How has CBP measured operational control and what performance metrics has GAO critiqued in those measures?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reports operational control through a mix of deployment tallies, system availability rates, inspection counts and program-level performance targets outlined in its strategy and public statistics [1] [2]. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly criticized CBP’s choice and design of performance metrics—pointing to missing definitions for key parameters, overreliance on system-availability measures, insufficient attribution of effects to specific technologies, and gaps in oversight plans and program analysis [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. How CBP says it measures “operational control”
CBP frames operational control through strategic outputs and asset deployment: the 2021–2026 CBP strategy and public enforcement statistics emphasize numbers of deployed resources (for example, counts of non-intrusive inspection systems and staffing at ports of entry) and outputs such as inspections and apprehensions as indicators of mission execution [1] [2]. For technology programs—most visibly large-scale non-intrusive inspection (NII) X‑ray systems—CBP reports operational metrics such as the percent of time systems are available for operational use and the count of systems “fully operational” against planned deployments [3]. At land ports of entry CBP also uses program-level mechanisms including a national Self-Inspection Program (SIP) and covert operational testing to monitor inspection activities across ports [6].
2. GAO’s core critique: undefined and incomplete performance parameters
GAO has found that while CBP collects performance data, it has not defined all key performance parameters needed to interpret that data reliably—meaning CBP’s measures may not capture whether control is achieved or merely that equipment is functioning [3]. Specifically, GAO notes CBP reports and uses "percent of time available" for NII systems but has not established other essential attributes—such as detection effectiveness, throughput impact, or the conditions under which availability is measured—which limits the metric’s meaning for operational control [3].
3. GAO’s critique: poor attribution and missing metric attributes
Beyond missing parameter definitions, GAO has repeatedly said CBP has not developed performance metrics that identify individual technologies’ and resources’ contributions to border security goals; without those attributes, CBP cannot reliably say how much each investment improves control versus simply increasing capacity or visibility [4]. The earlier GAO reviews highlight the need for metrics that show both individual and collective contributions and establish milestones and time frames to link deployments to results [4] [6].
4. GAO’s critique: oversight, targets, and program analysis gaps
GAO has also criticized CBP’s implementation plans for lacking elements necessary for effective oversight—most notably clear performance targets and defined roles and responsibilities for corrective actions—which undermines accountability when metrics fall short [5]. At land ports of entry GAO flagged the need to update policies and improve national-level analysis of SIP and covert testing results so that recorded inspection activities translate into actionable performance assessments rather than disconnected compliance checks [6] [7].
5. Practical consequences GAO identifies and what remains unverified
GAO links these measurement weaknesses to practical consequences: without properly specified metrics and attribution, CBP may misjudge progress toward a "low-risk" border, misallocate resources among technologies and field deployments, and be unable to demonstrate that systems deliver intended detection or deterrence benefits [4] [3]. GAO’s critiques span multiple reviews and recommend CBP update performance measure attributes, define targets, and analyze program contributions more robustly; the sources document the critiques and recommendations but do not provide full final status on all CBP corrective actions in this set of documents [4] [3] [5].
6. Bottom line: measurement exists but needs refinement to mean operational control
CBP measures operational control largely through counts—deployed systems, availability percentages, inspections and apprehensions—and program monitoring tools [1] [2] [6]. GAO’s consistent message is that these measures are necessary but not sufficient: they require clearer definitions, additional metrics (for detection effectiveness and throughput), explicit targets and roles for oversight, and analytical methods to attribute outcomes to specific investments before CBP can credibly claim operational control [3] [4] [5].