Bill Overview
Title: Anti-Border Corruption Improvement Act
Description: This bill revises the waiver authority of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for polygraph examinations of applicants for law enforcement positions in the CBP. Any individual who receives such a waiver and holds a current background investigation may be subject to further background investigation. The CBP may administer a polygraph examination to an applicant for employment or an employee who is eligible for a waiver if information is discovered prior to the completion of a background investigation that makes necessary a final determination regarding suitability for employment or continued employment.
Sponsors: Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2]
Target Audience
Population: Applicants and current employees of CBP law enforcement positions
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill concerns U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) law enforcement positions, impacting those who are applicants or employees of the CBP.
- The population directly affected includes individuals seeking employment or currently employed by the CBP, specifically in law enforcement roles.
- The bill affects procedures related to polygraph waivers and further background investigations, which would influence the hiring and retention of CBP personnel.
- There are approximately 60,000 CBP employees, but not all are in law enforcement positions or involved in polygraph waiver processes.
- Given the selective focus on law enforcement applicants and employees undergoing certain background investigation processes, not all CBP employees are impacted.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) applicants and current employees, specifically those in law enforcement positions who might be engaged in the polygraph waiver and background investigation processes.
- Given the current number of approximately 60,000 CBP employees, but not all in relevant roles, the estimated directly impacted population is relatively small, at about 10,000 people.
- These individuals are mainly U.S. citizens or authorized to work in the country, as these positions typically require such status.
- The policy's influence would be seen through its effect on the hiring and retention processes in the CBP, potentially leading to changes in job stability and recruitment experiences.
- Not everyone in the general population would experience direct effects from this policy, so the simulated interviews should involve a mix of individuals directly and indirectly affected by these changes.
Simulated Interviews
CBP Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm content with the current background check processes.
- The policy's stricter polygraph scrutiny seems fair, though it might slow down the recruitment process.
- I've seen some colleagues uneasy with the idea of random polygraphs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
CBP Applicant (San Diego, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional background checks might slow down the hiring process.
- I support any measure that strengthens our border security even if it complicates my hiring journey.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
CBP Border Patrol Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might secure my employment long-term by ensuring only the most suitable candidates are hired.
- Yet, I worry about anyone being unexpectedly subjected to polygraph tests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
CBP Supervisory Officer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy ensures rigorous checks for new candidates, which is a positive.
- However, it places more administrative workload on current staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
University Student (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The knowledge of stringent checks is reassuring and aligns with my interest in a secure career.
- I'm slightly worried about how it might affect future employment opportunities due to increased scrutiny.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Security Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any additional background checks are beneficial but also need to be balanced with hiring needs.
- Policy brings much needed clarity on employment suitability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
CBP Operations Coordinator (El Paso, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've dealt with applicants who find these processes stressful, but fairness is necessary.
- The policy might cause a bottleneck in hiring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Lawyer Specializing in Employment Law (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced checks may raise legal challenges from applicants claiming unfair processes.
- The policy might also increase legal consultations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Psychologist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional stress for CBP employees could be a concern with this policy.
- However, improved security is beneficial for national safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Journalist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stricter polygraph testing might be seen as controversial among civil rights groups.
- Overall, the policy seems like an effort to strengthen accountability in federal roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $15500000)
Year 3: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $16000000)
Year 5: $11500000 (Low: $9500000, High: $16500000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $17000000)
Year 100: $16000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for revising polygraph examination processes could be influenced by findings of past inefficiencies or failures in current CBP vetting.
- The scalability of CBP resources to manage increased testing and investigation volume is crucial for estimating the implementation cost.
- Potential long-term benefits, such as enhanced border security and reduced misconduct, are speculative and hard to quantify monetarily.