Staffing Shortfalls, Lack of Performance Targets Can Impact CBP’s Trade Enforcement Efforts, GAO Says
Staffing shortfalls and lack of performance targets at U.S. Customs and Border Protection can impact the agency’s ability to pursue effective trade enforcement, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office. The findings come as the Trump administration seeks to strengthen trade enforcement efforts at both CBP and the Department of Commerce.
Background. In fiscal year 2015, CBP processed more than $2.4 trillion in imports through more than 300 ports of entry, collecting around $46 billion in revenue. In February 2016, Congress passed an act that included a provision for the GAO to review the effectiveness of CBP’s trade enforcement activities. In its recent report, the GAO examined (1) CBP’s structure for carrying out trade enforcement, (2) how CBP conducts trade enforcement across its high-risk issue areas and ensures that its enforcement activities are effective, and (3) the extent to which CBP meets its staffing needs for trade enforcement.
The GAO reviewed agency documents, interviewed agency officials, and conducted field work at ports in Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles/Long Beach, California; and New York, New York. The agency selected ports to visit based such factors as the volume of imports and the number of trade enforcement units at each port.
GAO Report. CBP conducts trade enforcement across seven high-risk issue areas using a risk-based approach, but the GAO indicates that CBP’s plans generally lack performance targets that would enable the agency to assess the effectiveness of its enforcement activities. Violations in the high-risk issue areas can cause significant revenue loss, harm the U.S. economy, or threaten the health and safety of the American people. CBP’s trade enforcement activities reduce risk of noncompliance and focus efforts on high-risk imports, according to CBP. For example, CBP conducts targeting of goods as well as audits and verifications of importers, seizes prohibited goods, collects duties, and assesses penalties. However, the GAO states, CBP cannot assess the effectiveness of its activities without developing performance targets as suggested by leading practices for managing for results.
Over the past five fiscal years, CBP generally has not met the minimum staffing levels set by Congress for four of nine positions that perform customs revenue functions and it generally has not met the optimal staffing level targets identified by the agency for these positions. Staffing shortfalls can impact CBP’s ability to enforce trade effectively, for example, by leading to reduced compliance audits and decreased cargo inspections, according to CBP officials. CBP has cited several challenges to filling staffing gaps, including that hiring for trade positions is not an agency-wide priority. Contrary to leading practices in human capital management, CBP has not articulated how it plans to reach its staffing targets for trade positions over the long term, generally conducting its hiring on an ad hoc basis.
According to the GAO, to strengthen its trade enforcement effort (1) CBP’s Office of Trade should include performance targets, when applicable, in addition to performance measures in its priority trade issue strategic and annual plans; and (2) CBP’s Office of Trade and the Office of Field Operations should develop a long-term hiring plan that articulates how CBP will reach its staffing targets for trade positions set in the Homeland Security Act and the agency’s resource optimization model.
The GAO states that CBP has concurred with both recommendations, including by working to identify applicable performance measures with performance targets to include in the fiscal year 2018 annual and strategic plans for its priority trade issues, and identifying stakeholders and defining challenges that have resulted in hiring gaps in trade-related positions and developing a long-term hiring and resource plan.