U.S. CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER 

PROTECTION

Progress and 

Challenges in 

Recruiting, Hiring, and 

Retaining Law 

Enforcement 

Personnel

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2018

GAO-18-487

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-487, a report to 

congressional requesters

June 2018

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

Progress and Challenges in Recruiting, Hiring, and 

Retaining Law Enforcement Personnel

What GAO Found

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) increased its emphasis on 

recruitment by establishing a central recruitment office and increasing its 

participation in recruitment events, among other things. As a result, the number 

of applications it received for law enforcement positions across its operational 

components—the Office of Field Operations, U.S. Border Patrol, and Air and 

Marine Operations—from fiscal years (FY) 2013 through 2017 more than tripled. 

Also, in November 2017, CBP hired a contractor to more effectively target 

potential applicants and better utilize data to enhance CBP’s recruitment efforts. 

However, it is too early to gauge whether the contractor will be effective in

helping CBP to achieve its goal to recruit and hire more law enforcement officers. 

CBP improved its hiring process as demonstrated by two key metrics—reducing 

its time-to-hire and increasing the percentage of applicants that are hired. As 

shown in the table, CBP’s time-to-hire has decreased since FY 2015. CBP 

officials stated these improvements, paired with increases in applications, have 

resulted in more hires. For example, the number of Border Patrol agents hired in 

the first half of FY 2018 increased by about 83 percent when compared to the 

same period for FY 2017. However, the hiring process remains lengthy—for 

example, in FY 2017 it took more than 300 days, on average, for CBP officer 

applicants to complete the process. Certain factors contribute to the lengthy 

time-to-hire, including process steps that can be challenging and time-consuming 

for applicants to complete—such as the polygraph exam—as well as CBP’s 

reliance on applicants to promptly complete certain aspects of the process—

such as submitting their background investigation form. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Time-to-Hire for Law Enforcement 

Officer Positions, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017

 Days 

Law enforcement officer position FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

CBP officer 396 365 318

Border Patrol agent 628 306 274

Air and Marine Interdiction Agents 365 338 262

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-18-487

CBP enhanced its efforts to address retention challenges. However, staffing 

levels for law enforcement positions consistently remained below target levels. 

For example, CBP ended FY 2017 more than 1,100 CBP officers below its target 

staffing level. Officials cited employees’ inability to relocate to more desirable 

locations as a key retention challenge. CBP has offered some relocation 

opportunities to law enforcement personnel and has recently pursued the use of 

financial incentives and other payments to supplement salaries, especially for

those staffed to remote or hard-to-fill locations. However, CBP does not have a 

formal process for capturing information on all departing employees, such as an 

exit survey. Ensuring that operational components are systematically collecting

and analyzing such information would better position CBP to understand its 

retention challenges and take appropriate action to address them. 

View GAO-18-487. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777

or gamblerr@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

CBP is responsible for securing U.S. 

borders and employs nearly 45,000 

law enforcement officers across its 

three operational components at and 

between U.S. ports of entry, in the air 

and maritime environment, and at 

certain overseas locations. In recent 

years, CBP has not attained target

staffing levels for its law enforcement 

positions, citing high attrition rates in 

some locations, a protracted hiring 

process, and competition from other 

law enforcement agencies. GAO was 

asked to review CBP’s efforts to 

recruit, hire, and retain law 

enforcement personnel.

This report examines CBP’s efforts to

(1) recruit qualified law enforcement

officers, (2) more efficiently hire law

enforcement applicants, and (3) retain

law enforcement officers. GAO

analyzed CBP data on recruitment,

hiring, and retention from FY 2013

through 2017, as well as selected data

for the first two quarters of FY 2018.

GAO also reviewed CBP strategies

and the recent contract it awarded to

augment its recruiting and hiring

activities and interviewed officials from

CBP and three other selected law

enforcement agencies.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CBP 

systematically collect and analyze data 

on departing law enforcement officers

and use this information to inform 

retention efforts. DHS concurred with 

this recommendation. 
Page i GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Letter 1

Background 7

CBP Has Enhanced Its Recruitment Efforts and Applications for 

Law Enforcement Officer Positions Have Increased 15

CBP Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Hiring Process, but the 

Process Remains Lengthy 26

CBP Has Enhanced Its Retention Efforts, but Does Not 

Systematically Collect and Analyze Data on Departing Law 

Enforcement Personnel 42

Conclusions 59

Recommendation for Executive Action 59

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 59

Appendix I Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security 62

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 66

Tables

Table 1: Overview of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention 

Incentives Available to Federal Agencies 14

Table 2: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Recruitment 

Budget by Component, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017 17

Table 3: Total Number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Recruiters by Component as of March 2018 21

Table 4: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Time-toHire for Law Enforcement Officer Positions, Fiscal Years 

(FY) 2015–2017 27

Table 5: Overall Applicant Pass Rates for U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) Law Enforcement Officer 

Positions, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017 28

Table 6: Total Number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Law Enforcement Officers that Entered on Duty in 

the First Half of Fiscal Years (FY) 2017 and 2018 29

Table 7: Average Durations and Pass Rates for U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s (CBP) Polygraph Examination by Law 

Enforcement Officer Position, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–

2017 34

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Table 8: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Average 

Durations for Selected Phases of the Hiring Process, 

Fiscal Year 2017 41

Table 9: Annual Attrition Rates for Law Enforcement Officer 

Positions at U.S. Customs and Border Protection and 

Other Selected Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 

(FY) 2013–2017 43

Figures

Figure 1: Overview of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

Operational Components and Law Enforcement Officer 

Positions 8

Figure 2: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Onboard 

versus Authorized Staffing Levels for Law Enforcement 

Officer Positions, Fiscal Years 2013–2017 10

Figure 3: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Hiring 

Process for Border Patrol Agent and CBP Officer 

Positions 12

Figure 4: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Recruitment 

Events, Fiscal Years 2013–2017 19

Figure 5: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Recruitment 

Incentive Use by Location for CBP Officers, Fiscal Years 

2015–2017 22

Figure 6: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Applications 

for Law Enforcement Officer Positions by Fiscal Year 24

Figure 7: Office of Field Operations Net Staffing Gains and Losses 

and Overall Staffing Levels for Customs and Border 

Protection Officer Positions, Fiscal Years 2013–2017 45

Figure 8: Border Patrol Net Staffing Gains and Losses and Overall 

Staffing Levels for Border Patrol Agent Positions, Fiscal 

Years 2013–2017 46

Figure 9: Air and Marine Operations Net Staffing Gains and 

Losses and Overall Staffing Levels for Law Enforcement 

Officer Positions, Fiscal Years (FY) 2013–2017 48

Figure 10: Border Patrol Agent Losses to Other Federal Agencies 

and Total Losses, Fiscal Years 2013–2017 49

Figure 11: Onboard and Authorized Staffing Levels for Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) Officer Positions by 

Selected Field Offices, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017 51
Page iii GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Abbreviations

AMO Air and Marine Operations

BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

GS General Schedule

HRM CBP’s Office of Human Resources Management

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

NFRC National Frontline Recruitment Command

OFO Office of Field Operations

OIG Office of Inspector General

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SF-86 Standard Form 86

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

United States. The published product 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-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 27, 2018

Congressional Requesters

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) is responsible for, among other things, securing U.S. 

borders to prevent acts of terrorism and stopping the unlawful movement 

of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband across U.S. borders. To 

carry out these objectives, CBP employs nearly 45,000 law enforcement 

personnel across its three operational components—the Office of Field 

Operations (OFO), U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol), and Air and Marine 

Operations (AMO)—at and between U.S. ports of entry, at certain 

overseas locations, and in the U.S. air and maritime environment.1

However, in recent years, CBP has not been able to attain its statutorilyestablished minimum staffing levels for its Border Patrol agent positions 

or its staffing goals for other law enforcement officer positions, citing high 

attrition rates in some locations, a protracted hiring process, and 

competition from other federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies. Additionally, Executive Order 13767, issued in January 2017,

called for CBP to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, subject to 

available appropriations.2 Consistent with this directive, Border Patrol is 

 1

See 6 U.S.C. § 211(a) (establishing CBP within DHS), (c) (enumerating CBP’s duties), 

(e), (f), (g) (establishing and listing duties of U.S. Border Patrol, Air and Marine 

Operations, and Office of Field Operations within CBP). For the purposes of this report we 

use the term “law enforcement officer” in reference to OFO’s CBP officers, Border Patrol 

agents, and AMO agents. In general, ports of entry are facilities that provide for the 

controlled entry into or departure from the United States.

2

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, Exec. Order No. 13767, § 

8, 82 Fed. Reg. 8793, 8795 (January 30, 2017) (issued Jan. 25). The memorandum 

implementing this executive order also calls for the hiring of an additional 500 law 

enforcement officers in CBP’s AMO office.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

aiming to attain a staffing level of 26,370 Border Patrol agents (5,000 

agents above the fiscal year 2016 statutorily-established level).3

We have previously reported on human capital and workforce planning 

issues across the federal government and particularly at DHS. For 

example, in September 2013, we reported on department-wide 

recruitment and hiring efforts.4 Specifically, while we found that DHS 

components were generally filling mission-critical positions, we also 

recommended that the department take steps to better track the costs of 

its coordinated recruiting efforts. In response to this recommendation, 

DHS began collecting quarterly data on each of its components’

recruitment expenditures, including the cost of recruitment events with 

multiple DHS attendees, and we closed the recommendation as 

implemented in August 2015. Further, in 2003, we designated 

strengthening DHS’s human capital management functions as a high-risk 

area. In our 2017 high-risk update, we found that DHS had made 

progress improving human capital management by, for example, linking 

its workforce planning efforts to strategic and program planning efforts. 

However, we also found that DHS had more work ahead to improve 

employee morale, among other things.5 In November 2017, we reported 

on Border Patrol’s agent deployment strategy and, among other things, 

found that Border Patrol faced challenges in optimally deploying agents 

due to staffing shortages.6 We also reported on CBP’s trade enforcement 

activities in June 2017 and found that CBP had not met the authorized 

 3

At the time the President’s directive to hire and onboard 5,000 Border Patrol agents was 

issued, the government was operating under a continuing resolution extending fiscal year 

2016 funding, and related provisos such as the 21,370 Border Patrol agent workforce 

floor, into fiscal year 2017, while Congress worked to pass a consolidated appropriations 

bill. See Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-254, div. A, 130 

Stat. 1005, 1005-22 (2016); and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-

113, div. F, tit. II, 129 Stat. 2242, 2495 (2015). Border Patrol’s fiscal year 2017 

appropriation did not mandate a workforce floor for agents. See Explanatory Statement 

(163 Cong. Rec. H3327, H3809-10 (daily ed. May 3, 2017)) accompanying Pub. L. No. 

115-31, 131 Stat. 135. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. No. 115-141, 

132 Stat. 348), also did not mandate an overall Border Patrol agent workforce floor.

4

GAO, DHS Recruiting and Hiring: DHS Is Generally Filling Mission-Critical Positions, but 

Could Better Track Costs of Coordinated Recruiting Efforts, GAO-13-742 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 17, 2013).

5

GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts 

Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017).

6

GAO, Border Patrol: Issues Related to Agent Deployment Strategy and Immigration 

Checkpoints, GAO-18-50 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 8, 2017).
Page 3 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

staffing levels for its trade positions.7 We recommended that CBP 

develop a long-term hiring plan outlining how the agency will meet its 

staffing targets for these positions. CBP concurred with this 

recommendation and, as of January 2018, had taken steps toward 

addressing hiring gaps for its trade positions, such as evaluating

approaches for assessing and selecting candidates, but has not yet 

developed a long-term hiring plan.

Additionally, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has reported on 

CBP recruitment and hiring challenges. Specifically, the DHS OIG found 

that CBP faced significant challenges in meeting its hiring goals and 

expressed concern about CBP’s ability to hire law enforcement personnel 

in a timely manner, citing the agency’s lengthy hiring process and its need 

for additional human resources personnel.8 Further, in August 2017, the 

DHS OIG recommended improving certain aspects of CBP’s polygraph 

examination for law enforcement officers, including developing 

procedures to ensure that active polygraph examinations are immediately 

stopped if an applicant makes a disqualifying statement, such as 

admitting to certain instances of illegal drug use.9

You asked us to review CBP’s efforts to recruit, hire, and retain law 

enforcement personnel. This report examines the extent to which CBP 

has (1) developed and implemented an approach to recruit qualified law 

enforcement officers, (2) revised its hiring process and made efforts to 

more efficiently hire law enforcement applicants, and (3) developed and 

implemented an approach to retain law enforcement officers.

To determine the extent to which CBP has developed and implemented 

an approach to recruit qualified law enforcement officers, we reviewed 

pertinent recruitment strategy documents, such as DHS’s Coordinated 

Recruiting and Outreach Strategy and CBP’s National Frontline 

Recruitment Command Strategy, and assessed CBP’s recent and 

planned recruitment activities. We analyzed data on CBP’s recruitment 

 7

GAO, Customs and Border Protection: Improved Planning Needed to Strengthen Trade 

Enforcement, GAO-17-618 (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2017).

8

DHS OIG, Special Report: Challenges Facing DHS in Its Attempt to Hire 15,000 Border 

Patrol Agents and Immigration Officers, OIG-17-98-SR (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2017); 

and DHS Is Slow to Hire Law Enforcement Personnel, OIG-17-05 (Washington, D.C.: Oct.

31, 2016).

9

DHS OIG, CBP Spends Millions Conducting Polygraph Examinations on Unsuitable 

Applicants, OIG-17-99-MA (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2017). 
Page 4 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

efforts for the last 5 fiscal years—2013 through 2017—including 

application numbers, recruitment budgets, financial recruitment 

incentives, and the number and type of agency recruitment events, to 

identify trends over time and assess how CBP uses these data to inform 

its recruitment efforts. We also analyzed selected information from fiscal 

year 2018, such as recruitment events, to help identify possible trends. 

We interviewed CBP officials from all three operational components as 

well as CBP’s Office of Human Resources Management (HRM) and the 

National Frontline Recruitment Command (NFRC) to identify and discuss 

the challenges CBP faces in recruiting for law enforcement positions.10

We assessed the key efforts and initiatives CBP has undertaken to 

address these challenges to determine the extent to which CBP’s efforts 

have had an effect on its ability to recruit qualified applicants.

To determine the extent to which CBP has revised its hiring process and 

made efforts to more efficiently hire law enforcement applicants, we 

reviewed CBP’s step-by-step hiring process for all law enforcement 

positions across its three operational components. We also reviewed key 

hiring documents such as the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 

End-to-End Hiring Roadmap and CBP’s draft Frontline Hiring and 

Recruiting FY 18 to FY 24 Strategy & Implementation Plan. We also 

analyzed key hiring data from fiscal years 2015 through 2017, including 

CBP’s time-to-hire—the average number of calendar days that elapsed 

between the closing date of a job announcement and an applicant’s entryon-duty date—and overall applicant pass rate—the estimated percentage 

of applicants who successfully completed the hiring process and entered 

on duty—to identify trends. We also analyzed data on each individual 

hiring process step, including the pass rate and average duration—the 

average amount of time it took applicants to complete a given step—to 

identify specific aspects of CBP’s process that posed challenges. As 

these data were not systematically tracked in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, 

we selected fiscal years 2015 through 2017, the 3 most recent fiscal 

years for which complete data were available at the time of our review. 

Further, we reviewed CBP documentation and interviewed officials in 

HRM, the three operational components, and the Office of Professional 

Responsibility—which manages the background investigation and 

polygraph examination portions of the hiring process. We used this 

information to identify and assess revisions to the hiring process as well 

as key hiring initiatives to determine the extent to which these efforts have 

 10In February 2016, CBP established the NFRC, a formal task force housed within HRM.
Page 5 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

had an effect on the agency’s time-to-hire and overall applicant pass 

rates. We also reviewed the November 2017 contract CBP awarded to 

Accenture Federal Services, LLC, to help meet the staffing requirements 

outlined in Executive Order 13767 (issued in January 2017) and 

interviewed CBP officials responsible for managing the contract.

To determine the extent to which CBP has developed and implemented 

an approach to retain law enforcement personnel, we analyzed CBP data 

on attrition rates and law enforcement officer losses by component, 

position, and location for the last 5 fiscal years—2013 through 2017—as 

well as selected data from fiscal year 2018, such as the number of law 

enforcement officers that departed the agency. We assessed 

documentation and data on CBP’s use of relocation programs and human 

capital flexibilities, including financial retention incentives and special 

salary rates, to determine the extent to which CBP has made efforts to 

retain qualified law enforcement officers. We interviewed officials in HRM 

and all three CBP operational components as well as officials from the 

National Border Patrol Council union and National Treasury Employees 

Union—which represent CBP officers—to gain insights into the 

challenges the agency faces in retaining law enforcement personnel and 

assess the key efforts and initiatives CBP has pursued to address these 

challenges. Additionally, we assessed CBP’s retention efforts against 

federal internal control standards related to using quality information to 

inform management decision making.11

We assessed the reliability of CBP data on recruitment, hiring, and 

retention that we used for our analysis for all three objectives. We 

obtained and analyzed documentation on CBP’s systems capabilities and 

data controls, interviewed data users and managers responsible for these 

systems, and, to the extent possible, cross-checked data across 

disparate sources to ensure consistency. We found these data to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Further, we reviewed 

our work on federal human capital issues and conducted a literature 

search to identify leading practices that may be applicable to federal law 

 11GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 6 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

enforcement agencies in recruiting, hiring, and retaining officers.12 We 

assessed the extent to which CBP’s processes and key activities aligned 

with leading practices in areas such as identifying recruitment 

responsibilities, processing applicants, and determining pay and 

compensation.13 We also reviewed documentation and data and 

interviewed officials from three other selected federal law enforcement 

agencies—U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. 

Secret Service, and the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)—to identify their 

efforts and activities in recruiting, hiring, and retaining qualified law 

enforcement personnel. We included these other selected law 

enforcement agencies in our review to help provide context for 

understanding CBP’s efforts and outcomes in recruiting, hiring, and 

retaining law enforcement personnel relative to these agencies. We 

selected ICE because it is a DHS component that also has an 

immigration-related mission and because CBP data indicate that ICE is 

the top destination for departing CBP law enforcement personnel.14 We 

selected the Secret Service because it is also a DHS component and its 

application process—like CBP’s—includes a polygraph examination.15

Last, we selected BOP as a non-DHS comparison agency because it has 

 12GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003); GAO, Federal Workforce: Sustained 

Attention to Human Capital Leading Practices Can Help Improve Agency Performance, 

GAO-17-627T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2017); GAO, Federal Pay: Opportunities Exist 

to Enhance Strategic Use of Special Payments, GAO-18-91 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 

2017); GAO, Federal Workforce: Additional Analysis and Sharing of Promising Practices 

Could Improve Employee Engagement and Performance, GAO-15-585 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 14, 2015); GAO, Bureau of Prisons: Better Planning and Evaluation Could Help 

Ensure Effective Use of Retention Incentives, GAO-18-147 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 

2017).

13For the purposes of this report, we indicate instances where CBP’s efforts are generally 

consistent with leading practices we identified through our literature search in recruiting, 

hiring, and retaining law enforcement personnel. 

14Law enforcement officer positions at ICE include Deportation Officer, Detention and 

Deportation Officer, Criminal Investigator, and Technical Enforcement Officer. 

15Law enforcement officer positions at the Secret Service include Special Agent and 

Uniformed Division Officer.
Page 7 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

also faced challenges in recruiting and retaining law enforcement 

personnel in hard-to-fill locations.16

We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to June 2018 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Within CBP’s three operational components—OFO, Border Patrol, and 

AMO—there are five categories of law enforcement officer positions, each 

with different job requirements and responsibilities. First, OFO’s CBP 

officers conduct immigration and customs inspections at ports of entry to 

prevent the illicit entry of travelers, cargo, merchandise, and other items.17

Second, Border Patrol agents are responsible for securing the U.S. 

border between ports of entry and responding to cross-border threats. 

Third, AMO has three categories of law enforcement officers—Air 

Interdiction Agents, Aviation Enforcement Agents, and Marine Interdiction 

Agents—who interdict and disrupt threats to the United States in the air 

and maritime environments at and beyond the border. For more 

information on CBP’s law enforcement officer positions, see figure 1.

 16For the purposes of this report, we limited our scope of BOP law enforcement personnel 

to Correctional Officer positions at the Series 0007, Grades 5 and 6 levels. According to 

BOP officials, these positions represent the standard law enforcement officer position at 

BOP’s federal institutions. We previously reported on retention challenges at BOP. See 

GAO-18-147.

17See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1185 (U.S. travel controls), 1225 (immigration inspections of applicants 

for admission); 19 U.S.C. §§ 1461, 1467 (customs inspections of persons, merchandise 

and baggage). A port of entry is any officially designated location (seaport, airport, or land 

border location) where DHS officers or employees are assigned to clear passengers and 

merchandise, collect duties, and enforce customs laws, and where DHS officers inspect 

persons entering or applying for admission into, or departing, the United States pursuant 

to U.S. immigration law and travel controls. OFO is responsible for providing border 

security while facilitating lawful trade and travel at U.S. ports of entry. For the purpose of 

this report, we focus specifically on the CBP officer position, which is tasked with 

conducting a wide range of activities to help fulfill these responsibilities.

Background

CBP’s Law Enforcement 

Positions
Page 8 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 1: Overview of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Operational Components and Law Enforcement Officer Positions

a

Air Interdiction Agent positions require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial or Airline 

Transport Pilot Certificate and at least 1,500 total flight hours, with at least 100 of those in the last 12 

months. Air Interdiction Agent positions require a current FAA Class I Medical Certificate while 

Aviation Enforcement Agent positions require a current FAA Class II Medical Certificate. Marine 

Interdiction Agent positions require a qualifying U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Credential and 1 

year of specialized law enforcement experience to be hired at the General Schedule (GS) Grade 9 

level.
Page 9 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

In recent years, CBP has not been able to attain statutorily-established 

minimum staffing levels for its Border Patrol agent positions or meet its 

staffing targets for other law enforcement officer positions.18 Figure 2 

shows the difference between CBP’s onboard staffing levels and its 

authorized staffing levels from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

 18Border Patrol’s authorized staffing levels take into account the statutorily-established 

minimum of 21,370 full-time equivalent Border Patrol agent positions included in DHS’s 

fiscal years 2013–2016 appropriations. See Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6, div. D, tit. II, 127 Stat. 198, 345; 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. F, tit. II, 128 Stat. 5, 249; 

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-4, tit. II, 129 

Stat. 39, 41; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. F, tit. II, 129 

Stat. 2242, 2495 (2015). The authorized staffing level for these positions in fiscal year 

2017 reflects Border Patrol’s goal of having 26,370 agents, which includes the fiscal year 

2016 workforce floor plus the additional 5,000 agents called for in Executive Order 13767. 

OFO and AMO develop annual authorized staffing level targets for law enforcement officer 

positions based on operational needs and available funding.

CBP Staffing Levels for 

Law Enforcement Officer 

Positions
Page 10 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 2: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Onboard versus Authorized Staffing Levels for Law Enforcement Officer 

Positions, Fiscal Years 2013–2017

Note: Authorized staffing levels through fiscal year 2016 for Border Patrol agents represent 

statutorily-established workforce floors while authorized staffing levels for CBP officers, Air 

Interdiction Agents, Aviation Enforcement Agents, and Marine Interdiction Agents represent 

authorized staffing ceilings determined at the component level. The fiscal year 2017 authorized 

staffing level for Border Patrol represents the component’s goal of having 26,370 Border Patrol 

agents, which includes the Executive Order 13767 directive to hire and onboard 5,000 additional 

agents.

CBP’s law enforcement applicants undergo a lengthy and rigorous hiring 

process that includes nearly a dozen steps, including a background 

investigation, medical examination, physical fitness test, and polygraph 

examination.19 Several of these steps can be done concurrently—for 

example, CBP can begin the background investigation while the 

 19The Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 requires all applicants for CBP law enforcement 

officer positions to receive a polygraph examination before being hired. Pub. L. No. 111-

376, § 3, 124 Stat. 4104, 4104-05 (2011). The polygraph allows CBP to evaluate an 

applicant’s suitability for a law enforcement position more thoroughly and accurately by 

uncovering instances of past criminal behavior or misconduct that otherwise might not 

have been revealed. 

CBP’s Hiring Process for 

Law Enforcement Officer 

Positions
Page 11 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

candidate completes the physical fitness test and medical examination 

process steps. Figure 3 depicts the hiring process for Border Patrol agent 

and CBP officer positions.20

 20While the hiring process steps for AMO’s law enforcement officer positions are similar to 

those for Border Patrol agents and CBP officers, there are some key differences. First, 

AMO does not require applicants to take an in-person entrance exam but does require 

applicants for Air and Marine Interdiction Agent positions to take a three-part written, oral, 

and practical assessment. Second, applicants must submit the required certifications and 

credentials to demonstrate they possess the technical competencies for the job. 

Specifically, Air Interdiction Agent applicants must have an FAA commercial or Transport 

Pilot Certificate and at least 1,500 total flight hours—including at least 100 of those in the 

last 12 months. Air Interdiction Agent applicants require a current FAA Class I Medical 

Certificate while Aviation Enforcement Agent applicants require a current FAA Class II 

Medical Certificate. Marine Interdiction Agent applicants require a qualifying U.S. Coast 

Guard Merchant Mariner Credential and 1 year of specialized law enforcement experience 

to be hired at the GS-9 level. In addition, as of November 2016, applicants for Border 

Patrol agent and CBP officer positions at the Law Enforcement Officer GS-9 level are no 

longer required to take the entrance examination.
Page 12 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 3: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Hiring Process for Border Patrol Agent and CBP Officer Positions

Note: As of November 2016, applicants for Border Patrol agent and CBP officer positions at the Law 

Enforcement Officer GS-9 level are no longer required to take the entrance examination. Further, in 

fiscal year 2017, CBP eliminated the second physical fitness test—which had been the last process 

step in CBP’s hiring process—for CBP officer and Border Patrol agent applicants. In addition to 

shortening the overall process, CBP officials told us this change provided the small percentage of 

applicants that passed every other hiring process step with an opportunity to demonstrate they meet 

CBP’s physical ability standards during basic training.

a

CBP must still complete a final suitability review after the granting of a provisional suitability 

clearance once all steps of the background investigation process are complete.
Page 13 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CBP is able to use financial incentives and other compensation-based 

human capital flexibilities to help recruit and retain qualified law 

enforcement personnel.21 According to OPM, federal agencies have 

broad discretionary authority to provide additional compensation in certain 

circumstances to support workforce needs and address human capital 

challenges, including through the use of financial incentives such as 

recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. Table 1 below provides 

an overview of these incentives.22

 21The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, 

directed CBP to work with OPM as necessary to identify and utilize incentives to improve 

retention in hard-to-fill locations and evaluate the potential effect of offering additional 

career path enhancements to personnel who choose these locations. 163 Cong. Rec. 

H3327, H3810 (daily ed. May 3, 2017). The explanatory statement accompanying the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, directed CBP to brief Congress within 90 days on 

a comprehensive, multiyear recruitment and retention strategy—including, among other

elements, current and planned hiring and retention initiatives, use of incentives available 

through OPM, and potential new career path enhancements—to recruit, relocate, and 

retain employees assigned to remote locations. 164 Cong. Rec. H2045, H2548 (daily ed. 

March 22, 2018).

22Financial incentives are calculated as a percentage of an employee’s basic pay. Section 

208 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 first authorized OPM to 

allow federal agencies to give incentives, including recruitment, relocation, and retention 

incentives, to employees. Pub. L. No. 101-509, tit. V, § 529, 104 Stat. 1389, 1458-60 

(adding 5 U.S.C. §§ 5753-54 related to recruitment, relocation, and retention payments). 

The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 provided federal agencies increased 

flexibilities regarding these incentives. Pub. L. No. 108-411, § 101, 118 Stat. 2305, 2305-

2311 (striking and replacing 5 U.S.C. §§ 5753-54).

Financial Incentives and 

Other Human Capital 

Flexibilities Available to 

CBP
Page 14 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Table 1: Overview of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives Available to Federal Agencies

Authority Description Payment ranges Approval authority

Recruitment Incentives

(5 U.S.C. § 5753; 5 

C.F.R. part 575, 

subpart A)

May be paid to a newly-appointed 

employee if the agency determines 

that the position is likely to be difficult to 

fill in the absence of such incentive.

Up to 25 or 50, but in no 

event exceeding 100, 

percent of the 

employee’s annual rate 

of basic pay.a

Agency may authorize a recruitment 

incentive of up to 25 percent of the 

employee’s beginning annual rate of 

basic pay.b

The Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) may authorize an agency to 

pay a recruitment incentive of up to 

50, but not to exceed 100, percent.c

Relocation Incentives

(5 U.S.C. § 5753; 5 

C.F.R. part 575, 

subpart B)

May be paid to a current employee who 

moves to a new position in the same 

geographic area under certain 

circumstances, or must relocate to accept 

a position in a different geographic area, 

if in either case, the agency determines 

that the position is likely to be difficult to 

fill in the absence of such incentive.

Up to 25 or 50, but in no 

event exceeding 100, 

percent of the 

employee’s annual rate 

of basic pay.a

Agency may authorize a relocation 

incentive of up to 25 percent of the 

employee’s beginning annual rate of 

basic pay.b

OPM may authorize an agency to 

pay a relocation incentive of up to 50, 

but not to exceed 100, percent.c

Retention Incentives

(5 U.S.C. § 5754; 5 

C.F.R. part 575, 

subpart C)

May be paid to a current employee (or 

group or category of employees) if the 

agency determines that the unusually 

high or unique qualifications of the 

employee or a special need of the 

agency for the employee’s services 

makes it essential to retain the 

employee and the employee is likely to 

leave federal service, or for a different 

federal position under certain conditions, 

in the absence of such incentive.

Up to 25 for an 

individual or 10 for a 

group, but not to 

exceed 50, percent 

of the employee’s or 

category’s rate of 

basic pay. 

Agency may authorize a retention 

incentive of up to 10 or 25 percent 

of the rate of basic pay for a group 

or individual, respectively.

OPM may, at agency request, 

authorize a retention incentive 

of up to 50 percent.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and OPM documentation. | GAO-18-487

a

The employee’s annual rate of basic pay at the beginning of the service period.

b

Multiplied by the number of years in the service period (not to exceed 4 years).

c

Multiplied by the number of years in the service period (up to 100 percent of basic pay).

In addition to these incentives, CBP can also offer other compensationbased human capital flexibilities to employees.23 For example, with OPM 

approval, CBP may establish a special salary rate, or a higher rate of pay 

for employees, either nationwide or in a specific geographic area where 

 23There are also a number of non-compensation-based flexibilities CBP may provide its 

employees such as work arrangements and work-life flexibilities, which include telework; 

health and wellness programs; and subsidized transportation; among others.
Page 15 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CBP’s recruitment or retention efforts are, or would likely become, 

significantly handicapped without those higher rates.24

CBP officials stated they established the National Frontline Recruitment 

Command (NFRC)—a formal task force housed within CBP’s Office of 

Human Resources Management (HRM)—in February 2016. The NFRC is 

charged with, among other things, developing recruitment strategies, 

providing strategic guidance, and managing recruitment efforts across all 

three operational components. CBP officials stated that, prior to the 

creation of the NFRC, the recruitment and hiring of law enforcement 

officers was done at the component level and there was no integrated 

CBP-wide approach to coordinate efforts and address challenges. Based 

on our literature search, we identified leading practices that may be 

applicable to federal law enforcement agencies in recruiting, hiring, and 

retaining law enforcement personnel. Having a centralized entity or office 

in charge of developing recruitment strategies and overseeing recruitment 

activities is consistent with leading practices we identified for recruiting for 

law enforcement positions specifically. All three other selected law 

enforcement agencies we reviewed also had recruitment strategies that 

outlined their respective agencies’ recruitment roles and responsibilities, 

while two had a centralized entity in charge of recruitment. In particular, 

officials from both ICE and the Secret Service stated they have a central 

office in charge of recruitment efforts while BOP officials told us that 

 24OPM may establish special rates to address staffing problems caused by (1) 

significantly higher non-Federal pay rates than those payable by the federal government 

within the area, location, or occupational group involved; (2) the remoteness of the area or 

location involved; (3) the undesirability of the working conditions or nature of the work 

involved; or (4) any other circumstances OPM considers appropriate.

CBP Has Enhanced 

Its Recruitment 

Efforts and 

Applications for Law 

Enforcement Officer 

Positions Have 

Increased

CBP Established a 

Centralized Recruitment 

Office to Manage 

Recruitment Efforts across 

Components
Page 16 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

recruitment for Correctional Officers is mainly handled at the local prison 

level.

The NFRC is responsible for setting CBP’s strategic recruitment goals 

and overseeing agency-wide recruitment initiatives. For example, CBP 

officials are finalizing the Frontline Hiring and Recruiting FY 18 to FY 24 

Strategy & Implementation Plan, which outlines specific initiatives 

designed to increase the number and quality of applicants applying for 

law enforcement officer positions. The strategy describes ways CBP can 

target its recruitment efforts more effectively and develop brand identities 

for each component to provide the foundation for a comprehensive 

marketing strategy.

In addition to setting strategic initiatives, the NFRC manages the 

recruitment budget and allocates recruitment funding for CBP and the 

operational components. For example, NFRC officials stated that the 

NFRC funds CBP-wide recruitment initiatives such as Special Emphasis 

Recruitment Teams—teams of specially trained recruiters from each 

component who attend events specific to different demographic groups 

such as females or veterans. The NFRC also funds other initiatives such 

as strategic partnerships with major businesses, which allow CBP to 

advertise and recruit at their events. For example, CBP previously 

participated in strategic partnerships with the Big 10 and Big XII athletic 

conferences, and in 2016 and 2017, the NFRC spent $500,000 for a 

strategic partnership with the Spartan Race program, which allowed CBP 

and its components to advertise, set up recruitment booths, and sign up 

applicants at events.25 NFRC officials told us they ended their partnership 

with the Spartan Race in December 2017 and are evaluating options for 

future strategic partnerships.

The NFRC also allocates funding for both joint recruitment events—those 

attended by two or three components—and single-component events 

attended by one operational component. For example, NFRC officials 

stated that career and job fairs provide opportunities for CBP to leverage 

its resources and attract potential applicants to all three components. At 

these events, applicants can talk to uniformed recruiters to learn more 

about their respective career paths. NFRC officials stated that in addition 

to CBP-wide efforts, the NFRC manages and allocates recruitment 

 25Spartan Races are a series of obstacle races of varying distance and difficulty ranging 

from 3 miles to half-marathon distances.
Page 17 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

funding for each operational component to cover the cost of recruitment 

events or other initiatives that meet the specific needs of that 

component.26 For example, AMO officials stated that they use NFRC 

funding to attend events such as helicopter shows where there is a higher 

potential to attract qualified pilots.

As shown in table 2, CBP’s recruitment budget allocated by the NFRC 

almost doubled from approximately $6.4 million in fiscal year 2015 to 

more than $12.7 million in fiscal year 2017.27 The budget allocated by the 

NFRC specific to the operational components—while a small percentage 

of CBP’s overall recruitment budget—increased during this time frame as 

well. For example, Border Patrol’s recruitment budget increased from 

approximately $433,000 in fiscal year 2015 to more than $1 million in 

fiscal year 2017, while OFO’s budget increased from approximately 

$116,000 to nearly $525,000.

Table 2: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Recruitment Budget by Component, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017

Source: CBP data. | GAO-18-487

Note: CBP’s National Frontline Recruitment Command (NFRC), a formal task force within CBP’s 

Office of Human Resources Management (HRM), allocates recruitment funding to HRM and the 

operational components. In addition to the money allocated by the NFRC, each operational 

component may use additional funding from their own budget to fund recruitment initiatives. This 

additional funding is not included in the table above.

 26To receive funding, operational components submit information about a potential 

recruitment event to the NFRC for approval, including the date, location, and cost. The 

NFRC reviews the event information to determine if the event is appropriate and whether 

there is enough funding. If approved, the NFRC allocates funding to the component to pay 

for the event.

27According to an HRM official, prior to the establishment of the NFRC in February 2016, 

a recruitment branch within HRM allocated recruitment funding.

CBP component FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Office of Human Resources Management $5,808,735 $12,206,292 $10,974,201

Office of Field Operations $116,146 $749,691 $524,826

U.S. Border Patrol $432,775 $1,109,182 $1,019,940

Air and Marine Operations $0 $77,000 $185,796

Total $6,357,656 $14,142,165 $12,704,763
Page 18 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

In addition to recruitment funding managed by the NFRC, components 

may use additional funding from their own budgets that is not allocated or 

managed by the NFRC to fund recruitment initiatives. For example, two of 

the three components funded their own strategic partnerships. Border 

Patrol officials stated they spent $1.5 million on a strategic partnership 

with the Professional Bull Riders Association which allowed them to target 

specific applicants who fit Border Patrol’s applicant profile. This 

partnership provided Border Patrol with the opportunity to advertise and 

recruit at more than 70 events over the course of 18 months.28 Likewise, 

OFO officials told us they spent $15,000 to be the sole sponsor of the 

2018 National Police Week race in Washington, D.C., which includes a 

recruitment booth, a logo on the official T-shirt, and a prominent speaker 

at the start of the race. AMO officials stated that while they generally do 

not use their own funding to pay for strategic partnerships, they do 

partner with the University of North Dakota, which has a large flight 

school, where they give presentations in classrooms and recruit on 

campus.

CBP has increased its emphasis on recruitment and increased the 

number of recruitment events it has participated in since fiscal year 

2015.29 Specifically, CBP more than tripled the total number of 

recruitment events it participated in, from 905 events in fiscal year 2015 to 

roughly 3,000 in both fiscal years 2016 and 2017 (see fig. 4).

 28According to Border Patrol officials, although this contract terminated in February 2018, 

Border Patrol anticipates resuming a similar partnership in the near future. 

29CBP data on the number of recruitment events from fiscal years 2013 through 2016 

included traditional recruitment events such as career fairs as well as e-recruitment events 

such as mass e-mails and social media advertisements. CBP officials told us that they 

stopped including e-recruitment events in these data starting in fiscal year 2017 to more 

accurately capture CBP’s participation in recruitment events. Therefore, we removed all erecruitment events for all years for the purposes of our analysis.

CBP Has Increased Its 

Participation in 

Recruitment Events and 

Standardized Its Recruiter 

Training
Page 19 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 4: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Recruitment Events, Fiscal 

Years 2013–2017

Note: Joint events are recruitment events attended by two or three components and singlecomponent events are attended by only one component. CBP data on the number of recruitment 

events from fiscal years 2013 through 2016 included traditional recruitment events such as career 

fairs as well as e-recruitment events such as mass e-mails and social media advertisements. CBP 

officials told us that they stopped including e-recruitment events in these data starting in fiscal year 

2017 to more accurately capture CBP’s participation in recruitment events. Therefore, we removed all 

e-recruitment events for all years for the purposes of our analysis.

CBP components generally attend two different types of recruitment 

events—outreach events designed to promote CBP’s brand and events 

such as job and career fairs designed to actively cultivate potential 

applicants. For example, AMO officials stated their attendance at the 

2018 Border Security Expo technology trade fair was an outreach event 

designed to promote the component at a high-visibility event despite the 

low likelihood of directly reaching qualified applicants, such as pilots. 

AMO officials also stated they participate in the HELISUCCESS career 

fair at the annual Heli-Expo trade show where individuals from across the 

helicopter industry gather to attend seminars and interact with recruiters. 

They noted that this event provides a great opportunity to recruit qualified 

applicants who have a license to fly helicopters.
Page 20 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

While CBP increased its participation in recruitment events from fiscal 

years 2015 through 2017, officials across all three components told us the 

NFRC canceled a number of events during the first half of fiscal year 

2018 because of a lack of certainty regarding the agency’s budget while 

functioning under continuing resolutions, which extended fiscal year 2017 

funding until the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, 

in March 2018.30 Additionally, CBP officials stated that the agency was 

responsible for providing humanitarian support for multiple hurricanes 

during this time frame which put a strain on CBP’s resources. Overall, 

these officials explained that the NFRC canceled 36 percent of all 

recruitment events during the first half of fiscal year 2018 until the 

enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. They stated that 

during this period, they focused on attending free local events and online 

events such as webinars, but noted that the lack of consistent year-toyear funding for recruitment activities directly affected their ability to 

attend recruitment events and thus to recruit qualified personnel.

To attend recruitment events and promote their brand, CBP components 

utilize their own law enforcement personnel to act as recruiters. As shown 

in table 3, as of March 2018, CBP had 1,663 recruiters across the three 

components, which included 57 full-time and 1,606 part-time recruiters.31

CBP officials stated that most recruiters do not conduct recruitment 

activities on a full-time basis and recruitment is considered a collateral 

responsibility in addition to regular duties. In addition, officials stated 

these recruiters must be approved by their component leadership and 

funding for their positions comes from the components’ budgets.

 30Continuing appropriations acts (i.e., continuing resolutions) extend prior year funding 

until current year appropriations are enacted; therefore, under a continuing appropriation, 

funding is generally kept at the same levels as the previous fiscal year, subject to any 

exceptions, until Congress passes, and the President signs, a full-year appropriations bill 

into law. While operating under a continuing resolution, agencies are not allowed to begin 

new programs unless specifically authorized in the continuing appropriations act.

31In addition to using recruiters, all three components have a recruitment manager 

position or are in the process of requesting one. Specifically, AMO officials told us the 

component has a recruitment manager position overseeing the component’s recruitment 

efforts and Border Patrol officials stated they have had a recruitment manager in place 

since July 2016. Further, OFO submitted a proposal to HRM for a new recruitment 

manager position responsible for overseeing the component’s recruitment efforts and 

staff. 
Page 21 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Table 3: Total Number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Recruiters by 

Component as of March 2018

CBP component Part-time Full-time Total

Office of Field Operations 968 27 995

U.S. Border Patrol 587 28 615

Air and Marine Operations 51 2 53

Total 1,606 57 1,663

Source: CBP. | GAO-18-487

In July 2017, CBP implemented a 5-day standardized training program for 

all component recruiters focused on effective public speaking and 

engagement tactics as well as specific, in-depth information on each 

operational component and the CBP hiring process. CBP officials stated 

that a goal of this training, among other things, is to ensure that recruiters 

provide standardized, accurate information to all potential applicants. As 

of April 2018, 636 recruiters had completed the training, according to CBP 

officials, and the agency plans to train 1,300 recruiters by the end of fiscal 

year 2018.

In addition to establishing the NFRC and increasing participation in 

recruitment events, CBP has increased its use of recruitment incentives 

from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 to help staff hard-to-fill locations.32 A 

recruitment incentive may be paid to a newly-appointed employee if an 

agency determines that a position is likely to be difficult to fill in the 

absence of such an incentive. From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, OFO 

increased the number of recruitment incentives it paid to CBP officers 

from 9 incentives in 2 locations at a total cost of about $77,600 to 446 

incentives across 18 locations at a cost of approximately $4.3 million. 

AMO and Border Patrol did not use recruitment incentives from fiscal 

years 2015 through 2017 (see fig. 5).

 32From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, CBP used recruitment incentives at remote portsof-entry along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico, such as Portal, North Dakota; 

Coburn Gore, Maine; and Roma, Texas; among other locations.

CBP Increased Its Use of 

Recruitment Incentives, 

Although Use by 

Components Varied
Page 22 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 5: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Recruitment Incentive Use by Location for CBP Officers, Fiscal Years 

2015–2017

Note: This figure presents the annual number and total costs of recruitment incentives paid to CBP 

officers at specific locations. According to Office of Field Operations officials, recruitment incentives 

can be paid to the same CBP officer for up to 3 years. Therefore, data on the number of recruitment 

incentives for each fiscal year may include CBP officers that have been paid recruitment incentives in 

prior fiscal years.

OFO officials told us that recruitment incentives have been effective in 

filling staffing shortages at hard-to-fill locations. For example, they noted 

that since they began offering recruitment incentives in fiscal year 2015, 

14 of the 18 locations where these incentives are used have not 

experienced a decrease in staffing levels as of February 2018. 

Additionally, OFO officials told us that in larger ports-of-entry—such as 
Page 23 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

San Ysidro, California, where staffing levels have consistently remained 

below authorized targets—staffing levels have increased by up to 15 

percent. AMO officials stated while they did not use recruitment incentives 

from fiscal years 2015 through 2017, as of April 2018 they are using them 

to fill remote locations in the Caribbean.33 Specifically, AMO paid two 

recruitment incentives for Air Interdiction Agents and two for Marine 

Interdiction Agents at locations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

AMO officials stated that they began using these incentives to staff hardto-fill locations because of a nationwide shortage of pilots as well as 

increased competition with commercial airlines. However, as AMO has 

only recently started using these incentives, it is too early to gauge 

whether it will be effective in increasing staffing levels at these hard-to-fill 

locations. Border Patrol officials stated the main reason they do not use 

recruitment incentives is that in the past these incentives created 

resentment among current employees that did not receive extra pay to do 

the same job in the same location. Additionally, these officials told us that 

job announcements for Border Patrol agent positions do not specify 

particular duty locations, but represent a general announcement that can 

be used to fill numerous duty locations, as necessary.

As a result of its efforts, CBP has experienced an increase in the number 

of applications it received for law enforcement officer positions across all 

three operational components from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. For 

example, with the exception of fiscal year 2014, applications for Border 

Patrol agent positions increased every year from roughly 27,000 

applications in fiscal year 2013 to more than 91,000 applications in fiscal 

year 2017.34 Further, during the same period, applications for CBP officer 

positions increased from approximately 22,500 to more than 85,000, and 

applications for AMO’s law enforcement officer positions increased from 

roughly 2,000 to more than 5,800 (see fig. 6).35

 33AMO officials stated they received approval to offer recruitment incentives in April 2016 

and began promoting the incentives in May 2017. Recruitment incentives were not paid 

out until the beginning of fiscal year 2018.

34Border Patrol officials stated they did not have any open announcements for Border 

Patrol agent positions in fiscal year 2014.

35The number of AMO applications includes all three categories of law enforcement 

officers at AMO—Air Interdiction Agent, Aviation Enforcement Agent, and Marine 

Interdiction Agent.

Applications for Law 

Enforcement Positions 

Have Tripled since Fiscal 

Year 2013
Page 24 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 6: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Applications for Law 

Enforcement Officer Positions by Fiscal Year

Note: Border Patrol officials stated they did not have any open announcements for Border Patrol 

agent positions in fiscal year 2014.

In November 2017, CBP signed a contract with a total potential period of 

5 years at a not-to-exceed value of $297 million with Accenture Federal 

Services, LLC, to help the agency recruit and hire the 5,000 Border Patrol 

agents called for in Executive Order 13767 as well as an additional 2,000 

CBP officers and 500 AMO personnel. Under this performance-based 

contract, Accenture will be responsible for enhancing CBP’s recruitment 

efforts and managing the hiring process for those applicants it recruits. 

The contract includes a base year and four 1-year option periods which 

CBP may exercise at its discretion for a total potential period of 5 years. 

The $297 million represents the maximum amount CBP may obligate on 

the contract during the potential 5-year period. CBP obligated $43 million 

on the Accenture contract in November 2017 for startup costs, securityCBP’s Accenture Contract 

Is Intended to Further 

Enhance CBP’s 

Recruitment Efforts
Page 25 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

related services, and for the hiring of 440 CBP officers, 150 Border Patrol 

agents, and 23 AMO law enforcement officers.36 Under the terms of the 

contract, CBP will pay the contractor a set dollar amount for each law 

enforcement officer hired. For example, in the first year of the contract, 

CBP has agreed to pay Accenture approximately $40,000 for each Border 

Patrol agent hired with 80 percent paid when a candidate receives an 

official job offer and the remaining 20 percent paid upon the candidate’s 

entry-on-duty date.37

The Accenture contract is intended to enhance CBP’s recruitment efforts 

by improving its marketing strategy and utilizing new ways to capture and 

analyze data to better inform recruitment efforts, according to CBP 

officials. For example, HRM officials stated that, in February 2018, 

Accenture began its digital marketing campaign and started posting 

electronic ads to target potential applicants for CBP’s law enforcement 

positions. In addition, Accenture is using advertisements, e-mail blasts, 

and other strategic marketing tools to specifically target various 

categories of potential applicants, such as women, veterans, minorities, 

and current law enforcement officers. CBP officials told us that they are 

not concerned about Accenture’s recruiting efforts encroaching on the 

agency’s current applicant pool as Accenture’s activities will largely target 

populations that CBP has not historically pursued. They also stated that 

for populations that CBP does target (e.g., veterans and women), the 

agency expects to benefit from Accenture’s recruitment efforts by 

increasing the number of applicants from these populations to all job 

announcements for CBP positions. Further, they noted that if Accenture’s 

tactics are successful, there is nothing prohibiting the agency from 

replicating such tactics to garner more applicants.

CBP officials also stated that Accenture plans to provide opportunities to 

better enhance the agency’s data analytics on its recruitment efforts. For 

example, Accenture is using recruitment data and software to identify 

potential candidates and increase traffic to websites where these 

individuals can submit applications. CBP officials told us they would 

benefit from these and other insights that Accenture’s data analytics will 

provide as CBP can evaluate the contractor’s recruitment efforts and 

 36Although CBP obligated funding to Accenture in fiscal year 2017, the funding for this 

activity was held up in contract protest until November 2017.

37According to the contract, the price per hire paid to Accenture decreases over the 

course of the contract period.
Page 26 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

initiatives and, based upon Accenture’s success, incorporate them into 

CBP’s own efforts. While these efforts seem promising, it is too early to 

determine whether these initiatives will help increase the number and 

quality of applicants for CBP’s law enforcement officer positions.

Since fiscal year 2015, CBP’s performance in two key metrics that it uses 

to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its hiring process for law 

enforcement officer positions has generally improved. Specifically, CBP 

reduced its time-to-hire and increased its overall applicant pass rates for 

all three components.

Time-to-Hire. CBP’s average time-to-hire metric calculates the average 

number of calendar days that elapsed between the closing date of a job 

announcement and an applicant’s entry-on-duty date. CBP’s time-to-hire 

for all law enforcement officer positions decreased from fiscal years 2015 

through 2017.38 Specifically, during this period, the time-to-hire for CBP 

officers decreased by 78 days (20 percent) to an average of 318 days for 

fiscal year 2017. For AMO Air and Marine Interdiction Agents, CBP’s 

time-to-hire decreased by 103 days (28 percent) to an average of 262 

days for fiscal year 2017.39 The agency’s time-to-hire for Border Patrol 

agents was the longest at 628 days in fiscal year 2015. As discussed 

earlier, Border Patrol officials stated that there were no job 

announcements for Border Patrol agent positions in fiscal year 2014; 

therefore, many of the agents hired in fiscal year 2015 had applied in 

 38According to CBP officials, the agency did not systematically collect data to calculate the 

time-to-hire for law enforcement officer positions prior to fiscal year 2015 when CBP 

implemented a more systematic, accurate method for calculating this metric. We assessed 

the reliability of CBP’s time-to-hire data for fiscal years 2015 through 2017 and determined 

these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

39AMO data do not include the Aviation Enforcement Agent position as CBP does not 

systematically collect time-to-hire data for this position.

CBP Has Taken 

Steps to Improve Its 

Hiring Process, but 

the Process Remains 

Lengthy

CBP Has Improved Its 

Performance in Two Key 

Hiring Metrics
Page 27 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

fiscal year 2013, accounting for this protracted time-to-hire. Even so, from 

fiscal year 2016 to 2017, CBP’s time-to-hire for Border Patrol agents 

decreased by 32 days (11 percent) to an average of 274 days for fiscal 

year 2017 (see table 4). 

Table 4: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Time-to-Hire for Law 

Enforcement Officer Positions, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017 

 Days 

Law enforcement officer position FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

CBP officer 396 365 318

Border Patrol agent 628 306 274

Air and Marine Interdiction Agentsa 365 338 262

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-18-487

a

Air and Marine Interdiction Agents data do not include the Aviation Enforcement Agent position as 

CBP does not systematically collect time-to-hire data for this position.

We also compared CBP’s time-to-hire with that of the Secret Service 

because its hiring process for law enforcement officers is the most similar 

to CBP’s.40 Specifically, the Secret Service’s hiring process comprises 

roughly the same number of hiring steps and also includes a polygraph 

examination—one of the more challenging and time-consuming steps in 

the process—as well as a written assessment, background investigation, 

medical examination, and interview.41 We found that CBP’s time-to-hire 

for its law enforcement positions was shorter than the Secret Service’s in 

fiscal years 2016 and 2017.42 For example, in fiscal year 2017, CBP’s 

time-to-hire for CBP officers and Border Patrol agents was 73 days and 

117 days shorter, respectively, than the Secret Service’s. Further, CBP’s 

40There are key differences between ICE’s and BOP’s hiring processes for law 

enforcement officers and CBP’s, including that ICE and BOP do not conduct polygraph 

examinations. Further, ICE officials told us that its methodology for calculating its average 

time-to-hire was different from CBP’s. 

41According to Secret Service officials, Special Agents conduct all background 

investigation functions for the agency. As a result, the amount of time it takes the Secret 

Service to complete background investigations can be affected by the operational needs 

of the agency. 

42According to Secret Service officials, the agency uses the same methodology as CBP to 

calculate its time-to-hire for law enforcement positions. Specifically, the Secret Service 

calculates the average number of calendar days that elapsed between the closing date of 

a job announcement and an applicant’s entry-on-duty date.
Page 28 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

time-to-hire for AMO’s law enforcement positions was shorter than the 

Secret Service’s in every fiscal year from 2015 through 2017.

Overall Applicant Pass Rates. CBP’s overall applicant pass rate metric 

calculates the estimated percentage of applicants who successfully 

complete the hiring process and enter on duty.43 CBP data indicate that 

overall applicant pass rates more than doubled for CBP officer and 

Border Patrol agent positions from fiscal years 2016 to 2017 (see table 

5).44

Table 5: Overall Applicant Pass Rates for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Law Enforcement Officer Positions, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017

Law enforcement 

officer position

Overall applicant pass rates 

(in percent)

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

CBP officer 1.21 0.97 2.41

Border Patrol agent 0.42 0.57 1.36

Air and Marine Interdiction Agentsa - - 1.33

Source: CBP data. | GAO-18-487

Note: CBP’s overall applicant pass rates calculate the estimated percentage of applicants who 

successfully complete the hiring process and enter on duty.

a

CBP did not systematically collect these data for Air and Marine Interdiction Agent positions prior to 

fiscal year 2017, or for any fiscal year in our review period for Aviation Enforcement Agent positions.

CBP officials told us that higher overall applicant pass rates paired with 

recent increases in the number of applications received by the agency are 

starting to result in an increase in the number of law enforcement officers 

 43To determine the overall applicant pass rates for CBP officer and Border Patrol agent 

positions, CBP calculated the discrete pass rate for each hiring process step by dividing 

the total number of applicants that passed a process step in a given fiscal year by the total 

number of applicants that completed that process step in that same year. CBP then 

multiplied the discrete pass rates for every step in its hiring process to determine the 

overall applicant pass rate. CBP started using this methodology to calculate overall 

applicant pass rates in fiscal year 2015 and therefore does not have similar data for fiscal 

years 2013 and 2014. The overall applicant pass rate for Air and Marine Interdiction 

Agents was calculated by dividing the total number of law enforcement officers that 

entered on duty in fiscal year 2017 by the total number of applications received in that 

same year. According to CBP officials, this methodology is used because of the smaller 

universe of applicants and hires for these positions. 

44CBP did not systematically collect these data for Air and Marine Interdiction Agent 

positions prior to fiscal year 2017, or for any fiscal year in our review period for Aviation 

Enforcement Agent positions. 
Page 29 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

hired as applicants complete CBP’s hiring process and officially enter on 

duty. As shown in table 6, CBP data indicate that more law enforcement 

officers entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2018 than entered on 

duty in the first half of fiscal year 2017.45 Specifically, the total number of 

CBP officers and Border Patrol agents that entered on duty in the first half 

of fiscal year 2018 increased by roughly 50 percent and 83 percent, 

respectively, when compared to the same period of the prior fiscal year. 

Further, the total number of AMO law enforcement officers that entered 

on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2018 more than doubled from the 

same period of fiscal year 2017.

Table 6: Total Number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Law 

Enforcement Officers that Entered on Duty in the First Half of Fiscal Years (FY) 2017 

and 2018

Law enforcement officer position FY 2017a FY 2018b

CBP officer 299 449

Border Patrol agent 179 328

Air and Marine Operations agents 24 51

Total 502 828

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-18-487

a

CBP data for the first half of fiscal year 2017 represent the total number of law enforcement officers 

that entered on duty between October 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017.

b

CBP data for the first half of fiscal year 2018 represent the total number of law enforcement officers 

that entered on duty between October 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018.

CBP officials noted that they hope to consistently maintain this trend of 

increased hires to offset attrition and attain target staffing levels. For 

example, although 328 Border Patrol agents entered on duty in the first 

half of fiscal year 2018, 404 agents departed Border Patrol during this 

same period, resulting in a net loss of 76 agents. Likewise, in the first half 

of fiscal year 2018, a total of 449 CBP officers entered on duty while 488 

officers departed OFO, resulting in a net loss of 39 officers. These data 

indicate that CBP continues to face challenges in retaining qualified law 

enforcement personnel and attaining target staffing levels for these 

positions. We discuss this issue later in this report.

 45CBP data for the first half of fiscal year 2017 represent the total number of law 

enforcement officers that entered on duty between October 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017. 

CBP data for the first half of fiscal year 2018 represent the total number of law 

enforcement officers that entered on duty between October 1, 2017, and March 31, 2018. 
Page 30 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CBP has made efforts to improve its hiring process by revising certain 

aspects of the process and piloting two key hiring initiatives—Hiring Hub 

events and the Applicant Care program. According to agency officials, 

these efforts to streamline and improve CBP’s overall hiring process have 

collectively resulted in the decreased time-to-hire and increased overall 

applicant pass rates discussed above. In addition to these efforts, CBP’s 

contract with Accenture is designed to provide surge hiring capacity to 

help supplement the agency’s efforts to meet its staffing goals, according 

to agency officials.

Hiring Process Revisions. CBP has implemented changes aimed at 

streamlining its hiring process for law enforcement officers and made 

adjustments to specific hiring steps. For example, among other changes, 

CBP took the following steps:

• In fiscal year 2015, CBP replaced its paper-based fingerprinting 

process with an electronic format, reducing the costs and effort 

required to physically process and mail paper fingerprinting cards.

• In fiscal year 2016, CBP increased the frequency of its job 

announcements on USAJOBS.gov to solicit applications on a 

continuous basis instead of only posting announcements for set 

periods of time. In addition, DHS was directed by statute to enhance 

its efforts to recruit members of the Armed Forces to serve as CBP 

officers through identifying shared activities and opportunities for 

reciprocity related to steps in hiring so as to minimize the time 

required to hire qualified applicants.46

• In March 2017, CBP was granted the authority to waive the polygraph 

examination for veterans who meet certain criteria, including those 

 46The Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015 included a provision to enhance DHS efforts 

to recruit members of the Armed Forces who are separating from military service to serve 

as CBP officers, and the act listed specific elements of such enhanced recruiting efforts, 

such as ensuring the streamlined interagency transfer of relevant background 

investigations and security clearances. Pub. L. No. 114-68, § 4, 129 Stat. 555, 556.

CBP Has Taken Steps to 

Improve Its Hiring Process 

for Law Enforcement 

Officers
Page 31 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

who hold a current, active top-secret/sensitive-compartmentedinformation clearance.47

• In April 2017, CBP received OPM approval to use direct-hire authority 

for law enforcement positions, which allows CBP to expedite the 

typical hiring process by eliminating competitive rating and ranking 

procedures and veterans’ preference.48 As of March 31, 2018, 77 

CBP officers and 107 Border Patrol agents had entered on duty 

through this authority, but HRM officials told us that more applicants 

continue to progress through CBP’s hiring pipeline.

CBP has also made revisions to specific steps in its hiring process, 

including the application, entrance examination, physical fitness test, and 

polygraph examination, among others. For example, in May 2014, CBP 

incorporated questions into its electronic application that are designed to 

automatically disqualify applicants who, based on their responses, could 

not pass CBP’s background investigation. Specifically, applicants that 

provide a disqualifying response to any of these questions would not be 

able to submit an application, thereby saving CBP the effort and 

resources associated with processing nonviable applicants. Further, in 

fiscal year 2016, CBP reordered its hiring process to place the entrance 

examination as the first step directly after an applicant submitted an 

application. Prior to this change, CBP conducted qualification reviews on 

applicants to ensure they met position requirements before inviting them 

to take the entrance exam. According to CBP officials, this updated 

process provided applicants with the opportunity to obtain a realistic 

preview of the job they were applying for earlier in the hiring process. 

These officials explained that this helps to ensure that only those 

applicants who are committed to completing the hiring process and 

 47The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 permitted the 

Commissioner of CBP to waive the polygraph examination requirement for any veteran 

applicant deemed suitable for employment who holds a current, active Top-Secret 

clearance and is able to access sensitive compartmented information; has a current 

single-scope background investigation; and was not granted any waivers to obtain the 

clearance. Pub. L. No. 114-328, div. A, tit. X, subtit. E, § 1049, 130 Stat. 2000, 2396 

(2016) (classified at 6 U.S.C. § 221 note).

48OPM can grant direct-hire authority to federal agencies to help fill existing vacancies 

when a critical hiring need or severe shortage of candidates exists. This authority allows 

federal agencies to expedite certain elements of the hiring process such as not requiring 

agencies to rank order all qualified candidates. See 5 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(3). In its April 2017 

memorandum granting direct-hire authority to CBP, OPM cited the President’s January 25, 

2017, executive orders entitled, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 

Improvements” and “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” as 

creating a critical hiring need at DHS.
Page 32 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

entering on duty at CBP continue through the hiring pipeline, which may 

help to address high applicant discontinue rates (e.g., roughly half of all 

eligible applicants in fiscal year 2015 did not take the exam).49 According 

to CBP documentation, this revision also created efficiencies as the 

agency no longer has to spend time and resources on completing 

qualification reviews for applicants who either did not show up to take the 

exam or failed the exam itself.

CBP data show recent improvements in both the pass rates for the 

entrance examination process step as well as its average duration—the 

average amount of time it took applicants to complete this step. 

Specifically, from fiscal years 2016 to 2017, pass rates increased by 

about 40 percent for both CBP officer and Border Patrol agent 

candidates, and the average duration shortened from 17 days to 13 days 

for CBP officer candidates and from 19 days to 12 days for Border Patrol 

agent applicants. CBP officials told us they are also exploring options to 

allow applicants to complete the entrance examination remotely—

eliminating the need for candidates to travel to physical testing sites and 

potentially further reducing the amount of time spent completing this step.

In fiscal year 2016, the physical fitness test process step was amended 

for all law enforcement officer applicants to provide those who fail another 

chance to complete this requirement, according to CBP officials. Further, 

in fiscal year 2017, CBP eliminated the second physical fitness test—

which had been the last process step in CBP’s hiring process—for CBP 

officer, Border Patrol agent, and AMO applicants. In addition to 

shortening the overall process, officials told us this change provided the 

small percentage of applicants that passed every other hiring process 

step with an opportunity to demonstrate they meet CBP’s physical ability 

standards during basic training.50

CBP has also made several changes to its polygraph examination 

process step, which has consistently had the lowest pass rate of any step 

in its hiring process. For example, among other things, CBP has 

increased the number of polygraph examiners available to administer the 

 49These data represent CBP officer and Border Patrol agent applicants only as AMO’s 

hiring process does not include an entrance examination. Instead, applicants for Air and 

Marine Interdiction Agent positions are required to take a three-part written, oral, and 

practical assessment.

50After entering on duty with CBP, all new law enforcement personnel must complete 

training in basic law enforcement skills. 
Page 33 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

test, according to agency officials, and is piloting a new type of polygraph 

exam—the Test for Espionage, Sabotage, and Corruption. According to 

CBP officials, the new examination focuses on identifying serious crimes 

and is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that only qualified applicants are able 

to pass. Preliminary data from CBP’s pilot show that this new exam has 

demonstrated higher pass rates when compared with CBP’s traditional 

polygraph exam while also taking less time, on average, per test to 

complete.51 In addition, in response to recommendations made by the

DHS OIG in August 2017, CBP implemented a policy requiring polygraph 

examiners to take steps to terminate an ongoing examination if 

disqualifying information is obtained from an applicant during the exam.52

Further, CBP officials told us they are continuing to work on developing 

and deploying a presecurity interview to identify unsuitable applicants 

prior to spending resources on conducting the polygraph examination. 

While it remains too early to tell if these efforts will result in improvements 

to the polygraph examination step, available CBP data indicate mixed 

results. Specifically, while the average duration to complete this step 

decreased for all law enforcement officer positions from fiscal years 2015 

through 2017, pass rates also declined slightly over this same period (see 

table 7).

 51CBP officials stated that the agency has traditionally used the Law Enforcement Preemployment Test polygraph examination on its law enforcement officer applicants. Both 

the Test for Espionage, Sabotage, and Corruption and the Law Enforcement Preemployment Test formats are approved by the National Center for Credibility Assessment, 

the federal entity responsible for credibility assessment education, oversight, research, 

and development. 

52OIG-17-99-MA.
Page 34 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Table 7: Average Durations and Pass Rates for U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Polygraph Examination by Law 

Enforcement Officer Position, Fiscal Years (FY) 2015–2017

CBP officers Border Patrol agents Air and Marine Operations agents

FY

Average 

duration

(in days)

Pass rate

(in percent)

Average 

duration

(in days)

Pass rate

(in percent)

Average 

duration

(in days)

Pass rate

(in percent)

2015 153 32 113 28 86 32

2016 115 21 109 22 54 28

2017 74 25 94 26 59 26

Source: CBP data. | GAO-18-487

Note: CBP’s average duration metric for the polygraph examination hiring process step captures the 

average number of days it took CBP law enforcement officer applicants to complete the step in a 

given fiscal year. CBP’s pass rate metric for the polygraph examination process step captures the 

percentage of CBP law enforcement officer applicants who passed the polygraph examination step in 

a given fiscal year. CBP data on polygraph examination pass rates for Air and Marine Operations 

(AMO) personnel include Air Interdiction Agents, Aviation Enforcement Agents, and Marine 

Interdiction Agents. However, CBP data on the average duration of the polygraph examination for 

AMO personnel include only Air and Marine Interdiction Agent positions as CBP did not 

systematically track these data for Aviation Enforcement Agent positions.

Hiring Hub Events. In August 2015, CBP piloted its first Hiring Hub event 

where applicants could complete the structured interview and polygraph 

examination in one location over the course of several days. In fiscal year 

2016, CBP expanded its use of these events, holding additional Hiring 

Hubs in New York, New York; San Diego, California; and Laredo, Texas; 

among other locations. The use of consolidated hiring events is 

consistent with a leading practice we identified in hiring for law 

enforcement officer positions, and officials at both ICE and the Secret 

Service stated their agencies are using similar events to process 

applicants. Although CBP could not provide specific data on its Hiring 

Hub events, CBP officials stated that the use of these events reduced the 

agency’s time-to-hire by consolidating hiring process steps that 

traditionally took applicants weeks to complete into just a few days—

effectively enhancing the applicant experience and helping to reduce the 

number of individuals that drop out of the hiring process.

Despite attributing a reduction in the agency’s time-to-hire to the Hiring 

Hubs, CBP discontinued their use in fiscal year 2017 because of their 

high costs, according to CBP officials. Specifically, CBP officials told us 

the agency spent $878,000 and $426,000 in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, 

respectively, which included renting physical space for the Hiring Hub 

events and funding the travel expenses of CBP employees sent to staff 

them. However, CBP officials told us that the best practices and process 

improvements CBP learned from these events have been incorporated 
Page 35 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

into the agency’s new expedited hiring model, which has been used to 

process all CBP law enforcement applicants since April 2017. According 

to CBP officials, this model utilizes existing CBP facilities where 

applicants can complete the structured interview and polygraph 

examination near where they live while also providing CBP with cost 

savings by avoiding the need to rent physical office space.

Applicant Care. In fiscal year 2017, CBP supplemented its traditional 

applicant outreach efforts by piloting the Applicant Care program across 

all three components. This program is intended to pair viable applicants 

with a trained recruiter who can answer questions and provide individuals 

with guidance and support throughout the lengthy hiring process.53

Formally pairing trained recruiters with applicants is a leading practice we 

identified in hiring for law enforcement positions, and of the three other 

selected agencies we reviewed, the Secret Service also had a similar 

program, according to Secret Service officials. According to CBP data, 

806 applicants across all three operational components have participated 

in the Applicant Care pilot program and, as of May 2018, 28 of these have 

entered on duty at CBP.54 CBP officials in OFO, AMO, and HRM told us 

that the Applicant Care program had been useful in providing an effective 

way to communicate with applicants. According to a senior AMO official, 

AMO has fully incorporated the program into its hiring efforts and has 

paired every applicant since June 2017 with an AMO recruiter.55

Specifically, this official told us the program has been beneficial by 

keeping candidates engaged and steadily progressing through the 

process. HRM officials concurred, stating that the Applicant Care program 

has been successful in reducing the number of individuals that fail to 

complete CBP’s lengthy hiring process. According to CBP officials, the 

Applicant Care program also helps to reduce CBP’s time-to-hire since 

recruiters can actively encourage candidates to promptly progress 

 53CBP officials consider individuals that have applied to a job announcement and meet all 

the initial requirements for the position as “viable.” 

54According to CBP data, as of May 2018, 21 CBP officers, 6 Air Interdiction Agents, and 

1 Marine Interdiction Agent that participated in the Applicant Care pilot had entered on 

duty at CBP while 253 participating applicants continue to progress through the hiring 

pipeline. According to these data, Border Patrol only began participating in the pilot in 

September 2017 and, as of May 2018, no participating applicants for Border Patrol agent 

positions had entered on duty at CBP. 

55Border Patrol officials told us that the Applicant Care pilot has not yet concluded as 

some participating applicants are still progressing through CBP’s hiring pipeline. OFO 

officials told us that they are waiting for the necessary technology to be in place before 

expanding the program.
Page 36 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

through aspects of the hiring process that applicants are responsible for 

completing, such as the submission of OPM’s Standard Form 86 (SF86).56

CBP officials told us that the agency is collecting data to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the Applicant Care pilot, including the average time-tohire and overall pass rates of participating applicants. However, since the 

pilot is ongoing and some applicants continue to progress through CBP’s 

hiring pipeline, information on the program’s effectiveness remains 

preliminary. CBP officials also told us that scaling the Applicant Care 

initiative to include all applicants may present a challenge, especially 

given the recent increase in the number of law enforcement applications 

CBP has received. For example, a senior AMO official noted that, as of 

January 2018, 10 AMO recruiters were managing a total of about 200 

applicants as part of the program, and that more recruiters would be 

needed to reduce employee workload to a more manageable level. 

Further, Border Patrol officials said that scaling the initiative to include the 

tens of thousands of individuals that annually apply for Border Patrol 

agent positions will be challenging as recruiters do not have the capacity 

to directly communicate with each one.

Accenture Contract. According to CBP officials, the Accenture contract 

is intended to enhance the agency’s ability to achieve its primary goal—

hiring law enforcement officers to meet target staffing levels—by 

augmenting CBP’s current hiring infrastructure and pursuing new and 

innovative hiring initiatives.

HRM officials told us that Accenture will establish its own hiring 

infrastructure where Accenture personnel will administer most of the 

hiring process steps to those applicants it recruits.57 Specifically, the 

contractor is responsible for implementing the same hiring process steps 

and maintaining CBP’s standards to ensure that all applicants recruited 

 56Applicants must submit various background and biographical information through the 

SF-86 to initiate their background investigation. While the average duration to complete 

this step has decreased since fiscal year 2015, it nonetheless remains one of the most 

time-consuming steps in CBP’s hiring process. For example, in fiscal year 2017, it took 

CBP officer applicants 55 days on average to submit a completed SF-86.

57CBP will continue to conduct the entrance examination and structured interview steps 

for candidates recruited by Accenture as well as those aspects of the hiring process that 

represent inherently governmental functions. For example, CBP officials will be 

responsible for adjudicating polygraph examination and background investigation results 

for all applicants as these processes represent an inherently governmental function.
Page 37 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

by Accenture meet those standards. According to HRM officials, 

Accenture’s efforts are expected to provide CBP with surge hiring 

capacity without affecting CBP’s current hiring infrastructure, which will 

continue to function throughout the contract’s duration. According to CBP 

officials, Accenture began processing an initial trial group of random 

applicants in May 2018 to ensure that the contractor is able to process 

candidates through its hiring pipeline as required by the contract.58

CBP officials also told us that Accenture has the flexibility to pursue novel 

hiring tactics and pilot initiatives that CBP may not have considered or 

been able to undertake. For example, Accenture plans to pilot innovative 

ways to reduce the time-to-hire, including by streamlining steps in the 

hiring process, which could help to improve CBP’s overall process and 

generate increased hires for law enforcement positions. Further, because 

the contractor will only be paid for individuals that receive final job offers 

and enter on duty—and not for implementing these new methods and 

initiatives—CBP does not bear the financial risk if such initiatives prove 

not to be cost-effective. On the other hand, if hiring methods piloted by 

Accenture are successful in reducing CBP’s time-to-hire and generating 

increased law enforcement officer hires, CBP can incorporate these 

methods into its own process.

As of March 2018, some key issues were still being negotiated between 

CBP and the contractor. For example, while HRM officials told us that the 

main metric used to assess Accenture’s effectiveness will be the total 

number of hires the contractor produces, they were still working to finalize 

other key metrics for evaluating the contractor’s effectiveness as well as 

an oversight plan to ensure the contractor operates according to agency 

 58In fiscal year 2018, CBP provided funding for Accenture to hire a total of 613 positions—

440 CBP officers, 150 Border Patrol agents, and 23 Air and Marine Interdiction Agents. 

HRM officials told us that applicants will not know whether they are being processed by 

Accenture or CBP personnel as the minor differences between the contractor’s and CBP’s 

hiring processes will be indistinguishable to applicants. Further, they noted that personnel 

staffed at every stage of the process, including the medical examination, background 

investigation, and polygraph examination, among others, will have the same qualifications 

and training regardless of whether they work for Accenture or CBP. However, these same 

officials told us that certain Accenture initiatives will only be available to candidates 

recruited and processed by Accenture. For example, only Accenture candidates will have 

access to the contractor’s Applicant Support Center, which is designed to provide 

candidates with pertinent information in real time and access to direct support through 

phone and e-mail. However, in May 2018, CBP officials told us they are designing a 

contract modification to provide all CBP applicants with access to Accenture’s Applicant 

Support Center.
Page 38 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

requirements. In addition, a senior HRM official told us that the costs 

associated with hiring a law enforcement officer are generally the same 

regardless of whether an applicant is processed by Accenture or CBP. 

Specifically, CBP officials explained that the requirements to hire a law 

enforcement officer are rigorous and include administering entrance 

examinations, background investigations, physical fitness and medical 

tests, and polygraph examinations, among other process steps. CBP 

officials stated that the costs associated with conducting these process 

steps for all applicants—and not just the small percentage who 

successfully complete the hiring process and enter on duty at CBP—are 

incurred whether the process is administered by Accenture or CBP. As a 

result, these officials explained that CBP is most focused on processing 

as many qualified candidates as possible to increase law enforcement 

officer staffing levels. As Accenture’s hiring infrastructure will not become 

fully operational until June 2018, it is too early to evaluate whether the 

contractor will be able to efficiently and effectively provide the surge hiring 

capacity CBP needs to achieve its staffing goals.

While CBP has reduced its time-to-hire and made efforts to improve its 

hiring process for law enforcement officers, CBP officials have noted that 

the hiring process remains lengthy, which they said directly affected the 

agency’s ability to recruit and hire for law enforcement positions. CBP 

officials also stated that their ability to further improve CBP’s time-to-hire 

and increase law enforcement hires is affected by hiring process steps 

that can be challenging and time-consuming for applicants to complete as 

well as CBP’s reliance on applicants to promptly complete certain aspects 

of the process.

As noted above, in fiscal year 2017, it took an average of 274 days for 

Border Patrol agent applicants and more than 300 days for CBP officer 

applicants to complete all hiring steps and enter on duty. According to a 

leading practice we identified in hiring for such positions, agencies should 

ensure that the hiring process is not protracted or onerous for applicants. 

While OPM’s time-to-hire target for federal agencies is 80 days, officials 

at CBP, ICE, and the Secret Service told us that such a target is not 

feasible for law enforcement positions given the rigor and complexity of 

Certain Factors Affect 

CBP’s Hiring Process for 

Law Enforcement 

Positions
Page 39 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

the hiring process.59 Further, according to CBP officials, the agency’s 

multistep hiring process for its law enforcement officer positions is 

intentionally rigorous and involves extensive applicant screening to 

ensure that only qualified candidates meet the technical, physical, and 

suitability requirements for employment at CBP. Even so, CBP officials 

across several components told us that the agency’s time-to-hire was too 

long and directly affected the component’s ability to recruit and hire for 

law enforcement positions. For example, OFO officials told us that the 

longer the hiring process takes to complete, the more likely it is that an 

applicant will drop out. Further, qualified applicants may also decide to 

apply for employment at a competing law enforcement agency such as 

ICE that may have a less rigorous process than CBP’s, according to CBP 

officials.

One factor that affects CBP’s ability to efficiently process and onboard 

law enforcement officers are specific hiring process steps that are timeconsuming and challenging for candidates to complete. For example, 

CBP officials across all three operational components and HRM cited the 

polygraph examination as a significant bottleneck within CBP’s hiring 

process. In addition to having the lowest pass rate of any step in CBP’s 

process, as noted above, the polygraph examination also took CBP 

officer and Border Patrol agent applicants, on average, the longest 

amount of time to complete in fiscal year 2017—74 days and 94 days, 

respectively.60 Further, Border Patrol and HRM officials both told us that 

these already lengthy time frames may increase further because of the 

growing number of applicants for CBP’s law enforcement positions. In 

addition, CBP’s background investigation and medical examination 

process steps as well as the SF-86 submission and preemployment 

complete hiring phases had the five longest average durations for law 

 59In addition, OPM’s calculation to determine an agency’s time-to-hire differs from CBP’s 

and those of the other selected agencies we reviewed in that it uses the average number 

of days that elapsed from the date an agency validated its need to fill a new position to the 

date an applicant entered on duty. Further, the DHS Office of the Chief Human Capital 

Officer established a fiscal year 2018 time-to-hire performance measure target stating that 

60 percent of DHS law enforcement officer applicants should enter on duty within 192 

days.

60According to CBP officials, the average duration for CBP’s polygraph examination may 

be affected by difficulties in scheduling the in-person examination as well as the number of 

polygraph examiners available to conduct the test. 
Page 40 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

enforcement applicants in fiscal year 2017.61 For example, on average, it 

took CBP law enforcement officer applicants across all three components 

55 days or more to complete the medical examination and more than 60 

days to complete the background investigation. For more information on 

the average durations of these selected aspects of CBP’s hiring process, 

see table 8.

 61While the polygraph examination, background investigation, and medical examination 

are official process steps in CBP’s hiring process, the SF-86 submission and 

preemployment complete also represent key phases that are necessary in processing 

applicants. Applicants are responsible for submitting various background and biographical 

information through the SF-86 to initiate their background investigation. CBP data on the 

average duration of the SF-86 submission phase captures the average amount of time it 

took law enforcement applicants to submit a completed SF-86, which is required to begin 

the background investigation and, according to CBP officials, to schedule a structured 

interview. CBP data on the preemployment complete phase captures the average amount 

of time that elapsed between the date an applicant has officially completed all hiring 

process steps and the date the applicant entered on duty. During this phase, HRM officials 

confirm that an applicant has successfully passed all aspects of CBP’s hiring process and

work with the applicant to determine an entry-on-duty date that meets the applicant’s 

needs.
Page 41 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Table 8: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Average Durations for Selected Phases of the Hiring Process, Fiscal 

Year 2017

Average durations for hiring phases (in days)

Law enforcement 

officer positions

Polygraph 

examination

Submission of 

Standard Form 

86 (SF-86)a Background investigationb Medical examination

Preemployment 

completec

CBP officers 74 55 63 57 42

Border Patrol agents 94 47 75 57 30

Air and Marine Interdiction 

Agents

59 63 69 55 42

Source: CBP data. | GAO-18-487

Note: CBP’s average duration metric captures the average number of days it took CBP law 

enforcement officer applicants to complete a hiring process step or key phase of the hiring process. 

These categories represent the five hiring process steps and key phases with the longest total 

average durations for Border Patrol agent, CBP officer, and Air and Marine Interdiction Agent 

applicants during fiscal year 2017. CBP did not systematically track these data for Aviation 

Enforcement Agent applicants.

a

Applicants are responsible for submitting various background and biographical information through 

the SF-86, which is required to initiate their background investigation. CBP data on the average 

duration of the SF-86 submission phase captures the average amount of time it took law enforcement 

applicants to submit a completed SF-86.

b

An applicant’s background investigation is initiated when a completed SF-86 is submitted. According 

to officials in CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility—which conducts CBP’s background 

investigations—these investigations must be completed by the time an applicant completes basic 

training. Therefore, an applicant can enter on duty and begin basic training before his or her 

background investigation is complete and a final suitability and eligibility determination on that 

individual has been adjudicated.

c

CBP data on the preemployment complete phase captures the average amount of time that elapsed 

between the date an applicant has officially completed all hiring process steps and the date the 

applicant entered on duty. During this phase, CBP officials confirm that an applicant has successfully 

passed all aspects of CBP’s hiring process and work with the applicant to determine an entry-on-duty 

date that meets the applicant’s needs.

Another factor that affects CBP’s ability to reduce its time-to-hire is CBP’s 

reliance on applicants to complete certain aspects of the hiring process in 

a timely manner. While the agency has taken steps to mitigate this 

issue—most notably through its Applicant Care program and the 

Accenture contract—its ability to ensure that applicants quickly complete 

those aspects of the hiring process they are responsible for remains 

limited. For example, as discussed above, applicants are responsible for 

completing their own SF-86, and CBP officials noted that applicants often 

take weeks to accurately complete and submit this form. Further, one 

senior HRM official told us that each time a mistake is identified in this 

paperwork, applicants receive an additional 5 days to fix the error, which 

adds up over time. CBP data indicate that while the average duration for 

this process step has decreased since fiscal year 2015, it continues to 

take more than 45 days for the average applicant to complete, as noted in 
Page 42 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

table 8 above. As this completed paperwork is required to begin the 

background investigation and, according to CBP officials, schedule a 

structured interview, this inherently affects CBP’s ability to reduce its 

time-to-hire. Further, for the medical examination process step, applicants 

are responsible for, among other things, scheduling the examination itself 

and providing pertinent documentation, such as any medical waivers 

required to pass the exam. According to a senior HRM official, as of 

February 2018, CBP had to conduct follow-up outreach to roughly 65 

percent of applicants during this process step to obtain the information 

required to complete this step.

From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP’s annual rates of attrition 

varied across its five law enforcement officer positions. Specifically, 

OFO’s annual attrition rates for the CBP officer position were consistent 

at roughly 3 percent, while rates for Border Patrol agent and AMO’s 

Marine Interdiction Agent positions were below 5 percent in 4 out of the 5 

fiscal years we reviewed. When we compared CBP’s annual attrition rates 

for these positions to those of the other selected law enforcement 

agencies, we found that CBP’s attrition rates were similar to ICE’s annual 

attrition rates for its law enforcement positions and generally lower than 

those of the Secret Service and BOP. Annual attrition rates for AMO’s 

aviation positions were higher, ranging from 5.0 percent to 9.2 percent for 

the Air Interdiction Agent position and 7.8 percent to 11.1 percent for the 

Aviation Enforcement Agent position. Even so, in the last 3 fiscal years, 

CBP Has Enhanced 

Its Retention Efforts, 

but Does Not 

Systematically Collect 

and Analyze Data on 

Departing Law 

Enforcement 

Personnel

CBP’s Retention of Law 

Enforcement Officers 

Varies by Position
Page 43 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

attrition rates for these positions have generally remained lower than 

those of the Secret Service and BOP (see table 9).62

Table 9: Annual Attrition Rates for Law Enforcement Officer Positions at U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Other 

Selected Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years (FY) 2013–2017

Annual attrition rate by FY (percent)

Agency

Law enforcement 

officer position 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

(CBP)

CBP officer 2.9 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.0

Border Patrol agent 3.0 4.6 5.4 4.2 4.6

Air and Marine Operations Air 

Interdiction Agenta 9.2 9.0 7.0 5.0 7.3

Air and Marine Operations Aviation 

Enforcement Agenta 7.8 11.1 9.6 8.4 8.3

Air and Marine Operations Marine 

Interdiction Agenta 4.1 5.3 3.3 4.5 4.8

U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement 

(ICE)

Deportation Officer, Detention and 

Deportation Officer, Criminal 

Investigator, and Technical 

Enforcement Officer

3.3 3.7 3.7 4.4 4.4

 62Since AMO’s law enforcement officer staffing levels are significantly lower than OFO’s 

and Border Patrol’s, attrition rates for these positions are more volatile as even a small 

number of departures can have a significant effect on overall rates.
Page 44 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Annual attrition rate by FY (percent)

Agency

Law enforcement 

officer position 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

U.S. Secret Service Special Agent 4.0 4.2 7.1 7.9 7.3

Uniformed Division Officer 6.9 8.1 12.4 16.0 15.0

Federal Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP)

Correctional Officer 9.7 11.1 10.0 11.3 17.0

Source: CBP, ICE, Secret Service, and BOP data. | GAO-18-487

Note: Annual attrition rates for CBP positions are calculated by dividing the total number of law 

enforcement officers that departed their position for any reason during a given fiscal year by the 

average number of officers staffed to the position in that same year. Annual attrition rates for ICE 

positions are calculated by dividing the total number of law enforcement officers that departed their 

position for any reason during a given fiscal year by the total number of officers staffed to the position 

at the end of that same fiscal year. Annual attrition rates for Secret Service positions are calculated 

by dividing the total number of law enforcement officers that departed their positions for any reason 

during a given fiscal year by the total number of officers staffed to the position at the beginning of that 

same fiscal year. Annual attrition rates for BOP positions are calculated by dividing the total number 

of Correctional Officers that separated from BOP for any reason during a given fiscal year by the total 

number of officers staffed to the position at the end of that same fiscal year. BOP’s Correctional 

Officer position was defined as occupational Series 0007 staff in Grades 5 or 6.

a

Since AMO’s law enforcement officer staffing levels are significantly lower than OFO’s and Border 

Patrol’s, attrition rates for these positions are more volatile as even a small number of departures can 

have a significant impact on overall rates.

In addition, from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP’s ability to hire 

more law enforcement officers than it lost varied across positions. 

Specifically, CBP consistently hired more CBP officers and Aviation 

Enforcement Agents than it lost. Further, while CBP generally maintained 

its staffing levels for Marine Interdiction Agents, the agency consistently 

lost more Border Patrol agents and Air Interdiction Agents than it hired. 

Even so, onboard staffing levels for all five of CBP’s law enforcement 

officer positions have consistently remained below authorized staffing 

levels.63

OFO. With the exception of fiscal year 2016, CBP hired more CBP 

officers than it lost each fiscal year. Specifically, from fiscal years 2013 

through 2017, CBP hired an average of 978 CBP officers and lost an 

average of 719 officers each year, resulting in an average annual gain of 

258 CBP officers and an increase in its overall staffing level of nearly 

 63OFO and AMO develop annual authorized staffing level targets for law enforcement 

officer positions based on operational needs and available funding. Border Patrol’s 

authorized staffing levels through fiscal year 2016 represent statutorily-established 

workforce floors while the fiscal year 2017 authorized staffing level for Border Patrol 

agents represents the office-wide goal of having 26,370 Border Patrol agents, which 

includes the Executive Order 13767 directive to hire and onboard 5,000 additional agents.
Page 45 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1,300 officers over this 5-year period.64 However, as OFO’s staffing 

targets for CBP officers also increased each year during this period, OFO 

remained below its authorized levels from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. 

In fact, OFO ended fiscal year 2017 more than 1,100 CBP officers below 

its annual staffing target (see fig. 7).

Figure 7: Office of Field Operations Net Staffing Gains and Losses and Overall 

Staffing Levels for Customs and Border Protection Officer Positions, Fiscal Years 

2013–2017

Note: Authorized staffing levels for Customs and Border Protection officer positions from fiscal years 

2013 through 2017 represent staffing targets determined by the Office of Field Operations.

Border Patrol. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP hired an 

average of 522 Border Patrol agents and lost an average of 890 agents 

each year, resulting in an average annual loss of 368 Border Patrol 

agents over this 5-year period. Therefore, despite having an annual

attrition rate that mostly remained below 5 percent, Border Patrol was not 

 64Data on staffing gains and losses for CBP officer positions are calculated from the 

beginning of fiscal year 2013 through the end of fiscal year 2017. Staffing level totals may 

not sum due to rounding. 
Page 46 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

able to replace departing Border Patrol agents with new hires from fiscal 

years 2014 through 2017. As a result, staffing levels for Border Patrol 

agents decreased by 1,838 total agents over our review period and the 

gap between Border Patrol’s onboard staffing levels and its 

congressionally-mandated minimum staffing floor has expanded each 

year from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. Border Patrol ended fiscal year 

2017 with 19,437 agents—nearly 2,000 agents below its fiscal year 2016 

statutorily-established minimum and 7,000 below the staffing target 

established in response to Executive Order 13767 (see fig. 8).

Figure 8: Border Patrol Net Staffing Gains and Losses and Overall Staffing Levels 

for Border Patrol Agent Positions, Fiscal Years 2013–2017

Note: Authorized staffing levels for Border Patrol agent positions from fiscal years 2013 through 2016 

represent the statutorily-established minimum staffing floor of 21,370 agents set by Congress. The 

authorized staffing level for these positions in fiscal year 2017 reflect this minimum staffing floor plus 

the additional 5,000 agents called for in Executive Order 13767.

AMO. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP (1) gained Aviation 

Enforcement Agent staff, (2) generally maintained staffing levels for its 

Marine Interdiction Agent position, and (3) consistently lost Air Interdiction 

Agent staff. First, despite the Aviation Enforcement Agent position 

generally having CBP’s highest annual attrition rates, CBP hired more 
Page 47 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Aviation Enforcement Agents than it lost each fiscal year and increased 

its overall staffing level by 79 positions during our review period. Even so, 

AMO staffing levels for these positions remained below its authorized 

targets in 4 out of the 5 fiscal years we reviewed. Second, AMO staffing 

levels for the Marine Interdiction Agent position remained level as AMO 

lost a net total of 3 Marine Interdiction Agents from fiscal years 2013 

through 2017. Nevertheless, onboard staffing levels for these positions 

remained below the annual authorized levels in 4 of the 5 fiscal years we 

reviewed. Third, on average, CBP hired 25 Air Interdiction Agents and 

lost 52 agents each fiscal year, resulting in an average annual loss of 27 

agents and a net decrease of 136 positions between fiscal years 2013 

and 2017. Further, even though the authorized staffing targets for these 

positions decreased every year since fiscal year 2013, AMO’s onboard 

Air Interdiction Agent staffing levels remained below authorized levels in 4 

of the 5 fiscal years we reviewed (see fig. 9).
Page 48 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 9: Air and Marine Operations Net Staffing Gains and Losses and Overall Staffing Levels for Law Enforcement Officer 

Positions, Fiscal Years (FY) 2013–2017

Note: Authorized staffing levels for Air Interdiction Agent, Marine Interdiction Agent, and Aviation 

Enforcement Agent positions from fiscal years 2013 through 2017 represent staffing goals determined 

by Air and Marine Operations.

CBP has acknowledged that improving its retention of qualified law 

enforcement personnel is critical in addressing staffing shortfalls, but 

officials identified difficulties in retaining key law enforcement staff as a 

result of geographically remote and hard-to-fill duty locations. CBP 

officials across all three operational components and HRM cited 

location—and specifically employees’ inability to relocate to posts in more 

desirable locations—as a primary challenge facing the agency in retaining 

qualified personnel.

Border Patrol officials explained that duty stations in certain remote 

locations present retention challenges due to quality-of-life factors—for 

example, agents may not want to live with their families in an area without 

a hospital, with low-performing schools, or with relatively long commutes 

Retaining Law 

Enforcement Officers in 

Hard-to-Fill Locations Has 

Been Challenging for CBP
Page 49 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

from their homes to their duty station. Border Patrol’s difficulty in retaining 

law enforcement staff in such locations is exacerbated by competition 

with other federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations for 

qualified personnel. According to Border Patrol officials, other agencies 

are often able to offer more desirable duty locations—such as major 

cities—and, in some cases, higher compensation. CBP data indicate that 

Border Patrol agents consistently leave the component for employment 

with other law enforcement agencies, including OFO as well as other 

DHS components such as ICE. For example, while retirements accounted 

for more than half of annual CBP officer losses from fiscal years 2013 

through 2017, they accounted for less than a quarter of annual Border 

Patrol agent losses, indicating that the majority of these agents are not 

retiring but are generally leaving to pursue other employment. Further,

according to CBP data, the number of Border Patrol agents departing for 

employment at other federal agencies increased steadily from 75 agents 

in fiscal year 2013 to 348 agents in fiscal year 2017—or nearly 40 percent 

of all Border Patrol agent losses in that fiscal year (see fig. 10).

Figure 10: Border Patrol Agent Losses to Other Federal Agencies and Total Losses, 

Fiscal Years 2013–2017
Page 50 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Further, of the 113 Border Patrol agents who departed CBP for other 

federal agencies during the first half of fiscal year 2018, 72 agents (64 

percent) went to ICE. Border Patrol officials told us that working a 

standard day shift at ICE in a controlled indoor environment located in a 

major metropolitan area for similar or even lower salaries presents an 

attractive career alternative for Border Patrol agents who often work night 

shifts in extreme weather in geographically remote locations. The 

President of the National Border Patrol Council also cited this challenge, 

stating that unless Border Patrol agents have a strong incentive to remain 

in remote, undesirable locations—such as higher compensation when 

compared with other law enforcement agencies—they are likely to leave 

the agency for similar positions located in more desirable locations.65

While OFO officials told us the component did not face an across-theboard challenge in retaining CBP officers, they have had difficulty 

retaining officers in certain hard-to-fill locations that may be 

geographically remote or unattractive for families, such as Nogales, 

Arizona, and San Ysidro, California. As a result, CBP officer staffing 

levels in these locations have consistently remained below authorized 

targets. For example, OFO ended fiscal year 2017 approximately 300 

positions below its authorized staffing level in both its Tucson, Arizona, 

field office, which includes the port of Nogales, and its San Diego, 

California, field office, which includes the port of San Ysidro. See figure 

11 for more information on the OFO field offices with the four largest gaps 

between onboard and authorized staffing levels for CBP officer positions 

from fiscal years 2015 through 2017.

 65The National Border Patrol Council is the union representing Border Patrol agents that 

are bargaining unit members. In addition to the inability of Border Patrol agents to relocate 

to more desirable locations, the union President cited shifting schedules as an additional 

cause of employee dissatisfaction. 
Page 51 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Figure 11: Onboard and Authorized Staffing Levels for Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Officer Positions by Selected Field Offices, Fiscal Years (FY) 

2015–2017

Note: Authorized staffing levels for CBP officer positions from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 

represent staffing targets determined by the Office of Field Operations (OFO) for each OFO field 

office. These four field offices had the largest gaps between onboard CBP officer staffing levels and 

authorized staffing targets from fiscal year 2015 through 2017.

OFO officials stated that CBP officers regularly leave posts in remote or 

hard-to-fill locations to transfer to similar positions in more desirable 

locations, both internally within OFO as well as at other law enforcement 

agencies. In addition, officials from the National Treasury Employees 

Union, which represents CBP officers, told us that excessive overtime 

and stressful employment conditions—including forced temporary duty 

travel—also contributed to CBP officers leaving the agency for positions 

at other law enforcement entities.66 CBP data indicate that the number of 

 66The National Treasury Employees Union represents CBP officers who are bargaining 

unit members. 
Page 52 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CBP officers who left CBP for employment at other federal agencies 

increased from 33 in fiscal year 2013 to 108 in fiscal year 2017—or 15 

percent of all CBP officer losses in that fiscal year. Likewise, of the 66 

CBP officers who departed CBP for other federal agencies during the first 

half of fiscal year 2018, 34 officers (52 percent) went to ICE.

AMO has also had difficulty retaining its law enforcement personnel—and 

particularly its Air Interdiction Agent staff—in hard-to-fill locations, such as 

Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, and Laredo, Texas. However, given the unique 

qualifications and competencies required for the Air Interdiction Agent 

position, AMO does not compete with other law enforcement 

organizations. Instead, AMO officials told us they compete with the 

commercial airline industry for qualified pilots. Specifically, they stated 

that this competition is exacerbated by a nationwide shortage of pilots. In 

addition, AMO officials explained that there is a perception among 

applicants that commercial airlines are able to offer pilots more desirable 

locations and higher compensation. However, they told us that AMO 

generally provided pilots with higher starting salaries than many regional 

airlines as well as most career options available to helicopter pilots.

All three CBP operational components have taken steps to retain qualified 

law enforcement personnel by offering opportunities for employees to 

relocate to more desirable locations and pursuing the use of financial 

incentives, special salary rates, and other payments and allowances.

Relocation Opportunities. Border Patrol, OFO, and AMO have formal 

programs providing law enforcement officers with opportunities to 

relocate. For example, in fiscal year 2017, Border Patrol implemented its 

Operational Mobility Program and received initial funding to relocate 

about 500 Border Patrol agents to new locations based on the 

component’s staffing needs. According to Border Patrol officials, retaining 

current employees is a top focus for leadership at the component and this 

program provides Border Patrol agents with opportunities for a paid 

relocation to a more desirable location at a lower cost to CBP than an 

official permanent change of station transfer. As of April 2018, Border 

Patrol officials told us that 322 Border Patrol agents had accepted 

reassignment opportunities through the program so far and the 

component hopes to continue receiving funding to provide these 

opportunities.

Likewise, OFO’s National Reassignment Opportunity Bulletin provides 

CBP officers with opportunities to voluntarily relocate to new ports of entry 

CBP Has Taken Steps to 

Address Retention 

Challenges
Page 53 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

at their own expense. CBP officers are able to submit reassignment 

requests multiple times throughout the year and selections are made 

based on OFO’s staffing needs as well as employees’ seniority and other 

eligibility requirements. According to OFO officials, the program has been 

in place since February 2012, and OFO data indicate a recent increase in 

reassignments from 122 participating CBP officers in calendar year 2016 

to 202 officers in 2017. Further, these officials noted that CBP officers are 

also able to relocate to new duty stations through partner swaps—when 

two employees assigned to different duty locations agree to switch—and 

hardship reassignments—for example, when a CBP officer must relocate 

because a spouse has been transferred to a new location for work.

Also, AMO personnel who are non-bargaining unit employees and have 

served for at least 3 years in their current location are eligible for 

noncompetitive paid relocations. AMO officials told us that opportunities 

for relocations are posted every few months in which eligible personnel 

can apply for transfers to specific duty locations based on the needs of 

the operational component.

Financial Incentives and Other Payments and Allowances. CBP’s 

three operational components have also recently taken steps to 

supplement employees’ salaries through the use of human capital 

flexibilities—such as retention and relocation incentives and special 

salary rates—as well as other payments and allowances. CBP’s goal in 

pursuing these human capital flexibilities is to retain current employees—

especially in remote or hard-to-fill locations—who are likely to internally 

relocate within CBP to more desirable duty locations or depart the agency 

for similar positions at other law enforcement organizations or commercial 

airlines. Supplementing the salaries of its employees is consistent with a 

leading practice we identified in retaining qualified law enforcement 

personnel—specifically, agencies should ensure they are offering pay and 

compensation comparable with other law enforcement agencies. Further, 

two of the three other selected law enforcement agencies we reviewed 

regularly used retention incentives and other human capital flexibilities to 

help retain qualified law enforcement personnel in cases where filling the 
Page 54 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

position would be difficult or recruitment costs would be high.67 However, 

we found that from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP’s use of such 

financial incentives and other payments was limited as the agency paid a 

total of 4 retention incentives and 13 relocation incentives, and 

implemented 1 special salary rate for all positions during this 5-year 

period.

From fiscal year 2013 through 2017, Border Patrol did not offer retention 

incentives to agents and paid 2 relocation incentives to transfer Border 

Patrol agents to Artesia, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C., at a cost of 

roughly $78,000. However, in fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol increased its 

use of relocation incentives to facilitate the transfer of agents to duty 

stations along the southwest border that are less desirable due to the 

remoteness of the location and lack of basic amenities and infrastructure.

Specifically, as of April 2018, 67 Border Patrol agents had received such 

incentives to relocate to duty stations in Ajo, Arizona; Calexico, California; 

and the Big Bend region in Texas; among others.

While Border Patrol did not offer retention incentives during our review 

period, it submitted a formal request to CBP leadership in February 2018 

for a 10 percent across-the-board retention incentive for all Border Patrol 

agents at the GS-13 level and below, which represents the majority of the 

component’s frontline workforce. According to Border Patrol 

documentation, these incentives, if implemented, could help reduce 

Border Patrol’s attrition rate—which has consistently outpaced its hiring 

rate—by helping retain agents who may have otherwise left Border Patrol 

for similar positions in OFO, ICE, or other law enforcement agencies. 

According to HRM officials, as of April 2018, CBP leadership was 

evaluating Border Patrol’s group retention incentive request, including the 

costs associated with implementing this 10 percent across-the-board 

 67Specifically, BOP regularly used retention incentives for Correctional Officers staffed in 

locations with high attrition rates. For example, according to BOP data, the agency paid 

retention incentives to 146 Correctional Officers at a cost of about $2.2 million in fiscal 

year 2013 and 178 Correctional Officers at a cost of about $3.8 million in fiscal year 2017. 

Further, the Secret Service expanded its use of retention incentives during our review 

period, paying out 78 incentives at a cost of about $292,000 in fiscal year 2013 and 350 

incentives at a cost of about $2.8 million in fiscal year 2017. The Secret Service also 

began offering a group retention incentive in January 2018 to roughly 1,200 Uniformed 

Division Officers. In addition, the agency utilizes several additional programs to help retain 

its law enforcement personnel, including offering employees tuition assistance, student 

loan repayment programs, and bonuses for regularly using foreign languages as part of 

their jobs. ICE officials told us they did not use retention incentives or other human capital 

flexibilities to retain law enforcement officers.
Page 55 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

incentive. In addition, as the incentive would benefit Border Patrol agents 

in all of the component’s duty locations, the extent to which this effort 

would be effective in targeting agent attrition in the remote locations that 

represent CBP’s largest staffing challenges remains to be seen.

In addition, as of May 2018, CBP was planning to submit a request to 

OPM for a $10 per day remote duty location allowance for Border Patrol 

agents staffed to 17 geographically remote stations. These stations meet 

OPM’s definition of “remote worksites” and have quality-of-life conditions 

that are substantially below the standard at most other CBP duty 

locations.68 According to the agency, this allowance could help to address 

the attrition of Border Patrol agents at these duty stations. However, like 

its group retention incentive request, it is not yet known whether this 

proposal will be approved.

From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, OFO paid a total of 4 retention 

incentives at a cost of $149,000 to retain CBP officers in Tucson, Arizona; 

Detroit, Michigan; Carbury, North Dakota; and Laredo, Texas. Further, 

OFO paid 7 relocation incentives at a cost of approximately $160,000 to 

relocate personnel to the hard-to-fill ports of Alcan and Nome, Alaska; 

Coburn Gore, Maine; and Detroit, Michigan. One OFO official told us 

OFO did not regularly use retention incentives because its relatively low 

annual attrition rates make it difficult to propose a persuasive business 

case to CBP leadership that such incentives are necessary. Further, 

another OFO official explained that OFO’s strategy is focused on using 

recruitment incentives to staff hard-to-fill locations with new employees. 

As discussed above, OFO officials told us this strategy has been effective 

in retaining CBP officers in most of the hard-to-fill locations where 

recruitment incentives have been used since fiscal year 2015.69

In addition to relocation and retention incentives, OFO received OPM 

approval in fiscal year 2017 to implement a special salary rate for CBP 

 68According to Border Patrol officials, this allowance would total roughly $3,000 per year 

for the average Border Patrol agent staffed to one of the 17 geographically remote 

stations covered by the request. These 17 duty locations meet the statutory remoteness 

requirement in being so remote from the nearest established communities or suitable 

places of residence as to require an appreciable degree of expense, hardship, and 

inconvenience, beyond that normally encountered in metropolitan commuting.

69OFO also offered foreign language bonuses to CBP officers who regularly use a foreign 

language as part of their job. According to National Treasury Employees Union officials, 

these bonuses are very popular at OFO and are an important tool in retaining personnel. 
Page 56 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

officers staffed to the hard-to-fill location of Portal, North Dakota—a port 

that consistently experienced CBP officer losses of more than 10 percent 

each year. Specifically, this special salary rate supplements CBP officers’

base salaries up to 40 percent and, according to OFO officials as of 

February 2018, there had not been any CBP officer departures from the 

port since this rate was implemented in June 2017. OFO officials stated 

that while recruitment incentives can bring applicants to hard-to-fill 

locations, special salary rates may be able to retain them for longer 

periods. However, while OFO officials have cited the effectiveness of this

special salary rate in retaining personnel, this rate only applies to one 

hard-to-fill location and does not address OFO’s ongoing staffing 

challenges in other chronically understaffed locations. According to OFO 

officials, the component is considering requesting additional special 

salary rates for such locations where attaining authorized staffing levels 

has proved difficult, but these officials noted that such discussions are in 

the preliminary stage due to the extensive effort and amount of time 

required to pursue this option. Specifically, these officials told us that 

requesting OPM approval for a special salary rate in Portal, North Dakota, 

was an onerous and extensive process that took CBP and OPM more 

than 2 years to complete from start to finish.

From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, AMO did not offer retention 

incentives to law enforcement personnel and paid a total of 4 relocation 

incentives to transfer three Air Interdiction Agents and one Marine 

Interdiction Agent to Puerto Rico at a cost of approximately $84,000. 

However, AMO has taken steps to pursue additional human capital 

flexibilities to address its difficulty in retaining Air Interdiction Agents, 

including a group retention incentive and a special salary rate. 

Specifically, in September 2017, AMO submitted an official request to 

HRM for a 10 percent group retention incentive for Air Interdiction Agents 

staffed to duty locations in Yuma and Sierra Vista, Arizona; Grand Forks, 

North Dakota; Laredo, Alpine, and McAllen, Texas; and Aguadilla, Puerto 

Rico.70 According to the request, the incentive is intended to help AMO 

retain qualified pilots in these hard-to-fill locations by raising their salaries 

to be more competitive with commercial airlines. HRM officials told us in 

March 2018 they were working with AMO and CBP’s Office of Finance to 

assess the proposal’s cost.

 70According to AMO’s request, the retention incentives offered in Sierra Vista and Grand 

Forks, Arizona, will be specifically for Air Interdiction Agents tasked with piloting 

unmanned aerial systems. 
Page 57 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

In addition, as of April 2018, AMO was in the process of drafting a special 

salary rate request for all Air Interdiction Agents from GS-11 through GS13 at all AMO locations. HRM officials confirmed they were working with 

AMO officials on this request, including evaluating whether AMO meets 

OPM’s criteria. HRM officials told us that OPM’s criteria for approving the 

use of special salary rates represent a high bar and AMO will have to 

present a strong business case that demonstrates a regular pattern of 

component-wide Air Interdiction Agent losses.

CBP does not have a systematic process for capturing and analyzing 

information on law enforcement officers who are leaving, such as an exit 

interview or survey. As a result, the agency does not have important 

information it could use to help inform future retention efforts. CBP 

officials across all three components confirmed that they do not 

systematically conduct formal exit interviews to collect data on departing 

employees. Officials from OFO and AMO told us that departing law 

enforcement officers receive the DHS exit survey and therefore have the 

option to provide these data. However, while CBP officials explained that 

DHS provides the survey response data to CBP on a quarterly basis, 

AMO officials told us that this information was of limited value due to low 

response rates. Further, when we requested these data, CBP was unable 

to provide the survey response data—or the percentage of departing 

employees who had completed the survey—citing a technical reporting 

error in DHS’s system. In addition, according to CBP officials, in August 

2017, DHS communicated that it no longer required CBP (or DHS’s other 

components) to use the DHS exit survey.

In the third quarter of fiscal year 2017, Border Patrol implemented its own 

exit survey, which includes questions gauging departing employees’

reasons for leaving, length of service, and, if applicable, what 

organization they are departing for, among other questions. While such 

questions should provide CBP with useful data on the factors affecting 

Border Patrol agent departures, Border Patrol officials told us that the 

response rate was 9 percent as of January 2018. When we asked these 

officials about the steps they were taking to improve this response rate, 

they replied that individual Border Patrol sectors were responsible for 

disseminating these surveys and the headquarters officials were unsure 

of the extent to which sector-level officials were sending the surveys to 

departing employees. To ensure the surveys were being sent, a senior 

Border Patrol headquarters official explained that sector-level officials 

have been told to copy him on all e-mails disseminating the survey.

CBP Does Not Have a 

Systematic Process to 

Capture and Analyze Data 

on Departing Law 

Enforcement Officers
Page 58 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

According to CBP officials, in April 2018, the agency launched an initiative 

to develop a CBP-wide exit survey. The agency plans to develop 

customized questions for the survey, conduct a pilot of the survey in July 

2018, and integrate the survey into CBP’s off-boarding process by the 

beginning of fiscal year 2019. While CBP provided us with these project 

milestone dates, the agency did not provide any documentation 

describing key aspects of the initiative, such as whether CBP will develop 

a strategy focused on encouraging departing employees to complete the 

survey to foster higher response rates. Further, CBP did not provide any 

information on how the agency planned to analyze and use data collected 

by the exit survey to inform its efforts to retain qualified law enforcement 

personnel.

Two of the other selected law enforcement agencies we reviewed—BOP 

and the Secret Service—use exit surveys to collect a wide range of 

information on departing employees, while ICE is currently developing its 

own survey. For example, similar to Border Patrol’s exit survey, BOP’s 

uses a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions to assess 

reasons for departures as well as employee attitudes toward 

compensation, work-life balance and other working conditions, and 

supervisors. Further, both BOP’s and the Secret Service’s surveys inquire 

about actions the agencies could have taken that would have prevented 

the employee’s departure.

CBP officials said that management is generally aware of the factors that 

influence law enforcement officer departures, including the main reason—

they want to relocate to more desirable locations. Specifically, Border 

Patrol officials stated that managers have anecdotal knowledge through 

informal conversations or meetings at the local level with departing 

Border Patrol agents, and OFO officials stated that when a CBP officer 

leaves, there is a general understanding among their colleagues as to the 

reasons for their departure. In contrast to OFO and Border Patrol officials, 

AMO officials stated that because of the low participation rates on the 

DHS survey, the component does not have enough data to understand 

and address the factors that influence employees’ decisions to leave. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

management should obtain relevant data from reliable sources and 

process these data into quality information to make informed decisions in 

achieving key objectives.71 Taking steps to ensure that the agency’s 

 71GAO-14-704G.
Page 59 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

operational components are systematically collecting and analyzing 

complete and accurate information on all departing law enforcement 

officers—including the factors that influenced their decision to separate—

would better position CBP to understand its retention challenges and take 

appropriate action to address them.

CBP has made progress in improving its recruitment, hiring, and retention 

of law enforcement officers, including increasing the total number of 

applications it receives for these positions and reducing the amount of 

time it takes to hire applicants. Further, CBP has taken steps to address 

its primary challenge in retaining qualified law enforcement officers by 

offering opportunities for these personnel to relocate and pursuing the 

use of financial incentives and other payments to supplement employee 

salaries. Even so, retaining law enforcement officers in hard-to-fill 

locations continues to be challenging for CBP.

Although CBP management may be aware of the primary reason law 

enforcement personnel leave the agency, CBP does not have a 

systematic process in place across its three operational components to 

capture and analyze information on these departures, such as an exit 

interview or survey. Taking steps to ensure that the agency’s operational 

components are systematically capturing and analyzing a wide range of 

information on all departing law enforcement officers and the factors that 

influenced their decisions to leave would better position CBP to 

understand its retention challenges and take appropriate action to 

address them.

The Commissioner of CBP should ensure that its operational components 

systematically collect and analyze data on departing law enforcement 

officers and use this information to inform retention efforts. 

(Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this product to DHS for review and comment. DHS 

provided written comments, which are noted below and reproduced in full 

in appendix I, and technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. We also provided the draft report to the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons for review and comment, which indicated via e-mail that it did not 

have any comments on the draft report.

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 60 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DHS concurred with our recommendation and described the actions it 

plans to take in response. Specifically, DHS stated that CBP is taking 

steps to develop an agency-wide exit survey to collect information on 

departing law enforcement officers for implementation in fiscal year 2019. 

DHS also stated that CBP is working to develop a mass communications 

plan to facilitate the completion of the survey by exiting employees to 

ensure an effective response rate. Systematically capturing and analyzing 

quality information on departing law enforcement officers will help CBP to 

understand its retention challenges. To fully address the intent of our 

recommendation, CBP will also need to use this information to address its 

retention challenges and inform its overall retention efforts. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix II.

Rebecca Gambler

Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Page 61 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

List of Requesters

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable Martha McSally

Chairwoman

The Honorable Filemon Vela

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable J. Luis Correa

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 62 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 63 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 64 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 65 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 66 GAO-18-487 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Rebecca Gambler, 202-512-8777, gamblerr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Adam Hoffman (Assistant 

Director), Bryan Bourgault, Eric Hauswirth, Tyler Kent, Amanda Miller, 

Sasan J. “Jon” Najmi, Leslie Sarapu, Michael Steinberg, and Adam Vogt 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(102246)
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 website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

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

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.