold Agency Officials Accountable: Hearing before the
Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 102nd
Cong., 2nd Sess. 476 (March 26, 27, and April 1, 1992).
\7 U.S. Customs Service: Greater Management Attention Needed for
Southwest Region Problems (OIG-91-067, Sept. 16, 1991).
PANEL COMPOSITION AND
OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
In June 1991 the blue ribbon panel convened. The Commissioner
created the panel, in part, because of allegations of corruption,
harassment, retaliation, mismanagement, and an old-boy network in
Customs' Southwest Region. The panel was made up of nine
individuals--five from outside Customs and four from within.\8 It was
chaired by the then General Counsel of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, who had formerly been, among other things,
Associate Attorney General in the U.S. Justice Department, Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, and an FBI agent.
The panel did its work over an approximately 6-week period, according
to its chairman. It conducted over 150 interviews and briefings with
Customs employees and non-Customs officials in the Southwest Region
and Washington, D.C. The panel looked at two offices within
Customs--Enforcement and Internal Affairs. Those non-Customs
officials interviewed were said to be key federal, state, and local
law enforcement officials. They included employees of the FBI, the
Marshals Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the
U.S. Attorneys Office. According to the chairman's testimony,\9
much of the panel's information was anecdotal and if the panelists
heard it repeatedly, they considered it a finding.
The chairman further stated in the testimony that the panel did not
have subpoena power and it was not a grand jury; nor did it view its
work as a law enforcement mission. The panel examined system
failures. He said that "[w]hat the report concentrated on was
assuming the integrity of all the allegations and all the swirling
controversy, how could these things happen." The panel's suggestions,
he added, were to tighten down and firm up disciplinary processes and
the management and supervisory structures.
The panel issued its report in August 1991. The report had 50
findings and 51 recommendations\10 categorized into 7 areas:
-- integrity,
-- management,
-- Office of Enforcement,
-- Office of Internal Affairs,
-- training,
-- whistleblowers, and
-- discipline.
As stated in the panel's report, the recommendations reflected the
consensus of the panel and proposed approaches to rectify the
conditions that generated the report's findings. The overall aim of
the recommendations was to safeguard the integrity and strengthen the
management systems of the Customs Service. While the panel did not
determine if the Southwest region situation was representative of the
rest of Customs, it believed the implications of the findings and
recommendations could be applied to the entire agency. The chairman
of the panel testified that because the panel uncovered "systemic
management failures in the Southwest, the likelihood of that
occurring elsewhere is certainly not only possible, but probable."
--------------------
\8 According to the Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs
Subcommittee hearing transcripts, the Commissioner requested
recommendations for representatives for the panel from the
Departments of Justice and the Treasury and the former head of the
General Services Administration.
\9 U.S. Customs Service's Investigation into Allegations of
Wrongdoing within the Agency: Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. 22, 32 (July 31, 1991).
\10 One of the "recommendations" in the Office of Enforcement section
consisted of three statements, not recommended actions; therefore, we
could not assess whether Customs had implemented it. As a result we
assessed 50 actual recommendations, not 51.
PANEL FINDINGS AND CUSTOMS'
RESPONSE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
As examples of some of the conditions that the panel found, the
following are summaries from the panel's report:
"The Blue Ribbon Panel found fundamental weaknesses in the
Customs Service management systems at all operational
levels--Headquarters, regional management, SAC office
management, and regional Internal Affairs management. The
apparent breakdown of the management structure in the Southwest
Region was precipitated by inadequate and/or inattentive
supervision in specific cases. Compounding those situations,
managers were unable and/or unwilling to address serious
supervisory and management problems. There was an absence of
management accountability, and a perception of a collusive
relationship between management and Internal Affairs. Customs'
management systems failed to identify and correct these
deficiencies."
"The Blue Ribbon Panel determined that the Office of Internal
Affairs (IA), at least in the Southwest Region, did not
recognize the gravity of the circumstances that caused the
perception of corruption, nor did it promptly initiate or
complete certain investigations of related allegations.
Non-criminal misconduct and mismanagement matters were
explicitly removed from the IA purview. As a result, Internal
Affairs did not provide the necessary safeguard to protect the
reputation, operations and organizational effectiveness of the
Customs Service."
"Office of Enforcement (OE) activities in the Southwest Region
suffer from a lack of national direction and from confused and
competing lines of authority that undermine effectiveness.
Clearly articulated recruitment, mobility, and career path
policies do not exist and the influence of various 'old boy'
networks taints the objectivity of the selection process and
rating systems."
Some of the actions that the panel recommended in the sections on
management, the Office of Internal Affairs, and the Office of
Enforcement were the following:
-- Customs should establish an Office of Organizational
Effectiveness (OOE) led by an Associate Commissioner who would
report directly to the Commissioner, at a level above the
Assistant Commissioners. The Associate Commissioner's
recommended responsibilities included supervising the Assistant
Commissioner for Internal Affairs and reforming Customs pursuant
to the panel's recommendations.
-- The Office of Internal Affairs should be restructured. Its
responsibilities should include the comprehensive and aggressive
internal inspection program recommended by the panel and
investigation of matters related to mismanagement, criminal
misconduct, and serious noncriminal misconduct.
-- Direct line authority should be established in the Office of
Enforcement from the Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement
through the Special Agent in Charge to the agent. Customs
should establish a national recruitment policy and mobility
policy for the Office of Enforcement.
Customs accepted the panel's findings and recommendations almost
immediately and took several major actions to implement these
recommendations. In April 1992, the Commissioner testified that "the
Customs Service accepted the findings and recommendations of the
panel and went to work using teams of managers and executives that we
developed, and we have put together a comprehensive implementation
plan that is just as hard hitting as the report was."\11 According to
Customs' 1992 report on its implementation of the recommendations,
the implementation effort was national in scope and focused on the
development or redesign of management systems throughout Customs to
prevent a future reoccurrence. A Customs December 1992 written
response to the Chairman of the Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary
Affairs Subcommittee stated that Customs had "made implementation of
the Panel's recommendations a top priority and dedicated substantial
resources to the effort."
According to Customs' 1992 report on its implementation of the
recommendations, Customs created a Board of Directors to direct the
implementation process. This board included the Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner, senior managers, and the Department of the Treasury IG.
In the Commissioner's testimony for the April 1992 hearing\12 she
explained that Customs also established internal task forces of
managers and subject matter experts to respond to each
recommendation. These task forces designed implementation
strategies, action plans, and milestones for implementing the
recommendations. In October 1991, the action plans were given to
various Assistant Commissioners to continue the implementation
efforts in their areas of responsibility. The Board of Directors,
among others, monitored these implementation efforts.
Some of the actions Customs took that were related to the panel's
recommended actions cited above were the following:
-- Customs formally established OOE in April 1992 with the
appointment of its Associate Commissioner. According to
testimony by the Commissioner, the position of the head of OOE
was established at a level above the Assistant and Regional
Commissioners\13 with commensurate authority and responsibility
to oversee the reforms and to compel action as necessary. The
Associate Commissioner was also given responsibility for
overseeing the Office of Internal Affairs. Customs' 1992
revision to its Organization Handbook stated that OOE was
"intended to ensure effective transition to an organization
which incorporates reforms called for by the Blue Ribbon Panel.
Therefore, the continued necessity for this organization will be
reviewed after a three year period and annually thereafter." The
chairman of the panel testified in July 1991 that the decision
on whether the Associate Commissioner position should be
temporary or permanent is the Commissioner's decision.\14
In December 1992 Customs issued a report describing the progress
it had made in implementing the panel's recommendations.
Customs closed OOE in October 1994. According to the acting
Associate Commissioner at that time, OOE was closed as part of
Customs' reorganization and the reduction of its headquarters
staff.\15 The Director, Office of Planning and Evaluation,
stated that when OOE was closed Customs felt it had
substantially implemented the key provisions made by the panel
and that those recommendations were institutionalized throughout
the agency. The recommendations that remained either required
additional funding or could be addressed under the reorganized
agency. He also stated that Customs' December 1992 report
analyzed the agency's actions taken regarding the panel's
recommendations and that Customs used that report in making its
determination that by October 1994 it had devoted sufficient
time and effort to virtually bring the recommendations to a
conclusion and would close OOE.
-- Customs restructured the Office of Internal Affairs. The
Office's responsibilities included investigating criminal
misconduct, serious noncriminal misconduct, and certain
mismanagement matters. According to Customs' 1992 report on its
implementation of the panel recommendations, while OOE was in
place, OOE was to be the recipient of mismanagement allegations.
With the abolishment of OOE, according to an IA official, IA is
to be the recipient of mismanagement allegations and is to
determine if IA should conduct an investigation or should refer
the allegation to management. Additionally, while OOE was in
existence, OOE was responsible for the internal inspection
program. The Office of Internal Affairs became responsible for
those inspections when OOE closed.
-- Direct line authority was established in the Office of
Enforcement in 1991. The Office of Investigations instituted a
national recruitment program and has drafted a mobility program.
--------------------
\11 Serious Mismanagement and Misconduct in the Treasury Department,
Customs Service, and Other Federal Agencies and the Adequacy of
Efforts to Hold Agency Officials Accountable: Hearing before the
Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 102nd
Cong., 2nd Sess. 476 (March 26, 27, and April 1, 1992).
\12 Serious Mismanagement and Misconduct in the Treasury Department,
Customs Service, and Other Federal Agencies and the Adequacy of
Efforts to Hold Agency Officials Accountable: Hearing before the
Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 102nd
Cong., 2nd Sess. 538-539 (March 26, 27, and April 1, 1992)
(statement of Carol B. Hallett, Commissioner, U.S. Customs
Service).
\13 Customs reorganized its field structure in 1995 and no longer has
regional commissioners.
\14 U.S. Customs Service's Investigation into Allegations of
Wrongdoing within the Agency: Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. 21-22 (July 31, 1991).
\15 This reduction was achieved, in part, through a Customs-wide
reinvestment program that facilitated the movement of headquarters
employees to vacant field positions.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
To report on the status of the implementation of the recommendations,
we used the following implementation categories:\16
-- Fully implemented. The entire wording of the recommendation has
been fulfilled, except in cases where the panel did not define
terminology. In those instances, we did not assess the
recommendation on the basis of the undefined terms. If Customs
had implemented the rest of the recommendation, we categorized
it as fully implemented.
-- Substantially implemented. Either (1) implementation has
occurred or action has been taken that, while not responsive to
the letter of the recommendation, generally was consistent with
its purpose; or (2) a recommendation was not clearly defined;
however, Customs took actions that appeared to be responsive to
the recommendation.
-- Partially implemented. Only a portion of the recommendation has
been implemented. When the wording of the recommendation had
multiple parts, if one part or a portion of a part had been
implemented (but not all parts), we categorized the
recommendation as "partially implemented."
-- Not implemented--action taken. No part of the recommendation
has been implemented, but some action has been taken toward the
completion of the recommendation. For example, if legislation
had been introduced to address the recommendation, but it had
not been enacted into law, we categorized the recommendation as
"not implemented--action taken."
-- Not implemented--no action. No part of the recommendation has
been completed, and no action has been taken to address the
recommendation.
-- Insufficient information. Insufficient or conflicting
information prevented us from determining the status of the
recommendation.
We did not evaluate the recommendations or determine whether Customs
could or should have implemented them. The implementation status may
have varied over time; however, our analysis reflects the status of
implementation for most recommendations as of February 1996 with
updates on others provided through June 1996. We took a fairly
literal reading of the recommendations to determine into which
implementation category each recommendation fell. If a subjective or
unclear term was not defined in the recommendation, we did not assess
the recommendation on the basis of that term. For example, Integrity
recommendation 4 said that "Internal Affairs must aggressively
monitor and act upon perceptions of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officials ..." The panel did not state what it meant by
"aggressively;" therefore, we did not assess the recommendation on
the basis of whether Internal Affairs' actions were "aggressive."
Several of the recommendations made general references to other
recommendations in the report. For instance, Integrity
recommendation 1 stated that "Implementing this recommendation
requires that the Customs Service adopt the recommended restructuring
of Internal Affairs discussed elsewhere in this report." In this and
similar instances, we did not attempt to determine which specific
recommendations the panel was referring to. Therefore, we did not
factor the implementation of those statements into our categorization
of the status of the implementation of the recommendation.
Each recommendation, the supporting material provided by Customs, and
our interview write-ups were reviewed by GAO evaluators to determine
the implementation status of the recommendations. At least two
additional GAO staff reviewed each categorization to reach
concurrence on the categorization status.
Table 1 is a summary of our categorization of the recommendations
broken out by the sections of the panel's report.
Table 1
Implementation Status of Panel
Recommendations
Ca Substanti Not Insuffic
te Fully ally Partially Not implemented- ient
go implement implement implement implemented-- - informat Tota
ry ed ed ed action taken no action ion l
-- --------- --------- --------- --------------- ------------- -------- ----
In 2 1 2 5
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
Ma 6 6 12
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Of 1 1 4 1 7
f
i
c
e
o
f
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Of 5 1 3 9
f
i
c
e
o
f
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
A
f
f
a
i
r
s
Tr 3 1 1 1 1 7
a
i
n
i
n
g
Wh 3 3 6
i
s
t
l
e
b
l
o
w
e
r
s
Di 4 4
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
===================================================================================
To 24 7 16 2 1 0 50
t
a
l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Information obtained from February through July 1996.
Source: GAO analysis of Customs documents and interviews.
Appendix I shows by recommendation the actions Customs has taken and
our assessment of the implementation status.
Various characteristics of the recommendations should be kept in mind
when reading the statistics.
-- A number of recommendations were made up of multiple parts.
Each part had to be fully implemented for us to categorize the
recommendation as fully implemented.
-- In its report, the panel referred to the recommendations'
interlocking relationships, and we found that the report does
not contain 50 discrete recommendations. Thus, a portion of one
recommendation can be part of a number of recommendations. If
Customs did not fully implement that portion of the
recommendation, it could affect the implementation category of
other recommendations. For example, included in Management
recommendation 4 is a statement that raters of key managers
should solicit input from other appropriate parts of the Customs
organization. Customs did not implement this portion of the
recommendation because, according to the Commissioner in her
April 1992 testimony, officials in Customs' Office of Human
Resources and a group of managers thought it would diminish
accountability within the managers' chain of command. This
portion of the recommendation was also included in Management
recommendation 10 and Office of Enforcement recommendation 6;
because Customs chose not to implement this portion of the
recommendations, we categorized all three as partially
implemented.
-- Similarly, in some cases, the implementation of one
recommendation relied upon the implementation of a particular
facet of another recommendation, at least in part. For example,
Management recommendation 2 recommends the establishment of a
management inspection program in which office inspections are to
occur at least every 2 years. Customs has a management
inspection program, but inspections are scheduled every 3 or 4
years according to the Director, Management Inspections
Division. Thus, when other recommendations state that something
should be done through the management inspection process (such
as in Integrity recommendation 4, which states that Internal
Affairs should monitor and act upon perceptions of law
enforcement officials through the management inspection
process), we did not classify the recommendation as fully
implemented, even if Customs was doing what was recommended,
because the inspections were not being done as frequently as
recommended.
--------------------
\16 GAO used definitions very similar to these when reporting on the
implementation status of the National Performance Review
recommendations (Management Reform: Implementation of the National
Performance Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, 1994);
and Management Reform: Completion Status of Agency Actions Under the
National Performance Review (GAO/GGD-96-94, June 12, 1996)).
CUSTOMS OFFICIALS' VIEWS ON THE
STATE OF THE PROBLEMS
IDENTIFIED BY THE PANEL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
We asked Customs officials whether they knew if the general and
specific problems identified by the panel still existed. The
Assistant Commissioners for Investigations and Internal Affairs said
that they had in place or were developing oversight mechanisms to
alert them to problem areas in their offices.
An example of an oversight mechanism provided by the Assistant
Commissioner for Investigations was its Office of Policy and
Oversight, which he established in August 1995. The office reports
directly to him, and one of its functions is to look for trends and
patterns of systemic noncompliance that are identified through such
things as audit reports and cases brought before the Discipline
Review Boards.
The Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs explained some
ongoing efforts in his office that he believed would assist in
identifying potential problem areas. These included the development
of performance measures for investigations and management inspections
and the development of an automated management inspection information
system that he said should improve Internal Affairs' ability to do
trend analyses of inspection findings.
The Assistant Commissioner for Investigations said that he believed
that the Office of Investigations-related problems identified by the
panel had diminished significantly. He said the status of the
problems varied by issue, and he discussed special agent training as
an example. One of the panel's training recommendations concerned
the need for agents to receive continuing formalized in-service
training. The Assistant Commissioner believed that training was an
area where further enhancement was still needed, and his office had
embarked on a training effort that had already resulted in a better
trained workforce. Built into this effort were various policies and
processes that would allow for evaluation, oversight, and
accountability.
The Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs believed that the
problems related to Internal Affairs when the panel did its work no
longer existed. As an example, he discussed the issue of lengthy
investigations. One of the panel's findings was that "because of the
failure to conclude investigations, employees who were targets of
allegations of serious misconduct and/or perceived integrity
violations remain under a cloud of suspicion." The Assistant
Commissioner described actions that Internal Affairs took to diminish
this problem and to allow his office to explain the reasons for
lengthy cases when they occurred. These actions included making
managers take a more hands-on approach in overseeing the
investigations, highlighting cases in the automated tracking system
when they reached certain time frames, and distributing monthly
reports that depicted the ratio of the length of cases by office.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Commissioner
of Customs or his designee. On July 30, 1996, the Director, Office
of Planning and Evaluation, provided us with written comments, which
are printed in full in appendix II. The Director expressed
appreciation for a "comprehensive review of where Customs stands"
with respect to the blue ribbon panel recommendations, and offered
technical and clarifying comments and additional information which we
incorporated as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
As agreed with the Subcommittee, unless you publicly announce the
report's contents earlier, we plan no further distribution until 14
days after the date of this letter. We will then send copies to the
Secretary of the Treasury; the Commissioner of Customs; the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; the ranking minority member of your
Subcommittee; the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate
Finance Committee; and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others on request.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Please
call me on (202) 512-8777 if you or your staff have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Norman J. Rabkin
Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF THE BLUE
RIBBON PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I
This appendix contains (1) the 50 Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations
regarding the panel's review of integrity and management issues of
the Customs Service; (2) Customs' written response, which was
provided to us in August 1995 and updated in February 1996, on how it
implemented each recommendation; (3) a further updated response based
on our discussions with Customs officials between February and July
1996; and (4) our categorization of the implementation status of the
50 recommendations using the following categories: fully
implemented, substantially implemented, partially implemented, not
implemented--action taken, not implemented--no action, and
insufficient information. These categories are defined on pages 9
and 10 of the letter.
The recommendations are reproduced verbatim from the panel's report
as were Customs' written responses. The updated responses were
derived from interviews we held with Customs officials from the
offices of Planning and Evaluation, Investigations, Internal Affairs,
Human Resources Management, and Chief Counsel; Treasury's Office of
Inspector General; and from documentation we obtained. Our
categorization of the implementation status of the recommendations
was based on our assessment of the extent to which Customs
implemented the panel's recommendations. We did not verify the
accuracy of the information provided or validate that the policies
and procedures to which Customs' officials referred were being
adhered to.
The panel did not always define terminology in the recommendations.
In these instances, we did not assess the panel's recommendation on
the basis of those terms but on the implementation of the rest of the
recommendation. For example, the panel's Integrity recommendation 1
(p. 20) states in part that "[a]ll allegations of corruption should
be expeditiously investigated by Internal Affairs." The panel did not
define what it meant by "expeditiously." In our categorization of
this recommendation, we did not assess the panel's recommendation for
"expeditiously;" therefore, we did not assess this recommendation on
the basis of actions taken "expeditiously."
Several of the panel's recommendations referred generally to other
recommendations in the panel's report . For example, in Integrity
recommendation 1 (p. 20), the panel stated that "Implementing this
recommendation requires that the Customs Service adopt the
recommended restructuring of Internal Affairs discussed elsewhere in
this report." In our categorization of the implementation status of
this recommendation, and for all recommendations that had this type
of referral, we did not attempt to determine which specific
recommendations discussed elsewhere in the report the panel was
referring to. Therefore, we did not base our categorization of the
recommendation on the portion stating that "Implementing this
recommendation requires that the Customs Service adopt the
recommended restructuring of Internal Affairs discussed elsewhere in
this report."
Table I.1
Status of Blue Ribbon Panel
Recommendations
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Integrity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrity recommendation 1: All allegations of corruption Written response: Customs has implemented several Fully implemented.
should be expeditiously investigated by Internal Affairs. initiatives which have contributed to more timely IA
Implementing this recommendation requires that the Customs investigations into allegations of corruption. First, Note 1: We did not assess the
Service adopt the recommended restructuring of Internal because IA's Management Inspections Division interviews panel's recommendation for
Affairs discussed elsewhere in this report. Customs employees as well as employees in outside agencies "expeditiously."
(including U.S. Attorneys) as part of its inspection
process, allegations or perceptions of corruption can be Note 2: We did not attempt to
brought to IA attention quickly. Second, Customs has determine which specific
trained groups of senior level agents in the Office of recommendations discussed
Investigations (OI) known as flying squads to conduct high elsewhere in the panel's
priority investigations at locations throughout the report the panel was
country under the direction of IA. Third, IA has developed referring to regarding the
new systems and procedures for receiving and processing implementation of this
allegations, including an automated case management system recommendation. Therefore, we
that has improved the consistency, timeliness and did not assess the portion of
professionalism of IA investigations. the recommendation stating
that "Implementing this
Updated response: Customs' Special Assistant Commissioner, recommendation requires that
Office of Internal Affairs (IA), told us that when the Customs Service adopt the
allegations come into IA they are logged into IA's recommended restructuring of
automated case management system. From the log, an agent Internal Affairs discussed
opens a case for a preliminary investigation. He said all elsewhere in this report."
allegations that IA receives are to be logged onto the
system and assigned a case number. IA has 60 days to
determine whether the case should proceed from a
preliminary investigation to a formal one. One way in
which the length of formal cases is tracked in IA's case
management system is that cases 60, 90, and 120 days old
are highlighted--the computer screen flashes when the
cases reach these intervals. The Special Assistant
Commissioner, IA, said that the agent revisits the case
with his/her supervisor on at least these 30-day
intervals. He said that if a case is close to approaching
6 months old, IA sends a memorandum to the IA Special
Agent in Charge (SAC). If the case is over 6 months old,
and no activity has been conducted on it for the past 2
weeks, IA supervisors will determine why there has been no
activity.
Desk officers can also review the computer screens,
according to the Special Assistant Commissioner, IA. They
should know when a case exceeds the 180 days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Integrity recommendation 2: The Customs Service must Written response: Evidence of actual corruption is treated Substantially implemented.
immediately remove, both from their positions and from as criminal conduct and employees face removal from their
their geographical location, Customs personnel found positions and the Service. Where perceptions of corruption Note: We did not assess the
responsible for corruption and/or contributing to the exist, employees have been transferred due to "loss of panel's meaning of
perception of corruption. effectiveness." However, it should be noted that Customs "immediately" removing
reviews cases involving perceptions of corruption on a employees.
case by case basis and determines disciplinary action
based on the facts surrounding the individual case as well We determined that Customs'
as mitigating and aggravating factors. implementation of this
recommendation was in the
Updated response: Customs officials further stated that "substantially implemented"
the Office of Chief Counsel was very involved in category because it took
determining the actions to implement regarding employees actions that were not
contributing to the perception of corruption. They also responsive to the letter of
mentioned that there are considerations of fairness to the this recommendation, but the
individual because these cases were allegations of actions were generally
corruption and not actual acts of corruption. Other issues consistent with this
involved the employee's right to have the Office of recommendation's purpose.
Special Counsel intervene, which they said could prevent Specifically, Customs does
automatic removal based on perceptions of corruption. not necessarily remove both
from their positions and from
their geographical location
personnel found responsible
for corruption and/or
contributing to the
perception of corruption;
rather, personnel face
removal with determinations
made on a case-by-case basis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Integrity recommendation 3: Customs should feel the same Written response: In the past many employees who were the Fully implemented.
obligation to exonerate employees who have been unfairly subjects of IA investigations were not informed by
accused of wrongdoing as it does to aggressively pursue management that the investigations had been closed without Note: We did not assess the
them. The Customs Service must expeditiously and formally management action. As a result of this recommendation panel's meaning of
notify appropriate management officials and the targets of Customs issued Directive 099 1420-010 which designates "expeditiously."
allegations of corruption of the results of their responsibility to the Principal Field Headquarters
investigations. Officers (through their Labor and Employee Relations (LER)
Offices) to respond to reports of investigation, and to
notify Customs employees who are subjects of completed IA
investigations that the investigations are closed, and
that management determined that no further action is
contemplated. In addition to the above referenced Customs
Directive, Customs developed a case tracking system which
enables managers and LER Specialists to track the progress
of investigations and respond to employees quickly upon
the investigation's completion.
Updated response: Customs' Directive on "Reports of
Investigation Issued by the Office of Internal Affairs"
dated November 5, 1993, advises managers of the IA and LER
automated case tracking procedures and their
responsibility to respond to reports of investigation
transmitted by IA. The directive included time frames for
notifying subjects of investigations and management
officials of the investigation results.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Integrity recommendation 4: Internal Affairs must Written response: Ongoing. See INTEGRITY, Recommendation 1 Partially implemented.
aggressively monitor and act upon perceptions of Federal, [Customs' written response to Integrity recommendation 1
State, and local law enforcement officials with respect to is copied below]. Note: We did not assess the
corruption in the Customs Service through the management panel's recommendation for
inspection process described elsewhere in this report. Customs has implemented several initiatives which have "aggressively" monitoring.
_______________________ contributed to more timely IA investigations into
allegations of corruption. First, because IA's Management We determined that Customs
[The following information was added by GAO for Inspections Division interviews Customs employees as well partially implemented this
explanatory purposes: Management recommendation 2 and as employees in outside agencies (including U.S. recommendation because the
Internal Affairs recommendation 4 (see pages 32 and 68 of Attorneys) as part of its inspection process, allegations panel stated that the
this table) pertain to the panel's recommendation for a or perceptions of corruption can be brought to IA recommendation be implemented
management inspection process. The panel's recommendation attention quickly. Second, Customs has trained groups of "through the management
stated in part that "routine inspections should be senior level agents in the Office of Investigation (OI) inspection process described
conducted every 18 to 24 months of all Customs offices known as flying squads to conduct high priority elsewhere in this report."
(e.g. , SAC, District, Region, Headquarters)."] investigations at locations throughout the country under The panel recommended that
the direction of IA. Third, IA has developed new systems such inspections be conducted
and procedures for receiving and processing allegations, at least every 2 years.
including an automated case management system that has Customs is scheduled to
improved the consistency, timeliness and professionalism conduct these inspections
of IA investigations. every 3 or 4 years due to
lack of resources and IA's
Updated response: Customs' written response to the panel's Office of Management
recommendation for conducting management inspections of Inspections Director's view
all offices every 18 to 24 months was "Lack of resources that conducting comprehensive
have precluded implementation of comprehensive inspections inspections for every office
at least every two years as recommended. However, each SAC once every 3 or 4 years is
office receives a comprehensive, spot-check, or special sufficient.
assessment every two years."
IA's Director, Management Inspections Division, said that
he did not agree with the blue ribbon panel's
recommendation to conduct comprehensive inspections of all
offices every 18 to 24 months. He believed that conducting
such inspections for every office once every 3 or 4 years
was sufficient. He said that the Management Inspections
Division is scheduled to conduct comprehensive inspections
of SAC offices every 3 or 4 years. The Division conducts
follow-up inspections after comprehensive inspections are
completed, along with spot checks. The Director of MID
said that if problems exist at an office, MID conducts a
comprehensive inspection sooner than scheduled.
In addition to comprehensive inspections where IA
investigators contact other law enforcement officials that
deal with Customs to determine if there are perceptions of
corruption, the Special Assistant Commissioner of IA said
that IA has contacts with these officials in other
manners, such as Customs' participation in joint task
forces.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Integrity recommendation 5: Blue Ribbon Panel Written response: Since the issuance of the Blue Ribbon Partially implemented.
recommendations reforming training, management, Panel Report, IA intensified efforts to enhance the
supervision, professional conduct guidelines, discipline integrity of the Service through the development of ethics We did not attempt to
policies, personnel assignments, rotation policies, and and integrity training for all Customs employees. During determine which specific
intelligence support should be adopted to eliminate the FY 92, over 92% of the Customs work force received this recommendations the panel was
conditions that contribute to unwarranted perceptions of training. Some form of this training continues to be given referring to in this
integrity violations. in every basic training course at the Customs Academy as recommendation. We based the
well as in supervisory and managerial training courses. In categorization on the
addition, former Commissioner Hallett issued a memorandum recommendations related to
dated December 20, 1991, which informed all employees the actions Customs selected
about three new categories of misconduct for inclusion in in the written response to
the Table of Penalties and Offenses. The new categories demonstrate its
address whistleblower retaliation and supervisors and implementation of the
managers who fail to report misconduct or to take recommendation.
appropriate disciplinary action.
We categorized this
A mobility\a policy incorporating the features set forth recommendation as "partially
in the Blue Ribbon Panel Report has been drafted. implemented" because Customs
Implementation of the policy has been delayed due to the fully implemented some of the
high cost associated with such extensive mobility features targeted recommendations but
and funding restrictions within the Customs Service. did not fully implement 1 of
However, home town initial assignments are avoided them. Specifically, Customs
whenever possible depending on funding and the needs of identified the 2 panel
the service. recommendations on discipline
regarding sanctions against
Customs examined the role of OI and IA intelligence. As a managers and supervisors who
result, Field Area Intelligence Units were established in fail to report instances of
regional cities, under the line authority of the SAC and misconduct and who fail to
the functional authority of the Director of Intelligence take appropriate disciplinary
to provide for national oversight with continuing actions. These targeted
intelligence support to regional organizations. recommendations refer to
Additionally, an intelligence function has also been "discipline policies" stated
established in IA to analyze allegations, investigations by the panel for this
and conduct threat assessments. recommendation. Customs fully
implemented these
Updated response: An Office of Investigations official recommendations. Another
said that OI is not doing hometown initial assignments panel recommendation
except in large metropolitan areas. identified by Customs as
addressing integrity issues
that Customs fully
implemented was: "Management
recommendation 8: Customs
should examine the role of
intelligence to assure that
the intelligence product
effectively serves all of the
Customs components." This
targeted recommendation
refers to "intelligence
support" stated by the panel
for this recommendation.
Customs did not, however,
fully implement the panel's
Office of Enforcement
recommendation 3 that Customs
should establish a mobility
policy. Customs drafted a
mobility policy but did not
implement it because Customs
decided it would be too
costly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management recommendation 1: The Commissioner should Written response: OOE was established and remained in Fully implemented.
establish an Office of Organizational Effectiveness, led existence from April 1992 until October 1994. OOE was led
by an Associate Commissioner who reports directly to the by an Associate Commissioner who supervised IA as well as We categorized the
Commissioner, at a level above the Assistant carried out the responsibilities and reforms called for in recommendation as "fully
Commissioners. The Associate Commissioner would supervise the Blue Ribbon Panel report. In accordance with the implemented" because while
the Assistant Commissioner (Internal Affairs) and would be sunset provisions placed on OOE and pursuant to the OOE was in existence, Customs
responsible for the current programs within Internal Customs Service plans to reorganize itself, OOE was fully implemented the panel's
Affairs as well as the new responsibilities called for in abolished in 1994 after ensuring that corrective actions recommended actions. Customs
this report. called for by the Blue Ribbon Panel were firmly ensconced abolished OOE in 1994 and
in Customs. The Assistant Commissioner (Internal Affairs) devolved the responsibilities
-The Associate Commissioner should be charged with now reports directly to the Commissioner on the same level of OOE to Assistant
reforming the Customs Service pursuant to the as other Assistant Commissioners. Commissioners, such as the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel. Assistant Commissioner, IA.
Updated response: An official from Customs' Office of Although the panel was silent
Planning and Evaluation stated that during the Office of on whether OOE and the
Organizational Effectiveness' (OOE) existence, all 51 of Associate Commissioner
the panel's recommendations were addressed and most of position should have been
them were implemented. This official also said that OOE temporary, in testimony
was created as a transition organization to implement the during the 1991 congressional
panel's recommendations and ensure that they were hearing on Customs' blue
institutionalized. ribbon panel investigation
into allegations of
The Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human Resources wrongdoing within the agency,
Management (HRM), who was the Acting Associate the panel's Chairman stated
Commissioner, OOE, at the time OOE closed, said that the that it was at the discretion
primary reason for OOE and its Associate Commissioner of the Commissioner whether
position being abolished in October 1994 (6 months sooner OOE was temporary or
than planned)\b was because of Customs' headquarters permanent.
restructuring and reduction of headquarters staff pursuant
to Customs' reorganization plan. Customs' reorganization
was part of its September 1994 People, Processes, and
Partnerships report.
The Assistant Commissioner, HRM, said that when OOE was
established, Customs intended for it to remain in
existence for 3 years. They believed that 3 years was
sufficient time to institutionalize the panel's
recommendations that were implemented throughout Customs.
The Assistant Commissioner, HRM, believed that at the time
OOE was closed, the implemented panel recommendations had
been institutionalized throughout Customs. According to
the Director, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Customs'
December 1992 report that described the progress Customs
had made in implementing the panel's recommendations was
taken into consideration when the decision was made to
close OOE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 2: Customs should establish a Written response: The Office of Management Inspection Partially implemented.
strong and viable management inspection program to (OMI) was established under OOE in April 1992 with the
evaluate and monitor all aspects of the organization. mission of conducting periodic and comprehensive Note: We did not assess the
Office inspections should be comprehensive, covering both inspections of Special Agent in Charge (SAC) and District panel's recommendation for
operations and resource management, and should occur at offices to evaluate: (1) management systems, practices, "strong and viable."
least every two years. In addition, the results of and effectiveness; and (2) compliance with laws, policies,
inspections should be factored into key managers' and regulations. OMI's primary goal was to ascertain the We determined that this
performance evaluations. It is recommended that this health of the organization through "independent" recommendation was partially
function be placed in the newly established Office of evaluation of effectiveness, i.e., mission performance, implemented because Customs
Organizational Effectiveness. (See the Internal Affairs resource utilization, internal/external relations, and did establish a management
section for details of the proposed inspection program.) management controls. Relevant Blue Ribbon Panel issues inspection program; however,
such as managerial effectiveness, performance indicators, it did not conduct
and supervisory, employee, and outside agencies (including comprehensive inspections at
U.S. Attorneys) concerns were incorporated into the least every 2 years because
inspection process. Customs decided it would be
too costly. Furthermore, OI
Lack of resources has precluded implementation of does not factor the results
comprehensive inspections at least every two years as of inspections into key
recommended. However, each SAC office receives a managers' performance
comprehensive, spot-check or special assessment every two evaluations.
years.
The abolishment of OOE placed OMI under IA and renamed it
the Management Inspections Division (MID). MID efforts are
now heavily concentrated on reviews of OI operations. MID
operations must be re-evaluated in light of the
transformation of the field structure from regions to
CMCs, the implementation of new measurement systems, and
the introduction of business process improvement
techniques to analyze our processes.
Updated Response: An Office of Planning and Evaluation
(OPE) official said that there is no agency policy
requiring that inspection results be compared to
supervisory and managerial performance. An OI official
said that at least for the time he had been in his
position (since June 1994), OI had not used the management
inspection reports when doing the SACs' ratings.
IA's Director, Management Inspections Division, said that
Customs is not yet factoring the results of inspections
into key managers' performance evaluations. He also stated
that he did not believe that the comprehensive inspections
needed to be done every 2 years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 3: Managerial and supervisory Written response: Several memorandums have been Partially implemented.
performance should be scrutinized carefully, objectively distributed to Assistant and Regional Commissioners,
and openly. District Directors, and mid-level managers which Note: We did not assess
communicated the standards for supervisory performance. "carefully," "objectively,"
-Standards for supervisory performance should be and "openly"; or "clearly"
communicated clearly and frequently. Professional conduct IA's Management Inspection Division reviews performance and "frequently" as they
and managerial performance guidelines should be appraisal as a core area during comprehensive management apply to this
established and communicated, particularly within the inspections. This process aids in determining if the recommendation.
Offices of Enforcement and Internal Affairs. performance management system is working properly.
The provision for
-The newly recommended inspection process should include Managers have been reassigned where it has been determined communicating standards of
interviews with managers that cover subordinate that they have lost effectiveness in their positions. supervisory performance and
supervisors' performance, which should then be compared establishing and
with annual performance ratings. Updated response: Regarding communicating standards for communicating guidelines for
supervisory performance, Customs implemented a new professional conduct and
-Results of the inspection should also be compared with agencywide performance management system for supervisors managerial performance was
supervisory and managerial performance ratings. Managers and managers effective April 1, 1996. The system is fully implemented. Also fully
who have failed to address known performance deficiencies designed to encourage communication. The ratee's implemented was the portion
in subordinates should receive low ratings in applicable performance is to be discussed at least three times a of the recommendation dealing
elements of their performance plan. year. Discussion topics are to include (1) accepting and with identified performance
conducting "responsibilities in accordance with formally problems and reassigning
-Identified performance problems should be dealt with issued Customs values, ethics and integrity guidelines"; managers, if necessary, who
openly. If necessary, managers who have lost effectiveness and (2) human resource management. have lost their
in their particular position (but whose performance may effectiveness.
not warrant more severe action) should be reassigned out The management inspection process does not automatically
of their organization. include a review of supervisors' performance, including The other two portions of the
the ratings. If, when doing the preinspection survey work, recommendation were not fully
the Office of Internal Affairs identifies a potential implemented. The review of
problem with performance appraisals, it will include them the performance appraisals
as part of its inspections; otherwise, it does not. through the management
inspection process was
It is not mandatory that inspection results be compared to partially implemented because
supervisory and managerial performance. OI, for example, it was not done as a routine
does not review management inspection reports when rating part of each inspection. The
its SACs. results of inspections were
also not being used routinely
The performance management system implemented April 1, in supervisory and managerial
1996, "stresses early intervention" so that "minor performance ratings.
performance problems can be corrected . . . before they
turn into more serious problems." If that fails, then the
supervisor is to develop and issue a written plan for
improvement and clarify in writing the expectations the
employee is not meeting. According to an official in OPE,
while Customs does not have a policy to reassign managers
out of their organization when they have lost their
effectiveness, the agency can reassign staff and has done
it for this reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 4: Accountability measures and Written response: Customs has aggressively pursued Partially implemented.
specific goals should be the cornerstone of performance corrective action to improve the performance evaluation
plans and ratings of key managers. system for executives and managers through a series of Note: We did not assess
actions. Instructions were issued to ensure that "cornerstone" as it applies
-Regional and Assistant Commissioners should review merit performance plans for SES and merit pay employees were to this recommendation.
pay and SES performance plans for 1991/92 to determine if linked to Customs goals and objectives as presented in the
plans include sufficient elements to cover accountability Customs Five Year Plan. In addition, managers were We categorized this
for organizational performance, including management of instructed to include quantifiable performance criteria recommendation as partially
all resources and assets, and effective communication with and milestones in their plans. Annual goals memorandums implemented because although
subordinate managers. have instructed SES employees that mid and year-end self the Regional and Assistant
assessments must address each expected performance Commissioners were tasked
-Raters of key managers (e.g., Special Agents in Charge, objective, and must describe achievements. In addition, with reviewing performance
District Directors) should solicit input from other Assistant and Regional Commissioners were instructed to plans as recommended and were
appropriate parts of the Customs organization (e.g., those review plans for these elements. to ensure that the plans were
who are provided operational support or receive services linked to Customs' goals and
from the manager). As a check to ensure that this accountability mechanism that they had sufficient
was implemented, SES plans for the 1991-92, 1992-93 and accountability measures, the
-The Commissioner should convene a balanced and impartial 1993-94 cycles were reviewed by a Performance Appraisal other portions of the
board, chaired by the Associate Commissioner for Review Committee. In addition, former merit pay employees recommendation were less than
Organizational Effectiveness, to perform post-audit review were directed to include specific elements that addressed fully implemented. Customs
of ratings issued on key managers (SACs, DDs) and senior organizational performance and management of resources and disagreed with and did not
executives. The board should review and compare ratings assets. implement the portion of the
both within the executives' respective hierarchies and recommendation for raters to
across organizational and program lines, and report to the Additionally, a special task force of District Directors solicit input from managers
Commissioner on its findings. and representatives from the Office of Investigations (OI) in other parts of the
and IA was convened to revamp and revitalize the merit pay organization. Also, while
performance standards for key managerial positions. One of Customs developed a plan for
the objectives of the task force was to ensure that the the post-audit reviews, it
plans reflected Customs priorities and to provide a clear, did not implement it.
consistent and objective framework for evaluation, which
included quantifiable national standards.
One recommendation that was not adopted in this area is
the requirement to solicit input from managers in other
organizations for performance ratings of key managers.
After careful review of this suggestion, Customs officials
felt that such an approach would actually serve to
diminish accountability within the managers' chain of
command. The subjectivity of various managers who are not
ultimately responsible for the performance of the manager
being rated would undermine efforts for objective and
quantifiable evaluation against predetermined standards.
Updated response: According to information provided by
Customs at an April 1992 congressional hearing, the
Regional and Assistant Commissioners were instructed to
review performance plans to see if accountability measures
were sufficient. The review was to cover organizational
performance and management of resources.
According to former OOE officials, although Customs
officials had discussions about doing post-audit reviews,
the reviews were never done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 5: The organizational structure Written response: A private contractor conducted a Partially implemented.
of the Office of Enforcement should be realigned to Service-wide review of the Customs Air Program. The study
provide a clear line of authority. recommended that air and marine resources remain within Note: We followed up on only
OI, but did not support the Blue Ribbon Panel the assets specifically
-The Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) should be in recommendation that air/marine resources report directly identified in this
charge of all assets, including air, marine and human to the SACs. The Air Branch Chiefs and SACs work closely recommendation, e.g., air,
resources. together to insure that the overall Customs enforcement marine, and human resources.
mission is met.
-When assets fall within the jurisdiction of a SAC office, We categorized this
they should be under the SAC's control (e.g., boats, Updated response: The Office of Enforcement's recommendation as partially
airplanes). The Panel considers this to be a basic tenet organizational structure was realigned in October 1991 implemented because, although
for effective law enforcement management, and recognizes establishing direct line authority from the Assistant the Assistant Commissioner
that it requires a Servicewide review of the Customs Air Commissioner to the SACs. for Investigations is in
Program field structure. charge of the assets
According to an official in the OI Office of Policy and enumerated in the first part
Oversight, the Assistant Commissioner for Investigations of the recommendation, the
is in charge of the air and marine programs and human SACs do not have control of
resource assets. The marine assets are under the SACs' the air assets as recommended
control; the air resources are not. in the last part of the
recommendation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 6: Regional and SAC office Written response: The organizational structure of OI was Fully implemented.
structures and reporting systems should be realigned. realigned in October, 1991, establishing direct line
authority from the Assistant Commissioner to the SACs. Note: We did not assess
-SACs should report to the Assistant Commissioner Regional layers of management and support personnel were "insure" and "promote" as
(Enforcement), through subordinates if so designated by phased out over a period of several months. Additional they apply to this
the Assistant Commissioner. realignment to reduce the supervisor/employee ratios is recommendation.
ongoing with a reduction of SAC offices to occur in
-The regional enforcement structure, as now constituted October 1995.
reporting to the Regional Commissioner, should be
eliminated and substituted with the authority of the Updated response: In October 1995 the number of SAC
Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), nationally. offices was reduced from 27 to 20 to reflect Customs'
realigned field structure that became effective at that
-The Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) should review time. According to the OI Director, Office of Policy and
and redesign regional structures, SAC office designations Oversight, OI most recently completed a review of its
and boundaries as necessary to insure a streamlined field office structures in early 1996.
reporting system and to promote efficiency.
Management recommendation 7: The selection process in OE Written response: The selection process in OI was revised Fully implemented.
for recruitment, promotion and reassignment should be by establishing a network of field recruiters. A
revised to establish systems (e.g., career boards) which centralized control process over the evaluation/selection Note: We did not assess
insure that personal relationships cannot be used as a process was established to ensure consistency in hiring "insure" as it applies to
basis for action or inaction. (See Office of Enforcement practices. All selection decisions are currently made at this recommendation. We did
section.) the Headquarters level. The establishment of a career not attempt to determine
board is still under review by OI. which specific
recommendations the panel was
Updated response: According to the OI Director of referring to when it said
Administration, the hiring process referred to in the "See Office of Enforcement
written response involves a process in which panel members section."
review applicants' paperwork and make recommendations to
the Assistant Commissioner for Investigations. According
to the OI Director, Office of Policy and Oversight,
promotion decisions to grade 13 are made by the Deputy
Assistant Commissioner for Investigations. Promotion
decisions to the GS-14 and GS-15 levels are made by the
Assistant Commissioner for Investigations. Before OI got
line authority, promotion decisions to the GS-13 level
were made in the field. Reassignment decisions into and
out of SAC offices are made by headquarters, not the SAC.
SACs also cannot move staff within their approved office
structure without the Assistant Commissioner's approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 8: With the change to line Written response: OI Field Area Intelligence Units were Fully Implemented.
authority in the Office of Enforcement, Customs should established in regional cities, under the line authority
examine the role of intelligence to assure that the of the SAC and the functional authority of the Director of Note: We did not assess the
intelligence product effectively serves all of the Customs Intelligence to provide for national oversight with panel's recommendation for
components. In addition, Customs should ensure that its continuing intelligence support to regional "assure," "effectively,"
intelligence function is centrally controlled, organizations. "professionalized," "ensure,"
professionalized, and effectively participates in and and "meaningfully" as they
contributes meaningfully to intelligence products and Updated response: In 1992, Customs stated that following apply to this
activities at the national level. the institution of line authority, the Assistant recommendation.
Commissioner for Enforcement convened a multidisciplined
group of managers to examine the role of intelligence and
the impact of the new organizational structure. That
document also stated that several actions were taken to
provide greater professionalism within the intelligence
function, including the development of a Basic
Intelligence Analyst Training Course, an on-the-job
training handbook for intelligence analysts, and
performance standards for Intelligence Research
Specialists.
Customs officials told us in February 1996 that it hired
an outside contractor to conduct a study on intelligence.
According to OI's Director, Office of Policy and
Oversight, the study's estimated completion date is April
1997.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 9: [To assist in explaining our Written response: Criminal and serious misconduct Partially implemented.
categorization of this recommendation, GAO added the (A) - allegations against managers are reported to IA and
(F) designations in the recommendation.] investigated promptly by IA or the Office of Inspector Note: We did not assess the
General (OIG) as appropriate. Allegations involving less panel's recommendation for
-(A) Allegations against managers should be investigated serious instances of misconduct are referred to management actions regarding "resolved
and resolved promptly. for inquiry. As part of the IA investigation, managers are promptly," "unsatisfactory
routinely notified of the investigation and disposition in managers," "removed
-(B) It is recommended that such allegations be reported accordance with new exoneration procedures [see INTEGRITY, promptly," or "as quickly as
to and acted upon by the Office of Internal Affairs. recommendation (3)]. Decisions to detail or remove possible."
managers from their positions are made on a case-by-case
-(C) Managers who are the subject of allegations should be basis depending on the nature of the mismanagement and the Customs fully implemented
notified immediately and interviewed as a routine part of supporting evidence. parts of this recommendation;
the investigation. namely: (1) on the basis of
Updated response: The panel recommended that IA notify the nature and substance of
-(D) Based on the nature and substance of allegations, accused managers of allegations made against them. the allegations, managers may
managers may be temporarily removed from their position. However, the Special Assistant Commissioner of IA stated be temporarily removed from
that subjects of investigations are not always notified their positions; (2) once the
-(E) Once the investigation is completed, the manager that they are being investigated. Our review of the IA investigation is completed,
should be notified promptly of the results and the Special Agent Handbook noted that for criminal the manager should be
proposed action. investigations, upon the advice of the Assistant U.S. notified promptly of the
Attorney, IA interviews the accused. If the Assistant U.S. results and the proposed
-(F) Unsatisfactory managers should be removed promptly Attorney advises against such notification, IA does not action; and (3)
from their position and locality. Permanent replacements interview the manager. unsatisfactory managers
should be assigned as quickly as possible. should be removed promptly
A Customs directive dated November 5, 1993, included time from their positions and
frames for notification of investigation results. IA locality. Permanent
officials also told us that the Disciplinary Review Board replacements should be
was recently established to address disciplinary actions. assigned as quickly as
possible. (See sections (D),
On June 24, 1996, Customs provided an additional written (E), and (F) of the
response regarding its implementation of this recommendation.)
recommendation. Customs stated that it has an active
disciplinary program, but removal of a manager because of However, other parts of this
inadequate performance requires a number of multifaceted recommendation
considerations. The process of removal or reassignment were not fully implemented;
itself is a drawn-out procedure and the impact on the namely: (1) Allegations of
operations must be carefully weighed. The manager must less serious instances of
also be given an opportunity to improve his performance, misconduct are referred to
alternative actions must be considered, and a new place in management, not IA, for
the organization identified. This holds true whether the inquiry. (See sections (A)
manager is just reassigned or outrightly removed from and (B) of the
Customs. As a result, final action requires a lot of recommendation.) (2) Subjects
serious deliberation. of investigations are not
always notified that they are
being investigated. IA will
not notify and interview the
manager about a criminal
investigation against him if
the Assistant U.S. Attorney
(AUSA) advises IA not to do
it. (See section (C) of the
recommendation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 10: With the change to line Written response: A task force consisting of DDs, SACs and Partially implemented.
authority in OE, the Commissioner and senior Customs personnel specialists was convened to analyze pay
management should take steps to avoid perceptions of disparities between the DDs and SACs. The task force Customs fully implemented the
separateness and "elitism" between OE and other parts of ranked each district and SAC office using criteria such as first two specific portions
the Customs organization. staffing levels, operating sites, trade complexity and of the recommendation. It
enforcement activity. As a result of the comprehensive examined grade and pay
-Customs should examine grade and pay parity between SACs analysis, the task force noted there were large, disparities between SACs and
and DDs (taking into account the impact of recent pay noticeable disparities in pay between DDs and SACs from DDs,\c and, through the
reform legislation). comparably ranked offices. Customs requested Treasury reorganization, has adopted
upgrade a number of DD positions to SES. The impact of processes that work to bring
-Each co-located SAC and DD should plan activities and Customs reorganization to CMCs on this issue is unclear at together OI and other parts
programs to insure that employees in both organizations this time. of Customs. Customs did not
understand their counterparts' jobs and priorities. implement the last portion of
OI managers have been directed to work with other Customs the recommendation, which was
-Assistant Commissioners, OE Headquarters Division personnel in a coordinated team effort. Additionally, the to have Assistant
Directors, and the respective Regional Commissioners Customs reorganization, through the introduction of Commissioners, Headquarters
should participate in the evaluation of SACs. process management and strategic problem-solving concepts, Division Directors, and the
will encourage even greater integration of the respective Regional
disciplines. Commissioners participate in
SAC evaluations.
Customs did not accept the recommendation to have
Assistant Commissioners, Headquarters Division Directors,
and the respective Regional Commissioners participate in
the Evaluations of SACs.
Updated response: According to OI representatives,
Customs' reorganization has raised the consciousness about
working together. Various aspects of the reorganization,
including process management and the strategic problem-
solving process, provide opportunities to encourage
greater integration between OI and other parts of
Customs.
Additionally, Customs' 1994 reorganization report states
that one of Customs desired states is for there to be "a
better understanding by all disciplines and employees of
the goals of the organization, and the role that each
discipline and organizational element plays in the
achievement of those goals."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Management recommendation 11: Customs should ensure that Written response: The "Excellence" program that existed Fully implemented.
any future implementation of the management philosophy during the Blue Ribbon Panel review has been replaced by a
promoted by the "Excellence" program\d avoids nation-wide and government-wide move towards a Note: We did not assess the
counterproductive side effects that undermine overall "Partnership" between employees and management. panel's recommendation for
Customs organizational effectiveness. "ensure" and
Updated response: Customs officials said that Customs now "counterproductive side
has its "partnership program," which went far beyond the effects that undermine
"excellence program." overall Customs
organizational
Customs' reorganization and, in particular, its effectiveness."
"partnership" tenets include encouraging teamwork and
involving all of Customs. Because the panel did not
define much of this
recommendation, we made our
categorization assessment
using the panel's finding
that identified the problems
the recommendation was to
address.
Management recommendation 12: If the Commissioner Written response: During its existence, OOE managed the Fully implemented.
determines that there is a continuing need for a special Commissioner's "cards and letters" program. Additionally,
and independent "cards and letters" program, these other existing systems for addressing employee concerns Note: We did not assess the
communications should be referred to the newly established were widely advertised and promoted. Since the abolishment panel's definition of
Associate Commissioner for Organizational Effectiveness. of OOE, communication of this nature has been referred to "widely" advertised.
The Associate Commissioner, who is not part of the agency management, IA or OIG as appropriate for inquiry or
appellate process, can administer the program on behalf of investigation.
the Commissioner. Moreover, the availability and utility
of existing systems for addressing concerns, complaints, Updated response: Customs officials told us that employees
and problems should be widely advertised throughout the know who to contact now that the cards and letters program
Customs Service and promoted as the proper guarantor of is nonexistent. If they send concerns, complaints, or
Service integrity. problems to the Commissioner's office, his staff will look
into them or assign them to another office to review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Office of Enforcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Enforcement recommendation 1: The organizational Written response: See Management, Action (6) [Customs' Fully implemented.
structure of the Customs Service should be realigned to written response to Management recommendation 6 is copied
provide a clear line of authority throughout the Office of below]. Note: We did not attempt to
Enforcement, beginning from the Assistant Commissioner determine which specific
through the Special Agent in Charge, to the Agent. The organizational structure of OI was realigned in recommendations the panel was
Implementation of this reorganization is discussed in the October, 1991, establishing direct line authority from the referring to in the second
following recommendations and in the Management section of Assistant Commissioner to the SACs. Regional layers of part of the recommendation.
this report. management and support personnel were phased out over a
period of several months. Additional realignment to reduce
the supervisor/employee ratios is ongoing with a reduction
of SAC offices to occur in October 1995.
Updated response: The reduction of SAC offices that was to
occur in 1995, mentioned above, occurred as scheduled. SAC
offices were reduced from 27 to 20.
Office of Enforcement recommendation 2: Customs should Written response: See MANAGEMENT, Action (7) [Customs' Partially implemented.
establish a professional, national recruitment policy written response to Management recommendation 7 is copied
which provides for professional development, agent below]. Note: We did not attempt to
mobility and loyalty to the institution. Specifically, determine if the policy was
Customs should avoid home town initial assignments. The selection process in OI was revised by establishing a "professional" or provided
network of field recruiters. A centralized control process for "loyalty to the
over the evaluation/selection process was established to institution."
ensure consistency in hiring practices. All selection
decisions are currently made at the Headquarters level. We categorized this
The establishment of a career board is still under review recommendation as partially
by OI. implemented because OI
established a national
Additionally, home town initial assignments are avoided recruitment program and
whenever possible depending on funding and the needs of avoided home town initial
the service. assignments, only making an
exception in a large
Updated response: According to an OI official, some other metropolitan area. OI had
aspects of the recruitment process include formalized taken action on but had not
training for the field recruiters and use of a implemented the professional
standardized interview procedure. development and agent
mobility programs.
In addition to the recruitment process described above
there is a draft Office of Investigations and Internal
Affairs Career Development, Mobility, and Hardship Policy
Handbook. The Handbook was about to be revised when we
were doing our work, to reflect, among other things,
Customs-wide and OI-specific reorganizations. The handbook
outlines policies and procedures for a special agent
career development program and a mobility program.
According to the Assistant Commissioner for
Investigations, OI has tested out the mobility/
reassignment program but had not formally implemented it
as of April 1996.
According to OI's Director of Administration, no written
policy prohibiting hometown assignments exists. As a
direct result of the panel's report, however, OI would
make a home town assignment only if it were to a large
metropolitan area.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Office of Enforcement recommendation 3: Customs should Written response: A mobility policy incorporating the Partially implemented.
establish a mobility policy and career path that include features set forth in the Blue Ribbon Panel Report has
the following features: been drafted. Implementation of the policy has been The portion of the
delayed due to the high cost associated with such recommendation to assign a
-A newly hired agent should be required to sign a mobility extensive mobility features and funding restrictions mentor to new special agents
agreement. within the Customs Service. was fully implemented. All
other portions of this
-A three year assignment to the first post of duty should A mentor program has been established whereby senior recommendation have not been
be required. The Service should make efforts to expose agents serve as mentors for all new agents and ensure implemented, although several
newly hired agents to all major investigative areas appropriate training is received. were under review or testing
(fraud, strategic, smuggling and financial) by placing when we completed our work.
them in medium or large offices. Updated response: According to the OI Director, Office of
Policy and Oversight, agents do not have to sign a
-In the first year, a newly hired agent should be assigned mobility agreement. However, OI officials told us that the
to a senior agent mentor. special agent vacancy announcements and position
descriptions state that the agents are subject to
-After three years, an agent should be placed in a central relocation.
pool of agents eligible for transfer, and such transfer
should be determined by the needs of the Service. There is no requirement for the first post of duty
assignment to be for 3 years nor are new agents placed
-Subject to financial and program restraints, an agent only in medium or large offices. According to OI's
should be transferred in his/her fourth year. Director of Administration, the two structured ways in
which new agents are exposed to the major investigative
-Journeyman agents should be given the opportunity to areas are basic training and the mentor/on-the-job
elect the "management career track." Those who have opted training program.
for the management career track will be required to act as
relief supervisors, and serve a tour in Headquarters OE The On-the-Job Training Handbook states that a senior
and a separate tour in the Headquarters Office of Internal agent mentor is to be assigned to each new agent.
Affairs. Their progress will be continually reviewed by a
central career board. Future OE managers must complete the According to OI's Director of Administration, agents are
management career track. not moved after 3 years in their first post of duty. The
mobility policy OI tested was based on office performance.
The policy involved identifying, through OI's performance
measurement system, offices that should gain or lose
staff, then soliciting volunteers to move to the gaining
office, giving priority consideration to staff from
offices identified to lose agents. OI's draft mobility
policy states that OI would fill vacancies through new
hires, voluntary reassignments, and involuntary
reassignments that would be used in the absence of
qualified volunteers. According to OI's Director of
Administration, the office examined the costs of various
mobility policies. It found that the office did not have
the money to fund moves on a routine basis.
According to OI's Director of Administration, OI does not
have a "management career track." However, OI has
proposed, in its draft handbook, a career development
program. The draft program does not mandate a particular
path. Among other things, it recognizes completion of
specified career-enhancing assignments, including
assignments to headquarters OI and Internal Affairs. The
draft program entails the use of a Career Review Board in
the agent promotion process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Office of Enforcement recommendation 4: The selection Written response: Most employees hired as special agents Not implemented--action
process and reassignment policy should incorporate the are reassigned to locations other than where they grew up taken.
Panel's recommendations for the new agent hiring policy, or had extended work experience, although lack of funding
the mobility requirement, and a career path for managers. precludes transferring all new hires to new work Note: Although OI instituted
We also recommend developing a "career board" concept for locations. A career path for managers is in development, a recruiting and hiring
selections of GM-14's, based on SAC recommendations, the however, mobility and training are seen as key elements in process, we were unable to
board and the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement). that design. An aggressive training program has been determine the extent to which
designed with the assistance of National Louis University OI implemented a "new agent
Although the Executive Resources Board evaluates (NLU). In June 1995, 22 of OI key managers graduated with hiring policy" because the
candidates for GM-15 positions, the Office of Enforcement Masters Degrees in Science and Management from NLU. report did not define what
should have the career board review the pool of applicants such a policy would consist
for SAC positions, including the career development needs Mobility remains a problem within OI. In the past, Customs of.
of current GM-15's, as well as promotion applicants, based budget could not absorb the cost of the number of moves
on improved rating systems (described below), office required for a well developed career path program. With The remainder of the
inspections, prior enforcement experience and the the recent funding cuts, it is even less likely that we recommendation was not
management career path. will be able to implement a true career path for implemented. OI, however, had
managers. either taken actions that
[Note: The recommendation refers to GM-14s and 15s. responded to the
References Customs officials made in response to this OI is not currently utilizing a "career board" for recommendation or decided not
recommendation were to GS-14s and 15s.] selection of GS-14 and GS-15 employees due to the to implement that part of the
extensive reduction of promotions to those levels. recommendation. OI took
action by developing draft
Updated response: According to an OI official, OI mobility and career
instituted a recruiting and hiring process that involved, development programs. The
among other things, field recruiters undergoing a career development program
formalized training course to recruit and interview included a career board
prospective special agents and standardized interviews of concept for selection of GS-
potential hires in the field. Selections were made by a 14s. OI decided not to
headquarters selecting official. develop a career board
concept for the SAC
OI has drafted a mobility policy, as described under the positions.
Office of Enforcement recommendation 3 updated response.
OI examined the cost of various rotation policies and
determined it did not have the funding available for one
with the features recommended by the panel, according to
the OI Director of Administration.
OI has drafted a Career Development Program, as described
under the Office of Enforcement recommendation 3 updated
response. It incorporates some of the ideas in the panel's
recommendations for a management career track. The draft
program incorporates the use of a career review board that
would make promotion recommendations to the Assistant
Commissioners OI/IA for GS-13 and GS-14 positions.
According to the OI Director, Office of Policy and
Oversight, OI is not
using and does not plan on using a career board concept
for SAC positions. According to the draft Career
Development Program policy, the process for promoting to
the GS-15 and Senior Executive Service level will use an
Executive Resources Board for selection of GS-15 and SES
positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Office of Enforcement recommendation 5: The Office of Written response: OI has recruited minorities and women to Substantially implemented.
Enforcement should develop an aggressive outreach program participate in NLU programs.
to encourage career advancement for minorities. Because this recommendation
Updated response: OI officials provided the following as focused on developing by an
additional examples of what OI has done to encourage "aggressive outreach program"
career advancement for minorities. and the panel did not define
--In the 2-week recruiter training course it has what the program should
emphasized hiring minorities. consist of, we could not
--It has ensured a representation of females and determine the degree to which
minorities on assignments to IA's Management Inspection Customs had implemented the
Division, headquarters OI, and the Discipline Review recommendation. We
Board. determined, however, that
Customs took actions that
appeared to be generally
consistent with the purpose
of the recommendation, and
therefore we categorized the
implementation as
"substantially implemented."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Office of Enforcement recommendation 6: Employee Written response: Line authority has provided the basis Partially implemented.
Performance Appraisal System (EPAS) employees should be for improved accountability through performance
held accountable to their EPAS plans, and problem evaluation. Employees are placed on performance We categorized this
employees should be properly rated and given a Performance improvement plans when their performance warrants such recommendation as partially
Improvement Plan (PIP) where appropriate. action. Standardized performance plans for SACs place implemented because, although
appropriate emphasis on national program objectives, Customs fully implemented the
Managers should be rated based on a wide variety of input. management responsibilities and quantifiable performance portion of the recommendation
The Management section of this report recommends a new OE standards. As indicated in MANAGEMENT, Recommendation (4), concerning use of improvement
field structure, and the rating system described here is Customs chose not to adopt the recommendation to solicit plans, it did not accept the
an important part of that structure. A SAC's performance input of other managers in the rating of SACS because it recommendation for using a
should be rated under the new structure by the Assistant most likely would dilute the accountability and matrix approach to ratings or
Commissioner (Enforcement) with input on a matrix type objectivity of the rating process. soliciting input from other
evaluation sheet from all Assistant Commissioners and managers in the rating of
Enforcement Division Directors, who in turn receive input Updated response: According to an OPE official, under the SACs.
from their staff. In addition, in order to maintain new performance management system for EPAS employees (now
effective field relationships, the Regional Commissioner called Employee Proficiency Review (EPR) employees) that
in whose specific area the SAC is located, his staff, and Customs was implementing as we were doing our work, the
the District Director in that area should provide rating employees will not have EPAS plans. These employees' EPR
input. Correspondingly, the SACs should rate their forms cover four core competency areas--job knowledge,
subordinate managers, based on this matrix approach and technical skills, professional application, and working
with input from the District Director. with others--for which they will have more simplified
plans. The employee and his/her supervisor are to discuss
these areas at least three times during the year--at the
performance planning meeting, one purpose of which is to
establish a common understanding of performance
expectations; at ongoing review meeting(s); and at the
annual proficiency review meeting at the end of the review
year. According to instructions for completing EPRs,
supervisors are to recognize deficiencies in performance
and determine the causes as soon as they become evident.
When deficiencies continue, the supervisor is to develop
and issue an Employee Proficiency Plan (EPP). Under the
new system, the EPP has taken the place of a Performance
Improvement Plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Office of Enforcement recommendation 7: The Panel Written response: OI's inspection process has been Partially implemented.
recommends that the Office of Enforcement inspection abolished and subsumed into MID's inspection program. See
process be abolished and subsumed by the new inspection MANAGEMENT, Recommendation (2). Note: In the second portion
process recommended in the Management and Internal Affairs of the recommendation, we
sections of this report. This process should focus on The Management Inspection Division does not look at followed up only on the
implementation of the changes called for in this report, hiring, mobility, career path and Affirmative Action changes specifically
such as hiring, mobility, career path and affirmative during field management inspections as those areas are identified in this
action. largely centralized at the Headquarters level. The Office recommendation, i.e., hiring,
of Investigations has, however, made a large effort at the mobility, career path, and
national level in the area of minority recruitment. affirmative action.
Updated response: According to the Director, Management We categorized this
Inspections Division, Office of Internal Affairs, the recommendation as partially
inspections do not automatically cover each of these implemented because, although
areas. IA could identify one of these areas as an issue in the Office of Enforcement
an inspection report if it determined it was the cause of inspection process was
a problem in a SAC office. IA does not have a policy to abolished and subsumed by the
routinely conduct headquarters inspections. It does them IA inspection process, IA's
at the request of an official at the Assistant process does not
Commissioner level or above. automatically focus on the
other portions of the
recommendation. Additionally,
the panel recommended that
the inspections be done at
least every 2 years.
According to the Director,
Management Inspections
Division, the SAC office
inspections are scheduled for
every 3 or 4 years, with
follow-up inspections and
spot-checks to be done after
the comprehensive
inspections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Office of Internal Affairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 1: The Office of Internal Written response: The integrity of the Customs Service has Substantially implemented.
Affairs must take a pro-active role in agency leadership been strengthened through the development and
to ensure the real and perceived institutional integrity implementation of a comprehensive integrity training Because this recommendation
of the Customs Service. program which stresses the obligation of employees to focuses on IA taking a
report alleged misconduct to Internal Affairs. During FY proactive role in agency
1992, over 92% of the Customs workforce received this leadership and the panel did
training and every basic training course at the Customs not define what such a role
Academy incorporates an integrity module. Integrity should consist of, we could
training is also included in supervisory and managerial not determine the degree to
training courses. which Customs has implemented
the recommendation.
The Office of Internal Affairs request for funds to
conduct updated integrity and ethics training was denied. We determined, however, that
Integrity and ethics training is given to new supervisors IA has implemented a number
and front line operations positions at FLETC in Glynco. of actions that could be
construed as proactive and
Updated response: IA's Special Assistant Commissioner therefore generally appeared
believed the following actions represented IA taking a to be consistent with the
"pro-active" role in agency leadership to ensure Customs' purpose of the
integrity: (1) In July 1996, IA will be providing special recommendation.
HARDLINE training to the field that includes information
on Customs' integrity policy and how to report
allegations. IA agents will be teamed up with OI and Field
Operations personnel to be trained in the new course and
then teach it throughout the field. Funding has been
obtained to train Customs' field office personnel from San
Diego to Miami to Puerto Rico. (2) IA's new mission
statement states, in part, "every Customs employee has the
right to work in an environment free of corruption,
misconduct, or mismanagement." (3) The Commissioner's
directives on guidelines reporting allegations to IA were
issued to all supervisors and managers. (4) IA set up a
24-hour hotline for employees and the public to report any
allegations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 2: The Office of Internal Written response: The IA structure at HQ has been Fully implemented.
Affairs should be reinforced and restructured to ensure reorganized to provide the basis for stronger direction
that the organization is designed to accomplish its and more centralized control over investigations. This Note: We did not assess
expanded mission. In developing this structure, Customs structure includes an Internal Investigations Division and whether the actions taken
should consider models for handling internal affairs that an Investigative Programs Division, modeled on other law "ensure" that IA accomplishes
already exist in other law enforcement agencies, such as enforcement agencies' IA organizations. Desk officer its mission.
the FBI and DEA. This new organization should include an positions, which provide assistance to IA field activities
Office of Professional Responsibility and an Office of and monitor investigations have been established. An We determined that Customs
Inspections. intelligence function has also been established to analyze fully implemented this
allegations, investigations and conduct threat recommendation even though it
assessments. no longer has an OPR because
the functions of OPR are
Updated response: In IA's description of its intelligence carried out by the desk
group, it documented that in 1992 IA had an Office of officers in IA's Internal
Professional Responsibility (OPR) that is now referred to Investigations Division. In
as its Internal Investigations Division. addition, Customs has a
Management Inspections
An Internal Affairs official said that due to Customs' Division.
reorganization and attendant downsizing, IA eliminated the
layer of Director of OPR but retained its functions within
IA's Internal Investigations Division. Desk officers
perform the oversight functions for IA's OPR. Desk
officers track case management activities, review for
quality and comprehensiveness of cases, check on the
timeliness of cases, and act as conduits for information.
According to Customs' organization handbook, the Office of
Internal Affairs also has a Management Inspections
Division responsible for "developing and coordinating a
unified and broad-based approach to the implementation of
management inspection and undercover audit programs. These
programs gauge the effectiveness and efficiency of
managers, processes, strategies, and special interest
initiatives."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 3: The Assistant Written response: During OOE's existence, IA was Fully implemented.
Commissioner for Internal Affairs should report to the reorganized so that it reported directly to the Associate
newly established Associate Commissioner for Commissioner for OOE. Since OOE's abolishment, the We categorized the
Organizational Effectiveness. Assistant Commissioner (IA) reports directly to the recommendation as "fully
Commissioner at the same organizational level as other implemented" because, during
Assistant Commissioners. the existence of the Office
of Organizational
Effectiveness (OOE), the
Assistant Commissioner for
Internal Affairs did report
to the Associate Commissioner
of OOE. Customs abolished
OOE, and IA's Assistant
Commissioner now reports
directly to the Commissioner.
Although the blue ribbon
panel report was silent on
whether OOE should be
temporary, in testimony
during the 1991 congressional
hearing on Customs' blue
ribbon panel investigation
into allegations of
wrongdoing within the agency,
the panel's Chairman stated
that he believed it was at
the discretion of the
Commissioner whether the
Associate Commissioner
position in OOE was temporary
or permanent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 4: The panel considers it Written response: See MANAGEMENT, Recommendations (2 and Partially implemented.
critical that Customs establish a comprehensive and 3) [Customs' written response to Management
aggressive internal inspection program with responsibility recommendations 2 and 3 are copied below]. Note: We did not assess the
placed in the Headquarters Office of Internal Affairs, panel's meaning for
under the Associate Commissioner for Organizational The Office of Management Inspection (OMI) was established "comprehensive and
Effectiveness. under OOE in April 1992 with the mission of conducting aggressive," "all other
periodic and comprehensive inspections of Special Agent in matters which affect the
-Inspections should cover management, operations, Customs Charge (SAC) and District offices to evaluate: (1) efficiency and integrity,"
agenda, personnel, internal controls and all other matters management systems, practices, and effectiveness; and (2) and "significant" as they
which affect the efficiency and integrity of the compliance with laws, policies, and regulations. OMI's related to this
organization being inspected. primary goal was to ascertain the health of the recommendation.
organization through "independent" evaluation of
-Routine inspections should be conducted every 18-24 effectiveness, i.e., mission performance, resource We categorized Customs'
months of all Customs offices (e.g., SAC, District, utilization, internal/external relations, and management implementation of this
Region, Headquarters). controls. Relevant Blue Ribbon Panel issues such as multifaceted recommendation
managerial effectiveness, performance indicators, and as "partially implemented"
-Ad hoc teams of investigators should be dispatched when supervisory, employee, and outside agencies (including because Customs fully
allegations require such action. U.S. Attorneys) concerns were incorporated into the implemented portions of this
inspection process. recommendation, but it did
-Inspection findings should be communicated by the not fully implement other
Associate Commissioner for Organizational Effectiveness to Lack of resources has precluded implementation of parts.
the responsible Regional/Assistant Commissioner, with a comprehensive inspections at least every two years as
copy to the Commissioner. recommended. However, each SAC office receives a Customs fully implemented the
comprehensive, spot-check or special assessment every two panel's recommended actions
-The Associate Commissioner should follow up and monitor years. regarding (1) inspections
corrective action on behalf of the Commissioner to ensure covering management,
compliance. The abolishment of OOE placed OMI under IA and renamed it operations, Customs' agenda,
the Management Inspections Division (MID). MID efforts are personnel, internal controls,
-Inspection findings should be a significant consideration now heavily concentrated on reviews of OI operations. MID and all other matters that
in evaluating senior key manager performance. operations must be re-evaluated in light of the affect the efficiency and
transformation of the field structure from regions to integrity of the organization
CMCs, the implementation of new measurement systems, and being inspected; and (2) ad
the introduction of business process improvement hoc teams of senior level
techniques to analyze our processes. investigators being
dispatched when allegations
Several memorandums have been distributed to Assistant and require such action.
Regional Commissioners, District Directors, and mid-level
managers which communicated the standards for supervisory On the basis of Customs
performance. officials' statements, we
determined that Customs did
IA's Management Inspection Division reviews performance not fully implement two parts
appraisal as a core area during comprehensive management of this recommendation: (1)
inspections. This process aids in determining if the Routine inspections of all
performance management system is working properly. Customs offices are not
conducted every 18 to 24
Managers have been reassigned where it has been determined months. Customs conducts
that they have lost effectiveness in their positions. comprehensive inspections of
offices every 3 or 4 years,
not every 18 to 24 months.
(2) Inspection findings are
currently not a significant
consideration in evaluating
senior key manager
performance.
Customs fully implemented two
parts of the recommendation
while OOE and its attendant
Associate Commissioner were
in existence. (1) Inspection
findings were communicated by
the Associate Commissioner
for Organizational
Effectiveness to the
responsible Regional/
Assistant Commissioner, with
a copy to the Commissioner.
(2) The Associate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Updated response: In Customs' written response to Commissioner followed up and
Integrity recommendation 1 it stated that Customs has monitored corrective action
trained groups of senior-level agents in the Office of on behalf of the Commissioner
Investigations known as flying squads to conduct high- to ensure compliance.
priority investigations at locations throughout the
country under the direction of IA. Customs partially implemented
one part of OOE was in
In addition, Customs' report to the panel in 1992 on its existence. It established the
implementation of the panel's recommendations stated that internal inspection program.
the "recommendation for a management inspection program in It placed responsibility for
IA has been modified slightly to establish a separate that program under OOE and
Office of Management Inspections, reporting directly to not Internal Affairs,
the Associate Commissioner. The establishment of a however. With the abolishment
separate office provides even greater independence and of OOE, responsibility for
highlights the importance of the new inspection program. A these inspections was placed
comprehensive program for inspection of Customs district in IA, as recommended.
and SAC offices has been implemented, addressing
management, operations, and compliance. The Commissioner,
Deputy Commissioner, and senior managers have been briefed
on the results of every inspection and have demonstrated
continuing interest and commitment to the program. Just as
significantly, the results of inspections have been well
received by the inspected organizations. While resources
have not permitted a two-year cycle for inspection,
alternative means of evaluating field offices are now
being explored. In addition to comprehensive on-site
inspections, the Office of Management Inspections, (now
Management Inspections Division) has been called upon to
respond to specific allegations and concerns by conducting
single-issue reviews."
Inspection findings were communicated by the Associate
Commissioner for Organizational Effectiveness to the
responsible Regional/Assistant Commissioner, with a copy
to the Commissioner, according to Customs' 1992 report on
its implementation of the panel recommendations.
IA's Director of Management Inspections Division (MID)
said that there are over 300 offices to inspect and that
decisions on which offices would get comprehensive
inspections are based on IA's input from its Intelligence
Group within its Internal Investigations Division.
Furthermore, he said he did not agree with the panel's
recommendation to do comprehensive inspections of all
offices every 18 to 24 months. He intends to conduct
comprehensive inspections for SAC offices every 3 or 4
years. He believed that doing such inspections for every
office once every 3 or 4 years was sufficient because the
comprehensive inspections are followed by follow-up
inspections and spot-checks. He also said that if a
problem exists at an office, MID conducts a comprehensive
inspection sooner than the scheduled 3 or 4 years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Regarding communication of inspection findings, the
Director of MID also
said IA briefs the head of the office inspected right away
and gives him/her a
copy of the report on site. The office head has the
opportunity to respond to any deficiencies. Then the MID
official briefs the Assistant Commissioner of the office
inspected. IA officials also brief the Commissioner within
2 weeks from completion of comprehensive inspections and
follow up with a copy of the inspection report to the
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and IA Assistant
Commissioner.
An Office of Planning and Evaluation official said that
there is no agency policy requiring that inspection
results be compared to supervisory and managerial
performance. The Director of MID said Customs does not yet
use inspections findings when evaluating SACs'
performance. He believes the new appraisal system should
help Customs move in that direction. (See Office of
Enforcement Recommendation 6.) An Office of Investigations
official also said that at least since June 1994, OI has
not used the management inspection reports when doing
SACs' ratings.
The Commissioner's 1992 testimony before the Commerce,
Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee, House
Committee on Government Operations, on the panel's
recommendations included responses on Customs'
implementation of the recommendations. A portion of
Customs' response stated OOE is responsible for inspection
follow-up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 5: The Office of Internal Written response: New systems and procedures were Fully implemented.
Affairs should be responsible for investigating matters implemented to ensure the effective management of all
relating to mismanagement, criminal misconduct and serious allegations of mismanagement and misconduct. In 1992, a
non-criminal misconduct. Customs should prescribe a policy new policy was issued which classified all types of
that determines which non-criminal misconduct should be allegations, ranging from criminal misconduct to
referred to management for investigation. mismanagement, and defined responsibility for
investigations. These procedures have provided greater
consistency in handling allegations and establishing
investigative priorities. Allegations of misconduct and
mismanagement are handled through a variety of approaches,
including the use of IA investigators (who investigate all
allegations of criminal conduct and serious misconduct),
independent factfinders, Management Inspection staff and
joint efforts with Assistant and Regional Commissioners.
With the abolishment of OOE, allegations of mismanagement
are now referred by IA to the appropriate management
official. Customs continues to provide sufficient training
and instruction in integrity and mismanagement issues for
managers to conduct inquiries into problems within their
operations. This is consistent with National Performance
Review recommendations requiring managers to continuously
evaluate, correct and improve their own operations.
Updated response: An IA official said that with the
abolishment of the Office of Organizational Effectiveness,
IA is the recipient of mismanagement allegations and
determines if IA should conduct an investigation or should
refer the allegation to management.
IA's Special Assistant Commissioner referred us to the IA
Special Agent Handbook, which documents IA's policy that
fully implements the panel's recommendation. Customs also
had a directive dated November 18, 1993, that formalized
the reporting and processing by managers and supervisors
of allegations of misconduct and mismanagement. The IA
official said that IA is working further on defining which
allegations go to management and which ones stay with IA.
He said managers have been told that when in doubt about
where to refer an allegation (to IA or to management),
send the allegation to IA for a determination of who
should investigate it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 6: All reports and Written response: Customs employees have been advised to Partially implemented.
allegations of criminal activity, misconduct and report allegations directly to IA. IA Investigators are
mismanagement should be reported to the Headquarters trained to recuse themselves when a relationship exists Note: We did not assess
Office of Internal Affairs. between the investigator and the subject. IA Desk Officers whether the actions taken
track and provide oversight on all field investigations. "ensure" that investigators
-Customs should advise all employees to report allegations Customs policy referenced in INTEGRITY, recommendation assigned to cases have no
directly to IA. This does not preclude parallel reporting (3), provides written notification to employees who were prior association.
through the supervisory chain of command at the employee's subject of an investigation that the investigation has
option. been concluded and that no disciplinary action will be We categorized this
taken. In the event that disciplinary action will be recommendation as partially
-Investigators may be assigned to non-criminal matters, at taken, the subject of an investigation will be notified by implemented because several
the discretion of the Assistant Commissioner (IA), from the manager via disciplinary letter. IA tracks this portions of the
outside of IA; however, IA must ensure that in the information via the Disciplinary Action Tracking System recommendation were fully
investigative process, only investigators with no prior utilized by Labor and Employee Relations. implemented, while one
association with the office under investigation are provision was not.
assigned to the case. Investigations should be concluded Updated response: Customs issued a directive regarding
within six months; findings should be shared with the allegation reporting and processing on November 18, 1993, The provisions for (1)
subject of the allegation and reported back to IA at directing that allegations be reported directly to IA. reporting all reports and
Headquarters. allegations of criminal
IA's Special Assistant Commissioner said that activity, misconduct, and
investigators from outside of IA are assigned to mismanagement to IA; (2)
noncriminal matters. He said IA has to rely on the advising employees to report
investigator's integrity to disclose the need to recuse allegations directly to IA;
himself from the case if he has a prior association with (3) ensuring that only
the office under investigation. He said that IA ensures investigators with no prior
that such recusals are done by investigators because they association with the office
are taught to do this in training and he believes recusal under investigation are
is included in their Special Agent Handbook. assigned to cases; and (4)
sharing investigation
The IA official said that IA did not incorporate the findings with the subject of
panel's recommendation to conclude investigations within 6 the allegation were fully
months. He said that the individual case dictates what implemented.
needs to done, and the length of the investigation depends
on what the case requires. IA's case management system IA did not fully implement
tracks the length of cases. the provision that
investigations be concluded
The Special Assistant Commissioner of IA said that IA has within 6 months. IA officials
a case tracking system with Customs' Labor Employee believe that superimposing
Relations (LER) group. According to IA's Special Agent such a time frame is not
Handbook, LER is responsible for advising Customs' feasible, especially for
management on employee misconduct issues. LER prepares all complex criminal cases. IA
related correspondence, i.e. notices of disciplinary has a case tracking system to
action, grievance response for management. LER prepares monitor the length of
written notification that is signed by the principal investigations.
headquarters or field officer. LER officials inform
subjects of investigations of IA investigation results.
LER will notify employees when investigations have been
completed. We noted that this process is documented in a
November 5, 1993, Customs Directive on reports of
investigations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 7: The Treasury Inspector Written response: IA has taken several steps to improve Fully implemented.
General (IG) and Customs must clarify their formal coordination and cooperation with the OIG on
relationship to ensure that cases controlled by the IG are investigations. In 1993 the Acting Associate Commissioner Note: We did not assess
promptly investigated and the results communicated to (OOE) issued a memorandum to the Assistant Inspector "promptly investigated" and
Customs for timely resolution. IG investigations should be General for Investigations confirming an agreement "timely resolution" as they
conducted by the Inspector General's staff and not regarding procedures for referral of allegations and apply to this recommendation.
delegated to IA investigators. investigative information from the OIG to the Customs We also did not assess the
Service. Additionally, both IA and the OIG have portion of the recommendation
established desk officers to facilitate a better that stated "IG
relationship. Further, an OIG report on cases referred to investigations should be
Customs management in excess of 90 days has contributed to conducted by the Inspector
more timely investigations. General's staff and not
delegated to IA
Updated response: The Special Assistant Commissioner of IA investigators" because
said the Treasury IG's Office always conducts Customs had no control over
investigations of IA, SESers, and GS-15s and above. The the Treasury Order that
IG's Office also has a hotline and standard referral allows OIG to delegate IG
program. With the hotline tips that the IG sends to IA, an investigations to IA.
IA desk officer determines where to send the allegations
for investigation--IA or management. We categorized this
recommendation as "fully
The Special Assistant Commissioner of IA said that there implemented" because the
are certain investigations that OIG categorically has to Treasury IG's and Customs' IA
do, but there are others the IG may refer to IA to do, formal relationship regarding
such as administrative investigations. The Special investigations was
Assistant Commissioner of IA said "OIG watches IA. It is clarified.
the IG's option to return investigations to IA."
The Special Assistant Commissioner of IA said that the
memorandum between IA and the IG's Office referred to in
Customs' written response is in fact a Department of the
Treasury Order dated May 16, 1989, that was generated by
Treasury, not OOE. The Treasury Order stated that OIG can
refer certain allegations to Customs' Office of Internal
Affairs.
Treasury's Senior Special Agent, Office of Investigations,
OIG, who coordinates with Customs said that OIG's policy
and procedure are to refer allegations against Customs'
employees who are GS-14s and below to Customs' Office of
Internal Affairs, unless the employee works in IA. He said
that IA determines if the allegation should be
investigated by IA or Customs management. He also said
that there is no policy regarding the duration of IG
investigations; however, IG guidelines are that
administrative investigations be completed within 90 days.
There are no such guidelines for criminal investigations.
He also told us that Treasury issued a Directive dated
September 21, 1992, that covered IG referrals to IA. That
Directive states that the IG's Office can refer
investigations that fall within its jurisdiction to IA for
investigation by IA or Customs management.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 8: IA intelligence Written response: An intelligence function has been Fully implemented.
elements should be established, trained and dedicated to established within IA to analyze allegations,
support the IA mission, with special emphasis on investigations and conduct threat assessments.
corruption threat indicators, to develop sources and
methods to obtain information needed by IA investigators Updated response: IA's Special Assistant Commissioner said
and supervisory personnel. that the Intelligence Group was established in April 1992
with responsibilities much broader than those recommended
by the panel. He provided a description of the
Intelligence Group that stated in part: "The group's
efforts are devoted to four major areas: summary analysis;
tactical targeting; liaison; and investigative
enhancement. Summary analysis concentrates on trends in
allegations and investigations. Tactical targeting
provides specific corruption leads to field offices.
Liaison includes contact with the intelligence community
and other law enforcement intelligence entities for the
development of data sources. Investigative enhancement
consists of research and analysis in support of ongoing IA
investigations."
IA's Chief, Intelligence Group, said that IA's
Intelligence analysts in the Intelligence Group received
training dedicated to support the IA mission, including
training in corruption threat indicators to develop
sources and methods to obtain information needed by IA
investigators and supervisory personnel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Internal Affairs recommendation 9: An assignment in Written response: Career paths for GS-1811 special agents Partially implemented.
Internal Affairs should be included in the established are still under review. Budgetary restraints have limited
management career paths in the Customs Service. With the Customs ability to effect Permanent Change of Station with We categorized this
exception of Headquarters service, these assignments all reassignments into IA. IA investigators are now recommendation as partially
should require geographical relocations. Moreover, IA journeymen GS-13. implemented because Customs
should be staffed with senior experienced employees. fully implemented one portion
Updated response: On June 24, 1996, Customs provided an of the recommendation, but it
additional written response to its implementation of this did not fully implement two
recommendation. Customs stated that about 2 years ago other provisions of the
approximately 75 agents were rotated between IA and OI as recommendation.
an outgrowth of the panel's recommendation. In addition, a
conscious effort was made to make an assignment in IA The provision for staffing IA
career-enhancing and to help staff IA with senior agents with senior experienced
(only GS-13s rotated from OI to IA). employees was fully
implemented.
OI's Director of Administration said that OI has not
implemented the career track; however, it has a draft Customs did not fully
policy for a Career Development Program. Among other implement the provision that
things, the program recognizes completion of various (1) career paths should
career-enhancing assignments, including ones to IA field include an assignment in IA;
offices. and (2) with the exception of
Headquarters service, these
IA's Special Assistant Commissioner said that IA wants assignments should require
agents with at least 5 to 10 years' experience as geographical relocations. The
investigators; therefore, IA recruits from OI because it Career Development Program is
also has a working knowledge of Customs. still under review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Training
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training recommendation 1: The Customs Service should Written response: Customs has emphasized a formal training Substantially implemented.
establish a formal training program tailored to agents program tailored to Special Agents on the Southwest
operating on the Southwest border. The program should border. Since October, 1991, seventy-five percent of all Customs did not have a formal
emphasize the integrity concerns, technical law Southwest border agents have attended one or more training training program tailored to
enforcement skills, and professional development unique to classes that have included surveillance, undercover agents operating on the
operating on the Southwest border. operations, and basic and advanced technical training. Southwest border as of May
1996. However, OI is
Updated response: According to the OI Director, Office of retooling and developing
Policy and Oversight, at least one training course was training programs that cover
tailored for and given to some agents on the Southwest the areas identified in this
border after the panel's report. According to the OI recommendation--integrity,
Director of Administration, OI does not now have classes technical law enforcement
tailored specifically for agents on the Southwest border. skills, and professional
He said that OI is working on improving training for all development. Additionally,
the agents. OI has retooled its advanced training classes, the Office of Internal
the subjects of which mirror OI's four major investigative Affairs will be giving a
areas. It is giving a larger number of these classes in training program dealing with
the field than it has in the past so that there will be integrity geared to an
opportunities for more special agents to take them. enforcement operation along
According to the Director, Office of Policy and Oversight, the southern border. We
each SAC office's field training officer is to provide believe these efforts are
training quarterly that can be geared to the office. generally consistent with the
purpose of this
OI also reworked its special agent refresher seminar and recommendation but not
has been giving it in the field. Among the topics covered responsive to the letter of
are integrity and ethics, interviewing, legal issues, the recommendation.
professionalism, report writing, and undercover
operations.
According to the OI Director of Administration, OI is
developing a leadership/management symposium that will be
geared to those who have gone through supervisory training
and have been supervisors for a couple of years. Topics to
be covered include necessary skills for successful
managers, how to lead teams and motivate people, and
professional responsibility (including ethics and
integrity issues).
The Special Assistant Commissioner, IA, said that in July
1996 the Office of Internal Affairs will be providing
training in concert with a Customs operation covering the
southern border, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The
training will be given to special agents and others
operating in those locations, and it will include
information on Customs' integrity policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Training recommendation 2: The Customs Service should Written response: It is not economically or logistically Not implemented--no action
require Spanish language proficiency for all agents feasible to require Spanish language proficiency of taken.
operating on the Southwest border. current employees.
Customs is not requiring
Updated response: According to information provided by Spanish language proficiency
Customs at an April 1992 congressional hearing that for all agents operating on
included testimony on the implementation of the panel's the Southwest border. OI is
recommendations, in response to this recommendation, attempting to get funding to
Customs stated that it was difficult to make Spanish train certain agents sent to
language mandatory, and there were many downsides to the Southwest border in the
requiring it in terms of hiring and retention. Spanish language.
According to the OI Director, Office of Policy and
Oversight, after the panel's report Customs tried
different types of Spanish language training for special
agents. They found, however, that the agents were not
reaching the proficiency level needed to interview
informants and violators.
According to the OI Director of Administration, OI is
working with another office in Customs to get funding for
Spanish language training for four SAC offices. This
official also said that the San Diego office has a Spanish
language program that it funded out of its own budget.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Training recommendation 3: All new supervisors must Written response: Customs policy requires that all Partially implemented.
successfully complete in-service supervisory training. employees selected for initial entry into a supervisory
Supervisors, at every level, must participate on a position attend a two week basic supervisory seminar. The Note: The panel did not state
periodic basis in a continued supervisory training and seminar includes modern management principles, integrity how frequently supervisors
performance assessment program. awareness, internal controls, performance management, should participate in the
discipline and whistleblower concerns and workforce training. Therefore, we did
diversity issues. In addition, Customs offers supervisory not base our categorization
refresher training designed for supervisors who have not on actions taken on a
attended Customs supervisory skills development training specific "periodic basis."
within the previous three years.
We categorized this
Updated response: The Director, Management Training recommendation as "partially
Division, Customs Service Academy at the Federal Law implemented" because,
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), said that Customs has although the provision for
no policy that states supervisors must take refresher new supervisors to
training. In April 1996, he said that Customs did provide successfully complete in-
supervisory refresher training at the Customs Academy at service training was fully
FLETC, up until 1 year ago, but now Customs has not funded implemented, Customs did not
such training at FLETC. Some supervisory refresher fully implement the
training is being provided by individual Customs offices. recommendation's provision
OI is working on a supervisory symposium that has not yet that supervisors, at every
been implemented. The Assistant Commissioner, Human level, must participate on a
Resources, has an initiative under way to revamp all periodic basis in a continued
supervisory training at FLETC, according to an official in supervisory training and
Customs' Office of Planning and Evaluation. performance assessment
program.
On June 24, 1996, Customs provided an additional written
response to its implementation of this recommendation.
Customs stated that it is revamping the supervisory
training at FLETC using a cross-functional team of high-
level field managers that is reviewing a broad spectrum of
supervisory and managerial training and development needs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Training recommendation 4: The Customs Service should Written response: Never implemented. Not implemented--action
establish a career track for supervisors, the first step taken.
of which requires participation in a to-be-developed Updated response: The Director, Office of Administration,
"relief supervisor" program. OI, said that in 1994, OI had a career track for special We categorized the
agents who wanted to become SACs. The track, however, was implementation of this
not being adhered to, and OI drafted a Career Development recommendation as "not
Program in 1995. (See Office of Enforcement recommendation implemented--action taken"
3.) because no part of this
recommendation has been fully
He said that with the change in OI's structure, the implemented, but some action
drafted Career Development Program has to change. He also has been taken toward
said that with the President's cap on the number of GS-13 establishing a Career
to GS-15s and SESers, the number of OI supervisory Development Program (rather
positions is affected. than a career track).
OI's Director, Office of Policy and Oversight, said that
OI does not have a relief supervisor program. She noted
that legally, she was not sure that they could tap the
same person every time to be a "relief supervisor." They
would have to rotate 120-day supervisory details among the
experienced staff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Training recommendation 5: The supervisory training and Written response: [Customs did not provide a written Fully implemented.
performance assessment program should be constantly re- response to this recommendation.]
evaluated to ensure sufficient emphasis on personnel Note: We did not assess the
management problems, "whistleblower" policies, integrity Updated response: Customs stated in its 1992 report on the panel's recommendation for
awareness, quality management, institutional loyalty and implementation of the panel's recommendations that in "constantly."
leadership values. response to the recommendations of the blue ribbon panel,
supervisory and management training has been examined and
refined. According to the report, to set the tone for
these training efforts, the Commissioner promulgated a
management philosophy stressing the key themes of
leadership, integrity, management accountability, and
institutional loyalty. These principles form the
foundation of all of the management training programs. The
curriculum of the basic supervisory training course has
been expanded to include emphasis in areas such as
integrity awareness, internal controls, performance
management, discipline and whistleblower concerns, and
workforce diversity issues.
The Commissioner's April 1, 1992, testimony on the panel's
recommendations included Customs' actions taken to
implement the recommendations. Some of these actions were
stated in the document as (1) Customs has recently
completed a major review of all supervisory programs, (2)
both supervisor and manager courses have been updated, and
(3) whistleblower training was incorporated in supervisor
and manager courses.
The Director of the Management Training Division at FLETC
said that the Assistant Commissioner, Human Resources,
established a team that is specifically addressing this
recommendation in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of
supervisory/managerial training. He said that the team
will be addressing such issues as how to evaluate the
supervisory/managerial training programs.
The team's plan is to assess Customs' core competencies
and identify gaps in these competencies. The team will use
assessment tools designed to identify the developmental
needs and job strengths of Customs' managerial pool and to
assess the gap in managers' and supervisors' competencies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Training recommendation 6: The Customs Service should Written response: See OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION, Fully implemented.
establish a new agent "mentor" program. Such a program recommendation (3) [the portion of the written response to
should require that a senior agent mentor be assigned for OE recommendation 3 concerning the mentor program is Note: We did not assess "all
at least a one year period to assist and advise new agents copied below]. aspects" as it applies to
on all aspects of professional conduct. this recommendation.
A mentor program has been established whereby senior
agents serve as mentors for all new agents and ensure
appropriate training is received.
Updated response: According to the Criminal Investigator
On-the-Job Training Handbook, which embodies the new agent
mentor program, the first phase of the training should
begin immediately upon the special agent's reporting to
duty and should continue for 1 year. This handbook stated
that one of the purposes of the program is to improve the
professionalism and competence of Special Agent personnel
assigned to SAC offices. One of the mentor's
responsibilities is to serve as a professional role model
for the trainee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Training recommendation 7: The Customs Service should Written response: Customs agents currently receive Fully implemented.
ensure that agents receive continuing formalized in- training in law enforcement and professional standards.
service training that addresses evolving issues in Note: We did not assess a
criminal law enforcement and reinforces adherence to Updated response: As discussed under the training particular time frame for
professional standards. recommendation 1 updated response, OI reworked its special "continuing" as it applies to
agent refresher seminar and has been holding the seminar this recommendation because
in the field. OI retooled its advanced courses in its four one was not defined by the
program areas and has been holding them in the field. They panel.
include evolving issues in law enforcement. Additionally,
according to the OI Director, Office of Policy and
Oversight, each SAC office's training officer is expected
to make arrangements for 8 hours of training on law
enforcement issues to be given at the SAC office each
quarter. Agents are encouraged but not required to attend
the training.
According to the OI Director of Administration, OI is
requiring that the following agents in the field office in
which the advanced training is given attend the training:
those who are in the group dealing with that issue, who
are projected to move into that group, or who have not had
the training. The Assistant Commissioner, OI, said he set
a goal for the Director of Enforcement Training to ensure
that each operational nonsupervisory agent receive
refresher or specialized training every 5 years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Whistleblowers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whistleblowers recommendation 1: Customs employees should Written response: In September 1991, a memorandum was Fully implemented.
be informed of the various avenues for reporting problems issued to all Customs employees concerning the
that are available to whistleblowers. Alternative channels Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Employees were also
for reporting grievances should be similarly explained and provided a booklet, published by the Merit Systems
the use encouraged. Protection Board, which contained information on the WPA
and identified the employee rights and avenues available
to them. Currently, employees make complaints to IA, the
Office of Special Counsel or both.
Updated response: The Customs representatives of OPE, IA,
Office of Chief Counsel, and HRM with whom we spoke
believed this recommendation concerned avenues for
reporting problems of retaliation against whistleblowers.
Depending upon the type of retaliation alleged, Customs
employees may direct their allegation through the agency's
grievance system (for union employees, this would be the
grievance and arbitration procedures as provided in the
union agreement); or to the Office of Special Counsel
(OSC).\e Furthermore, according to an OPE official,
reporting through one avenue does not preclude the
employee from reporting through another avenue.
Information on the grievance system is in Customs'
Policies and Procedures Manual. Discussion of the
availability of the grievance and arbitration procedures
is in the bargaining unit contract section on "Protection
Against Prohibited Personnel Practices." According to an
OPE official, a copy of the contract is to be given to
each union employee. This section also states that the
employee may raise the matter under a statutory procedure.
According to an IA official, claims of retaliation that
are sent to Internal Affairs are read by one individual to
determine if the claim appears to be a whistleblower
retaliation claim. If it appears to be so, this individual
asks the relevant Internal Affairs agent to tell the
complainant that he/she needs to file the complaint with
the Office of Special Counsel for investigation. Customs
did not have a written policy on this practice. Customs
formerly investigated these complaints but no longer does
the investigations. (See whistleblowers recommendation 4.)
Customs issued a memo in June 1996 to managers in the
Internal Affairs field offices telling them that when an
employee makes a whistleblower retaliation claim, the
employee should be advised to contact OSC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Whistleblowers recommendation 2: Comprehensive procedures Written response: In September and December 1991, a Fully implemented.
should be issued to supervisors for dealing with employees memorandum was issued to all Assistant and Regional
who are designated whistleblowers. Commissioners and Supervisors and Managers respectively
expressing the Commissioner's commitment to ensuring all
employees who made whistleblower disclosures were
protected from retaliation and reprisal.
Updated response: According to a Customs training manager,
the procedures for dealing with employees who are
designated whistleblowers also have been included in
supervisory training since 1992. New supervisors are
supposed to receive supervisory training within the first
year of their appointment to the supervisory position,
according to the former chief, Employee Relations and
Benefits Policy Branch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Whistleblowers recommendation 3: The Associate Written response: During OOE's existence the Associate Substantially implemented.
Commissioner for Organizational Effectiveness should be Commissioner was designated as the agency point to receive
designated as the agency point to receive whistleblowing whistleblowing disclosures. Since OOE's abolishment, During OOE's existence, this
disclosures (although employees may elect other channels Headquarters IA and the Office of Chief Counsel serve as recommendation was fully
for this purpose). the agency contact for employees and the Office of Special implemented. With the closure
Counsel respectively. of OOE there is no one office
designated as the agency's
Updated response: Although there is no one designated whistleblowing contact point;
agency point to receive whistleblowing disclosures, however, there are a number
Customs officials stated there were a variety of avenues of avenues through which an
through which employees could report whistleblowing employee can make a
disclosures. In addition to headquarters IA, the Office of whistleblowing disclosure.
Chief Counsel, and the Office of Special Counsel, as Hence, we believe that while
mentioned above, Customs representatives of OPE, IA, the situation is not
Office of Chief Counsel, and HRM told us other avenues are responsive to the letter of
available. They said these avenues included the employee's the recommendation, it is
management chain, IA's hotline, field IA offices, the generally consistent with its
Commissioner's office, and the Department of the Treasury purpose.
Office of Inspector General.
An official from OPE stated that ways in which employees
know about one or more of these avenues included:
--whistleblowing segments in training courses, such as
supervisory and basic inspector training;
--a directive in Customs Policies and Procedures Manual on
allegation reporting and processing;
--the union contract; and
--periodic reminders issued by the Department of the
Treasury Office of Inspector General.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Whistleblowers recommendation 4: If the Associate Written response: Determinations on Whistleblower Substantially implemented.
Commissioner receives a complaint and determines that the allegations are made by the Office of Chief Counsel and
complainant is a whistleblower, investigation of the referred to IA for expeditious investigation. Note: We did not assess
whistleblower's allegations must be given priority in "expeditious" as it applies
accordance with strict timelines for expeditious Updated response: The Customs representatives of OPE, IA, to this recommendation.
completion of the investigation. Office of Chief Counsel, and HRM with whom we spoke
believed this recommendation concerned complaints of We categorized Customs'
retaliation. After the panel's report, Customs hired an implementation of this
investigator formerly with the Office of Special Counsel recommendation as
to do in-house investigations of whistleblower retaliation "substantially implemented"
complaints. According to that individual, he did those because, according to an IA
investigations expeditiously because they were his only official, during OOE's
priority. As a result of Customs' reorganization, in existence, the whistleblower
November 1994 Customs ceased to accept whistleblower complaints were given
retaliation complaints for investigation. He said IA does priority and completed
not have the assets to do the investigations. The practice expeditiously. OOE no longer
in Customs then was to have the individual who formerly exists, however, and the
investigated these complaints review any retaliation whistleblower complaints are
complaints that came through IA to determine if they investigated by the Office of
appeared to be whistleblower retaliation complaints. If Special Counsel (OSC).
they did, he requested the IA agent who logged the Because OSC is an agency
complaint into IA's tracking system to notify the external to Customs, Customs
complainant that he/she needed to file the complaint with cannot ensure that Customs
the Office of Special Counsel. Customs did not have a employees' whistleblower
written policy on this practice. allegations are given
priority.
Customs issued a memo in June 1996 to managers in the
Internal Affairs field offices stating that if an employee
made a whistleblower retaliation claim, the employee
should be advised to contact OSC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Whistleblowers recommendation 5: No administrative action Written response: Customs has provided a comprehensive Substantially implemented.
may be taken against a designated whistleblower until the training program to supervisors and managers on
whistleblower's allegations have been resolved unless whistleblower rights and protections. Beginning at the top We categorized Customs'
there is no nexus between the whistleblower's allegations with Assistant and Regional Commissioners, and working implementation of this
and the alleged misconduct of the whistleblower. through mid-management levels to first line supervisors, a recommendation as
Determinations as to nexus should be made by the Associate major training initiative was accomplished: virtually "substantially implemented"
Commissioner, with the advice of Counsel. every supervisor in the Customs Service has been trained because during OOE's
in whistleblower rights and protections. By March 1, 1992, existence the policy on
over 2,500 supervisors were trained by attorneys in administrative actions
Customs Chief and Regional Counsel offices. Whistleblower against whistleblowers was
training has also been incorporated into every supervisory consistent with the
and mid-manager training course. recommendation. OOE no longer
exists, however, and the
Updated response: A former OOE official said that OOE Office of Special Counsel
established a policy that no administrative action could determines whether to request
be taken against a designated whistleblower until the that Customs not take an
whistleblower's allegations were resolved, unless there administrative action. We
was no connection between the whistleblower's allegations believe that this action is
and the alleged misconduct of the whistleblower. generally consistent with the
purpose of the
In the absence of an Associate Commissioner for recommendation.
Organizational Effectiveness, if an employee were to take
a whistleblowing retaliation allegation to the Office of
Special Counsel, OSC would determine if there was a
potential connection. If OSC thought there might be a
nexus, it would ask Customs either formally or informally
to stay the action until it determined if there was a
connection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Whistleblowers recommendation 6: Strong sanctions should Written response: The agency Table of Offenses and Fully implemented.
be applied to supervisors who engage in any retaliation Penalties was strengthened to establish strong sanctions
against whistleblowers. against managers or supervisors who retaliate against
whistleblowers.
Updated response: According to an official in the Employee
Relations and Benefits Policy Branch, the sanctions for
retaliation remain in the Table of Offenses and Penalties
and they are being used.
Discipline
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discipline recommendation 1: Sanctions should be imposed Written response: In December 1991 three changes were made Fully implemented.
against supervisors and managers who fail to take to the agency Table of Offenses and Penalties
appropriate disciplinary actions. incorporating sanctions against supervisors and managers
who fail to report instances of serious misconduct or who
fail to take appropriate disciplinary action.
Updated response: According to an official in the Employee
Relations and Benefits Policy Branch, the sanctions for
failing to report instances of misconduct or to take
appropriate disciplinary actions remain in the Table of
Offenses and Penalties and they are being used.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Discipline recommendation 2: Managers must report all Written response: In February 1993 a memorandum for all Fully implemented.
instances of misconduct in accordance with the supervisors and managers was issued emphasizing their
recommendations contained in this report (see Internal obligations to report instances of misconduct. Note: We did not determine
Affairs section). our categorization of the
Updated response: Customs' February 1993 memorandum stated implementation of this
that managers and supervisors are required to refer all recommendation on the basis
allegations of employee misconduct, except administrative of the panel's reference to
misconduct, to the Office of Internal Affairs. "in accordance with the
Administrative misconduct may be referred to management recommendations contained in
for investigation. this report (see Internal
Affairs section)."
In addition, the Commissioner of Customs issued a
memorandum on December 20, 1991, to all supervisors and
managers regarding Customs' Table of Offenses and
Penalties. The memorandum stated in part, "I want to
ensure that all supervisors and managers understand their
responsibilities" in reporting employee misconduct. The
memorandum attached a new category of misconduct for
inclusion in the Table of Offenses and Penalties for
managers and supervisors who fail to report instances of
misconduct. Specifically, failure to report criminal and/
or serious misconduct to Internal Affairs and/or any act
or failure to act which undermines the discipline process:
first offense: written reprimand to 14-day suspension;
second offense: 14-day suspension to removal; and third
offense: 30-day suspension to removal.
Discipline recommendation 3: Sanctions should be imposed Written response: See DISCIPLINE, recommendation (1) Fully implemented.
against supervisors who fail to report instances of [Customs' written response to Discipline recommendation 1
misconduct. is copied below].
In December 1991 three changes were made to the agency
Table of Offenses and Penalties incorporating sanctions
against supervisors and managers who fail to report
instances of serious misconduct or who fail to take
appropriate disciplinary action.
Updated response: According to an official in the Employee
Relations and Benefits Policy Branch, the sanctions for
failing to report instances of misconduct remain in the
Table of Offenses and Penalties and they are being used.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Action taken Categorization
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Discipline recommendation 4: The brown book system as it Written response: See INTERNAL AFFAIRS, recommendation (5) Fully implemented.
currently exists should be eliminated. Investigations of [Customs' written response to Internal Affairs
misconduct should be assigned by the Assistant recommendation 5 is copied below]. Note: Our categorization of
Commissioner (Internal Affairs) in accordance with the the implementation of this
recommendations contained in this report. Under no New systems and procedures were implemented to ensure the recommendation was not based
circumstances should managers investigate reports of effective management of all allegations of mismanagement on the panel's reference to
serious misconduct within their own chain of command. The and misconduct. In 1992, a new policy was issued which "in accordance with the
results of all investigations should be forwarded to the classified all types of allegations, ranging from criminal recommendations contained in
Headquarters office of Internal Affairs to establish misconduct to mismanagement, and defined responsibility this report."
accountability. for investigations. These procedures have provided greater
consistency in handling allegations and establishing
investigative priorities. Allegations of misconduct and
mismanagement are handled through a variety of approaches,
including the use of IA investigators (who investigate all
allegations of criminal conduct and serious misconduct),
independent factfinders, Management Inspection staff and
joint efforts with Assistant and Regional Commissioners.
With the abolishment of OOE, allegations of mismanagement
are now referred by IA to the appropriate management
official. Customs continues to provide sufficient training
and instruction in integrity and mismanagement issues for
managers to conduct inquiries into problems within their
operations. This is consistent with National Performance
Review recommendations requiring managers to continuously
evaluate, correct and improve their own operations.
Updated response: Customs' February 1993 memorandum stated
that "managers and supervisors are required to refer all
allegations of employee misconduct, except administrative
misconduct, to the Office of Internal Affairs."
According to information provided by Customs at an April
1992 congressional hearing, (1) the "brown book" system
has been eliminated; (2) managers will no longer
investigate misconduct; (3) most routine administrative
issues, such as leave problems, are still within the
purview of management; and (4) IA will control all
investigations.
The Special Assistant Commissioner of IA said that IA's
statistical reports show that IA, not management, is
conducting misconduct investigations.
Customs' Directive on reports of investigations issued by
the Office of Internal Affairs on November 5, 1993, states
that "upon completion of an investigation, the Assistant
Commissioner, IA or the Regional Director, IA will forward
the original report of investigation to the concerned
headquarters or field officer."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following notes were added by GAO.
\a A mobility policy is essentially a rotation policy.
\b According to a 1992 revision to Customs' Organization Handbook,
the necessity for OOE would "be reviewed after a three year period
and annually thereafter."
\c The SACs are the Special Agents in Charge in the Office of
Investigations (formerly the Office of Enforcement). The DDs were
the District Directors. The port directors, to whom the inspectors
reported, reported to the DDs, who reported to the Regional
Commissioners. Customs' district and region structure was abolished
in its 1995 reorganization.
\d The panel stated in Management Finding 9 that "However commendable
the [Excellence] program's objectives were, the panel found that the
Excellence program contributed to and intensified deficiencies in
management, especially within the Office of Enforcement. The
exclusion of supervisors from employee roundtables with the Regional
Commissioner undermined supervisory authority, provided changes in
operational procedures and systems without consulting with the
responsible supervisors, and permitted employees to use the
roundtables as a `gripe session' about supervisors. This served to
disenfranchise a significant group of managers and supervisors, and
contributed to the managers' failure to take responsibility or to be
held accountable for their actions."
\e The Office of Special Counsel functions as an independent
investigative and prosecutorial agency within the executive branch
that litigates before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Its
primary role is to protect employees, former employees, and
applicants for employment from prohibited personnel practices,
especially reprisal for whistleblowing. Some of its basic areas of
statutory responsibility are (1) receiving and investigating
allegations of prohibited personnel practices; and (2) providing a
secure channel through which information evidencing a violation of
any law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of
funds; abuse of authority; or substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety may be disclosed without fear of retaliation
and without disclosure of identity, except with the employee's
consent.
Source: The blue ribbon panel report, Customs' written response to
GAO on actions taken in relation to each recommendation, and GAO
analysis of Customs documents and interviews.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE CUSTOMS SERVICE
=========================================================== Appendix I
(See figure in printed edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION
Darryl W. Dutton, Assistant Director
Mary Lane Renninger, Senior Evaluator
Wendy C. Graves, Evaluator
Walter L. Raheb, Senior Evaluator
David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Amy E. Lyon, Senior Evaluator
Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst
Michelle Wiggins, Administrative Assistant
*** End of document. ***