United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on National Security,

International Affairs and Criminal

Justice, House Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight

August 1995 LAW ENFORCEMENT

SUPPORT CENTER

Name-based Systems

Limit Ability to Identify

Arrested Aliens

GAO/AIMD-95-147

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information

Management Division

B-260745 

August 21, 1995

The Honorable Karen L. Thurman

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on

 National Security, International Affairs

 and Criminal Justice

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

Dear Ms. Thurman:

This report responds to the former chairman’s request that we review

current Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiatives for

identifying which arrested individuals are aliens and evaluate the

reliability of INS’ criminal alien1

 information. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of

1988 (Public Law 100-690) required the Attorney General to devise and

implement a system to make available to federal, state, and local

authorities, on a 24-hour basis, the investigative resources of the INS to

determine whether individuals arrested for aggravated felonies2

 are aliens.

To meet this requirement, INS established the Law Enforcement Support

Center (LESC), whose pilot operations began in July 1994. When individuals

arrested for aggravated felonies identify themselves as being foreign-born,

the local law enforcement agency (LEA) sends a request to LESC to

determine whether these individuals are aliens3

 and, thus, possibly subject

to deportation. LESC staff then query five existing INS databases to

determine if the individual arrested is an alien and send a response to the

LEA.

1

For purposes of this report, the term “criminal alien,” refers to any alien who has been convicted of

certain serious crimes in the United States. Under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(8 U.S.C. S 1251, 1252(a)), aliens who are convicted of certain serious crimes including aggravated

felonies, crimes of moral turpitude, multiple crimes, and drug and firearms offenses may be taken into

custody and deported, typically following the end of the alien’s incarceration for the underlying

sentence.

2

Aggravated felonies include murder, narcotics and firearms trafficking, money laundering, crimes of

violence, and other serious crimes such as alien smuggling and document fraud.

3

For purposes of this report, the term alien refers to foreign-born persons who are not naturalized

citizens of the United States. Legal aliens can be deported if convicted of serious crimes. LEA cannot

assume that an individual is foreign-born based on the individual’s name or appearance. Individuals

not stating that they are foreign-born are considered by LEAs to be citizens.

Page 1 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

Based on the former chairman’s request and subsequent agreements with

his office, we determined whether

• LESC, using INS’ existing name-based4 databases, can identify individuals

arrested for aggravated felonies as aliens;

• other INS initiatives will allow identification of aliens arrested for

aggravated felonies; and

• criminal alien information in two of INS’ databases is complete and

accurate.

Results in Brief The LESC pilot allows LEAs access to INS data 24 hours a day. However,

because of limitations inherent in INS’ name-based databases, LESC

electronic searches cannot conclusively identify individuals arrested for

aggravated felonies as aliens. These searches match the name and date of

birth provided by the arrested individual with those of aliens in the

databases. Unlike fingerprints, which uniquely identify an individual, these

data may be shared by more than one individual and can be easily falsified.

Thus, the LESC electronic search can only identify possible matches, which

require an INS investigator to conduct an additional investigation to

conclusively determine whether the arrested individual is an alien. Using

this process during the pilot, INS initiated enforcement actions on 1,935

aliens. However, the LEAs released 920 additional aliens that INS could have

taken enforcement actions against because INS did not identify them

before bond was posted or the aliens were released on their own

recognizance by the LEAs. The INS investigator assigned to the pilot

estimated that at least 46 of the 920 were arrested for aggravated

felonies—the population targeted by the mandate.

Two other initiatives offer possibilities for identifying aliens arrested for

aggravated felonies. The first initiative is the INS Identification System

(IDENT). According to INS officials, it is to be fully implemented in 1999 and

is intended to provide a unique identifier for aliens encountered for

enforcement or benefit purposes, thus allowing a more efficient means of

identifying these aliens. However, IDENT is to include only (1) known

criminal aliens currently in INS’ databases and (2) those aliens for whom

INS will process benefit or enforcement actions after IDENT’s

implementation. IDENT will not include noncriminal aliens currently in INS’

databases, students, tourists, or business people.

The second initiative is limited to California and to criminal aliens

previously deported from that state. Under this initiative, INS provides

4

INS’ case files are established using name and date of birth provided by the alien.

Page 2 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

fingerprint cards of previously deported criminal aliens to the California

Department of Justice (CAL/DOJ), which reads them into the state

automated fingerprint processing system. When there is a match, the

person’s state criminal history file is flagged with a criminal alien alert. If

these persons are arrested after reentering the country illegally, the LEAs

can immediately identify them as deportable aliens and contact INS.

Criminal alien information in INS’ Deportable Alien Control System (DACS)

database and the corresponding Central Index System (CIS) files is

incomplete and inaccurate. According to our statistical sample of criminal

aliens recorded in DACS, important information contained in INS paper files

was missing from, or incorrectly entered into, the DACS electronic files. For

example, 80 percent of the records in our sample did not contain all

aliases used by the aliens, and 22 percent contained either misspelled

names, incorrect name order, or incorrect nationality. Furthermore, DACS

did not contain records of all the paper files it should have included, and

some of the criminal alien files it did contain lacked the information

needed to show that these persons were criminal aliens.

Background INS, a component of the Department of Justice (DOJ), is responsible for

administering the immigration and naturalization laws relating to the

admission, exclusion, deportation, and naturalization of aliens. Under the

Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General has sole authority

to determine alien status and to initiate deportation proceedings. The act

also authorizes the Attorney General to apprehend and deport aliens who

have been convicted of serious crimes, including aggravated felonies;

crimes of moral turpitude; multiple crimes; and drug and firearm offenses.

These apprehension and deportation authorities have been delegated to

INS.

INS Databases INS has five electronic databases containing the primary information it

relies upon for its day-to-day operations. The databases are as follows:

• The Central Index System (CIS) is the central file for all aliens with whom

INS has had contact except nonimmigrant5 aliens. It also contains cross

references to other databases in which individuals have files.

• The Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) contains data on all aliens

who currently are or have been in deportation proceedings, including

5

Nonimmigrant aliens are those individuals who come to the United States for a specific period of

time, such as tourists, students, and business people.

Page 3 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

criminal aliens. DACS also contains information on aliens who have been

apprehended upon entering the country illegally and returned involuntarily

to their countries. DACS supports INS’ enforcement activities.

• The National Automated Immigration Lookout System II (NAILS II) is a

lookout enforcement system which contains data about persons of interest

to INS, including aliens who are suspected of illegal activities and/or have

been previously deported. NAILS II is used by inspectors at various ports of

entry throughout the country.

• The Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS) contains arrival, departure,

and ancillary information pertaining to nonimmigrant aliens entering the

United States legally on tourist or business visas.

• The Student and Schools System (STSC) is the primary vehicle for

identifying, locating, and determining the status or benefit eligibility of

nonimmigrant students and their dependents.

Appendix I provides a more detailed description of the databases. All alien

case files in the databases, with the exception of NIIS and STSC, have

corresponding paper files, which contain information on all service and, if

applicable, enforcement actions that INS has taken or is taking. The paper

file for criminal aliens generally includes a set of fingerprints, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history, and other identifying

information, such as a photograph.6

LESC Pilot Operations The pilot phase of LESC started in July 1994 and is scheduled to last 15

months and will conclude September 30, 1995. Its objectives are to

develop an interim site in Burlington, Vermont, and, using INS staff

temporarily detailed to the site, field test LESC’s ability to respond to

inquiries, initially from the Phoenix Arizona Police Department and,

starting in November 1994, from the Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff’s

Department. This phase is estimated to cost $1.4 million. During fiscal

years 1996 and 1997, LESC will accept queries from California, New York,

Florida, Texas, and Illinois in addition to Arizona. In its fiscal year 1996

budget, INS has requested 39 staff positions to operate LESC and estimates

that LESC operating expenses will total $3.4 million and $3.6 million for

fiscal years 1996 and 1997, respectively.

6

Of 383 criminal alien paper files we reviewed, 290 contained the FBI criminal history and 277

contained sets of fingerprints.

Page 4 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

An interim independent assessment7 of the LESC pilot operating results

through February 1995 concluded that the LESC concept was viable and

recommended that the pilot continue so that a full assessment can be

made at the conclusion of the pilot test. In October 1995, the Justice

Management Division of DOJ plans to perform a full evaluation of LESC’s

first year of operation. If this evaluation indicates that LESC should be

expanded nationwide, INS plans to conduct this expansion over a 3-year

period, subject to Justice and Office of Management and Budget approval.

In addition, INS officials told us that a site survey will be done based on

GSA’s site selection criteria before a permanent location is selected.

The pilot links LEAs in Phoenix and Maricopa County with LESC in

Burlington, Vermont, so that the LEAs can have access to information in

INS’ five databases to determine whether a person who has been arrested

for an aggravated felony is an alien. The INS Phoenix District Office

provides investigative support for all LEAs in Arizona. In Phoenix, when

individuals are arrested for aggravated felonies and identify themselves as

foreign-born, the LEA official initiates a query to LESC. However, queries

from Maricopa County (the largest LEA in Arizona) are not limited to

aggravated felonies; they are initiated for all foreign-born individuals

arrested for any offense. These queries are initiated automatically when

information that an individual is foreign-born is entered into the booking

terminal. INS officials told us that the decision to include all arrests was

made because the LESC staff needed a much greater number of inquiries

than it was receiving from the Phoenix police department so that they

could more effectively test the mechanics of the LESC electronic computer

system.

The two LEAs initiate queries to LESC through the existing National Law

Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) network, which LEAs

routinely use for interagency exchange of criminal justice and related

information. Figure 1 shows how queries are routed between LEAs and

LESC.

7

DOJ contracted with the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) to conduct this assessment.

IIR is a nonprofit law enforcement research and management service.

Page 5 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

Figure 1: Flow of LEA Query and Response

Response


Copy

Dept. of Justice


Data Center

Rockville, Md.

N LETS

Phoenix, Ariz.

T

T

2 3

9 8

10

7a

4 5

7b

T

T

1

6

7a

7b

Law Enforcement


Support Center


Burlington, Vermont

************************************************************

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

7b

T

******

Query


Response


Switch


Teletype


Telephone

Dept. of Justice


Data Center


INS Host


Computers


Dallas, Texas

INS Information


Systems

CIS


DACS


STSC


NIIS


NAILS

Law


Enforcement


Agencies

Local


State


Federal

LESC


Staff

INS


District


Office

INS


Investigator

Page 6 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

In Burlington, Vermont, an LESC staff member receives printed teletyped

queries from the LEAs and enters the name, date of birth, and other

information submitted by the LEAs into computer software that initiates a

sequential search of the five INS databases in the mainframe at the DOJ Data

Center in Dallas, Texas. The search will either reveal that no information

that matches the name and date of birth of the individual who has been

arrested is available or will list the name or names of any persons in the

databases who are possible matches. The LESC staff member compiles the

information and teletypes a response to the LEA which states, “This is not

an INS detainer.” The response ends with the following message: “For

further information, contact (agent’s name), Phoenix INS [District Office],

(agent’s telephone number).” The response from LESC travels back to the

LEA over the same path that the initial query used.

The LESC staff member concurrently sends a copy of the response to the

INS Phoenix District Office. There, an investigator assigned to the pilot is

responsible for analyzing the response. In the early months of the pilot,

before Maricopa County was added, the INS investigator first obtained the

paper files of the individuals proposed as possible matches. If the paper

files were not in the Phoenix District Office, the investigator queried CIS to

determine their location and called that location to expedite the file’s

transfer. According to the Phoenix INS investigator, files are usually

transferred within 24 hours for expedited requests.

After obtaining the paper file, the Phoenix INS investigator reviewed it for

unique identifying information, such as the fingerprint card. In some cases,

the investigator would compare the arrested person’s fingerprint card,

obtained from the LEA, to the fingerprint card in the INS file. If

identifications could not be made from the file data, the investigator

interviewed the individuals to determine their alien status. The Phoenix

investigator told us he could usually determine whether the individuals

were aliens from interviews, since INS investigators are trained to identify

aliens through interrogations.

If the arrested person is identified as an alien subject to deportation, INS

will issue a detainer, which requires the LEA to notify INS before releasing

the individual from custody. Therefore, if the LEA plans to release

individuals on bond or their own recognizance at any point in the criminal

proceedings, INS will be notified in time to take these individuals into

custody and begin the deportation process on the basis of any previous

convictions or deportations. Conversely, if the LEA prosecutes and convicts

aliens of aggravated felonies, INS can either initiate deportation

Page 7 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

proceedings on the basis of these convictions while they are incarcerated

or take them into custody and begin deportation proceedings after they

have served their sentences.

Scope and

Methodology

In order to determine whether LESC can identify individuals arrested for

aggravated felonies as aliens, we interviewed the INS investigator in the

Phoenix District Office and police officers in the Phoenix Police

Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. In addition, we

reviewed over 300 responses sent to LEAs by LESC during November and

December 1994. We obtained the results of LESC operations from July 1994

through May 1995.

To determine whether other current INS initiatives will allow identification

of aliens arrested for aggravated felonies, we interviewed senior managers

and information resource management (IRM) officials at INS headquarters

and reviewed documentation pertaining to two initiatives—an INS

identification system and a project between INS and the California

Department of Justice. We did not perform an in-depth review of these

initiatives to assess such issues as feasibility of implementation schedules,

cost effectiveness, and appropriateness in meeting mission needs.

To determine whether criminal alien information in INS’ databases is

complete and accurate, we focused our review on DACS, INS’ repository for

information on identified criminal aliens. We defined our universe as all

files for identified criminal aliens recorded in DACS for which the

corresponding paper files were located in 17 INS locations. The 17 INS

locations were selected because they represented areas with the most

known criminal aliens and because of their proximity to our regional

offices. This defined universe represented 79 percent of the total number

of criminal alien electronic files recorded in DACS. We selected a

statistically valid random sample of DACS electronic files from our defined

universe and obtained the corresponding CIS electronic files. We compared

these electronic files to the corresponding paper case files to determine

accuracy and completeness. In addition, we selected a judgmental sample

of paper files of aliens for whom deportation proceedings had begun or

had been completed to determine whether they had been entered into

DACS.

8

8

A judgmental sample, rather than a statistical sample, was required because INS did not know the

total number of paper files for aliens for whom deportation proceedings had begun or had been

completed.

Page 8 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

Our review was conducted between December 1993 and June 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney General or

her designee. On June 15, 1995, the INS Associate Commissioner for

Enforcement, the Assistant Commissioner for Investigation, and the

Assistant Commissioner for Data Systems Division provided us with oral

comments, which are discussed in the Agency Comments and Our

Evaluation section of this report. INS officials also provided us with

updated information on the status and results of the LESC, IDENT, and

CAL/DOJ initiatives following the period of our review. In addition, the FBI

provided technical comments on factual matters in our report. These INS

and FBI comments have been incorporated where appropriate. Appendix II

provides a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.

Name-based

Databases Limit

LESC’s Ability to

Identify Aliens

Although LESC gives LEAs access to INS information, limitations inherent in

INS’ name-based databases delay identification of arrested persons as

aliens until an INS investigator can make a conclusive determination. LESC

searches INS files using the name and date of birth of arrested individuals

to attempt to match them with aliens in its databases. These searches are

inconclusive because names and dates of birth in the files are not unique

to an individual and can be easily falsified.

Unlike LEAs, who establish criminal history files based on fingerprints, INS

establishes paper and electronic files for aliens—for both enforcement and

service purposes—based on the name, date of birth, and other personal

information that an individual provides. However, some individuals may

have the same or similar names and dates of birth as other persons. In

addition, aliens who commit crimes often provide aliases and other false

information in their encounters with INS.

9

 As a result, INS may unknowingly

create multiple files for the same individual and, during a search by name,

may not locate all information on the individual. In our statistical sample

of 383 criminal aliens in DACS, we found that 317, or about 83 percent, had

used one or more aliases and 184, or 48 percent, had supplied more than

one birth date to INS. The following tables provide more detailed

information on the use of multiple aliases and birth dates by the criminal

aliens in our sample.

9

Aliases include all names used by an individual that differ from the name used for the first encounter

with LEAs or INS.

Page 9 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

Table 1: Aliases Used by Statistical

Sample of 383 Criminal Aliens

Aliases useda

Number of

aliens Percentage

None 66 17

One or more 317 83

Two or more 267 70

Ten or more 72 19

Twenty or more 19 5

Thirty or more 6 2

aFor those criminal aliens who used aliases, each grouping is inclusive. For example, those who

used 30 or more aliases are also included in those who used 20 or more, 10 or more, and 2 or

more aliases.

Table 2: Birth Dates Used by Statistical

Sample of 383 Criminal Aliens

Birth dates useda

Number of

aliens Percentage

One 199 52

Two or more 184 48

Five or more 45 12

Ten or more 5 1

aFor those criminal aliens who used more than one birth date, each grouping is inclusive. For

example, those who used 5 or more birth dates or 10 or more birth dates are also included in

those who used 2 or more birth dates.

From the inception of the LESC pilot in July 1994 through May 31, 1995,

LESC received 6,738 queries. For 56 percent of the queries, no record was

found in the electronic files. INS officials told us that the two major reasons

why no records were found were that (1) the alien gave a different name

or date of birth than that recorded in INS’ databases or (2) the alien entered

the country illegally and thus was not recorded in any of INS’ databases.

The automatic search process provided a possible match for about

10 percent of the queries. However, the LESC staff was able to provide

possible matches for an additional 34 percent of the queries by searching

each database separately using variations of the name. Then the INS

investigator either reviewed the paper file or interviewed the individual to

conclusively determine that the individual was an alien.

The time required for LESC’s electronic search and the subsequent

investigation limits INS’ ability to detain aliens arrested for aggravated

felonies. According to Phoenix police officers, they usually need

confirmation that arrested individuals are aliens and an INS detainer within

Page 10 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

8 hours of arrest to ensure that these persons are not released before INS

can take action.

As a result of the combined electronic search and subsequent

investigations from July 1994 through May 1995, INS took enforcement

action on 1,935 aliens.10 During this period, however, LEAs released 920

aliens that INS would have detained because INS did not identify them as

aliens before bond was posted or they were released on their own

recognizance. Of the 920 individuals, the Phoenix investigator estimated

that between 5 and 10 percent (46 to 92) of the released aliens had been

arrested for aggravated felonies—the population targeted by the mandate.

The remaining individuals that had not been arrested for aggravated

felonies had either been previously deported or had prior convictions and

INS could have taken enforcement action against them if they had not been

released.

Other INS Initiatives

Offer Possibilities for

Identifying Aliens

Using Fingerprints

Two other INS initiatives use fingerprints as unique identifiers for aliens. In

the first, INS is developing the INS Identification System (IDENT), an

automated fingerprint database of aliens INS processes for either

enforcement or benefit purposes. According to INS, once IDENT is

implemented, the fingerprint of an arrested individual could be matched

against INS’ automated fingerprint database to obtain all available

information on that individual, thus allowing INS to determine the correct

course of action to take. In the second initiative, the California

Department of Justice (CAL/DOJ) is flagging the state criminal histories of

previously deported criminal aliens based on fingerprint cards supplied by

INS. This allows LEAs to detain these individuals until INS takes them into

custody. Because both of these initiatives use fingerprints rather than

names and dates of birth, they offer possibilities for more effectively

identifying aliens. However, INS will continue to rely on a name search

capability for millions of aliens not covered by the fingerprint initiatives.

IDENT Is Intended to

Identify Aliens by

Fingerprint

In calendar year 1995, INS began to implement IDENT, a fingerprint-based

identification system that uses images of the right index finger to classify

and identify individuals. According to the November 14, 1994, IDENT draft

project plan, “The solution [to INS’ current identification problems] is to

move away from names and use individually-unique biometrics. The most

reliable and commonly used biometrics are the fingerprints.” IDENT will use

10Deportation proceedings were initiated against 114 aliens, 844 aliens agreed to return to their country

of origin, 13 were presented for prosecution for illegal reentry, and INS placed detainers on an

additional 964 aliens.

Page 11 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

the single fingerprint as an identifier to retrieve the proper case

information related to an individual.

According to INS officials, IDENT workstations equipped with computerized

devices to capture fingerprint images will be installed throughout INS by

1999. As these workstations are deployed, INS staff will begin to develop

the IDENT database by scanning and storing fingerprint images when

individuals are first processed for either enforcement or benefit purposes.

In all subsequent encounters, INS plans to check these individuals’

fingerprints against its fingerprint database to verify identity. INS officials

told us IDENT is designed to support (1) criminal alien lookout checks for

all enforcement arrests, (2) verification and authentication of benefit

applicants, (3) prevention of recidivism (repeated illegal entry into the

country), (4) trend analysis of border apprehensions, and (5) identification

and verification of holders of INS-issued identification cards. INS estimates

that, over the next few years of operation, IDENT’s automated fingerprint

database will contain up to 1.5 million recidivists, 450,000 criminal aliens,

and 25 million benefit applicants.

The preliminary IDENT 3-year implementation schedule calls for IDENT to be

installed in INS’ southwest border sites by the end of calendar year 1995, in

INS’ district offices and the four service centers by the end of 1996, and in

the major ports of entry by the end of 1997. Therefore, IDENT should be

deployed to most existing INS locations nationwide by 1997. In fiscal years

1998 and 1999, IDENT will be deployed to certain remaining INS locations yet

to be determined.

INS began a field test in San Diego, California, in October 1994 to evaluate

the speed and accuracy of fingerprint technology in identifying aliens who

repeatedly enter the country illegally. According to an INS official, as of

June 13, 1995, prints associated with 310,261 apprehensions at the

California border had been registered in a fingerprint database. An

analysis of the fingerprints showed that about one-third were repeat

offenders. According to an INS official, the fingerprint technology tested

required an average of less than 2 minutes to determine whether the

fingerprints of an individual apprehended matched any of those registered

in the database.

According to an INS official, fingerprint information from paper files of

1,870 identified criminal aliens in INS’ databases had been added to the

fingerprint database as of June 1995. Using this system in the San Diego

area, 41 previously deported criminal aliens had been identified and

Page 12 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

detained. Fingerprint information for an additional 20,254 criminal aliens

was to be added to the criminal alien data set by August 1, 1995.

INS plans to spend $28 million to develop and begin deploying this system

servicewide in calendar year 1995. INS estimates continued development

and deployment costs between 1995 and 1999 at about $50 million and

$8 million annually for subsequent centralized maintenance of the

automated fingerprint database.

If IDENT is implemented as planned, it will provide a unique identifier for all

aliens added to INS’ CIS, DACS, and NAILS databases after fiscal year 1997. If

this information can be made available to LEAs, INS can issue detainers for

those arrested individuals who have a positive fingerprint match without

having to conduct personal interviews. At the time of our review, however,

no strategy had been adopted to facilitate this exchange of information.

IDENT will not include the 20 million noncriminal aliens in INS’ CIS database

before the start of the project, except for those who subsequently come

into contact with INS for enforcement or benefit processing purposes.

These individuals include naturalized citizens and legal permanent

residents.11 Nor will IDENT include fingerprints of aliens in the

Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS) or the Student and Schools

System (STSC), which together included about 22 million aliens in 1993.

Statewide Project Adds

INS Criminal Alien

Information to LEA

Databases

In September 1994, the State of California and INS initiated a program,

funded by a $250,000 federal grant, to enhance California’s ability to

identify criminal aliens. Under this program INS gives the California

Department of Justice (CAL/DOJ) fingerprint cards of criminal aliens

deported from California. CAL/DOJ reads INS’ fingerprint cards into

California’s automated fingerprint processing system to compare these

fingerprints to those in California’s automated fingerprint database.12 For

those for which there is a match, CAL/DOJ places an alert flag in the

individual’s state criminal history file.13 The criminal alien flag states that

11Legal permanent residents are persons to whom INS has granted the benefit to remain in the United

States legally for an unspecified period of time.

12California’s automated fingerprint processing system uses minutia (fingerprint ridge characteristics)

matching technology and an image system to provide the user with fingerprints of likely candidates for

fingerprint comparisons. Fingerprint specialists compare the fingerprints of the likely candidates with

the fingerprint that has been submitted to conclusively determine whether there is a match.

13A state criminal history file is established for each offender booked into a California facility.

California’s Criminal History System contains California arrests and convictions information on

offenders.

Page 13 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

the person has been previously deported and directs the LEA to contact INS

at a central telephone number, which has operators on duty 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week.

In California, many individuals deported as criminal aliens reenter the

country illegally after deportation and become repeat offenders. When

they are rearrested in California, the LEA, using the established law

enforcement procedures, takes fingerprints, accesses the person’s

California criminal history, sees the flag, and contacts INS. INS has agreed to

send a local INS agent to the LEA within 48 hours of being contacted to take

custody of the individual. If the underlying offense does not dictate that

the subject be prosecuted in California, INS takes the alien into custody for

federal prosecution or deportation proceedings. This saves California the

costs of custody and prosecution. Based on INS data, CAL/DOJ plans to place

an alert flag on the records of approximately 7,000 previously deported

criminal aliens during fiscal year 1995. As of June 20, 1995, 5,113 alien alert

flags had been entered into California’s criminal history system. This

program has enabled the LEAs to identify 553 individuals as criminal aliens

and report them to INS, who has either taken them into custody or placed a

detainer on them.

Although CAL/DOJ is a California initiative, other states can access

California’s criminal alien information through the Interstate Identification

Index.14 LEAs can query the Interstate Identification Index through the

National Crime Information Center (NCIC)15 to determine whether an

arrested individual has an available criminal history record. Thus, LEAs

across the nation can access California’s criminal histories and, when the

criminal history contains a criminal alien flag, identify criminal aliens they

have arrested.

Criminal Alien

Information in DACS

and CIS Is Inaccurate

and Incomplete

We found serious problems with the quality of the criminal alien data in

INS’ Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) and the corresponding Central

Index System (CIS) files. First, the electronic files did not contain complete

information on the aliases used by criminal aliens. For over 80 percent of

the criminal aliens we identified in our statistical sample, the electronic

files did not contain a complete listing of the aliases available in the paper

14The FBI sponsors this system which stores names of offenders for whom criminal histories reside in

various state law enforcement systems, and the FBI provides the records for nonmember states.

15NCIC is the nation’s most extensive criminal justice information system and is maintained by the FBI.

NCIC—established as a service to all local, state, and federal criminal justice agencies—stores vast

amounts of information, such as criminal history data and foreign fugitive data, which can be instantly

retrieved and furnished through an NCIC terminal at any authorized agency.

Page 14 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

files.16 For example, one individual in our sample had 24 aliases listed in

the paper file but none was recorded in the corresponding DACS and CIS

electronic files. Consequently, an electronic search using one of those

aliases would not locate that person’s file, resulting in a response that no

record existed for the alien.

Second, 22 percent of the DACS electronic files in our statistical sample

contained either misspelled names, incorrect order of names, or incorrect

nationality. Based on these results, such errors are projected to occur in

about 22,000 of the over 101,000 electronic files for criminal aliens in our

DACS test population.17 Consequently, LESC searches using the correct

spelling, order of names, and nationality may not locate the alien

electronic file.

Third, the FBI number—which is linked to fingerprints and uniquely

identifies persons previously arrested for serious offenses—was missing

from the CIS files for most of the criminal aliens in our sample. The FBI

number was in the paper files for 290 of the criminal aliens in our

statistical sample but was missing from 216 (74 percent) of the

corresponding CIS files.

Fourth, INS did not have both electronic and paper files for all individuals.

For the 410 criminal aliens in our statistical sample of criminal aliens

recorded in DACS, 27 of the corresponding paper files could not be located.

Since the paper files are used to verify the accuracy and completeness of

the data in the electronic files, the data in these files could not be verified.

Nor could the investigator consult these paper files to conclusively

identify these aliens. In addition, electronic files alone will not support

deportation hearings.

We also found instances where paper files existed, but electronic files did

not. We selected a judgmental sample of 400 paper case files of aliens for

whom deportation proceedings had begun or had been completed and

attempted to find a corresponding electronic file in DACS. There were no

corresponding electronic DACS files for 77 (19 percent) of the 400 paper

case files we selected. As a result, a query of DACS would not identify these

16The range of our confidence interval, at a 95-percent confidence level, is that the actual percentage of

DACS electronic files that did not include all aliases listed in the paper files was between 77 percent

and 85 percent; while the corresponding CIS electronic files did not include all aliases between

79 percent and 87 percent of the time.

17The range of our confidence interval, at a 95-percent confidence level, is that the actual number of

DACS electronic files that did not match the paper files for name and nationality was between 17,889

and 26,493.

Page 15 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

77 individuals as aliens who had been deported or were under deportation

proceedings for a criminal offense.

Of the 323 DACS electronic files we did find for our sample of paper files,

our review of the paper files showed that 175 of the electronic files should

have contained alert codes18 designating individuals who had been

convicted of criminal activity.19 Because 72, or 41 percent, of the 175

electronic files did not have the alert code, a query of DACS would not

inform INS staff that these individuals were criminal aliens and thus subject

to deportation. The missing alert codes also prevent INS from knowing the

total number of criminal aliens in its database.

In oral comments on this report, INS officials acknowledged that keying

errors do occur when information from manually prepared enforcement

forms is entered into DACS. They stated that in the future, rather than

preparing a paper form, this information will be entered into the planned

Enforcement Case Tracking System (ENFORCE) Phase I and downloaded to

DACS, thus eliminating the need for duplicate data entry and any resulting

key-entry errors. The ENFORCE Phase I is currently being prototyped in the

McAllen, Texas, and San Diego, California, Sectors and the Philadelphia

District; the interface will be tested in New York. According to the

Assistant Commissioner, Data Systems Division, ENFORCE Phase I (and the

DACS interface feature) will be implemented in New York, Texas,

California, Florida, and Illinois after it is successfully prototyped and

tested.

INS officials acknowledged that they do not have servicewide procedures

directing staff to update the electronic files with critical new information

received after the file has been established—such as the FBI number or

information on aliases. In addition, INS did not have procedures for

ensuring that data are entered correctly and completely.

INS officials stated that they had begun taking action to improve data

reliability. In April and June 1995, memoranda were issued to all Regional

Directors and the Director of International Affairs requiring them to

establish a method that will ensure timely input of data into DACS and

specifying the data elements that were to be tracked. However, these

memoranda did not contain specific procedures for ensuring data

18These codes identify the type of alert that applies to the alien, for example, aggravated felon,

criminal, or narcotics.

19INS does not classify illegal aliens who have not been convicted of crimes committed in the United

States as criminal aliens.

Page 16 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

accuracy and completeness, nor did they provide for an independent

verification to ensure that such procedures are followed.

Conclusions Identifying individuals arrested for aggravated felonies as aliens is critical

to joint INS and LEA efforts to prevent the release of these individuals

before INS can take action. LESC is an attempt to provide this identification

capability; however, this approach is inherently limited by the existing

name-based systems that it depends upon. Until INS successfully

implements a system that identifies individuals based on biometric

information, INS’ ability to make timely identification of arrested

individuals as aliens will continue to be limited. INS’ planned move to the

IDENT automated fingerprint database is intended to address the need for

an improved identification method for individuals who will be processed

for either enforcement or benefit purposes.

Further, accurate and complete criminal alien data in INS’ DACS and CIS

databases are essential. Unless INS’ data reliability problems are resolved,

INS risks making decisions based on inaccurate and incomplete

information.

Recommendations In view of the limitations inherent in name-based databases, we

recommend that the Attorney General direct the Commissioner of INS to

take the following actions before deciding whether to expand LESC

nationwide.

• Assess whether the information generated by LESC’s electronic searches

justifies the expense and level of resources required to expand and

maintain a nationwide facility.

• Determine whether any other alternative would be more effective and

efficient than LESC in helping identify which arrested individuals are aliens.

To improve the reliability of the criminal alien data in DACS, and the

corresponding electronic files in CIS, we recommend that the Attorney

General direct the INS Commissioner to develop procedures that will

ensure data reliability for both DACS and CIS. At a minimum, these

procedures should ensure that

• electronic files are created for all known criminal aliens;

Page 17 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

• all criminal alien information—including name, date of birth, nationality,

and aliases used—is entered into the electronic files accurately and

completely;

• alert codes are included in all criminal alien electronic files; and

• the Regional Directors and the Director of International Affairs are

directed to take appropriate actions to ensure that all paper files

supporting the criminal alien electronic files are located or, if necessary,

reconstructed.

Finally, after these procedures are implemented, we recommend that the

Attorney General direct the Commissioner to develop a strategy to

independently verify that the procedures are followed and that data

reliability is improved.

Agency Comments We discussed a draft of this report with INS’ Associate Commissioner for

Enforcement, the Assistant Commissioner for Investigations, and the

Assistant Commissioner for Data Systems Division. While these officials

agreed with most of our findings and recommendations, they took issue

with several points. First, the Associate Commissioner for Enforcement

stated that we had misinterpreted the legislative mandate for INS contained

in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 by stating that INS was required to

immediately identify aliens arrested for aggravated felonies. He stated that

under the congressional mandate, INS is only required to provide—on a

24-hour basis—federal, state, and local criminal justice entities with all

available information it has on suspected aggravated felons at the time of

their reported arrest with follow-up action to confirm identity and alien

status in the course of the criminal justice process.

We believe INS has misstated the content of our draft. We agree that the

congressional mandate does not require INS to immediately determine

whether arrested persons are aliens. Our draft stated only that INS is

limited in its ability to take appropriate enforcement action against aliens

who are arrested for aggravated felonies because of the lengthy time

required by LESC to conduct the electronic search and by an INS

investigator to conclusively identify the arrested individual as an alien. To

more precisely reflect the language in the law, we have clarified the

section of the report concerning INS’ legislative mandate.

Second, the Associate Commissioner for Enforcement expressed concern

that the report repeatedly suggested that the LESC approach was flawed

because of its use of name-based methodology and that the report failed to

Page 18 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

note that almost all law enforcement systems, including the FBI’s NCIC,

presently operate in this manner. Our report does point out that INS’

existing name-based databases limit LESC’s ability to make timely

determinations of whether arrested persons are aliens. INS itself has

acknowledged these same limitations and is, for this reason, developing

IDENT, a fingerprint-based identification system to provide quick, accurate

identification of individuals who will be processed for either enforcement

or benefit purposes. While NCIC does provide for name searches, it differs

from INS databases by relying on fingerprint-based information to establish

case files. This reduces the risk—that INS still faces—of creating multiple

files on an individual.

INS officials disagreed with our recommendation regarding the evaluation

of the LESC pilot. They stated that we did not need to recommend that INS

include an evaluation of alternatives and the advisability of expanding LESC

nationwide in its final evaluation because these factors are already part of

their planned evaluation document. The officials, however, declined to

provide a copy of this document until it is approved by the Department of

Justice.

Finally, in reference to our recommendation on data quality, INS officials

stated that steps have been taken to improve the accuracy and

completeness of the information in DACS and that these steps were not

reflected in the report. We have modified the report to reflect that INS

(1) plans to deploy an electronic interface to reduce keying errors and

(2) has instructed its field officials to establish a method of timely and

consistent input of data. However, since INS has not established specific

procedures for ensuring that data in DACS and CIS are accurate and

complete, we have revised the recommendation to state that INS should

develop a strategy to independently verify that procedures are followed

and data reliability is improved.

We are providing copies of this report to the Attorney General;

Commissioner of INS; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and

other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon

request.

Page 19 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
B-260745 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Please contact

me on (202) 512-7487 if you need any additional information or have any

further questions concerning this report.

Sincerely yours,

Linda D. Koontz

Associate Director, Information Resource

Management/General Government Issues

Page 20 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Page 21 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

INS Databases

Queried by LESC

24

Appendix II 

Scope and

Methodology

26

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

28

Tables Table 1: Aliases Used by Statistical Sample of 383 Criminal Aliens 10

Table 2: Birth Dates Used by Statistical Sample of 383 Criminal

Aliens

10

Figure Figure 1: Flow of LEA Query and Response 6

Page 22 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Contents

Abbreviations

CAL California

CAL/DOJ California Department of Justice

CIS Central Index System

DACS Deportable Alien Control System

DOJ Department of Justice

ENFORCE Enforcement Case Tracking System

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

IDENT INS Identification System

IIR Institute for Intergovernmental Research

IRM information resource management

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

LEA law enforcement agency

LESC Law Enforcement Support Center

NAILS National Automated Immigration Lookout System

NCIC National Crime Information Center

NIIS Nonimmigrant Information System

NLETS National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

STSC Student and Schools System

Page 23 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Appendix I 

INS Databases Queried by LESC

Central Index System

(CIS)

CIS a centralized, computer-based information system that serves as the

heart of INS mission support, in both service benefits and law enforcement.

The Central Index contains data on lawful permanent residents,

naturalized citizens, violators of immigration laws, aliens with

Employment Authorization Document information, and others for whom

the Service has opened alien files or in whom it has a special interest.

Each physical file with a corresponding electronic file in DACS should have

an electronic file in CIS.

The major search keys for CIS are A-number and Name. Variations of the

Name Search are provided by allowing a direct search using Exact Name

or a Sounds-like (Soundex) search using a similar-sounding name or alias

name. Additionally, the Name Searches allow other identifying information

as secondary search criteria, such as Date of Birth, Country of Birth, and

Files Control Office; Date of Birth is the most often used secondary search

criteria.

Deportable Alien

Control System

(DACS)

DACS supports INS’ enforcement activities. It provides information on the

status and disposition of deportation cases and on the statistics and

summary data representing cases by status type and other activities. DACS

captures deportation data; tracks aliens who are arrested, detained, or

formally removed from the country; produces deportation reports; and

makes the information accessible on-line to deportation officers and other

INS users. DACS maintains information on aliens detained by INS and reports

on detention activity.

National Automated

Immigration Lookout

System II (NAILS II)

NAILS II is a lookout enforcement system that contains information about

persons of interest to INS for law enforcement purposes. It expedites the

determination of traveller admissibility into the United States at the

various ports of entry and identifies individuals who are suspected of

illegal activities. NAILS II is used by inspectors at various ports of entry

throughout the country.

Nonimmigrant

Information System

(NIIS)

NIIS contains arrival, departure, and ancillary information pertaining to

nonimmigrant aliens entering the United States. It contains data on the

individual’s status, identifies individuals who may have overstayed, and

provides statistical information to INS managers. It provides for queries

based on biographical, classification, and citizenship data. There are no

physical files to complement the NIIS electronic file.

Page 24 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Appendix I 

INS Databases Queried by LESC

Student and Schools

System (STSC)

STSC is the primary vehicle for identifying, locating, and determining the

status or benefits eligibility of nonimmigrant students and their

dependents. The data in STSC includes requests for extensions, change of

status, transfers, and employment authorization. It also maintains records

on approved schools, school officials, and current or past violations.

Page 25 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

To determine the type of information provided to requesters in responses

from LESC, we performed test queries at both LESC in Burlington, Vermont,

and the Phoenix Police Department in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition, we

reviewed over 300 LESC responses sent to LEAs for November and

December 1994.

We interviewed senior managers and IRM officials at INS headquarters to

discuss criminal alien information and initiatives underway to address

existing problems with identifying aliens. We also reviewed

documentation pertaining to two initiatives—an INS identification system

and a project between INS and the California Department of Justice. We did

not perform an in-depth review of these initiatives to assess such issues as

feasibility of implementation schedules, cost-effectiveness, and

appropriateness in meeting mission needs. We interviewed the Director of

LESC, special agents assigned to LESC, and police officers in the Phoenix

Police Department to discuss the operations at LESC. In addition, we

interviewed FBI officials to discuss their Integrated Automated Fingerprint

Identification System and the FBI fingerprinting process.

We tested the accuracy and completeness of criminal alien information in

INS’ Deportable Alien Control System (DACS)—the repository for

information on identified criminal aliens—by comparing source

documents in the paper case file to the information in DACS’ electronic file.

Our statistical sample of case files for 410 individuals was selected from

DACS, which had electronic files for 959,349 individuals who were or had

been in deportation proceedings as of May 20, 1994. Of those, we included

for testing only those that had a criminal record in the electronic file,

136,744 individuals. We then scoped this universe to 17 INS locations

representing 79 percent of the population of individuals with criminal

records recorded in DACS, or 108,502 individuals. We also obtained the

corresponding CIS electronic files for the 410 individuals in our sample and

compared them to the paper case files and to the DACS electronic files. In

addition, at 16 of the locations where we performed paper case file

reviews, we judgmentally selected an additional 400 physical case

files—25 at each location—and determined if there was a corresponding

electronic file in DACS.

For our statistical sample, the sampling method used allowed us to

estimate, at a 95-percent confidence level, the (1) instances of inaccurate

recording of aliases, (2) the number of files without the FBI number, (3) the

number of errors in names or nationality, and (4) the number of paper

case files that could not be located.

Page 26 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

Our projections are expressed as point estimates that fall within

confidence intervals. This means that if you were to determine an estimate

for 100 different random samples of the same size from this population,

the estimate would fall within the confidence interval 95 out of 100 times.

In other words, the true value is between the lower and upper limits of the

confidence interval 95 percent of the time.

Our case file reviews were performed at the following INS district offices:

Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, California;

Phoenix, Arizona; San Antonio, El Paso, and Houston, Texas; Miami,

Florida; New York City, New York; Denver, Colorado; New Orleans,

Louisiana; Newark, New Jersey; and Arlington, Virginia. Additional

locations included the Varick, New York; El Centro, California; Florence,

Arizona; San Pedro, California; and El Paso, Texas, Service Processing

Centers. We also performed reviews at the federal prison in Oakdale,

Louisiana.

We reviewed previous GAO reports pertinent to the Criminal Alien

Program, as well as reports of the Justice Office of the Inspector General

pertinent to fingerprint requirements and the National Automated

Immigration Lookout System II.

Page 27 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

Accounting and

Information

Management Division

Washington, D. C.

Antionette Cattledge, Assistant Director

Barbara S. Oliver, Project Manager

Brian Spencer, Technical Advisor

Tamara J. Lilly, Computer Specialist

Linda J. Sellevaag, Communications Analyst

Atlanta Regional

Office

John W. Randall, Jr., Evaluator

Chicago Regional

Office

Lenny R. Moore, Evaluator

Dallas Regional Office George Jones, Senior Evaluator

Elaine M. Coleman, Evaluator

James B. Smoak, Senior Evaluator

Denver Regional

Office

John A. Spence, Senior Evaluator

Los Angeles Regional

Office

Michael P. Dino, Senior Evaluator

James R. Russell, Evaluator

New York Regional

Office

George P. Cullen, Senior Evaluator

Lucine Moore Willis, Evaluator

San Francisco

Regional Office

Delores J. Lee, Evaluator

Yola Lewis, Evaluator

(511068) Page 28 GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/AIMD-95-147 Law Enforcement Support Center