CBP Public Reporting of Border Crossing Wait Time Data

CBP defines border wait time as the time it takes for a vehicle to travel  from the end of the queue—which may be in Mexico or the United States,  depending on the length of the line—to the CBP primary inspection point  in the United States. CBP’s Wait Time Data Are Unreliable for Informing the Public and CBP Management Decisions, and CBP Has Not Assessed the Feasibility of Automated Data Collection Options

		Wait Time Data Are Unreliable and of Limited Usefulness; CBP Has Not Taken Steps to Improve Its Current Wait Time Estimation Methodology

CBP policy identifies two methodologies to be used by ports of entry for  manually calculating wait times for commercial vehicles; however,  challenges in implementing these methodologies contribute to CBP wait  time data being of limited usefulness for public reporting and  management decision making across border crossings. The recommendations directed  CBP to, among other things (1) use closed-circuit television cameras to  measure wait time in real time; (2) provide a standardized measurement  and validation tool, such as a useful and well-documented benchmarking  system; and (3) continue to monitor and evaluate applications of  transportation technologies at the border that allow for better  measurement and reporting of wait times.from three offices—the office that sponsored the report (Land Border  Integration), the office in charge of cargo operations (Cargo Conveyance  and Security), and the office that maintains the agency’s wait time data  (Planning Program Analysis and Evaluation)—were all unclear as to the  steps, if any, that had been taken to address the first two  recommendations and which office was responsible for implementing  them. CBP Has Not Assessed the Feasibility of New Automation Options

In February 2008, FHWA, in coordination with state DOTs and CBP,  initiated pilot projects to develop automated wait time data collection  methods at select southwest border crossings. Given that  CBP officials have stated that automated data collection is the most  effective method for obtaining standardized and reliable wait time data,  conducting an assessment of the feasibility of the methods piloted by  FHWA or other automation methods, in consultation with FHWA and state  DOTs, could help CBP determine how to best achieve its goal of  improving the reliability of its publicly reported wait time data. CBP Analyses and Officials Identified Some Infrastructure and Staff Needs, but the Methodology Used to Allocate Staff across Ports of Entry Has Not Been Documented

		CBP Analyses and Officials Indicated Need for Additional Infrastructure at Some Crossings, and Our Analysis of Data on Primary Lane Use Generally Supported These Assessments

CBP analyses and port officials identified needs for additional  infrastructure—such as more lanes—at some border crossings, and our  analysis of CBP data on lane use generally supported agency views on  the extent to which CBP opens lanes at the six crossings we visited. Further, our analysis supports CBP officials’ statements that they  generally open and close primary inspection lanes in response to  fluctuations in commercial traffic volume, but some port officials cited  constraints to opening more lanes during times of peak traffic. CBP and GSA assessments and officials identified current infrastructure  limitations affecting commercial vehicle processing at three of the six  crossings we visited. They further reported actively working to adjust staff  allocations across locations to better ensure that staffing levels are  matched to areas of greatest need. However, this official explained that this process is not  documented and there is no guidance clearly defining this methodology,  the factors considered, or the rationale for making staff allocation  decisions. OMB and our guidance recommend the use of outcome-oriented  performance measures to promote accountability for results. Taking steps to help CBP port officials  implement CBP’s existing mechanisms for collecting wait time data,  consistent with agency guidance, could improve data reliability and  usefulness for these purposes. In addition, it is difficult for CBP or others to gauge the agency’s progress  in meeting its trade facilitation goal because CBP does not have  outcome-oriented measures for its trade facilitation efforts. To better ensure that CBP’s OFO’s staffing processes are transparent  and to help ensure CBP can demonstrate that these resource decisions  have effectively addressed CBP’s mission needs, we recommend that the  Commissioner of CBP document the methodology and process OFO  uses to allocate staff to land ports of entry on the southwest border,  including the rationales and factors considered in making these decisions. To facilitate transparency and performance accountability for its trade  facilitation programs and meeting CBP’s goal of balancing its trade and  security missions, we recommend that the Commissioner of CBP develop  outcome-oriented performance measures or proxy measures to capture  the impact of CBP’s trade facilitation efforts, such as measures to  determine the extent to which CBP trusted shipper programs have met  their goals. However, the actions DHS identified will not  address the intent of one of these recommendations. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addresses the following questions:
To what extent are CBP wait time data reliable for public reporting and  informing CBP decisions on staffing and infrastructure investments? To what extent has CBP identified infrastructure and staffing needed  to process current commercial traffic volume at southwest border  crossings with high traffic volume? To what extent do CBP performance measures address progress  toward its goal of facilitating trade? 2. 4. (These are also called strategic  measures within the department.)
Why GAO Did This Study

Trade with Mexico is important to the United States' economy. Most of this trade crosses the border by truck, and studies have shown that long waits at border crossings can negatively affect the U.S. economy. CBP is responsible for securing U.S. borders at ports of entry to prevent illegal entry of persons and contraband while also facilitating legitimate trade and travel. GAO was asked to examine CBP data on and actions taken to address wait times at southwest border crossings. This report addresses the extent to which (1) CBP wait time data are reliable for public reporting and informing CBP decisions, (2) CBP has identified infrastructure and staffing needed to process current commercial traffic volumes, and (3) CBP performance measures assess progress toward its trade facilitation goal. GAO assessed the reliability of CBP's wait time data; visited six land border crossings (not generalizable, but selected largely for high traffic volume); analyzed CBP documentation, including needs assessments; and interviewed stakeholders and CBP officials.

What GAO Found

Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) data on commercial vehicle wait times--the time it takes to travel from the end of the queue to the CBP primary inspection point at land border crossings--are unreliable for public reporting and CBP management decisions across border crossings. These data--which are collected manually by CBP officers--are unreliable because CBP officers inconsistently implement an approved data collection methodology, and the methodologies used vary by crossing. For example, five of the six crossings GAO visited require observation of the end of the queue to estimate wait times, but officials at these crossings reported the lines extended beyond their view at times. As a result, these data are generally not used by the private sector and are of limited usefulness for CBP management decisions on staffing and infrastructure investments. Determining and taking steps to help CBP officials overcome challenges to consistent implementation of existing methodologies could improve the reliability and usefulness of CBP's current wait time data. CBP officials have identified automated wait time data collection technology as the best way to improve data reliability. The Department of Transportation (DOT), in coordination with state DOTs and CBP, has ongoing pilot projects to use technology to gather more reliable wait time data at some border crossings. However, CBP has not assessed the feasibility of replacing current methods with automated data collection. Doing so, consistent with program management standards, could help CBP determine how to best improve data reliability.
CBP officials report and analyses indicate infrastructure and staff needs, but documenting CBP's staff allocation process could improve transparency and facilitate review and validation by CBP and others. CBP officials and analyses identify needs for additional infrastructure--such as more lanes--at some crossings, and GAO analysis of CBP data on lane use generally supported agency views on the extent to which CBP opens lanes at the six crossings GAO visited. Further, GAO analysis of lane use and traffic volume data generally supported CBP officials' statements that they open and close primary inspection lanes in response to fluctuations in commercial traffic volume. CBP analyses identified a need for 3,811 additional officers, and CBP headquarters officials told GAO all southwest border ports require additional staff, but CBP field and port managers at three of six crossings GAO visited reported having sufficient staff. CBP human capital officials reported that they adjust staff allocations across locations to better ensure that staff levels match areas of greatest need, but CBP has not documented this process, and there is no guidance defining the methodology used or factors considered when allocating staff across ports. Documenting this process, consistent with internal control standards, could improve transparency, helping CBP and others to better ensure that scarce staff resources are effectively allocated to fulfill mission needs across ports.
CBP does not have outcome-oriented performance measures to determine the extent to which the agency is facilitating trade. The Office of Management and Budget and GAO guidance recommend using outcome-oriented measures to promote accountability for results. In the absence of such measures, it is difficult for the agency or others to gauge CBP's progress in meeting its stated goal of facilitating trade.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CBP (1) determine and take steps to helpensure consistent implementation ofexisting wait time data collection methodologies, (2) assess the feasibility of replacing current methodologies with automated methods, (3) document its staff allocation process and rationale, and (4) develop outcome-oriented performance measures. DHS agreed with these four recommendations and identified steps to address them, although the planned actions will not address the intent of one.