Department of Homeland Security
 

��������������������������
 

CBP Use of Force Training and Actions 


To Address Use of Force Incidents 


(Redacted)
 

OIG-13-114 (Revised) September 2013
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

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

September 12, 2013 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas S. Winkowski 

Deputy Commissioner 

Performing the duties of the Commissioner of CBP 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

FROM: Charles K. Edwards 

Deputy Inspector General 

SUBJECT: CBP Use of Force Training and Actions To Address Use of Force 

Incidents – Redacted (Revised) 

Attached for your action is our revised final report, CBP Use of Force Training and Actions To 

Address Use of Force Incidents – Redacted (Revised), OIG-13-114. We incorporated the 

formal comments from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the final report. This revised 

version is redacted due to deliberative material. 

The report contains three recommendations aimed at improving the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection Office of Training and Development and the Office of Internal Affairs. 

Your office concurred with all of the recommendations. Based on information provided in 

your response to the draft report, we consider the three recommendations resolved. Once 

your office has fully implemented each recommendation, please submit a formal closeout 

letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendation. The memorandum 

should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions. 

Please email a signed PDF copy of all responses and closeout requests to 

OIGInspectionsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing copies 

of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and appropriation 

responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post a redacted version 

of the report on our website. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Deborah Outten-Mills, Acting 

Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, at (202) 254-4015. 

Attachment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

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


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


Results of Review ............................................................................................................... 5 


Excessive Use of Force Allegations and Investigations Were Not Identified in 

Case Management Systems ................................................................................... 5 

Recommendation ................................................................................................... 8 

Workforce Surge Did Not Affect Use of Force Training ......................................... 8 


CBP Has Acted to Address Use of Force Incidents; More Can Be Done .............. 11 


Recommendations ..........................................................................................15, 18 


Polygraphs Improve Quality of Workforce .......................................................... 21 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 21 


Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ............................................ 24 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ............................... 25 


Appendix C: Major Contributors to This Report ............................................... 28 


Appendix D: Report Distribution ........................................................................ 29 


Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EDS Enterprise Data System 

FY fiscal year 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

JICMS Joint Intake Case Management System 

OAM Office of Air and Marine 

OBP Office of Border Patrol 

OFO Office of Field Operations 

OIA Office of Internal Affairs 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility 

OTD Office of Training and Development 

PBS Public Broadcasting Service 

PERF Police Executive Research Forum 

UFPD Use of Force Policy Division 

UFRS Use of Force Reporting System 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary 

Following April 2012 media reports regarding the death of an undocumented immigrant 

while in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in May 2010, Senator 

Robert Menendez and 15 members of Congress requested that we review the use of 

force within CBP. We reviewed allegations of the use of excessive force by CBP 

employees and determined what reforms CBP has implemented. We also examined 

what effect adding more agents and officers to the workforce has had on training and 

professionalism. 

Allegations of employee misconduct that are entered into Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) case management systems are assigned one of several case allegation 

types; however, there is no primary use of force designation. As a result, we were 

unable to identify the total number of excessive force allegations and investigations 

involving CBP employees. 

The August 2006 to December 2009 workforce surge within CBP did not negatively 

affect use of force training within CBP. Use of force training remained consistent and 

funding for use of force training increased at the basic training academies. Preemployment polygraph examinations have improved the quality of the CBP workforce. 

CBP has taken several steps to address the number of use of force incidents involving 

CBP employees and to ensure that agents and officers use force only when necessary 

and reasonable. All CBP law enforcement agents and officers are required to follow the 

same use of force policy and standards and complete the same use of force training. 

CBP tracks all use of force incidents and recently completed an internal review of use of 

force issues. 

However, more can be done. The CBP Office of Training and Development Use of Force 

Policy Division should incorporate additional assault data into its analysis of use of force 

incidents and formalize and expand its field audit program. CBP should continue to 

expand the use of scenario-based training and assess new technologies to support 

agents and officers. 

We are making three recommendations. CBP should work with U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement a method to identify excessive force 

allegations in its case management system, develop processes to incorporate 

information regarding assaults on agents that do not result in the use of force into its 

analysis of use of force incidents, and evaluate and act upon field audit results. The DHS 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) will modify its case management system to identify in 

greater detail incidents involving excessive use of force allegations. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

In April 2012, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) aired a report regarding the death of 

a person while in the custody of CBP in May 2010. This incident and others raised 

concerns regarding use of force training and accountability within DHS and CBP. U.S. 

Senator Robert Menendez and 15 members of Congress requested that we review the 

use of force within CBP. 

Use of Force 

CBP’s policies and procedures for use of force describe the amount of force that is 

reasonable and necessary for a law enforcement agent or officer to use when 

compelling an unwilling subject to comply with lawful commands. Reasonable means 

there are objective reasons that justify the level of force used in a given situation, up to 

and including deadly force. Necessary means that some force is required in the 

situation to carry out law enforcement duties. Force would be deemed excessive if it 

were later determined to have been either unnecessary or unreasonably forceful. 

The CBP Use of Force Continuum describes the levels of force an agent or officer may 

need to use to gain control over a subject. At the lowest level on the continuum, officer 

presence and spoken commands are sufficient when a subject is cooperative. If a 

subject does not comply with spoken commands or is passively resisting, the agent or 

officer may need to use physical contact techniques, such as strategic positioning or 

pressure point stimulation, to gain compliance. If a subject actively resists an agent’s 

efforts to gain control or assaults or displays a willingness to assault an agent or officer, 

the agent or officer would use escalating, less-lethal force options to compel 

compliance. For example, agents and officers could use oleoresin capsicum (pepper 

spray) or an electronic control device, or taser, against an actively resistant subject and 

could also use a collapsible straight baton (baton) if the subject becomes assaultive. An 

agent or officer is authorized to use the highest level, deadly force, only when the agent 

or officer believes the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical 

injury to the agent or officer or another person, and the subject has the opportunity, 

ability, and intent to do so. 

In determining the appropriate level of force, CBP trains its law enforcement officers to 

consider the totality of the circumstances in each situation. This training includes: the 

level of training, mental attitude, strength, age, and size of the officer; size of the 

subject; the subject’s actions; weapons involved; presence of other officers; number of 

subjects present; bystanders; and environmental conditions. Generally, the officer 

should use the lowest level of force necessary to control the situation. Because of 

unique circumstances and individual differences in every potential confrontation, 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

different officers might have different responses to the same situation, all of which may 

be reasonable and necessary. 

Rapid Surge of CBP Workforce 

In May 2006, the President mandated that CBP add 6,000 new Border Patrol Agents by 

December 2008. CBP increased the number of Border Patrol Agents by more than 50 

percent from August 2006 through December 2009 (see table 1). During the same time 

period, the number of CBP officers also increased. 

Table 1: Number of Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers
 

FY 2006–FY 2012
 

Fiscal Year Total OBP Total OFO Total CBP 

2006 12,349 17,733 30,082 

2007 14,923 18,272 33,195 

2008 17,499 19,568 37,067 

2009 20,119 21,103 41,222 

2010 20,558 20,455 41,013 

2011 21,444 20,379 41,823 

2012 21,394 21,790 43,184 

Source: CBP Office of Border Patrol (OBP) and Office of Field Operations (OFO). 

As the number of agents and officers increased, the number of supervisory agents and 

officers also increased proportionately. Within the Office of Border Patrol (OBP), 

supervisory agents accounted for 17 percent of all agents from fiscal year (FY) 2006–FY 

2007, 18 percent from FY 2008–FY 2009, and 19 percent from FY 2010–FY 2012. Within 

the Office of Field Operations (OFO), supervisory officers accounted for 13 percent of all 

officers from FY 2006–FY 2011 and 14 percent in FY 2012. 

Operational Environment 

CBP agents and officers operate in a variety of border environments and conditions. 

CBP officers operate at land, air, and sea ports of entry, which are largely controlled 

environments due to designated lanes and processing areas. CBP officers generally 

work in teams or in close proximity to other officers, with backup readily available 

should it be needed. Border Patrol Agents operate between ports of entry along U.S. 

borders. The terrain along U.S. borders varies greatly, ranging from dense forests and 

open plains along the northern border to open deserts, rugged mountains, the Rio 

Grande River, and coastal waters along the southern border. Border Patrol Agents often 

patrol alone; the nearest agent could be 10 to 20 miles away. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

DHS has completed the construction of more than 600 miles of fencing and has installed 

surveillance technology to detect and inhibit illegal border crossings into the United 

States. This has limited the areas along the southwest border where illegal border 

crossers attempt to enter the United States and has increased the chance they will be 

intercepted by the Border Patrol. Violent assaults against Border Patrol Agents rose to a 

peak in 2010, and have diminished since then. 

CBP began tracking assaults on Border Patrol Agents in 2006. Assault information is 

reported in the Assault Module of the CBP e3 system. The e3 system is used to record, 

transmit, and retrieve information for CBP enforcement purposes, such as biographic 

and property information. The system also captures or verifies biometric information of 

apprehended individuals. 

From FY 2006 to FY 2012, 99 percent of assaults on Border Patrol Agents occurred along 

the southwest border of the United States (see table 2). 

Table 2: Assaults on Border Patrol Agents, FY 2006–FY 2012 

Fiscal 

Year 

Southwest 

Border 

Northern 

Border 

Coastal 

Border Total 

2006 729 16 7 752 

2007 979 6 2 987 

2008 1,085 10 2 1,097 

2009 1,031 11 6 1,048 

2010 1,050 10 2 1,062 

2011 678 2 7 687 

2012 543 6 0 549 

Total 6,095 61 26 6,182

 Source: CBP Office of Border Patrol. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Results of Review 

Information regarding complaints of employee misconduct, and any subsequent 

investigative activity, is tracked and maintained in case management systems. Although 

these systems include a data field that assigns specific types of misconduct, such as 

excessive force, discrimination, abuse of authority, and other categories, to a primary 

allegation type, there is no primary use of force allegation designation. As a result, we 

were unable to determine the total number of excessive force allegations and 

investigations involving CBP employees. 

We determined that use of force training before and during the workforce surge 

remained consistent. Funding at the basic training academies increased in proportion to 

the increase in trainees. The implementation of polygraph examinations for all 

prospective law enforcement agents and officers prior to being hired has improved the 

quality of the CBP workforce by detecting unsuitable candidates who might otherwise 

have been selected. 

To address use of force incidents involving CBP employees and to ensure that agents 

and officers use force only when necessary and reasonable, CBP has (1) completed an 

internal review of use of force issues; (2) begun tracking all use of force incidents; (3) 

improved consistency in training for agents and officers, and the application of use of 

force standards and policies; (4) initiated a field audit program to evaluate use of force 

training across CBP field locations; and (5) commissioned an independent review of use 

of force by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). 

Excessive Use of Force Allegations and Investigations Were Not Identified in 

Case Management Systems 

The DHS OIG Hotline and the Joint Intake Center receive complaints about 

employee misconduct that include allegations of excessive force, discrimination, 

off-duty arrests, abuse of authority, and others. We attempted to obtain 

information that would enable us to analyze and summarize excessive force 

investigations involving CBP employees. Allegations entered into DHS case 

management systems are assigned one of several case allegation types; 

however, there is no primary use of force designation. As a result, we were 

unable to identify the total number of excessive use of force allegations and 

investigations involving CBP employees. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Documenting Allegations of Excessive Force 

The OIG Hotline and the Joint Intake Center, operated by CBP and ICE, receive 

allegations of misconduct by DHS employees, including allegations that CBP 

employees have used excessive force. Hotline and Center staff enter the details 

into their respective case management system—the Enterprise Data System 

(EDS) or the Joint Intake Case Management System (JICMS). 

No matter to which of the two offices the allegation was addressed, the OIG 

Office of Investigations first has the option to investigate or decline to 

investigate an allegation. If OIG declines, the ICE Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR) and then the CBP Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), 

respectively, decide whether to investigate. Many allegations are determined to 

be administrative—non-criminal misbehavior—and are referred to management 

for action. 

Each allegation is assigned to a primary category; however, neither case 

management system has a primary category that designates an allegation as use 

of force. In JICMS, excessive use of force allegations are assigned to primary 

categories to include detainee/alien (physical abuse), detainee/alien abuse 

(other), detainee/alien abuse (medical issue), and death-detainee/alien/civilian 

(result of agency action). In EDS, primary categories for use of force allegations 

include civil rights/civil liberties or miscellaneous. In addition to a primary 

category, OIG also identifies a secondary type of allegation. While one 

secondary allegation type is “use of force,” and includes some excessive force 

allegations, other excessive force allegations are designated as 

detainee-/prisoner-/suspect-related abuse, criminal misconduct, or non-criminal 

misconduct. In addition, we identified allegations that were placed improperly 

in the secondary use of force allegation type. 

To determine the universe of excessive force investigations involving CBP 

employees, we received data sets from OIG and JICMS that included more than 

21,000 records of possible excessive force allegations. Because excessive force 

allegations are assigned to multiple categories, the narrative in each allegation 

summary must be reviewed to determine whether it was an excessive use of 

force allegation. 

Of the more than 21,000 records that we received, we reviewed the allegation 

summary field for the 2,093 records from JICMS data—excessive force and abuse 

allegations and intentional discharge of weapon. This included 1,896 records 

from FYs 2007 through 2012 in the excessive force and abuse data. We 

identified 1,187 of these records as possible allegations related to excessive 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

force (see figure 1). The allegations also included physical abuse (punching, 

kicking, and pushing) during apprehension, and use of an electronic control 

device, baton, or pepper spray. 

We identified 205 records as not being excessive force allegations, such as claims 

of improper detention, racial profiling, and initial allegations that were later 

recanted. For 504 records, we were unable to conclude that they were excessive 

use of force allegations based on information in the allegation summary field. 

Types of information in these summary fields included alleged civil rights 

violations and physical abuse.

63% (1,187) 

26% (504) 

11% (205) 

Figure 1: Excessive Force Allegations 

FY 2007–FY 2012 

Possible Excessive Force Inconclusive Excessive Force Not Excessive Force 

Total = 1,896 

 Source: CBP Office of Internal Affairs, JICMS. 

We also reviewed the allegation summary field of 197 records from FY 2009–FY 

2012 for intentional discharge of weapon data, and identified 136 possible use of 

force incidents involving the discharge of a weapon (see figure 2). We were not 

able to determine whether 39 of these records were use of force incidents and 

concluded that 22 were not use of force incidents. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

69% (136) 

20% (39) 

11% (22) 

Figure 2: Intentional Discharge of Weapon 

Use of Force Incidents 

FY 2009–FY 2012 

Possible Use of Force Inconclusive Use of Force Not Use of Force 

Total = 197 

 Source: CBP Office of Internal Affairs, JICMS. 

CBP OIA officials suggested that a new field to indicate whether an allegation 

involves use of force should be added to JICMS. However, JICMS is an ICE 

computer system. CBP officials raised the issue with ICE in April 2013 and told us 

that they are continuing to work with ICE to develop an indicator. We concur 

with the proposed addition of a use of force indicator field to JICMS. Also, we 

have asked the OIG Office of Investigations to modify its case management 

system to identify in greater detail incidents involving use of force allegations. 

The OIG Office of Investigations will do so. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Recommendation #1: 

Work with ICE to implement a method in JICMS to identify each use of force 

allegation involving an officer or agent. 

Workforce Surge Did Not Affect Use of Force Training 

The August 2006 to December 2009 workforce surge within CBP did not 

negatively affect use of force training within CBP. Use of force training content 

and hours remained consistent, and funding for use of force training increased at 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-13-114
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

the basic academies. Since October 2010, all CBP law enforcement agents and 

officers receive quarterly firearms and less-lethal device training. 

Use of Force Training at Basic Academies 

Agents and officers receive use of force training as part of their basic academy 

training to become Border Patrol Agents or CBP officers. Use of force training at 

the basic academies includes instruction in firearms proficiency and judgment 

shooting, threat assessment and response, the use of force continuum, use of 

force legal authorities, physical techniques, baton certification, and pepper spray 

certification. Since 2010, CBP officer trainees also complete taser certification 

during basic training. 

Use of force training at both basic training academies remained consistent 

throughout the workforce surge. While the number of trainees entering the 

basic academies increased in FY 2007, FY 2008, and FY 2009, the number of 

hours of use of force training these trainees received as part of their overall basic 

training was consistent. Given the larger number of agents and officers trained, 

funding for use of force training at the Border Patrol Academy and the Field 

Operations Academy increased during those years. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the 

number of trainee entrants and graduates, use of force training hours, and 

funding for use of force training for each basic academy for FY 2005–FY 2012. 

Table 3: Border Patrol Academy Use of Force Training FY 2005–FY 2012 

Fiscal 

Year 

OBP Academy 

Trainee Entrants

 OBP Academy 

Graduates 

Use of Force 

Training Hours 

Use of Force 

Training Funding 

2005 926 734 126 $872,113 

2006 1,889 1,408 126 $2,602,749 

2007 3,912 3,060 124 $5,154,947 

2008 4,566 3,323 124 $8,598,955 

2009 4,861 3,582 124 $11,136,797 

2010 1,578 1,250 124 $2,467,950 

2011 1,745 1,394 134 $3,533,881 

2012 735 629 134 $3,455,965 

Source: CBP OBP and Office of Training and Development (OTD). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 4: Field Operations Academy Use of Force Training FY 2005–FY 2012
 

Fiscal 

Year 

OFO Academy 

Trainee Entrants 

OFO Academy 

Graduates 

Use of Force 

Training Hours 

Use of Force 

Training Funding 

2005 1,286 1,188 155 $2,114,632 

2006 1,368 1,232 156 $2,043,193 

2007 2,064 1,841 156 $2,974,498 

2008 2,823 2,563 154 $3,753,624 

2009 3,090 2,914 154 $4,796,714 

2010 142 117 208 $792,327 

2011 546 515 212 $1,646,374 

2012 1,229 1,156 212 $4,097,704 

Source: CBP OFO and OTD. 

Use of Force Training Post-Basic Quarterly Use of Force Training 

Since October 2010, all CBP law enforcement agents and officers are required to 

qualify quarterly with their firearms and recertify annually with any less-lethal 

devices they are certified to carry, such as a baton, pepper spray, or taser. To 

achieve these requirements, agents and officers complete at least 16 hours of 

firearms training and 16 hours of less-lethal force training yearly, with 4 hours of 

each quarterly. Quarterly training includes— 

1) Classroom instruction on either the firearm or a less-lethal device as well 

as discussion of use of force policy and the use of force continuum; 

2) A written exam; 

3) Demonstration of proficiency with the firearm or less-lethal device; and 

4) Demonstration of appropriate judgment in training scenarios. 

Prior to October 2010, CBP officers qualified only three times per year with their 

firearms. This requirement increased to quarterly with implementation of the 

unified CBP Use of Force Handbook in October 2010. A CBP official said the surge 

only improved training, resulting in more instructors and more training 

opportunities. For example, since 2010, all CBP officers become certified on the 

taser at their basic academy and must therefore recertify annually. Also, even 

though the workforce surge ended in 2009, the number of CBP agents and 

officers remains more than 43,000, so more agents and officers must complete 

quarterly training now and in the future, requiring more firearm and less-lethal 

force instructors. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Instructor Training at CBP Advanced Training Center 

Firearm instructors and less-lethal force instructors complete instructor 

certification and recertification training at the CBP Advanced Training Center in 

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Certified instructors conduct quarterly use of force 

training for agents and officers in their areas of responsibility. 

All instructors are trained based on the same standard regardless of whether 

they work for OBP, OFO, or the Office of Air and Marine (OAM). Firearm and 

less-lethal force instructor trainees receive instruction on firearms or less-lethal 

devices in addition to how to run proficiency drills. They also become proficient 

in developing, running, and debriefing training scenarios. Both firearm and lesslethal force instructors must recertify every five years. 

CBP Has Acted to Address Use of Force Incidents; More Can Be Done 

CBP has taken several steps to address the number of use of force incidents. We 

also identified additional measures that CBP can take to address this issue. All 

CBP law enforcement agents and officers are required to follow a unified use of 

force policy, and CBP tracks all use of force incidents. Also, CBP conducted an 

internal review of use of force issues that resulted in several recommendations 

to improve use of force policies, training, equipment, tactics, and operational 

posture. In addition, the CBP Office of Training and Development (OTD) Use of 

Force Policy Division (UFPD) initiated a field audit program to assess the 

consistency of use of force training across CBP; however, formalization and 

expansion would improve the effectiveness of the program. Finally, CBP should 

continue to expand the use of scenario-based training and evaluate new 

technologies to support agents and officers. 

All CBP Law Enforcement Agents Required to Follow Unified Use of Force Policy 

To establish common CBP requirements regarding use of force, all CBP law 

enforcement components have operated under a unified use of force policy 

since October 2010. Prior to this, each component operated under its separate 

pre-DHS legacy use of force policy. Although the legacy policies had similarities, 

there were differences. For example, OBP agents qualified four times per year 

with their firearms, but OFO officers only qualified three times per year. 

UFPD is responsible for developing all CBP use of force policy. To create the 

unified policy, representatives from each CBP component identified the best 

practices of each legacy policy and created a draft unified policy, and in 2007, 

CBP began negotiating with the bargaining units—the National Treasury 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Employees Union and the National Border Patrol Council —the content of the 

proposed unified policy. CBP reached agreement with the unions in 2010; the 

unified policy then went to the CBP Commissioner for signature. 

UFPD ensures that each CBP policy, directive, and procedure describing when 

and how CBP employees use force conforms to the CBP Use of Force Policy 

Handbook. UFPD also develops, maintains, and approves all CBP use of force 

training. Under the unified policy, all CBP agents and officers are trained to the 

same standard and receive the same amount of required use of force training 

every year. For example, all CBP officers and agents now receive eight hours of 

use of force training quarterly; training includes four hours of firearms training 

and four hours of less-lethal force training each quarter. In addition, because all 

CBP instructors train to the same standard, use of force instructors from any CBP 

component can conduct use of force training for other CBP components. This 

provides CBP the ability to accommodate workforce surges or fill unexpected 

gaps. 

UFPD Tracks All Uses of Force Involving CBP Employees; Additional Data Could 

Better Inform Analysis 

To gain insight into use of force trends, training, and equipment needs, UFPD 

began tracking all use of force incidents involving CBP officers and agents in the 

Use of Force Reporting System (UFRS) in January 2010. Prior to 2010, only 

reports of serious use of force incidents were sent to the Commissioner’s 

Situation Room. The UFRS tracks detailed information about uses of force 

involving CBP agents and officers; however, it does not track information 

regarding assaults on agents and officers that do not result in the use of force. 

Being able to incorporate information regarding assaults on Federal agents that 

do not result in the use of force directly from other CBP systems, such as the e3 

Assault Module, would provide UFPD with more information on the threats 

agents face along the border and how they respond to those threats. 

Incidents involving the use of deadly force or the use of less-lethal devices must 

be reported to a supervisor within 1 hour of the incident and to UFRS within 72 

hours. The involved agent or officer must provide information about the 

incident, including but not limited to the date, time, and location of the incident; 

the firearm(s) or device(s) used; the nature and extent of injuries or deaths; and 

descriptions of subjects involved or witnesses to the incident. A CBP supervisor 

enters incident information into UFRS for deadly force incidents, and the 

involved agent or officer or a CBP supervisor for incidents involving less-lethal 

force. A CBP official said that information in UFRS is not used for discipline 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

11 

148 

1,029 

1,188 

30 96 

808 

936* 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

OAM OFO OBP Total 

Number of Uses of Force 

CBP Component 

Figure 3: Use of Force by CBP Component, FY 2011–FY 2012 

FY11 

FY12 

–

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

purposes. UFRS does not link to JICMS, and UFPD usually has no involvement in 

or knowledge of investigations of excessive force allegations. 

UFPD analyzes the information in UFRS to determine whether to make changes 

to use of force policies, training, tactics, or equipment. The data can be viewed 

by CBP component, type of force used, type of weapon used, sector or field 

office, or region (southwest, northern, or coastal). For example, in FY 2011, 

agents and officers reported 1,188 uses of force in UFRS (see figure 3). Of the 

1,188 uses of force, 1,029 (or 87 percent) were by OBP, 148 (or 12 percent) were 

by OFO, and 11 (or 1 percent) were by OAM. In FY 2012, agents and officers 

reported 936 uses of force in UFRS. Of these, 808 (or 86 percent) were by OBP, 

96 (or 10 percent) were by OFO, 30 (or 3 percent) were by OAM, and 2 (or 0.2 

percent) were by the Office of International Affairs. 

11 

148 

1,029 

1,188 

30 96 

808 

936* 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

OAM OFO OBP Total 

Number of Uses 

of F

orce 

CBP Component 

Figure 3: Use of Force by CBP Component, FY 2011 FY 2012 

FY11 

FY12 

*Includes 2 from INA 

 Source: CBP OTD UFPD. 

Within CBP, 95 percent (1,133 of 1,188) of FY 2011 uses of force and 95 percent 

(885 of 936) of FY 2012 uses of force occurred along the southwest border of the 

United States. For OBP, 98 percent of FY 2011 uses of force and 98 percent of FY 

2012 uses of force were along the southwest border. For OFO, 83 percent of FY 

2011 uses of force and 89 percent of FY 2012 uses of force were along the 

southwest border. 

When CBP agents and officers used force in FY 2011, they used firearms 7 

percent of the time and less-lethal force options 93 percent of the time. In FY 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

2012, they used firearms 6 percent of the time and less-lethal force options 94 

percent of the time. Within OBP, agents used firearms 7 percent of the time in 

FY 2011 and 7 percent of the time in FY 2012, less-lethal force devices 84 percent 

and 82 percent of the time, respectively, and other force 9 percent and 12 

percent of the time, respectively. For OFO, officers used firearms 7 percent and 

2 percent of the time, respectively, in FY 2011 and FY 2012, less-lethal force 

devices 78 percent and 96 percent of the time, and other force 15 percent and 2 

percent of the time. Less-lethal force devices include baton, pepper spray, taser, 

and other devices. Other force includes physical force without a weapon and the 

use of vehicles and canines. Figure 4 compares the types of force used by OBP 

and OFO during FY 2011 and FY 2012.

Figure 4: Type of Force by CBP Component, FY 2011–FY 2012 

1200 

Number of Uses of Force 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

1029 

867 

808 

662 

148 

69 53 11 2 

115 92 93 93 

22 2 

96 

Firearms Less Lethal Devices Other Force Total 

OBP FY2011 OBP FY2012 OFO FY2011 OFO FY2012 

 Source: CBP OTD UFPD. 

Analysis of use of force data from UFRS provides UFPD with valuable information 

regarding the effectiveness of use of force policies, training, equipment, and 

tactics. However, including data from assaults on Federal agents that do not 

result in a use of force would provide additional valuable information. For 

example, rock attacks were the most frequent type of assault on agents in FY 

2011 and the second most frequent type of assault in FY 2012. Of 339 reported 

rock assaults in FY 2011, agents did not respond with force to 188 (or 55 

percent), responded with a firearm to 33 (or 10 percent), and used less-lethal 

force in response to 118 (or 35 percent) of the rocking assaults, respectively. Of 

185 rocking assaults in FY 2012, agents did not use force to respond to 121 (or 65 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

percent), responded with a firearm to 22 (or 12 percent), and used less-lethal 

force in response to 42 (or 23 percent). Reviewing when force was used to 

respond to assaults as well as when agents did not respond with force could 

inform UFPD policy, guidance, equipment, and tactics regarding use of force in 

response to rocking or other types of assaults. 

All uses of force must be reported by the employee or a supervisor in the UFRS, 

and all assaults on Federal agents must be reported in the e3 Assault Module. If 

an agent is assaulted and responds using any type of force, the incident would be 

reported in both systems. However, assaults that do not lead to a use of force 

response would be reported only in the e3 Assault Module. Knowing when 

agents do not respond with force when assaulted and which types of force are 

used in response to different types of assaults, in addition to use of force 

information from UFRS, would provide a clearer operational picture for CBP 

management. In addition, it could identify best practices, especially regarding 

de-escalation of potential use of force situations and provide insight into specific 

types of threats, such as rockings, that place agents in potential use of force 

situations. Also, UFPD would have additional information to improve training, 

tactics, equipment, and policies involving use of force. UFPD should develop a 

process to incorporate information regarding assaults on agents that do not 

result in the use of force into its analysis of use of force incidents. 

In addition, when an assault on an agent results in the use of force and must be 

reported in both UFRS and the e3 Assault Module, similar information is 

collected about the assault in both systems. A CBP official suggested creating a 

link between the two systems to facilitate entering the information and ensure 

reports are made in both systems when necessary. Developing a link between 

the systems could remind agents to complete reports in both places when 

appropriate and could ensure that assault information required by both systems 

is entered consistently. Also, it could facilitate the incorporation of nonresponse assault data into use of force incident analysis. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Recommendation #2: 

Develop a process to incorporate information regarding assaults on agents that 

did not result in agents using force into its analysis of use of force incidents. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-13-114 
 

 

CBP Initiated Internal Review of Use of Force Issues 

Following several deadly force incidents, CBP initiated its own internal review of 

use of force issues in November 2012. The review included three parts—field 

reviews of select incidents by the CBP Use of Force Incident Review Team, 

reviews of 67 shooting incidents by the Use of Force Incident Review Committee, 

and an external review of the 67 incidents and CBP use of force policies by the 

Police Executive Research Forum. The review focused on the effectiveness of 

current use of force policies, equipment, tactics, training, and operational 

posture. CBP’s review made recommendations, and PERF’s review made , 

to 

CBP OTD made recommendations including

 CBP OTD also recommended 

 Other recommendations 

include 

. 

PERF 

. Also, PERF 

. PERF also made 

recommendations 

. 

In addition, PERF recommended 

. Currently, the CBP OTD and PERF recommendations 

are under consideration for approval by the Acting CBP Commissioner. 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

UFPD Initiated Field Audit Program; Needs More Formalization and Expansion 

In FY 2012, UFPD implemented a field audit program to assess use of force 

training. The program determines whether training is consistent with CBP policy, 

instructor guidebooks and lesson plans, and the intent of the less-lethal force 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

and firearms training programs, as well as whether safety protocols are followed. 

Each field audit may result in recommendations for corrective action to both the 

Office of Training and Development and the audited field location. While the 

UFPD field audit program is a good first step for UFPD management to assess 

whether use of force training in the field is consistent with use of force policy, 

there is no formal process for recommendation followup, no system to assess 

results and make appropriate timely changes to use of force training, and not 

enough program staff. 

When conducting a field audit, three-person teams from UFPD spend three days 

at each location observing quarterly firearms and less-lethal force training and 

identifying strengths, weaknesses, and necessary changes. The audit team 

provides oral feedback to instructors and training coordinators at each location 

to correct issues observed during the audit. Following the field audit, the team 

lead prepares a report including recommendations for corrective actions. UFPD 

sends the report to the audited location and follows up by telephone with the 

inspected office to discuss planned actions for addressing recommendations. 

We observed a field audit team conduct a field audit in February 2013. At that 

time, only one agent was dedicated full-time to the UFPD field audit program. A 

senior CBP official said that additional staff would strengthen the field audit 

program. 

UFPD identified several major issues during its 2012 field audits. For example, 

some locations were not getting the full number of required training hours, were 

not giving written tests during less-lethal force recertification training, or were 

not using the correct course of fire for firearms qualifications. UFPD advised 

instructors and training coordinators at respective locations to correct specific 

issues. Issues observed at one location are typically corrected only at that 

location because there is no formal process to evaluate audit results. 

The UFPD field audit team observed that many agents and officers do not 

understand use of force and the extent to which they may or may not use force. 

The field audit team recommended to OTD 

and suggested that 

 The 

team also recommended 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

CBP has noted in its formal comments that, of the 32 field training reviews 

conducted to date, this was observed only once, at one location and involved a 

small number of agents on one training day. 

Developing a process to identify this type of issue, implement changes into use 

of force training, and disseminate them to the field would improve consistency 

and standardization regarding use of force across CBP. Formalizing and 

expanding the field audit program will require additional staff. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

Recommendation #3: 

Develop a formal process to evaluate use of force training field audit results and 

follow up on field audit recommendations. 

CBP Should Continue To Expand Use of Scenario-based Training 

Scenario-based training provides agents and officers the opportunity for handson practice. Training scenarios reinforce classroom instruction regarding use of 

force policy, tactics, and justifications. Within the safety of a training 

environment, they experience realistic situations in which they must decide 

whether to use force and at what level, and then justify their actions. To ensure 

that agents and officers are sufficiently trained to confront threats, CBP should 

continue to expand scenario-based training, including developing scenarios 

around high-risk threats such as vehicular and rock assaults, adding training in 

low-light conditions, and creating new realistic training environments. 

Training scenarios allow agents to practice making appropriate use of force 

judgments as they handle the situation. They also learn the importance of and 

practice articulating their response to the situation and justification for the level 

of force used. In addition, instructors emphasize that choosing appropriate 

tactics initially can de-escalate the situation and stop it from becoming a deadly 

force incident. Successfully completing a scenario creates an experience 

memory that could be useful should a similar “real life” situation arise. 

Less-lethal force and firearms instructors learn how to create, run, and debrief 

training scenarios during instructor certification courses at the CBP Advanced 

Training Center. They are encouraged to create training scenarios that represent 

realistic situations agents could encounter in their specific locations. Possible 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

scenarios could include a single agent while on patrol encountering a large group 

of illegal aliens, responding to a report of people climbing the border fence, or 

responding to a port of entry regarding a car with a license plate matching a 

lookout notice. 

CBP is assessing ways to improve use of force training. To provide a new and 

more realistic southwest border training environment, CBP plans to build a mock 

international border fence training area at both the CBP Advanced Training 

Center and the Border Patrol Academy. This would enable CBP to conduct 

scenario-based training in a realistic field environment that many agents 

encounter during their careers. CBP has the materials needed to build the 

border fence training areas; however, due to budget constraints, CBP is 

reassessing when to build the fences. 

During its internal review of use of force issues, UFPD determined that CBP basic 

academies do not train new agents and officers on all less-lethal options that will 

be available to them. UFPD also identified high-risk situations, such as vehicular 

and rock assaults, that are not sufficiently trained at the basic academies. 

In addition, several officials said the use of scenario-based training should be 

increased during basic training, especially at the Border Patrol Academy. They 

said trainees leave the Border Patrol Academy with the necessary tools and 

tactics, but are not fully prepared for possible real-life situations they might 

encounter. For example, one official said trainees do not have the opportunity 

in a training environment to experience how they might react in an encounter in 

the field and practice working through their stress or fear reaction. CBP officials 

said that by experiencing possible scenarios and reactions in a training 

environment, trainees are better prepared for any situation they encounter in 

the field. We agree with suggestions to increase scenario-based training at the 

basic academies. 

CBP Assesses New Technology To Ensure Field Agents Have the Right Tools 

CBP continuously assesses new lethal and less-lethal equipment technology, 

tactics, and training to ensure that agents and officers have the skills and tools 

when needed. Currently, UFPD officials are emphasizing less-lethal tools and 

trying to increase safety for both the agents and subjects involved in encounters 

that result in agent’s use of force. In addition, officials are assessing training 

environments and adding simulator equipment to improve the effectiveness and 

consistency of use of force training across CBP. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Given different operational environments along the border, CBP has made 

multiple less-lethal options available to agents. For example, there are several 

different less-lethal devices that will deploy pepper spray or pepper ball 

chemicals to immobilize subjects. These tools are effective from varying 

distances and some deploy straight whereas others are able to arc over objects. 

Devices capable of arcing are more effective in border areas separated by a 

border fence, and devices that do not arc would be effective along areas of the 

border separated by river or where there are no line-of-sight obstacles. CBP is 

assessing other less-lethal options that would allow an agent to deploy a lesslethal device effectively from a greater distance. 

Finally, CBP is evaluating the use of simulators, which can encompass all of use of 

force training, including training scenarios and firearms targeting and 

marksmanship. Using simulators for some scenario-based training would allow 

an instructor to freeze an ongoing scenario to allow an agent to review or discuss 

policy or the agent’s action at specific decision points in the scenario as well as 

recording and replaying the agent’s actions during the post-scenario debrief. In 

addition, because UFPD identifies use of force trends, incorporating simulators 

into use of force training would allow UFPD to create scenarios at the Advanced 

Training Center and disseminate them for use in the field. While field instructors 

would continue to develop location-specific live scenarios, adding UFPD-created 

training scenarios, especially in simulators, would reinforce standardization and 

consistency across CBP. It would also allow UFPD to create a scenario based on 

recent trends and implement it in the field quickly. 

CBP is moving forward to incorporate simulator training as part of use of force 

training. After observing demonstrations of several different simulators on the 

market, UFPD officials selected several for in-depth testing at the Advanced 

Training Center. In the current testing phase, UFPD officials set up each 

simulator at the Advanced Training Center, learn how to run the systems, and 

practice with each to determine its benefits, drawbacks, and how it could 

support CBP training needs. During the testing, UFPD officials are prioritizing 

requirements for the simulator system CBP will acquire. UFPD officials hope to 

acquire one simulator for the CBP Advanced Training Center and incorporate it 

into training classes by the end of FY 2013. Officials expect to spend about six 

months creating scenarios, running students through scenarios, and assessing 

the effectiveness of the simulator before placing simulators in the field. We 

observed instructor-led scenario-based training and demonstrations of two 

simulators. We concluded that the simulator has the potential to enhance the 

quality of CBP agent and officer training. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Polygraphs Improve Quality of Workforce
 

In 2008, CBP Internal Affairs began implementing a requirement that CBP 

conduct polygraph examinations of all prospective CBP law enforcement agents 

and officers by January 2013. When CBP began the polygraph program, 

approximately half of prospective agents or officers failed the examination. 

According to one CBP official, polygraphing 100 percent of prospective law 

enforcement agents and officers identifies and eliminates applicants who should 

not be in law enforcement. Pre-employment polygraphs have improved the 

quality of the workforce. CBP Internal Affairs implemented the mandate well 

before the deadline and has been polygraphing 100 percent of law enforcement 

applicants since mid-2012. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We evaluated the formal comments CBP submitted and have made changes to 

the report where we deemed appropriate. A summary of the CBP response to 

each recommendation, and our analysis, is included below. A copy of the CBP 

response, in its entirety, appears in appendix B. In addition, we received 

technical comments from CBP and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties and incorporated these comments into the report where appropriate. 

CBP concurred with all recommendations in the report. 

Recommendation 1: Work with ICE to implement a method in JICMS to identify 

each use of force allegation involving an officer or agent. 

Management Response: CBP concurs. The CBP Office of Internal Affairs, in 

collaboration with the CBP Office of Training and Development (OTD)/Use of 

Force Policy Division (UFPD) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE)/Office of Professional Responsibility, are developing a "menu" of categories 

in the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS) to help identify each use 

of force incident or allegation involving an officer or agent. 

OIG Analysis: The actions planned by ICE and CBP appear to be consistent with 

the intent of the recommendation. Only when we examine the new JICMS 

structure will we be able to determine if compliance has been achieved. We 

consider recommendation 1 Resolved-Open. 

Recommendation 2: Develop a process to incorporate information regarding 

assaults on agents that did not result in agents using force into its analysis of use 

of force incidents. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Response: CBP concurs. The addition of assault data where force 

was not used by the officer/agent will provide a baseline to compare with 

incidents where force was used by the officer/agent. This data will provide a 

broader understanding of how use of force decisions are being made as well as 

the effectiveness of use of force training and policy. OTD/UFPD will work closely 

with other CBP offices to use and cross-reference this information. Initially, CBP 

will coordinate internally to ensure the owners of the different assault data 

collection systems and the Use of Force Reporting System share and analyze 

data. Long term, CBP will link these systems electronically so that this data is 

easily accessible and may be used to provide comprehensive use of force 

analysis to include assaults that did not result in a use of force by a CBP agent or 

officer. CBP will have internal coordination between system owners in place by 

the end of the first quarter, Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) and, barring any delays 

caused by limited resources, will have the systems connected electronically by 

the end of FY14. 

OIG Analysis: The actions planned by CBP appear to be consistent with the 

intent of the recommendation. Only when we examine the results of the CBP 

process modifications will we be able to determine if compliance has been 

achieved. We consider recommendation 2 Resolved-Open. 

Recommendation 3: Develop a formal process to evaluate use of force training 

field audit results and follow up on field audit recommendations. 

Management Response: CBP concurs. OTD/UFPD has conducted field training 

reviews at 32 locations since February 2012. Although a relatively new practice, 

these reviews have been extremely effective in identifying strengths, 

weaknesses, best practices, and providing general oversight of CBP's use of force 

training. The program was a proactive step implemented by CBP to improve 

field training, and we agree that further expansion of the program will only 

improve it. CBP is updating Use of Force policy to institutionalize the formal 

process governing use of force training reviews. CBP is developing and 

formalizing a Standard Operating Procedure that provides guidance for 

evaluating field review results and implementing review recommendations. An 

initial draft of the Standard Operating Procedure will be completed by the end of 

the 2nd quarter FY14. In addition, CBP is developing the capability to conduct 

more comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analyses of use of force 

incident reviews with the establishment of the Use of Force Center of Excellence 

(UFCE). Barring any delays caused by limited resources, CBP expects to have the 

UFCE established and this capability operational during FY14. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Analysis: The actions planned by CBP appear to be consistent with the 

intent of the recommendation. We will we determine if compliance has been 

achieved after reviewing the results of the CBP program changes. We consider 

recommendation 3 Resolved-Open. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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. 

In May 2012, Senator Robert Menendez and 15 members of Congress asked that we 

review incidents involving the use of force by CBP employees. Specifically, our 

objectives were to (1) examine and summarize reports of investigation alleging brutality 

and use of excessive force by CBP employees, (2) determine what reforms DHS has 

implemented to address the number of incidents involving the use of force by CBP 

employees, and (3) determine what effect adding more agents and officers to the 

workforce has had on training and professionalism. 

We conducted our fieldwork between September 2012 and April 2013. We reviewed 

current and former use of force policies, directives, and handbooks; use of force training 

curricula, guidebooks, schedules, and funding; and three OIG reports of investigation. In 

addition, we reviewed and analyzed data on excessive force and abuse allegations and 

investigations, intentional discharges of a weapon, staffing numbers of CBP agents and 

officers, use of force incidents within CBP, deadly force incidents within CBP, assaults on 

Border Patrol Agents, and numbers of OBP and OFO basic academy trainees and 

graduates. We also reviewed UFPD field audit reports, CBP use of force self-inspection 

records, and the results of a CBP internal review of use of force issues that included an 

external assessment of significant use of force shooting incidents by the Police Executive 

Research Forum. 

We conducted 40 meetings with 85 officials within DHS, CBP, the Department of Justice, 

the Mexican Embassy, and nongovernmental organizations. We visited the CBP 

Advanced Training Center in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, four times to observe lesslethal force and firearms use of force training and equipment. We also conducted a site 

visit to San Diego, California. During our site visit, we met with OBP officials and 

observed a UFPD field audit team conducting an audit of OBP and OFO use of force 

training. 

We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Council 

of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-13-114 
g . 

. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

J 300 Pennsylvania /\venue NW 

Washingwn, DC 20229 

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection 

August 9, 2013 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles. K. Edwards 

Deputy Inspector General 

Department of Homeland Security 

FROM: Assistant CoJrunissioner, Office oflnternal rs~J~ .11. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection yVV '~"""'"~ 7f:? · 

SUBJECT: Response to the Office oflnspector General's Draft Report "CRP 

Use of Force Training and Actions to Address Use of Force 

incidents " 

Thank you tor the opportunity to review and provide comment on this draft report entitled, "CBP 

Use of Force Training and Actions to Address u~e of Force incidents" (OJG-12-160-JSP-CBP). 

U.S. Customs and Dorder Protection (CDP} appreciates the acknowledgement of CDP's 

continued commitment to our workforce. As highlighted in the report, CBP's workforce surge 

did not affect use of force training but in fact, training remained consistent Also, the 

in: plementation of the polygraph examinations for all prospective law enforcement agents and 

officers has improved the quality of the CBP workforce by detecting unsuitable candidates. The 

report also recognizes the steps taken by CBP to address use of force incidents involving CDP 

employees, for instance: (I) completing an internal review of use of force issues; (2) beginning 

the tracking of all use of force incidents; (3) improving consistency in training for agents and 

officers, and the application of use of force standards and policies; and (4) initiating a field audit 

program to evaluate training across CHP field locations. 

The report mentions a number of agents and officers were unfamiliar with the use of force policy 

and the extent to which they may usc force. CBP would like to note, of the 32 fi eld training 

reviews conducTed to date, this was observed only once, at one location and involved a small 

number of agents on one training day. Jn that instance, field review team personnel took 

immediate action with the field instructors to address the problem and later to !lowed up with a 

wrilten after a<: tion report and verbal disnrssinns wilh that location's training nnd . This 

case illustrates the value and effectiveness of these fi eld reviews. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-13-114 
g . 

. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

The draft report contains three recommendations directed to CBP, with which we concur. 

Specifically, OIG recommended that: 

Rt!commt!ndatinn 1: Work with ICF: to implement a method in .IICMS to identify each use of 

force allegation involving an uffil:er or agent 

Response: CDP concurs. The CDP Office oflntemal Affairs, in collaboration with the CDP 

Office of Training and Development (OTD)/Cse offorce Policy Division (Uf PD) and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)!Offiec of Professional Responsibility, are 

developing a "menu" of categories in the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JTCMS) to 

help identity each use of torce incident or allegation involving an ofticer or agent. CBP and ICE 

are looking at a tentative JICMS release date of August 24, 2013. 

Recommendation 2: Develop a process to incorporate information regarding assaults on agents 

that did not result in agents using force into its analysis of use of force incidents. 

Response: CBP concurs. The addition of assault data where force was not used by the 

officer/agent VI~ II provide a baseline to compare with incidents where force was used by the 

officer/agent. This will provide a broader umlerstamling of how use of forl:e dedsions are being 

made in tl1e field as well as the effecli veness of use of force training and policy. The 

OTD/UFPD will work closely with other CDP offices to utilize and cross· reference tltis 

information. 

Initially, CBP will coordinate internally to ensure the owners of the different assault data 

collection systems and the Use of Force Reporting System share and analyze data. Long term, 

CBP will link these systems electronically so that this data is easily accessible and may be used 

to provide comprehensive use of force analysis to include assaults that did not result in a use of 

force by a CDP agent or officer. CDP will have internal coordination between system owners in 

place by the end of the first quarter, Fiscal Year 2014 (FYI4) and, barring any delays caused by 

limited resources, will have the systems connected electronically by the end ofFYI4. 

Recommendation 3 : Develop a formal process to evaluate use of force training field audit 

results and follow up on field audit recommendations. 

Response: CDP concurs. The OTD/llFPD has conducted field training reviews at 32 locations 

since February 2012. Although a r elatively new practice, these reviews have heen extremely 

effecti ve in identifying strengths, weakm:sses, best practices, and providing general oversight of 

CBP's use afforce training. The program was a proactive step implemented by CDP to improve 

field training and we agree that further expansion of the program will only improve it. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-13-114 
g . 

. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

CBP is updating Use of Force policy to institutionalize the formal process governing use offorce 

training reviews. C:RP is developing and fonnali7.ing a Standard Operating Procedure that 

provides guidance for ~:valuating fi eld revit:w results and impkmenting rt:view 

recommendations. ."l.ll initial draft of the Standard Operating Procedure will be completed by 

the end of the 2nd qurut er FY14. In addition, CBP is developing the capability to conduct more 

robust quantitative and qualitative analysis of usc of force incident reviews with the 

establishment of the Usc of Force Center of Excellence (UFCE). Barring any delays caused by 

limited resources, CBP expects to have the UFCE established 1111d this capability operational 

during FYI4. 

Alihough not specified as formal recommendations, we also agree with the OIG's 

recommendation that we should continue to expand the use of scenario-based training and 

continue to pursue new technologies to ensure field agents have the right sldlls and tools when 

needed. 

C:RP is committed to tht: w ntinual improvement of our ust: uf for~.:c:: programs, and will work 

with our u1ternal components and DHS pattners to implement the reconunendations. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Major Contributors to This Report 

William McCarron, Chief Inspector 

Douglas Ellice, Chief Inspector 

Jennifer A. Lindsey, Lead Inspector 

Tanya Suggs, Inspector 

Anne Cho, Inspector 

Ryan P. Cassidy, Inspector 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-13-114 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

CBP Liaison 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-13-114 
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your 

request to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

For additional information, visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on Twitter 

at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any 

other kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov 

and click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and 

submit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission 

through our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and 

reviewed by DHS OIG. 

Should you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing 

to: 

Department of Homeland Security 


Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 


Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline 


245 Murray Drive, SW 


Washington, DC 20528-0305 


You may also call 1(800) 323-8603 or fax the complaint directly to us at 

(202) 254-4297. 

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