United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information and Technology, Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery Expected at

10:00 a.m. EST Friday, August 14,

1998

CUSTOMS SERVICE

Inspectional Personnel and

Workloads

Statement of Norman J. Rabkin Director, Administration

of Justice Issues, General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-98-195

Summary 

Customs Service: Inspectional Personnel

and Workloads

The U.S. Customs Service is responsible for collecting revenue from

imports and enforcing customs and related laws. Customs also processes

persons, carriers, cargo, and mail into and out of the United States. In

fiscal year 1997, Customs collected about $19 billion in revenues and

processed, among other things, about 18 million import entries and

442 million air, land, and sea passengers entering the country. At the end

of fiscal year 1997, Customs had deployed 7,207 inspectors at ports of

entry around the country.

The Chairmen of the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Trade, House Committee on Ways

and Means, respectively, requested that we analyze the (1) relationships

between actual cargo and passenger inspectional personnel levels at

selected airports and seaports and those determined by Customs to be

appropriate for these ports (assessed levels) and (2) cargo and passenger

processing workload-to-inspector ratios at the selected ports. We focused

our work at Los Angeles International Airport, New York City’s John F.

Kennedy International Airport, the seaport in Long Beach, CA, the air and

sea ports in Newark, NJ, and the air and sea ports each in Houston, TX and

Detroit, MI.

Over the past 3 years, Customs has assessed the need for additional

inspectors to combat drug smuggling through ports along the Southwest

border. Customs also uses a quantitative model to estimate the need for

inspectional personnel at airports, but not to establish the appropriate

personnel levels, according to Customs officials. However, Customs does

not have a systematic, agencywide process for assessing the need for

inspectional personnel and allocating such personnel to process

commercial cargo or land and sea passengers at all of its 301 ports.

Therefore, we were not able to identify the implications of differences

between assessed and actual inspectional personnel levels.

We were also not able to perform the workload-to-inspector ratio analyses

because we did not have a sufficient level of confidence in the quality of

the workload data. We identified a few significant discrepancies in the

workload data we obtained from Customs headquarters and the ports we

contacted, and we did not identify any systematic controls over the quality

of the data. In addition, workload is only one of several factors Customs

has considered in the few assessments completed since 1995; Customs

also considers factors such as the smuggling threat at each port and

legislative constraints on the movement of certain inspectional positions.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-98-195
Statement 

Customs Service: Inspectional Personnel

and Workloads

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Today we are releasing a report that you and the Chairman of the

Subcommittee on Trade, House Committee on Ways and Means requested

on certain aspects of the U.S. Customs Service’s inspectional personnel

and its commercial cargo and passenger workloads.1

 I am pleased to be

here to summarize the information we presented in that report.

You asked us to analyze (1) the implications of any differences between

the cargo and passenger inspectional personnel levels at selected airports

and seaports around the United States and those determined by Customs

to be appropriate for these ports (assessed levels) and (2) any differences

among the cargo and passenger processing workload-to-inspector ratios at

the selected ports and the rationales for any significant differences in

these ratios. We were unable to complete those analyses basically because

Customs does not have a systematic method for determining the number

of inspectors it needs at its ports, and we did not have confidence in the

workload data Customs had reported.

To try to answer your questions, we obtained and reviewed relevant

staffing, budget, and workload documents at headquarters and nine ports;

interviewed cognizant Customs officials at those locations; and visited

four ports—the international airports in Los Angeles and New York and

the seaports in Long Beach and Newark—where we observed cargo and

passenger processing operations. Although we did not perform a complete

quality assessment of Customs’ inspectional personnel data, we compared

workload data we obtained for each port from various sources and

attempted to reconcile any differences. Our objectives, scope, and

methodology are discussed in more detail in appendix I of the report. We

shared our findings and conclusions with Customs officials; they generally

agreed with the information we developed.

Background Created in 1789, Customs is one of the federal government’s oldest

agencies. Customs is responsible for collecting revenue from imports and

enforcing customs and related laws. Customs also processes persons,

carriers, cargo, and mail into and out of the United States. In fiscal year

1997, Customs collected about $19 billion in revenues and processed about

18 million import entries; about 128 million vehicles and trucks; about

706,000 commercial aircraft; about 214,000 vessels; and about 442 million

air, land, and sea passengers entering the country.

1

See Customs Service: Inspectional Personnel and Workloads (GAO/GGD-98-170, Aug. 14, 1998).

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-98-195
Statement 

Customs Service: Inspectional Personnel

and Workloads

Customs performs its mission with a workforce of about 19,500 personnel

at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at 20 Customs Management

Centers (CMC),2

 20 Special Agent-in-Charge offices, and 301 ports of entry

around the country. At the end of fiscal year 1997, Customs had deployed

7,207 inspectors at these ports. This represented an increase of 17 percent

over the level deployed in fiscal year 1992, the earliest year for which

complete data were available.

The nine ports we visited or contacted—Los Angeles International Airport

(LAX); Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport; New York City’s John F. Kennedy

International Airport (JFK); New York/Newark Seaport; Newark

International Airport; and the Houston and Detroit air and sea ports—were

among the busiest of their kind in the United States in fiscal year 1997.

According to Customs workload data, these ports accounted for about

31 percent of all air and sea passengers and about 19 percent of all cargo

entries processed by Customs in fiscal year 1997. The ports also accounted

for about 21 percent of all inspectors deployed by Customs at the end of

fiscal year 1997.

Implications of

Differences Between

Assessed and Actual

Inspectional

Personnel Levels

Could Not Be

Determined

We were not able to perform the requested analyses to identify the

implications of differences between assessed and actual inspectional

personnel levels because, as we reported in April 1998,3

 Customs does not

have a systematic, agencywide process for assessing the need for

inspectional personnel or allocating them to its commercial cargo ports.

We have since learned that Customs does not have these processes for its

sea or land ports. While Customs uses a quantitative model to determine

the need for additional inspectional personnel to process air passengers,

the model is not intended to establish the level at which airports should be

staffed, according to Customs officials.

Customs is in the early stages of responding to our April 1998

recommendation that it establish an inspectional personnel needs

assessment and allocation process. Customs has awarded a contract for

the development of a resource allocation model. Customs officials have

told us that, upon delivery of the model, they will customize a process for

using it to meet changing personnel needs and new initiatives.

2

On October 1, 1995, Customs closed its 7 regional and 42 district offices and replaced them with 20

CMCs. The CMCs have oversight responsibilities over Customs’ ports of entry.

3

See Customs Service: Process for Estimating and Allocating Inspectional Personnel

(GAO/GGD-98-107, Apr. 30, 1998).

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-98-195
Statement 

Customs Service: Inspectional Personnel

and Workloads

Customs officials at the ports we visited told us that the current personnel

levels, coupled with the use of overtime, have enabled these ports to meet

Customs’ performance standards for trade and passenger processing, such

as completing the inspection of passengers within 5 minutes of their

retrieving checked baggage. Customs also had performance standards for

cargo examination—in fiscal year 1997, Customs expected its ports to

examine 3.1 percent of all arriving cargo. Customs reported that, overall, it

inspected only 2.6 percent of arriving cargo in fiscal year 1997; the ports

we visited or contacted reported that they examined an average of

2.2 percent of incoming cargo in fiscal year 1997. Customs has dropped

this indicator from its current performance plan for fiscal year 1999 as part

of its ongoing effort to refine performance measures.

Workload-ToInspector Ratios and

Rationales for

Differences Could Not

Be Determined

We were also not able to perform the analyses to identify

workload-to-inspector ratios and rationales for any differences in these

ratios because we did not have a sufficient level of confidence in the

quality of the workload data. We identified significant discrepancies in the

workload data we obtained from Customs headquarters, two CMCs, and

three ports. For example, for fiscal year 1997, data from Customs

headquarters indicated that the JFK and Newark airports processed a total

of about 1.4 million cargo entries (shipments) of all types, including those

with a value of less than $1,250 (informal entries) and those with a value of

over $1,250 (formal entries). However, data from the New York CMC

indicated that these airports processed about 1.5 million formal entries

alone, almost 100,000 entries more than headquarters’ number for all

entries at these airports. We could not obtain specific explanations for

these discrepancies without Customs having to conduct extensive

additional work. We also did not identify any systematic controls over the

quality of the data.4

However, workload was only one of several factors considered by

Customs in the few assessments—which focused on its drug

smuggling-initiatives—completed since 1995 to determine its needs for

additional inspectional personnel and allocate such personnel to ports.

Customs also considered factors such as the threat of drug smuggling,

budgetary constraints, and legislative limitations.

4

In conjunction with the development of the resource allocation model discussed earlier, Customs

indicated that it was undertaking an initiative to assess and improve the quality of the data to be used

in the model. Details of this initiative are discussed in our report.

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-98-195
Statement 

Customs Service: Inspectional Personnel

and Workloads

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. In closing, I would

like to acknowledge the cooperation of Customs personnel during the

course of our review. I will be pleased to answer any questions.

(264448) Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-98-195
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100