Trusted Travelers: Programs Provide Benefits, but Enrollment Processes Could Be Strengthened (2024)

Closed – Implemented

In May 2014, we reported on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Trusted Traveler programs, including CBP's enrollment processes for applicants. During our review, we found that CBP did not have a performance target for completing application vetting, as of January 2014. CBP officials also stated that the agency did not plan to establish a new performance target because it planned to adjust vetting times as needed to take account of current conditions. While CBP had planned to adjust vetting times as needed, without a performance target or targets for how long vetting should take, CBP was not well positioned to assess how any adjustments in vetting time affect application process times overall or assess progress made in reducing vetting time frames against a target or baseline. Consequently, we recommended that CBP establish an updated performance target for completing application vetting and a process to modify that target, as needed, based on factors such as changes in the number of trusted traveler program applications and available resources. As a result, in September 2018, CBP provided GAO information showing that it has established a performance target for completing trusted travelers' application vetting and identified methods to adjust that target, as needed. As such, GAO considers this recommendation closed as implemented.

Closed – Implemented

In May 2014, we reported on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) implementation of the Trusted Traveler programs, including CBP's enrollment processes for applicants. During our review, we found CBP had taken steps to improve the efficiency of the application vetting process by, for example, automating background checks. However, CBP had not assessed the feasibility of various other practices for improving efficiency in enrollment processes, such as conducting group briefings for applicants on the programs. As a result, as of August 2013, CBP had a backlog of pending applications, as there were about 90,000 applications pending CBP vetting and another 33,000 applicants who had not scheduled an interview. Consequently, we recommended that CBP assess the feasibility of practices to expedite the interview process which could include assessing the potential trade-offs, costs, and benefits associated with any proposed practice, such as those currently proposed or implemented at specific enrollment centers and implement those practices CBP determines to be feasible. In May 2017, CBP reported that group briefings, which had been identified as a best practice, had been implemented at enrollment centers. In April 2018, CBP provided additional information showing that the video briefing was accessible at all enrollment centers and that headquarters had instructed them to use the video as a best practice. As such, CBP has assessed the feasibility of group briefings and implemented that practice at enrollment centers throughout the country. These actions should help CBP assess and improve the timeliness of the trusted traveler application adjudication process. As a result, this recommendation is closed as implemented.

Closed – Implemented

In May 2014, we reported on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Trusted Traveler programs, including CBP's enrollment processes for applicants. During our review, we found that CBP monitors trusted traveler appointment availability at each of the enrollment centers on a daily basis, but it did not track appointment availability over time because the enrollment system did not have that functionality. The amount of time it takes for applicants to schedule an interview has an impact on the overall time it takes for applicants to be enrolled in a trusted traveler program. CBP has established a target of having sufficient appointment availability so that every applicant has the potential to be interviewed within 30 days of being conditionally approved. However, because CBP does not track data on appointment availability over time, it was not able to provide data on the extent to which it has met this performance target. Consequently, we recommended that CBP develop a mechanism to track enrollment interview appointment availability data over time. According to documents provided in 2017, CBP collects and maintains information on a daily basis to track the number of applications received and the availability of enrollment center appointments, among other measures. However, CBP had not aggregated the data in a way that allows officials to understand the extent to which appointment availability fluctuates over time. In April 2018, CBP provided daily statistical averages for the Global Enrollment System for both 2017 and 2018 years, showing that they are tracking annual averages. As such, CBP has now developed a mechanism to track enrollment interview appointment availability over time, which will help them determine whether wait times are trending upward or downward and help them identify what, if any, trends exist year to year during peak travel seasons. These actions should help CBP assess and improve the timeliness of the trusted traveler application adjudication process. As a result, this recommendation is closed as implemented.

Closed – Not Implemented

In May 2014, we reported on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Trusted Traveler programs, including CBP's enrollment processes for applicants. During our review, we found variations in interviews and application denial rates, indicating that interviews may not be conducted consistently across enrollment centers. For example, we observed interviews that did not consistently follow procedures laid out in CBP guidance at two of the three centers where we observed interviews. Establishing a mechanism for CBP officers to document the kinds of questions asked and the nature of the applicants' responses could better position CBP to help ensure that interviews are conducted consistently. Consequently, we recommended that CBP establish a mechanism in Global Enrollment System (GES) to allow CBP officers to efficiently document the types of interview questions asked and the nature of applicant responses, when appropriate, and then use this information to monitor the implementation of the interview process. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not concur with the recommendation because they believe that there are no scripted questions that a CBP officer must ask when determining admissibility to the United States. DHS was concerned that creating a measure for this process would force a line of questioning and add time to the interview process. However, we found that three enrollment centers had established lists of questions that were used by CBP officers at those enrollment centers, that the lists of questions were different from one another, and none of the three included all of the suggested interview questions in the Trusted Traveler Handbook. As such, we continue to believe that CBP should establish a mechanism in GES that allows CBP officers to efficiently document the types of interview questions asked and the nature of applicant responses and use that information to monitor the implementation of the interview process. However, as of July 2018, CBP has not taken actions to implement this recommendation. Given the passage of time since our report, DHS's non-concurrence, and the lack of actions taken to implement the recommendation, GAO is closing this recommendation as not implemented.

Closed – Implemented

We found that that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had documented operating procedures for vetting or sharing information on trusted traveler applicant vetting results for 2 of the 12 countries it had signed bilateral arrangements with to implement or explore implementing joint trusted traveler programs. CBP officials stated that the agency planned to add separate appendixes on each country when updating its Global Entry program's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). However, CBP officials stated that the appendixes would provide general statements about operating procedures and that it was too early to tell what information would be included in the appendixes. As a result, we recommended that CBP document information it has obtained on the operational procedures, such as those used to vet and share information on applicants, of foreign countries that have signed bilateral arrangements with the United States to participate in a trusted traveler program. In September 2014, CBP updated the Global Entry program's SOPs to include these types of operational details for the countries it has signed bilateral arrangements with. Further, in February 2015, CBP provided additional information indicating that the SOPs would be updated for the programs in pilot status after the pilot programs are finalized and details are established as to how applicants from those countries will be vetted. CBPs actions to create and maintain institutionalized records on partner countries' screening procedures for trusted traveler applicants are consistent with our recommendation.