	Background

From 1913 until 2002, USDA was responsible for the inspection of plants  and animals at U.S. ports of entry. DHS and USDA Have Taken Steps to Implement GAO’s Seven Recommendations, but Have Not Fully Implemented Four of Them

DHS and USDA took steps to implement all seven recommendations we  made in our May 2006 report, but they faced challenges fully  implementing four of them. DHS and USDA Faced Challenges Implementing Four of Seven Recommendations

DHS and USDA faced challenges in fully implementing our  recommendations to (1) adopt meaningful performance measures, (2)  establish a national risk-based staffing model, (3) improve the agriculture  canine program, and (4) revise user fees to cover AQI program costs. In 2006, we recommended that DHS and USDA adopt meaningful  performance measures for assessing the AQI program’s effectiveness at  intercepting foreign pests and disease on agricultural materials entering  the country by all pathways and posing a risk to U.S. agriculture. Even as APHIS and CBP expanded existing performance measures, they  did not develop measures for all aspects of the AQI program that are  important for its management. CBP officials also told us they currently do not have the  resources to increase staff above replacement levels. However, the  agency has not developed a plan or strategy that assesses the risk of  potential fiscal constraints on their ability to implement the staffing model. Without a plan or  strategy to optimize the allocation of staff to those ports of highest need  that considers the fiscal resources that may realistically be available, CBP  risks investing in a staffing model it cannot execute and increasing the  vulnerability of the agriculture sector to foreign pests and disease. Limitations in the Arrival, Inspection, and Interception Data May Hinder Their Use in Managing the Program

The AQI program uses data on arrivals, inspections, and interceptions to  determine how well agricultural inspections identify prohibited materials  and to review ports’ performance, but data quality issues may prevent  AQI program officials from making full use of the data. Specifically:
The data may not be reliable. In addition, from 2010 through  2011, the joint CBP-APHIS quality assurance reviews, which focused  on 22 ports, found instances of discrepancies between data recorded  in WADS and data recorded on daily logs at about half of the ports  reviewed (10 out of the 22 ports). Some of these data limitations have the potential to affect other key  efforts that are currently underway, such as the program’s staffing model  and the effort to analyze the structure and amounts of AQI user fees–– both critical to the AQI program. Without reliable data on work activities, AQI program officials  cannot be assured that they have the information they need to manage  the program. Survey Responses Show Some Changes in Agriculture Specialists’ Views

According to our analysis of agriculture specialists’ and supervisors’  responses to our 2012 survey and the results from our 2006 survey,  some aspects of agriculture specialists’ and supervisors’ views about their  work environment have changed since 2006. Conclusions

The AQI program is a key component of U.S. efforts to protect agriculture  from the unintentional or deliberate introduction of pests and disease, and  effective management of the AQI program requires a coordinated effort  by DHS and USDA. Specifically, in  the absence of a strategic plan that lays out the program’s joint mission  and goals, APHIS and CBP do not have a framework for defining the  program’s mission, setting goals to achieve the desired results, and  identifying performance measures for gauging progress towards those  goals. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to examine the extent to which (1) U.S. Department  of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  have implemented recommendations we made in 2006 to improve the  Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program; (2) data on arrivals,  inspections, and interceptions are used for managing the program; and  (3) the views of agriculture specialists at Customs and Border Protection  (CBP) regarding their work environment have changed, if at all, since our  2006 reports. We selected these ports of entry based on size; the presence  of agriculture specialists, supervisors, and canine handlers; and entry  pathways, such as air, sea, and land. To examine the extent to which GAO’s May 2006 recommendations have  been implemented, we interviewed DHS and USDA officials and  reviewed documentation related to (1) improving information-sharing, (2)  undertaking a full review of DHS’s financial management system for the  AQI program, (3) removing barriers to timely and accurate AQI user fee  transfers from USDA to DHS, (4) adopting meaningful performance  measures, (5) establishing a national risk-based staffing model, (6)  improving the agriculture canine program, and (7) revising user fees to  cover AQI program costs.
Why GAO Did This Study

According to DHS, invasive species cause an estimated $136 billion in lost agricultural revenue annually, and since September 11, 2001, concerns have persisted about the vulnerability of agriculture to deliberate introduction of foreign pests and disease. DHS and USDA manage the AQI program, which places agriculture inspectors at U.S. ports of entry to inspect imported agriculture products and intercept foreign pests. GAO reported in 2006 on management challenges in the program and made seven recommendations to improve it. GAO was asked to examine the extent to which (1) DHS and USDA implemented GAO's recommendations; (2) data on arrivals, inspections, and interceptions are used for managing the program; and (3) the views of AQI agriculture specialists on their work environment have changed since 2006. GAO surveyed a representative sample of agriculture specialists and supervisors; reviewed key documents and inspection procedures; visited five selected ports of entry based on size and entry pathways, such as air or sea; interviewed DHS and USDA officials; and reviewed AQI data. The survey instrument and most results can be viewed at GAO-12-884SP .

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have taken steps to implement all seven of the recommendations GAO made in 2006 to improve the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program, but they face challenges in fully implementing four of them. Specifically, DHS and USDA have implemented GAO's recommendations to improve information sharing, review DHS's financial management system for the AQI program, and remove barriers to timely and accurate transfers of AQI user fees--collected for AQI services provided in connection with the arrival of international air passengers and conveyances at U.S. ports. However, DHS and USDA face challenges in fully implementing GAO's recommendations to adopt meaningful performance measures, establish a national risk-based staffing model, improve the agriculture canine program, and revise user fees to cover program costs. For example, in 2006, GAO recommended that DHS and USDA adopt meaningful performance measures for assessing the AQI program's effectiveness at intercepting foreign pests and disease. DHS and USDA have expanded the use of one type of performance measure but have not developed measures for all aspects of the AQI program that are important for its management. In addition, the AQI program does not have a strategic plan--a leading practice that would provide DHS and USDA with a framework for defining the mission of what the program seeks to accomplish, setting goals to achieve desired results, and identifying performance measures for gauging progress toward those goals. Furthermore, DHS has undertaken efforts to respond to GAO's recommendation to develop a national, risk-based staffing model but does not yet have one, and DHS anticipates that the model will recommend significant staffing increases. DHS officials told GAO they do not have the resources to increase staff, but the agency has not developed a plan that assesses the risk of potential fiscal constraints on its ability to implement the staffing model. Without a plan or strategy to address potential resource constraints on staffing by considering the fiscal resources that may realistically be available, DHS risks increasing the vulnerability of the agriculture sector to foreign pests and disease.
The AQI program uses data on arrivals, inspections, and interceptions at U.S. ports of entry to determine how well agriculture inspections identify prohibited materials and to review ports' performance, but data quality issues may prevent AQI program officials from making full use of the data. For example, the data may not be reliable. DHS and USDA recognize that data quality is an ongoing issue and in 2004 created an interagency group to address this issue. However, from 2010 to 2011, joint DHS-USDA reviews of 22 selected ports found discrepancies in the data at about half of the ports reviewed (10 out of 22). Data reliability has the potential to affect other key efforts that are currently under way, such as the program's staffing model. Without reliable data, AQI program officials do not have assurance that they have the information needed to manage the program.
GAO also presents analysis of survey data from 2006 and 2012 on agriculture specialists' and supervisors' views about their work environment.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that (1) DHS and USDA develop a joint strategic plan for the AQI program, (2) DHS develop a plan for implementing a staffing model, and (3) DHS and USDA take steps to improve the reliability of certain data. DHS and USDA agreed with the recommendations.