Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
 

Information Technology Management Progresses 
 

But Challenges Remain 
 

OIG-10-90 May 2010 
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

 

 

May 28, 2010 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (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. 

This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement information technology management. It is based on interviews with 

employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a 

review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Richard L. Skinner 
 

Inspector General 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations
 


Executive Summary...................................................................................................................1 
 

Background................................................................................................................................2 
 

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

IT Strategic Planning and Budgeting Processes Need Improvement ...................................5 
 

IT Investment Management Processes Need Improvement................................................11 
 

The OCIO Is Challenged to Achieve Effective Management of Agency-wide IT.............17 


Recommendations....................................................................................................................24 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis............................................................24 

Appendixes

 Appendix A: Objective, Scope and Methodology...................................................... 26 

Appendix B: Management Response to Draft Report................................................ 28 

Appendix C: Major Contributors to the Report.......................................................... 30 

Appendix D: Report Distribution ............................................................................... 31 

Abbreviations 

AD Acquisition Directive 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IT Information Technology 

ITSR Information Technology Service Request 

MD Management Directive 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PEO Program Executive Office 

SELC Systems Engineering Life Cycle 

SLA Service Level Agreement 

Figures

 Figure 1: ICE Organizational Structure ...........................................................................3 
 

Figure 2: ICE OCIO Organizational Structure ................................................................3 
 

Figure 3: OCIO Strategic Plan Goals ..............................................................................6 
 

Figure 4: IT Strategic Plan Goals.....................................................................................7 
 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations
 


Figure 5: Total ICE IT Spending, FY 2009 .....................................................................9 
 

Figure 6: Comparison of DHS MD 1400 and DHS AD 102-01 IT Investment 
 

Levels.............................................................................................................12 
 

Figure 7: Proposed ICE OCIO Investment Management Structure...............................13 
 

Figure 8: High-Level ICE Life Cycle Management Process.........................................15 
 

Figure 9: IT Service Requests Since 2007.....................................................................19 
 

Figure 10: Total FY 2009 OCIO Funding by Fund Source.............................................21 
 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 
OIG 
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

We audited Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s information 

technology management functions. Our objective was to determine 

whether the components information technology management 

approach adequately addresses strategic planning, implementation, 

and management of technology to support its immigration and 

customs enforcement goals. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has improved its strategic 

planning by implementing an Office of the Chief Information 

Officer organizational strategic plan. However, it has not yet 

finalized its information technology strategic plan to define key 

goals and objectives for fulfilling its mission responsibilities. 

Further, although the Office of the Chief Information Officer has 

oversight of information technology spending, its budget planning 

process did not capture all component information technology 

needs. 

The Office of the Chief Information Officer is refining its 

information technology investment management and governance 

approach to improve oversight capabilities. The Office of the Chief 

Information Officer has also instituted a process for information 

technology life cycle management to oversee technology projects. 

However, extensive documentation preparation and review for 

information technology projects of all sizes, combined with a need 

for system life cycle management training, may hinder efficient 

management of information technology projects. Further, the Office 

of the Chief Information Officer is challenged to deliver effective 

information technology services and support due to conflicting 

priorities and staffing shortages. The Office of the Chief 

Information Officer is also unable to provide customers with details 

on program funds, and has not finalized information technology 

policies necessary for effective management of information 

technology activities. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 1 
 

Background 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest 

investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

ICE’s mission is to “protect the security of the American people 

and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the Nation’s immigration 

and customs laws.” To accomplish this mission, ICE deters, 

interdicts, and investigates threats; combats cross-border and 

financial crime; and protects federal government facilities. 

ICE has more than 400 offices and 20,000 employees in the United 

States and around the world. For fiscal year (FY) 2009, ICE had a 

budget of approximately $5.9 billion. This represents roughly 11% 

of DHS’ overall FY 2009 budget of $52 billion. 

ICE has two primary organizational units, the Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Operations and the Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Management. The Office of the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Operations provides leadership and 

coordination between the operational components to achieve 

agency goals. The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Management is responsible for coordination of the administrative 

and managerial components, as well as providing an integrated 

information technology (IT) infrastructure. These components, 

pictured in figure 1, are responsible for executing ICE’s mission. 

Figure 1: ICE Organizational Structure 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 2 
 

Under the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management, the Office 

of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) provides information 

technology (IT) services and solutions in support of the ICE 

mission. Since 2005, the OCIO has improved its organizational 

and operational effectiveness by restructuring itself to align with 

the overall ICE mission, current operational priorities, core 

business processes, and emerging IT needs. The OCIO is 

composed of 10 divisions and offices, staffed with approximately 

380 federal employees, that work together to achieve the ICE 

mission. Figure 2 shows the organizational structure of the OCIO. 

Figure 2: ICE OCIO Organizational Structure 

Leveraging investigative techniques and IT resources are key 

factors in ICE’s approach to accomplishing its mission. 

Technology plays a vital role for ICE, as evidenced by its FY 2009 

IT expenditures of approximately $600 million. According to the 

ICE Strategic Plan FY 2009–2013, ICE’s IT infrastructure needs to 

be modernized to help produce and share information that is 

accurate, secure, relevant, and timely. Accordingly, the OCIO has 

developed a number of critical IT initiatives to modernize IT 

systems and provide IT solutions to enable ICE personnel to meet 

their mission. For example, the Atlas program is an IT 

modernization and automation initiative that serves as the principal 

program to enhance ICE’s technology foundation. The program 

acquires and integrates commercial-off-the-shelf hardware and 

software products into the ICE IT infrastructure to enhance core 

business functions. With this program, the OCIO aims to create, 

sustain, secure, and manage an IT environment to support the ICE 

law enforcement mission. ICE considers this program a key step 

toward improving internal information sharing. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 3 
 

 

 

Over the past several years, a number of audit reports have 

identified key IT challenges at ICE. In September 2005, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that ICE’s 

Atlas program had inadequate cost justification as well as 

insufficient program management practices, performance 

measurements, and expenditure plan.1 In July 2006, GAO reported 

that ICE’s Atlas project plans did not include essential elements, 

such as a work breakdown structure of tasks, identification of 

project costs, analysis of constraints and risks, and review and 

approval by management and stakeholders.2 Finally, in April 

2007, GAO reported that ICE had not implemented key system 

management practices that were needed to ensure that major 

programs, such as the Atlas program, would deliver IT 

infrastructure capabilities and benefits on time and within budget.3 

In September 2008, we reported that although ICE was in the 

process of improving its IT management functions and operations, 

mature IT strategic planning and governance capabilities were 

needed.4 

1 Management Improvements Needed on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Infrastructure
 


Modernization Program, GAO-05-805, September 2005. 
 2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Is Beginning to Address Infrastructure Modernization Program 
 

Weaknesses but Key Improvements Still Needed, GAO-06-823, July 2006. 
 3 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Needs to Fully Address Significant Infrastructure Modernization 
 

Program Management Weaknesses, GAO-07-565, April 2007. 
 4 Progress Made in Strengthening DHS Information Technology Management, But Challenges Remain, 
 

OIG-08-91, September 2008. 
 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 4 
 

Results of Audit 

IT Strategic Planning and Budgeting Processes Need 
 

Improvement
 


ICE needs to improve its IT strategic planning and budget process. 

Although it has completed an OCIO organizational strategic plan 

and established an approach to measure workforce, business, and 

process effectiveness against that plan, these efforts do not address 

agency-wide IT-specific goals. Further, the OCIO developed a 

separate draft IT strategic plan that defines key goals and 

objectives for fulfilling ICE’s mission responsibilities, but the 

completion of that plan is on hold until ICE updates its overall 

strategic plan. As a result, the OCIO cannot ensure that its IT 

initiatives are contributing fully to ICE mission goals. 

The OCIO has taken steps to improve planning for all ICE 

programs by establishing an OCIO IT budget process. The OCIO 

reviewed and approved component IT spending throughout the 

year. However, the budget planning process did not fully represent 

what ICE spent on IT in FY 2009. As a result, the OCIO has 

limited ability to proactively manage and administer all IT 

resources and assets. 

OCIO Strategic Planning 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 holds 

federal agencies responsible for strategic planning to ensure 

efficient and effective operations and use of resources to achieve 

mission results.5 Further, DHS Management Directive (MD) 

0007.1 requires agency Chief Information Officers (CIOs) to 

develop and implement an IT Strategic Plan.6 The plan should 

clearly define how IT supports an agency’s mission and drives 

investment decisions, guiding the agency toward its goals and 

priorities. 

In 2009, the OCIO completed and implemented its first strategic 

plan—OCIO Strategic Plan FY2009–FY2012. The OCIO 

developed the plan to align with the operational goal in the ICE 

5

 Public Law 103-62, August 3, 1993. 
 6

 Department of Homeland Security, Management Directive 0007.1, Information Technology Integration
 


and Management, March 15, 2007. 
 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 5 
Strategic Plan FY2009–FY2013 to optimize the effectiveness of 

the workforce, business processes, and technology. According to 

the OCIO, this alignment will ensure that the OCIO Strategic Plan 

supports the agency’s operational need for technology and 

provides direction for the OCIO’s specific organization needs. 

The OCIO Strategic Plan contains five goals, and corresponding 

objectives, aimed at developing and improving the OCIO 

organization. These goals, presented in figure 3, address 

communication, financial management, strategic management, 

workforce development, and organizational growth. 

Figure 3: OCIO Strategic Plan Goals 

The OCIO has established performance targets to ensure that it 

achieves its strategic goals throughout the year. These targets 

provide specific tasks for each OCIO division to achieve. For 

example, one division was tasked to “establish a Process 

Improvement Strategy and Governance Framework by September 

30, 2009.” Senior leadership tracks each division’s progress in 

achieving the targets through annual performance plans and a 

performance status dashboard. As of September 30, 2009, the 

OCIO had achieved a “green” status for 86% of its objectives. 

Efforts are under way to draft new goals and objectives for FY 

2010. According to OCIO management, these goals are being 

established collaboratively across the OCIO and will improve 

formal alignment with the DHS CIO goals. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 6 
The OCIO has drafted the ICE IT Strategic Plan FY 2009–FY 2013 

but has not yet finalized and implemented this plan. The plan has 

not been finalized because the ICE Strategic Plan, from which the 

IT plan should be derived, is being updated. At the completion of 

our fieldwork, the OCIO was waiting to receive the final ICE 

Strategic Plan before finalizing its IT plan. Although still in draft, 

the plan defines the ICE IT mission as providing “first class IT 

products and services to ensure ICE is able to effectively and 

efficiently accomplish its mission.” The plan presents a 

framework for ICE to optimize the use of IT in support of DHS 

and ICE goals, objectives, and priorities. The IT Strategic Plan 

identifies four goals, as shown in figure 4. 

Optimize Information 

Sharing 

Goal 1 

Enhance Management 

Oversight 

Goal 2 

Integrate Security 

and Privacy 

Goal 3 

Harmonize Business 

& IT 

Goal 4 

Develop an environment 

that fosters information 

sharing with all ICE 

stakeholders. 

Establish an efficient, 

effective, and integrated 

ICE IT Governance 

Framework that 

promotes risk-based 

decision-making and 

accountability. 

Optimize security 

and privacy programs. 

Establish/enhance IT 

relationships between 

IT providers and ICE 

Program Offices to 

anticipate business 

needs in order to plan 

for, acquire, and apply 

cutting-edge technology 

solutions. 

Figure 4: IT Strategic Plan Goals 

The OCIO has developed specific objectives under each strategic 

goal. The goals and objectives will provide ICE managers and 

staff with the necessary direction for developing tactical and 

operational plans to meet ICE mission requirements. The OCIO 

expects that the IT strategic plan will enable ICE to fulfill its 

mission responsibilities and the OCIO to move forward in a 

defined strategic direction. 

Without an overarching IT strategic plan and the tactical and 

operational plans that should flow from it, the OCIO cannot ensure 

that its IT projects, initiatives, and investments are contributing to 

ICE mission goals. Officials in ICE component offices told us that 

they are not clear on the direction the OCIO is taking to better 

serve mission operations. In addition, IT project managers said 

that they are not aware of an agency-wide IT vision that drives 

day-to-day work. Rather, work is prioritized on the basis of 

customer-driven requests and available funding. For example, ICE 

acquisitions officials said that procurements are often handled in 

the order they are received rather than by mission priorities. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 7 
 

IT Budget Process 

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires that CIOs review the IT budget 

within their agency to effectively manage technology systems and 

initiatives as strategic investments.7 Further, DHS MD 0007.1 

requires component CIOs to effectively manage and administer all 

IT resources and assets and prepare an IT budget for all component 

office IT activities.8 

The OCIO has taken steps to improve budget planning for ICE IT 

programs. Specifically, the OCIO has established a budget process 

to identify and prioritize IT needs and implement a consolidated 

budget execution plan for IT resources supporting ICE’s mission 

and goals. However, the FY 2009 IT budget plan did not capture 

all funds ICE component offices spent on technology. Although 

the OCIO has oversight of component office IT spending, it does 

not review and approve component IT plans at an earlier stage 

within the process. As a result, the OCIO is not able to guide IT 

purchases to promote standardization or strategic direction of 

agency technology. 

IT Budget Process Established 

The OCIO is responsible for estimating all funding needed for 

agency IT capabilities. To accomplish this, the OCIO has 

established a process to develop an annual IT budget plan. It 

begins this process by estimating the total expenses for all OCIO 

divisions using the prior year budget as a baseline. Building on 

this baseline, each division develops an updated budget plan that 

reflects its needs. The OCIO Budget Execution Office validates 

the divisional estimates and consolidates the plans into the OCIO 

budget execution plan. 

The OCIO works with the ICE Budget Office and ICE components 

to identify the funding needed for agency-wide IT initiatives, 

equipment and services for the year. ICE component funding 

requests for major programs are captured in the annual IT service 

assessment process. During the budget process, the OCIO also 

considers plans for new IT initiatives from the annual Office of 

Management and Budget’s Exhibit 300 business case summaries 

and new IT projects identified by ICE governance boards. 

7

 Public Law 104-106, February 10, 1996. 
 

8

 Department of Homeland Security, Management Directive 0007.1, Information Technology Integration
 


and Management, March 15, 2007. 
 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 8 
 

The OCIO compiles a budget execution plan that details the 

funding that can be spent on specific programs and projects for the 

year. The OCIO and the ICE Budget Office review and prioritize 

these requests to ensure alignment with agency goals. According 

to the OCIO, this collaboration between the OCIO and the ICE 

Budget Office ensures that all IT needs are captured in the OCIO 

annual budget process. 

IT Spending Outside of Budget Process 

Although the OCIO FY 2009 budget accounted for all OCIOmanaged funds, it did not account for all ICE IT funds spent during 

the year. In FY 2009, the OCIO was able to account for 87% of 

the IT funds through its consolidated budget formulation process, 

as shown in figure 5. 

Figure 5: Total ICE IT Spending, FY 2009 

The OCIO has established formal processes to monitor component 

spending on IT equipment and services. According to the OCIO, 

regardless of who funds the requisition, IT equipment purchases 

are made through a standard IT Service Request (ITSR) process. 

In this process, ICE component offices submit requests for IT 

purchases to the OCIO for approval by the CIO. 

Acquisitions for IT services are also subject to formal OCIO 

oversight. The OCIO has instituted an acquisition review process 

to ensure IT acquisitions are reviewed before they are completed. 

This process provides a standard mechanism for ICE to initiate 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 9 
investment reviews to ensure compliance with the DHS-level 

acquisitions guidance and review process. According to the OCIO, 

the review process also helps to ensure alignment of investments 

with ICE and DHS strategic goals. 

Although the OCIO maintains awareness of IT spending through 

the ITSR and acquisition review processes, these processes do not 

provide an opportunity for the OCIO to conduct a complete review 

of component office IT plans prior to spending. As a result, the 

OCIO has limited ability to effectively manage and administer all 

IT resources and assets with a complete and accurate budget. 

Consequently, the ability of OCIO to consolidate purchases, 

promote IT standardization, and achieve tighter control of IT 

expenditures is hindered. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 10 
 

IT Investment Management Processes Need Improvement 

The OCIO is refining its IT investment management approach in 

response to recent changes in DHS acquisitions requirements. 

Specifically, the OCIO is instituting new IT governance boards and 

has developed a formal governance process. The OCIO expects 

the new governance process to provide a more formal structure for 

IT investment review and to increase oversight for OCIO-managed 

programs. 

OCIO’s system life cycle management process plays a key role in 

ensuring that ICE IT projects receive the appropriate level of 

review and oversight. Although the OCIO has established a 

system life cycle management process to oversee all ICE 

technology projects, IT managers are challenged to achieve 

efficient oversight because of the number of documents required 

for IT projects of all sizes. Further, ICE components do not know 

how to apply the process to their projects, in part because of a lack 

of training. As a result, IT projects may incur increased costs. 

IT Investment Management Approach Refined 

According to federal guidance, the CIO is required to implement 

IT governance structures and to ensure effective acquisition of IT 

resources.9

 Additionally, according to DHS MD 0007.1, the 

component CIO is responsible for the effective management and 

administration of all IT resources and assets by reviewing and 

approving IT acquisitions in accordance with DHS policies and 

guidance. 

In November 2008, DHS issued Acquisition Directive (AD) 102­

01.10 The directive defines the acquisitions process that must be 

followed for IT projects to receive funding. This directive 

establishes three investment levels and defines department and 

component review and approval authority for each level. Figure 6 

shows these thresholds and responsibilities. 

9

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources; 
 

and OMB Circular A-11, Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition and Management of Capital Assets provide 
 

regulations and guidance for investment review and capital planning activities. 
 10 DHS AD 102-01, Version 1.9, Acquisition Directive, 7 Nov. 2008. 
 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 11 
Project 

Level 

Previous Requirements 

(DHS MD

Investment 

Threshold 

(total life cycle 

costs) 

 1400)11 

Review/ 

Approval 

DHS AD 1

Investment 

Threshold 

(total life cycle 

costs) 

02-01 

Overseen 

by 

Level 1 > $200M DHS � $1B DHS 

Level 2 $20M – DHS $300M – $1B DHS 

$200M 

Level 3 $5M – $20M DHS < $300M ICE 

Figure 6: Comparison of DHS MD 1400 and DHS AD 102-01 IT Investment 

Levels 

The new departmental acquisitions guidance has increased the 

number of IT projects that require ICE-level review and approval. 

Previously, DHS held review and approval authority for all IT 

investments with total life cycle costs of greater than $5 million. 

However, under AD 102-01, DHS now reviews IT investments 

with life cycle costs of $300 million or more, with ICE responsible 

for reviewing and approving all IT investments of less than $300 

million. 

To address the requirements of AD 102-01, the OCIO is updating 

its governance structure. It is instituting two new OCIO-level IT 

governance boards: the Cross-Impact Review Board and the 

Executive Board. These boards will provide a more formal 

structure to ensure acquisition oversight of ICE investments 

throughout their life cycle. These boards will meet weekly or 

monthly to review program and project accomplishments and plans 

during the acquisition process. Figure 7 shows the proposed 

governance structure with investment review responsibilities. 

 

11 Department of Homeland Security, Management Directive 1400, Investment Review Process. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 12 
 

 

 

Figure 7: Proposed ICE OCIO Investment Management Structure 

The Cross-Impact Review Board is responsible for facilitating 

analyses, providing guidance, and making recommendations for 

acquisitions to the Executive Board. The Cross-Impact Review 

Board, made up of management-level subject matter experts 

representing ICE/OCIO’s core functions, will support and report to 

the Executive Board. 

The Executive Board is the decision-making body that is 

responsible for reviewing and approving Cross-Impact Review 

Board recommendations. The Executive Board is made up of 

ICE/OCIO division directors and will support and report to the 

existing ICE Portfolio Working Group. 

To provide an overarching structure for the new boards, the OCIO 

developed a formal governance process in 2009. The new process 

describes each governance board and illustrates the interactions 

between OCIO-level and ICE-level boards. The process also 

defines three governance sub-processes: acquisition management, 

management reviews, and process asset management. The OCIO 

expects the new governance process to provide a more formal 

review structure for IT investments and to increase oversight for 

programs. 

In February 2009, the new boards began a piloting phase to test 

investment management processes with a select number of IT 

projects. For example, the Traveler Enforcement Communication 

System modernization program, an effort to modernize the system 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 13 
 

that screens travelers entering the United States, went through all 

levels of review with the two new OCIO-level boards. The boards 

tracked all comment forms, meeting minutes, and action items so 

that the decisions they made could be clearly communicated to the 

programs. According to the OCIO, the pilot phase provided a 

complete picture of the end-to-end governance process. At the 

conclusion of our review, the OCIO was updating each governance 

board’s charter based on lessons learned from the pilots. The 

OCIO expected to implement the new boards in February or March 

2010 after governance charters were finalized. 

Although the OCIO is documenting and communicating guidance 

on its new investment review process, challenges remain for 

successful implementation of the process. According to several 

ICE officials, project managers are not consistently aware of the 

OCIO review boards and have limited understanding of the 

decision-making process. Further, many project managers do not 

clearly understand what is required for the new acquisition 

process. For example, most project managers said they do not 

always understand when or how to enter the formal review process 

or what documentation is required. 

Systems Life Cycle Management Process Established 

An essential part of AD 102-01 is the DHS Systems Engineering 

Life Cycle (SELC) set forth in appendix B of the directive. The 

purpose of the DHS SELC Guide is to standardize the system life 

cycle process across DHS. The guide is designed to ensure that 

appropriate activities are planned and implemented in each phase 

of the life cycle to increase a project’s success. 

The OCIO has recently aligned its system life cycle management 

process with the DHS SELC. ICE established the process to 

oversee the various technical, security, and quality aspects of its 

technology projects and to manage the integration of technology 

into ICE. The life cycle management process consists mainly of a 

set of nine activities, documents, technology artifacts, and gate 

reviews that can be customized to fit the unique needs of a project. 

Figure 8 depicts the nine activities, also referred to as phases. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 14 
Solution 

Engineering Planning Requirements

Definition Design Development Integration 

and Test Implementation

Operations 

& Maintenance Disposition

System Life Cycle Manacle Management Process Phases 

Solution 

Engineering Planning Requirements 

Definition Design Development Integration 

and Test Implementation 

Operations 

& Maintenance Disposition 

Figure 8: High-Level ICE Life Cycle Management Process 

During the process, the project team completes the required 

activities. The results of the activities are recorded in documents 

and technology artifacts such as code. The documents and 

technology artifacts are assessed for adherence to ICE standards 

and guidelines and evaluated in gate reviews to determine how the 

project should proceed. 

Documentation Requirements for IT Projects 

Although the life cycle management process is accepted as the 

agency’s standard approach, IT and component personnel said that 

the volume of documents required for small projects is excessive, 

increasing the workload for administering IT projects. 

Specifically, IT project managers said the same documentation is 

required for all IT projects reviewed by either DHS or ICE. The 

ICE IT life cycle handbook specifies that a range of up to 60 

documents may be required throughout the project, depending on 

the project’s scope and complexity. OCIO project managers are 

concerned about the potential impact on cost and schedule for 

current IT projects. One IT project manager explained that a small 

IT project may incur a significant cost increase in order to 

complete required documentation. As a result, the OCIO is 

challenged to deliver IT solutions in a cost-effective or timely 

manner. 

Although the life cycle management process can be tailored based 

on a project’s size, scope, and risks, project managers said that the 

amount of documentation required remains burdensome across all 

project levels. To address these concerns, the OCIO has 

implemented a new Program Executive Office (PEO) to help 

program and project managers navigate system life cycle processes 

more efficiently. One of the initial efforts by the PEO was to 

simplify the IT life cycle process. The PEO offers assistance to the 

project manager to develop a Project Tailoring Plan in the first 

phase of the process. This plan documents the overall 

development approach for the program or project. However, IT 

managers said that an appropriate level of review activities and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 15 
required documentation is not yet effectively tailored to the project 

investment size. 

Clarity Needed for System Life Cycle Management Process 

The process described within the ICE System Life Cycle 

Management Handbook applies to all ICE technology projects, 

including operational systems, infrastructure, and field technology 

initiatives, regardless of sponsor, developer, project size, 

methodology, or technology used. Thus, all ICE personnel and IT 

project teams must adhere to the ICE life cycle management 

process when developing or modifying ICE technology. However, 

ICE component office personnel said that they do not know how to 

apply the process to their IT projects. For example, when the 

Federal Protective Service began a project to automate existing 

manual processes, personnel did not know what documents were 

required during the initial phases of the project. Further, the IT 

project faced challenges when OCIO guidance did not clearly 

specify what was required from the ICE component personnel and 

contractors supporting the project team. This situation was 

compounded when requirements for documentation and gate 

reviews changed during the process due to a change in the 

project’s investment level categorization. 

Additionally, ICE customers working on an investment in excess 

of $50 million said they did not clearly understand how to prepare 

for required reviews throughout the process. Specifically, the 

project team did not know what documentation was required or 

how to plan the appropriate timeframes for each review. Further, 

the project team said that new documentation and review 

requirements, such as an architecture and design review, were 

introduced throughout the process. 

ICE component officials said that personnel involved in the system 

life cycle management process needed training. Although life 

cycle management tutorials and templates are offered, training is 

not required for ICE component personnel. As a result, component 

personnel often proceed without an adequate understanding of the 

process. Further, project teams are unable to plan for needed staff 

and budget to ensure that activities are completed to keep the 

project on schedule. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 16 
The OCIO Is Challenged to Achieve Effective 

Management of Agency-wide IT 

Although the OCIO has developed a structure to foster 

communications with its customers, ICE component offices are 

concerned that the OCIO does not understand their needs and 

priorities. As a result, component office officials may plan their 

own IT solutions without OCIO coordination. In addition, the ICE 

component offices we spoke with said that there was little 

transparency in how the OCIO spent their program funds, resulting 

in a lack of confidence related to IT funds management. In 

addition, ICE has not yet finalized and instituted a number of 

necessary IT policies. Without such policies, the OCIO does not 

have the controls in place to govern and manage IT activities. 

IT Service Delivery Needs Improvement 

According to DHS MD 0007.1, the component CIO is responsible 

for effective management and administration of all component IT 

resources and assets to meet mission, departmental, and enterprise 

program goals. The OCIO has developed an organizational 

structure to establish customer relationships while also providing 

centralized management of agency-wide IT. However, execution 

of several IT projects was hindered by insufficient understanding 

of customer needs and limited staff. 

Systems Development Division 

The OCIO established a Systems Development Division to focus 

on developing new ICE IT applications, enhancing and 

maintaining existing applications, and supporting IT program 

initiatives. Within this division, the OCIO established an account 

executive approach to foster customer relationships and ensure that 

it understands its customers’ business needs. Account executives 

serve as customer service liaisons to the program offices in ICE. 

With this effort, the OCIO aims to improve its relationship with 

ICE component offices, as well as its ability to support the full IT 

life cycle of business applications. 

At least five account executives work with ICE customers to 

understand their business needs and priorities and to vet new 

system requirements. Account executives told us that their roles 

and responsibilities include translating business requirements into 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 17 
technical solutions, as well as to help customers through the 

governance process. Account executives and OCIO IT project 

managers assist the customer through reviews and help to develop 

the documentation required for the process and acquisitions 

packages. IT project managers also attend project meetings with 

component office customers to foster continual engagement 

throughout the project. 

Customer Needs 

Some ICE customers said that they have not been able to obtain IT 

solutions to meet their mission operational needs. For example, the 

OCIO has restricted the use of wireless capabilities owing to the 

agency’s involvement with law enforcement data. However, nonlaw enforcement programs within ICE find these protocols too 

constricting. The OCIO has denied their requests for IT 

capabilities, such as wireless Internet or “webinars,” to collaborate 

with ICE component stakeholders. As a result, these customers do 

not believe that the OCIO understands their mission well enough to 

deliver IT solutions to support their operations. 

Time and Resources 

OCIO customers also said that there are often delays of 60 days or 

more in receiving responses to their IT requests. For example, one 

ICE component requested that a system be moved to another 

domain so it could support current IT program needs, a request the 

component felt should have been completed quickly. However, 

after the request had remained open for three months, the 

component director had to contact OCIO management to make this 

priority known. Another ICE component waited nearly a year for a 

response on a request for Microsoft SharePoint. 

ICE customers we spoke with said that when the OCIO’s response 

to their IT request is delayed beyond 60 days, it can cause 

significant setbacks to IT project efforts, as well as increased costs. 

For example, during one system development project, the customer 

needed an environment established for system testing. The OCIO 

was not able to respond in a timely manner. This resulted in 

missed deadlines for a project that was rated a top priority within 

the component office. In another case, one component had to 

spend an additional $200,000 on its project because it could not 

obtain a response from the OCIO on a connectivity request. 

Because there is no defined review period for IT requests continues 

to introduce risks to IT projects. One ICE customer said that IT 

requests often remain open for three months or longer without 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 18 
resolution from the OCIO. In these cases, risks are identified and 

documented for mitigation. For example, one IT project identified 

at least seven high-priority issues and risks to the project schedule 

resulting from potential rework to redesign applications or to select 

alternate solutions. 

OCIO customers said that the OCIO remains focused on its 

internal priorities, such as its workforce, business, and process 

effectiveness, rather than on its customers. Customers noted 

challenges in working with the OCIO because it had limited time 

and resources for customer IT projects. OCIO IT managers 

acknowledged that they are focused mainly on priorities, workload, 

and deadlines within their own division. IT staff also said that they 

are sometimes not readily available to work on customer issues 

because they are focused on division-specific activities. 

Staffing 

Staffing shortages present challenges to efficiently managing IT 

systems and development work. At the time of our audit, the 

OCIO had approximately 350 government employees and 1,860 

contract employees. Although the OCIO has doubled its staffing 

level over the last two years, the workload has tripled over the 

same period. For example, ITSRs have increased from 982 to 

3,629 from FY 2007 to FY 2009. Figure 9 shows the number of 

ITSRs for the past three years. 

ICE IT Service Requests 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

3000 

3500 

4000 

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

Year 

# of Requests 

Figure 9: IT Service Requests Since 2007 

Staff shortages are a critical issue for some OCIO divisions. For 

example, the System Development Division has only 81 federal 

employees to manage its approximately 140 system development 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 19 
 

projects. Although OCIO divisions augment their staff with 

contractors, only federal employees may manage IT projects. In 

some cases, there are not enough federal employees to manage the 

number of IT projects. For example, one branch is staffed with 11 

federal employees and approximately 225 contractors. Another 

System Development division branch has approximately 80 

projects, but only 20 federal employees to oversee all contractors 

and development activities. 

As a result of the staffing shortage, project managers are stretched 

thin, each managing multiple projects. Consequently, OCIO 

divisions struggle to manage their current project workload and 

meet their customers’ IT system needs. Staff shortages may also 

limit the OCIO’s ability to meet new customer requirements. 

OCIO officials said they are in the process of determining 

appropriate contractor and federal employee staffing levels. 

OCIO Management of Program Funds Is Not Transparent 

DHS MD 0007.1 requires component CIOs to effectively manage 

and administer all component IT resources and assets. However, 

OCIO has not been able to provide component offices with 

detailed accounting of how their funds are being spent. 

OCIO receives funds from ICE component offices for the IT 

services OCIO provides to them. ICE component offices enter into 

two types of IT service agreements with the OCIO—Service-Wide 

Agreements and Service-Level Agreements (SLAs). Service-Wide 

Agreements are primarily focused on common IT operations and 

maintenance services used across all ICE programs. For example, 

the OCIO provides ICE component offices with IT support for 

telecommunications, financial systems, and operations and 

maintenance of program systems and applications. ICE 

component offices use SLAs to obtain specific IT services to meet 

their unique IT needs. For example, the OCIO has an SLA with 

one component office to deliver IT equipment and contract 

services for infrastructure engineering assistance and other 

contractor support. Approximately 52% of the OCIO’s FY 2009 

funding was derived from these two types of service agreements, 

as figure 10 shows. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 20 
 

18.5% 

52.4% 

29.1% 

ICE Service 

Agreements 

Base Budget 

Other * 

Figure 10: Total FY 2009 OCIO Funding by Fund Source 

*Other includes appropriations received for, among other things, Automation 

Modernization and Recovery Act projects, as well as user fees received from 

external sources. 

The ICE component office officials said that there was little 

transparency in how the OCIO spent their program funds. They 

said that they do not receive adequate reports from the OCIO on 

how service agreement funds are managed and spent, despite their 

requests for more information. Instead, the OCIO provides a 

statement that includes only the total dollar amount that the office 

provided to the OCIO and the total dollar amount spent. In 

addition, ICE officials said that the costs for IT service agreements 

often increase during the year, with little justification or details on 

how funds were spent. Further, the OCIO does not provide 

detailed spending reports for ongoing IT programs that it is 

managing. For example, one office received no details when the 

OCIO spent a multiyear budget for one of its IT programs in one 

year, and the cost of the program increased from $20 million to 

$50 million. Although the component office requested that the 

OCIO provide justification for the increase, the information was 

not provided. 

OCIO officials said that they cannot easily provide component 

offices with detailed reporting on how service agreement funds are 

spent. The OCIO Budget Execution Branch uses the Federal 

Financial Management System to manage agency financial 

transactions. The branch can obtain some information, such as the 

amount of spending and the available balance on SLAs, from the 

system because SLAs are assigned individual project and other 

accounting codes. However, for more detailed information, such 

as which activities have been completed and the amount spent on 

each, the budget branch must obtain the information manually. It 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 21 
 

issues a data call once a month to OCIO project managers to obtain 

that information. In addition, tracking spending for Service-Wide 

Agreements is difficult because the funds received from all ICE 

component offices, which pay different amounts based on service 

utilization estimates, are combined into one “basket” and are not 

tracked by program. 

Without more robust tracking and reporting capability, the OCIO is 

challenged to provide details on how ICE program funds are being 

spent. As a result, ICE component office officials do not believe 

they are receiving sufficient financial reporting from the OCIO. 

This fosters a lack of confidence that the OCIO is effectively 

managing the funds ICE component offices provide for IT services 

and initiatives. 

IT Policies Are Needed to Support IT Management Functions 

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires the ICE CIO to promote effective 

and efficient management and operations, as well as facilitate 

improvements to agency processes in regard to IT resources. 

Additionally, DHS MD 0007.1 requires that the ICE CIO ensure 

alignment with DHS policies and procedures. IT policies are 

instrumental in ensuring that ICE IT system development and IT 

operations are executed in accordance with department and agency 

guidelines. 

ICE has not yet published the IT policies needed to support and 

manage agency-wide IT. As of November 2009, fewer than onethird of the IT policies or directives recommended for development 

had been completed. Specifically, 16 IT policies or directives 

were in development—under review, pending signature, or on hold 

due to other circumstances. These policies address issues such as 

the IT procurement review, life cycle management, ITSR, and IT 

security. Additionally, three directives had been completed but not 

yet implemented while awaiting labor relations negotiations. A 

number of additional IT policies have been recommended for 

development but not yet begun. As a result, important guidance on 

agency-wide IT practices, such as IT security for remote access, 

has not yet been implemented. 

OCIO officials said that a formal policy management framework 

has not yet been instituted within ICE. The existing review 

process for policy approval is lengthy, requiring that all draft 

policies be reviewed by multiple ICE stakeholders. Some policies 

have been in development for as long as three years because of this 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 22 
lengthy process. The OCIO has assigned a priority indicator to 

certain policies and directives that it considers the most critical. 

For example, an ITSR policy with an “A” level priority is the 

highest priority. 

In the absence of completed and published IT policies, a number of 

critical IT management practices do not have formal support. For 

example, no policy gives PEO the authority to enforce compliance 

with the new standards and guidelines it is developing to improve 

IT management practices. Without enforcement authority, PEO 

can only encourage offices to use the tools it has developed for IT 

programs and projects. Because offices have the option of 

bypassing these tools, they run the risk of delays and problems that 

PEO’s tools might have identified. In addition, OCIO’s 

Information Assurance Division had to publish handbooks without 

official, signed policies in place because the information was 

needed quickly. Further, the directive requiring that all systems 

align with the ICE life cycle management process has not been 

finalized. As a result, the OCIO Architecture Division may be 

unable to enforce alignment, thus leaving the possibility for 

potential conflicts and misalignment with DHS guidance. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 23 
Recommendations 

We are recommending that the ICE Assistant Secretary: 

1.	 Finalize an agency-wide IT Strategic Plan to establish and 

communicate IT strategic goals and objectives to stakeholders. 

2.	 Establish an agency-wide IT budget process to include all ICE 

component office technology initiatives and requirements. 

3.	 Develop an OCIO staffing plan that includes specific actions 

and milestones for recruiting and retaining fulltime employees. 

4.	 Establish a formal process to facilitate IT policy development, 

approval, and dissemination. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the 

Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer, ICE. In the comments, the 

Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer concurred with our 

recommendations. We have included a copy of the comments in 

their entirety at Appendix B. 

In response to recommendation 1, the Acting Deputy Chief 

Financial Officer stated that ICE has completed the ICE IT 

Strategic Plan as of April 9, 2010. Further, a revision of the plan is 

currently being developed to ensure alignment to DHS and ICE 

policy. The Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer requested that 

Recommendation 1 remain open until the plan is completed in 

March 2011. 

We recognize the progress made in this area since our review. We 

expect that ICE’s IT Strategic Plan will help to ensure that IT 

initiatives fully support DHS and ICE strategic goals and 

objectives. We look forward to receiving a documented IT 

Strategic Plan. 

In response to recommendation 2, the Acting Deputy Chief 

Financial Officer stated that the ICE OCIO is working with 

stakeholders to develop an IT budget process to include component 

input. The Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer requested that 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 24 
Recommendation 2 remain open until the Procurement Review 

Directive is approved in March 2011. We are encouraged by these 

plans and look forward to receiving the documented Procurement 

Review Directive. 

In response to recommendation 3, the Acting Deputy Chief 

Financial Officer stated that the ICE OCIO is working to develop a 

staffing plan to address recruitment and retaining of full-time 

federal employees. The Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

requested that recommendation 3 remain open until the staffing 

plan is finalized in December 2010. We are encouraged by this 

effort and look forward to receiving a documented staffing plan 

with specific actions and milestones for recruiting and retaining 

fulltime employees. 

In response to recommendation 4, the Acting Deputy Chief 

Financial Officer stated that the ICE OCIO is in the process of 

developing a directive to enable tracking of policy requirements 

and status. The Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer requested 

that recommendation 4 remain open until the policy directive is 

completed in December 2010. We are encouraged by this effort 

and look forward to receiving a documented directive which 

outlines how policy development will be managed. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 25 
Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

As part of our ongoing responsibility to assess the efficiency, 

effectiveness, and economy of departmental programs and 

operations, we conducted a review of ICE to determine whether 

ICE’s IT management approach adequately addresses strategic 

planning, implementation, and management of technology to 

support its goals. 

To establish criteria for this audit, we researched and reviewed 

federal laws and executive guidance related to IT management and 

CIO governance. We conducted research to obtain testimony, 

published reports, documents, and news articles regarding the DHS 

CIO operations and IT management throughout the department. 

Additionally, we reviewed recent GAO and DHS OIG reports to 

identify prior findings and recommendations. Using this 

information, we established a data collection approach that 

consisted of focused interviews and documentation analysis to 

accomplish our audit objectives. We then developed a series of 

questions and discussion topics to facilitate our interviews. 

Subsequently, we held interviews at ICE headquarters and 

conducted teleconferences with ICE officials at field offices 

throughout the United States. Collectively, we interviewed more 

than 60 ICE headquarters and field management officials to learn 

about ICE’s processes and IT management functions. At 

headquarters, we met with ICE OCIO officials, including the 

Deputy CIO, division directors, branch directors, and project 

managers, to discuss their roles and responsibilities related to ICE 

IT management and IT infrastructure modernization. We held 

teleconferences with ICE IT field operations area managers and IT 

specialists to understand IT management in the field. We 

discussed the current IT infrastructure and modernization efforts, 

local IT development practices, and user involvement and 

communication with headquarters. We collected supporting 

documents about ICE’s IT structure, IT management functions, 

current initiatives, and future plans. 

We conducted audit fieldwork from September to November 2009 

at ICE headquarters in Washington, DC. We performed our work 

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 on our audit objectives. We 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 26 
Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives. 

The principal OIG points of contact for this audit are Frank Deffer, 

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits, 

and Richard Harsche, Director of Information Management. Major 

OIG contributors to the audit are identified in Appendix C. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 27 
u.s. 0<,.01...... of1I_I..d ~.riIy

~l2"Stm:t.SW

W""'iftgIon. Be 20536

"Po" 'i: U.S. Immigration

_ and Customs

.~ Enforcement

May 5, 2010

TO; Frank DeITer

Assistant Inspector General for Information Tcchnology

FROM: ~7J3-~ Martin N. Finkelstein

Deputy Chief Financial Officer (Acting)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

SUBJECT: Comments to DIG Draft Report "Immigration and Customs

Enforcement Infonnation Technology (I1) Management

Progresses but Challenges Remain"

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appre<:iates the opportunity to comment on

the draft report. In rcsponse to DIG's re<:ommendations for action by ICE;

Recommendation I: "Finalize an agency-wide IT Strategic Plan to establish and communicate

IT strategic goals and objcctives to stakeholders."

ICE Response: ICE Concurs. ICE Office ofthe Chieflnfonnation Officer (CIO) completed the

ICE IT Strategic Plan on April 9, 2010. A revised ICE IT Strategic Plan is currently under

development to ensure alignment with DHS and ICE policy,

ICE requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and open pending completion of

the rcvised ICE IT Strategic Plan. The estimated complction datc is March 11,2011.

Recommendalion 2: "Establish an agency-wide IT budget process to include all ICE component

office technology initiatives and requirements."

ICE Response: ICE concurs. ICE OCID will work in coordination with other ICE stakeholders

leustomers to devclop a procedure that addresses the IT budget review process, to include

component initialed inputs.

ICE requeslS that this recommendation be considered resolved and open pending final review

and approval of the Procurement Review Directive. The estimated completion date is Mareh I I,

201\.

Recommendation 3: "Develop an OCIO staffing plan that includes specific actions and

mileslones for recruiting and retaining fulhime employees."

www.ke.gov

Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 28 
ICE Response: ICE concurs. ICE OCIO is working to develop an appropriate staffing plan thai

will address the recruitment and retaining of its full-time federal employees.

ICE requests thai this recommendation be considered resolved and opcn until the OCIO staffing

plan has been finalized. The estimated completion date is December 31, 20 IO.

Recommendation 4: "Establish a fonnal process to facilitate IT policy development, approval,

and dissemination."

ICE Response: ICE concurs. ICE OCIO is in the process of developing a directive that would

enable tracking of policy requirements and the status of policy actions.

ICE requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and opcn until the OCIO IT

policy process can be finalized. The estimated completion date is Dc<:ember 31, 2010.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to conlact Michael May, OIG Portfolio Manager,

at (202) 732-6263.

Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 29 
Appendix C 

Major Contributors to the Report 

Information Management Division 

Richard Harsche, Division Director 

Kristen Evans, Audit Manager 

Swati Nijhawan, Auditor 

Melissa Keaster, Auditor 

Erin Dunham, Auditor 

Anna Tyler, Auditor 

Karen Nelson, Referencer 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 30 
Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Executive Secretary 

General Counsel 

DHS Chief Information Officer 

DHS Chief Information Security Officer 

ICE Assistant Secretary 

ICE Chief Information Officer 

ICE Audit Liaison 

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 

DHS Chief Privacy Officer 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Appropriate Congressional Oversight and Appropriations 

Committees 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Information Technology 
 

Management Progresses But Challenges Remain 
 

Page 31 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.