GovernmentExecutive.com

Answers to open-ended questions on a fall survey suggest "morale issues" among agriculture specialists at the Homeland Security Department, according to an analysis released Thursday.

Government Accountability Office officials said a question on what changes the specialists would like to see at work prompted 185 pages worth of responses -- more than four times the volume generated by a query on what is going well. And on the latter question, the second most common reply was, "Nothing is going well," the analysis (GAO-07-209R) stated.

This result is not necessarily surprising, GAO noted. The specialists were moved from the Agriculture Department to DHS at the department's inception in March 2003. They were placed within DHS' Customs and Border Protection bureau, which is responsible for detecting potential terrorists, illegal drugs and other contraband crossing the borders, as well as the prohibited agricultural materials the specialists are concerned with.

"We note that morale issues ... are not unexpected in a merger," GAO stated.

"Mergers the size of DHS take time, and not everyone will agree on a personal level that we have reached the optimum level of job satisfaction and performance," said CBP spokeswoman Erlinda Byrd, in an e-mail.

But CBP is committed to the agriculture program, and "supports positive performance, training development and delivery and successful management," Byrd said.

The survey was conducted during September and October and consisted of 31 multiple-choice questions as well as the two open-ended questions. It went out to 827 of CBP's roughly 1,800 specialists, and got a 76 percent response rate.

Answers to the open-ended questions generally tracked with those to related multiple-choice questions, GAO said.

Specific problems that were cited included poor working relationships and a concern that the agriculture inspection mission has been overshadowed by other CBP priorities. Of somewhat less concern, but still mentioned in nearly 20 percent of free-form responses, were inadequate training and a lack of equipment and supplies.

The most common positive item mentioned by the agriculture specialists was working relationships. The specialists who viewed such relationships in a positive light noted growing respect from CBP staffers not involved in the agriculture mission, and heightened attention from managers.

Other positive job qualities included salary and benefits, and some aspects of training. Some of the specialists applauded more flexible work schedules and increased overtime pay. On the training side, some noted that new hires are well-prepared.

COMMENTS

• CBP is a good thing on paper or in theory but when you work for it, it then overall is a second rate agency. This so called merger of Customs, Immigration and Agriculture is nothing less than a hostile takeover by customs, hence the words Customs and Border Protection. Customs clearly runs the show all the way except for a few immigration dominant locations. When the takeover started, some ports like Miami and Long Beach, customs quickly came in force, taking over ag offices and kicked aggies out to a less desirable location or disbanded a good group of aggies and placed them where CBP choose. Another classic example, is Seattle. This was a great port until CBP slowly dug it talons in. The aggies are under the yoke of CBP mismanagement. CBP Management have denied aggies the tools to check for the poison gas M. Bromide used for fumigation abroad and then entering the US. While inspections were being performed the aggies were using the gas detectors while in USDA but not in CBP. Work at your own risk is what they are told to do. They requested many times for tubes or electronic gas detectors calibrated for M. Bromide. They were denied. The Tacoma Maritime Ag unit, for example, was all but disbanded with just two ag officers, even though it is as big a port as Seattle, which has about a ten officers. This is an example of what an ag mission ignorant CBP chain of command does to its people. If an officer (any officer) is comfortable at their duty area they will most likely be moved, unless they are one of the more than a few brown noses. And try to transfer. Good luck. This is nationwide, not just locally. Face it, nation wide CBP management are trade driven idiots, they care less about why were are here, let alone know there duty to us as managers. When I talk about management I mean most 13's and up, all the way up to and including a DFO. Most big ports, if their lucky, may have one ag 13 that usually happens to be under the CBP yoke of do what "we" say not what "you" know. Here's a hint; Don't hire a businessman to run the EPA, hire a scientist. CBP should not attempt to manage aggies at all. We did a good job at USDA, and most legacy ags want to go back or at least prefer to let them do their job the USDA way professionally, not the CBP way with one eye closed and both hands tied. GovExec.com reader Posted March 16, 2007 3:28 AM
• I think that in light of this survey, and the recent OPM survey that ranked DHS at the bottom of the federal government in most categories, the fools who created this awful mess should have to step up and face the music. Throwing disparate agencies together into a bowl doesn't make anything but alphabet soup. Neither does it make for good law enforcement. Don't hold your breath on ICE conducting a similar survey - they would be too afraid of the results! GovExec.com reader Posted February 7, 2007 7:01 PM
• "Elite DHS"? I hope that was a sarcastic comment! Do you work at this agency? The employees are trying their best, but have been sabotaged by their "leaders" and feckless politicians, so this agency is an unmitigated disaster. Bring back Customs and a revamped INS, and we'd all be better off! GovExec.com reader Posted December 27, 2006 12:39 PM