Report to the Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Border Security and 

Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

July 2005 INTERNATIONAL AIR 

PASSENGERS 

Staffing Model for 

Airport Inspections 

Personnel Can Be 

Improved 

GAO-05-663 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-663.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Richard M. 

Stana at (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-663, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security and Claims, Committee on the 

Judiciary, House of Representatives 

July 2005

INTERNATIONAL AIR PASSENGERS

Staffing Model for Airport Inspections 

Personnel Can Be Improved 

The amount of time passengers from international locations have to wait 

before completing CBP inspections to enter the United States varies within 

and across airports. On average, CBP processed passengers within 45 

minutes during the 2-month period for which data were available, although 

some flights had significantly longer wait times. Based on our observations 

and analysis as well as our discussions with airport and CBP officials, we 

determined that the primary factors affecting wait time are passenger 

volume, the number of inspection stations available at an airport, and the 

number of CBP officers available to conduct inspections. These factors, in 

different combinations at each airport, affect passenger wait times. 

Three of the five international airports we visited had built new or expanded 

federal inspection facilities to accommodate future growth in passenger 

volume and minimize wait times for internationally arriving passengers. 

Additionally, some airports assigned staff to assist passengers in preparing 

documentation to minimize wait times. Airline officials we spoke to 

acknowledged that large volumes of arriving passengers may increase wait 

times, but said that, to accommodate market demand, airlines do not spread 

flight arrivals throughout the day. 

CBP, in its efforts to minimize passenger wait times at airports, has taken 

steps to increase the efficient use of existing staff at airports. For example, 

CBP is cross-training its officers so that they can conduct different types of 

inspections. CBP is also developing a staffing model to allocate staff among 

its ports. However, the new model fails to address weaknesses identified in 

assessments of staffing models used previously by Customs and INS, such as 

not including wait times as a performance measure. CBP also has not 

developed milestones for completing its staffing model and cross-training 

program at all ports. Until these weaknesses are addressed, CBP will be 

hampered in forming a basis for management decision-making concerning 

staff allocation and staff needs and providing budget justifications. 

Components of CBP’s Calculated Wait Time 

While the Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Protection Act 

repealed a 45 minute standard for 

inspecting international 

passengers, minimizing wait times 

at airports remains an area of 

concern for U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP). Shortly 

after its creation in March 2003, 

CBP assumed inspection functions 

from the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, the U.S. 

Customs Service, and the 

Department of Agriculture. The 

new agency’s priority missions are 

to prevent terrorism and to 

facilitate travel and trade. To 

assess CBP’s efforts to minimize 

wait times for international air 

passengers while ensuring security, 

this report answers the following 

questions: (1) What are the wait 

times at the 20 U.S. international 

airports that receive most of the 

international traffic and what 

factors affect wait times? (2) What 

steps have airports and airlines 

taken to minimize passenger wait 

times? (3) How has CBP managed 

staffing to minimize wait times 

across airports? 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that CBP 

address weaknesses in its staffing 

model, and determine milestones 

for the completion of its staffing 

model and cross-training activities. 

CBP reviewed a draft of this report 

and concurred in part with GAO’s 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

International Passengers’ Wait Times Vary by Airport and Are 

Affected by Three Primary Factors 10 

Some Airports and Airlines Expanded Facility Capacity to 

Minimize Wait Times but Have Not Evenly Distributed Passenger 

Volume Due to Market Demand 18 

CBP Has Improved Staffing Management through Increased 

Flexibilities, but Plans for a Systematic Staffing Model Do Not 

Address Identified Weaknesses 23 

Conclusions 29 

Recommendations 30 

DHS’s Comments and Our Evaluation 31 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 35 

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 38 

Table 

Table 1: Comparison of Weaknesses in Legacy Staffing Models to 

Those in CBP’s Model under Development 26 

Figures 

Figure 1: Facilities within the Port of Houston/Galveston 6 

Figure 2: Federal Inspection Facility at the Dallas-Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW) in Dallas 7 

Figure 3: Components of Wait Time Calculated by CBP as Part of 

the Inspection Process 9 

Figure 4: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports 

from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005 12 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 5: Percentage of Individual Flights with Wait Times 

Exceeding 60 Minutes for Primary Passenger Inspection 

from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005, Arranged from 

Lowest to Highest Average Wait Times 13 

Figure 6: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports 

Arranged from Lowest to Highest Annual Passenger 

Volume from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005 15 

Figure 7: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports 

Arranged from the Lowest to Greatest Number of 

Inspection Stations from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 

2005 16 

Figure 8: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports 

Arranged from Lowest to Highest CBP Staffing Levels 17 

Figure 9: Old Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental 

Airport 20 

Figure 10: New Inspection Facilities at George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport 20 

Figure 11: Daily International Passenger Volume by Hour at 

Hartsfield Atlanta Airport, May 13, 2005 22 

Abbreviations 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

DFO Director of Field Operations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

INS former Immigration and Naturalization Service 

US VISIT U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

July 15, 2005 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler 

Chairman 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Every person entering the United States must be inspected to ensure he or 

she is entering the country lawfully, and in fiscal year 2004, the federal 

government spent over $1 billion inspecting air travelers.1

 That year, 

approximately 78 million passengers wishing to enter the United States 

were inspected at 285 international airports. About 75 percent of these 

passengers, or about 59 million, were inspected at 20 of these airports. 

Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has emphasized the 

need to thoroughly inspect all international passengers so that terrorists 

do not enter the country. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is 

charged with inspecting these international passengers to prevent 

terrorists and terrorists weapons from entering the country while fulfilling 

its mission to foster the nation’s economic security through facilitation of 

lawful international trade and travel.2

 One way CBP fosters travel is by 

processing international passengers through airport inspections in a timely 

manner. If the inspections process impedes the flow of individuals through 

the airport, then commerce and tourism could be adversely affected. 

The amount of time international passengers wait in line to complete 

airport inspection was an area of concern for the former Immigration and 

 1

 All international passengers are subject to a primary inspection, during which a CBP 

officer inspects identity and travel documents, such as passports and visas, to determine 

their validity and authenticity. 

2

 Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, border inspection functions of a number of 

agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Customs Service, 

and the Department of Agriculture were transferred to the DHS. P.L. 207-296, §402. CBP is 

responsible for carrying out these functions, such as passenger and cargo inspections. The 

primary authorities for conducting inspections at the border include 8 U.S.C §1225; 19 

U.S.C. §§1467, 1581, 1582; and the statutes specified in §421 of the HSA relating to 

agricultural immigration activities. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Customs Service (Customs). Shortly 

after its creation in March 2003 through the combination of the inspections 

functions from INS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), and 

Customs, CBP began developing a new staff allocation model to help 

ensure that inspections facilities, such as those at airports, are adequately 

staffed to inspect international passengers. 

To assess CBP’s efforts to minimize wait times for international air 

passengers while ensuring security, we answered the following questions: 

1) What are the wait times at the 20 U.S. international airports that receive 

most of the international traffic and what factors affect wait times? 2) 

What steps have airports and airlines taken to minimize passenger wait 

times? 3) How has CBP managed staffing to minimize wait times across 

airports? 

To determine wait times for international air passengers, we analyzed CBP 

data on the wait times at the 20 U.S. airports that receive most of the 

international traffic.3

 Because the reliability of CBP wait time data is 

significant to the findings of this review, we evaluated the agency’s 

internal controls and determined that the required data elements are 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this review. To determine the 

factors affecting wait times, we analyzed and observed the inspections 

process and interviewed CBP officials responsible for port management 

and certain airport and airline officials involved with international 

passenger processing. To determine the steps airports and airlines have 

taken to speed passenger processing, we judgmentally selected and visited 

five international airports based on their unique characteristics and 

geographic dispersion.4

 We interviewed airport and airline officials who 

were involved in international-passenger processing and observed the 

inspection facilities at the five airports we visited to compare capacities 

and constraints to passenger processing. To assess how CBP has managed 

staffing to minimize wait times across airports, we interviewed CBP 

officials at headquarters and from the five selected airports we visited. We 

also reviewed documentation on CBP’s activities for allocating staff to 

 3

 CBP collects wait time data for 21 airports, including one seasonal airport—Orlando 

Sanford in Florida. For the purposes of this report, we did not include Orlando Sanford in 

our analysis. 

4

 We visited Washington Dulles International Airport, Baltimore-Washington Thurgood 

Marshall International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Dallas-Fort 

Worth International Airport, and Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport. 
Page 3 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

ports and spoke with agency officials responsible for planning and 

implementing a staffing model to be used to help manage staff. We 

reviewed our prior work and that of the Department of Justice Inspector 

General on previous models used by Customs and INS. 

We performed our work from October 2004 to June 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

The amount of time passengers from international locations have to wait 

before entering the United States varies within and across 20 airports at 

which CBP records wait times. CBP calculates wait time as the time 

needed to process 98 percent of passengers on an individual flight through 

primary inspection. Although wait times vary across airports, on average, 

CBP processed passengers within 45 minutes during the period for which 

data were available. Nonetheless, CBP has recorded wait times for 

individual flights as long as 5 hours within a single airport and 15 of the 20 

airports had multiple flights that exceeded 60 minutes for processing 

international passengers through primary inspection. Based on our 

analysis and observations of the inspections process and discussions with 

airport and CBP officials, we determined that the primary factors affecting 

wait time are passenger volume, the number of inspection stations 

available at an airport, and the number of CBP officers available to 

conduct inspections. However, none of these factors, in isolation, 

necessarily determines how long passengers must wait to complete 

primary inspection. 

Some airports and airlines expanded facilities to facilitate projected 

increases in passenger volume and minimize passenger wait times. For 

example, three of the five international airports we visited built, or plan to 

build, additional inspection stations since 2004. In locations where airport 

inspections facilities were expanded, airport and airline officials said that 

increasing the number of stations has helped to reduce wait times, 

particularly when additional staff were made available. Additionally, at 

four of the five airports we visited, airport management or airlines have 

assigned staff to assist passengers in preparing documentation while 

waiting in line. This preparation helped to prevent delays caused when 

passengers are turned away from the inspections station due to 

incomplete or incorrect documentation. Airline officials at the airports we 

visited said that large volumes of arriving passengers may increase wait 

times, but to accommodate market demand, airlines do not spread flight 

arrivals evenly throughout the day. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

CBP has taken steps to increase management flexibility in assigning staff 

to inspection functions and improve staff allocation in an effort to 

minimize passenger wait times and ensure the most efficient use of 

existing staff. For example, at some airports, facility managers have 

arranged staff work schedules and used overtime to maximize the number 

of staff conducting inspections during peak periods. CBP has introduced 

its “One Face at the Border” program to increase staffing flexibility so that 

staff can conduct different types of inspections within airports. CBP plans 

to provide training materials to all ports to support this program; however, 

CBP has not established milestones for staff to complete the training at all 

ports. CBP is also developing a national staffing model to more 

systematically allocate existing staff levels at airports nationwide, 

however, the model does not address weaknesses identified in Customs’ 

and INS’ staffing models in our and the Department of Justice Inspector 

General’s previous audit work. Specifically, the new staffing model as 

currently planned (1) does not include wait times as a performance 

measure; (2) will not include field input on a regular basis in determining 

appropriate staffing levels; and (3) will not be used to assess optimal 

staffing levels at airports. Agency officials told us that the model was to be 

completed by April of 2005, however as of June 2005, it had not been 

finished and CBP officials had not established milestones for completing 

and implementing the model. 

To help ensure that wait times are minimized and that staff are used as 

efficiently as possible, we are recommending that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security direct the Commissioner of Customs and Border 

Protection to modify CBP’s staffing model plans to better identify 

personnel needs and capacities to deal with varying passenger volume and 

to establish milestones for ports to complete its One Face at the Border 

training program. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Commissioner of Customs and Border 

Protection. The Department concurred with three of the 

recommendations and partially concurred with the remaining two 

recommendations and said that CBP planned to, or already had taken, 

steps to implement all five of the recommendations. With regard to the 

two recommendations with partial concurrence, the Department said that 

CBP agreed in concept with the need to take action but believes further 

consideration is needed. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that our 

recommendations, if implemented, will help CBP to maximize the 

effectiveness of its staffing allocation process. 
Page 5 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

CBP has two priority missions: (1) detecting and preventing terrorists and 

terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and (2) facilitating the 

orderly and efficient flow of legitimate trade and travel. CBP’s supporting 

missions include interdicting illegal drugs and other contraband; 

apprehending individuals who are attempting to enter the United States 

illegally; inspecting inbound and outbound people, vehicles, and cargo; 

enforcing all laws of the United States at the border; protecting U.S. 

agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; 

regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; and 

enforcing U.S. trade laws. 

There are 317 official ports of entry into the United States. Each port can 

be composed of one or more individual facilities, such as airports, 

seaports, or land ports where CBP officers process arriving passengers. 

The port of Buffalo, New York, for example, has airport, seaport, and land 

port inspection facilities while the Port of Detroit has only the facility at 

the Detroit International Airport. CBP headquarters allocates staff to 

ports. A Director of Field Operations (DFO) is responsible for port 

activities within a geographic area and serves as a liaison between port 

management and headquarters.5

 Within ports with multiple port facilities 

(that may be spread across a wide area), port directors decide whether 

officers are assigned to airport, sea port or land port facilities and 

individual facility managers are responsible for overseeing day-to-day 

operations. Port directors are also responsible for ensuring that officers 

are appropriately cross-trained to support the agency’s mission and to 

allow for flexibility in assigning officers to various inspections functions 

and locations within a port. Figure 1 shows the Port of 

Houston/Galveston’s multiple sea ports and one airport. 

 5

 All port directors report to a DFO who operates at one of 20 Offices of Field Operations. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 1: Facilities within the Port of Houston/Galveston 

At inspection facilities within airports, CBP officers inspect all 

international passengers wishing to enter the United States mainly to 

determine their admissibility into the country. Figure 2 shows inspection 

stations within the inspection facility at Dallas-Fort Worth International 

Airport in Dallas, Texas. 

Galveston

Corpus 

Christi

Freeport

Port Arthur

George Bush 

Intercontinental 

Airport

Oklahoma New

Mexico

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mexico

Texas

0 120mi

Gulf of

Mexico

Area Port of 

Houston/Galveston

Morgans 

Houston Point

- Morgans Point, TX: cargo

- Port Arthur, TX: cargo

- George Bush Intercontinental 

 Airport: air passengers

- Houston, TX: cruise ship

passengers, cargo

- Galveston, TX: cruise ship 

 passengers, cargo

- Freeport, TX: cargo

- Corpus Christi, TX: cargo

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.
Page 7 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 2: Federal Inspection Facility at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport 

(DFW) in Dallas 

After entering the inspection area, U.S. citizens (or permanent residents) 

and foreign nationals are directed to two different lines. Foreign national 

inspections are more complex than U.S. citizen inspections because the 

inspecting officer has to be familiar with different nations’ passports and 

visas and be able to identify fraudulent versions of these documents. In 

addition, foreign nationals must present the I-94 Form.6

 During this 

process, the officer asks the foreign national passenger questions, such as 

his or her residence abroad and while in the United States, and intended 

length of stay. Generally, CBP takes longer to inspect foreign nationals 

than U.S. citizens or permanent residents. 

In addition to questioning the passenger and examining documentation, 

the officer observes the passenger’s behavior as part of his or her 

assessment of the passenger’s potential involvement in terrorism, criminal 

activities, or violation of immigration status. The officer also checks 

records in a variety of databases as well as any relevant and available 

 6

 The I-94 arrival/departure record is the U.S. government’s record for aliens arriving in the 

United States. The information transcribed on the form I-94 at the port of entry is the basis 

for all further immigration related activity that a nonimmigrant may engage in while in the 

country. 

Source: DFW International Airport - Terminal B.
Page 8 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

intelligence information7 to identify high-risk passengers. If the CBP 

officer conducting the primary inspection decides that a passenger 

requires further scrutiny, then that passenger is referred to another CBP 

officer who conducts a more in-depth secondary inspection. Secondary 

inspection can involve additional interviews, document reviews, database 

queries, communication with other law enforcement agencies, 

observational techniques, and heightened physical inspections. 

After primary or secondary inspection, passengers may be subject to 

baggage inspection if they have items to declare, such as certain food 

items or currency or if a CBP officer suspects that they may be involved in 

illegal activity. Otherwise, if the inspecting officer determines passengers 

have nothing to declare and do not pose a risk, passengers are allowed to 

pick up their baggage and leave the inspection facility through the exit 

control area, where a CBP officer ensures that all passengers have 

undergone all necessary examinations. In any inspection, if the officer 

determines that certain passengers pose some risk, are engaged in illegal 

activity, or are otherwise trying to enter the country unlawfully, they may 

be returned to their originating country or detained for further legal 

proceedings. 

CBP calculates average daily wait times for an airport based on an average 

of the wait times of all flights that arrive on that day. Because it is an 

average, this calculation does not represent the wait times for each 

individual flight. In addition, the wait time recorded for an individual 

flight does not represent the amount of time that each individual 

passenger must wait for primary inspection. CBP calculates passenger 

wait time for individual flights as the time elapsed from the arrival of the 

first passenger on a flight into the inspection facility to the completion of 

primary inspection for 98 percent of the passengers on the flight.8

 For 

example, on a flight that CBP records as having a wait time of 45 minutes, 

the first passenger to enter the inspection facility may be able to pass 

 7

 Intelligence is provided to CBP by the National Targeting Center, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the Department of State and local, state, and federal law enforcement 

agencies. 

8

 Wait time for an individual flight is not an average wait for all passengers. It is a measure 

of how long it takes for 98 percent of passengers to complete primary inspection. If the 

time between primary inspections of passengers on the same flight exceeds some amount, 

such as 10 minutes, port officials have discretion to end the measurement of wait time for 

that flight because the latter passenger may have some disability or other reason for falling 

behind other passengers. 
Page 9 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

through the primary inspection area in less than 10 minutes, while the last 

2 percent of passengers may wait more than an hour, because they arrived 

later to the inspection facility or were mixed in line with other flights. 

Figure 3 illustrates the steps arriving passengers take after they deplane 

until they exit the federal inspection facility and highlights the 

components of this process that CBP measures as passenger wait times. 

Figure 3: Components of Wait Time Calculated by CBP as Part of the Inspection Process 

CBP

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Passenger arrives 

at terminal

Inspection

facility

Passenger exits

facility

interview and 

document 

inspection

Travel document PASSPORT

ID

Database

Inspection 

station 

entrance

Deplanes and walks 

to inspection facility

Time waiting in line at

inspection facility Time spent in primary inspection

Passengers

1. 2.

Primary inspection CBP

Last person, longer 

wait time

First person, shorter 

wait time

Baggage

inspection

Baggage 

inspection

Admissibility

decision?

CBP

officer

If pass (no baggage inspection)

If fail

If pass

If pass (and no baggage 

inspection required)

If pass and baggage 

inspection required

If further inspection required

If fail

Secondary 

inspection

Components of CBP's calculated wait time

CBP

Travel

document PASSPORT

ID

Further inspection Admissibility

decision?

Detained or returned

to point-of-origin

Entire wait time experienced by passenger

Exit control

Admissibility

decision?

If baggage inspection required
Page 10 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

As illustrated in the figure, the wait time CBP calculates for primary 

passenger inspection is divided into two components: (1) the time spent 

waiting in line at the inspection facility and (2) the length of time of the 

primary inspection. This measurement is focused on primary inspection 

and does not include the time for passengers to deplane and walk to the 

inspection area before the primary inspection and also does not include 

the time needed for passengers to retrieve baggage and exit the inspection 

facility after the primary inspection. In addition, this measurement does 

not take into account time passengers may have to spend in secondary 

inspection. 

Prior to September 11, Congress had imposed wait time standards on the 

INS for processing international passengers. Congress enacted legislation 

in 1990 requiring INS to process incoming international passengers within 

45 minutes.9

 Although the legislation was not specific as to how INS 

should measure the 45 minutes, INS originally interpreted this requirement 

to include time spent in line in the inspections facility and the time for 

primary inspection—-the two components measured by CBP. The 

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Protection Act of 2002 repealed the 45-

minute standard as a requirement for processing international 

passengers.10 It added a provision requiring that staffing levels estimated 

by CBP in workforce staffing models be based on a goal of providing 

immigration services within 45 minutes. 

The amount of time passengers from international locations have to wait 

before completing CBP inspections to enter the United States varies within 

individual airports and across the 20 airports at which CBP records wait 

times. Although wait times vary across airports, on average, CBP 

processed passengers within 45 minutes during the 2-month period for 

which data were available. Nonetheless, within a single airport, CBP has 

recorded wait times for individual flights as long as 5 hours for passengers 

to complete primary airport inspections and 15 of the 20 airports had one 

percent or more of their international flights exceed 60 minutes for 

processing international passengers through primary inspection. Based on 

our observations and analysis of wait time data, as well as our discussions 

with airport and airline officials, we concluded that the primary factors 

 9

 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 1991, P.L. 101-515 (1990). 

10 P.L. 107-173, 8 U.S.C. §1752. 

International 

Passengers’ Wait 

Times Vary by Airport 

and Are Affected by 

Three Primary 

Factors 
Page 11 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

affecting wait time are passenger volume, the number of inspection 

stations available at an airport, and the number of CBP officers available 

to conduct inspections. However, none of the three factors, in isolation, 

had a decisive effect on passenger wait times. 

In January 2005, CBP began using its current methodology for recording 

average daily wait times for international arriving flights at 20 of the 285 

airports that receive international air traffic. This calculation is an average 

of the wait times of all flights that come in that day. Because it is an 

average, this calculation does not represent the wait time for each 

individual flight. In addition, the wait time recorded for an individual flight 

does not represent the amount of time that each individual passenger must 

wait for primary inspection. For example, on a flight that CBP records as 

having a wait time of 45 minutes, the first passenger to enter the 

inspection facility may be able to pass through the primary inspection area 

in less than 10 minutes while the last 2 percent of passengers may wait 

more than an hour because they arrived later to the inspection facility or 

were mixed in line with other flights. Figure 4 illustrates average daily wait 

times at 20 international airports based on the average time required for 

the 98th percentile passenger to complete primary inspection at each 

airport (this applies to figures 4 through 8) and shows that average wait 

times at 19 of the 20 airports for which CBP maintained data were 40 

minutes or less. Airline officials we spoke to cautioned that this data on 

wait times was not recorded during the peak June through September time 

periods. The officials stated that wait times recorded during the summer 

months may be significantly higher than those recorded during off-peak 

periods. 

Wait Times at Airports 

Vary but Generally 

Averaged 40 Minutes or 

Less in 2005 
Page 12 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 4: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005 

Generally, the longer of the two components of wait time calculated by 

CBP is the time spent by passengers waiting in line to meet with a CBP 

officer. According to CBP officials and our own observations, the time 

spent by the passenger in the primary inspection station communicating 

directly with the CBP officer is rarely more than 5 minutes, with 

inspections for U.S. citizens lasting approximately 1 to 2 minutes and for 

foreign nationals from 3 to 5 minutes. CBP officials told us that if the 

officer conducting the primary inspection thinks it is taking an 

unreasonable amount of time given the nature of the inspection and the 

capacity of the secondary inspection area, he or she will refer the 

passenger to secondary inspection to allow for a more thorough 

examination of the passenger without unnecessarily holding up other 

travelers. 

While the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Protection Act removed the 

45 minute standard as a requirement for processing international 

passengers through inspection, it added a provision specifying that staffing 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Airport

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Miami

Honolulu

John F. Kennedy

San Francisco

Orlando

Hartsfield Atlanta

Washington Dulles

Chicago O'Hare

Boston Logan

George Bush Houston

Los Angeles

Detroit Metropolitan

Newark

Philadelphia

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Dallas-Fort Worth

Seattle-Tacoma

Baltimore-W

San Juan

ashington

Phoenix

Average daily wait times (in minutes)

International

InternationalInternationalInternational

InternationalInternational

InternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternational

International

International

International

International

International

InternationalInternationalInternational

Intercontinental
Page 13 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

levels estimated by CBP in workforce models be based upon the goal of 

providing immigrations services within 45minutes. As shown in the figure 

above, only Miami International Airport has an average wait time of over 

45 minutes. However, Miami and other airports do sometimes exceed 60 

minutes for processing international passengers through primary 

inspection and CBP maintains data on these flights. Figure 5 illustrates the 

percentage of flights that exceed 60 minutes for processing international 

passengers at 20 airports where CBP records wait times. 

Figure 5: Percentage of Individual Flights with Wait Times Exceeding 60 Minutes for Primary Passenger Inspection from 

January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005, Arranged from Lowest to Highest Average Wait Times 

As figure 5 shows, at one airport, Miami, more than 20 percent of flights 

exceeded 60 minutes to process passengers through primary inspection 

while less than one percent of flights arriving at other airports, such as 

Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Minneapolis-St. Paul 

International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, and Seattle-Tacoma 

International Airport exceeded 60 minutes during that time frame. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Airport

0

5

10

15

20

Miami

Honolulu

John F. Kennedy

San Francisco

Orlando

Hartsfield Atlanta

Washington Dulles

Chicago O'Hare

Boston Logan

George Bush Houston

Los Angeles

Detroit Metropolitan

Newark

Philadelphia

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Dallas-Fort Worth

Seattle-Tacoma

Baltimore-W

San Juan

ashington

Phoenix

Percentage of flights exceeding 60 minutes for primary passenger inspection

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

Intercontinental
Page 14 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Based on our analysis and observations, along with a general consensus 

among CBP, airport, and airline officials, we determined that the primary 

factors affecting wait time are passenger volume, the number of inspection 

stations available at an airport, and the number of CBP officers available 

to conduct inspections. Wait times can also be affected by other factors 

such as the use of information technology. However, none of these three 

factors, in isolation, directly impacts passenger wait times across airports 

due to the variability of numerous other factors that influence wait time at 

airports, such as passengers’ countries of origin and airport configuration. 

Passenger volume is a primary factor that affects wait time for passengers 

at airports because large volumes of passengers can lead to more crowded 

inspection facilities and longer lines. Passenger volume can vary by the 

time of day, day of the week, or time of year. For example, according to 

airline officials, international passengers tend to travel early or late in the 

day to accommodate work schedules. Also they said international travel 

tends to be higher on Monday and Friday than other days of the week, 

which concentrates passenger volume at certain times of day and days of 

the week. Airline officials also told us that people tend to travel more 

during the summer and over holidays which can lead to more crowded 

inspection facilities and increased wait times during the vacation season. 

An airport official said flights that exceed 60 minutes for processing 

generally arrive during these peak passenger volume periods. Figure 6 

illustrates average wait times at airports arranged from lowest to highest 

passenger volume. 

Passenger Volume, 

Number of Inspection 

Stations, and CBP Staff 

Levels Are the Primary 

Factors That Affect Wait 

Times at Airports 
Page 15 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 6: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports Arranged from Lowest to Highest Annual Passenger Volume 

from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005 

Although passenger volume is a factor in wait times, it does not directly 

correlate with wait times. For example, Dallas-Fort Worth and Newark 

airports had about the same average daily wait times while Newark had 

almost twice the passenger volume. Other factors, such as the number of 

inspection stations or CBP officers on duty, also affect wait times. 

According to CBP and airline officials, the number of passengers who can 

be processed within a given time period may be limited by the number of 

inspection stations available or open at some airports. For example, if an 

airport has all of its inspection stations in use by CBP officers, adding 

more officers will have little effect on the number of passengers who can 

be processed within a given time. Figure 7 lists average wait times at 

airports arranged from the lowest to greatest number of inspection 

stations. 

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

Airport

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

John F. Kennedy

Los Angeles

Miami

Chicago O'Hare

Newark

San Francisco

Hartsfield Atlanta

George Bush Houston

Honolulu

Washington Dulles

Dallas-Fort Worth

Boston Logan

Detroit Metropolitan

Philadelphia

San Juan

Seattle-Tacoma

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Phoenix

Orlando

Baltimore-Washington

Average wait time in minutes Passenger volume 

InternationalInternationalInternational

InternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternational

International

International

International

International

InternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternationalInternational

Intercontinental

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Wait times in minutes

Passenger volume
Page 16 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 7: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports Arranged from the Lowest to Greatest Number of Inspection 

Stations from January 10, 2005, to March 31, 2005 

Note: The inspection stations may or may not be fully staffed. 

As shown in the figure, the number of inspection stations also does not 

necessarily impact wait times directly. For example, although average wait 

times at Boston’s Logan Airport are about the same as for Atlanta’s 

Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport has about five times 

the number of inspection stations as Logan Airport. 

The number of CBP staff available to perform primary inspections is also a 

primary factor that affects wait times at airports. According to CBP 

officials, the agency strives to place sufficient numbers of officers to fulfill 

its missions of preventing terrorism and facilitating trade and travel, and 

part of facilitating trade and travel involves minimizing wait times. Figure 

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Airport

Average wait time in minutes

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

International

InternationalInternationalInternational

Intercontinental

International

International

International

International

International

International

Number of inspection stations

Wait times in minutes

Inspection stations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

John F. Kennedy

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Detroit Metropolitan

Hartsfield Atlanta

Newark

George Bush Houston

Miami

Chicago O'Hare

Philadelphia

Washington Dulles

Honolulu

Orlando

Dallas-Fort Worth

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Baltimore-Washington

San Juan

Seattle-Tacoma

Boston Logan

Phoenix
Page 17 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

8 illustrates average wait times arranged from lowest to highest CBP 

staffing levels at 20 airports where CBP records wait time data. 

Figure 8: Average Daily Wait Times at 20 International Airports Arranged from Lowest to Highest CBP Staffing Levels 

Note: The number of CBP officers at individual airports is considered security sensitive information. 

As figures 7, 8, and 9 illustrate, no single factor necessarily has a direct 

impact on passenger wait times across airports; however, varying 

combinations of the factors within an individual airport may have an 

effect. For example, CBP and airline officials in Houston stated that the 

increase in the number of inspection stations at George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport, in combination with the addition of new CBP 

officers has reduced passenger wait times. 

Information technology systems used during the inspection process to 

help CBP officers determine admissibility can potentially affect passenger 

wait times. These systems can occasionally slow down passenger 

processing when one or more systems become unavailable for any length 

of time. Because CBP has procedures in place to continue inspections 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

John F. Kennedy

Los Angeles

Miami

Newark

San Francisco

Chicago O'Hare

San Juan

George Bush Houston

Hartsfield Atlanta

Dallas-Fort Worth

Detroit Metropolitan

Honolulu

Washington Dulles

Philadelphia

Boston Logan

Seattle-Tacoma

Orlando

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Baltimore-Washington

Phoenix

Airport

Average wait time in minutes

InternationalInternational

International

International

International

International

InternationalInternational

International

International

InternationalInternational

International

InternationalInternational

InternationalInternationalInternational

International

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Intercontinental
Page 18 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

while the system is brought back online, officials said that this is not a 

major factor affecting wait times. The officials added that system 

downtime did not occur frequently or for extended periods. The main 

system used by CBP officers to process all passengers is the Interagency 

Border Inspection System, which is designed to facilitate and more 

effectively control entry of persons into the United States by providing 

information on passengers’ identities through querying a variety of 

databases. The Interagency Border Inspection System assists CBP officers 

in passenger processing and records the results of secondary inspections. 

The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT) 

program is another system used by CBP to help the officer verify 

passenger identity. Although wait time data kept by CBP does not capture 

the period prior to the introduction of the US VISIT program, our analysis 

of available data and discussions with CBP and airline officials indicate 

that the program has not significantly increased wait times since the 

procedures associated with the system are generally done concurrently 

with the CBP officers’ other inspection activities. 

Some airports and airlines took steps to facilitate future increases in 

passenger volume and minimize passenger wait times. Specifically, three 

of the five international airports we visited had built new or expanded 

federal inspection facilities to accommodate future growth in passenger 

volume and minimize wait times for internationally arriving passengers. 

Additionally, three of these airports assigned staff to assist passengers in 

preparing documentation to minimize wait times. Airline officials we 

spoke to acknowledged that large volumes of arriving passengers may 

increase wait times, but said that, to accommodate market demand, 

airlines do not spread flight arrivals evenly throughout the day. 

According to airport and CBP officials, facility upgrades that increase the 

number of inspection stations help to minimize passenger wait times by 

allowing for the more rapid and efficient processing of passengers through 

inspection facilities. We visited three airports where airports facilities had 

been upgraded to increase the number of inspection stations and improve 

configuration of the inspection facility. For example, in 2004 a total of 12 

new CBP inspection stations were constructed at Washington Dulles 

Airport. Airport and airline officials there said that increasing the number 

of stations has helped reduce wait times because passengers can now pass 

through the facility more easily. However, the benefit of adding inspection 

Some Airports and 

Airlines Expanded 

Facility Capacity to 

Minimize Wait Times 

but Have Not Evenly 

Distributed Passenger 

Volume Due to Market 

Demand 

Some Airports and Airlines 

Invested in Upgrades to 

Increase Capacity and 

Took Additional Steps to 

Reduce Passenger Wait 

Times 
Page 19 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

stations has been limited because, as of June 2003, CBP had not increased 

staffing levels. However we were not able to verify this because of limited 

data availability. According to airline officials, to fully maximize the 

benefit of new or expanded inspections facilities, the number of 

inspections personnel would need to be increased so that new inspection 

stations could be staffed. 

Construction of new terminals and inspection facilities has also taken 

place at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. In Houston, 

the airport authority financed the construction of a new inspection facility, 

which opened in January 2005 and increased the number of inspection 

stations from 34 to 80. Airport, airline, and CBP officials agreed that the 

new facility, in combination with an increase in officer staffing levels, has 

reduced wait times at the airport. They stated that this is because the new 

inspection facility can more easily accommodate the increased passenger 

volume at the airport and the larger number of CBP officers allows more 

inspection stations to be used to process international passengers during 

peak periods. The new inspection facility at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport is 

scheduled for completion in July 2005 and will increase the number of 

inspection stations from 30 to 60. Airport officials stated that they expect 

that the new facility will help to minimize wait times because it will 

consolidate inspections activities in one area, whereas current facilities 

divide inspection activities among three separate terminals. Figures 9 and 

10 compare the old and new inspection facilities at George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas. 
Page 20 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 9: Old Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental Airport 

Figure 10: New Inspection Facilities at George Bush Intercontinental Airport 

Houston’s new facility addresses one of the three factors that could 

facilitate faster processing of international passengers by increasing the 

number of inspection stations. The overall construction of the new facility 

shows a more expansive configuration than the old facility. According to 

airline and CBP officials, the new facility can accommodate a larger 

number of passengers. 

Waiting lines Inspection booths

(entrance side)

Source: Houston Airport System.

Waiting lines for

U.S. Citizens and 

Permanent 

Residents

Waiting lines for

 Visitors

Waiting lines Inspection booths

(exit side) Departure Inspection booths

(entrance side)

Source: GAO.
Page 21 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

According to airport and airline officials, the new inspection facilities at 

three of the five airports we visited were constructed to increase capacity 

to accommodate current and projected passenger volume and planning for 

them began years in advance and, in the case of federal inspection 

facilities, were approved by CBP or its legacy agencies in advance. CBP is 

responsible for reviewing and approving design proposals for inspections 

facilities to ensure that they meet the agency’s security requirements. In 

each case, the airports or airlines conducted studies estimating future 

passenger volume to justify the cost of constructing these facilities. For 

example, the total cost of the new facility in Houston was approximately 

$440 million, according to airport officials. Airport and airline officials said 

that these projects were planned, funded, and completed with the 

expectation that CBP would increase staff for the new facilities as 

passenger volume increased. However, CBP officials stated that the 

agency is not legally or contractually required to allocate new staff when 

inspection facilities are constructed or expanded and the agency is to 

make no commitment implicitly or explicitly regarding future staffing 

levels in approving new inspection facility design proposals. 

Airports and airlines also have taken other steps to minimize passenger 

wait times. For example, at four of the five airports we visited, airport and 

airline officials stationed personnel in the inspection facility area to assist 

passengers in filling out required forms such as the I-94 Forms as they wait 

in line for primary inspection. According to airline officials, this assistance 

helps to reduce delays caused when passengers are turned away from the 

primary inspections stations due to incompletely or incorrectly filled out 

forms. Airport officials at one airport placed Internet terminals in the 

inspection area to allow passengers to search for address information 

required for the I-94 form. 

CBP and airline officials we spoke with said that scheduling large numbers 

of flights within a short time period, known as “peaking,” could cause 

longer passenger wait times. According to airport and airline officials, up 

to half of an airport’s daily volume may arrive within a few hours. For 

example, as figure 10 shows, over half of the daily international passenger 

volume at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport arrives between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 

p.m. 

Airport and Airline 

Officials Cite Market 

Demand as a Limiting 

Factor in Their Ability to 

Spread Out Flight 

Schedules to Minimize 

Wait Times 
Page 22 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Figure 11: Daily International Passenger Volume by Hour at Hartsfield Atlanta Airport, May 13, 2005 

Airline officials said that market demand and international travel patterns 

largely determine flight schedules, as follows. Passengers generally leave 

their city of origin early in the morning or later in the evening in order to 

work a full day at their destination. To deal with this market demand for 

flights, airlines schedule their flights in clusters referred to as “banks” that 

follow these business dynamics. Consequently, they said they have little 

flexibility to spread out flight schedules and still meet passenger demand 

for travel times. For example, flights leaving western Europe in the 

morning generally arrive at eastern U.S. airports between 11 a.m. and 4 

p.m. In addition, according to airport officials, passengers prefer arriving 

during this time frame because it allows them to make connecting flights 

to other U.S. destinations. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data.

Hour

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

3:00 P

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

M

11:00 A

12:00 PM

1:00 PM2:00 PM

M

8:00 A

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

M

7:00 AM

5:00 AM

6:00 AM

Hourly passenger volume at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport
Page 23 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

CBP has taken steps to increase management flexibility in staffing officers 

to various inspections functions and to improve the allocation of existing 

staff in an effort to minimize international passenger wait times and 

ensure that staff are being used as efficiently as possible. For example, at 

some airports, facility managers have arranged staff work schedules and 

used overtime to maximize the number of staff conducting inspections 

during peak periods. CBP’s One Face at the Border training program is 

designed to train staff to perform different inspection functions to increase 

staffing flexibility, but CBP has not established milestones for completing 

the training. CBP is also developing a national staffing model to help in 

allocating staff across ports and airports nationwide; however, the model 

does not address weaknesses in Customs and INS models identified in our 

and the Department of Justice Inspector General’s previous audit work. 

Agency officials told us that the model was to be completed by April of 

2005. However, as of June 2005, it had not been finished and CBP officials 

had not established milestones for completing and implementing the 

model. 

CBP has taken advantage of existing staffing flexibility to help minimize 

passenger wait times. For example, CBP facility managers told us that they 

plan their officer work shifts so that the most officers available are 

working during peak hours. When the number of officers available to be 

assigned during peak time shifts is inadequate for passenger processing, 

the port director or CBP airport manager may use overtime by asking 

officers to come in early or stay late. Overtime is the most common tool 

management uses to address increases in passenger volume. 

CBP has not, however, established targets or milestones—such as having a 

certain percentage of staff cross-trained by a set date—for port directors 

to complete its One Face at the Border program to allow for greater 

flexibility in assigning officers to various functions and locations within 

airports. In July 2003, CBP began a cross-training effort, One Face at the 

Border, to integrate the former inspections workforces of Customs, INS, 

and Agriculture. The intent of this effort was to train legacy Customs 

inspectors to perform “historical” INS and agricultural inspection activities 

(such as processing passengers at primary inspection and screening for 

restricted food items) and for legacy INS inspectors to perform “historical” 

Customs and agricultural inspection activities (e.g., inspecting passenger 

baggage) in order to create a unified inspection force and a single primary 

processing point at ports of entry. The officials told us that this effort 

would allow officers to perform different inspection functions within 

airports as well as across different facilities. In certain instances where 

CBP Has Improved 

Staffing Management 

through Increased 

Flexibilities, but Plans 

for a Systematic 

Staffing Model Do Not 

Address Identified 

Weaknesses 

Local CBP Management Is 

Attempting to Minimize 

Wait Times through 

Flexible Staffing but Lacks 

Milestones for Completing 

Training 
Page 24 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

facilities are located geographically close to one another, inspections 

officers may be transferred to different facilities within a port to 

accommodate workload changes. For example, CBP officials at the port of 

Baltimore told us that officers are stationed at the airport during peak 

volume periods to inspect air passengers and may be moved to the seaport 

at other times. Managers may also move cross-trained officers among the 

various inspection functions performed within a specific port facility. For 

example, two CBP port directors told us that during peak volume periods, 

they may move officers from baggage or secondary inspection to primary 

inspection stations, although some airport and airline officials said this 

may actually increase wait time for passengers picking up baggage or 

passing through exit control. 

As of June 2005, CBP had developed and delivered some of the training 

materials for the One Face at the Border program to all ports and expects 

to develop and deliver all remaining training materials by the end of 2005. 

CBP officials said this program is essential for increasing staff flexibility 

so that staff can conduct different types of inspections within airports. 

However, CBP officials said it could take a number of years for officers 

nationwide to complete all required training. While CBP monitors the 

progress of each port in completing its required training, it has not 

established milestones for when ports should complete the training 

program or goals for having some percentage of staff complete the 

training. Milestones for completing this training program would help CBP 

to assess progress in implementing the program and determine when 

managers would be able to allocate officers within their port to areas of 

greatest need. They would also provide a basis to hold responsible 

officials accountable for implementing the training program. Without 

milestones for measuring the implementation status of its cross-training 

program, CBP has no assurance that port directors have the flexibility 

needed to allocate officers within and among facilities as efficiently as 

possible. 

CBP does not systematically assess the number of staff required to 

accomplish its mission at ports or airports nationwide or assure that 

officers are allocated to airports with greatest need. CBP’s current 

approach to allocating officers does not determine the optimal use of CBP 

inspection staff across all ports. Rather, it assumes the overall allocations 

are static, and relies on port directors to determine the number of staff 

necessary to accomplish CBP’s mission at airports and other port facilities 

within their purview. 

CBP Management Does 

Not Allocate Staff to Ports 

Systematically 
Page 25 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

In instances where port directors identify a need for additional staff, for 

example due to a projected increase in international passenger volume, 

they are to forward staffing requests to the Director of Field Operations 

(DFO), who reviews the requests and determines whether they should be 

forwarded to headquarters for review. CBP human resources officials told 

us they review these requests and determine whether funds are available 

to address needs through allocation of additional staff. CBP Headquarters, 

however, has not provided formal, agencywide guidance to the port 

directors or DFOs on what factors should be considered to assess staffing 

needs or where staff should be allocated within a port. Without uniform 

agency guidance, everyone involved in the process from port directors to 

human resource officials must use their own judgment to determine 

staffing needs, and CBP cannot be assured that an individual port’s staff 

needs are being evaluated consistently or that staff are allocated to the 

ports with greatest needs nationwide. 

To provide a more systematic basis for allocating staff, CBP in October 

2003 began developing a staffing model based on agencywide criteria to 

help allocate staff to its ports. The intent of CBP’s staffing model is to 

reduce the degree of subjectivity in the process of determining staffing 

needs. It will assist in allocating existing staff levels across ports by using 

a uniform set of approximately 30 different criteria, such as passenger and 

trade volume, that are weighted according to their importance to CBP’s 

mission. After assessing these criteria, the model is to determine how to 

allocate the existing officer workforce among ports. 

CBP officials developing the model said they plan to incorporate elements 

of two previous staffing models used by Customs and INS.11 However, as 

shown in table 1, the new model fails to address three weaknesses 

identified in our assessments of earlier models used by the legacy agencies 

upon which CBP’s model is based. Specifically, the model 1) will not take 

passenger wait times into account as a performance measure to help CBP 

assess whether staff levels are sufficient to address passenger volume, 2) 

 11 The Resource Allocation Model used by U.S. Customs was intended to estimate the 

number of inspectors and other personnel needed to process passengers and inspect cargo 

at all ports of entry. It also predicted what staffing levels would be needed agencywide and 

locally by occupation and by core functions on a yearly basis. The Workforce Analysis 

Model used by INS was intended to provide an objective means to allocate staff at ports of 

entry. The model examined basic port configurations and staffing schedules of immigration 

inspectors and then projected staffing levels in total and on an hourly basis for individual 

ports. 

CBP Is Developing a 

Systematic Staffing Model, 

but Its Plans Do Not 

Address Identified 

Weaknesses 
Page 26 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

will not regularly take into consideration field input in determining 

appropriate staffing levels, and 3) will not be used to assess optimal levels 

of staff to ensure security while facilitating travel at individual ports and 

port facilities, including airports. CBP officials told us that because 1) they 

do not want to risk security in order to adhere to a time limit, 2) field 

requests for staffing changes should be assessed by the DFO on an asneeded basis, and 3) it is unlikely that additional inspection personnel will 

be forthcoming in the current budget climate, they have not considered 

addressing these factors in their staffing model. Table 1 summarizes these 

reported weaknesses and CBP’s views regarding the need to address them. 

Table 1: Comparison of Weaknesses in Legacy Staffing Models to Those in CBP’s Model under Development 

Weaknesses identified 

in Workforce Analysis 

Model used by INS 

Weaknesses identified 

in Resource Allocation 

Model used by Customs 

Weakness identified in 

CBP’s model under 

development 

CBP officials’ views 

regarding weakness 

identified relative to 

CBP’s model under 

development 

Consequence of 

not addressing 

weaknesses 

identified 

 Customs’ model did not 

consider passenger wait 

times and cargo 

examination times as a 

performance measure in 

its assessment of staffing 

needs.a

CBP’s plans for the model 

indicate it will not consider 

passenger wait times as a 

performance measure in 

its assessment of staffing 

needs. 

CBP does not control all 

the factors contributing to 

wait times and will not use 

wait times as a 

performance measure 

because minimizing wait 

times is not its highest 

priority. 

Excluding wait times 

as a performance 

measure in the 

staffing model 

prevents CBP from 

identifying airports 

with the greatest 

disparity between 

optimal and current 

staff allocation levels. 

 Customs did not regularly 

include field components 

in decision-making 

process.b

CBP does not plan to 

regularly or formally solicit 

input from field staff for its 

planned model. 

CBP officials said field 

requests for staffing 

changes should be 

assessed and validated 

by the DFO and then 

provided to headquarters. 

As a result, they did not 

see a need for regular, 

formal field input from port 

directors or facility 

managers. 

A lack of formal field 

input on a regular 

basis, will limit CBP’s 

ability to align staffing 

decisions with the 

needs and realities of 

the field environment.
Page 27 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Weaknesses identified 

in Workforce Analysis 

Model used by INS 

Weaknesses identified 

in Resource Allocation 

Model used by Customs 

Weakness identified in 

CBP’s model under 

development 

CBP officials’ views 

regarding weakness 

identified relative to 

CBP’s model under 

development 

Consequence of 

not addressing 

weaknesses 

identified 

INS’ model did not detect 

overstaffed work shifts or 

project staff decreases 

when needed.c

Customs’ model was not 

used to reallocate 

resources from one 

location or one function to 

another.c

CBP does not plan to use 

its model to assess 

optimal staff levels for 

each port or airport. 

CBP’s planned model is 

to determine which ports 

have positions that can be 

reallocated to other ports 

through attrition; efforts to 

assess optimal staff levels 

would not be useful in the 

current budget 

environment. 

Not identifying 

optimal staffing levels 

prevents CBP from 

performing workforce 

gap analyses, which 

could be used to 

justify budget and 

staffing requests by 

connecting program 

goals and strategies 

with the budget and 

staff resources 

needed to accomplish 

them. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: 

a

GAO, U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected Operations and Program Issues, 

GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2000). 

b

GAO, Customs Service: Process for Estimating and Allocating Inspectional Personnel, 

GAO/GGD-98-107 (Washington, D.C.: April 1998). 

c

GAO, U.S. Customs Service: Observations on Selected Operations and Program Issues, 

GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-150 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2000) and the Department of Justice 

Office of Inspector General, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Workforce Analysis Model, 

Audit Report 97-10 (Washington, D. C.: March 1997). 

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 

repealed the 45-minute standard for processing international air 

passengers through inspection that was established for INS. However, it 

added a provision requiring CBP to base staffing level estimates from its 

workforce model on the goal of providing immigration services within 45 

minutes. CBP officials said that minimizing wait times is not a high priority 

because officials do not want to risk sacrificing security in order to adhere 

to a time limit. However, when a flight exceeds 60 minutes for processing 

passengers through primary inspection, CBP requires that port directors 

provide an explanation for why this occurred and take corrective actions.12

Including a goal of providing inspection services within 45 minutes for 

international air passengers in its staffing model would assist CBP in 

 12 When more than 20 percent of the airport’s flights on a given day exceed 60 minutes for 

processing, port directors must also include a detailed explanation to headquarters of how 

they plan to reduce wait times in the future. 
Page 28 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

determining the number of officers required to fulfill its missions of 

facilitating trade and travel while at the same time ensuring security and 

help identify airports with the greatest disparity between staffing 

requirements and current allocation levels. 

Our prior work has shown that involving staff in all phases of workforce 

planning can help improve its quality because staff are directly involved 

with daily operations. Plans for CBP’s model rely on input from the ports 

and port facilities, including airports, regarding passenger and trade 

volume; passenger and trade complexity variables, such as number and 

value of cargo seizures; number of airport terminals; mix of passengers; 

arrests; and level of on-board staff. However, CBP’s efforts to solicit 

information from field officials do not occur formally on a regular basis or 

include guidance to port directors and DFOs on how to assess staff levels, 

and as a result, CBP does not receive timely and consistent input on 

critical staffing needs to help them adjust staff levels to ensure that staff 

are used as efficiently as possible. CBP officials said that they do not have 

definite plans to ask for staff needs assessments on a regular basis. For 

example, in November 2004 shortly after we initiated our review, CBP 

headquarters issued its first formal letter since the agency’s creation in 

March 2003, soliciting DFOs for their input on critical staffing needs. The 

solicitation did not include guidance or criteria to DFOs or port directors 

on how to assess their staff levels to help ensure that headquarters’ 

staffing decisions are based on consistent data from all ports. 

Furthermore, the request was not consistently communicated to all CBP 

locations; facilities managers at two of the five airports we visited after the 

solicitation was sent out said that they were unaware of the request for 

information. CBP officials told us that it is not headquarters’ responsibility 

to evaluate staffing requests from individual ports. Rather, it is the 

responsibility of the DFOs to evaluate staffing needs at ports on an 

ongoing basis. Nonetheless, regular, formal input from facility and port 

management would help CBP headquarters ensure that staff are used as 

efficiently as possible by aligning staffing decisions with the needs and 

realities of CBP ports nationwide. 

CBP’s plans for the staffing model indicate it will be used to allocate 

existing staff across ports, for example it will help reallocate positions 

made available through attrition, but it will not determine whether current 

staff levels are appropriate or determine an optimal number of staff 

needed at individual ports or airports. CBP officials stated they have not 

assessed overall staffing needs across ports or airports and do not plan to 

do so with the proposed model because they do not expect to receive any 

additional resources given the current budget climate. However, according 
Page 29 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

to our primary human capital principles, agencies should identify gaps in 

their workforce to provide a basis for proper staffing to meet program 

goals.13 These workforce gap analyses can help justify budget and staffing 

requests by connecting program goals and strategies with the budget and 

staff resources needed to accomplish them. The model, when it is 

completed, will not identify such gaps according to CBP officials because 

absent additional resources, the only way to address these gaps would be 

to relocate officers. The officials said this is not a viable solution because 

of the costs associated with relocating CBP officers. According to CBP, 

the cost of moving a single CBP officer from one port to another is $60,400 

on average. Determining an optimal number of officers for airports will 

help CBP link its budget requests to mission priorities, allowing the agency 

to determine which facilities have the greatest disparity between staffing 

requirements and current allocation levels and help ensure the most 

efficient allocation of new staff. 

CBP officials told us that they set an original deadline of April 2005 for 

completing the proposed staffing model. As of June 2005, CBP had not 

finalized its model and did not have revised milestones or a schedule to 

measure their progress for completing and implementing the model. Until 

CBP finalizes its staffing model and establishes a schedule for completing 

and implementing its model, it is uncertain when the model will be 

available to provide a regular and consistent method for efficiently 

allocating staff. 

As it performs its official missions, CBP maintains two overarching and 

sometimes conflicting goals: increasing security while facilitating 

legitimate trade and travel. To help achieve these goals, CBP has taken 

steps to increase staffing flexibility and improve the allocation of staff to 

help ensure that wait times are minimized and that existing levels of staff 

are being used as efficiently as possible. To that end, CBP initiated its One 

Face at the Border program to cross-train officers from its legacy agencies 

with the intention of providing more flexibility in its placement of staff. 

However, CBP’s lack of milestones for ports to complete this crosstraining makes it difficult for the agency to determine when training will 

be completed within individual ports and hold port directors accountable 

 13 GAO, Human Capital: Primary Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 2003) and GAO, Tax Administration: Workforce 

Planning Needs Further Development for IRS’s Taxpayer Education and 

Communication Unit, GAO-03-711 (Washington, D.C.: May 2003). 

Conclusions 
Page 30 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

for having their staff complete training. Furthermore, the lack of 

milestones affects port directors’ and facility managers’ ability to allocate 

officers within airports to different functions. We recognize that ports 

experience different traffic flow patterns and demands, and that taking 

staff offline to train them may require overtime or may increase passenger 

wait times. Nevertheless with established milestones, CBP would be better 

able to measure the progress of its cross-training program across ports 

and maximize port staffing flexibility. 

CBP is also developing a staffing model to assist in determining officer 

allocation levels. In doing so, CBP has the opportunity to take a proactive 

approach to managing its human capital and address historical 

weaknesses of its legacy agencies’ systems for allocating personnel. 

Although CBP’s staffing model is a step in the right direction, we identified 

certain weaknesses that can affect CBP’s ability to place its staff to best 

advantage in addressing passenger wait times. While most airports were 

able to process passengers within 45 minutes on average during the period 

of time we examined, wait times for individual flights still exceeded 60 

minutes five percent or more of the time at four of the 20 airports where 

CBP records wait time data. CBP’s exclusion of wait time standards for 

inspecting international air passengers in its planned model limits its 

ability to manage staff to accomplish the second part of its dual mission 

fostering international trade and travel. Furthermore, CBP’s lack of regular 

and formal input from airports and other port facilities limits the agency’s 

ability to ensure that its staffing decisions align with the needs and 

realities of its ports nationwide. Using the planned model to determine the 

allocation of existing staff without also determining an optimal number of 

staff for airports limits the agency’s knowledge of ports that have the 

greatest gaps between optimal and existing staff levels. Finally, CBP has 

not fully addressed what factors will be included in its model currently 

under development or set milestones for completing and implementing the 

model. By not addressing these weaknesses, CBP is bypassing an 

opportunity to develop information that would further enhance 

management decision-making concerning staff allocation and staff needs 

and providing budget justifications. 

To assist CBP in its efforts to develop a staffing model that will help 

provide a basis for budget justifications and management decision-making 

and to establish goals and performance measures to assess its progress in 

completing its staffing model and its cross-training program, we 

recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendations 
Page 31 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

direct the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to take 

the following five actions 

• provide ports with targets and milestones for having staff cross-trained 

to measure the progress of its One Face at the Border program while 

being sensitive to work demands in setting training schedules; 

• incorporate wait time performance measures in the staffing model 

currently under development as required by the Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Protection Act of 2002; 

• use the staffing model under development to determine the optimal 

number of staff at each airport nationwide; 

• systematically solicit input from the field on staffing needs and include 

uniform, agencywide guidance on how they should assess their needs 

and environment; and 

• set out milestones for completing CBP’s planned staffing model. 

DHS provided written comments on a draft of this report, and these 

comments are reprinted in appendix II. DHS concurred with three of our 

recommendations: to use CBP’s staffing model to determine the optimal 

number of staff at each airport nationwide, to systematically solicit input 

from the field on CBP staffing needs, and to set milestones for completing 

CBP’s planned staffing model. DHS said that CBP had efforts underway 

and additional plans to implement these recommendations. 

DHS partially concurred with our remaining two recommendations. With 

respect to our recommendation to provide ports with targets and 

milestones for having staff cross-trained, DHS said that CBP believes it is 

not advantageous to implement across-the-board milestones, citing the 

need to coordinate training with appropriate work assignments so that the 

training can be directly applied. CBP officials said that it could take a 

number of years for officers to complete training nationwide and noted 

that they plan to begin computing training requirements through fiscal 

year 2007. We continue to believe it is important to establish milestones 

for cross-training CBP staff. CBP told us that the cross-training program is 

essential for increasing staff flexibility and enabling staff to properly 

conduct different types of inspections within airports. Having milestones 

for individual ports to complete required training would help improve 

accountability and planning. Given CBP’s concern about workload 

demands and the timing of training, the milestones could be established in 

consideration of the training needs and operational environment of each 

port. The planning process described by CBP could provide a basis for 

establishing these milestones. 

DHS’s Comments and 

Our Evaluation 
Page 32 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

With regard to our recommendation that CBP incorporate wait time 

performance measures in the staffing model currently under development, 

DHS said that CBP will consider (DHS emphasis) incorporating wait times 

for future resource allocation. We continue to believe that the wait time 

standards should be incorporated into CBP’s planned workforce staffing 

model. We note that such action is required by the Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Protection Act of 2002. In addition, incorporating wait 

time standards would help CBP measure the extent to which it is 

achieving its mission of facilitating trade and travel while ensuring 

security. It would also allow CBP to identify airports with the greatest 

disparity between optimal and existing staff allocation levels. 

We plan to provide copies of this report to the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, and interested congressional committees. We will 

make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 

be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III. 

Richard M. Stana 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

To assess CBP’s progress in minimizing wait times for international air 

passengers while ensuring security, we analyzed (1) the wait times at the 

20 U.S. international airports that receive most of the international traffic 

and factors affecting wait times; (2) the steps airports and airlines have 

taken to minimize passenger wait times; and (3) how CBP has managed 

staffing to minimize wait times across airports. 

Specifically, to determine the wait times at U.S. airports and factors 

affecting wait times, we analyzed CBP wait time data collected between 

October 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005. CBP’s calculation of wait time 

changed on January 10, 2005, and we determined the difference in wait 

times between the time periods of October 1, 2004, through January 9, 

2005, and January 10, 2005, through March 31, 2005. We calculated average 

wait times and average percent of flights exceeding 60 minutes for 20 

major U.S. airports based on CBP’s data. We assessed the reliability of the 

passenger volume, wait time, number of inspection stations and inspection 

staffing data by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the 

systems that produced them, (2) interviewing agency official 

knowledgeable about the data, and (3) comparing what we observed at the 

selected airports visited with the data. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. For the purpose of 

calculating the percentage of flights exceeding 60 minutes for primary 

passenger inspection, the data are sufficiently reliable to compare airports 

but not sufficiently reliable as a performance measure. We found high 

rates at some airports of numerous flights with wait times of 59 or 60 

minutes. If the performance standard was changed to 59 or 60 minutes, the 

percentage of flights exceeding this threshold would be different from that 

reported in Figure 5. The data should be viewed as limited indicators of 

overall wait times at airports, because the available data only spanned two 

and one half months of wait times and did not include the peak travel 

periods of June through September when wait times may be higher. To 

determine the factors affecting wait times, we interviewed CBP officials at 

both headquarters and at the port level, such as port directors, who are 

responsible for overall management of the port, including airports. We 

also interviewed selected airport and airline officials who are involved 

with international passenger processing and could provide perspective on 

what factors affected wait times at U.S. airports. In addition, we 

interviewed officials at airport and airline associations who provided us 

with international passenger volume statistics and contacts for officials at 

the locations we visited. 

To determine the steps airports and airlines have taken to minimize 

passenger wait times, we visited five international airports based on their 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

unique characteristics and geographic dispersion. The airports selected 

were George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Dallas-Fort Worth 

International Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, BaltimoreWashington International Airport, and Hartsfield Atlanta International 

Airport. At these five airports, we interviewed airport and airline officials 

who were involved in international passenger processing issues to learn 

how they interacted with CBP to help speed passenger processing. We 

also reviewed documentation provided to us by officials at three airports 

on assessments they had produced on the number of stations and CBP 

officers needed at their airports to process passengers within certain time 

limits. We observed the inspection facilities at each of the five airports 

visited to compare the capacities and constraints to passenger processing 

at each. Specifically, we observed facilities’ upgrades where airports had 

either built an entirely new facility or added inspection stations to existing 

facilities. 

To assess how CBP has managed staffing to minimize wait times across 

airports, we interviewed CBP officials at headquarters and from the five 

selected airports. For example, we interviewed port directors and other 

field-level officials to gather perspectives on what options are available to 

CBP field managers to manage staff to improve wait times at airports. To 

analyze how CBP’s cross-training program affects the agency’s ability to 

allocate staff to airports, we spoke with officials responsible for 

developing and delivering training curriculums to the various ports and we 

examined these curriculums and their delivery schedule. To determine 

how CBP currently allocates staff, we spoke with officials in the budget, 

human resource and planning offices in CBP’s Office of Field Operations. 

We also reviewed and evaluated documentation on CBP’s policies and 

procedures for allocating staff to ports. To understand and evaluate CBP’s 

staffing model under development, we spoke with agency officials 

responsible for planning and implementing the model’s development and 

analyzed the criteria associated with the model. We also reviewed our and 

the Department of Justice Inspector General’s prior work on previous 

models developed for U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service and compared these findings with the new model. 

We performed our work from October 2004 to June 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 35 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 36 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 37 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 38 GAO-05-663 International Air Passengers 

Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777 

Leo Barbour, Grace Coleman, Deborah Davis, Nancy Finley, Christopher 

Keisling, Jessica Lundberg, Robert Rivas, and Gregory Wilmoth made 

significant contributions to this report. 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 

(440359) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER