DHS Drug Interdiction 

Efforts Need Improvement 

November 8, 2016 

OIG-17-09 
 

 

 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS

 DHS Drug Interdiction Efforts Need Improvement 

November 8, 2016 

Why We Did 

This Audit 

The Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (ONDCP) is 

responsible for setting drug 

control priorities for the 

Federal Government. We 

conducted this audit to 

assess DHS’ oversight 

efforts in relation to 

ONDCP’s National Drug 

Control Strategy. 

What We 

Recommend 

We made two 

recommendations that, if 

implemented, will improve 

DHS’ drug interdiction 

efforts. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 254-4100, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov 

What We Found 

We determined the Department’s oversight of its 

drug interdiction efforts did not align with 

ONDCP’s National Drug Control Strategy. The 

strategy sets goals and objectives for the drug 

control agencies to reduce illicit drug use, 

manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related 

crime and violence, and drug-related health 

consequences. Specifically, due to a lack of 

formal oversight roles and responsibilities, the 

Department did not: (1) report drug seizures and 

drug interdiction resource hours to ONDCP, and 

(2) ensure its components developed and 

implemented adequate performance measures to 

assess drug interdiction activities. 

As a result, DHS could not ensure its drug 

interdiction efforts met required national drug 

control outcomes nor accurately assess the 

impact of the approximately $4.2 billion it 

spends annually on drug control activities. 

DHS Response 

DHS concurred with the recommendations. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-17-09 
pAiT,y'~.

"y l

~~~ `fig 

..- 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

November 8, 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable Russell C. Deyo

Under Secretary for Management

Department of Homeland Security

FROM: John Roth ~~ `~~

Inspector General

SUBJECT: DHS Drug Interdiction Efforts Need Improvement

Attached for your information is our final report, DHS Drug Interdiction Efforts

Need Improvement. We incorporated the formal comments from the Department

of Homeland Security in the final report.

The report contains two recommendations aimed at improving DHS' drug

interdiction efforts. DHS concurred with both recommendations. Based on

information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider

recommendations 1 and 2 open and resolved. Once your office has fully

implemented the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to

us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendations. The

memorandum should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreedupon corrective actions and of the disposition of any monetary amounts. Please

send your closure request to OIGAuditsFollowup~oig.dhs•~ov.

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will

provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will

post the report on our website for public dissemination.

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Don Bumgardner,

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254-4100.

Attachment
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

Background .................................................................................................... 1 

Results of Audit .............................................................................................. 5 

Drug Interdiction Oversight Needs Improvement........................................ 5 

DHS Did Not Report Required Drug Control Information ........................... 6 

Drug Interdiction Performance Measures Need Improvement ..................... 7 

Other Observation: Joint Operations Resulted in Duplicate Recording of 

Drug Seizure Data................................................................................... 12 

Recommendations .................................................................................. 14 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 16 

Appendix B: DHS Comments to the Draft Report ................................. 18 

Appendix C: Third-Party Reviews of DHS Components Drug Interdiction 

Performance Metrics ........................................................ 21 

Appendix D: Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report ........... 22 

Appendix E:Report Distribution .......................................................... 23 

Abbreviations 

AMO Air and Marine Operations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CNE Office of Counternarcotic Enforcement 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

HSI Homeland Security Investigations 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

JIATF-S Joint Interagency Task Force - South 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy 

strategy National Drug Control Strategy 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

                                                      

Background 

One of the Department of Homeland Security’s critical functions is to protect 

the Nation by interdicting illicit drugs headed for the United States through air, 

land, or maritime borders. DHS leads the Nation’s interdiction efforts through a 

multicomponent-led approach, including the United States Coast Guard, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE). DHS’ Office of Policy coordinates strategy and policy within 

the Department and identifies resource gaps in Department drug interdiction 

actions. In 2015, DHS components dedicated approximately $4.2 billion, or 

about 11 percent of DHS’ overall budget, toward drug control. 

The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for maritime drug interdiction in 

international waters and shares responsibility for interdictions with CBP closer 

to shore. The Coast Guard's drug interdiction mission is to reduce the supply 

of drugs by denying smugglers the use of air and maritime routes. In addition 

to air interdiction, CBP is responsible for border security at and between all 

ports of entry. ICE combats smuggling and distribution, manufacture, and 

possession of illegal narcotics. ICE participates in task forces that conduct 

comprehensive attacks on major drug trafficking and money laundering 

organizations. 

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 19881 created the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy (ONDCP), part of the Executive Office of the President, to coordinate 

drug-control activities and related funding across the Federal Government. It 

produces the annual National Drug Control Strategy (strategy), which sets 

goals and objectives for the drug control agencies to reduce illicit drug use, 

manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drugrelated health consequences. The strategy’s two overarching goals are to: 

(1) curtail illicit drug consumption in America, and (2) improve the public 

health and public safety of the American people by reducing the consequences 

of drug abuse. 

To accomplish these goals, DHS is the designated lead agency for seven action 

items: 

1. Improving Intelligence Exchange and Information Sharing 

2. Implementing the National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy 

3. Implementing the National Plan for Outbound Interdiction of Currency 

and Weapons 

4. Coordinating Efforts to Secure the Northern Border Against Drug-Related 

Threats 

1 Public Law 100-690 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-17-09 
2

 

                                                       

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

5.	 Denying Use of Ports of Entry and Routes of Ingress and Egress between 

the Ports 

6.	 Disrupting Surveillance Operations of Drug Trafficking Organizations 

7.	 Disrupting Illicit Drug Traffick ing in the Transit Zone2 

In addition to setting drug control goals and objectives, ONDCP requires 

participating agencies to submit a detailed accounting of all funds expended for 

program activities during the previous fiscal year. Figure 1 represents DHS 

component drug control spending from fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 

Figure 1: FYs 2011–2015 DHS Component Drug Control Spending 

Source: DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) analysis of DHS-com ponent provided spending 

data 

Overall, Federal drug control spending increased from $21.7 billion in FY 2007 

to approximately $30.6 billion in allocated funding in FY 2016. Although total 

Federal drug control spending increased from FY 2007 through FY 2016, 

spending on supply reduction programs, such as domestic law enforcement, 

interdiction, and international programs, remained relatively constant at $13.3 

billion in FY 2007 and $15.8 billion allocated in FY 2016. However, Federal 

spending for drug treatment and prevention steadily increased from $8.4 billion 

in FY 2007 to $14.7 billion in FY 2016. To aid in combating drug abuse in the 

United States, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 

authorized the Federal Government to award grants to combat prescription 

opioid and heroin abuse.3 

2 The Transit Zone is a 6 million square mile area, inclu ding the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Eastern Pacific. 

3 Public Law 114-198

www.oig.dhs.gov 2	 OIG-17-09 
 

                                                       

  

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

The bulk of illegal drugs entering the United States originate from South 

America, passing through the Transit Zone. Once these drugs reach Central 

America, they are broken down into smaller packages and smuggled across the 

Southwest border into the United States. In his April 2016 testimony4 before 

the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

General John F. Kelly, United States Marine Corps (retired) and former 

commander of the United States Southern Command, stated, “Mexico is the 

source of heroin and meth[amphetamine] — and this includes the growing and 

harvesting of nearly 40,000 acres of poppies (DEA [Drug Enforcement 

Administration] estimates) and the labs to produce industrial quantities of both 

drugs using precursor chemicals imported in bulk from Asia.” Additionally he 

testified that Mexico is also the source of “enormous quantities of pirated 

pharmaceuticals.” Figure 2 shows the primary paths for the flow of drugs into 

the United States. 

Figure 2: Primary Paths for the Flow of Drugs into the United States 

Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, June 2015 

In contrast to marijuana and cocaine seizures, DHS interdicts relatively small 

amounts of methamphetamines and heroin. Figure 3 illustrates DHS 

component seizures by type and weight, as well as the percent of total DHS 

seizures, for FY 2015. 

4 “America’s Insatiable Demand for Drugs,” United States Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, April 13 , 2016 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-17-09 
a

 

                                                       

  

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 3: FY 2015 DHS Component Drug Seizures in Pounds and by 

Percent of Total DHS Seizures 

CBP

(66%)

ICE

(26%)

Coast

Guard

(8%)

Source: DHS OIG analysis of DHS component-provided drug seizure totals 

1Heroin made up approximately .2% of CBP's seizures andtherefore does not show up in this 

depiction. 2The Coast Guard provided cocaine and marijuana seizure data only.
 3“Other” represents seized drug types such as ecstasy, psilocybin mushrooms, khat, and other 

illegal substances. 

Cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin production destined for the United 

States have risen dramatically in recent years. According to the FY 2015 Coast 

Guard Drug Control Performance Summary Report, the known cocaine flow 

through the Transit Zone via noncommercial means increased in FY 2015 to 

1,254 metric tons from 945 metric tons in FY 2014.5 Although cocaine flow 

increased in FY 2015, U.S. Navy counterdrug assets in the Transit Zone are 

projected to decline. In a June 2016 congressional testimony, a Coast Guard 

official noted the U.S. Navy’s plans to decommission ships dedicated to 

counterdrug activities while deploying new combat ships away from the Transit 

Zone to the Pacific. 

5 OIG-16-28, Reviewof U.S. Coa st Guard’s Fiscal Year 2015 Drug Control Performance Summary 

Report, January 2016 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-17-09 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Results of Audit 

The Department’s oversight of its drug interdiction efforts did not align with the 

National Drug Control Strategy. Specifically, the Department did not: (1) report 

drug seizures and drug interdiction resource hours to ONDCP as required, and 

(2) ensure its components developed and implemented adequate performance 

measures to assess the Department’s drug interdiction activities as required. 

This occurred because DHS lacks formal oversight roles and responsibilities to 

ensure its drug interdiction performance activities met both ONDCP and 

legislative requirements. As a result, DHS could not ensure its drug 

interdiction efforts met required national drug control outcomes nor accurately 

assess the impact of the approximately $4.2 billion it spends annually on drug 

control activities. 

Drug Interdiction Oversight Needs Improvement 

Congress defunded the Department’s drug coordination office in 2012. When 

transitioning drug coordination activities to a new office after defunding, DHS 

did not clearly define its roles and responsibilities in overseeing the agencywide drug control effort. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 

20046 established the Department’s Office of Counternarcotic Enforcement 

(CNE). Until 2012, CNE coordinated policy and operations within the 

Department and between the Department and other Federal, state, and local 

agencies to stop the entry of illegal drugs into the United States. In addition, 

CNE was responsible for ensuring adequacy of resources to counternarcotic 

entry prevention efforts, reporting to Congress an annual budget review, and 

evaluating DHS’ counternarcotic activities. 

In 2012, Congress defunded7 CNE to streamline the Department’s 

counternarcotic enforcement mission and transferred CNE’s counternarcotic 

mission to the DHS Office of Policy. This office became responsible for 

integrating policy planning and coordination activities as well as optimizing 

existing planning and operations elements of its key law enforcement agencies. 

After CNE was defunded, Office of Policy counterdrug resources were greatly 

reduced. The previous CNE responsibilities shifted to the components. 

While CNE responsibilities shifted to the components, illegal drug use in the 

United States increased. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

reported from 2000 to 2014, drug overdose deaths in the United States 

increased 137 percent. In 2014, 47,055 people died from drug overdoses — 

more deaths than from car accidents. More specifically, overdose deaths 

6 Public Law 108-458 

7 Public Law 112-74 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-17-09 
 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

resulting from opioid use nearly quadrupled to 28,643 deaths in 2014 since 

1999.8 Increased availability, relatively low price, and high purity of heroin in 

the United States were cited as possible factors in the drug’s rising abuse rate. 

According to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, the amount 

of heroin confiscated at the United States southwest border quadrupled from 

2008 to 2013. 

According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, 

management must clearly define areas of authority and responsibility and 

appropriately delegate the authority and responsibility throughout the agency. 

However, Department officials did not formally define the roles and 

responsibilities for the new counterdrug office within the Office of Policy. CNE’s 

roles and responsibilities were outlined by legislation, while the Office of 

Policy’s were not. 

DHS is taking steps to increase component coordination to combat 

transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking. For example, as a 

part of the DHS Unity of Effort initiative announced in April 2014, 

DHS established the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign. This 

campaign guides DHS joint air, land, and maritime operations across the 

Nation’s borders. DHS started the plan in January 2015, and as of February 

2016 implementation is ongoing. However, at the time of our fieldwork, there 

were no formal memoranda of understanding between the participants 

detailing responsibilities. 

DHS Did Not Report Required Drug Control Information 

The Department did not comply with legislative mandates for reporting data to 

ONDCP. In addition to performance measure reporting requirements, DHS 

must report its drug seizure statistics annually. According to 21 United States 

Code (U.S.C.) 1704, Coordination with National Drug Control Program agencies 

in demand reduction, supply reduction, and State and local affairs, DHS must 

annually submit to ONDCP and the appropriate congressional committees: 

 the number and type of seizures of drugs by each component of DHS 

seizing drugs, as well as statistical information on the geographic areas 

of such seizures; and 

 the number of air and maritime patrol hours primarily dedicated to drug 

supply reduction missions undertaken by each component of DHS. 

8 Opioids are substances such as oxycodone, fentanyl, and heroin that work on the nervous 

system in the body or brain to reduce pain intensity. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-17-09 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

DHS last reported data to ONDCP in September 2011. DHS organized the data 

into a report containing summary drug seizure amounts and corresponding 

geographical locations by component. The Department did not address 

duplication when recording drug seizures made by more than one component. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security provided the report to ONDCP and select 

congressional committees. 

Drug Interdiction Performance Measures Need Improvement 

Seven of the nine DHS drug interdiction performance measures did not 

effectively assess the impact of its drug interdiction efforts. The measures were 

not outcome based or did not assess activities directly related to combating 

drug smuggling organizations. In one instance, the measure could be expanded 

to more accurately assess component drug interdiction activity effects toward 

dismantling transnational criminal organizations (see table 1). This occurred 

because the Department did not establish minimum standards for components 

to use in developing effective performance measures. The Department instead 

relied on components to develop and implement performance measures to 

satisfy ONDCP priorities. As a result, DHS could not measure whether its drug 

interdiction efforts effectively support required national drug control outcomes. 

ONDCP Circular Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance 

Summary, dated January 2013, requires an agency to explain how its 

performance measures clearly reflect their purpose and activities, enable 

assessment of agency contribution to the strategy, are outcome oriented, and 

are used in agency management. According to OMB Circular A-11,9 strategic, 

outcome-based measures provide a way of measuring effectiveness. 

Measuring DHS’ Support of the ONDCP’s Strategy Goals and Objectives 

The ONDCP’s strategy sets overarching goals and objectives for the drug 

control agencies across the Federal Government. The strategy designated DHS 

as the lead agency for seven action items. DHS’ action items address securing 

the Nation’s borders as well as combating maritime drug smuggling. The 

desired outcomes for the execution of DHS’ action items are: 

 disruption of domestic drug trafficking and production; and 

 strengthening of international partnerships and reduction in the 

availability of foreign-produced drugs in the United States.
 

9 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of 

the Budget, June 2015 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

                                                      

As shown in table 1, of the Department’s nine performance measures for 

assessing progress towards these action items, we determined seven (78 

percent) were process, not outcome based; did not assess activities directly 

related to strategy outcomes; or could be expanded to improve existing 

measures’ effectiveness. 

Table 1: Drug Interdiction Performance Measures by Component 

Component Performance Measure OIG Evaluation 

CBP 1. Amount of currency seized on exit 

from the United States 

Process, not outcomebased and not 

sufficiently relevant to 

counterdrug activities 

2. Percentage of Joint Interagency 

Task Force-South (JIATF-S) annual 

mission hour objective achieved 

Process, not outcomebased 

3. Percent of time TECS10 system is 

available to end users 

Process, not outcomebased 

4. Interdiction effectiveness rate on 

the Southwest border between the 

Ports of Entry 

Outcome-based, but 

not sufficiently relevant 

to counterdrug 

activities 

Coast Guard 5. Cocaine removal rate Outcome-based, but 

could be expanded to 

include other drug 

types removed 

ICE 6. Percentage of overseas 

investigative hours spent on drugrelated cases 

Process, not outcomebased 

7. Number of counternarcotics 

intelligence requests satisfied 

Process, not outcomebased 

8. Percent of significant high-risk 

transnational criminal investigations 

that result in a disruption or 

dismantlement 

Outcome-based, 

sufficiently measures 

counterdrug impacts 

9. Percent of transnational drug 

investigations resulting in the 

disruption or dismantlement of high 

threat transnational drug trafficking 

organizations or individuals 

Outcome-based, 

sufficiently measures 

counterdrug impacts 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of Component Drug Control Performance Summary Reports 

10 TECS (not an acronym) is an information-sharing system containing enforcement, inspection, 

and operational records relevant to CBP’s law enforcement and anti-terrorism mission. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

CBP Drug Interdiction Performance Measures 

We determined that CBP’s drug interdiction performance measures were 

generally process, not outcome based — or were not sufficiently relevant to 

counterdrug activities. CBP annually reports four drug interdiction 

performance measures to ONDCP. For example, CBP tracks the total dollar 

amount of currency seized during inspection of passengers and vehicles leaving 

the United States. It also tracks the interdiction effectiveness rate on the 

Southwest border, which is the percentage of individuals apprehended or 

turned back to Mexico on the Southwest border. 

These performance measures are important in determining CBP’s overall 

currency seizures and migrant apprehensions. However, they do not 

differentiate between total seized currency and apprehension of individuals 

with those associated with drug smuggling. For example, CBP personnel 

confirmed that although all seized currency is counted toward its performance 

measure, not all currency seized is associated with drug smuggling activity. 

Likewise, the interdiction effectiveness rate generally accounts for the 

individuals apprehended or turned back to Mexico, but does not specify which 

individuals are connected to drug smuggling activities. As a result, CBP cannot 

determine the effectiveness of its enforcement actions specifically in relation to 

its success in combating drug smuggling organizations. 

Additionally, CBP tracks whether it meets its intended flight hours in support 

of JIATF-S’ maritime anti-drug operations, but this measure does not 

determine the effectiveness of the flight hours. JIATF-S is responsible for 

detecting and monitoring illicit drug trafficking in the air and maritime 

environments while operating in the Transit Zone. Meeting the JIATF-S’ flight 

hour obligation is an important factor in disrupting drug trafficking activities 

by leveraging CBP’s air surveillance capabilities. However, CBP’s performance 

measure would be more effective if it determined what percentage of flight 

hours spent detecting and monitoring drug smuggling activities resulted in 

drug seizures or collection of vital intelligence. 

CBP also measures the percent of time TECS is available to end users. 

Although TECS is a critical law enforcement tool, we could not determine a 

clear link between its availability percentage and desired strategy outcomes. 

In its June 2015 annual budget preparation guidance, ONDCP recommended 

that CBP improve its performance measures by including a focus on drugrelated outcomes. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-17-09 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Coast Guard Drug Interdiction Performance Measure 

Although the Coast Guard’s cocaine removal rate performance measure was 

outcome based, it could be expanded to include additional drug types. The 

Coast Guard’s drug interdiction mission supports national and international 

strategies to deter and disrupt the market for illegal drugs and dismantle 

transnational criminal organizations. To assess its mission success, the Coast 

Guard annually reports the cocaine removal rate to ONDCP. The amount of 

cocaine removed is the sum of all cocaine that is physically seized by the Coast 

Guard and all cocaine lost by the transnational criminal organizations due to 

the Coast Guard’s actions. Although the Coast Guard’s efforts focus primarily 

on its ability to combat the flow of cocaine, the component could develop 

similar measures for other seized drug types. A 2015 independent, third-party 

review11 of Coast Guard performance measures recommended the component 

expand the scope of illicit activity being measured beyond cocaine. 

The review states: 

The metrics associated with the movement of marijuana, 

methamphetamines, cash, and weapons are potential sources of leading 

and trailing indicators of the overall effectiveness of the entire drug 

interdiction enterprise. Drugs other than cocaine are also important 

sources of revenue for Drug Trafficking Organizations. Also, in some 

districts, these drugs constitute an important or dominant portion of the 

maritime drug flow. While cocaine interdiction remains a national goal, 

and one for which national and Coast Guard goals are set, data on other 

drugs can also be relevant. 

The Coast Guard is considering these suggested changes, but as of April 2016, 

it has taken no action. Additionally, in ONDCP’s FY 2017 drug control funding 

request, it recommended that the Coast Guard implement an additional 

measure to report its efforts to support the joint Department of State and Coast 

Guard Interdiction and Prosecution Team. 

ICE Drug Interdiction Performance Measures 

We determined that two of ICE’s four performance measures are outcome 

based and sufficiently measure impacts of counterdrug activities, and two are 

process, not outcome based. As discussed previously in table 1, ICE reports 

four drug interdiction performance measures annually to ONDCP. Two of the 

four ICE performance measures effectively measured the success of meeting 

the strategy’s desired outcomes: 

11 See appendix C. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-17-09 
 

                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 percent of significant high-risk transnational criminal investigations that 

result in a disruption or dismantlement; and 

 percent of transnational drug investigations resulting in the disruption or 

dismantlement of high threat transnational drug trafficking organizations 

or individuals. 

ICE developed these measures as a result of recommendations from a 2006 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.12 ICE leadership collaborated 

with other law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration to develop the 

outcome-based measures. In 2014, DHS’ Program Analysis and Evaluation 

Division contracted an independent third party to review ICE’s “percent of 

transnational drug investigations resulting in the disruption or dismantlement 

of high-threat transnational drug trafficking organizations or individuals” 

performance measure. The review confirmed this measure was outcome based. 

ICE’s other performance measures relate to its counterdrug mission by 

measuring the number of counternarcotics requests satisfied and percentage of 

overseas investigative hours spent on drug related cases. Although these 

measures show the component’s commitment to anti-drug efforts, they do not 

evaluate the effectiveness of the intelligence products produced or investigative 

hours spent on drug-related cases. For example, assessing the quality of 

intelligence products in terms of overall impact on drug smuggling 

organizations would better determine progress toward meeting the strategy’s 

desired outcomes. Similarly, determining the quality of overseas investigative 

hours that negatively impact drug smuggling organizations would better assess 

ICE’s progress toward meeting strategy outcomes. 

Lack of Performance Measure Guidance 

With the exception of ICE’s outcome-based performance measures, DHS 

components lacked measures that accurately assess progress towards 

achieving desired outcomes of the strategy. This occurred because the 

Department did not establish minimum standards for components to use in 

developing effective performance measures. The Department instead relied on 

components to develop and implement performance measures to satisfy 

ONDCP priorities. As a result, component performance measures did not fully 

support required national drug control outcomes. 

12 GAO-06-48SU, Better Management Practices Could Enhance DHS’s Ability to Allocate 

Investigative Resources and GAO-06-462T, Better Management Practices Could Enhance DHS's 

Ability to Allocate Investigative Resources 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-17-09 
 

 

                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Progress in Improving Performance Measures 

DHS and ONDCP recognize that performance measures need improvements 

and have taken steps to address these improvements. In addition to Coast 

Guard and ICE independent reviews, DHS and ONDCP contracted for 

additional reviews of existing performance measures; see appendix C. As part 

of its newly implemented Southern Borders and Approaches Campaign Plan, 

the Department signed an interagency agreement with the Department of 

Defense in August 2015 to measure the illegal entry of people and goods.13 The 

contractor recommended that DHS develop a new set of outcome metrics for 

drug interdiction, and the Secretary agreed. 

Additionally, ONDCP awarded a contract to comprehensively review all drug 

supply reduction activity performance measures across the Federal 

Government. In October 2015, the contractor began assessing agency 

counterdrug activities — with input from stakeholders including DHS — and 

will develop new or improve existing performance measures if necessary. The 

review’s findings and recommendations are pending the completion of the 

review. 

CBP’s Air and Marine Operations (AMO) also took steps to improve its 

performance measures by establishing a working group to develop key 

interdiction outcomes and metrics. CBP AMO plans to implement its new 

metrics beginning in FY 2017. 

Other Observation: Joint Operations Resulted in Duplicate 

Recording of Drug Seizure Data 

During our audit, we identified a potential issue that could affect the 

Department’s ability to accurately report the total amount of drugs it seizes 

during component operations. During our interviews with stakeholders, 

component officials noted the potential for duplication when recording drug 

seizures made by more than one agency. As a result, we conducted limited 

testing on drug seizure data to determine whether components duplicated drug 

seizure data within their systems. 

We found duplication in data recording when CBP and ICE are part of joint 

operations. Components track and report their drug seizure data using 

individual systems of record. We reviewed examples of components’ internal 

13 The contractors focused on cocaine due to the unavailability of historical data on other drug 

types. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-17-09 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

tracking on drug seizure data14 and found 437 cases of duplication in CBP and 

ICE data. Combining these duplicated drug seizures could give the perception 

that DHS is interdicting more drugs than it is. 

As part of DHS’ drug control strategy, components work together in joint 

operations. For example, CBP, ICE, and other law enforcement organizations 

work together in Border Enforcement Security Task Forces to investigate 

transnational criminal activity along the Southwestern and Northern borders 

and at the Nation’s major seaports. We found instances of CBP and ICE 

recording the same seizure data in their individual component systems of 

record when participating in the task force operations. 

We found 437 instances of duplicated drug seizure entries when comparing 

CBP and ICE component and subcomponent FY 2015 data. Approximately 

78,573 pounds of drugs are associated with the duplicated drug seizures. ICE’s 

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and CBP AMO accounted for the 

majority of duplicated drug seizure entries and drug amounts, with 263 

instances of duplication accounting for a total of approximately 45,853 pounds 

of drugs. For example, we identified duplicated records of drug seizures totaling 

over 2,000 pounds in both CBP AMO and ICE HSI systems. Additionally, our 

analysis found 22 instances of identical drug seizures totaling approximately 

5,347 pounds recorded in CBP AMO and Office of Field Operations as well as 

ICE HSI systems. 

In addition to CBP and ICE, the Coast Guard conducts joint operations with 

DHS components. Although it maintains its own internal system to record drug 

seizures, the Coast Guard also uses the Department of Defense’s Consolidated 

Counterdrug Database to record and report drug seizures. The system 

consolidates participating agencies’ seizure data under one entry per seizure, 

therefore preventing users from counting drug seizures multiple times. 

Duplication in CBP and ICE seizure data occurred because both DHS and the 

components lacked policies and procedures for recording joint drug seizures. 

According to a DHS official, DHS is aware of components duplicating drug 

seizure data. For this reason, DHS does not combine component drug seizure 

figures when reporting to external stakeholders, and we did not observe any 

instances of DHS combining component drug seizure totals for reporting 

purposes. Because the Department could not accurately total component drug 

seizure data, it could not reliably determine the total drugs it has seized. The 

Department may want to address this potential issue and take corrective action 

as necessary. 

14 We conducted limited testing to determine the accuracy of ICE and CBP drug seizure data 

recorded as part of joint operations; see appendix A. The data tested is distinct and separate 

from the drug seizure data required by 21 U.S.C. 1704. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-17-09 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Conclusion 

Although DHS developed new organizational structures through the creation of 

the Southern Borders and Approaches Campaign, DHS lacks a centralized 

authority responsible for its counterdrug activities. Given the increase in 

cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin production destined for the United 

States, as well as the expansion of transnational criminal organizations, it is 

critical that the Department effectively supports the Nation’s drug control 

mission. Without effective performance measures or consistent drug seizure 

recording and reporting, DHS cannot ensure it is supporting the Federal 

Government counterdrug priorities to its full potential. Additionally, without 

accurate and effective performance measurement DHS cannot ensure it 

maximized the $4.2 billion components spent in FY 2015 on counterdrug 

activities. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management: 

Recommendation 1: Develop and implement a plan to ensure compliance with 

21 U.S.C. 1704 that mandates DHS must annually submit to ONDCP and the 

appropriate congressional committees: 

 the number and type of seizures of drugs by each component of DHS 

seizing drugs, as well as statistical information on the geographic areas 

of such seizures; and 

 the number of air and maritime patrol hours primarily dedicated to drug 

supply reduction missions undertaken by each component of DHS. 

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a plan to ensure components 

develop outcome-based performance measures that adequately assess the 

success of drug interdiction efforts. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The Department concurred with our recommendations and provided comments 

to the draft report. A summary of DHS’ management comments and our 

analysis follows. We have included a copy of these comments in their entirety 

in appendix B. DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated 

as appropriate. 

Recommendation #1: DHS concurred. According to the Department, the DHS 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Program Analysis and Evaluation Division 

will coordinate with CBP, ICE, and the Coast Guard to develop a plan that 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

ensures required annual reports are submitted to the ONDCP and the 

appropriate congressional committees. The estimated completion date is 

October 31, 2017. 

OIG Analysis: The actions DHS has proposed appear to meet the intent of 

recommendation #1. This recommendation will remain resolved and open until 

we have reviewed documentation confirming that a plan has been developed to 

ensure required annual reports are submitted to the ONDCP and the 

appropriate congressional committees. 

Recommendation #2: DHS concurred. According to the Department, the DHS 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Program Analysis and Evaluation Division 

will coordinate with CBP, ICE, the Coast Guard, and the ONDCP to develop and 

implement a plan that ensures new or enhanced existing, outcome-based 

performance measures are used to assess the success of drug interdiction 

efforts. The estimated completion date is October 31, 2017. 

OIG Analysis: The actions DHS has proposed appear to meet the intent of 

recommendation #2. This recommendation will remain resolved and open until 

we have reviewed documentation confirming that a plan has been developed 

and implemented to ensure outcome-based performance measures are used to 

assess the success of drug interdiction efforts. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107−296) by amendment to the Inspector 

General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special 

reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. We conducted this audit to 

determine the extent to which DHS is executing its responsibilities under the 

National Drug Control Strategy. 

Our audit assessed the Department’s drug interdiction activities from FY 2011 

through FY 2015. We researched and reviewed Federal laws, regulations, 

strategies, directives, and performance reports. We reviewed prior OIG and 

GAO reports for previously identified findings and recommendations related to 

our audit. We reviewed DHS component drug control spending. Component 

drug control spending is independently validated annually by our office; we 

were unable to complete review procedures for portions of CBP’s spending 

calculations for FY 2014 through FY 2015. Specifically, our review of CBP’s FY 

2015 Detailed Accounting Submission found CBP management was unable to 

provide supporting documentation for the underlying assumptions used to 

calculate the total obligations reported. As a result, we were unable to complete 

our review procedures over those assumptions. 

We conducted interviews with officials from ONDCP and DHS’ Office of 

Intelligence and Analysis, Office of Policy, and the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer’s Program Analysis and Evaluation Division. We also interviewed 

officials from the Coast Guard; CBP’s Office of Field Operations, U.S. Border 

Patrol, AMO, and Office of Administration; and ICE’s HSI. 

To understand DHS’ drug interdiction operations, we conducted a site visit to 

interview Department of Defense officials at Joint Interagency Task ForceSouth in Key West, FL, and attended a Consolidated Counterdrug Database 

Collection and Validation meeting at the El Paso Intelligence Center in El Paso, 

TX. 

We assessed the performance measures the Department’s components 

currently report to ONDCP and reviewed criteria for outcome-based 

performance measures. To determine the drug interdiction performance 

measures being considered by the Department, we reviewed third-party 

contracts and work performed to date. 

Additionally, we reviewed DHS’ drug seizure data from FY 2011 through FY 

2015. We conducted limited testing of FY 2015 drug seizures data by 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-17-09 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

comparing and analyzing CBP and ICE data to identify instances of duplicate 

recording of drug seizures made during joint operations. We obtained 

component data from component-specific systems and compared incident 

numbers between data sets to identify duplicate entries. We totaled the drug 

weights for these entries to obtain the amount of drugs duplicated among 

component systems. Although we did not independently verify the accuracy of 

the agencies’ self-reported drug seizure data, we took steps to minimize 

potential errors and problems while conducting our analysis. For example, we 

reviewed component drug seizure data to identify missing and inconsistent 

records or key data elements critical to conducting the analysis. Component 

officials clarified inconsistencies in drug seizure data during follow-up 

meetings. As a result, we determined the information obtained was sufficiently 

reliable for this report. 

We omitted Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers from our fieldwork 

analysis because the centers do not conduct drug seizure activities. 

Additionally, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers’ annual drug control 

spending is significantly lower than the other components included in the 

scope of our review. 

We conducted this performance audit between June 2015 and May 2016 

pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-17-09 

Appendix B 

DHS Comments to the Draft Report 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-17-09 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Third-Party Reviews of DHS Drug Interdiction Performance 

Measures 

Name of Review Month/Year 

completed 

Objective Recommendation(s) 

Immigration & 

Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) Independent 

Verification and 

Validation of 

Performance Measure 

Data 

August 2014 To conduct a validation and 

verification review of ICE's performance 

metric percent of transnational drug 

investigations resulting in the 

disruption or dismantlement of high‐

threat transnational drug trafficking 

organizations or individuals. 

ICE conduct a 

follow‐up study of 

the accuracy of the 

impact assessments 

Status: In progress 

Enhancing October To identify ways that the United States Use contractorCoast Guard Metrics 2015 Coast Guard could improve how it 

measures its operational performance. 

provided metrics to 

evaluate and 

improve Coast 

Guard operations. 

Status: In progress 

DHS’s Planning, 

Programming, 

Budgeting and 

Execution Support and 

Program Analysis 

(Inter Agency 

Agreement) 

In progress To provide analyses and metrics to: 

 manage business processes to 

achieve long-term outcomes and 

results; 

 improve near-term oversight and 

management of border and 

immigration operations in 

coordination with the new Joint 

Task Force Directors; and 

 communicate results clearly to the 

American people and Congress. 

None at this time; 

review is in progress. 

Interagency Supply 

Reduction Goals and 

Performance Measures 

Working Group 

Support 

(ONDCP) 

In progress To provide analyses and metrics to: 

 provide clearly identified and 

discrete goals that reflect the 

Administration's priorities 

regarding the 

interdiction/disruption of illicit 

narcotics and associated 

transnational criminal networks; 

 develop, capture, refine, analyze, 

and report a broad array of 

performance indicators that 

adequately reflect the status of 

activities (outputs and outcomes); 

and 

 develop measures of performance 

for supply-reduction activities. 

None at this time; 

review is in progress. 

Source: DHS OIG analysis of third-party reviews conducted by Energetics, RAND Corporation 

Studies, Price Waterhouse Cooper, and Institute for Defense Analyses 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Office of Audits Major Contributors to This Report 

Richard T. Johnson, Director, Transportation Security Division 

Brad Mosher, Audit Manager 

Jeff Wilson, Analyst-in-Charge 

Christopher Byerly, Program Analyst 

Denis Foley, Program Analyst 

Thomas Hamlin, Program Analyst 

Melissa Motley, Program Analyst 

Elizabeth Argeris, Communications Analyst 

Audrey Van, Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-17-09 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-17-09 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General Public Affairs 

at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click on the red 

"Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at (800) 323-8603, fax our 

hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305