Summary

The Customs' Self-inspection Program (SIP) provides a mechanism for management oversight of programs and processes and is intended to build accountability and foster integrity throughout the Customs Service. Features of the program include ownership of the program at all levels, scope that covers operational and administrative areas, use of an independent body to validate self-assessments, use of uniform worksheets that contain questions about essential control points for managers, funneling of results up the chain of command, and performance of self-inspections according to a set schedule. On the basis of the first SIP cycle, Customs revised the worksheets to include (1) specific directions about who should complete them, (2) detailed sampling methodology and instructions, (3) citations to references for most questions, and (4) reworded questions designed to be more specific and less confusing. Two other program design issues have emerged: (1) Customs lacks automated systems to analyze SIP results and (2) the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Field Operations decided to exercise the discretion to complete worksheets every six months; instead worksheets are completed on a yearly basis. Although a deviation from the original plan, it is similar to other organizations GAO looked at.

GAO noted that: (1) Customs' SIP provides a mechanism for management oversight of programs and processes that is intended to build accountability and foster integrity throughout the Customs Service; (2) under SIP, all Customs supervisors and managers are responsible for conducting a self-inspection every 6 months of the activities they oversee, using uniform self-inspection worksheets that are designed to evaluate financial vulnerability and corruption, mission performance and resource utilization, and internal/external relationships; (3) in designing SIP, Customs reviewed literature on program design and contacted several organizations to learn about their programs; (4) from this research, specific features were selected: (a) ownership of the program at all levels; (b) scope that covers operational and administrative areas; (c) use of an independent body to validate self-assessments; (d) use of uniform worksheets that contain questions about essential control points for managers; (e) funneling of results up the chain of command; and (f) performance of self-inspections according to a set schedule; (5) under Customs' previous management inspection program, Management Inspections Division (MID) personnel were to perform a review of each administrative and operational area of an activity about once every 5 years; (6) these reviews took MID about 2 to 3 weeks to complete at each location; (7) under SIP, all supervisors and managers are to inspect, assess, and monitor their own activities every 6 months; (8) MID's independent reviews are to be less comprehensive than those performed formerly and are expected to take about 5 days; (9) based on the first SIP cycle, a major program design problem consisted of confusing worksheet questions and directions; (10) to address the problem, Customs revised the worksheets to include: (a) specific directions about who should complete them; (b) detailed sampling methodology and instructions; (c) citations to references for most questions; and (d) reworded questions designed to be more specific and less confusing; (11) two other program design issues have emerged: (a) the lack of an automated system to analyze SIP results, which makes it difficult to identify national trends or to track whether corrective actions have been taken; and (b) the degree of discretion allowed for offices to perform their self-inspections; and (12) the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Field Operations decided to complete half the self-inspection worksheets every 6 months so that each worksheet will be completed on a yearly basis.