United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives

DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Progress Report on 

Implementation of Mission 

and Management Functions 

Statement of David M. Walker 

Comptroller General of the United States 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

 

GAO-07-1240T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 18, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Progress Report on Implementation of Mission 

and Management Functions 

Highlights of GAO-07-1240T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives 

The Department of Homeland

Security’s (DHS) recent 4 year

anniversary provides an

opportunity to reflect on the 

progress DHS has made. As one of

the largest federal reorganizations 

in the last several decades, GAO 

has reported that the creation of

DHS was an enormous 

management challenge and that the

size, complexity, and importance of

the effort made the challenge

especially daunting and critical to

the nation’s security. Our prior

work on mergers and acquisitions 

found that successful 

transformations of large 

organizations, even those faced 

with less strenuous reorganizations 

than DHS, can take at least 5 to 7 

years to achieve. This testimony is

based on our August 2007 report 

evaluating DHS’s progress over the 

past 4 years. Specifically, it

addresses DHS’s progress across 14 

mission and management areas and 

key themes that have affected 

DHS’s implementation efforts. 

How GAO Did This Study 

To assess DHS’s progress for the 

report, GAO identified performance 

expectations for each mission and

management area based on

legislation, homeland security 

presidential directives, DHS and 

component agencies’ strategic 

plans, and other sources. 

(Continued on next page)

Over the past 4 years, DHS has made varying levels of progress in 

implementing its mission and management areas, as shown in the following 

table. In general, DHS has made more progress in its mission areas than in its 

management areas. Within its mission areas, DHS has made progress in 

developing plans and programs, but has faced challenges in its 

implementation efforts. 

Table: Summary of Assessments of DHS’s Progress in Mission and Management Areas 

Mission/ 

management 

area 

Number of

performance 

expectations

Number of

expectations 

generally 

achieved

Number of

expectations 

generally not 

achieved 

Number of

expectations 

not assessed

Overall 

assessment 

of progress

Border security 12 5 7 0 Modest

Immigration 

enforcement 16 8 4 4 Moderate

Immigration 

services 14 5 9 0 Modest

Aviation security 24 17 7 0 Moderate

Surface

transportation 

security 5 3 2 0 Moderate

Maritime 

security 23 17 4 2 Substantial

Emergency 

preparedness 

and response 24 5 18 1 Limited

Critical 

infrastructure 

protection 7 4 3 0 Moderate

Science and 

technology 6 1 5 0 Limited

Acquisition 

management 3 1 2 0 Modest

Financial 

management 7 2 5 0 Modest

Human capital 

management 8 2 6 0 Limited

Information 

technology 

management 13 2 8 3 Limited

Real property 

management 9 6 3 0 Moderate

Total 171 78 83 10

Source: GAO analysis.

Definitions: 

Substantial progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 75 percent of the 

identified performance expectations. 

Moderate progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 50 percent but 75 

percent or less of the identified performance expectations. 

Modest progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 25 percent but 50 percent

or less of the identified performance expectations.

Limited progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve 25 percent or less of the expectations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1240T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Norman J. 
Key underlying themes have affected DHS’s implementation efforts. These 

include strategies to achieve agency transformation, strategic planning and 

results management, risk management, information sharing, and partnerships 

and coordination. For example, we have designated DHS’s implementation 

and transformation as high-risk. While DHS has made progress in 

transforming its component agencies into a fully functioning department, it 

has not yet addressed key elements of the transformation process, such as 

developing a comprehensive transformation strategy. In addition, 

transparency plays an important role in transformation efforts, but DHS’s 

decision making has not always been transparent and we have encountered 

access issues in our engagements. DHS also has not yet fully adopted and 

applied a risk management approach in implementing its mission and 

management functions. Some DHS component agencies have taken steps to 

do so, but this approach is not yet used departmentwide. In addition, DHS has 

taken steps to share information and coordinate with homeland security

partners, but has faced difficulties in these partnership efforts. 

GAO analyzed these documents to 

identify responsibilities for DHS 

and obtained and incorporated

feedback from DHS officials on the 

performance expectations. On the 

basis of GAO’s and the DHS Office

of Inspector General’s (IG) prior

work and updated information 

provided by DHS, GAO judged the 

extent to which DHS has taken

actions to generally achieve each 

performance expectation. An 

assessment of generally achieved 

indicated that, in our view, DHS has 

taken actions to satisfy most

elements of the expectation, and an

assessment of generally not 

achieved indicated that, in our 

view, DHS has not yet taken 

actions to satisfy most elements of

the expectation. In cases when we

or the DHS IG have not completed 

work upon which to base an 

assessment or the information DHS 

provided did not enable us to 

clearly determine the extent to 

which DHS has achieved the

performance expectation, we 

indicated no assessment made. 

Our assessment of DHS’s progress 

relative to each performance 

expectation was not meant to imply 

that DHS should have fully 

achieved the performance 

expectation by the end of its fourth

year. On the basis of this analysis, 

GAO determined whether DHS has 

made limited, modest, moderate, or

substantial progress in each 

mission and management area. The 

assessments of progress do not 

reflect, nor are they intended to

reflect, the extent to which DHS’s 

actions have made the nation more

secure in each area. 

Given DHS’s leading role in securing the homeland, it is critical that the 

department’s mission and management programs operate as efficiently and 

effectively as possible. DHS has taken important actions to secure the border 

and transportation sectors and to prepare for and respond to disasters. DHS 

has had to undertake these missions while also working to transform itself 

into a fully functioning cabinet department—a difficult task for any 

organization. As DHS moves forward, it will be important for the department 

to continue to develop more measurable goals to guide implementation efforts 

and to enable better accountability. It will also be important for DHS to 

continually reassess its mission and management goals, measures, and 

milestones to evaluate progress made, identify past and emerging obstacles, 

and examine alternatives to effectively address those obstacles. 

What GAO Recommends 

While this testimony contains no new recommendations, GAO has made 

approximately 700 recommendations to DHS. DHS has implemented some of 

these recommendations and taken actions to address others. However, we 

have reported that the department still has much to do to ensure that it 

conducts its missions efficiently and effectively while it simultaneously 

prepares to address future challenges that face the department and the nation. 

In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS raised some concerns regarding 

aspects of our methodology, including the criteria used and consistent 

application of the criteria. We believe that we have fully disclosed and 

consistently applied the methodology and that it provides a sound basis for 

our progress report. DHS also disagreed with our assessment for 42 of the 

171 performance expectations. Our report provides a detailed response to 

DHS’s comments on these expectations. We appreciate DHS’s concerns and 

recognize that in such a broad-based endeavor, some level of disagreement is 

inevitable. However, we have been as transparent as possible regarding our 

purpose, methodology, and professional judgments. Going forward, we plan to

work with DHS to further clarify expectations and criteria and to establish a 

mutually agreed-upon basis for any future evaluations of DHS’s progress. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to implement its major mission and 

management functions. At your request we issued a report last month 

evaluating progress DHS has made since March 2003.1 This report defines 

specific actions DHS is to achieve based on legislation, homeland security

presidential directives, DHS strategic planning documents, and other 

sources and reports the progress the department has made in 

implementing programmatic and management activities based on its 

achievement of these actions. However, the assessments of progress are 

not indicative of the extent to which DHS’s actions have made the nation 

more secure in each area. Moreover, our assessments do not imply that 

DHS would have or should have achieved all of the actions we identified. 

On the other hand, failure to effectively implement these actions could 

have serious consequences for our homeland security, and it is important 

for Congress and other stakeholders to have a sense of the department’s 

accomplishments to date as well as areas for further focus to help inform 

oversight and investment decisions. 

Prior to the creation of DHS, we testified on whether the reorganization of 

government agencies might better address the nation’s homeland security

needs.2

 At that time, we testified that the nation had a unique opportunity 

to create an effective and performance-based organization to strengthen 

the nation’s ability to protect its borders and citizens. We noted that the 

magnitude of the challenges that the new department would face would 

require substantial time and effort and that implementation of the new 

department would be extremely complex. Often it has taken years for the 

consolidated functions in new organizations to effectively build on their 

combined strengths, and it is not uncommon for management challenges 

to remain for decades. For example, the 1947 legislation creating the 

Department of Defense (DOD) was amended by Congress in 1949, 1953, 

1958, and 1986 to improve the department’s structural effectiveness. 

Despite these and other changes made by DOD, we have reported that 

about 60 years after its establishment, DOD continues to face a number of 

serious management challenges. 

 1

GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on Implementation of Mission

and Management Functions, GAO-07-454 (Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2007). 

2

GAO, Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues, GAO-02-957T 

(Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002). 

Page 1 GAO-07-1240T 
DHS began operations in March 2003 with missions that include 

preventing terrorist attacks from occurring within the United States, 

reducing U.S. vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing the damages from 

attacks that occur, and helping the nation recover from any attacks. The 

department has initiated and continued the implementation of various 

policies and programs to address these missions as well as its 

nonhomeland security functions.3

 DHS has also taken actions to integrate 

its management functions and to transform its component agencies into an 

effective cabinet department. In 2003, we designated the implementation 

and transformation of DHS as high-risk because it represented an 

enormous undertaking that would require time to achieve in an effective 

and efficient manner.4

 Additionally, the components merged into DHS 

already faced a wide array of existing challenges, and any DHS failure to

effectively carry out its mission would expose the nation to potentially 

serious consequences. The area has remained on our high-risk list since 

2003.

5

 In designating the implementation and transformation of DHS as 

high-risk, we noted that building an effective department would require 

consistent and sustained leadership from top management to ensure the 

needed transformation of disparate agencies, programs, and missions into 

an integrated organization. Our prior work on mergers and acquisitions, 

undertaken before the creation of DHS, found that successful 

transformations of large organizations, even those faced with less 

strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at least 5 to 7 years to 

achieve. 

My comments are based on the results of a report issued last month 

evaluating the extent to which DHS has achieved congressional and 

Administration expectations in its major mission and management areas. 

In my testimony, I will explain how we conducted our work for the report 

and discuss the results of that work. I will also discuss the key themes that 

have affected the department’s efforts to implement its mission and 

management areas. These key themes include agency transformation, 

strategic planning and results management, risk management, information 

sharing, and partnerships and coordination. 

 3

Examples of nonhomeland security functions include Coast Guard search and rescue and

naturalization services. 

4

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

5

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005), and 

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: January 2007). 

Page 2 GAO-07-1240T 
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

Our report provides assessments of DHS’s progress across 14 mission and 

management areas. For each area we identified performance expectations 

based on responsibilities set out in legislation, homeland security 

presidential directives and executive orders, DHS planning documents, 

and other sources. Our analysts and subject matter experts reviewed our 

prior work, DHS Inspector General (IG) work, and information DHS 

provided to assess whether DHS generally achieved each expectation. We

used these performance expectation assessments to determine DHS’s 

overall progress in each mission and management area. In commenting on 

a draft of our report, DHS raised concerns about our methodology, 

including the criteria we used for assessing the extent to which DHS has 

achieved each performance expectation and our consistent application of

the criteria. We discussed our criteria and methodology with DHS officials 

throughout our review and took steps to ensure their consistent 

application. We believe that our methodology provides a sound basis for 

our progress report. Overall, we appreciate DHS’s concerns and recognize 

that in such a broad-based endeavor, some level of disagreement is 

inevitable. However, we have been as transparent as possible regarding 

our purpose, methodology, and professional judgments. Going forward, 

we plan to continue to work with DHS to further clarify the performance 

expectations we identified and our criteria for assessing DHS’s progress in 

meeting those expectations. Through this constructive dialogue with DHS, 

we hope to establish a mutually agreed-upon basis for any future 

evaluations of DHS’s progress. 

Summary 

DHS has made varying levels of progress in implementing its mission and 

management areas since March 2003, as shown in table 1. In general, DHS 

has made more progress in its mission areas than in its management areas,

which reflects an understandable focus on implementing efforts to secure 

the nation. Within its mission areas, DHS has made progress in developing 

plans and programs but has faced difficulties in implementing them. In 

commenting on a draft of the report issued last month, DHS disagreed 

with our assessments for 42 of the 171 performance expectations. We 

provide a detailed response to DHS’s comments on the 42 expectations in

the report. 

Page 3 GAO-07-1240T 
Table 1: Summary of Assessments of Progress Made by DHS in Its Mission and Management Areas 

Mission/

management area

Number of 

performance 

expectations

Number of 

performance 

expectations

generally

achieved

Number of 

performance 

expectations

generally not 

achieved

Number of 

performance 

expectations

not assessed

Overall 

assessment

of progress 

Border security 12 5 7 0 Modest 

Immigration enforcement 16 8 4 4 Moderate 

Immigration services 14 5 9 0 Modest 

Aviation security 24 17 7 0 Moderate 

Surface transportation security 5 3 2 0 Moderate 

Maritime security 23 17 4 2 Substantial 

Emergency preparedness and response 24 5 18 1 Limited 

Critical infrastructure and key resources 

protection

7 4 3 0 Moderate

Science and technology 6 1 5 0 Limited 

Acquisition management 3 1 2 0 Modest 

Financial management 7 2 5 0 Modest 

Human capital management 8 2 6 0 Limited 

Information technology management 13 2 8 3 Limited 

Real property management 9 6 3 0 Moderate 

Total 171 78 83 10

Source: GAO analysis.

A variety of cross-cutting issues have affected DHS’s efforts to implement 

its mission and management functions. These key issues include agency

transformation, strategic planning and results management, risk 

management, information sharing, and partnerships and coordination. 

• We initially designated the implementation and transformation of DHS 

as a high-risk area because it represented an enormous undertaking 

that would require time to achieve and the components to be merged 

into DHS already faced a wide array of challenges. We continued this 

designation in 2005 and 2007 in part because DHS’s management 

systems and functions are not yet fully integrated and wholly 

operational. In addition, transparency plays an important role in 

helping to ensure efficient and effective transformation efforts. In 

general, DHS has not made its management or operational decisions 

transparent enough so that Congress can be sure that it is effectively, 

efficiently, and economically using the funding it receives. Moreover, 

we have encountered access issues in numerous engagements, and 

Page 4 GAO-07-1240T 
these issues have affected our ability to do our work in a timely 

manner. 

• DHS has not always implemented effective strategic planning efforts 

and has not yet fully developed performance measures or put in place 

structures to help ensure that the agency is managing for results. For 

example, we have reported that some component agencies have had 

difficulties developing outcome-based goals and measures for 

assessing program performance. We have also noted that DHS faces 

inherent challenges in developing outcome-based goals and measures 

to assess the effect of its efforts on strengthening homeland security. 

• The National Strategy for Homeland Security and DHS’s strategic 

plan have called for the use of risk-based decisions to prioritize DHS’s 

resource investments. We have found that while some DHS component 

agencies, such as the Coast Guard, have taken steps to apply risk-based 

decision making in implementing some of its mission functions, other 

components have not utilized such an approach.

• We have designated information sharing for homeland security as highrisk in part because the nation still lacks an implemented set of 

governmentwide policies and processes for sharing terrorism-related 

information. The federal government has issued a strategy for how it 

will put in place the overall framework and policies for sharing 

information with critical partners. DHS has taken actions to implement 

its information-sharing responsibilities, but we have reported that DHS 

faces challenges in continuing to develop productive informationsharing relationships with federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and the private sector.

• The National Strategy for Homeland Security underscores the 

importance of DHS partnering with other stakeholders, as the majority 

of the strategy’s initiatives are intended to be implemented by three or 

more federal agencies. DHS has taken steps to strengthen partnering 

frameworks and capabilities. However, we have also reported on 

difficulties DHS faces in its partnership efforts, such as in coordinating 

with its emergency preparedness and response partners in the wake of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Given DHS’s leading role in securing the homeland, it is critical that the

department’s mission and management programs are operating as 

efficiently and effectively as possible. DHS has taken important actions to

secure the border and transportation sectors and to prepare for and 

respond to disasters. DHS has had to undertake these missions while also 

Page 5 GAO-07-1240T 
working to transform itself into a fully functioning cabinet department—a 

difficult task for any organization. As it moves forward, DHS will continue 

to face the challenges that have affected its operations thus far, including 

transforming into a high-performing, results-oriented agency; developing 

results-oriented goals and measures to effectively assess performance; 

developing and implementing a risk-based approach to guide resource 

decisions; and establishing effective frameworks and mechanisms for 

sharing information and coordinating with homeland security partners. 

DHS has undertaken efforts to address these challenges but will need to 

give continued attention to these efforts in order to efficiently and 

effectively identify and prioritize mission and management needs, 

implement efforts to address those needs, and allocate resources 

accordingly. As DHS continues to evolve and implements its programs, we 

will continue to review its progress and report to Congress and the public 

on our work. 

In July 2002, President Bush issued the National Strategy for Homeland 

Security. The strategy set forth overall objectives to prevent terrorist 

attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to 

terrorism, and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from 

attacks that occur. The strategy set out a plan to improve homeland 

security through the cooperation and partnering of federal, state, local, 

and private sector organizations on an array of functions. The National 

Strategy for Homeland Security specified a number of federal

departments, as well as nonfederal organizations, that have important 

roles in securing the homeland. In terms of federal departments, DHS was 

assigned a leading role in implementing established homeland security 

mission areas. 

Background 

In November 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted into

law, creating DHS. This act defined the department’s missions to include 

preventing terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing U.S. 

vulnerability to terrorism; and minimizing the damages, and assisting in 

the recovery from, attacks that occur within the United States. The act

also specified major responsibilities for the department, including to 

analyze information and protect infrastructure; develop countermeasures 

against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear, and other emerging 

terrorist threats; secure U.S. borders and transportation systems; and 

organize emergency preparedness and response efforts. DHS began 

Page 6 GAO-07-1240T 
operations in March 2003. Its establishment represented a fusion of 

22 federal agencies to coordinate and centralize the leadership of many 

homeland security activities under a single department.6

A variety of factors have affected DHS’s efforts to implement its mission 

and management functions. These factors include both domestic and 

international events, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and major 

homeland security-related legislation. Figure 1 provides a timeline of key 

events that have affected DHS’s implementation.

Figure 1: Selected Key Events That Have Affected Department of Homeland Security Implementation

9/11/01

10/02

Terrorist

attacks

Anthrax

attacks

Madrid train 

bombings

2001 2002 2005 2006

U.S.Operations

commence in 

Afghanistan

Bali terrorist 

bombing

2003 2004

3/03

U.S. operations

commence in Iraq

3/03

Department of 

Homeland Security 

established

Maritime Transportation 

Security Act signed

into law

Homeland Security 

Act signed into law

DHS Second-Stage 

Review (2SR) 

launched

3/05

9-11 Commission 

findings released

7/04

London

attacks

7/05 

Hurricane

Rita

9/05 

Threats

against 

U.S.-bound 

airliners from 

the United 

Kingdom 

uncovered

11/02

10/01 11/02 

Aviation and 

Transportation 

Security Act 

signed into law

11/01

9/01-10/01

3/04

Intelligence 

Reform and 

Terrorism 

Prevention 

Act signed 

into law

12/04 8/06

Hurricane 

Katrina

8/05

SAFE Port 

Act signed 

into law

10/06

Source: GAO analysis.

 6

These 22 agencies, offices, and programs were U.S. Customs Service; U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service; Federal Protective Service; Transportation Security Administration;

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 

Office for Domestic Preparedness; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Strategic 

National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical System; Nuclear Incident Response 

Team; Domestic Emergency Support Team; National Domestic Preparedness Office; 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures Program; Environmental 

Measures Laboratory; National BW Defense Analysis Center; Plum Island Animal Disease 

Center; Federal Computer Incident Response Center; National Communications System; 

National Infrastructure Protection Center; Energy Security and Assurance Program; Secret 

Service; and U.S. Coast Guard. 

Page 7 GAO-07-1240T 
Our report assesses DHS’s progress across 14 mission and management 

areas. We based these areas on those identified in the National Strategy 

for Homeland Security, the goals and objectives set forth in the DHS 

strategic plan and homeland security presidential directives, our reports, 

and studies conducted by the DHS IG and other organizations and groups, 

such as the 9/11 Commission and the Century Foundation. The 14 we 

identified are 

1. Border security 

Our Report Assesses 

DHS’s Progress in 

Implementing Its 

Mission and 

Management 

Functions 

2. Immigration enforcement 

3. Immigration services 

4. Aviation security 

5. Surface transportation security 

6. Maritime security 

7. Emergency preparedness and response 

8. Critical infrastructure and key resources protection 

9. Science and technology 

10. Acquisition management 

11. Financial management 

12. Human capital management 

13. Information technology management 

14. Real property management 

For each mission and management area, we identified performance 

expectations and vetted them with DHS officials. These performance 

expectations are a composite of the responsibilities or functions—derived 

from legislation, homeland security presidential directives and executive

orders, DHS planning documents, and other sources—that the department

Page 8 GAO-07-1240T 
is to achieve.7

 Our analysts and subject matter experts reviewed our prior 

work, DHS IG work, and evidence DHS provided between March and July 

2007, including DHS officials’ assertions when supported by 

documentation. On the basis of this analysis and our experts’ judgment, 

we then assessed the extent to which DHS had achieved each of the 

expectations we identified. We made preliminary assessments for each 

performance expectation based solely on GAO and DHS IG work. In 

March through July, we received additional information from DHS, which 

we reviewed and used to inform our final assessments. In some cases the 

assessments remained the same as our preliminary ones, and in other 

cases they changed. 

When our review of our prior work, the DHS IG’s work, and DHS’s 

documentation indicated that DHS had satisfied most of the key elements 

of a performance expectation, we concluded that DHS had generally 

achieved it. When our reviews showed that DHS had not yet satisfied most 

of the key elements of a performance expectation, we concluded that DHS 

had generally not achieved it. More specifically, where our prior work or 

that of the DHS IG indicated DHS had not achieved a performance 

expectation and DHS did not provide documentation to prove otherwise, 

we concluded that DHS had generally not achieved it. For a small number 

of performance expectations we could not make an assessment because 

neither we nor the DHS IG had completed work and the information DHS 

provided did not enable us to clearly assess DHS’s progress. 

We used these performance expectation assessments to determine DHS’s 

overall progress in each mission and management area. After making an 

assessment for each performance expectation, we added up those rated as

generally achieved. We divided this number by the total number of 

performance expectations for the mission or management area, excluding

those performance expectations for which we could not make an 

assessment. If DHS generally achieved more than 75 percent of the 

identified performance expectations, we identified its overall progress as 

substantial. When the number achieved was more than 50 percent but 

75 percent or less, we identified its overall progress as moderate. If DHS 

generally achieved more than 25 percent but 50 percent or less, we 

identified its overall progress as modest. For mission and management 

 7

We did not consider performance expectations derived from sources arising after

September 2006, such as the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act and the 

fiscal year 2007 DHS appropriations act. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1240T 
areas in which DHS generally achieved 25 percent or less of the 

performance expectations, we identified overall progress as limited. 

We and the DHS IG have completed varying degrees of work for each 

mission and management area, and DHS’s components and offices 

provided us with different amounts and types of information. As a result, 

our assessments of DHS’s progress in each mission and management area 

reflect the information available for our review and analysis and are not 

equally comprehensive across all 14 mission and management areas. It is 

also important to note that while there are qualitative differences between

the performance expectations, we did not weigh some more heavily than 

others in our overall assessments of mission and management areas. We 

also recognize that these expectations are not time bound, and DHS will 

take actions to satisfy these expectations over a sustained period of time. 

Our assessment of DHS’s progress relative to each performance 

expectation refers to the progress made by the department since March 

2003 and does not imply that DHS should have fully achieved each 

performance expectation at this point. 

In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS took issues with our 

methodology. First, DHS believed that we altered the criteria we used to 

judge the department’s progress. We did not change our criteria; rather we

made a change in terminology to better convey the intent behind the 

performance expectations that DHS achieve them instead of merely take

actions that apply or relate to them. Second, DHS took issue with the 

binary standard approach we used to assess each performance 

expectation. We acknowledge the limitations of this standard in our report 

but believe it was appropriate for our review given that the Administration 

has generally not established quantitative goals and measures for the 

expectations. Therefore, we could not assess where along a spectrum of 

progress DHS stood in achieving each performance expectation. Third, 

DHS was concerned about an apparent shift in criteria we applied after the 

department provided us additional information and documents. What DHS 

perceived as a change in criteria for certain performance expectations was 

really the process by which we disclosed our preliminary assessment; 

analyzed additional documents and information from DHS; and updated 

and, in many cases revised, our assessments based on the additional 

inputs. Fourth, DHS raised concerns with consistency in our application of 

the methodology. Our core team of GAO analysts and managers reviewed 

all inputs from GAO staff to ensure consistent application of our 

methodology, criteria, and analytical process, and our quality control 

process included detailed reviews of the report’s facts as well as 

assurances that we followed generally accepted government auditing 

Page 10 GAO-07-1240T 
standards. Finally, DHS points outs that we treated all performance 

expectations as if they were of equal significance. In our report, we 

acknowledged that differences exist, but we did not weight the 

performance expectations because congressional, departmental, and 

others’ views on the relative priority of each expectation may be different,

and we did not believe it was appropriate to substitute our judgment for 

theirs. 

Overall, we appreciate DHS’s concerns and recognize that in such a broadbased endeavor, some level of disagreement is inevitable, especially at any 

given point in time. However, we have been as transparent as possible 

regarding our purpose, methodology, and professional judgments and 

believe that our methodology provides a sound basis for the progress 

report. Going forward, we will work with DHS to further clarify the 

performance expectations we identified and our criteria for assessing 

DHS’s progress in meeting those expectations. By engaging in a 

constructive dialogue with DHS, we hope to establish a mutually agreedupon basis for any future evaluation of DHS’s progress. 

Our report shows that since March 2003, DHS has attained some level of 

progress in implementing the performance expectations in all of its major 

mission and management areas, but the rate of progress among these 

areas has varied. Overall, DHS has made more progress in its mission 

areas than in its management areas, reflecting an understandable focus on

implementing efforts to secure the homeland. As DHS continues to mature 

as an organization, we believe it will be able to put more focus—and 

achieve more expectations—in the management areas. 

Within its mission areas, DHS has made more progress in developing 

strategies, plans, and programs than in implementing them. For example, 

in the area of border security we found that DHS has developed a 

multiyear strategy and initiative for identifying illegal border crossings 

between ports of entry. However, DHS is in the early stages of 

implementing this strategy, and we and the DHS IG identified problems 

with implementation of past programs with similar objectives. Likewise, in 

the area of emergency preparedness and response, DHS has developed the 

National Incident Management System. However, we have reported that 

much more work remains for DHS to effectively coordinate its 

implementation. 

DHS Has Made 

Progress in 

Implementing Mission 

and Management 

Functions but Has 

Faced Difficulties in 

Its Implementation 

Efforts

Page 11 GAO-07-1240T 
Below we provide more information on progress made by DHS in its 

mission and management areas. 

• DHS’s border security mission includes detecting and preventing 

terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States; 

facilitating the orderly and efficient flow of legitimate trade and travel; 

interdicting illegal drugs and other contraband; apprehending 

individuals who are attempting to enter the United States illegally; 

inspecting inbound and outbound people, vehicles, and cargo; and 

enforcing laws of the United States at the border. As shown in table 2, 

we identified 12 performance expectations for DHS in the area of 

border security and found that DHS has generally achieved 5 of them 

and has generally not achieved 7 others. 

Table 2: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Border Security Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 5

Implement a biometric entry system to prevent unauthorized border crossers from entering the United States through ports 

of entry 

Develop a program to detect and identify illegal border crossings between ports of entry 

Develop a strategy to detect and interdict illegal flows of cargo, drugs, and other items into the United States 

Provide adequate training for all border-related employees 

Develop staffing plans for hiring and allocating human capital resources to fulfill the agency’s border security mission 

Generally not achieved 7

Implement a biometric exit system to collect information on border crossers leaving the United States through ports of entry 

Implement a program to detect and identify illegal border crossings between ports of entry 

Implement a strategy to detect and interdict illegal flows of cargo, drugs, and other items into the United States 

Implement effective security measures in the visa issuance process 

Implement initiatives related to the security of certain documents used to enter the United States 

Ensure adequate infrastructure and facilities

Leverage technology, personnel, and information to secure the border 

Overall assessment of progress Modest

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s immigration enforcement mission includes apprehending, 

detaining, and removing criminal and illegal aliens; disrupting and 

dismantling organized smuggling of humans and contraband as well as 

human trafficking; investigating and prosecuting those who engage in 

benefit and document fraud; blocking and removing employers’ access 

to undocumented workers; and enforcing compliance with programs to 

Page 12 GAO-07-1240T 
monitor visitors. As shown in table 3, we identified 16 performance 

expectations for DHS in the area of immigration enforcement and 

found that DHS has generally achieved 8 of them and has generally not 

achieved 4 others. For 4 performance expectations, we could not make 

an assessment. 

Table 3: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Immigration Enforcement Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 8

Develop a program to ensure the timely identification and removal of noncriminal aliens subject to removal from the United 

States 

Assess and prioritize the use of alien detention resources to prevent the release of aliens subject to removal 

Develop a program to allow for the secure alternative detention of noncriminal aliens 

Develop a prioritized worksite enforcement strategy to ensure that only authorized workers are employed

Develop a comprehensive strategy to interdict and prevent trafficking and smuggling of aliens into the United States 

Develop a law enforcement strategy to combat criminal alien gangs in the United States and cross-border criminal activity 

Develop a program to screen and respond to local law enforcement and community complaints about aliens who many be

subject to removal 

Develop staffing plans for hiring and allocating human capital resources to fulfill the agency’s immigration enforcement

mission 

Generally not achieved 4

Implement a program to ensure the timely identification and removal of noncriminal aliens subject to removal from the 

United States 

Ensure the removal of criminal aliens 

Implement a prioritized worksite enforcement strategy to ensure that only authorized workers are employed 

Implement a comprehensive strategy to interdict and prevent trafficking and smuggling of aliens into the United States 

No assessment made 4

Implement a program to allow for the secure alternative detention of noncriminal aliens 

Implement a law enforcement strategy to combat criminal alien gangs in the United States and cross-border criminal 

activity 

Disrupt and dismantle mechanisms for money laundering and financial crimes 

Provide training, including foreign language training, and equipment for all immigration enforcement personnel to fulfill the 

agency’s mission 

Overall assessment of progress Moderate

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s immigration services mission includes administering 

immigration benefits and working to reduce immigration benefit fraud. 

As shown in table 4, we identified 14 performance expectations for 

DHS in the area of immigration services and found that DHS has 

generally achieved 5 of them and has generally not achieved 9 others. 

Page 13 GAO-07-1240T 
Table 4: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Immigration Services Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 5

Institute process and staffing reforms to improve application processes 

Establish online access to status information about benefit applications 

Establish revised immigration application fees based on a comprehensive fee study 

Communicate immigration-related information to other relevant agencies 

Create an office to reduce immigration benefit fraud 

Generally not achieved 9

Eliminate the benefit application backlog and reduce application completion times to 6 months 

Establish a timetable for reviewing the program rules, business processes, and procedures for immigration benefit 

applications 

Institute a case management system to manage applications and provide management information

Develop new programs to prevent future backlogs from developing 

Establish online filing for benefit applications

Capture biometric information on all benefits applicants 

Implement an automated background check system to track and store all requests for applications 

Establish training programs to reduce fraud in the benefits process 

Implement a fraud assessment program to reduce benefit fraud 

Overall assessment of progress Modest

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s aviation security mission includes strengthening airport 

security; providing and training a screening workforce; prescreening 

passengers against terrorist watch lists; and screening passengers, 

baggage, and cargo. As shown in table 5, we identified 24 performance 

expectations for DHS in the area of aviation security and found that 

DHS has generally achieved 17 of them and has generally not achieved 

7 others. 

Page 14 GAO-07-1240T 
Table 5: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Aviation Security Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 17

Implement a strategic approach for aviation security functions 

Ensure the screening of airport employees against terrorist watch lists 

Hire and deploy a federal screening workforce 

Develop standards for determining aviation security staffing at airports 

Establish standards for training and testing the performance of airport screener staff 

Establish a program and requirements to allow eligible airports to use a private screening workforce 

Train and deploy federal air marshals on high-risk flights 

Establish standards for training flight and cabin crews 

Establish a program to allow authorized flight deck officers to use firearms to defend against any terrorist or criminal acts 

Establish policies and procedures to ensure that individuals known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk or threat to 

security are identified and subjected to appropriate action 

Develop and implement processes and procedures for physically screening passengers at airport checkpoints 

Develop and test checkpoint technologies to address vulnerabilities 

Deploy explosive detection systems (EDS) and explosive trace detection (ETD) systems to screen checked baggage for 

explosives 

Develop a plan to deploy in-line baggage screening equipment at airports 

Pursue the deployment and use of in-line baggage screening equipment at airports 

Develop a plan for air cargo security 

Develop and implement procedures to screen air cargo 

Generally not achieved 7

Establish standards and procedures for effective airport perimeter security

Establish standards and procedures to effectively control access to airport secured areas

Establish procedures for implementing biometric identifier systems for airport secured areas access control 

Develop and implement an advanced prescreening system to allow DHS to compare domestic passenger information to 

the Selectee List and No Fly List 

Develop and implement an international passenger prescreening process to compare passenger information to terrorist

watch lists before aircraft departure 

Deploy checkpoint technologies to address vulnerabilities 

Develop and implement technologies to screen air cargo 

Overall assessment of progress Moderate

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s surface transportation security mission includes establishing 

security standards and conducting assessments and inspections of 

surface transportation modes, which include passenger and freight rail; 

mass transit; highways, including commercial vehicles; and pipelines. 

Page 15 GAO-07-1240T 
As shown in table 6, we identified 5 performance expectations for DHS 

in the area of surface transportation security and found that DHS has 

generally achieved 3 of them and has generally not achieved 2. 

Table 6: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Surface Transportation Security Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 3

Develop and adopt a strategic approach for implementing surface transportation security functions 

Conduct threat, criticality, and vulnerability assessments of surface transportation assets 

Administer grant programs for surface transportation security

Generally not achieved 2

Issue standards for securing surface transportation modes 

Conduct compliance inspections for surface transportation systems 

Overall assessment of progress Moderate

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s maritime security responsibilities include port and vessel 

security, maritime intelligence, and maritime supply chain security. As 

shown in table 7, we identified 23 performance expectations for DHS in 

the area of maritime security and found that DHS has generally 

achieved 17 of them and has generally not achieved 4 others. For 

2 performance expectations, we could not make an assessment. 

Page 16 GAO-07-1240T 
Table 7: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Maritime Security Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 17

Develop national plans for maritime security 

Develop national plans for maritime response

Develop national plans for maritime recovery

Develop regional (port-specific) plans for security 

Develop regional (port-specific) plans for response 

Ensure port facilities have completed vulnerability assessments and developed security plans 

Ensure that vessels have completed vulnerability assessments and developed security plans 

Exercise security, response, and recovery plans with key maritime stakeholders to enhance security, response, and 

recovery efforts 

Implement a port security grant program to help facilities improve their security capabilities

Establish operational centers to monitor threats and fuse intelligence and operations at the regional/port level 

Collect information on incoming ships to assess risks and threats 

Develop a vessel-tracking system to improve intelligence and maritime domain awareness on vessels in U.S. waters 

Collect information on arriving cargo for screening purposes

Develop a system for screening and inspecting cargo for illegal contraband

Develop a program to work with foreign governments to inspect suspicious cargo before it leaves for U.S. ports 

Develop a program to work with the private sector to improve and validate supply chain security 

Develop an international port security program to assess security at foreign ports 

Generally not achieved 4

Develop regional (port-specific) plans for recovery 

Implement a national facility access control system for port secured areas

Develop a long-range vessel-tracking system to improve maritime domain awareness 

Develop a program to screen incoming cargo for radiation 

No assessment made 2

Develop a national plan to establish and improve maritime intelligence 

Develop standards for cargo containers to ensure their physical security 

Overall assessment of progress Substantial

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s emergency preparedness and response mission includes 

preparing to minimize the damage and recover from terrorist attacks 

and disasters; helping to plan, equip, train, and practice needed skills of 

first responders; and consolidating federal response plans and 

activities to build a national, coordinated system for incident 

management. As shown in table 8, we identified 24 performance 

expectations for DHS in the area of emergency preparedness and 

Page 17 GAO-07-1240T 
response and found that DHS has generally achieved 5 of them and has 

generally not achieved 18 others. For 1 performance expectation, we 

could not make an assessment. 

Table 8: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Performance Expectations 

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 5

Establish a program for conducting emergency preparedness exercises 

Develop a national incident management system 

Provide grant funding to first responders in developing and implementing interoperable communications capabilities 

Administer a program for providing grants and assistance to state and local governments and first responders 

Allocate grants based on assessment factors that account for population, critical infrastructure, and other risk factors 

Generally not achieved 18

Establish a comprehensive training program for national preparedness 

Conduct and support risk assessments and risk management capabilities for emergency preparedness

Ensure the capacity and readiness of disaster response teams 

Coordinate implementation of a national incident management system 

Establish a single, all-hazards national response plan 

Coordinate implementation of a single, all-hazards response plan 

Develop a complete inventory of federal response capabilities 

Develop a national, all-hazards preparedness goal 

Develop plans and capabilities to strengthen nationwide recovery efforts 

Develop the capacity to provide needed emergency assistance and services in a timely manner 

Provide timely assistance and services to individuals and communities in response to emergency events 

Implement a program to improve interoperable communications among federal, state, and local agencies

Implement procedures and capabilities for effective interoperable communications 

Increase the development and adoption of interoperability communications standards 

Develop performance goals and measures to assess progress in developing interoperability 

Provide guidance and technical assistance to first responders in developing and implementing interoperable 

communications capabilities 

Provide assistance to state and local governments to develop all-hazards plans and capabilities 

Develop a system for collecting and disseminating lessons learned and best practices to emergency responders 

No assessment made 1

Support citizen participation in national preparedness efforts 

Overall assessment of progress Limited

Source: GAO analysis.

Page 18 GAO-07-1240T 
• DHS’s critical infrastructure and key resources protection

activities include developing and coordinating implementation of a 

comprehensive national plan for critical infrastructure protection, 

developing partnerships with stakeholders and information sharing and 

warning capabilities, and identifying and reducing threats and 

vulnerabilities. As shown in table 9, we identified 7 performance 

expectations for DHS in the area of critical infrastructure and key 

resources protection and found that DHS has generally achieved 4 of 

them and has generally not achieved 3 others. 

Table 9: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection Performance 

Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 4

Develop a comprehensive national plan for critical infrastructure protection 

Develop partnerships and coordinate with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector 

Identify and assess threats and vulnerabilities for critical infrastructure 

Support efforts to reduce threats and vulnerabilities for critical infrastructure 

Generally not achieved 3

Improve and enhance public/private information sharing involving attacks, threats, and vulnerabilities 

Develop and enhance national analysis and warning capabilities for critical infrastructure 

Provide and coordinate incident response and recovery planning efforts for critical infrastructure 

Overall assessment of progress Moderate

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s science and technology efforts include coordinating the 

federal government’s civilian efforts to identify and develop 

countermeasures to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 

other emerging terrorist threats. As shown in table 10, we identified 

6 performance expectations for DHS in the area of science and 

technology and found that DHS has generally achieved 1 of them and 

has generally not achieved 5 others. 

Page 19 GAO-07-1240T 
Table 10: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Science and Technology Performance Expectations 

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 1

Coordinate with and share homeland security technologies with federal, state, local, and private sector entities 

Generally not achieved 5

Develop a plan for departmental research, development, testing, and evaluation activities 

Assess emerging chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats and homeland security vulnerabilities 

Coordinate research, development, and testing efforts to identify and develop countermeasures to address chemical, 

biological, radiological, nuclear, and other emerging terrorist threats 

Coordinate deployment of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological detection capabilities and other countermeasures 

Assess and evaluate nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological detection capabilities and other countermeasures 

Overall assessment of progress Limited

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s acquisition management efforts include managing the use of 

contracts to acquire goods and services needed to fulfill or support the 

agency’s missions, such as information systems, new technologies, 

aircraft, ships, and professional services. As shown in table 11, we 

identified 3 performance expectations for DHS in the area of

acquisition management and found that DHS has generally achieved 

1 of them and has generally not achieved 2 others. 

Table 11: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Acquisition Management Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 1

Assess and organize acquisition functions to meet agency needs 

Generally not achieved 2

Develop clear and transparent policies and processes for all acquisitions 

Develop an acquisition workforce to implement and monitor acquisitions 

Overall assessment of progress Modest

Source: GAO analysis. 

• DHS’s financial management efforts include consolidating or 

integrating component agencies’ financial management systems. As 

shown in table 12, we identified 7 performance expectations for DHS in 

the area of financial management and found that DHS has generally 

achieved 2 of them and has generally not achieved 5 others. 

Page 20 GAO-07-1240T 
Table 12: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Financial Management Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 2

Designate a department Chief Financial Officer who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate 

Prepare corrective action plans for internal control weaknesses 

Generally not achieved 5

Subject all financial statements to an annual financial statement audit 

Obtain an unqualified financial statement audit opinion 

Substantially comply with federal financial management system requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and 

the U.S. Standard General Ledger at the transaction level 

Obtain an unqualified opinion on internal control over financial reporting 

Correct internal control weaknesses 

Overall assessment of progress Modest

Source: GAO analysis.

• DHS’s key human capital management areas include pay, 

performance management, classification, labor relations, adverse 

actions, employee appeals, and diversity management. As shown in 

table 13, we identified 8 performance expectations for DHS in the area

of human capital management and found that DHS has generally 

achieved 2 of them and has generally not achieved 6 others. 

Table 13: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Human Capital Management Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 2

Develop a results-oriented strategic human capital plan 

Create a comprehensive plan for training and professional development 

Generally not achieved 6

Implement a human capital system that links human capital planning to overall agency strategic planning

Develop and implement processes to recruit and hire employees who possess needed skills 

Measure agency performance and make strategic human capital decisions 

Establish a market-based and more performance-oriented pay system 

Seek feedback from employees to allow for their participation in the decision-making process 

Implement training and development programs in support of DHS’s mission and goals 

Overall assessment of progress Limited

Source: GAO analysis.

Page 21 GAO-07-1240T 
• DHS’s information technology management efforts include 

developing and using an enterprise architecture, or corporate 

blueprint, as an authoritative frame of reference to guide and constrain 

system investments; defining and following a corporate process for 

informed decision making by senior leadership about competing 

information technology investment options; applying system and 

software development and acquisition discipline and rigor when 

defining, designing, developing, testing, deploying, and maintaining 

systems; establishing a comprehensive, departmentwide information 

security program to protect information and systems; having sufficient 

people with the right knowledge, skills, and abilities to execute each of 

these areas now and in the future; and centralizing leadership for 

extending these disciplines throughout the organization with an 

empowered Chief Information Officer. As shown in table 14, we 

identified 13 performance expectations for DHS in the area of

information technology management and found that DHS has generally 

achieved 2 of them and has generally not achieved 8 others. For 

3 performance expectations, we could not make an assessment. 

Table 14: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Information Technology Management Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 2

Organize roles and responsibilities for information technology under the Chief Information Officer 

Develop policies and procedures to ensure protection of sensitive information 

Generally not achieved 8

Develop a strategy and plan for information technology management 

Develop measures to assess performance in the management of information technology 

Implement a comprehensive enterprise architecture 

Develop a process to effectively manage information technology investments 

Implement a process to effectively manage information technology investments 

Develop policies and procedures for effective information systems development and acquisition 

Implement policies and procedures for effective information systems development and acquisition 

Implement policies and procedures to effectively safeguard sensitive information 

No assessment made 3

Strategically manage information technology human capital

Develop a comprehensive enterprise architecture 

Provide operational capabilities for information technology infrastructure and applications 

Overall assessment of progress Limited

Source: GAO analysis.

Page 22 GAO-07-1240T 
• DHS’s responsibilities for real property management are specified in

Executive Order 13327, “Federal Real Property Asset Management,” 

and include establishment of a Senior Real Property Officer, 

development of an asset inventory, and development and 

implementation of an asset management plan and performance 

measures. As shown in table 15, we identified 9 performance 

expectations for DHS in the area of real property management and 

found that DHS has generally achieved 6 of them and has generally not 

achieved 3 others. 

Table 15: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS’s Real Property Management Performance Expectations

Performance expectation Total

Generally achieved 6

Establish a Senior Real Property Officer who actively serves on the Federal Real Property Council 

Complete and maintain a comprehensive inventory and profile of agency real property 

Provide timely and accurate information for inclusion in the governmentwide real property inventory database 

Develop an Office of Management and Budget-approved asset management plan 

Establish an Office of Management and Budget-approved 3-year rolling timeline with certain deadlines by which the 

agency will address opportunities and determine its priorities as identified in the asset management plan 

Establish real property performance measures 

Generally not achieved 3

Demonstrate steps taken toward implementation of the asset management plan 

Use accurate and current asset inventory information and real property performance measures in management 

decision making

Ensure the management of agency property assets is consistent with the agency’s overall strategic plan, the agency 

asset management plan, and the performance measures 

Overall assessment of progress Moderate

Source: GAO analysis.

Our report contains detailed information on DHS’s progress in achieving 

each of the performance expectations, including a detailed summary of 

our work, the DHS IG’s work, and DHS documentation and officials’ 

statements. We also provide our basis for each assessment. In commenting 

on a draft of our report, DHS disagreed with our assessments for 42 of the 

171 performance expectations noted above. In our report, we provide 

detailed responses to DHS’s comments on the 42 performance 

expectations. We look forward to discussing our assessments in all the 

mission and management areas in more detail with the committee and 

subcommittees to help inform their ongoing oversight efforts. 

Page 23 GAO-07-1240T 
Our work has identified cross-cutting issues that have hindered DHS’s 

progress in its mission and management areas. These issues include: 

(1) transforming and integrating DHS’s management functions; 

(2) establishing baseline performance goals and measures and engaging in

effective strategic planning efforts; (3) applying and improving a risk 

management approach for implementing missions and making resource 

allocation decisions; (4) sharing information with key stakeholders; and 

(5) coordinating and partnering with federal, state, local, and private 

sector agencies entities. 

Cross-cutting Issues 

Have Hindered DHS’s 

Implementation 

Efforts

• The creation of DHS is an enormous management challenge, and DHS 

faces a formidable task in its transformation efforts as it works to 

integrate over 170,000 federal employees from 22 component agencies. 

Each component agency brought differing missions, cultures, systems, 

and procedures that the new department had to efficiently and 

effectively integrate into a single, functioning unit. At the same time it 

weathers these growing pains, DHS must still fulfill its various 

homeland security and other missions. DHS has developed a strategic 

plan, is working to integrate some management functions, and has 

continued to form necessary partnerships to achieve mission success. 

Despite these efforts, we reported earlier this year that DHS 

implementation and transformation remains high-risk because DHS has 

not yet developed a comprehensive management integration strategy 

and its management systems and functions⎯especially related to 

acquisition, financial, human capital, and information 

management⎯are not yet fully integrated and wholly operational. 

Additionally, transparency plays an important role in helping to ensure 

efficient and effective transformation efforts. DHS has not made its 

management or operational decisions transparent enough so that 

Congress can be sure that it is effectively, efficiently, and economically 

using the billions of dollars in funding it receives annually. Moreover, 

we have encountered access issues in numerous engagements, and the 

lengths of delay have been both varied and significant and have 

affected our ability to do our work in a timely manner. The Secretary of 

DHS and the Under Secretary for Management have stated their desire 

to work with us to resolve access issues and to provide greater 

transparency, but have not yet proposed any change to DHS's policies 

or procedures for how DHS officials are to interact with GAO.

• A number of DHS’s programs lack outcome goals and measures, a fact

that may hinder the department’s ability to effectively assess the results 

of program efforts or fully assess whether the department is using 

resources effectively and efficiently, especially given various agency

priorities for resources. In particular, we have reported that some of 

Page 24 GAO-07-1240T 
DHS’s components have not developed adequate outcome-based 

performance measures or comprehensive plans to monitor, assess, and 

independently evaluate the effectiveness of their plans and 

performance. For example, in August 2005 we reported that U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement lacked outcome goals and 

measures for its worksite enforcement program and recommended that

the agency set specific time frames for developing these goals and 

measures. Further, we have reported that many of DHS’s borderrelated performance goals and measures are not fully defined or 

adequately aligned with one another, and some performance targets are 

not realistic. We have also recognized that DHS faces some inherent 

difficulties in developing performance goals and measures to address 

its unique mission and programs, such as in developing measures for 

the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent and deter terrorist attacks. 

• Within its sphere of responsibility, DHS cannot afford to protect 

everything against all possible threats. As a result, DHS must make 

choices about how to allocate its resources to most effectively manage 

risk. In April 2007, DHS established the new Office of Risk Management 

and Analysis to serve as the DHS Executive Agent for national-level 

risk management analysis standards and metrics; develop a 

standardized approach to risk; develop an approach to risk 

management to help DHS leverage and integrate risk expertise across 

components and external stakeholders; assess DHS risk performance 

to ensure programs are measurably reducing risk; and communicate 

DHS risk management in a manner that reinforces the risk-based 

approach. It is too early to tell what effect this office will have on 

strengthening departmentwide risk management activities. Several 

DHS component agencies have taken steps toward integrating riskbased decision making into their decision-making processes. For 

example, the Coast Guard has developed security plans for seaports, 

facilities, and vessels based on risk assessments. Other components 

have not always utilized such an approach. In addition, DHS has not 

performed comprehensive risk assessments in transportation, critical 

infrastructure, and the immigration and customs systems to guide 

resource allocation decisions. For example, DHS has not fully utilized a 

risk-based strategy to allocate resources among transportation sectors. 

Although the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has 

developed tools and processes to assess risk within and across 

transportation modes, it has not fully implemented these efforts to 

drive resource allocation decisions.

• In 2005, we designated information sharing for homeland security as 

high-risk and continued that designation in 2007. We recently reported 

Page 25 GAO-07-1240T 
that the nation still lacked an implemented set of governmentwide 

policies and processes for sharing terrorism-related information but 

has issued a strategy on how it will put in place the overall framework, 

policies, and architecture for sharing with all critical partners—actions 

that we and others have recommended. DHS has taken some steps to 

implement its information-sharing responsibilities. For example, DHS 

implemented a network to share homeland security information. States 

and localities are also creating their own information “fusion” centers, 

some with DHS support. However, DHS did not fully adhere to key 

practices in coordinating efforts on its homeland security information 

network with state and local information sharing initiatives and faces 

other information-sharing challenges, including developing productive 

information-sharing relationships among the federal government, state 

and local governments, and the private sector. 

• To secure the nation, DHS must form effective and sustained 

partnerships among legacy component agencies and also with a range 

of other entities, including other federal agencies, state and local 

governments, the private and nonprofit sectors, and international 

partners, but has faced difficulties in doing so. Thirty-three of the 

43 initiatives the National Strategy for Homeland Security are required 

to be implemented by three or more federal agencies. In addition, the 

private sector is a key homeland security partner. For example, DHS 

must partner with individual companies and organizations to protect 

vital national infrastructure, such as the nation’s water supply, 

transportation systems, and chemical facilities. In October 2006 we 

reported that all 17 critical infrastructure sectors had established their 

respective government councils, and nearly all sectors had initiated 

their voluntary private sector councils in response to the National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan. In addition, through its Customs-Trade 

Partnership Against Terrorism Program, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) has worked in partnership with private companies to 

review their supply chain security plans. However, DHS has faced some 

challenges in developing other effective partnerships and in clarifying 

the roles and responsibilities of various homeland security 

stakeholders. For example, federal and private sector stakeholders 

stated that the TSA has not provided them with the information they 

would need to support TSA’s efforts for the Secure Flight program. 

Further, lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities caused DHS 

difficulties in coordinating with its emergency preparedness and 

response partners in responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Page 26 GAO-07-1240T 
Given the leading role that DHS plays in securing the homeland, it is 

critical that the department’s mission programs and management systems 

and functions operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. In the more 

than 4 years since its establishment, the department has taken important 

actions to secure the border and the transportation sector and to defend 

against, prepare for, and respond to threats and disasters. DHS has had to

undertake these critical missions while also working to transform itself 

into a fully functioning cabinet department—a difficult undertaking for 

any organization and one that can take, at a minimum, 5 to 7 years to 

complete even under less daunting circumstances. At the same time, a 

variety of factors, including Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, threats to and 

attacks on transportation systems in other countries, and new

responsibilities and authorities provided by Congress have forced the 

department to reassess its priorities and reallocate resources to address 

key domestic and international events and to respond to emerging issues 

and threats.

Concluding 

Observations 

As it moves forward, DHS will continue to face the challenges that have 

affected its operations thus far, including transforming into a highperforming, results-oriented agency; developing results-oriented goals and

measures to effectively assess performance; developing and implementing 

a risk-based approach to guide resource decisions; and establishing 

effective frameworks and mechanisms for sharing information and 

coordinating with homeland security partners. DHS has undertaken efforts 

to address these challenges but will need to give continued attention to 

these efforts in order to efficiently and effectively identify and prioritize 

mission and management needs, implement efforts to address those needs,

and allocate resources accordingly. Efforts to address these challenges are 

especially important given the threat environment and long-term fiscal 

imbalance facing the nation. While this testimony contains no new 

recommendations, in past products GAO has made approximately 

700 recommendations to DHS. DHS has implemented some of these 

recommendations and taken actions to implement others. However, we 

have reported that the department still has much to do to ensure that it 

conducts its missions efficiently and effectively while it simultaneously 

prepares to address future challenges that face the department and the 

nation. 

A well-managed, high-performing Department of Homeland Security is 

essential to meeting the significant homeland security challenges facing

the nation. As DHS continues to evolve, implement its programs, and 

integrate its functions, we will continue to review its progress and 

Page 27 GAO-07-1240T 
performance and provide information to Congress and the public on its 

efforts. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you and the Committee members may have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Norman J. 

Rabkin, Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at 

202-512-8777 or rabkinn@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this statement 

were Jason Barnosky, Rebecca Gambler, Kathryn Godfrey, Christopher 

Keisling, Thomas Lombardi, Octavia Parks, and Sue Ramanathan. 

Page 28 GAO-07-1240T 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440660) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@GAO.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs