U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–766 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–673 

DOGS OF DHS: HOW CANINE PROGRAMS 

CONTRIBUTE TO HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 3, 2016 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

JOSE J. BAUTISA, Senior Professional Staff Member 

REBECCA N. NUZZI, Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Minority Senior Counsel 

BRIAN B. TURBYFILL, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

ABIGAIL A. SHENKLE, Minority Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 25 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 29 

WITNESS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2016 

Doug Timberlake, Transportation Security Inspector, Transportation Security 

Administation; accompanied by Rriverso ........................................................... 1 

Jennifer Jones, Agriculture Specialist, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 

accompanied by Hudson ...................................................................................... 2 

Patrick Dowling, Officer/Instructor, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; accompanied by Nicky ............................................................................................. 2 

Kimberly S. Hutchinson, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Training 

and Development, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ................................................................................. 5 

Damian Montes, Director, Canine Training Program, Office of Training and 

Development, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security; accompanied by Robert Lukason and Keith Barker ....... 7 

Jennifer Grover, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 9 

Cynthia M. Otto, D.V.M., Ph.D., Executive Director, Penn Vet Working Dog 

Center, University of Pennsylvania; accompanied by Jerry ............................. 10 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Dowling, Patrick: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2 

Grover, Jennifer: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Hutchinson, Kimberly S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 31 

Jones, Jennifer: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2 

Montes, Damian: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 31 

Otto, Cynthia M., D.V.M., Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Timberlake, Doug: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX 

Statements submitted for the Record from: 

American Civil Liberties Union ....................................................................... 69 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from: 

Ms. Hutchinson and Mr. Montes ..................................................................... 76 

(1) 

DOGS OF DHS: HOW CANINE PROGRAMS 

CONTRIBUTE TO HOMELAND SECURITY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Ayotte, Ernst, Carper, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. I am really looking forward to this hearing. This is something that has been really a couple of years in the planning from 

my standpoint, because I have always been intrigued by the capabilities of canine units and I love dogs, particularly little puppies 

like Jerry. 

What we are going to first start out with is we are going to introduce the two canine teams that later will be doing a demonstration 

for us. The first is the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) canine team. Doug Timberlake is a Transportation Security 

Inspector for TSA, and he is here with his partner, Rriverso, who 

has a pretty special name, named after somebody who was lost in 

the World Trade Center, I was told. Mr. Timberlake, kind of walk 

through it. 

TESTIMONY OF DOUG TIMBERLAKE, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INSPECTOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RRIVERSO 

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 

Ranking Member. My name is Douglas Timberlake. I am an explosive detection canine handler with the Transportation Security Administration. My passenger screening canine, Rriverso, and I work 

at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. We conduct 

screening operations throughout various parts of the airport looking for both stationary improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and 

person-borne IEDs to ensure the safety of the traveling public. 

There is no machine that can detect the presence of explosive 

materials the way that a canine can. Machines can confirm the 

presence of explosive substances, but they cannot reason and problem-solve to find the source of a substance. 
2 

In a few minutes, you will see a demonstration of what it looks 

like when Rriverso alerts on a traveler carrying explosive material 

during a checkpoint screening operation. 

Finally, I would like to point out that Rriverso is named after Joseph Riverso, who was from White Plains, New York, and was in 

one of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. A few years ago, he 

got to meet the family in New York, and I try to tell as many people as possible that he is out here keeping us all safe in Joe’s 

name. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you. That is a wonderful tribute. Thank you for your service. 

Next we will bring our Customs and Border Protection (CBP) canine team, and this is Jennifer Jones, an Agriculture Specialist 

working with the Office of Field Operations at the Customs and 

Border Protection agency. She is here with her partner, Hudson. 

TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER JONES, AGRICULTURE SPECIALIST, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; ACCOMPANIED 

BY HUDSON 

Ms. JONES. Hi. I am Jennifer Jones. I am with Customs and Border Protection. I am an agriculture handler. My partner is Hudson. 

He is an approximately 8-year-old Beagle that came out of Daytona 

Animal Control, Daytona, Florida. He is trying to find fruits, 

plants, meats, and seeds that are in the baggage of passengers that 

are entering the United States. He runs about 95 percent accurate 

most days. He does sometimes make a little mistake here and 

there, but he is usually pretty good. He has found everything from 

a single grape up to about 100 pounds of coarse sausage that was 

in a bag. 

Chairman JOHNSON. What kind of dog is he, again? 

Ms. JONES. He is a Beagle. 

Chairman JOHNSON. He is a Beagle, OK. That is a pretty good 

size Beagle. I had one of those when I was growing up. 

Ms. JONES. He is on the bigger end. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ours was plumper. [Laughter.] 

Ms. JONES. They can get fat. He walks a lot. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you. 

Next we have Patrick Dowling, and Patrick is a Customs and 

Border Protection Officer and Instructor. He is here with his partner, Nicky. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK DOWLING, OFFICER/INSTRUCTOR, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; ACCOMPANIED 

BY NICKY 

Mr. DOWLING. Good morning. As you said, my name is Patrick 

Dowling. This is Nicky. He is a Belgian Malinois. He is 3 years old. 

He is trained to U.S. currency—and firearms. I currently work at 

the Dulles International Airport. We focus most of our efforts on 

the outbound side of detection for currency. 

Some of the significant things that he has done outbound finding 

currency is we intercept folks traveling out of the country and a lot 

of times they do make an initial report, and once they go by the 

dog, we find out a lot of times that those reports are not accurate. 

So we have to send them back. He is in the million dollar club 
3 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 25. 

about three times over now, so he has found about $3 million in 

2 years. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Dowling. And, again, 

we are looking forward to the demonstration, which we will have 

when we have another member showing up, and I do want to have 

the Senator see that. 

Unfortunately, it has been a pretty busy day for different hearings and important hearings, so we do not have quite as many people as I had hoped. But we will convey the experience to everybody 

else. 

I would ask unanimous consent that my written opening statement be entered into the record.1

As I was saying before, this is a hearing that I have been wanting to hold for a couple of years. As we have held hearings on airport security and border security, I have been intrigued by the capabilities and the cost evaluation of using canine units, because I 

know they are very effective. 

And then I was fortunate to be hosted by Senator Pat Toomey 

at the University of Pennsylvania and the training center there, 

and we will have Dr. Otto talk about that in greater depth. But it 

was unbelievable in terms of the demonstration that we were 

shown at the University of Pennsylvania, and so I am so pleased 

that Dr. Otto is here. 

But when we take a look at airport security, I think as we talk 

to Secretary Jeh Johnson, always on his mind is the threat in 

terms of airlines and airline safety. I really do believe canine units 

can be one of those layers and a very effective layer in keeping this 

Nation safe and keeping our air traffic safe as well. So, again, I am 

really looking forward to this hearing. I am looking forward to the 

testimony. I want to thank the witnesses for coming and for your 

thoughtful testimony. 

And with that, I will turn it over to Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for bringing 

us all together. I think most of us in the room have probably had 

a dog or two in our lives, and the Chairman mentioned that he 

once had a ‘‘plump Beagle,’’ I think he said. It reminds me that 

when I was a little boy, 5, 6, 7 years old, we had—in fact, up until 

I was about 12 or 13, we had Jack and Jill, a husband and wife 

team of Beagles. And they were great rabbit dogs. They chased a 

lot of rabbits. They were not plump. They were in great shape. But 

it sort of like reminds me of some of the joy we had with all of 

them, using their noses to find not currency, not weapons, but to 

look for rabbits, and to find a bunch of them as well. 

I just want to say that during multiple visits I have been fortunate to take down to our Southern Border and up to our Northern 

Border, I have always been impressed by the use of many force 

multipliers that help our border security officers maximize their effectiveness. Oftentimes, these force multipliers are high-tech. They 

are drones, they are fixed-wing aircraft, they are helicopters, they 
4 

are aerostats, they are night vision cameras, surveillance cameras, 

motion detectors. You name it. 

But, also, sometimes we find out that our officers get critical help 

from some low-tech friends. I am thinking of the horses that guide 

the Border Patrol—I am sure you remember that visit down at the 

Texas border with Mexico—border agents trying to make their way 

through dense brush on horseback and, fortunately, because of the 

horses, they are able to do a much better job. And then we find 

that there are those gifted dogs, some of whom we are going to 

meet today, who can help find things and threats that are invisible 

to us as human beings. 

As we will hear, and perhaps even see, I think, later in the hearing, some of our specially trained dogs, how they can detect people 

or things that humans or machines just miss. Canines are already 

at work, as we know, across a number of Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) programs. For instance, DHS uses dogs to check for 

explosives within our airports and trains like the one I took today. 

We also see dogs hard at work between our ports of entry (POE) 

where they attempt to detect the illegal entry of people and goods. 

We know that the special abilities of these animals have already 

contributed to our homeland security. For example, canine teams 

are credited with helping CBP seize more than 4,500 pounds of 

heroin in the last fiscal year (FY). That same year, dogs helped to 

track thousands of migrants along the southwest border of our 

country and discovered 83 people hiding in vehicles crossing 

through ports of entry. Other dogs have helped detect illicit plants 

or animals, while some helped find human remains near our borders. 

Security is not their only mission. Dogs have also been invaluable in search and rescue following natural disasters. This is an 

area where I am not sure we are doing enough to take advantage 

really of their capabilities. 

At the same time, these valuable tools are not free. Dogs with 

the proper abilities and temperament to conduct searches are expensive to buy and even more expensive to train and to deploy effectively, and we will hear about that today. As with all of our security investments, we must make sure we are deploying these canine teams in the most cost-effective way. 

Today we are going to hear about some of the open questions regarding canine teams. I think, in particular, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has taken a hard look at TSA’s canine 

program and raised some questions about how and where they are 

trained and deployed. And while TSA has successfully addressed 

some of GAO’s earlier concerns, I understand that some other questions remain, and maybe we will have a chance to hear those 

today. 

I look forward to hearing from both agencies about the current 

status of their canine programs and plans for the future. We also 

need to drill down on what these canines can and cannot accomplish and what information is needed to make sure we are making 

the right investments in these force multipliers. 

This is going to be an interesting hearing, and we look forward 

to it. Thank you all for joining us. 
5 

1The prepared joint statement of Ms. Hutchinson and Mr. Montes appears in the Appendix 

on page 31. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. I do not know 

about your Beagles, but my Beagle did not realize he was a dog. 

He was just a younger brother. He actually sat up in a chair. 

Senator CARPER. I thought one of these dogs was going to try to 

get in that chair over there and reach the mic. But it did not happen. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is the tradition of this Committee to 

swear in witnesses, so if you will all rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. I do. 

Mr. MONTES. I do. 

Ms. GROVER. I do. 

Ms. OTTO. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Let us start with testimony. We are hoping for at least one or 

two additional Members to come before we do the demonstration, 

but if they do not, I also want to make sure we get the dogs before 

they get restless. We may interrupt in between witnesses. 

Our first witness is Kimberly Hutchinson. Ms. Hutchinson is the 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Training and Development at the Transportation Security Administration. In her 

capacity, she oversees TSA’s technical and leadership training, 

workforce development, and engagement programs. Ms. Hutchinson. 

TESTIMONY OF KIMBERLY S. HUTCHINSON,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, sir. Chairman Johnson, Ranking 

Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify regarding TSA’s canine training program. 

TSA procures, trains, and deploys both TSA-led and State and 

local law enforcement-led canine teams to secure our Nation’s 

transportation systems. Congress has recognized the value of TSA’s 

canine program through its continued support and funding. It is 

currently the largest explosives detection canine program in DHS 

and the second largest in the Federal Government, with 997 funded canine teams currently stationed at more than 100 of our Nation’s airports, mass transit, and cargo environments. The success 

of TSA’s canine program is a prime example of Federal, State, and 

local government entities working together. 

Given the security value of explosive detection canines, TSA 

must ensure a reliable and adequate supply of canines. TSA procures canines primarily through an Interagency Service Agreement 

with the Department of Defense, which supplies TSA with approximately 230 canines each year. TSA partners with the Department 

of Defense (DOD) during the canine selection and evaluation proc-
6 

ess on both State-side vendors and overseas buying trips, ensuring 

TSA’s needs are met. 

In addition to procuring canines through DOD, TSA is exploring 

procurement of both trained and untrained canines from qualified 

private sector businesses. TSA’s goal is to procure an additional 20 

trained passenger screening canines and 20 untrained canines suitable for passenger screening in fiscal year 2016 through this new 

procurement initiative. 

Once TSA procures a canine, the agency pairs it with a Federal, 

State, or local handler to be trained to operate in the aviation, 

multimodal, maritime, mass transit, or cargo environments. 

The majority of canine teams working in the aviation environment are comprised of a canine and a State or local law enforcement officer. For these teams, TSA provides and trains the dog, 

trains the handler, provides training aids and explosive storage 

magazines, and conducts annual onsite evaluations of these canines. TSA partially reimburses each participating agency for operational costs associated with maintaining the teams, and in return, 

the law enforcement agencies agree to use the canines in their assigned environment for at least 80 percent of the handler’s duty 

time. 

In addition to State and local law enforcement-led teams, TSA 

Inspectors lead 322 canine teams, including all of our passenger 

screening canine teams, which are specifically trained to detect explosives’ odor on passengers in the checkpoint environment, in addition to their conventional explosives detection role. 

TSA and State and local law enforcement handlers travel from 

across the country to TSA’s Canine Training Center (CTC), located 

on Lackland Air Force Base down in San Antonio, Texas, to be 

paired with a canine and complete training. The canine teams 

learn explosives detection in a very intense training environment, 

and teams are trained to detect a variety of explosives based on intelligence data and emerging threats. 

In fact, tomorrow TSA will hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a 

new 25,000-square-foot facility at the Training Center with seven 

new classrooms, a 100-seat auditorium, and administrative space. 

Approximately 30 days after graduating from the training program and returning to its duty station, each canine team undergoes an assessment to ensure operational proficiency in that environment. Upon successful completion of the assessment, canine 

teams are then evaluated on an annual basis under the most stringent of applicable certification standards. 

TSA allocates canine teams to specific cities and airports utilizing risk-based criteria. Passenger screening canine teams are 

critical to TSA’s risk-based security efforts and are deployed to operate during peak periods at 40 of our Nation’s largest airports, 

where they have the opportunity to screen tens of thousands of 

passengers every day. TSA is working to train and certify all of its 

322 canine teams in both passenger screening and traditional explosive detection screening by the end of fiscal year 2017. 

In addition to deployments at passenger screening checkpoints, 

TSA and law enforcement-led teams conduct a variety of search 

and high visibility activities that address potential threats in the 
7 

1The prepared joint statement of Mr. Montes and Ms. Hutchinson appears in the Appendix 

on page 31. 

transportation domain, including Visible Intermodal Prevention 

and Response (VIPR) operations. 

The Government Accountability Office, DHS Inspector General 

(IG), and other independent testers have proven canine teams to be 

one of the most effective means of detecting explosives Canine 

teams are critical to TSA’s focus on security effectiveness, and TSA 

continues to develop its canine training program to maximize its 

contributions to transportation security. 

Last, I would like to thank all of the hardworking men and 

women canine handlers across the Nation’s transportation system 

who keep us safe every day, as well as the very dedicated staff that 

support the program and train our canines down in Lackland. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important program, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson. 

Our next witness is Damian Montes. Mr. Montes is the Director 

of the Canine Program at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Mr. 

Montes started his career in the United States Marine Corps 

(USMC). Subsequently, he graduated from the Department of Defense Military Working Dog Handler Course and joined CBP. He is 

a former handler. Mr. Montes. 

TESTIMONY OF DAMIAN MONTES,1 DIRECTOR, CANINE TRAINING PROGRAM, OFFICE OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT 

LUKASON AND KEITH BARKER 

Mr. MONTES. Good morning, Chairman Johnson and Ranking 

Member Carper. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today 

and talk about the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Canine 

Training Program. I am the Director of the CBP Canine Training 

Program and am responsible for the administrative and operational 

oversight of our two Canine Training and Delivery Centers, one located in Front Royal, Virginia, and the other in El Paso, Texas. 

The CBP Canine Program is the fusion of two legacy training facilities: the legacy U.S. Customs Canine Enforcement Training 

Center and the U.S. Border Patrol National Canine Facility. The 

merger of these two training entities afforded the CBP Canine 

Training Program to build on decades of established expertise in 

law enforcement canine training and to capitalize on best practices. 

The CBP Canine Training Centers are where CBP workers, canines, handlers, and instructors receive classroom and practical 

training and the canine discipline utilized to support the critical 

mission of detecting and addressing cross-border illicit activities, 

including gun and currency smuggling, narcotics smuggling, 

human trafficking and smuggling, and illegal immigration. 

The CBP Canine Training Program delivers several courses for 

handlers and instructors to support the mission in multiple operational environments. These courses include concealed human and 

narcotic detection, currency and firearms detection, human re-
8 

mains/cadaver detection, tracking and trailing, search and rescue, 

patrol, and recertification instruction course. 

Our training cadre is comprised of experienced CBP law enforcement officers and agents, also know as course developer instructors, who come to us from existing field canine units and serve a 

3-to 5-year instructor detail. I must highlight the significance of 

having such subject matter experts with recent and relative field 

experience deliver canine training and instruction to the next generation of canines, handles, and instructors. The value they contribute to the CBP Canine Training Program’s mission is immeasurable. Furthermore, recruiting experienced canine instructors 

from within the ranks of CBP ensures a continuity of expertise and 

availability of training opportunities. 

The course developer instructors who work at our training centers bring with them not only the passion of being a canine handler, but being part of a specialized unit that provides a unique 

and valuable capability to CBP’s front-line law enforcement mission. But I would be remiss not to mention our support staff—our 

veterinarians, our animal health technicians, our animal caretakers, our maintenance support personnel, and our mission support admin personnel, who play an integral part in ensuring the effectiveness and the delivery of our training. 

The CBP Canine Training Program can be credited with training 

some of the best canine teams that work at any of our international 

border crossings, international airports, and vast open areas of our 

border. The CBP canine officers and agents who work with the 

CBP Canine Training Program have also assisted in capacity-building initiatives with the Office of International Affairs and developing and delivering canine training for our international partners. 

Furthermore, our training centers are available to Federal, State, 

and local law enforcement agencies wanting to receive formal training and certification in any of the canine training disciplines we deliver. 

The canine team is an invaluable asset to the operational border 

and port environments, regardless of the presence of other detection technologies, providing an unmatched law enforcement capability to address the ever changing challenges and threats. 

Over the past 3 years, the CBP Canine Training Program, under 

the oversight of the Office of Training and Development, has ensured that CBP canine training centers’ academic curriculum, practical applications, evaluations, certification, and overall training 

provides the standard and fidelity that meets the CBP operational 

needs and requirements. 

As border conditions and enforcement environments have ever 

changed over the past 30 years or more, CBP’s law enforcement canine teams have remained constant, reliable, invaluable assets to 

our Nation’s security. Each and every day they demonstrate and 

validate their importance through numerous seizures and detections. 

I am honored to be part of the CBP Canine Program and appreciate the opportunity to share our efforts today, and I am welcome 

to answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Director Montes. 
9 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Grover appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

Our next witness is Jennifer Grover. Director Grover is the Director in the Homeland Security and Justice Team at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In this position, she oversees GAO’s 

reviews of TSA programs and operations. Director Grover. 

TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER GROVER,1 DIRECTOR, HOMELAND 

SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. GROVER. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss TSA’s implementation of their canine program. 

TSA has funding for 997 canine teams. They include conventional canines, which are trained to detect explosives in stationary 

objects such as vehicles and baggage, and passenger screening canines (PSCs), which receive extra training to detect explosives carried by a person. When fully deployed, TSA canines will be paired 

with about 675 law enforcement handlers and 322 TSA handlers. 

Following GAO’s 2013 report and recommendations, TSA made 

significant improvements to its canine program. 

First, TSA has enhanced its use of data to monitor program performance. As an example, field canine coordinators now regularly 

analyze the covert testing data to determine the root causes of 

team failures so that they can be addressed. 

Second, TSA demonstrated that passenger screening canine 

teams reliably identify explosives and determined that they should 

be placed at the passenger checkpoint queues to have the greatest 

impact. 

And, third, TSA has deployed PSC teams to the highest-risk airports. 

One important issue remains for TSA’s consideration based on 

our prior work. When TSA conducted its initial effectiveness assessment of these specialized passenger screening canines, it also 

carried out one of the search exercises with three conventional canine teams. So those are the teams that do not receive the specialized training. 

The results suggested that the conventional canines might be as 

effective as the canines with the PSC training at detecting explosives on people under some scenarios. We recommended that TSA 

should test whether the passenger screening canines provide an enhanced security benefit relative to the conventional canines and, 

thus, whether the cost of that additional training is warranted. 

TSA officials told us that they did not plan to carry out the assessment, citing concerns about the temperament of some of the 

conventionally trained canines and the potential liability risk to the 

agency if it operated conventional canines in a passenger screening 

environment for which they had not been trained. We respect 

TSA’s concerns on these issues and encourage TSA to consider multiple options for going forward with this testing. 

Some conventional canines are suitable breeds, initial assessments could take place in a testing environment with role players 

instead of actual passengers, and conventionally trained canines 

could be trained to operate at the checkpoint. 
10 

1The prepared statement of Dr. Otto appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

We continue to believe that this assessment is warranted. If the 

results show that conventional canines are equally as effective as 

passenger screening canines, then TSA could save resources currently spent on the specialized training. 

Regarding the magnitude of the potential savings, in our 2013 

study the difference in TSA’s startup costs between the passenger 

screening and the conventional canines was $19,000 per canine. 

TSA’s update for this hearing indicates that the difference in startup costs has shrunk to $5,000 per canine, which clearly reduces the 

potential for savings. 

Since TSA plans to expand its PSC training to all 322 canines 

with TSA handlers, based on TSA’s numbers the savings could still 

be as much as $1.5 million each time the full set of TSA-led canines is retired and placed. That is a very small fraction of TSA’s 

annual spending for the canine program, but still represents a potential opportunity for TSA to be more efficient with its limited resources. 

Finally, whether or not the extra PSC training turns out to make 

a difference, TSA could realize additional savings if some of the canines were paired with law enforcement handlers instead of TSA 

handlers. Since TSA covers salary, benefits, and vehicle expenses 

for its own handlers, the annual cost to TSA for a TSA-led team 

is $100,000 more than a team led by a law enforcement officer. 

In 2013, TSA officials told us that they were considering this approach, but to this point, TSA has not yet paired passenger screening canines with law enforcement handlers. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Director Grover. 

Our final witness is Dr. Cynthia Otto. Dr. Otto is the founder 

and executive director for the Penn Vet Working Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on canine health and 

behavior. Dr. Otto has also been involved with search and rescue 

dogs and disaster response as a member of the Pennsylvania 

Urban Search and Rescue Task Force, including deployments for 

Hurricane Katrina and during 9/11. Dr. Otto. 

TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA M. OTTO, D.V.M., PH.D.,1 EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, PENN VET WORKING DOG CENTER, UNIVERSITY 

OF PENNSYLVANIA; ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY 

Dr. OTTO. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Johnson and 

Ranking Member Carper. It is a pleasure to be here. 

I would like to introduce one of our dogs from the program. He 

is a 101⁄2-week-old German Shepherd, born in Kansas. He is donated to our program, and his name is Jerry. And like all of the 

dogs donated to our program, he is named after one of the dogs 

that worked at the site after 9/11. He is being handled by one of 

our veterinary students from Penn Vet, Meghan Ramos. You will 

be able to meet him after the hearing and learn more about his future career. 

The Penn Vet Working Dog Center is a not-for-profit research 

and development center for detection dogs. Our program was devel-
11 

oped based on our experience with a wide variety of organizations, 

including DOD, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), CBP, TSA, police canine departments, the Seeing Eye, 

Puppies Behind Bars, and even pet dog training. Our scope of work 

focuses on the genetic, environmental, behavioral, and physical 

characteristics that lead to successful detection performance. 

Since dogs enter our program at 8 weeks of age, our unique emphasis includes the impact of early development in enhancing the 

career success of these dogs. Our training philosophy is rooted in 

positive reinforcement and enhancing the dog’s genetic potential. 

Dogs in our program attend school 5 days a week to learn job 

skills, but live with foster families nights and weekends to learn 

life skills. At the Penn Vet Working Dog Center, we operate based 

on a hypothesis-driven method rather than a belief system. 

Consistent with the theme of our upcoming working dog conference, Working Dogs 360, a multidisciplinary approach, we welcome ideas from all sectors. We then evaluate and collect data to 

test these hypotheses and determine what works best for each dog, 

each discipline, and each program. 

We embrace the opportunities that arise when things do not go 

as planned, which is often. We actually find that some of these opportunities are the most valuable learning experiences that we 

have, and in the case of the dogs, we call it ‘‘a training opportunity.’’ 

From this perspective, the key points that I would like to highlight for the Committee are: one, that dogs have great value in preserving national security; and, two, there are strategies that as a 

Nation on which we can come together and will facilitate the success of the dogs in this vital mission. 

I think the first fact that is undisputed is that the ability of dogs 

to smell and identify minute quantities of odor far exceeds that of 

humans and most machines. The other universal fact across agencies is that one of the biggest challenges to canine programs is the 

availability of dogs that have the physical and behavioral characteristics necessary to perform the tasks needed. 

One of the major reasons for the shortage of quality dogs is that 

we rely heavily on procurement of dogs from other countries. By 

outsourcing our national security requirements, we give up control 

of the type of dogs, the health of the dogs, and the early training 

of the dogs. We also are at risk for supply interruption due to politics, disaster, or disease. 

Given that we know many of the desirable traits are controlled 

by genetics and that continuous improvements can be made 

through selective breeding, letting these decisions be made by organizations that do not have our best national interests foremost we 

are, again, putting ourselves at risk. 

The research in our program and others has shown that factors 

during development of dogs have an important impact on behavior 

and health, including the length of their working careers. Again, 

without having control or input over this aspect of the dog’s lives 

increases the risk of shortened working life or failed careers. 

So how do we best leverage the scientific knowledge in genetics, 

development, behavior, and health? To us, a national breeding pro-
12 

gram is a priority. The critical features of a programmatic success 

include both superior dog performance and sound economics. The 

goal is to create a cooperative that provides dogs to all of the programs that support national security. 

To achieve this, all organizations need to communicate and work 

together to identify the genetic and behavioral characteristics of 

the dogs that meet their requirements. So we feel that this would 

represent a Center of Excellence, which is classic in homeland security. 

So I would like to thank you for your attention and welcome any 

questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Dr. Otto. 

We are expecting three more members, I am told, within 5 minutes, but that is Senate time. 

I want to go back to you, Dr. Otto, because I want to get some 

sense of how many trained dogs are utilized in the United States 

for seeing eye purposes, other specialized purposes, as well as law 

enforcement. Do you have any feel for the total number of specialized trained dogs? 

Dr. OTTO. So the specialized trained dogs is sort of an open question. There are so many new areas, particularly if we are talking 

in the service dog field, where we are talking about seeing eye, the 

autism support dogs, and other dogs. Through the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG), 

I know that they were estimating somewhere between 40,000 and 

80,000 dogs used, and remembering that dogs, when they are employed, they have a fixed life span, and so they are retiring at a 

regular rate. And even if we can improve their working life by a 

year, we are going to impact the cost-effectiveness. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Is that about 8 to 9 years? Is that kind of 

on average? 

Dr. OTTO. Eight to nine is pretty typical. Now, a lot of dogs, 

some organizations will retire dogs at 9 years of age. This is often 

fixed—and most dogs do not start until they are about 2. So they 

may have as short a career as 7 and even less, depending. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But service dogs are really completely different from the standpoint of training and their specialty, correct? 

Dr. OTTO. Absolutely. The service dogs have taught us a lot 

about the selective breeding. They have taught us a lot about how 

to train some of these dogs. But they are very different dogs. They 

are kind of the opposite end of the spectrum from the high-energy, 

hunting-driven dogs that we are looking at. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And we breed those here in the United 

States. 

Dr. OTTO. Correct. Most of the service dog programs do have 

their own breeding programs. The Seeing Eye, Canine Companions 

for Independence, they have really large breeding programs. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Now, between TSA and CBP, I have about 

2,500 canine units. Is that pretty accurate, about 1,000 with the 

TSA and about 1,400, 1,500 in CBP? 

Mr. MONTES. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you have any idea in terms of how many 

other specialized units, canine units, in just conventional law enforcement? 
13 

Mr. MONTES. No. At this time I do not, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I want to get back to that. Do we have 

another member coming? OK. This is it. 

As long as we have a quorum for our demonstration, let us proceed with that. And I think we are going to start with TSA, and, 

Ms. Hutchinson, can you describe what we are going to see in 

terms of this demonstration? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely. Yes, so we have Rriverso, our canine, our Labrador out of Reagan Airport (DCA) here, and his handler, Doug Timberlake. And what we are going to try to simulate 

here it is a TSA checkpoint. So, essentially, your staff are passengers, and what you are going to see is the passengers are going 

to come through. There is one passenger that has a training aid explosive on them, and here is Rriverso and Doug. 

[Demonstrations begin.] 

So what you will see Doug doing is giving some search gestures 

to Rriverso here as the passengers come through, and then you will 

see very quickly what passenger has that live explosive on them. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Are the passengers coming? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. I think they are here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. OK. So we have our passengers coming 

through the checkpoint here. We are going to see Rriverso start to 

work, use his nose. 

And there you go. So if you noticed, he locked in on the passenger with the briefcase very quickly, and then he was immediately rewarded with his tennis ball, which is his reward of choice. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And the briefcase had what in it? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. It had an explosive. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. How many times is that wrapped? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. It is safe. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I will move into that in other questions, because that is what amazed me at the University of Pennsylvania 

is how it just almost impossible to wrap these things enough. It is 

impossible. 

OK. Our next one, Director Montes, can you kind of describe 

what we are going to be seeing in this next demonstration? 

[Demonstration begins.] 

Mr. MONTES. Yes, this is Ms. Jones and her canine, Hudson. So 

Canine Hudson is trained to find five different types of items. In 

the airport environment, they are going to be screening in the passenger environment for any type of illegal agricultural products. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And you have planted some illegal agricultural products in the hearing room somewhere? 

Mr. MONTES. Yes, we did. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am a real rule follower. 

Mr. MONTES. Now, so she responded. She sat down. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So she has located it. 

Mr. MONTES. Yes. If you look right over the edge there, you can 

see it. And then what they have is an apple. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It looks harmless enough. [Laughter.] 

So that was an agricultural product. Then we have another demonstration of a different type of—— 
14 

Mr. MONTES. Yes, we do. We have the currency/firearms dog 

coming in. This is Mr. Dowling and his canine, Nicky. As well, we 

will have some of your staffers—they will have a training aid 

planted on them, currency, and as soon as they come in, he will be 

able to screen them and identify which one is the one that is carrying the currency, the training aid. 

[Demonstration begins.] 

So as the passengers come through, Mr. Dowling will start 

screening them with the canine, Nicky. 

[Pause.] 

And so once he identifies that there is something there that 

should not be there—i.e., the contraband—he is going to go ahead 

and respond. And now he is going to get his toy as a reward, and 

the positive indication. So what he gave him right now is a PVC 

pipe. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I guess whatever works. 

Mr. MONTES. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I 

would have thought he would have responded to that blue suit, but 

that shows you how well trained they are. 

Again, thank you. I will say, as impressive as that demonstration 

is, going to the University of Pennsylvania and seeing them really 

on the job, it is dramatically more impressive, I mean, what they 

are able to do. Let us pick up where we left off. Thank you, Senator. 

I want to get back to actually supplying the chain and how many 

dogs we really would like to have and how many we could really 

employ. So, again, we are talking about within TSA and CBP about 

2,500 canine units now. How many would you like to have? Is that 

kind of adequate for the task? Or could we utilize a lot more? Let 

us start with you, Director Montes. 

Mr. MONTES. I will start with a question. So that would be an 

operational requirement to determine both components based on 

their needs of the service to identify what would be their optimal 

number as far as what would assist their multilayer approach as 

far as enforcement operations. 

On our side of the fence, as far as the training operations, our 

requirement is to be able to develop the capacity and capability to 

deliver those dogs once those demands and needs and requirements 

are addressed. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But do you get a sense, working with the 

other folks in your agency, that there is a greater demand? Is there 

always demand for what you are trying to do? Or, again, there may 

not be demand because we just do not have the budget for it. 

Mr. MONTES. So the current demand as it stands right now, you 

have the operational floors for the Office of Border Patrol, which 

is 1,113, and as well as for the Office of Field Operations, which 

currently right now is 481. And so those numbers are still vacancies in the field that we are still trying to go ahead and backfill 

those positions. 

So we have not reach that floor yet, so it would pretty much determine on the components to determine how much higher they 

would want to go after all those positions are filled. 
15 

Chairman JOHNSON. So you are saying you are 481 short right 

now? 

Mr. MONTES. No, sir. Those are the positions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Oh, OK. How many short are you? 

Mr. MONTES. So 25 positions right now for the Office of Field Operations and 300 for the Office of Border Patrol. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So a pretty good shortage. 

Ms. Hutchinson, do you have a sense in terms of TSA, if you 

could have everything you would want to provide the security that 

we are really looking for in this country, what is your sense? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. I think that is sort of the $1 million question. 

I think today we have 997 teams throughout the Nation, so what 

we have been doing within that group of teams that are currently 

funded is figuring out how we can really maximize them. So as you 

saw that PSC capability, we just rolled that out in 2011, so 5 years 

ago, which is fairly recent for this new concept of operations 

(CONOPS). So what we are sort of learning over time is how to 

best utilize their time screening passengers, so really deploying 

them at those peak periods. 

So we are really trying to maximize with what we have. I think 

moving forward I certainly see we would have more canines as part 

of the security. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But of the 997, it looks like only 300 are 

doing passenger screening, and others are deployed with other local 

law enforcement agencies. What are they doing, also transportation? So they are doing trains and bus stations? Is it all transportation-related? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. That is right. They service all the modes. So 

you would see them, potentially on Amtrak or on buses, transit, 

yes. So they are covering everything, and many of them are also 

deployed in aviation. 

But to your question earlier about the supply, we lose about 13 

percent of our dogs a year, so about 150 either retire for aging out 

or physical things. So we need to buy about 230 a year just to sustain the current operations, and we have found a good supply, if 

you will, of the dogs that we need. However, we are going through 

this process of trying to procure more dogs domestically, so if we 

did have a surge, we would be able to buy maybe quicker and bring 

on dogs into the program more quickly. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Now, the ones that are not used for passenger screening in airports, those are being handled by local law 

enforcement officials then? So you are supplying the local agencies? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. That is correct. We train the dogs and the handlers. We work in partnership with them today, yes. If we have an 

unattended bag as an example, we would call law enforcement for 

resolving that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, Dr. Otto, we obviously breed a lot of 

dogs in this country, and what is the secret sauce in terms of the 

European breeders that we are only going there? What is preventing us from breeding them here in the United States? 

Dr. OTTO. I think it is tradition, and I think it is also why the 

dogs are being bred in this country. In Eastern Europe, which is 

the major source of most of our working dogs, they have a long history of breeding dogs for work, whether it is specifically for work 
16 

or even competitions that are work-related. In this country we tend 

to breed dogs for pets and for show, and those are not the same 

kinds of dogs that we need for this kind of work. 

So in order to breed dogs in this country for this kind of work, 

we really have to look at what are we selecting. A lot of our Labradors are coming from hunting lines, so that is at least a domestic 

resource. But even so, they are breeding for different reasons, and 

so we are lucky when we get some of these dogs that are very successful, but we need to think about what are our goals, physically, 

behaviorally, that support the tasks that these dogs are doing. And 

it is not always what the breeders who are competing or hunting 

with their dogs are breeding for. So identifying those traits, identifying if they are heritable so that we can selectively improve the 

physical and behavioral characteristics of the dogs. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Well, I will pick up on this in the next 

round. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. First, a couple lighthearted questions. I noted 

that the dogs got a reward for their search efforts. One dog’s reward was a tennis ball, and another dog’s reward was a piece of 

PVC pipe. 

What is the role and the importance of the reward? How are they 

selected? And do dogs react if they have the wrong reward or no 

reward? I presume they act differently. Who chooses the reward? 

Is it good for a lifetime? Give us a little bit of—just real quickly 

on that. 

Mr. MONTES. Absolutely. So our primary reward is a toy. It is 

toy-driven prey drive for the canines. So I either have a rubber 

pipe, a PVC pipe. It depends on what the dog really enjoys to work 

for, because that is his paycheck at the end of the day. 

So if there is a canine that, for example, uses a PVC pipe which 

he enjoys at this point, but at some point in training decides, hey, 

I like the rubber better than the other one, then it would transition. The idea is we want the canine to be able to work, and we 

want to be able to feed that drive toward that reward so that canine continually produces over the course of his service life. 

Senator CARPER. All right. How many years, on average, do these 

dogs serve? 

Mr. MONTES. So our canines primarily are between 7 and 9 years 

old. 

Senator CARPER. And what is the average life span of a dog that 

does this kind of work? 

Mr. MONTES. So the average lifetime depends on the canine, sir. 

Currently, we have some dogs that are still in service at 11 years 

old. Obviously, we want to make sure that we have a quality of life 

for our canines. We make high demands from our canines in the 

field, so we want to make sure we have a process in place to retire 

them at a suitable age so they have a quality retired life after. So 

their lifetime really depends on the individual canine, sir. 

Senator CARPER. OK. There are other agencies that have canine 

programs in the Department. For example, I think just within 

DHS, you have FEMA where they use canine teams to conduct 

search and rescue operations. The Federal Protective Service I 

think deploys dogs to sweep Federal buildings looking for explosives. 
17 

I do not know who I should ask this of. We will start with you, 

Damian, but could you just describe for us, if you could, any departmentwide efforts within DHS to share best practices and to 

find efficiencies in order to improve the respective programs? 

Mr. MONTES. Sure. I have been in this position for the last 21⁄2

years, and since I have been in this position, we have conducted 

numerous outreach on how to improve our program or share best 

practices with others. We have met with TSA. We have also met 

with Ms. Otto on different occasions to identify ways that we have 

in our program that we can improve on. 

We have also visited Lackland Air Force Base, DOD, because at 

the end of the day everybody has and is still and continually 

evolves their canine training practices. 

As far as shared tactics or shared facilities, we do extend our 

training availability to local, Federal, and State law enforcement 

agencies. So we are constantly working with them as well to either 

start a program or to advance or evolve their current program in 

existence. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

I was struck, Dr. Otto, by your testimony where you mentioned 

that many of the errors made by canine teams are not the errors 

made by the dog but by the human handler. What are the requirements and limitations of a good human handler? And how well are 

we training that half of the canine team? 

Dr. OTTO. So I think that is a really great point, that it is a 

team, and the dog—— 

Senator CARPER. Would you say that again? 

Dr. OTTO. The dog and the handler are a team. 

Senator CARPER. No, I am just kidding. Not many of our witnesses say that, do they, Mr. Chairman? [Laughter.] 

Dr. OTTO. That is a great point. It is a very good point. Excellent 

points. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Dr. OTTO. So the team is really critical, and the dog, a lot of 

times we actually get in the way of the dog. And it really is something that we have to be paying very close attention to. When you 

have a team that works in synchrony, it is kind of like watching 

dancers, because they are so good at reading each other, and that 

is our goal. And I think a lot of times we do focus on the dog side 

of it, and we are not paying as much attention to training the handler. 

In our program we try to help our dogs work as independently 

as possible, and I think that is a lot of the goals here, too, especially with the passenger screening canines, that they really do 

need to work more independently. 

So I think those are goals that most organizations are working 

toward, but I think we still have a ways to go in finding our best 

handlers, training our handlers in the best way possible and making sure that the team is working well together. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Another question, and this might be for you, Ms. Hutchinson. It 

is a question about metrics. What metrics, if any, exist to indicate 

that the passenger screening canine training provides an added se-
18 

curity benefit in return for the additional costs? And how was the 

passenger screening canine certification standard developed? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. So we have been developing sort of the standard in the last 5 years, and really it is a training and certification 

standard. So in terms of metrics, the reason we know that these 

dogs are highly effective is very high evaluation rate on an annual 

basis by a third party. Science and Technology (S&T) helps us, another DHS Directorate, helps us in the evaluation process. We go 

in once a year to every airport and test these dogs on all of the 

odors to make sure they are proficient, and then just locally. A dog 

like Rriverso, he has to certify every 45 days on all of those odors, 

and if he does not, he comes out of the operation and gets retrained, if you will. 

So it is mostly just those evaluations, during the year, and then, 

of course, certification at the end of the year. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. 

And if I could, Ms. Grover, in your testimony, you talked about 

some of the recommendations maybe the GAO has made to improve 

these programs. Would you just mention again—I think you did, 

but maybe a recommendation or two that has not been fully implemented, has not been accepted? Let us just talk about that for a 

minute. 

Ms. GROVER. Sure. TSA has done a terrific job addressing the 

vast majority of our recommendations, and we completely agree 

that robust data exists to show that the passenger screening canines are effective at detecting explosives. There is a range. The 

data show that there are some airports and some teams that do not 

do as well as others, and so hopefully TSA will follow-up on that 

information and make sure that they are providing support to the 

teams that need it so that they can continue to improve. 

But the question that remains for GAO is whether or not it is 

the extra-specialized passenger screening training that makes the 

PSC canines effective or whether they could do just as well with 

the conventional training that all the canines receive, what the regular law enforcement handlers and their canines receive as well. 

Senator CARPER. OK. My time has expired. As the Chairman 

mentioned earlier, we all serve on a bunch of different committees 

and subcommittees, and a number of those are in sessions right 

now. I am going to slip out and go to one to learn a little bit more 

about implementing the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership in the Finance Committee. 

So I just want to say thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for pulling 

this all together. Thanks especially to Rriverso, to Hudson, and to 

Nicky, and their handlers, and to each of you who vocalized and 

verbalized on behalf of our canine friends. 

Thank you so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Let me go back to the metrics, because in our briefing here we 

did—certainly one metric is apprehensions of drugs, which is probably one of the most successful areas—almost 40,000 apprehensions last year nationwide. I think it was last year—yes, fiscal year 

2015. Are there similar—first of all, do we have instances in TSA 

where we have detected bombs? Have we thwarted any attacks? Or 

have we just been very fortunate that we have not had those? 
19 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. Yes, as far as we know, we have not had a terrorist come through a checkpoint with an explosive to be detected. 

So to your point, it is hard to measure the deterrence factor of having a dog at a checkpoint or anywhere else. So that is difficult for 

us. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Dr. Otto, can you talk about the specialized 

nature of the different smells, the different odors, and what that 

means from the standpoint of training? 

Dr. OTTO. So there are a number of different odors, but the concept is all kind of the same on how we are going to train them. In 

our program we train our dogs with foundation work where they 

learn how to search. They do not necessarily learn a specific odor. 

And then depending on their physical characteristics and their behavioral characteristics, we may put them into different careers. 

So dogs that are searching for humans in disaster settings are 

searching for a really large amount of odor associated with that 

person. And those are dogs that are going to be wide-ranging and 

really looking for odor. 

We also have a medical detection program where we have 

trained dogs to identify the odor associated with ovarian cancer in 

blood samples. That is a drop of blood. It is a very minute odor, 

and the dogs that work in that field are very meticulous and very 

thorough and work in a controlled environment. 

So those are kind of the two ends of the spectrum, and then identifying the environments that you would want, the passenger 

screening environment is going to be probably more similar to our 

search and rescue environment; whereas, maybe the more traditional screening of suitcases we might get a little bit closer to what 

we are dealing with the ovarian cancer detection, but usually the 

amount of odor is still going to be much, much greater than what 

we would see in something like the medical detection. Is that what 

you were asking? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. Let us also talk about—because we 

talked a little bit about breeding capacity. To me that just seems 

like something we could overcome pretty quickly. There seems to 

be enough demand for these things, and we should know how to 

breed, so it is a matter of just getting the right ones. 

Let us talk about training capacity. Obviously, you have a certain approach to training which differs from other centers. Do we 

have a capacity shortage from the standpoint of training? And then 

ongoing training, too, you talked about a team and how important 

it is that we these dogs are trained and the handlers actually conduct that training on an ongoing basis, correct? 

Dr. OTTO. Well, I can talk about the ongoing training that is necessary based on what SWGDOG has recommended as national 

guidelines and what the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) 

and the Committee on Dogs and Sensors recommends for ongoing 

training, 16 hours a month of ongoing training for the canine handler teams. But most of what we are doing, we are not really working with those graduate dogs, so I think I probably would defer to 

CBP or TSA to address some of those issues. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Please. 

Mr. MONTES. I am sorry, sir. Can you please repeat the question? 
20 

Chairman JOHNSON. Really just talking about the ongoing training for the dogs, how the handlers—it is a responsibility. That is 

certainly what I heard from the University of Pennsylvania. This 

is not something you train the dog for a couple weeks or a couple 

months and then they are trained. You have to continually update 

that on a continuous basis, so if you can just kind of speak to that. 

Mr. MONTES. Absolutely. So we all know ground zero is at the 

training centers. Our canines come in, and they go anywhere from 

a 14-week course to a 12-week to a 10-week course, 7 or 5. Depending on the variances of we are going to train our handlers, we talk 

about the team. So the canine itself, it is very important when we 

start the canine training with the canine that we determine what 

capacity that dog is going to be working in in the field, and that 

is based on our initial prior selection test. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Now, let me ask, are those dogs pre-trained 

already and then you are just specifically training them for something? Or are you doing the entire training yourself? 

Mr. MONTES. We do the entire training ourselves. What we want 

to do is we want to identify the canine based on its innate drives 

and capabilities, because all of our operational environments are 

very different. So depending on the operational environment, we 

want to be able to pair that dog in a training center to the operational request. For example, if you have a small border environment, Naco, Arizona, or you have a large border environment, San 

Isidro, Arizona, we want to make sure that we pair that dog in that 

environment so to have a successful working life. And that comes 

with the training that we develop at the training centers, the pairing with that handler coming from that environment, and essentially setting that dog up for success in the field. That is where it 

starts, at the training center. And then, of course, you have the 

continuing training that goes on with our subject matter experts, 

our instructors in the field. So it is more of a lateral handoff which 

progresses that canine throughout its career. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Hutchinson, do you have anything to 

add to that? 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. So it is slightly different on the TSA side of 

the house. So our canines, the explosive detection canines, which 

are all of our teams, are trained in a basic 15-week course. The 

passenger screening canines have an additional 10 weeks because 

it is a very different search capability. As you saw, it is not a static 

bag. It is somebody who is moving, and it is a person. So they have 

to see that person as a search possibility. And then after we basically imprint all of our dogs on the odors, we pair that dog with 

a handler for 10 to 12 weeks to figure out how to search people. 

One of the things we are trying to do on the training side is to 

be more efficient and sort of looking at the science with our Science 

& Technology and training on sort of families of odors, because it 

does take a long time to train these dogs because it is such a highstakes business. So how can we look at sort of rather than imprinting odor by odor, looking at families of odors? So we are trying to 

compress those timelines to be able to deploy dogs faster, but it is 

a hard job. We have to train to that job. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Director Grover, you were talking about 

team failures. Can you just describe that in greater detail, what 
21 

you are talking about there? Just describe what you are talking 

about. 

Ms. GROVER. Well, it would just be an opportunity—it would be 

a circumstance when a canine team missed an explosive aid during 

either the annual certification or as part of TSA’s cycle assessments where they are really paying great attention to all of the 

PSC teams to ensure that they are performing well and enhancing 

their performance. 

So the last data that GAO reviewed on this did show significant 

variation between the teams at the top-performing airports and the 

lower-performing airports, and that could be just because some 

teams had a bad day or two at the time of the testing, or it could 

be a longer-term issue. The details of the failure rates are Sensitive 

Security Information (SSI), so we can share them with your staff 

but not in a public environment. And TSA does have the data so 

that they can followup on that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Dr. Otto, do you have any opinions of why 

you have team failures? Would it be the handlers not doing the ongoing training, kind of keeping the dog current and themselves current? Could you just kind of speak to that? 

Dr. OTTO. I think there are a number of different things that can 

influence it. What we looked at is, when are our dogs at their peak, 

when are they doing best? I think, this is another opportunity 

where we can help the dogs to do their jobs without as much handler influence. The more independent that the dogs are, the less 

chance of maybe the handler having a bad day, the dog having a 

bad day, either one of them; that we can really help that move forward. 

I do think that there are a combination of environmental aspects 

that are going to affect it, but we definitely know in these teams 

that there is an interaction between the handler and the dog. So, 

paying attention to that. 

We have also looked at some of the medical aspects that may affect a dog’s ability to detect odor, and happily, we do not have obvious problems in a lot of the medications that we have been testing. 

But there are some medications that can actually decrease the odor 

detection ability of a dog. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You are saying medications the dogs 

might—— 

Ms. OTTO. Dogs’ medications. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. And are there different breeds that are 

better at different things? 

Ms. OTTO. I think there are different personalities within breeds 

that are better at different things. Again, if we go to our cancer detection, which is a very specialized area, we have a German Shepherd, a Labrador, and a Springer Spaniel. And in our search and 

rescue dogs, we have a spectrum of breeds as well, and it is so 

much more the personality within the breed. I think when we are 

really selecting these dogs that have the genetic capacity for odor 

detection, it is then how does that dog’s personality interact with 

its genetics. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Grover, you were talking about the 

added value of the specialized training for the passenger screening 

versus just conventional training. The bottom line, there is going 
22 

to have to be some specialized training because they are dealing 

with passengers as opposed to down the bowels of the airport just 

going through bags, correct? 

Ms. GROVER. Probably, yes. But GAO is an evidence-based organization, and so we would always want to make sure that TSA has 

good evidence to support that all of these additional weeks of training are necessary to get the outcomes. No need to spend the taxpayer dollars—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. And we appreciate that, trust me. 

Ms. GROVER. Right—unless it is necessary. And that data is not 

all in place yet. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Being an accountant, I like evidence 

and I like metrics. 

Let me just close it out to both TSA and CBP. I really do want 

somebody within your organization providing written responses to 

questions for the record about, what is the desired level of teams 

here. My guess is you would all agree that they can be very effective, correct? And we really do need to take a hard look at—I do 

not want to be penny-wise and pound-foolish here. Just one instance of somebody getting through could be pretty harmful to our 

economy. So what I see, the 1,000 canine units within TSA, the 

1,400—it costs money, but it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars versus the potential harm of a problem here. So I really do 

want to get a pretty good sense of how effective these are. What 

is the total cost? And what is the desired level? Because I would 

like to be supportive of this. 

Let me just kind of close out the hearing, going down the line, 

if you have a final comment before we end the hearing. We will 

start with you, Ms. Hutchinson. 

Ms. HUTCHINSON. Thank you for your strong support of our program. As you can see, they are very effective. We saw it here this 

morning. I know we need more across the system. We will get you 

that answer. We are looking at that as an organization. 

One thing we did not talk about which I think is a huge benefit 

for canines is just the ability to evolve them with the threat. So we 

can train them very quickly as new threats emerge, and we can 

also deploy them differently, so as the threat changes to insider 

threat, we can move them to the back side of the airport very 

quickly. So it is a very portable asset for us as well, and I think 

that is significant for our mission. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Montes. 

Mr. MONTES. Once again, thank you as well. I want to point out 

one significant point. As we continue to evolve our CBP Canine 

Training Program, one of the emphasis is the type of dogs that we 

are selecting and the process that we have been able to refine. I 

will give you the statistical number because you said you liked 

metrics. 

In fiscal year 2015, through our vendors, through our contracts, 

through our open source, 428 dogs were presented to us for possible 

selection of entering our service. Through our very rigorous performance and medical selection, we have only selected 278 of those. 

That is a 64-percent selection. So the dogs—there are an abun-
23 

dance of canines out there, but we are looking for a particular type 

of canine for our mission. 

Now, of those 270, currently we have 208 that have completed 

training. We have 51 that are in training. And only 11 of those 

dogs were not able to meet our performance standards. And we 

talk about lexicon as far as failure. That is what we would consider 

failures. 

So as it is right now, the CBP canine program, the return on investment of taxpayer dollars, we are at a 95-percent success rate 

of dogs that walk through our door and our training that we are 

able to train, certify, and create a working dog team for the CBP 

operational components to enforce and secure our borders. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Montes. Director Grover. 

Ms. GROVER. Yes, sir. TSA does have an effective program here, 

and they have made great strides in using the metrics that they 

need to oversee their program, and we look forward to working 

with them to address these final issues remaining. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Dr. Otto. 

Dr. OTTO. I think that we all agree that the dogs do give us a 

huge advantage, and I think continuing in a collaborative research 

environment so that we can answer some of these questions, that 

we can provide those metrics. And I agree that the dogs are so 

flexible that even if a machine could detect some odor, when we 

look at the environments that they are working in and things that 

change, that whole ability for the dogs to problem-solve and reason 

really puts them kind of leaps and bounds ahead of any kind of machine-type approach to this problem. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I want to thank you all for your time 

and your testimony. I want to thank the handlers, the dogs. I know 

Senator Carper named them. He did not mention Jerry, so thanks 

to Jerry for being just cute and soft. [Laughter.] 

Again, thank you all. I really do appreciate it. 

With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until 

March 18 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions 

for the record. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 
26 

the witnesses, canine handlers, and canines here today for their willingness to share their stories, 

and I look forward to your testimony. 
27 

Statement of Ranking Member Tom Carper 

"Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security" 

Thursday, March 3, 2016 

As preparedfor delivery: 

During multiple visits to our Southern and Northern borders, I've been impressed by the many 

'force multipliers' that help our border security ofiicers maximize their e!Iectiveness. Often, 

these force multipliers arc high-tech night vision cameras, aerostats, and surveillance planes. 

But sometimes our officers get critical help !rom some low-tech friends. I'm thinking of the 

horses that guide Border Patrol agents through dense brush, or- as we will hear about today- of 

the gifted dogs who can sniff out threats that would be invisible to humans. 

As we will hear, and perhaps even sec, in moments, specially trained dogs can detect people or 

things that humans or machines might easily miss. Canines arc already at work across a number 

ofDJ-IS programs. For instance, DHS uses dogs to check for explosives within our airports and 

train stations. We also sec dogs hard at work at and between our ports of entry where they 

attempt to detect the illegal entry of people and goods. 

We know that the special abilities of these animals have already contributed to our homeland 

security. For example, canine teams are credited with helping CBP seize more than 4,500 pounds 

of heroin in fiscal year 2015. That same year, dogs helped to track thousands of migrants along 

the Southwest border, and discovered 83 people hiding in vehicles crossing through ports of 

entry. Other dogs have helped detect illicit plants or animals, while some helped find human 

remains ncar the border. 

Security is not the only mission for canine teams. Dogs have been invaluable in search and 

rescue efforts following natural disasters. This is an area where I'm not sure we are doing 

enough to take advantage of their capabilities. 

At the same time, these valuable tools are not free. Dogs with the proper abilities and 

temperament to conduct searches are expensive to buy and even more expensive to train and 

deploy effectively. As with all of our security investments. we must make sure we are deploying 

these canine teams in a cost-effective way. 

Today we will hear about some of the open questions regarding canine teams. In particular, GAO 

has taken a hard look at TSA"s canine program and raised some important questions about how 

and where they are trained and deployed. While TSA has successfully addressed some of GAO's 

earlier concerns, I understand that other questions remain. 

!look forward to hearing from both agencies about the current status of their canine programs 

and plans for the future. We also need to drill down on what these canines can and cannot 

accomplish and what information is needed to make sure we are making the right investments in 

these force multipliers. 
28 

''With that, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here and for sharing these wonderful 

dogs and their trainers and handlers with us today. 
29 

Post-Hearing Statement for the Record 

Submitted to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

From Senator Gary C. Peters 

"Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security" 

March 3, 2016 

1. I first want to thank Chairman Johnson and Senator Carper for holding this 

important hearing. I would like to thank the witnesses, Kimberly 

Hutchinson, Damien Montes, Jennifer Grover and Cindy Otto, for sharing 

their valuable expertise and time with us. 

2. What has struck me most about this hearing is how the testimony of all the 

witnesses has raised two connected issues: canine procurement and 

program costs. Perhaps obtaining more canines from shelters and rescue 

groups would help resolve both issues. According to The Humane Society 

of the United States, approximately 6 to 8 million dogs and cats enter the 

shelter system every year and approximately 2.4 million healthy and 

treatable animals are euthanized'. In addition to resolving DHS's canine 

supply problem and assisting in bringing down costs, obtaining canines 

from these sources will also reduce expenditures for state and local 

governments. 

3. This idea is not new. In fact, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Canine Training Program already obtains many dogs from rescue 

shelters across the United States for its agriculture canine teamsdeployed to detect odors that find illegal narcotics, smuggled humans, 

prohibited agriculture products and other items. Moreover, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Of1ice (GAO) has previously recommended 

that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) use conventional 

canines instead of Passenger Screening Canines (PSC) to detect explosives 

odor on passengers. TSA has not suftlciently explained why it has not 

implemented that recommendation. This is especially troubling as PSCs 

have the highest start-up costs of all the types of canine teams. Rescued 

canines are already performing similar tasks as PSC canines and, barring 

evidence to the contrary, arc just as well suited to perform the tasks at a 

significantly lower cost. 

4. The witnesses' testimony and background brietlng memo touched upon 

another point that bears highlighting: it is incumbent upon us to ensure 

that all working canines have a home environment including proper 

enrichment when their shift has ended. According to page 6 ofthc 

background brietlng memo, while dogs in the TSA and Border Patrol 

programs are being housed in proper environments, canines working in the 
30 

Office of Field Operations (OFO) are not, as they are kenneled at the end 

of their shifts. Dogs are social animals that thrive in a home environment 

when provided with love and affection. They benefit from proper home 

environments where they can engage in their natural, social behavior. A 

humane housing environment enables them to relax and rejuvenate so that 

they will be at their best to perform their work day after day. 

5. Accordingly, I recommend that we conduct a pilot study using canines 

procured from shelters and rescue groups to detect explosives odor on 

passengers and then assess whether DHS should procure dogs from 

shelters and rescue groups for additional canine programs. Moreover, we 

must commit to providing canines with appropriate housing during their 

working career as well as in their retirement, proper enrichment, downtime 

and rest, and top-notch veterinary care for the remainder of their lives. 

This committee must ensure that all working canines, regardless of their 

source, are treated with the respect and dignity that they have earned. 

' 'http://www. hu manesociety. org/iss ues/pet _ overpopu Ia tion/facts/ pet_ ownership_ stati sties. h tm I 
31 

Testimony of 

Kimberly Hutchinson, Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Training and Development, Transportation Security Administration 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

and 

Damian Montes, Director, Canine Training Program, 

Office of Training and Development, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

before the 

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

March 3, 2016 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testif'y regarding the canine training programs at the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Canine teams at 

TSA and CBP provide the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with reliable and 

mobile detection capabilities and a visible deterrent against criminal and terrorist threats. 

TSA's Canine Training Center (CTC) and National Explosives Detection Canine Team 

Program (NEDCTP) 

TSA procures, trains, and deploys both TSA-led and state and local law enforcement-led 

canine teams to secure our Nation's transportation systems through effective explosives 

detection, visible deterrence, and timely, mobile response to support rail stations, airports, 

passenger terminals, seaports, surface carriers, and other facilities. 
32 

TSA's National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP) began as the 

Federal Aviation Administration's Explosives Detection Canine Program in 1972 and transferred 

to TSA in 2002. Congress has recognized the value ofTSA 's NEDCTP through its continued 

support and funding. TSA's NEDCTP is currently the largest explosives detection canine 

program in DHS, and the second largest in the federal government, with 997 funded National 

Explosives Detection Canine teams currently stationed at more than I 00 of the Nation's airports, 

mass transit, and cargo environments. The success ofTSA 's NEDCTP is a prime example of 

federal, state, and local governmental entities working together with a common goal-to protect 

the transportation domain and the American people. 

Given the security value of high quality explosive detection canines, particularly those 

best suited for passenger screening, TSA must ensure a reliable and adequate supply of canines. 

TSA procures canines primarily through an Interagency Service Support Agreement (IS SA) with 

the Department of Defense (DOD). Pursuant to the terms of the ISSA and as a result of our 

strong relationship with DOD's Military Working Dog Program, approximately 230 canines are 

supplied to TSA each year. TSA partners with DOD during the canine selection and evaluation 

process with both state-side vendors and overseas buying trips, ensuring TSA 's needs are met. 

In addition to procuring canines through DOD, TSA is exploring procurement of both 

trained and untrained canines from qualified private-sector businesses. TSA 's goal is to procure 

an additional 20 trained Passenger Screening Canines and 20 untrained canines suitable for 

passenger screening environments in Fiscal Year 2016 through this new procurement initiative. 

Once TSA procures a canine, the Agency pairs it with a federal, state, or local handler to 

be trained to operate in the aviation, multimodal, maritime, mass transit, or cargo environments. 

2 
33 

The majority of canine teams working in the aviation environment are comprised of a canine and 

a state or local law enforcement officer. For these teams, TSA provides and trains the dog, trains 

the handler, provides training aids and explosive storage magazines, and conducts annual on-site 

canine team re-certifications. TSA partially reimburses each participating agency for operational 

costs associated with maintaining the teams, including veterinarians' fees, handlers' salaries, dog 

food, and equipment. In return, the law enforcement agencies agree to use the canines in their 

assigned transportation environment for at least 80 percent of the handler's duty time. State and 

local law enforcement participation in the program is voluntary, and these organizations play a 

critical role in TSA's mission to ensure the safe movement of commerce and people throughout 

the Nation's transportation security environment. 

In addition to state and local law enforcement-led teams, TSA Inspectors lead 322 canine 

teams, including all Passenger Screening Canine (PSC) teams, which are specifically trained to 

detect explosives' odor on passengers in the checkpoint environment, in addition to their 

conventional explosives detection role. 

TSA and state and local law enforcement handlers travel from across the country to 

TSA's Canine Training Center (CTC), located at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, to be paired 

with a canine and complete either a I 0-week conventional Explosives Detection Canine (EDC) 

course or a 12-week PSC course. The canine teams learn explosives detection in an intense 

training environment, utilizing 13 indoor venues located on the CTC premises that mimic a 

variety of transportation sites such as a cargo facility, airport gate, passenger screening 

checkpoint, baggage claim area, aircraft interior, vehicle parking lot, light rail station, light rail 
34 

car, and air cargo facility, among others. Teams are trained to detect a variety of explosives 

based on intelligence data and emerging threats. 

On March 4, 2016, as part ofTSA Administrator Peter Neffenger's commitment to 

world-class training, TSA will hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new 25,000 square-foot 

facility at the CTC with seven new classrooms, a I 00-seat auditorium, and administrative space 

along with a parking lot and courtyard. The new facility is designed to support TSA's mission 

by providing, training, and certifying highly effective explosive detection canine teams and is the 

result of collaborative efforts among TSA, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Once a team graduates from the training program, they return to their duty station to 

acclimate and familiarize the canine to their assigned operational environment. Approximately 

30 days after graduation, an Operational Transition Assessment (OTA) is conducted to ensure 

each team demonstrates operational proficiency in their environment. OT A assessments include 

four key elements: the canine's ability to recognize explosives' odors, the handler's ability to 

interpret the canine's change of behavior, the handler's ability to conduct logical and systematic 

searches, and the team's ability to locate the explosives' odor source. Upon successful 

completion of the OTA, NEDCTP canine teams are then evaluated on an annual basis under the 

most stringent of applicable certification standards. 

TSA allocates canine teams to specific cities and airports utilizing risk-based criteria that 

take into account multiple factors, including threat score, number of people with secure access, 

and passenger throughput. PSC teams are critical to TSA's risk-based security efforts and are 

deployed to operate during peak travel times at 40 of the Nation's largest airports, where they 

4 
35 

have the opportunity to screen tens of thousands of passengers every day. TSA is working to 

train and certify all of its 322 canine teams in both PSC and traditional explosive detection by the 

end of Fiscal Year 2017. 

In addition to deployments at passenger screening checkpoints, TSA and law 

enforcement-led teams conduct a variety of search and high visibility activities that address 

potential threats in the transportation domain. For example, canine teams participate in Visible 

Intennodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) operations. VIPR teams can include a variety of 

federal, state, and local law enforcement and security assets as well as TSA personnel including 

Federal Air Marshals, Transportation Security Specialists-Explosives, Transportation Security 

Inspectors, and TSA-certified explosives detection canine teams. 

The Government Accountability Office, DHS Inspector General, and other independent 

testers have proven canine teams to be one of the most effective means of detecting explosive 

substances. They are critical to TSA's focus on security effectiveness, and TSA continues to 

develop the NEDCTP to maximize the program's contributions to transportation security. 

CBP's Canine Training Program 

Canines have a critical role in CBP's mission of securing the border. At our Nation's air, 

land, and sea ports of entry (POE) and at preclearance locations abroad, CBP officers utilize 

specially trained canines for interdiction and in support of specialized programs aimed at 

combating terrorism, as well as countering narcotics, firearms, human, and undeclared currency 

smuggling. In between the POEs, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) uses canines to detect 

undocumented aliens and illegal drugs at checkpoints and along our borders. The CBP Canine 

Training Program maintains the largest and most diverse law enforcement canine training 

5 
36 

program in the country, primarily responsible for the training of I ,289 of the over I ,400 CBP 

canine teams currently deployed throughout the United States. 1 

The primary mission of the CBP Canine Training Program is to develop, train and certify 

CBP officer/agent canine handler teams and instructors in the detection and apprehension of 

undocumented aliens, seizure of controlled substances and other contraband utilized to finance 

terrorist or criminal drug trafficking organizations. Under the direction of the Office of Training 

and Development (OTD), the CBP Canine Training Program offers formal training to various 

federal, state, and local agencies. Additionally, the CBP Canine Training Program supports 

canine training initiatives under the direction of the Office of International Affairs, in 

coordination with the Departments of Defense and State and USAID, in their support of 

providing foreign partners' capacity building and technical assistance, championing the 

development of global trade and travel standards, and promoting the United States Government's 

objectives in anti-terrorism, border security, customs, immigration, and facilitation of legitimate 

trade and travel. As a resource center, the CBP Canine Training Program provides guidance on 

canine training issues, legal requirements, and certification standards to CBP's operational 

components- the Office of Field Operations (OFO) and the USBP. While OTD develops and 

establishes the training requirements ofCBP's canines, the utilization, maintenance, and 

deployment of canine teams is managed by the OFO and the USBP. 

1 Of the current I ,400 canines deployed today in CBP, the CBP Canine Training Program has trained 1,289. The 

remaining Ill are agriculture canines trained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Newnan, GA. 

6 
37 

The CBP Canine Training Program oversees two training delivery sites in El Paso, Texas 

and Front Royal, Virginia. CBP's agriculture canine teams are trained at the USDA's National 

Detector Dog Training Center in Newnan, Georgia. 

CBP Canine Training Program History 

During the latter part of 1969, the former U.S. Customs Service carried out a study to 

determine the feasibility of using detection canines in the fight against drug smuggling. As a 

result, canine trainers from various branches of the U.S. military were recruited, and on April I, 

1970, the U.S. Customs narcotic detector dog training program was established in San Antonio, 

Texas. Initially, efforts were concentrated on training dogs to detect the odors of marijuana and 

hashish, but the ever increasing smuggling of narcotics made the detection of heroin and cocaine 

equally critical. 

In July 1974, the U.S. Customs Service detector dog training operation was relocated 

from San Antonio to its current location 70 miles west of Washington, D.C., in the town of Front 

Royal, Virginia. In 1991, Congress approved additional funding for the facility in Front Royal, 

which enabled the construction of a new 100-run kennel, academic building, small arms firing 

range, and vehicle training areas. These new additions brought the detection training program 

facility up to date as it continued to produce canines trained in disciplines such as searching 

pedestrians and detecting the odors of narcotics, currency, firearms, and explosives. 

In 1986, in response to an alarming increase in undocumented alien apprehensions and 

narcotics seizures, the USBP created a pilot training program which consisted of four canine 

teams trained to detect concealed humans, and the odors of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, 

and marijuana along our Nation's border. During the first five months of service, the four canine 

7 
38 

teams accounted for numerous apprehensions of concealed people and over $150,000,000 in 

seized narcotics. The operational impact of a trained detection canine team was clear. By the 

end of 1988, the USBP added 75 additional certified canine teams. 

In order to establish consistency in training and certification standards, in 1993, the 

USBP established its own canine training facility in El Paso, Texas. The USBP National Canine 

Facility adopted ideologies and disciplines from European working dog standards and has 

received numerous accolades and recognition from local, state, federal, and various international 

law enforcement agencies. 

In the aftermath of the terrorist acts of September II, 2001, as a component of the newly 

formed CBP, the USBP and OFO's canine training programs were consolidated under CBP's 

OTD and renamed Canine Center El Paso (CCEP) and Canine Center Front Royal (CCFR). On 

October I, 2009, the CCEP and CCFR were merged to create the CBP Canine Training Program. 

An integrated core curriculum was adopted combining the best practices of the legacy OFO and 

USBP training programs. Training has been customized to ensure that the unique requirements 

of the OFO and USBP arc met. 

CBP took the best practices from the OFO and USBP canine training programs, and 

combined them into one standardized curriculum containing identical training philosophies and 

methodologies geared toward individual agency operational requirements. This compatibility 

strengthened CBP's ability to effectively deploy resources to meet operational requirements 

regardless of mission and/or operational component, in effect multiplying CBP's canine force 

through unification. 

8 
39 

CBP Canine Training Disciplines 

The CBP Canine Training Program possesses a unified training cadre consisting ofOFO 

and USBP personnel who deliver training to integrated classes made up of CBP officers and 

USBP agents throughout CBP. This commonality brings with it the opportunity to seamlessly 

interchange staff to further integrate the CBP Canine Training Program. New canine teams 

continue to be trained in disciplines such as concealed human detection, pedestrian processing, 

detecting the odors of narcotics, currency and firearms, tracking and trailing, patrol, search and 

rescue, and human remains detection. 

Concealed Human and Narcotic Detection: 

The Concealed Human Narcotic Detection Handler course includes in-depth training and 

certification in all aspects of canine behavior, along with handling, training and employing a 

passive indication detection canine, as well as canine policy, case law and canine first-aid. Both 

the officer/agent and the canine are taught proper search sequences when searching private and 

commercial conveyances, freight, luggage, mail, open areas of land and structures. Concealed 

Human and Narcotic Detection Canines are taught to detect concealed humans and the odors of 

marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, hashish, and ecstasy. 

Search and Rescue: 

The Search and Rescue Handler course includes in-depth training and certification in all 

aspects of canine behavior, along with handling, training and employing a dual-trained search 

and rescue trailing canine, as well as canine policy, case law and canine first-aid. In tandem the 

agent and canine are trained in obedience, tracking/trailing and large area search. The canine 

9 
40 

teams receive training in rappelling for helicopter operations, backtracking, and deployments in 

various environments, including snowy conditions, deserts, forests, and mountains. 

Tracking/Trailing: 

The Tracking!frailing Handler course provides added capability to teams previously 

trained in detection or patrol. This course includes in-depth training involving conditioning a 

canine to follow the route of a person or persons traversing various types of terrain. 

Patrol: 

The Patrol Canine Handler course includes in-depth training and certification in all 

aspects of canine behavior, along with handling, training and employing a patrol canine to 

search, detain and when necessary physically subdue violent, combative subjects. This course 

also includes training in canine policy, case law and canine first-aid. 

Canine Currency/Firearms Detection: 

The Currency/Firearms Detection Handler course includes in-depth training and 

certification in all aspects of canine behavior, along with handling, training and employing a 

passive indication detection canine, as well as canine policy, case law and canine first-aid. Both 

the officer and the canine arc taught proper search sequences when searching pedestrians, private 

and commercial conveyances, freight, luggage, mail, open areas of land and structures. 

Human Remains Detection/Cadaver: 

In a regimen added to the Search and Rescue capability, canines are trained in the 

discipline of locating the odors of human decomposition. This ability enables the team to assist 

10 
41 

in a myriad of situations ranging from locating the remains of persons who have expired in 

remote areas to assisting local law enforcement with suspicious death investigations and 

responding in recovery operations during natural disasters and terrorist attacks. 

Canine Instructor: 

The CBP Canine Training Program trains experienced agents and officers to function as 

canine instructors in each of the varied disciplines for their respective components. This consists 

of extensive academic and practical training on canine methodology and problem solving theory. 

The instructor develops the canines and handlers to function as a team from the initial point of 

training through to certification and graduation. Upon completion of training, instructors return 

to their respective stations or ports to provide maintenance training for existing certified teams, 

additionally providing insight and guidance to administrative staffs and serving as subject matter 

experts on the handling and deployment of canine teams. 

CBP Agriculture Canines 

In 2003, when the USDA transferred Plant Protection and Quarantine Officers to CBP, 

approximately 74 canine teams were included. Today, about Ill CBP agriculture canine teams 

provide screening at the border crossings, preclearance locations, air passenger terminals, cruise 

terminals, cargo warehouses, and mail facilities that process international passengers and 

commodities. All CBP agriculture specialist canine handlers and their canine partners complete 

the initial 10- to 13-week CBP Agriculture Specialist Canine Training at the USDA National 

Detector Dog Training Center (NDDTC). All the detector dogs at the NDDTC are adopted from 

rescue shelters in the United States or come to the program from private donations. 

11 
42 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the TSA and CBP's canine training programs provide highly trained 

canine teams focused on advancing DHS's mission to secure the homeland and protect 

Americans. Canine teams offer unique capabilities across various disciplines and can be 

deployed throughout diverse operating environments. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

these important programs with you today. 

12 
43 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET 

Thursday, March 3, 2016 

GA0-16-444T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Government Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

EXPLOSIVES 

DETECTION CANINES 

TSA Has Enhanced Its 

Canine Program, but 

Opportunities May Exist to 

Reduce Costs 

Statement of Jennifer Grover, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice 
44 

EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINES 

TSA Has Enhanced Its Canine ..-nnH'"'m 

Opportunities May Exist to Reduce 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has taken steps to enhance its 

National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP) since GAO's 

2013 report, butfurther opportunities exist for TSA to assess its canine program 

and potentially reduce costs, 

TSA Uses Data to Assess Canine Team Proficiency and Utilization: In 

2013, GAO reported that TSA needed to take actions to analyze 

data and ensure canine teams are effectively utilized, GAO 

recommended that TSA regularly available data to identify program 

trends and areas that are working and those in need of corrective action to 

guide program resources and activities, TSA concurred, and in June 2014, GAO 

reported that the agency had taken actions that address the recommendation, 

GAO subsequently closed the recommendation as implemented in August 2014, 

Since then, according to TSA officials, the agency has continued to enhance its 

canine program, TSA reported that it requires canine teams to train 

on all explosives training must be able to detect-any explosive used to 

test and train a canine-in all search areas (e.g,, aircraft), every 45 days, 

TSA has Deployed PSC Teams to the Highest-Risk Airports: GAO found in 

January 2013 that passenger screening canine (PSC) teams were not being 

deployed to the highest-risk airports as called for in TSA's 2012 Strategic 

Framework or utilized for passenger screening, GAO recommended that TSA 

coordinate with airport stakeholders to deploy future PSC teams to the highestrisk airports and ensure that deployed teams were utilized as intended, TSA 

concurred, and in June 2014, GAO reported that PSC teams had been deployed 

or allocated to the highest-risk airports, In January 2015, GAO closed the 

recommendation as implemented after TSA deployed all remaining PSC teams 

to the highest-risk airports and all teams were being utilized for passenger 

screening. 

Opportunities May Exist for TSA to Reduce Canine Program Costs: GAO 

reported in 2013 thatTSA began deploying PSC teams prior to determining their 

operational effectiveness and identifying where within the airport these teams 

would be most effectively utilized, GAO recommended that TSA take actions to 

COI1'1o:rehem;iv<•l; assess the effectiveness of PSCs, TSA concurred and has 

taken steps to effectiveness of PSC teams and where in the airport 

to optimally deploy such teams, However, TSA did not compare the effectiveness 

of PSCs and conventional canines in detecting explosives odor on passengers to 

determine if the greater cost of training PSCs is warranted, In December 2014, 

TSA reported that it did not intend to do this assessment because of the liability 

of using conventional canines to screen persons when they had not been trained 

to do so, GAO closed the recommendation as not implemented, stating that 

conventional canines currently work in close proximity with people as they patrol 

airport terminals, including ticket counters and curbside areas. GAO continues to 

believe that opportunities may exist for TSA to reduce costs if conventional 

canines are found to be as effective at detecting explosives odor on passengers 

as PSCs, 

--------------United States Government Accountability Office 
45 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the 

Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work on the Transportation 

Security Administration's (TSA) National Explosives Detection Canine 

Team Program (NEDCTP). TSA, an agency within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), is the primary federal agency responsible for 

the security of the nation's transportation systems. Since the terrorist 

attacks of September 11, 2001, TSA has implemented a multilayered 

system of security composed of people, processes, and technology to 

protect transportation systems. One of TSA's security layers is comprised 

of nearly 800 deployed explosives detection canine teams-a canine 

paired with a handler-aimed at deterring and detecting the use of 

explosive devices in U.S. transportation systems.' 

Through NEDCTP, TSA trains, deploys, and certifies explosives detection 

canine teams. The program began under the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) in 1972 as a partnership with state and local law 

enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over airports by pairing state and 

local law enforcement officer (LEO) handlers with conventional caninescanines trained to detect explosives in objects (e.g., baggage and 

vehicles). In accordance with the Aviation and Transportation Security 

Act, enacted in November 2001, TSA assumed from FAA primary 

responsibility for civil aviation security and, as a result, the transfer of 

FAA's canine program to TSA was accomplished in March 2003. 2 TSA 

subsequently expanded the program beyond airports to other 

transportation modes, including mass transit and maritime. In January 

2008, TSA further expanded the program to include transportation 

security inspector (TSI) canine teams responsible for screening air 

cargo. 3 In 2011, TSA again expanded the program by deploying TSI 

handlers to airports with passenger screening canines (PSG)-

is located within TSA's Office of Security Operations 

2

Speclfical!y, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act established, within the 

Department of Transportation, TSA as the agency responsible for securing the nation's 

transportation systems. See Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 101(a), 115 Stat. 597 (2001). TSA 

subsequently transferred to the newly established DHS pursuant to the Homeland 

Security Act of2002. See Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 403, 116 Stat. 2135.2178 (2002). 

3

Unlike LEOs, TSis are unarmed TSA personnel with no authority to take law enforcement 

action {e.g., arrest or detain). 

Page 1 
46 

Background 

conventional canines also trained to detect explosives being carried or 

worn on a person. Furthermore, in 2015, TSA began training and 

certifying all TSI air cargo teams as PSC teams' By the end of calendar 

year 2016, TSA expects that all air cargo teams will be PSC certified, 

providing the agency greater flexibility in how it can utilize its canine 

teams. 

My testimony today addresses the steps TSA has taken since 2013 to 

enhance its canine program and further opportunities to assess the 

program. This statement is based on our January 2013 report, June 2014 

testimony, and includes selected updates on canine training and 

operations. 5 The products cited in this statement provide detailed 

information on our scope and methodology. To conduct our selected 

updates, we reviewed the president's fiscal year 2017 budget request for 

TSA and interviewed agency officials in February 2016 on changes made 

to NEDCTP since June 2014. The work upon which this statement is 

based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

NEDCTP's mission is to deter and detect the introduction of explosive 

devices into U.S. transportation systems. As of February 2016, NEDCTP 

has deployed 787 of the 997 canine teams for which it has funding 

available in fiscal year 2016 across transportation systems. 6 There are 

four types of LEO canine teams: aviation, mass transit, maritime, and 

4

TSA plans on dual certifying at! TSI-Ied teams as PSC teams, but is not dual certifying 

LEO-led conventional canine teams_ 

5

GAO, Explosives Detection Canines: TSA Has Taken Steps to Analyze Canine Team 

Data and Assess the Effectiveness of Passenger Screening Canines, GA0-14-695T 

{Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2014); and TSA Explosives Detection Canine Program: 

Actions Needed to Analyze Data and Ensure Canine Teams Are Effectively Utilized, 

GA0-13-239 {Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31. 2013). GA0-13-239 is a public version of a 

sensitive report that we issued in December 2012 under the same title. Information TSA 

deemed Sensitive Security Information was redacted. 

6

As of February 2016, an additional149 teams are "in transition" meaning that they are in 

training, awaiting an operational assessment, or canine replacement, among other things 

Page 2 GA0-16-444T 
47 

multimodal; and two types of TSI canine teams: multimodal and PSC. 

Table 1 shows the number of canine teams by type for which funding is 

available, describes their roles and responsibilities, and costs per team to 

TSA. 

Table 1: Total Number, Roles and Responsibilities, and Federal Costs of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Canine 

Teams by Type of Team 

Type of canine team 

Law enforcement 

officer (LEO): aviation 

LEO: mass transit 

LEO: maritime 

LEO: multimodal 

Transportation 

security inspector 

(TSI): multimoda( 

Number of teams for 

which funding is 

available• Description of roles and responsibilities 

503 Patrol airport tenninals, including ticket 

counters, curbside areas, and secured areas; 

respond to calls to search unattended items, 

such as vehicles and baggage; screen air 

cargo; and serve as genera! deterrents to 

would~be terrorists or criminals 

127 Patrol mass transit terminals; search platforms, 

railcars, and buses; respond to calls to search 

unattended items, such as baggage; and serve 

as general deterrents to would-be terrorists or 

criminals 

11 Conduct similar activities as LEO mass transit 

teams at ferry terminals 

34 Patrol and search transportation modes in the1r 

geographic area (e.g., aviation, mass transit, 

and maritime), and screen air cargo 

46 Patrol and search transportation modes in their 

geographic area (e.g., aviation, mass transit, 

or maritime), and screen air cargo 

276 Primarily search for explosives odor on 

passengers in airport tenninals 

TSA start-up TSA annual 

cos::,::t cos!!.f~t 

$85,000 $54,000 

$85,000 $54,000 

$85,000 $54,000 

$85,000 $54,000 

$218,000 $153.000 

$223,000 $154,000 

Source GAO ;analySts of TSA data I GAQ.16444T 

aThe number of teams for which funding is available in fiscal year 2016. 

'The cost data are as of July 2015, and have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Start-up costs 

reflect the costs incurred by TSA during the first year the canine team is deployed. Annual costs 

incfude the operations and maintenance costs incurred by TSA to keep canine teams deployed after 

their first year in the program. 

While the types of TSI-led teams are categorized as either multimodal or passenger screening 

canine, according to TSA, the agency's long+terrn intent is to have all 322 TSI teams categorized as 

mu!timodal once trained in passenger screening so they can operate across modes to meet mission 

needs, TSHed teams previously categorized as air cargo teams have been included above as 

passenger screening teams since TSA is in the process of certifying those teams as PSC teams. 

Page3 GA0-16-444T 
48 

TSA's start-up costs for LEO teams include the costs of training the 

canine and handler, and providing the handler's agency a stipend. 7 The 

annual costs to TSA for LEO teams reflect the amount of the stipend. 

TSA's start-up and annual costs for TSI canine teams are greater than 

those for LEO teams, because TSI handlers are TSA employees and 

therefore the costs include the handlers' pay and benefits, service 

vehicles, and cell phones, among other things. PSC teams come at an 

increased cost to TSA compared with other TSI teams because of the 

additional 2 weeks of training and costs associated with providing decoys 

(i.e., persons pretending to be passengers who walk around the airport 

with explosive training aids). In fiscal year 2016, approximately $121.7 

million of amounts appropriated to TSA were available for its canine 

program. For fiscal year 2017, TSA is requesting approximately $131.4 

million, a $9.7 million increase compared to the prior fiscal year. 

According to a TSA official, the increase is for projected pay increases 

and 16 additional positions to support canine training and operations, 

among other things. 

Figure 1 shows LEO, TSI, and PSC teams performing searches in 

different environments. 

7

The annual stipend is the federal cost share TSA provides per LEO team pursuant to a 

cooperative agreement between TSA and the LEO team's agency (state or local). Certain 

items and services are reimbursable by TSA through the stipend, including canine food 

and veterinary care. The LEO team's agency is responsible for any costs incurred greater 

than the amount covered by the stipend. 

Page4 GA0-16-444T 
49 

Figure 1: Various Types of Canine Teams 

Conventional canines undergo 15 weeks of explosives detection training, 

and PSCs 25 weeks, before being paired with a handler at TSA's Canine 

Center (CTC), located at Lackland Air Force Base. Conventional 

canine attend a 1 0-week training course, and PSC handlers 

attend a 12-week training course. • The 2 additional weeks are used to 

train PSC teams in actual work environments. 9 Canines are paired with a 

LEO or TSI handler during their training course. After canine teams 

complete this training, and obtain initial certification, they acclimate to 

their home operating environment for a 30-day period. Upon completion 

of the acclimation period, CTC conducts a 3-day operational transitional 

assessment to ensure canine teams are not experiencing any 

petiormance challenges in their home operating environment. 

Page 5 GA0~16444T 
50 

After initial certification, canine teams are evaluated on an annual basis to 

maintain certification. During conventional explosives detection 

evaluations, canine teams must demonstrate their ability to detect all the 

explosive training aids the canines were trained to detect in five search 

areas (e.g., aircraft). 10 The five search areas are randomly selected 

among all the possible types of search areas, but according to CTC, 

include the area that is most relevant to the type of canine team. For 

example, teams assigned to airports will be evaluated in areas such as 

aircraft and cargo. Canine teams must find a certain percentage of the 

explosive training aids to pass their annual conventional evaluation. In 

addition, a specified number of nonproductive responses-when a canine 

responds to a location where no explosives odor is present-are allowed. 

After passing the conventional evaluation, PSC teams are required to 

undergo an additional annual evaluation that includes detecting 

explosives on a person, or being carried by a person. PSC teams are 

tested in different locations within the sterile areas and passenger 

screening checkpoints of an airport.'' A certain number of persons with 

explosive training aids must be detected, and a specified number of 

nonproductive responses are allowed for PSC certification. 

explosive training aid is any explosive used to test and train a canine in explosives 

detection. 

11The sterile area of an airport is the portion in an airport, defined in the airport's security 

program, that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access 

generally is controlled by TSA through the screening of persons and property. See 49 

C.F.R § 1540.5. The passenger screening checkpoint is the location within an airport at 

which passenger access to the sterile area and boarding aircraft is controlled through the 

screening of persons and their accessible property. 

PageS GA0-16-444T 
51 

TSA Has Taken Steps 

Since 2013 to 

Enhance Its Canine 

Program, but Further 

Opportunities May 

Exist to Assess the 

Program and Reduce 

Costs 

TSA Uses Data to Assess 

Canine Team Proficiency 

and Utilization 

TSA has taken steps to enhance NEDCTP since we issued our 2013 

report. 12 For example, TSA has used data, such as the results of covert 

tests, to assess the proficiency and utilization of its canine teams. 

However, further opportunities exist for TSA to assess its program related 

to the use and cost of PSG teams. 

In January 2013, we reported that TSA collected and used key canine 

program data in its Canine Website System (CWS), a central 

management database, but it could better analyze these data to identify 

program trends. For example, we found that TSA did not analyze training 

minute data over time (from month to month) and therefore was unable to 

determine trends related to canine teams' compliance with the 

requirement to train 240 minutes each month. Similarly, TSA collected 

monthly data on the amount of cargo TSI teams screened in accordance 

with the agency's requirement, but had not analyzed these data over time 

to determine if, for example, changes were needed in the screening 

requirement or the number of teams deployed. Table 2 highlights some of 

the key data elements included in CWS at the time of our prior review. 

Table 2: Key Data Elements Recorded in the Canine Website System (CWS) 

Data element 

Training minutes 

Utilization minutes 

Description 

Canine handlers record t1me spent conducting training to ensure can-ine teams maintain proficiency in 

detecting explosives odor. 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requires canine teams to conduct a minimum of 

240 proficiency training minutes every 4 weeks (month) and for handlers to record training minutes in 

CWS within 48 hours. 

Law Enforcement Officer teams record time spent patrolling transportation terminals, searching for 

explosives odor in railcars and buses, for example, and screening air cargo. 

Transportation Security Inspector teams record time spent screening cargo, which is their primary 

responsibHity. 

canine handlers to record utilization minutes in the CWS within 

Page7 GA0-16-444T 
52 

Data element 

Certification rates 

Final canine responses 

or decertified ) of annual canine team 

Field Canine Coordinators are required to document results of short notice assessments, and 

handlers are required to record results, in CWS. 

Canine handlers record final canine responses instances when a canine sits, indicating to its 

handler that it detects explosives odor. 

Canine handlers are instructed to document final canine responses into CWS and submit swab 

samples to TSA's Canine Explosives Unit to be analyzed for explosives odor. 

Source GAO analySis of TSA documenlal!on 1 GAQ...16-444T 

aCertified teams are canine teams that passed their annual evaluation and are certified to search for 

explosives. 

~>Decertified teams are canine teams that failed their annual evaluation and are limited to training and 

providing moblle deterrence 

In January 2013, we recommended that TSA regularly analyze available 

data to identify program trends and areas that are working well and those 

in need of corrective action to guide program resources and activities. 

These analyses could include, but not be limited to, analyzing and 

documenting trends in proficiency training minutes, canine utilization, 

results of short notice assessments (covert tests) and final canine 

responses, performance differences between LEO and TSI canine teams, 

as well as an assessment of the optimum location and number of canine 

teams that should be deployed to secure the U.S. transportation system. 

TSA concurred with our recommendation, and in June 2014 we reported 

on some of the steps it had taken to implement the recommendation. 

Specifically, TSA monitored canine teams training minutes over time by 

producing annual reports. For example, TSA analyzed canine teams' 

compliance with the training requirement throughout fiscal year 2013 to 

identify teams repeatedly not in compliance with the monthly requirement. 

Field Canine Coordinators subsequently completed comprehensive 

assessment reviews for their canine teams, which involved reporting on 

the teams that did not meet the requirement. TSA also reinstated short 

notice assessments in July 2013, since they had suspended them in May 

2012. We reported that in the event a team fails a short notice 

assessment, the Field Canine Coordinator completes a report that 

includes an analysis of the team's training records to identify an 

explanation for the failure. According to TSA officials, in March 2014, 

NEDCTP stood up a new office, known as the Performance Measurement 

Section, to perform analyses of canine team data. Those actions, among 

others, addressed the intent of our recommendation by positioning TSA to 

identify program trends to better target resources and activities based on 

PageS GA0-16-444T 
53 

TSA has Deployed PSG 

Teams to the Highest-Risk 

Airports 

what is working well and what may need corrective action. Therefore, we 

closed the recommendation as implemented in August 2014. 

Since we closed the recommendation, according to TSA officials, the 

agency has continued to take steps to enhance its canine program. For 

example, TSA eliminated the monthly 240-minute training requirement 

and instead requires canine teams to train on all explosives training aids 

they must be able to detect, in all search areas (e.g., aircraft), every 45 

days." In April2015, TSA also eliminated canine teams' requirement to 

screen a certain volume of air cargo. Instead, TSA requires TSI-Ied 

canine teams to spend at least 40 percent of their time on utilization 

activities, such as patrolling airport terminals and screening air cargo. 

Canine teams can spend the rest of the time on administrative activities, 

such as taking their canine to the veterinarian. Handlers record their daily 

activities in a web-based system, which allow TSA to assess how the 

canine teams are being used. According to TSA, utilization time increased 

five percent in fiscal year 2015 since the requirement changed. In 

February 2016, TSA officials told us that starting in fiscal year 2016, TSA 

increased the number of short notice assessments required from two to 

five per year for each state and local law enforcement agency that 

participates in NEDCTP. According to a TSA official, the number was 

increased since TSA believes such assessments are helpful in 

determining the proficiency of canine teams. Furthermore, CTC placed 34 

Regional Canine Training Instructors in the field to review canine teams' 

training records and assist them in resolving any performance challenges, 

such as challenges in detecting a particular explosive aid. 

We also reported in January 2013 that TSA's 2012 Strategic Framework 

called for the deployment of PSC teams based on risk; however, airport 

stakeholder concerns about the appropriateness of TSA's protocols for 

resolving PSC team responses resulted in these teams not being 

deployed to the highest-risk airports or utilized for passenger screening. 14 

We recommended that TSA coordinate with airport stakeholders to 

deploy future PSC teams to the highest-risk airports, and ensure that 

13The new requirement applies to TSI·led canine teams, but TSA officials told us it will 

apply to LEO·Ied teams as well starting in October 2016, 

14For the purpose of allocating PSC teams to airports, TSA developed a mode! to rank 

airports from highest to lowest risk. 

Page 9 GA0·16-444T 
54 

deployed PSG teams are utilized as intended, consistent with the 

agency's statutory authority to provide for the screening of passengers 

and their property. TSA concurred with our recommendation, and in June 

2014, we reported that the PSG teams for which TSA had funding and not 

already deployed to a specific airport at the time our 2013 report had 

been deployed to or allocated to the highest-risk airports. We also 

reported that, according to TSA officials, of all the airports where PSG 

teams had been deployed, all but one airport had agreed to allow TSA to 

conduct screening of individuals using PSG teams at passenger 

screening checkpoint queues. 

According to TSA, the agency was successful in deploying PSG teams to 

airports where they were previously declined by aviation stakeholders for 

various reasons. For example, TSA officials explained that stakeholders 

have realized that PSGs are an effective means for detecting explosives 

odor, and no checkpoints have closed because of a nonproductive 

response. In January 2015, we closed the recommendation as 

implemented after TSA deployed all remaining PSG teams (those which 

had previously been allocated) to the highest-risk airports and all PSG 

teams were being utilized for passenger screening. Since we closed the 

recommendation, TSA has continued to allocate and deploy additional 

PSG teams for which it has received funding to the highest-risk airports 

based on its assessment of how high the risks are to particular airports. In 

addition, from November 2015 to January 2016, TSA relocated PSG 

teams located at 7 lower-risk airports to higher-risk airports. As a result, 

TSA has PSG teams deployed at nearly all category X airports, which are 

generally higher-risk airports." According to TSA officials, all category X 

airports will have PSG teams by the end of calendar year 2016. 

1

5rSA classifies TSA~regulated (i.e., commercia!) airports in the United States into one of 

five security risk categories (X, I, II, Ill, and !V) based on various factors, such as the total 

number of takeoffs and landings annually, and other special security considerations. In 

general, category X airports have the largest number of passenger boardings, and 

category IV airports have the smallest 

Page 10 
55 

Further Opportunities May 

Exist for TSA to Assess Its 

Canine Program and 

Reduce Costs 

In our January 2013 report, we found that TSA began deploying PSC 

teams in April 2011 prior to determining the teams' operational 

effectiveness, and had not completed an assessment to determine where 

within the airport PSC teams would be most effectively utilized. In June 

2012, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) 16 and TSA 

began conducting effectiveness assessments to help demonstrate the 

effectiveness of PSC teams, but the assessment was not inclusive of all 

areas of the airport (i.e., the sterile area, passenger screening checkpoint, 

and public side of the airport). 17 During the June 2012 assessment of 

PSC teams' effectiveness, TSA conducted one of the search exercises 

used for the assessment with three conventional canine teams. Although 

this assessment was not intended to be included as part of DHS S& T and 

TSA's formal assessment of PSC effectiveness, the results of this 

assessment suggested, and TSA officials and DHS S&T's Canine 

Explosives Detection Project Manager agreed, that a systematic 

assessment with both PSCs and conventional canines could provide TSA 

with information to determine whether PSCs provide an enhanced 

security benefit compared with conventional LEO aviation canine teams 

that have already been deployed to airport terminals. 

As a result, we recommended that TSA expand and complete testing, in 

conjunction with DHS S&T, to assess the effectiveness of PSCs and 

conventional canines in all airport areas deemed appropriate prior to 

making additional PSC deployments to help (1) determine whether PSCs 

are effective at screening passengers, and resource expenditures for 

PSC training are warranted, and (2) inform decisions regarding the type 

of canine team to deploy and where to optimally deploy such teams within 

airports. TSA concurred, and we testified in June 2014 that through its 

PSC Focused Training and Assessment Initiative-a two-cycle 

assessment to establish airport-specific optimal working areas, assess 

team performance, and train teams on best practices-TSA had 

determined that PSC teams are effective and should be deployed at the 

passenger checkpoint queue. Furthermore, in February 2014, TSA 

launched a third PSC assessment cycle to increase the amount of time 

16S&T is the primary research and development arm of DHS and manages science and 

technology research for the department's components, such as TSA. 

171n general, the public side of an airport includes all areas accessible to people prior to 

entering a passenger screening checkpoint or after exiting the sterile area of an airport 

and typically includes the ticketing and baggage claim areas 

Page 11 
56 

canines can work and enhance their ability to detect explosives placed in 

areas more challenging to detect Since our June 2014 testimony, TSA 

has continued to carry out the third assessment cycle. According to TSA 

officials, as of February 2016, 68 PSG teams have undergone the 

assessment Additionally, TSA officials told us they began a fourth 

assessment cycle in January 2016 to test PSG teams and all other canine 

teams on threats identified through intelligence. 

Although TSA has taken steps to determine whether PSC teams are 

effective and where in the airport environment to optimally deploy such 

teams, TSA has not compared the effectiveness of PSCs and 

conventional canines in order to determine if the greater cost of training 

canines in the passenger screening method is warranted. In June 2014, 

we reported that TSA did not plan to include conventional canine teams in 

PSG assessments because conventional canines have not been through 

the process used with PSCs to assess their temperament and behavior 

when working in proximity to people. We acknowledged TSA's position 

that half of deployed conventional canines are of a breed not accepted for 

use in the PSC program, but noted that other conventional canines are 

suitable breeds, and have been paired with LEO aviation handlers 

working in proximity with people since they patrol airport terminals, 

including ticket counters and curbside areas. 

In December 2014, TSA reported that it did not intend to include 

conventional canine teams in PSG assessments and cited concerns 

about the liability of operating conventional canines in an unfamiliar 

passenger screening environment In January 2015, we closed the 

recommendation as not implemented, reiterating that conventional 

canines paired with LEO handlers work in close proximity with people 

since, like PSCs, they also patrol airport terminals. Consistent with our 

recommendation, we continue to believe that opportunities exist for TSA 

to conduct an assessment to determine whether conventional canines are 

as effective at detecting explosives odor on passengers when compared 

to PSG teams working in specific areas, such as the passenger 

checkpoint queue. If such an assessment were to indicate that 

conventional canines are equally as effective at detecting explosives odor 

on passengers as PSCs, then limiting proficiency training requirements of 

PSCs to those that currently apply to conventional canine teams could 

save TSA costs associated with maintaining PSG teams. 

Also, as we reported in January 2013, TSA was considering providing 

some PSCs to LEOs to work on the public side of the airport. Should TSA 

determine that the additional investment for PSCs is warranted, it could 

Page 12 GA0·16-444T 
57 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(100635) 

reduce the agency's program costs if it deployed PSCs with LEO 

handlers rather than TSI handlers. Specifically, TSA could save 

approximately $100,000 per team each year, as a PSC team led by a 

LEO handler would cost TSA about $54,000 annually (the amount of the 

stipend), compared with about $154,000, the annual cost per TSI-Ied 

PSC team (see table 1). 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the 

committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you may have at this time. 

For questions about this statement, please contact Jennifer Grover at 

(202) 512-7141 or groverj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 

include Chris Ferencik (Assistant Director), Chuck Bausell, Lisa Canini, 

Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Richard Hung, Brendan 

Kretzschmar, Thomas Lombardi, and Ben Nelson. Key contributors for 

the previous work that this testimony is based on are listed in those 

products. 

Page 13 GA0-16-444T 
58 

Testimony before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs US Senate 

For release upon delivery 

Expected 10:00 am ET 

Thursday, March 3, 2016 

Dogs ofDHS: How Canine Programs 

Contribute to Homeland Security 

Statement of Cynthia M. Otto, DVM, PhD 

Executive Director, Penn Vet Working Dog Center 

Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania 
59 

Working' Dog Center 

February 24,2016 

Chainnan Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee 

I am honored to be here to discuss the experience and research of the Penn Vet Working Dog Center 

(PVWDC) in its role as a national research and development center dedicated to harnessing the 

unique strengths of our canine partners for public safety and human health. As a veterinarian and 

scientist, I have dedicated my career to supporting the work of the dogs that keep our country safe. 

My opportunity to serve at Ground Zero to provide medical care for the responding dogs and 

subsequently monitor impact of that response on the health and behavior of those dogs has inspired 

me to expand my contribution to the working dogs of this country. The PVWDC was inspired by the 

dogs of9/11 and was founded in 2007 to promote research and education and in 2012 we opened our 

facility to raise and train detection dogs. Our research mission includes the conduct of basic and 

applied studies, at the PVWDC and in collaboration with academic centers, industry and government 

agencies to generate unconstrained knowledge that will enhance the health and performance of 

detection dogs. Our education mission embraces and shares that new knowledge to inspire those 

invested in the work of detection dogs, including the dogs themselves, the handlers, the trainers, 

veterinarians, departments and agencies that employ detection dogs, breeders and the general public. 

In order to fully explore new avenues and test old theories, the PVWDC maintains a small breeding 

and development center. Our breeding program was founded on the progress and genetic stock of the 

TSA breeding program. 

As a result of my experience, I have been called upon to lend expertise and consult or collaborate 

with colleagues from over 15 academic institutions, numerous government agencies including 

Special Operations Command, US Department of Defense, Customs and Border Protection, 

Transportation Security Authority, Department of Homeland Defense, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, National Institutes of Standards & Technology, Defence Science and 
60 

Technology Laboratory (UK), National American Police Working Dog Association, United 

States Police Canine Association, local police departments and industry partners. I hope that this 

experience can help answer some of the questions that have been raised by this committee. 

Respectfully, 

11.74_( "-/~( tfl4-

D:z-:;:.ia Otto, DVM, PhD, DACVECC, DACVSMR 

Executive Director, Penn Vet Working Dog Center 

Associate Professor of Critical Care, 

University of Pennsylvania 

-COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH 

- GENETIC RESEARCH 

-EARLY DEVELOPMENTAL EXPOSURE 

-POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT TRAINING 

- FOCUS ON FITNESS AND CONDITIONING 

-COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 

-EMPHASIS ON EDUCATION 

PVWDC Contact and Staff and Collaborator 

Acknowledgements 

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony 

please contact me at cmotto@vet.uoenn.edu or 2[5-898-3390 (office) or 

215-898-2200 (Penn Vet Working Dog Center) 

PVWDC Staff who made key contributions to Ibis testimony are: 

Major (Ret) Annemarie DeAngelo, Training Director 

Patricia Kaynaroglu, Training Manager & FEMA K9 Search Specialist 

Robert Dougherty, Adjunct Trainer and Canine Officer Cheltenham Township 

Lorenzo Ramirez, PhD Post doctoral fellow 

PVWDC collaborators who made key contributions to this testimony are: 

Scott Thomas, COR/Program Specialist, TSA Canine Training Center 

Liz Hare PhD, Dog Genetics LLC 

Erik Wilsson, PhD The Swedish Armed Forces 
61 

~Penn Vet 

Working Dog Center 

Background 

How the Department of Homeland Security utilizes canine 

units to execute its security operations. 

The role of the canine in supporting national security is diverse. In this 

testimony you will hear from Customs and Border Protection and the 

Transportation Security Administration demonstrating and explaining how 

their canine teams make their mission more effective. In addition, it is 

important to recognize that our local and state police widely employ canine 

teams for drug interdiction, explosives detection, criminal apprehension and 

evidence search. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Urban Search 

and Rescue Teams support the most elite of canine search and rescue teams 

that participate in disaster response to locate trapped victims or human remains. 

The dog's nose is over 1000 times more sensitive than a human's. The dog has 

about twice as many olfactory receptor genes as humans, 40 times the number 

of receptors packed at a density of5 times that of humans. The brain 

processing center (olfactory bulb) represents a higher percentage of the overall 

brain (30 times greater than humans). This combined with the cognitive skills 

and communication of the dog with humans opens the door to unique 

partnerships to help maintain national security. The ability of a trained search 

dog to locate a missing person is far more effective than any current technology 

to date. Similarly, the ability of a dog to discern a trained odor from a 

background of confounding odors far exceeds any other tool that has been 

developed. 

The use of dogs to support national security is an effective approach. The 

limitations currently are availability of sufficient high quality dogs and need for 

science to support the performance and current best practices that have been 

recommended by the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthoganol 

detector Guidelines (http://swgdog.fiu.edu/), which is now under the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) direction 

(http://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac/sub-dogs.cfm). The gaps in performance 

that can occur with canine teams are often gaps in the human half of the team, 

whether that is in training, directing or interpreting the dog's response. The 

research to optimize the performance of these canine teams falls into several 

categories. Much of the work to date has focused on the canine, including 

genetics, behavior, and physiology. The interaction between the dog and the 

handler is also an area of important research as the dog works as part of the 

team, responding to the handler and communicating back to the handler. The 

best dog and handler teams represent a blend of art and science. In order to 

expand the abilities of all dogs and handlers, additional research needs to be 

directed at the dog, the handler and the partnership. 

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE 

PENN VET WORKING 

DOG CENTER 
62 

~Penn Vet 

Working Dog Center 

KEY ISSUES 

Foreign Procurement of Dogs 

Although historically, Eastern Europe has been recognized for their ability to produce excellent 

working shepherd type dogs for the police and military, the demand for detection dogs has increased 

to the point that the quality of dogs has suffered and the price has increased dramatically. More 

developing countries are incorporating detection dog teams into their national security plan. The need 

to continually replace current dogs that are retired due to medical, behavioral or health reasons 

represents a constant necessity. The demands for detection dogs outside the realm of national 

security, (e.g. conservation dogs, medical detection dogs, gas leak detection, bed bug detection, etc.) 

has further increased pressures on the available resources for dogs with the desired physical and 

behavioral characteristics. Purchasing dogs through vendors who purchase through a variety of 

sources does not allow progressive improvement in the breed based on careful genetic monitoring, 

planning and selection or control of the early development period. As more emphasis is placed on 

passenger screening dogs, the emphasis on sporting breeds has increased. The US is a major producer 

of sporting Labradors, but due to historical procurement relationships, vendors are importing 

Labradors for detection work. Developing countries like Mexico are developing breeding programs, 

however major health risks (such as Chagas disease) have the potential to result in occult or overt 

health problems. With emerging infectious diseases like canine influenza, there is the risk that 

importation of dogs from foreign countries could be shut down cutting off the source of dogs. or 

worse yet these imported dogs could introduce new diseases to the US. From an economic 

standpoint, the jobs associated with raising and early training of these dogs could be kept in the US. 

In summary, the risks of relying on foreign sources of dogs to support our national security are high. 

While there will always be some exceptional dogs that originate from foreign sources, the foundation 

of our canine programs should be developed and maintained domestically. 

Breeding programs 

Major canine programs that utilize specialized dogs have relied on breeding programs to 

selectively improve the physical and behavioral phenotype (observable traits) of those dogs. 

Examples of successful programs include The Seeing Eye, Guiding Eyes and Canine 

Companions for Independence. For police and detection dogs, there have been several small US 

breeding programs, including the current DOD program for breeding Malinois in San Antonio, 

the CBP breeding program in El Paso and the former TSA breeding program. Following 

911!12001, the TSA through a collaboration with Australian Customs and in collaboration with 

Auburn University, initiated a breeding program of sporting dogs (primarily Labrador 

Retrievers) for explosive detection. Peer review of the DHS S&T funded research at the TSA 

breeding program held on April6, 20!3 concluded that the program had met its research goals 

and represented a national resource that was able to improve canine performance success by 

approximately l 0% per year through selective breeding. In addition, they were able to increase 

key traits (physical possession and hidden I) associated with successful entry into the training 

program for explosive detection dogs and decrease hip dysplasia by decreasing hip laxity. 

Physical possession is the score a dog receives based on a screening test to determine their 

commitment to hold onto the tug and engage in tug of war with the handler. 
63 

~Penn Vet 

Wor!tlng Dog Centa 

This physical possession trait has been shown to of this response can 

be attributed to genetics) and associated with future success. Hidden I is the trait tested when a 

towel is hidden under a row of flower pots and the dog is given the opportunity to hunt for it. 

Success is defined as hunting until they find the pot and actually knock it over to get at the towel. 

This trait also has a high heritability and prediction of training success. Using this data and hip 

scores the estimated breeding value can be determined and optimal breeding pairs 

Dr. Liz Hare, 

Dog Genetics LLC 
64 

~Penn Vet 

\Vorking Dog Gentt".r 

The program was discontinued, however the remaining breeding females were provided to the 

Penn Vet Working Dog Center through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. 

Similarly, the Swedish Armed Forces had a breeding program that was terminated with the plan 

to rely on the production of dogs by private breeders. In Sweden, eventually this approach was 

abandoned and the breeding program restarted. The main reason cited for restarting a breeding 

program was that private breeders have different breeding goals, thus do not actively select for 

the do s that are best suited for the needs o · 

Temperament profiles in different categories of dogs 

*From Erik Wilsson Swedish 

Anned Forces K9 Breeding Program presented at IWDBA 20!4 

The Swedish experience has been that a breeding program provides dogs that are more stable, 

healthier, more likely to succeed, able to start work earlier and have a longer working life. The 

initial cost of a dog from a breeding program is likely to be higher, but the improved health and 

performance contributes to a longer working career, improved training efficiency and reduced 

cost over the working lifetime of the dog. With this knowledge, the Penn Vet Working Dog 

Center has launched a small breeding program primarily focused on research of how to improve 

the health and performance of detection dogs. A goal of the program is to provide key 

knowledge for private, government and academic organizations to collaborate on an effective 

strategy to domestically produce dogs with the health and behavioral traits to successfully 

support national security. 

A National Breeding Center focused on genetic improvement would consist of a database of 

working dogs, a semen bank, genetic evaluations on individual and potential dogs, and standards 

for the selection of breeding stock. This Center does not need to be localized; it would be 

successful as a collaboration between multiple organizations with strengths in specific areas. For 

example, the International Working Dog Breeders Association (www.IWDBA.org) has a 

Working Dog Registry under development, and the Penn Vet Working Dog Center has a DNA 
65 

~Penn Vet 

Working Dog Center 

bank and a semen bank with samples from working dogs. The American Kennel Club is under 

used to support National Defense with their knowledge and expertise. 

As we move toward the development of a coordinated breeding program, there are several 

interim steps that should be considered. First is a quantitative assessment of the performance 

(phenotype) of the dog. This information will be critical in identifYing potential breeding animals 

and determining the heritability ofthese traits. This assessment should be used for selecting dogs 

but also for monitoring the performance of the dogs. For breeding purposes, longevity and health 

are critical factors that need to be included in selection criteria. In anticipation of a national 

breeding program, a preparative step would be to establish a national semen bank to capture the 

genetic potential of the dogs that are currently working at high performance standards. The cattle 

industry (Select Sires) has maintained such an approach for 50 years driving improvement in 

production based on clearly heritable traits. Once an active breeding cooperative is established, it 

should be physically located in multiple locations to limit the risks of catastrophic disease or 

environmental disasters. Research is needed to determine the optimal amount of early training to 

increase career success. 

At the Penn Vet Working Dog Center puppies enter the program at 8 weeks of age and go 

through foundation training to enhance search, confidence, persistence and physical fitness. In 

the 3 years of the PVWDC, we have had 33 dogs complete the program. Of which 30 dogs have 

working careers. One dog was released for health reasons and 2 for lack of concentration. 

Disposition of PVWDC Dogs 

(49 in program since 2012) 

SAR = search and rescue and includes human remains and conservation dogs 

PD dual= dogs trained in apprehension and odor (typically explosives or narcotics) 

PD explosives are single purpose explosive detection dogs 

PD narcotic are single purpose drug detection dogs 

Med detection includes cancer detection and diabetic alert 

Overall 91% of dogs that have completed the program have working careers. 
66 

~Penn Vet 

Working Dt>g Center 

Research 

The science of genomics provides great promise for the future in our ability to find genes and 

metabolic pathways associated with behaviors such as olfactory detection, learning, and memory. 

Currently, 248 of the related dogs from the TSA program have been genotyped on a high-density 

genome-wide array. Although none ofthe traits tested so far show significant association with 

genetic markers, this is not surprising because of the complexity of behavior traits, which are 

thought to be expressed as a result of the interaction of many genes of relatively small effect and 

the environment. With the new, more detailed and statistically robust measured traits in use at 

the Penn Vet Working Dog Center and more advanced genomic methods, it will be possible to 

move toward making selection decisions with statistical models that include knowledge of each 

dog's genome. 

Utilizing a battery of tests, the PVWDC evaluates the puppies in the program to determine if 

there are evaluations that can either predict future career success or be identified as heritable 

traits. Through a collaboration with CBP, we have implemented a testing protocol during early 

development through 14 weeks of age. We do not have sufficient data to evaluate the dogs that 

do not succeed in any career path (n=3 to date). USAR urban search and rescue, Medical alert 

includes cancer detection and diabetic alert, HR = human remains detection, conservation is the 

training for finding invasive or endangered species. 

Carter career 

This same group of dogs have been tested with the TSA testing battery at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months 

of age and environmental assessment at 4, 7, 11 and 14 months. The tests change overtime but 

the average scores are shown here based on career path. 
67 

~Penn Vet 

Working Dog Center 

Career Career 

During the developmental phase, there are 

numerous opportunities to impact the performance ofthe dogs. We fully recognize that without the 

proper genetics we are starting at a huge disadvantage, however even some of the most highly 

heritable traits are only partially determined by genetics. The role of the environment can tip the 

balance in one direction or the other. In the experience of the PVWDC, of our 33 graduates, 30 have 

successfully been placed in working careers. We were able to recognize early signs of physical or 

behavioral problem and in most cases with appropriate interventions prevent problems that could 

have ended their career potential. A simple example is the development of a tooth that was 

mal positioned and could have interfered with this dog's career as a police dog. With a simple 

exercise we were able to redirect that tooth to its nonnal position 

Rigorous research on health aspects like hip dysplasia and the role of exercise to improve function, 

the impact of diet and nutrition during growth and during work to optimize structure and reduce 

injury. The use of physical fitness protocols to develop body awareness has the potential to reduce 

the most common types of injuries in police, search and military dogs, which are those associated 

with cuts, scrapes and lameness. These approaches need to be carefully studied to evaluate the 

efficacy and the cost: benefit ratio. 
68 

~PennVet Working Dog C<mter 

At the PVWDC we have conducted studies evaluating the perfonnance of CBP dogs working the 

border and the dogs in our program exercising in the heat. These studies have explored ways to keep 

the dogs hydrated and working effectively. We have learned that contrary to common medical 

understanding that these dogs can work with body temperatures in excess of 106F. We found that the 

type of hydration method did not influence how hot the dogs became. Because heat stroke is 

recognized as one of the preventable causes of death in military working dogs, we continue to 

explore ways to keep the dogs working safely under these adverse conditions. It is also recognized 

that dogs often stop working due to musculoskeletal injury or degeneration (low back pain is 

common in working dogs). Research is ongoing to detennine if there are preventive strategies that 

can help keep dogs working effectively longer. 

The science of olfaction is still not well understood. New techniques like functional MRI have helped 

uncover how the brain is activated when dogs are exposed to various odors, but much of the 

fundamentals offactors that could alter the ability of a dog to detect odors near the threshold of 

sensitivity remain unexplored. 

The behavioral aspects of canine performance have received perhaps the most attention, evaluation 

of personality, even the aspects of being left pawed or right pawed have been studied. As part of 

behavior, the way the dog learns and retains infonnation best is a knowledge gap. The impact of 

training techniques that are based on positive reinforcement versus coercive methods need to be 

evaluated for the impact on health, performance and longevity. 

The arena of research on how to improve the selection and performance ofthe canine handler is in its 

infancy. Many organizations have opted to seek ways to eliminate or minimize the role of the 

handler. There is no data to demonstrate how to optimize the team. 

The challenge remains in that there is no consortium to systematically and 

collaboratively address the factors, including genetics, development, behavior, 

health of the dog, handler skills and enhanced partnership between the dog and 

handler, that have the most potential to impact the detection dog working for 

national security. The goal to bring together diverse organizations that share the 

common goal of improving national security through developing and supporting 

the most effective dog handler teams could be accomplished through the 

development of a National Center of Excellence for Canine Detection that would 

partner government, industry and academics to move forward cohesively to bring 

new knowledge and ways to effectively and efficiently implement that knowledge 

across all canine disciplines that support national security. 
69 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

THE AMERICAN CIVIL UBERTIES LTNION 

For a Hearing on 

Dogs ofDHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

Submitted to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

March 3, 2016 

ACUJ Legislative Office 

Karin Director 

Christopher Rickerd, Policy Counsel 

Tyler Ray, Legislative Assistant 

ACLU of Arizona, Border Litigation ProJect 

James Duff Lyall, Staff Attorney 
70 

The ACLU respectfully submits this statement for the record for the Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, Dogs ojDHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to 

Homeland Security. We urge the Committee to oversee the use of service canines by Customs 

and Border Protection ( CBP), particularly in its interior enforcement operations, and to address 

civil rights violations that are occurring. 

For nearly I 00 years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been our nation's 

guardian ofliberty, working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the 

individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee 

everyone in this country. With more than a million members, activists, and supporters, the 

ACLU is a nationwide organization that fights tirelessly in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and 

Washington, D.C., for the principle that every individual's rights must be protected equally 

under the law. 

I. Effectiveness and Consequences of Service Canine Usc by Border Patrol 

Residents of the American southwest frequently contact the ACLU to report civil rights 

violations arising out of encounters at Border Patrol checkpoints located far into the interior of 

the United States. 1 In recent years, an alarming number of these complaints have involved 

Border Patrol service canines '·alerting'' to nonexistent contraband. Southwest border 

residents- including retired canine handlers-have reported scores of incidents in which these 

false alerts resulted in the prolonged, unjustified detention and searches of innocent travelers, 

most of whom are American citizens. The Department of Homeland Security's own records confirm 

that such incidents are all too common2 The government's records further indicate that these 

recurring incidents are exacerbated by a lack of oversight, and that the time for Border Patrol to 

address systemic deficiencies in its use of service canines is long overdue. 

Problems with law enforcement use of service canines are well-documented. Law enforcement 

experts acknowledge, and independent studies have confirmed, that the reliability of service 

canines is severely compromised in uncontrolled environments, such as vehicle checkpoints. For 

example, data collected and published under the Illinois Traffic Stop Statistical Study Act of 

2003 show that service canines can be wrong as often as they are right 3 A review of that data 

demonstrates that in 2013, no contraband was found during 40% of the officer searches 

performed in response to a dog alert. Stated differently, false alerts by police dogs caused police 

officers to conduct a manual search of the vehicles of I, 715 innocent motorists. The data also 

showed stark racial disparities: statewide, African American motorists were 55% more likely 

than white motorists to be subjected to a dog sniff. Yet white motorists were 14% more likely 

than African American motorists to be found with contraband during ofiicer searches performed 

in response to a dog alert. In 2013, stops involving lllinois state troopers using service canines 

had a success rate of just 50%. 

Litigation involving the usc of service canines by Border Patrol and other law enforcement 

agencies has raised similar questions about the dogs' reliability in uncontrolled settings, 

including public spaces like checkpoints4 In one case, Border Patrol canine- certification 

records showed marginal performance, but were too heavily redacted to assess the search5 In 

another, narcotics were not found in 27 out of 28 alerts at a temporary checkpoint.6 And in yet 

another case, the court file indicated 35 out of 50 encounters produced a false alert. 7 

2 
71 

Still, despite the recognized limitations of service canines in uncontrolled environments and the 

agency's documented false alerts, Border Patrol does not require continuing service-canine 

certification based on field performance, 8 does not record or track false alerts,9 and does not take 

action when a service canine's recurrent false alerts call the dog's accuracy into 

question. 10 These fundamental deficiencies must be addressed to ensure respect for the rights 

and well-being of innocent motorists in encounters with Border Patrol. Otherwise, those 

innocent motorists will continue to be subjected to searches and detentions at Border Patrol 

checkpoints that violate the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol cannot search vehicles 

without a warrant or probable cause (a reasonable beliet~ based on the circumstances, that an 

immigration violation or crime has likely occurred). 

II. Improper Use of Service Canines: Examples 

Agency records obtained by the ACLU in Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) litigation have 

confirmed what many in the border region have known for years: abuses at Border Patrol 

checkpoints involving service canines are both common and rarely investigated. 11 Those DHS 

and CBP documents included complaints and investigations, apprehension statistics and stop 

records, policies, and training materials. Among the extensive complaint and investigation 

records were dozens of accounts of service canines falsely alerting at vehicle checkpoints, 

resulting in prolonged detention and searches of innocent travelers. None of those incidents 

appears to have resulted in an investigation or any other remedial action. 

In 2014, the ACLU submitted to DHS complaints of abuse at multiple Arizona Border Patrol 

checkpoints, including eight complaints of false canine alerts. 12 Of those eight complaints, none 

resulted in the discovery of contraband. Perhaps even more troubling, in some instances, agents 

appeared to be falsely claiming a canine had alerted in order tojusti(j; a search for which the 

ar,em otherwise lacked probable cause. Reported incidents of these false alerts resulting in 

unlawful searches include: 

a. Two individuals at a Border Patrol checkpoint on l-8 were directed to pull into the 

secondary inspection area. When the individuals did not consent to a search of the 

vehicle, an agent arrived with a service canine, which circled the vehicle and did 

not react in any way. After passing the vehicle, the dog alerted to a handbag in an 

adjacent vehicle, pulling the bag out of the open trunk. The Border Patrol 

supervisor then notified the individuals, ··we need to search your car. The dog got 

a hit on your car." The individuals objected that the dog had not alerted on their 

vehicle but rather on an item in an adjacent vehicle. Nonetheless, both the 

supervisor and agent asserted that the dog had ''hit a positive scent" in their 

vehicle, giving Border Patrol probable cause for a search. The individuals were 

patted down and detained in a holding cage for nearly an hour while the agent 

allegedly waited for a warrant to be issued. After they were released, it was 

apparent the agents had searched the entire vehicle. 13 

b. A 19-year-old, Hispanic woman on her way home from work was stopped at the 

Tombstone checkpoint, questioned about her citizenship, and asked to hand over 

her driver's license. An agent walked around her vehicle with a service canine. 

The individual saw that the dog did not react to her vehicle and had begun to 

move to the car behind hers when the agent pulled on the dog and started tapping 

3 
72 

on the trunk of the vehicle. The agent then stated the dog had "hit" on something 

in the car and directed the individual to pull into the secondary inspection area, 

where the vehicle was searched. This was the second incident for the individual in 

which a service canine was claimed to have "alerted" giving Border Patrol 

probable cause to search her car. 14 

c. A family was stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint on State Route 86 in Sells, 

Arizona and directed into the secondary inspection area. The family repeatedly 

requested an explanation and the agent responded that a service canine had alerted 

to the vehicle. The family stated they did not have anything in the vehicle that 

would cause the dog to alert and that no dog was nearby. The agent directed the 

family to exit the vehicle, at which point the family began to record the 

inspection. The agent yelled to turn off the phone and tried to grab the phone from 

the mother while poking her chest. The agent stated that the recording was not 

permitted because the search of the vehicle was "based on probable cause." The 

family was eventually permitted to leave. but the experience has traumatized the 

young children15 

Additional examples of the improper use of service canines, drawn from ACLU intakes and DHS 

investigation and complaint records, are provided below. 16 In none of these cases was contraband 

discovered; all of these individuals were eventually released. 

a. On January I, 2015, a 65 year-old, retired police officer and former service canine 

handler, was stopped at an interior Border Patrol checkpoint while driving with 

his wife. An agent advised the couple that a dog had alerted to contraband in their 

vehicle and directed them to a secondary inspection area. There, they were 

separated, interrogated, and detained for more than 45 minutes before finally 

being released without explanation. Because there was no arrest, agents made no 

record of the couple's detention or of the false alert. 17 

b. In March 2013, the Nogales City Attorney's Office submitted a complaint to 

Border Patrol alleging racial profiling and abuse of authority after agents at the 1-

19 interior checkpoint falsely relied on a non-existent service canine alert as a 

basis for prolonged detention and search. The complaint describes the agents' 

actions as "egregious and illegal," though not isolated, and refers to a Deputy City 

Attorney detained and searched on multiple occasions on the basis of claimed or 

false service canine alerts. 18 

c. An otl~duty agent departing the Highway 78 checkpoint was pursued, detained, 

and searched following a Border Patrol service canine's false alert to his 

vehicle. 19 

d. Following a false service canine alert, a disabled motorist was detained for over 

an hour at the Highway 95 checkpoint while Border Patrol agents searched his 

vehicle, damaging its contents20 

e. An individual on his way to work was sent to secondary inspection at the Arivaca 

Road checkpoint for traffic enforcement. When the individual questioned the 

agents' authority to enforce traffic laws, the agent stated that a service canine had 

"alerted." The agent proceeded to search the interior of the vehicle. The individual 

was detained for approximately 30 minutes before he was released. 21 

4 
73 

f. A motorist was detained after a service canine falsely alerted to his vehicle at the 

1-19 interior checkpoint. After he was released, the individual realized Border 

Patrol agents had confiscated much of his prescription medication22 

g. An individual described being detained and interrogated for up to two hours 

following false service canine alerts on six separate occasions at interior Border 

Patrol checkpoints, several of them resulting in damage to the individual's 

vehicle.23 

h. A motorist was detained and searched at the I -8 checkpoint after a service canine 

falsely alerted to the motorist's vehicle. The resulting search damaged an interior 

compartment. The driver described being detained with other motorists who were 

also searched and then released 24 

i. A man was detained at the Highway 90 checkpoint afier a service canine falsely 

alerted to his vehicle. When he attempted to record his checkpoint interaction, a 

Border Patrol agent forcibly confiscated the man's phone while a Huachuca 

Police Officer looked on.25 

j. A man was detained for an hour because he refused to consent to a search of his 

trunk at the Highway 83 interior checkpoint. Agents threatened to "lock [him] in a 

cell" if he did not surrender his keys and empty his pockets. Border Patrol agents 

later claimed a service canine had alerted to his vehicle, but no contraband was 

discovered and the man was released26 

k. A motorist was detained and searched following a service canine alert at the !-8 

checkpoint. After being released and returnin¥ home, the motorist discovered the 

dog had damaged the contents of the vehicle. 7 

l. Two separate motorists reported vehicle damage caused by a service canine at the 

1-19 checkpoint on the same day. A third motorist submitted a complaint about a 

nearly identical incident that occun·ed at the same checkpoint three days later28 

m. DHS records describe multiple false alerts at the same checkpoint on Highway 86 

over two days: First, a woman was detained in secondary inspection following a 

false service canine alert. A Border Patrol agent told her to "put the fucking keys 

in the truck."29 An hour and a half later, a woman and her brother were detained at 

the same checkpoint, following another false service canine alert; an agent 

forcibly removed the woman's cell phone from her hand and threatened her 

brother with an electroshock weapon bet<:Jre releasing them30 The next day, at the 

same checkpoint, agents attempted to prevent a different woman from videotaping 

them and allegedly spat on her following yet another false service canine alert 31 

These problems are not limited to interior checkpoints. In December 2013, the ACLU filed a 

lawsuit on behalf of a U.S. citizen subjected to a strip search, multiple genital and cavity 

searches, a forced bowel movement, an X-ray, and aCT scan following a false alert by a 

Customs and Border Protection service canine. 32 
74 

Ill. Recommendations 

In order to address the improper use of service canines by Border Patrol, the ACLU recommends 

that: 

a. Border Patrol record all service canine alerts, including false service canine alerts, 

resulting in detention and/or search of innocent travelers. Service canine 

performance data should be compiled and made publicly available. 

b. Service canine certification should be based on field performance as well as 

training. Service canines with unusually high false alert rates must be retrained 

and recertified or retired. Training of service canines and handlers should be 

improved as necessary. 

c. Border Patrol should have reasonable suspicion of immigration or criminal law 

violations before subjecting motorists to service canine searches. 

d. Border Patrol should discontinue or curtail the use of service canines in interior 

enforcement operations at least until adequate safeguards are in place. 

IV. Conclusion 

The ACLU commends the Committee for examining the use of service canines by DHS. In light 

of the recognized limitations of service canines in uncontrolled environments, as well as the 

many documented false alerts at Border Patrol checkpoints, we urge the Committee to examine 

the proper use of service canines and implement reforms to collect and disclose data on the usc 

of service canines, and to ensure that transparent policies protecting motorists' rights are in place 

with meaningful redress when they are violated. 

1 On CBP's "100-mile zone," see general(v ACLU, The Constitution ln the 100-Milc Border Zone, 

\llD~~·'"'-~"rJl\Ll:'lli...£lillcllllll!<J.Il::lilll:!llili'-:=:llliJ5.lcJ::t111]'2_(last visited Mar. 3, 20 16). 

OF ARIZONA, (Oct. 2015), lill!li.\\\\\\.acluaL.oro'nodc':\4)5. 1 ACLU OF ILLINOIS, RACIAL DISPARITY IN CONSENT SEARCHES A'JD DOG SNIFF SEARCIIES: 

AN ANALYSIS OF lLU;\O!S TRAFFIC STOP DATA !"ROM 2013 (Aug. 2014), !l!J~D~:lL.9£lU:.i.lQrg_]l!flal-dis.llilL.i~ 

See general~r Robert An Exam;nation (!/the Training and Reliability of the Narcotics Detection Dog, 85 

Ky. L.J. 405, 427. 430 ( 1997) (noting that "even a very high accuracy rate can produce an unreasonable amount of 

false positives'' and that service canines are "least effective when they survey a random population!'). 5 See. e.g, United States v. Thomas, 726 F.3d I 086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). 

"Merrell v. Moore, 58 F.3d 1547, 1549 (lith Cir. 1995). 

'Doe v. Renfi-uw, 631 F.2d 91, 95 (7th Cir. 1980) (Fairchild, C.J .. dissenting). 8 The government has confirmed in FOIA litigation with the ACLU that service canine certification is based on 

training) and is not related to field performance. 9 RECORD OF ABUSE. supra note 2, at 11 

10 1d. 11 RECORD OF i\Bl 1

SE, supra note 2. 12 ACLU Of ARIZONA, COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR 11\VESTIGATION OF ABUSES AT U.S. BORDER PATROL INTERIOR 

CHECKPOINTS IN SO UTI tERN ARIZONA, t'JCLUDING lcNLAWflJL SEARCH AND SEIZCRE, EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND RACIAL 

PROflt.tNG (Jan. 2014), [hereinafter ACLU COMPLAINT], available at 

bUIL_}l~~-Y~:.,_~l£l!J-l1Lor~ s i l c~d-.• !~l~!lLfll(,?:-; · dof_lJill£1 1 ts '.1\J: Ll}~/o2 0 AZ ~"n20C 'om.nill.!!ll~ill)_rc()·O:.?OC B P0

-"n:?. Ot 'hcc WQ.U.U.~ 

at 10. 

at 9. 

6 
75 

16 More detailed information and additional examples are available in the Record of Abuse report, supra note I, and 

ACLU Complaint, supra note 12. 17 RECORD OF ABLSE, supra note 2, at II. 18 !d. at 23 (CBP 194-197). 19 !d. at 23 (CBP 785-797). 

"'!d. at 24 (CBP 811-823). 

ACLU COMPLAINT, supra note 12, at 6. 

" RECORD Of ABUSE, supra note 2, at 19 (CBP 003-004). 

!d. (CBP 006). 24 I d. (CBP 006-007). 25 !d. (CBP 011-012). 26 !d. at 20 (CBP 012-013). 17 I d. at 21 (CBP 026-027). 28 !d. at 22 (CBP 041-042). 

'" !d. at 24 (CBP I 073-1 079). 10 !d. at 24 (CBP I 081-1 088). 11 ld. at 24 (CBP 1089-1098). 32 See Complaint, Jane Doe v. El Paso County 

20 13 ), 111,1[1~-~ _Cl<;llC:J)_I.IJ"'!JI:£__",p~£Qll]!;J_~_IJ!2ll!'LC!c'.~'l,! _ __j_f:__l,_!)!ill@.i[I]:,I!Jl!.l~_:_l.!._'l.':~\lilflQU!i::]_J_f_I<:!lC!!!li!O:..i"'-'..l.!l~ 

7 
76 

i 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Ms. Kimberly Hutchinson and Mr. Damian Montes 

From Senator Rob Portman 

"Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security" 

March 3, 2016 

Question#: 1 I 

Topic: Illicit Prescription Opioids 

Hearing: Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

Primary: Senator Rob Portman 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Your testimony indicates that the CBP canines can alert to heroin, a known 

opioid. As I indicated in my remarks, our nation is currently facing an opioid epidemic. 

Can canines alert to concealed, illicit prescription opioids? 

Response: Theoretically, yes. Canines can alert to any compound that emits odor. The 

compound must be volatile, meaning it can change into a gaseous state. If the targeted 

opioids give off odor, that odor can be recognized by canines. However, the only opioid 

based narcotic the canines are currently trained to detect is heroin. To determine if a 

canine would detect other opioid substances, would require further testing. 

Question: If the dogs can alert to illicit prescription opioids, have they been an effective 

tool in identifying and seizing them? 

Response: Custom and Border Protection's (CBP) Canine Program does not train its 

canines to detect prescription opioids. 

Question: If not, can they be trained to detect illicit prescription opioids and do you 

think they would be an effective means to inhibit opioid trafficking into the US? 

Response: Currently, CBP canines are trained to detect a single volatile component 

found in heroin that is produced during the degradation process. Research would be 

required to determine if a canine could detect other opioid based substances. 

Effectiveness would depend on multiple factors, to include, whether trafficking 

organizations are smuggling these substances through areas where CBP canines are 

deployed and methods of concealment used. 
77 

Question: According to Ms. Grover's prepared statement, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) found that TSA could possibly reduce its Canine Program 

costs. Specifically, GAO recommended that TSA evaluate the effectiveness of passenger 

screening canines (PSCs) and convention detection canines (CDCs) to determine whether 

CDCs could perform the specific function ofPSCs. This would cut training costs for 

TSA's Canine Program. Ms. Grover's statement further indicated that TSA answered the 

recommendation in the negative, claiming potential liability. 

Has TSA changed its position in whether or not it will assess the effectiveness ofCDCs 

detecting explosives on passengers') 

Response: Although the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has not altered 

its position, TSA is considering methods to explore the possibility of assessing canines 

currently operating as Conventional Detection Canines (CDCs) for passenger screening 

canine (PSC) capabilities. This initiative requires the development of additional testing 

protocols for canine breeds not previously used for PSC, in order to better ensure the 

safety of the public and the canines. 

Question: Is TSA basing its decision to not assess effectiveness of CDC explosive 

detection on passengers on previous experimentation') 

Response: TSA is basing the decision on the above-mentioned concerns that breeds 

other than Sporting breed dogs may not integrate into searching in close proximity to 

passengers without potentially causing apprehension or alarm to the public. TSA's 

decision is based on a variety of considerations: the ability the ability of the CDCs to 

properly engage passengers, the anxiety displayed by the public to current CDC 

utilization, and the liability of having canine teams operate in an environment without 

formal training. 

Question: If not, then please provide a specific overview of the training differences 

between PSCs and CDCs in addition to their corresponding significance. 

Response: The primary ditierence in training between PSCs and CDCs is the PSCs must 

be trained to search a person, who may be moving, and not an inanimate object. They arc 

trained to constantly sample the air tor explosive vapor or particles and once detected, 

proactively track the scent back to its source. whereas CDCs are trained to evaluate a 

stationary source. This variance in training allows the PSC to recognize and follow a 

person as a possible target. Following a person while detecting odors in the air is a 
78 

Question#: 2 

Topic: Conventional Canine Detecting Effectiveness I 

Hearing: Dogs of DllS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

skillset not taught to CDCs. The PSCs must also be able to work in closer proximity to 

people without being invasive, which takes time and effort to train and accomplish. 
79 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

I 

Question#: 3 

Topic: Northern Border Canine Teams 

Hearing: Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

Primary: Senator Rob Portman 

-----·---- Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: How many canine teams does the Border Patrol (OBP) have deployed along 

the Northern Border? 

Response: U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) currently has 83 canine teams on the northern 

border. 

Question: By the Office of Field Operations (OFO) at northern Ports of Entry? 

Response: OFO currently has 42 canine teams assigned to the northern border. This is 

comprised of 33 enforcement teams and nine agriculture teams. 

I 
80 

i 

Qne<tion#• 4 

Topic: Dogs Sourcing 

Hearing: Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

Primary: Senator Rob Portman 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: According to your testimony, canines who serve as a part of the agricultural 

interdiction team are sourced from rescue shelters and private donations. Their 

counterparts in CBP and TSA's National Explosive Detection Canine Team Program 

(NEDCTP) are purchased from either European or American breeders. TSA purchases 

dogs for around $4,000 per dog, but CBP spends around $8,000 per dog. 

Is there a particular reason why agricultural dogs are sourced differently? 

Response: In 2003, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and DHS 

signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Through Article 4 (Training) of the MOA, 

USDA was designated to provide CBP Agriculture Specialists with training, to include 

basic canine officer training. All CBP agriculture canine handlers and canines train at the 

USDA National Detector Dog Training Center (NDDTC). The NDDTC holds the 

responsibility for procuring the canines to be trained. Per the NDDTC, in the beginning 

of the USDA's canine program, animal shelters, private donations, and rescue 

organizations were sought as the most cost eJTective way of procuring the canines needed 

for the program. However, there is an ever increasing supply and demand challenge 

encountered by the NDDTC. The NDDTC strives to produce the best quality canine 

through a rigid procurement and medical process. The expense associated with this 

process can range from a free donation to a cost of $1,000 to $5,000 per canine. The cost 

range is associated with the medical expenses and testing that needs to be conducted with 

the canine when procured from a shelter or private donation in order to certify the canine 

physically fit for the program. The NDDTC is currently engaged with a vendor to 

purchase Labrador Retrievers which cost $6,000 each. This cost is inclusive of the 

medical tests and vetting of the canines. 

Question: By sourcing the dogs from rescue shelters or private donations, is CBP 

foregoing any known advantages to training a dog with higher quality physical and 

behavioral traits? 

Response: The USDA NDDTC holds the responsibility for procuring and training the 

canines per the MOA. The canines undergo preliminary testing to determine suitability 

for training. CBP has been satisfied with the overall quality and performance of the 

canines assigned to CBP agriculture canine handlers. When the NDDTC procures 

canines from shelters, animal rescues, and breeders, there is no guarantee that the canine 

will have lower or higher quality physical and behavioral traits compared to canines 

purchased from a vendor. For example, the NDDTC recently purchased canines from a 

reputable vendor. Of the I 0 canines received, three were returned due to their inability to 

J 
81 

Question#: 4 

Topic: Dogs Sourcing 

Hearing: Dogs of DIIS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

adapt to the environment, lack of high enough food drive, and a physical condition that 

did not surface until placed in training. As such, there is an inherent risk to procuring 

canines that they may not meet qualifications, no matter the source. 
82 

Question#: I 5 

Topic: J Cost Difference 

! 

Hearing: I Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

Primary: I Senator Rob Portman 

Committee: ! HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

i 

Question: Is there a demonstrable reason why the NEDCTP pays $4,000 for a pup and 

CBP is paying around $8,500 for a pup, a 213% difference in price? 

Response: The CBP Canine Training Program, through contracts and purchase orders, 

works with vendors to schedule canines for testing to identify the desired drives and 

character traits for use in CBP's operating environments. Vendors deliver canines for 

testing and evaluation to either one of the Canine Training Centers in El Paso, TX or 

Front Royal, VA. The cost is marginal in comparison to budgetary and manpower 

requirements of dedicating resources to exclusively travel within the United States and 

abroad to locate the volume of qualified canines needed to deliver training. 

By this process the CBP Canine Training Centers: 

• Do not incur costs associated with travel, veterinary medical screening expenses 

and transporting the canines back to Front Royal, VA and El Paso, TX; 

• All canines are performance tested and medically screened utilizing a 

standardized procedure in the training environment at the training centers; 

• All canines purchased have a suitability clause where if a canine is determined 

that, for any medical or performance issue identified within an allotted period of 

time (six months for medical and 15 working days for performance), the canine is 

returned to the vendor and replaced with another canine at no additional cost; 

• All canines that do not pass the process are returned to the vendor, further 

eliminating any unnecessary cost of maintaining, housing, and adopting canines 

that never enter training; 

In Fiscal Year 2015, 428 canines were presented; of those, 240 (64%) were purchased. 

This process prevented the purchasing of 188 canines, preventing the loss of $1.3 million 

dollars. 

TSA, by partnering with Department of Defense (DOD), sends 2-3 personnel overseas to 

selection test canines approximately four times per year in an effort to purchase 

approximately 230 canines per year. 

TSA and DOD are both located at Joint Base San Antonio which lends itself to this 

combined purchasing. DOD pays $4,000 per canine which is solely the cost of the canine 

from an overseas vendor. TSA reimburses DOD for this cost. The $4,000 does not 

include travel for TSA personnel or the transport of canines back to their location in San 

i 
83 

I 

I 

! 

Question#: s 

Topic: Cost Difference 

Hearing: Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

Primary: Senator Rob Portman 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Antonio, TX. TSA pays approximately $6,000-$7,500 per person per trip overseas. 

Also, DOD provides veterinary services for TSA overseas and transports them back to 

San Antonio, TX. The average price for transporting one canine overseas via commercial 

air is approximately $1000. According to TSA they have begun purchasing canines from 

some U.S. vendors and the cost is approximately $8,000. This change in purchasing 

practice is a result of the change in their mission to include passenger screening canines 

and the need for specific canines to lit that need. 
84 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Ms. Kimberly Hutchinson 

From Senator Claire McCaskill 

"Dogs ofDHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security" 

March 3, 2016 

Question: GAO reported in its testimony that TSA had not compared the effectiveness of 

passenger screening canines (PSCs) and conventional canines in detecting explosives 

odor on passengers to determine if the greater cost of training PSCs is warranted. TSA 

reported that it did not intend to do this assessment because of the liability of using 

conventional canines to screen persons when they had not been trained to do so. Yet 

conventional canines already work in close proximity with people as they patrol airport 

terminals. 

How can TSA assess the increased liability of using conventional canines if it has never 

compared the effectiveness of conventional canines to PSCs? 

Response: The liability of the government is unrelated to the ability or effectiveness of 

the canine to detect an explosive odor. The liability arises from inserting breeds other 

than Sporting breed dogs into an environment for which it has not received sufficient 

training. TSA acknowledges the capability to screen passengers will reside in some 

CDC. However, breeds other than Sporting breed dogs, like any canine being considered 

for PSC, should be carefully screened for any potential aggressive traits in addition to the 

PSC protocols. TSA is currently developing further testing protocols to determine the 

suitability ofCDCs for usc in PSC. 

Question: How much would such a comparison cost? 

Response: The cost of such a comparison would be dependent on the type, size, and 

scope, as well as testing protocols. TSA is currently developing protocols to vet breeds 

other than Sporting breed dogs to determine suitability for PSC. 

Question: How much more expensive is it to train PSCs than conventional canines? 
85 

to Homeland Security 

Response: The additional PSC training cost is approximately $15,000 over the CDC per 

team cost. This increase in cost is attributable to the additional training time for the PSC 

capability and the cost of the role player contract utilized to expose the canines to crowds 

in the daily training environment. The PSCs are trained to search a person, who may be 

moving, rather than an inanimate object. This variance in training allows the canine to 

recognize a person as a possible target, so potentially following this person is a skillset 

not taught to CDCs. The PSCs must also be able to work in closer proximity to people 

without being invasive, which takes time and effort to accomplish. 
86 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Mr. Damian Montes 

From Senator Cory Booker 

"Dogs ofDHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security" 

March 3, 2016 

Question: Independent studies show that the reliability of service canines in uncontrolled 

environments has raised questions. In fact, numerous complaints have been submitted to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) challenging the dependability of canines in 

the field in Arizona and elsewhere. Does CBP take any action if a canine consistently 

provides false alerts? If so, what action is taken? 

Response: CBP's U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and 011iee of Field Operation (OFO) 

canines will not false alert. The USBP and OFO define Alert as: "A change in body 

posture and increased respiration when a dog tirst encounters the odor(s) he/she has been 

trained to detect." A canine will "alert" only to a trained odor. 

In the course of daily operations, a USBP or OFO canine may have a Non-Productive 

Alert, in which the USBP and OFO define as: "The canine displayed an alert in an 

uncontrolled field environment where no tangible trained substances could be located." 

There is no corrective action taken on non-productive alerts because there is no way to 

verify whether or not a trained odor was present that caused the dog to alert initially. In 

these cases, it is possible that the trained odor contaminated something encountered by 

the canine. For example, someone smokes marijuana shortly before an encounter with a 

canine, but has no marijuana on his or her person at the time of the encounter. 

Question: I understand that CBP mav not collect information to track false canine alerts. 

Does CBP track service-canine alerts and false alerts? If it does so, how does it track 

those alerts and false alerts? If it does not, please explain. 

Response: Non-Productive Alerts are not tracked. 
87 

I 

I 

I 

: 

i 

I 

Question#: 7 

Topic: Canine False Alerts 

Hearing: Dogs of DHS: How Canine Programs Contribute to Homeland Security 

Primary: 

1 

The Honorable Cory Booker 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Is CBP able to investigate data on false canine alerts and sort the data by 

sector and provide each complaint's resolution? 

Response: Non-Productive Alerts are not tracked. 

I 
88 

Æ 

Question: I understand CBP may not require continuing canine certification based on 

field performance. Does CBP require continuing canine certification? If it docs not, 

please explain. 

Response: CBP does require on-going maintenance training and annual recertification of 

all canine teams to be deployed in an operational capacity. The maintenance training 

requirements for each discipline are: 

Narcotics and Concealed Human/Narcotics- 16 hours per month; 

Currency/Firearms Detection 16 hours per month; 

• Search and Rescue- 16 hours per month; 

• Patrol- Eight hours per week; 

• Trailing- One exercise a month; 

• Human Remains Detection- Three exercises every 45 days; 

• Pedestrian Processing- Three exercises every 45 days; and 

• Agriculture - 16 hours per month. 

The recertification process is the same procedure used in the initial certification of the 

team. The maintenance training and recertification process is conducted by a certified 

CBP Canine Instructor who themselves must recertify every three years.