United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 13, 2006 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler 

Chairman 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Immigration, 

 Border Security, and Claims 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Information on Immigration Enforcement and Supervisory Promotions in 

the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

and Customs and Border Protection 

After the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March 2003, two 

legacy enforcement agencies—the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) and the U.S. Customs Service (USCS)—were among the 22 federal agencies 

brought together within DHS.1

 This transformation in turn merged the legacy INS and 

USCS investigators2

 into the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office 

of Investigations (OI), and legacy INS and USCS inspectors,3 among others, into

Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It has been nearly 3 years since the merger 

and efforts to integrate thousands of federal employees within ICE and CBP continue. 

You raised questions about ongoing human capital challenges brought about by the 

integration of legacy enforcement employees within ICE and CBP. In prior work, we 

have reported on the management and human capital challenges DHS faces as it 

merges the workforces of legacy agencies, including the need to clarify the roles and 

 1

Prior to the merger, INS was part of the Department of Justice and USCS was part of the Department 

of the Treasury. 2

 Investigators in legacy INS conducted investigations into immigration-related cases, such as alien 

smuggling, while legacy USCS investigators conducted investigations into customs-related cases, such 

as international money laundering and the import and export of illegal drugs. ICE investigators 

conduct investigations of both immigration and customs-related cases. 3

 Inspectors in legacy INS primarily conducted immigration-related inspections at ports of entry, such 

as inspections of persons entering the country for admissibility. Legacy USCS inspectors primarily

conducted customs-related inspections at ports of entry, such as inspections for the entry of goods and 

merchandise into the country. CBP officers conduct both immigration and customs-related inspections

at ports of entry. 

 GAO-06-751R
responsibilities of the new agencies, the difficulty of legacy staff operating from

separate locations, and how it decides to allocate investigative resources.4

This report addresses the following objectives: 

1. How many investigative work years were dedicated to immigration

enforcement activities for fiscal years 1999 through 2005? 

2. What factors does ICE use as the basis for allocating its investigative 

resources? 

3. What assessments do ICE and CBP use as a basis for making decisions on 

supervisory promotions? 

4. Have ICE and CBP supervisory promotions been distributed between legacy 

INS and USCS staff in proportion to the supervisory staff each legacy agency 

brought to ICE and CBP? 

To obtain information on investigative work years on immigration enforcement, we 

compared investigative resource use data from legacy INS for fiscal years 1999 

through 2003 from its Performance Analysis System5

 to similar data for ICE for fiscal

years 2004 and 2005 using the investigative case categories added to its Treasury 

Enforcement Communication System (TECS) after the formation of ICE.6

 We define 

immigration enforcement as the number of work years7

 spent on investigations by 

legacy INS and ICE investigative staff of criminal aliens (aliens who were arrested for 

criminal activity unrelated to their immigration status), human smuggling (the 

surreptitious entry of people into the United States for profit by a third party in 

violation of immigration laws) and trafficking (the surreptitious entry of people into 

the United States for profit by a third party in violation of immigration laws that 

involves the threat of force or coercion), employers of unauthorized workers 

(improper employment of undocumented workers), identity and benefit fraud (willful 

misrepresentation of material fact on the petition or application for an immigration 

benefit and the manufacturing, counterfeiting, alteration, sale and use of fraudulent 

documents to circumvent immigration laws and/or for other criminal activity), and 

other immigration violations. 

To determine the factors ICE uses to allocate investigative resources, we used our 

previous 2006 report that examined how ICE allocates its investigative resources.8

 To 

 4

 GAO, Homeland Security: Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration 

Programs, GAO-05-81 (Washington, D.C.: October 2004). GAO, Homeland Security: Better 

Management Practices Could Enhance DHS’s Ability to Allocate Investigative Resources, GAO-06-

48SU (Washington, D.C.: December 2005). 5

 PAS is the system INS used to record the time it devoted to immigration activities, including

investigations. 6

 TECS is a management information system used by legacy USCS to document its investigative

activities. Before the formation of ICE, TECS contained investigative case categories to capture 

activity for Customs-related investigations. In fiscal year 2004, additional case categories for 

immigration investigative activities were added to these. 7

 Work years equal total investigative hours divided by 2,080, the number of hours in a standard work

year. 8

 See GAO-06-48SU. 

Page 2 GAO-06-751R
determine the assessments ICE and CBP use to make supervisory promotion 

decisions, we interviewed ICE and CBP human capital and program officials who 

were knowledgeable about human capital policies and actions and reviewed 

documentation concerning these policies and actions. Finally, to determine if ICE and 

CBP supervisory promotions have been distributed between legacy INS and USCS 

staff in proportion to the supervisory staff each legacy agency brought to ICE and 

CBP, we analyzed ICE and CBP personnel and supervisory promotion decisions. We 

did not independently review any ICE or CBP promotion decisions. 

To assess the reliability of the investigative resource and human capital data, we 

discussed the data collection methods and internal control processes for ensuring 

data quality with responsible officials and staff and reviewed the data for 

reasonableness. To test the human capital data for reasonableness, we used the data 

to compute frequencies and other summary analyses, examined the data and 

summary analyses for outliers (large values that are inconsistent with other data), 

and compared the data/analyses to other known agency documentation. We found 

that the data we used for our analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report. 

In April 2006, we briefed your offices on the results of our work. This report conveys 

the information provided during those discussions with some additional detail (see 

enclosure). 

We performed our work from January 2006 through May 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Summary 

• Investigative work years for immigration enforcement were generally declining 

under INS, but have increased since ICE was formed in 2003. Specifically, 

investigative work years for immigration enforcement under INS decreased by 

about 14 percent from fiscal years 1999 through 2002, and increased in fiscal year 

2003. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001, INS was having difficulty 

recruiting and retaining staff and INS experienced about an 8 to 9 percent annual 

attrition in investigative staff, which in part explains the decrease in work years 

during the 1999 through 2002 period. The number of investigative work years 

spent on immigration enforcement investigations rose by 2 percent in fiscal year 

2004 and by 16 percent in fiscal year 2005. 

Page 3 GAO-06-751R
• ICE uses a combination of factors to allocate its investigative resources, including 

whether an investigation indicates a potential threat to national security, the 

execution of special programs run out of headquarters divisions and units like 

Operation Community Shield, which targets violent street gang members, and 

carry-over legacy activities, such as support for implementation of the national 

drug control strategy. About half of ICE investigative resources were used for 

drug, financial (the criminal or civil violation of financial laws enforced by ICE, 

such as money laundering), and general alien (the varied criminal and 

administrative cases where the subject’s alienage is a requirement of the offense) 

investigations in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. 

• ICE and CBP supervisory promotion decisions are based on weighted 

assessments measuring supervisory skills as well as knowledge of investigative 

and inspectional procedures and laws. Assessments common to ICE and CBP 

that do not require specialized legacy agency knowledge and are evaluated 

through testing are Critical Thinking (logic and problem solving), Managerial 

Writing (written communication), and an In-basket Job Simulation (ability to 

prioritize and manage). The Job Knowledge Test in ICE measures knowledge of 

customs and immigration laws and general investigative procedures across the 

range of ICE investigative activities and is divided into equally weighted sections 

testing knowledge of smuggling and public safety, financial investigations, 

investigative services, national security investigations, and general criminal 

investigations techniques. CBP's Career Experience Inventory measures 

knowledge of customs and immigration laws and inspectional procedures as well 

as experience performing supervisory and management functions. We did not 

verify these assessments or test how well they measure the knowledge and skills 

they address. 

• For one promotion cycle in ICE, legacy INS staff received about two-thirds of the 

total supervisory promotions to GS grades 14 and 15. In fiscal year 2004, ICE 

noncompetitively promoted more than 200 legacy INS GS-13 supervisors to GS-14 

to bring about parity with legacy USCS supervisory investigators who were at the 

GS-14 grade level. Promotions were more proportional to existing on board 

distributions of legacy supervisory personnel in fiscal year 2005, that is, legacy 

INS supervisors constituted 34 percent of the GS-14 and -15 supervisors and 

received 36 percent of the promotions that year. At CBP, the distribution of GS-12 

to -15 supervisory promotions for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 was generally 

proportional to the distribution of legacy staff in those positions at the start of 

each fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2004, legacy INS staff constituted 34 

percent of the on board supervisors and received 30 percent of the promotions, 

while legacy USCS staff constituted 66 percent of the on board supervisors and 

received 70 percent of the promotions. 

Page 4 GAO-06-751R
Agency Comments 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Homeland 

Security. The Department of Homeland Security responded that it had no comments. 

As we agreed with your office, we will send copies to the Department of Homeland 

Security, and other interested congressional committees. 

If your office or staff has any questions concerning this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-8816 or by e-mail at Stanar@gao.gov or Michael Dino, Assistant Director, at 

(213) 830-1150 or Dinom@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Amy 

Bernstein, Tony DeFrank, Curtis Groves, Wilfred Holloway, Wendy Johnson, Mimi 

Nguyen, and Jeremy Sebest. 

Richard M. Stana, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

Enclosure 

Page 5 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I Enclosure I 

1

Homeland Security: 

Immigration Enforcement and Supervisory 

Promotions Under ICE and CBP

Briefing to the House Subcommittee on

Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, Committee

on the Judiciary

Page 6 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

2

Introduction

• When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established in March 2003, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Customs Service (USCS), along 

with other agencies, were merged into DHS. Investigators from legacy INS and USCS

became part of the newly created U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations (OI) and legacy INS and USCS inspectors became part of the

newly created Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which serve as the investigative and 

border security agencies of DHS.

• Merging these legacy enforcement agencies has raised concerns about human capital 

challenges that DHS faces as it merges the workforces of legacy agencies, including the 

need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the new agencies, the difficulty of legacy

staff operating from different locations, and how it decides to allocate investigative 

resources.1

• This briefing addresses the levels of immigration enforcement activity conducted by legacy INS and ICE for certain years, and the human capital issues related to supervisory promotions in ICE and CBP.

1GAO, Homeland Security: Management Challenges Remain in Transforming Immigration Programs, GAO-05-81 (Washington, D.C.: October 2004). GAO, Homeland Security: Better Management Practices Could Enhance DHS’s Ability to Allocate Investigative Resources, GAO-06-48SU

(Washington, D.C.: December 2005).

Page 7 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

3

Objectives

1) How many investigative work years were dedicated to

immigration enforcement activities for fiscal years 1999-

2005?

2) What factors does ICE use as the basis for allocating 

its investigative resources? 

3) What assessments do ICE and CBP use as a basis for

making decisions on supervisory promotions? 

4) Have ICE and CBP supervisory promotions been 

distributed between legacy INS and USCS staff in

proportion to the supervisory staff each legacy agency

brought to ICE and CBP? 

Page 8 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

4

Scope & Methodology

• Compared investigative resource use data from legacy INS and ICE.

• Reviewed previous GAO work that examined how ICE allocates its investigative 

resources.2

• Interviewed ICE and CBP staff knowledgeable about human capital policies and 

actions, and reviewed documentation concerning these policies and actions.

• Reviewed ICE and CBP promotion criteria that included their assessment test

study guides and CBP’s career experience inventory for promotion decisions.

• Analyzed ICE and CBP personnel and promotion data by pay grade.3

• We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards from January 2006 through May 2006.

2 See GAO-06-48SU. 3 Pay grades are defined in the Office of Personnel Management’s General Schedule (GS).

Page 9 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

5

Background

ICE Investigators and Supervisors (GS 14-15)

ICE Investigators and GS 14-15 Supervisors On Board as of 

October 2003 and February 2006, by Legacy Agency

Page 10 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

6

Background

CBP Officers and Supervisors (GS12-15)

CBP Officers and GS 12-15 Supervisors On Board as of

October 2003 and February 2006, by Legacy Agency

Page 11 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

7

Objective 1

Investigative work years dedicated to immigration 

enforcement activities for fiscal years 1999-2005

Investigative Work Years for Immigration Enforcement Were

Declining under INS, but Have Increased since ICE Was Formed4

4According to INS data, the INS had about 8%-9% annual attrition in investigative staff for FY 1999 through FY 2001, and was having difficulty recruiting and retaining staff INS-wide.

Investigative work years are calculated by dividing the number of investigative hours in immigration case categories by 2,080—the number of work hours in a standard work year.

Page 12 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

8

Objective 2

ICE allocation of investigative resources

Resource Allocation in ICE Is Determined by Priorities Set by Local Special 

Agents-in-Charge (SAC), with Headquarters Direction and Carryover

Legacy Activities Playing a Role

• Local SACs take various factors into account when making resource allocation

decisions, such as whether the investigations under consideration indicate

threats to national security.

• Divisions and units within ICE headquarters develop and manage special 

programs like Operation Community Shield, a program targeting violent street

gangs, that are implemented in multiple SAC offices.

• Carryover legacy activities, such as implementing the national drug control 

strategy, also drive resource use. About half of investigative resources were

used for drug, financial, and general alien investigations in fiscal years 2004 and 

2005.

• As we have reported, ICE does not have a formal risk management process for 

prioritizing and allocating resources.

5

5GAO-06-48SU.

Page 13 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

9

Objective 3

Assessments used by ICE and CBP as a basis

for supervisory and management promotions

ICE and CBP Promotions Based on Competencies and Assessments Measuring Supervisory Skills as well as Knowledge of Investigative or Inspectional Procedures

and Laws

Promotion competencies (management, leadership, thinking, and communication) and

assessments developed by subject matter and human capital experts. The assessments

include the following components: 

• Job knowledge test (JKT) - ICE

• Career experience inventory (CEI) - CBP

• Critical thinking skills test - ICE and CBP

• Managerial writing test - ICE and CBP

• In-basket job simulation test - ICE and CBP

• Structured Oral Interview - ICE

• ICE and CBP promotion assessments are not tied exclusively to agency knowledge. The 

ICE JKT measures knowledge of immigration and customs laws and investigative 

procedures, and CBP's CEI measures knowledge of immigration and customs laws and 

inspectional procedures in addition to capturing the quantity and quality of legacy agency and managerial experience.

• We did not verify these assessments or test how well they measure the knowledge and 

skills they address.

Page 14 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

10

Objective 4

CBP and ICE promotion distributions for legacy

staff

For CBP, the Percentage of GS-12 through GS-15 Supervisors from Legacy INS and

USCS Stayed About the Same, While at ICE the Percentage of Legacy INS GS-14 and

GS-15 Supervisory Investigators Increased6

6In June 2004, over 200 GS-13 legacy INS supervisors received promotions to GS-14. These promotions constituted over 75 percent of legacy

INS supervisory promotions that year.

Page 15 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

11

Objective 4

Supervisory promotion distributions for legacy

staff in ICE

In Fiscal Year 2004, the Majority of Supervisory Promotions to GS 14-15 Went to 

Legacy INS Staff; in Fiscal Year 2005, the Percentage of Promotions was About 

Equal to the Percentage of On Board Supervisors in GS 14-15 for Legacy INS and

USCS

.

Page 16 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

12

Objective 4

Overall distributions for legacy investigator staff

in ICE

Among ICE Criminal Investigator Staff, a Greater percentage of Legacy INS and 

USCS Agents were at GS-13 or Higher in February 2006 than in October 20037

7In fiscal year 2004, over 1200 legacy INS GS-12 investigators were promoted to GS-13 to give them parity with legacy USCS investigators.

Page 17 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

13

Objective 4

Supervisory promotion distributions for legacy

staff in CBP

CBP Supervisory Promotions to GS-12 through GS-15 for FY04-06 were 

Generally Proportional to Distributions of Legacy Staff in Those

Positions at the Start of Each Fiscal Year

Page 18 GAO-06-751R
Enclosure I 

14

Objective 4

Overall distributions for legacy staff in CBP

A Greater Percentage of Legacy INS and USCS CBP Officers

Were at GS-11 or Higher in February 2006 than in October 2003

(440480)

Page 19 GAO-06-751R
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER