U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Progress and Challenges in Recruiting, Hiring, and Retaining Law Enforcement Personnel
Released: 2018-06-27T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

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.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.  However, in recent years, CBP has not been able to attain its statutorily- established 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. Consistent with this directive, Border Patrol is  aiming to attain a staffing level of 26,370 Border Patrol agents (5,000  agents above the fiscal year 2016 statutorily-established level).

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. 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. 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. We also reported on CBP’s trade enforcement  activities in June 2017 and found that CBP had not met the authorized  staffing levels for its trade positions. 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. 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.

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  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.  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 entry- on-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  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.

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  enforcement agencies in recruiting, hiring, and retaining officers. 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. 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. We  selected the Secret Service because it is also a DHS component and its  application process—like CBP’s—includes a polygraph examination.  Last, we selected BOP as a non-DHS comparison agency because it has  also faced challenges in recruiting and retaining law enforcement  personnel in hard-to-fill locations.

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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: CBP’s Law Enforcement Positions
paragraphs: 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.  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.

section_title: CBP Staffing Levels for Law Enforcement Officer Positions
paragraphs: 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. Figure 2  shows the difference between CBP’s onboard staffing levels and its  authorized staffing levels from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

section_title: CBP’s Hiring Process for Law Enforcement Officer Positions
paragraphs: 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. Several of these steps can be done concurrently—for  example, CBP can begin the background investigation while the  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.

section_title: Financial Incentives and Other Human Capital Flexibilities Available to CBP
paragraphs: CBP is able to use financial incentives and other compensation-based  human capital flexibilities to help recruit and retain qualified law  enforcement personnel. 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.

In addition to these incentives, CBP can also offer other compensation- based human capital flexibilities to employees. 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  CBP’s recruitment or retention efforts are, or would likely become,  significantly handicapped without those higher rates.

section_title: CBP Has Enhanced Its Recruitment Efforts and Applications for Law Enforcement Officer Positions Have Increased
subsections: section_title: CBP Established a Centralized Recruitment Office to Manage Recruitment Efforts across Components
paragraphs: 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  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. 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  funding for each operational component to cover the cost of recruitment  events or other initiatives that meet the specific needs of that  component. 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. 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.

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. 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.

section_title: CBP Has Increased Its Participation in Recruitment Events and Standardized Its Recruiter Training
paragraphs: CBP has increased its emphasis on recruitment and increased the  number of recruitment events it has participated in since fiscal year  2015. 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).

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.

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. 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-to- year 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.  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.

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.

section_title: CBP Increased Its Use of Recruitment Incentives, Although Use by Components Varied
paragraphs: 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. 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).

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  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. 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 hard- to-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.

section_title: Applications for Law Enforcement Positions Have Tripled since Fiscal Year 2013
paragraphs: 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. 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).

section_title: CBP’s Accenture Contract Is Intended to Further Enhance CBP’s Recruitment Efforts
paragraphs: 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, security- related services, and for the hiring of 440 CBP officers, 150 Border Patrol  agents, and 23 AMO law enforcement officers. 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.

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  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.

section_title: CBP Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Hiring Process, but the Process Remains Lengthy
subsections: section_title: CBP Has Improved Its Performance in Two Key Hiring Metrics
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  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).

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. 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. 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. 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  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. 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).

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  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. 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.

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.

section_title: CBP Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Hiring Process for Law Enforcement Officers
paragraphs: 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.

In March 2017, CBP was granted the authority to waive the polygraph  examination for veterans who meet certain criteria, including those  who hold a current, active top-secret/sensitive-compartmented- information clearance.

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. 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  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). 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.

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  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. 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.  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).

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  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.  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. 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.  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  through aspects of the hiring process that applicants are responsible for  completing, such as the submission of OPM’s Standard Form 86 (SF- 86).

CBP officials told us that the agency is collecting data to evaluate the  effectiveness of the Applicant Care pilot, including the average time-to- hire 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. Specifically, the  contractor is responsible for implementing the same hiring process steps  and maintaining CBP’s standards to ensure that all applicants recruited  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.

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  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.

section_title: Certain Factors Affect CBP’s Hiring Process for Law Enforcement Positions
paragraphs: 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  the hiring process. 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 time- consuming 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. 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  enforcement applicants in fiscal year 2017. 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.

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  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.

section_title: CBP Has Enhanced Its Retention Efforts, but Does Not Systematically Collect and Analyze Data on Departing Law Enforcement Personnel
subsections: section_title: CBP’s Retention of Law Enforcement Officers Varies by Position
paragraphs: 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,  attrition rates for these positions have generally remained lower than  those of the Secret Service and BOP (see table 9).

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.

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  1,300 officers over this 5-year period. 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).

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  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).

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  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).

section_title: Retaining Law Enforcement Officers in Hard-to-Fill Locations Has Been Challenging for CBP
paragraphs: 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  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).

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.

While OFO officials told us the component did not face an across-the- board 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.

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. CBP data indicate that the number of  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.

section_title: CBP Has Taken Steps to Address Retention Challenges
paragraphs: 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  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  position would be difficult or recruitment costs would be high. 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  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. 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.

In addition to relocation and retention incentives, OFO received OPM  approval in fiscal year 2017 to implement a special salary rate for CBP  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. 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.

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 GS- 13 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.

section_title: CBP Does Not Have a Systematic Process to Capture and Analyze Data on Departing Law Enforcement Officers
paragraphs: 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.

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. Taking steps to ensure that the agency’s  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.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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)

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.

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.

section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: 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.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: How has CBP increased emphasis on recruitment?
answer: 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.
child_questions: question: How did these efforts affect the number of applications it received?
answer: 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.

question: How has CBP attempted to better target potential applicants?
answer: Also, in November 2017, CBP hired a contractor to more effectively target potential applicants and better utilize data to enhance CBP's recruitment efforts.
child_questions: question: To what extent have these efforts been successful?
answer: 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.

questions: question: What is the current state of CBP's effort to address retention issues?
answer: 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.
child_questions: question: What is the key retention challenge?
answer: Officials cited employees' inability to relocate to more desirable locations as a key retention challenge.
child_questions: question: How has CBP addressed this challenge?
answer: 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.

question: How could CBP better understand its retention challenges?
answer: 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.

questions: question: What is CBP responsible for?
answer: 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.

question: Why has CBP been unable to meet its target staffing levels?
answer: 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.

question: What was GAO asked to review?
answer: GAO was asked to review CBP's efforts to recruit, hire, and retain law enforcement personnel.

questions: question: What does this report review?
answer: 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.
child_questions: question: How did GAO collect data for this report?
answer: 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.

question: How did GAO assess CBP strategies?
answer: 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.