SOUTHWEST 

BORDER SECURITY

Data Are Limited and 

Concerns Vary about 

Spillover Crime along 

the Southwest Border

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2013

GAO-13-175

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-175, a report to 

congressional requesters 

February 2013 

SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY 

Data Are Limited and Concerns Vary about Spillover 

Crime along the Southwest Border 

Why GAO Did This Study

Drug-related homicides have 

dramatically increased in recent years 

in Mexico along the nearly 2,000-mile 

border it shares with the United States. 

U.S. federal, state, and local officials 

have stated that the prospect of crime, 

including violence, spilling over from 

Mexico into the southwestern United 

States is a concern. GAO was asked to 

review crime rates and assess 

information on spillover crime along the 

border. Specifically, this report 

addresses: (1) What information do 

reported crime rates in southwest 

border communities provide on 

spillover crime and what do they 

show? (2) What efforts, if any, have 

federal, state, and select local law 

enforcement agencies made to track 

spillover crime along the southwest 

border? (3) What concerns, if any, do 

these agencies have about spillover 

crime? (4) What steps, if any, have 

these agencies taken to address 

spillover crime? 

GAO analyzed crime data from all of 

the 24 southwest border counties from 

2004 through 2011 and federal 

documentation, such as threat 

assessments and DHS’s plans for 

addressing violence along the 

southwest border. GAO interviewed 

officials from DHS and DOJ and their 

components. GAO also interviewed 

officials from 37 state and local law 

enforcement agencies responsible for 

investigating and tracking crime in the 

border counties in the four southwest 

border states (Arizona, California, New 

Mexico, and Texas). While the results 

of the interviews are not generalizable, 

they provided insights. GAO is not 

making any recommendations. DHS 

provided comments, which highlighted 

border-related crime initiatives 

recognized by GAO.

What GAO Found

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 

Program, the government’s centralized repository for crime data, provides the 

only available standardized way to track crime levels in border counties over 

time. However, UCR data lack information on whether reported offenses are 

attributable to spillover crime, and have other limitations, such as underreporting

to police. Also, UCR data cannot be used to identify links with crimes often 

associated with spillover from Mexico, such as cartel-related drug trafficking. 

Cognizant of these limitations, GAO’s analysis of data for southwest border 

counties with sufficiently complete data show that, generally, both violent and 

property crimes were lower in 2011 than in 2004. For example, the violent crime 

rate in three states’ border counties was lower by at least 26 percent in 2011 

than in 2004 and in one other state lower by 8 percent in 2011 than in 2005.

Law enforcement agencies have few efforts to track spillover crime. No common 

federal government definition of such crime exists, and Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) components, including those 

with a definition, either do not collect data to track spillover crime, or do not 

maintain such data that can be readily retrieved and analyzed. However, several 

components collect violent incident data that could serve as indirect indicators of 

spillover crime. For example, GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) data show that, generally, assaults on agents between 

southwest border ports of entry were about 25 percent lower in 2012 than in 

2006. State and local law enforcement agencies, except for one state agency, do 

not track what might be considered to be spillover crime because they lack a 

common definition and do not systematically collect these crime data in a way 

that can be used to analyze trends. Officials from 22 of 37 state and local 

agencies told GAO that they have limited resources to collect additional data. 

Since April 2012, DHS and the Texas Department of Public Safety have coled an

effort to propose definitions and metrics for border-related crime by March 2013.

Law enforcement agencies have varying concerns regarding the extent to which 

violent crime from Mexico spills into southwest border communities. While DHS 

and DOJ threat assessments indicate that violent infighting between drug cartels 

has remained largely in Mexico, DHS assessments also show that aggressive 

tactics used by traffickers to evade capture demonstrate an increasing threat to 

U.S. law enforcement. Also, officials in 31 of the 37 state and local agencies 

stated that they have not observed violent crime from Mexico regularly spilling

into their counties; nonetheless, officials in 33 of the 37 agencies were at least 

somewhat concerned, for example, for the safety of their personnel or residents. 

Law enforcement agencies have undertaken initiatives to target border-related 

crime, including one effort to address violent crime spilling over from Mexico. For 

example, in October 2008, DHS developed a contingency plan for the possibility 

that a significant southwest border violence escalation may exceed DHS assets’ 

ability to respond. In addition, officials from all state and local law enforcement 

agencies that GAO spoke with said their agencies had undertaken some efforts, 

either individually or in partnership with others, to combat criminal activities often 

associated with spillover crime, such as drug and human smuggling.

View GAO-13-175. For more information, 

contact Cary B. Russell at (202) 512-5431 or 

russellc@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Letter 1 

Background 6

Best Available Data Cannot Be Used to Make Insights about 

Spillover Crime but Show a General Decline in Reported Crime 

Rates in Counties with Sufficiently Complete Data along the 

Southwest Border 11

Few Law Enforcement Agencies Track Spillover Crime along the 

Southwest Border 16

Law Enforcement Agencies Have Varying Concerns about Potential 

Effects of Violent Crime in Mexico on Border Communities 22

Law Enforcement Agencies Have Initiatives that Target Borderrelated Crime, Including a Federal Contingency Plan to Address 

Violent Crime Spilling Over from Mexico 27

Agency Comments 28

Appendix I Southwest Border Counties by State 30

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix III Comparison of UCR SRS with NIBRS 36

Appendix IV UCR Data Tables for Southwest Border Counties, 2004-2011 39

Appendix V Results from Analyzing UCR SRS and NIBRS Crime Data 43

Appendix VI Assaults against Border Patrol Agents by Border Patrol 

Sector, Fiscal Years 2006-2012 52

Appendix VII Select Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Efforts 

along the Southwest Border 56

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 59

Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60

Tables

Table 1: Department of Justice and Department of Homeland 

Security Components Combating Drug Cartel–Related

Activities along the Southwest Border 8

Table 2: Uniform Crime Reporting Summary Reporting System and 

National-Incident Based Reporting System Offenses 37

Table 3: Types of Information in Uniform Crime Reporting 

Summary and National-Incident Based Reporting Systems 38

Table 4: Data Tables on Assaults against Border Patrol Agents by 

Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006-2012 54

Table 5: Select Federal Law Enforcement Entities’ Efforts to 

Combat Mexican Drug Cartel-Related Activities along the 

Southwest Border 56

Table 6: Select State and Local Law Enforcement Efforts to Target 

Border-Related Crime 58

Figures

Figure 1: Violent and Property Crime Rates in Southwest Border 

States by Border and Nonborder Counties, 2004-2011 13

Figure 2: Assaults against Border Patrol Agents in Southwest 

Border Patrol Sectors by Category, Fiscal Years 2006-2012 18

Figure 3: Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Population In Southwest 

Border and Nonborder Counties, Combined by State, 

2004-2011 45

Figure 4: Total Number of Reported Violent Crimes in Seven Small 

Southwest Border Counties, 2004-2011 47

Figure 5 : Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Population for Border 

and Nonborder Counties Combined by State, 2004-2011 49

Figure 6: Total Number of Reported Property Crimes in Small 

Southwest Border Counties, 2004-2011 51

Figure 7: Number of Assaults against Border Patrol Agents by 

Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006-2012 53
Page iii GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Abbreviations

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CRS Congressional Research Service

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System

SRS Summary Reporting System

UCR Uniform Crime Reporting

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
Page 1 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

February 26, 2013

The Honorable Bennie Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable Henry Cuellar

Member

House of Representatives

The U.S. government has identified Mexican drug cartels—whose 

trafficking of drugs, cash, and firearms engenders violence—as an 

organized crime threat to the United States. Drug cartel-related violence, 

including kidnappings and homicides, has dramatically increased in 

recent years in Mexico. Based on data compiled by the Trans-Border 

Institute at the University of San Diego, homicides related to organized 

crime increased by 523 percent from 2006 (1,152) through 2011 (7,178) 

in the six Mexican states that share the nearly 2,000-mile border with the 

United States.1

Stakeholders view the term “spillover” differently. Depending on the 

stakeholder, the term “spillover” might refer only to Mexican drug cartelAs an extension of its counternarcotics policy, and in 

response to the possibility that violence in Mexico may spread, or spill 

over, to the United States, the U.S. government has been supporting 

Mexico’s campaign against Mexican drug cartels by implementing 

bilateral security initiatives, enhancing border security programs, and 

introducing initiatives to reduce the movement of drugs, money, and 

weapons to and from Mexico.

 

1

For more information, see Trans-Border Institute, Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and 

Analysis Through 2010 (University of San Diego: February 2011), and Trans-Border 

Institute, Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis Through 2011 (University of San 

Diego: March 2012).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

related violence or be defined as a broader concept of spillover crime, 

which includes both violent and nonviolent activities. Examples of such 

activities include rape or murder committed in connection with crossborder or drug cartel activity; keeping smuggled aliens in stash houses 

and ransoming them back to Mexico; smuggling of firearms, drugs, and 

people; vandalism such as littering on smuggling routes; and destroying 

private property, such as cutting fences and killing cattle. In addition, 

stakeholders have varying perspectives on the existence and effects of 

crime spilling over from Mexico into communities along the southwest 

border. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet 

Napolitano testified in 2009 that increases in drug cartel-related violence 

in the United States were far below Mexican levels and were limited to 

acts of violence between cartel members and assaults on U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection’s (CBP) Border Patrol agents.2 In 2011, she stated 

that while the United States must continue to guard against spillover 

effects of drug cartel-related violence in Mexico, border communities were 

among the safest in America.3 On the other hand, some members of 

Congress and officials from state governments and state and local law 

enforcement agencies have publicly asserted that drug cartel-related 

violent crime is spilling over from Mexico into the United States, 

endangering the lives and property of Americans living in U.S. southwest 

border communities. Federal law does not specifically require the 

collection of data on spillover crime, but legislation has been introduced in 

Congress that would require federal agencies to report on incidents of 

cross-border violence or on their ability to track and quantify the level of 

cross-border violence occurring along the southwest border.4

You asked us to review crime rates and assess information on spillover 

crime from Mexico in communities along the U.S.-Mexico border. This 

report addresses the following questions: (1) What information do 

 

2

Southern Border Violence: Homeland Security Threats, Vulnerabilities, and 

Responsibilities, Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, 111th Cong. (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25, 2009) (statement of Janet Napolitano, 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security).

3

Securing the Border: Progress at the Federal Level, Before the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 112th Cong. (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 

2011) (statement of Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security). 

4

H.R. 2124, 112th Cong. (2011); H.R. 6368, 112th Cong. (as passed by the House, Sept. 

19, 2012).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

reported crime rates in southwest border communities provide on 

spillover crime and what do they show? (2) What efforts, if any, have 

federal, state, and select local law enforcement agencies made to track 

spillover crime along the southwest border? (3) What concerns, if any, do 

these agencies have about spillover crime? (4) What steps, if any, have 

these agencies taken to address spillover crime?

To describe crime rates, we analyzed Summary Reporting System (SRS) 

data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime 

Reporting (UCR) Program—the government’s centralized repository for 

crime data—from January 2004 through December 2011 for the four 

southwest border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas).5

We selected January 2004 as the initial date because it provided us with 

data for more than 2 years prior to December 2006, when Mexican 

President Felipe Calderón took office and began a major military 

offensive against Mexican drug cartels. We also analyzed UCR’s National 

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data, available from January 

2007 through December 2010, for the single southwest border law 

enforcement agency reporting such data—the sheriff’s office in Yuma 

County, Arizona.6

 

5

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in 

November 2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise 

these data until the end of the calendar year 2012.

To assess the reliability of the UCR data, we conducted 

analyses to test for irregularities in the data, reviewed FBI documentation 

on how the data can and cannot be used and on the FBI’s procedures for 

ensuring UCR data quality, and interviewed FBI officials knowledgeable 

about the data. On the basis of this assessment, we excluded some 

counties from our analysis because they did not report complete crime 

data to the FBI. We concluded that the data for the remaining counties 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. In addition, to 

determine what other data are systematically collected in southwest 

border counties, we interviewed officials from the state and local law 

enforcement agencies that are responsible for investigating and tracking 

crime occurring in their jurisdictions. At the state level, we conducted 

6

NIBRS includes data on individual crime incidents, including information about the nature 

and types of specific offenses in the incident, characteristics of the victims and offenders, 

and the types and value of any property stolen and recovered. We did not analyze 2011 

NIBRS data for the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office because the FBI said the office was 

experiencing record management system problems and could not provide complete 2011 

NIRBS data.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

interviews with officials from the California Highway Patrol, and the 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas Departments of Public Safety.7 At the 

local level, we interviewed officials representing 21 of the 24 sheriffs’ 

offices in southwest border counties and 12 large municipal police 

departments in the border counties.8

Further, we conducted site visits to five southwest border counties: Pima 

and Santa Cruz Counties in Arizona, and Cameron, Hidalgo, and Webb 

Counties in Texas. We selected these counties because they represent 

diverse urban and rural environments and contain geographic features, 

such as rivers and mountains, which could affect the levels and types of 

crime they experience. As part of our visits, in addition to interviewing 

state and local law enforcement agencies, we met with federal officials, 

such as CBP agents and officers operating between and at the ports of 

entry along the southwest border. The information we obtained from 

these visits is not generalizable to all southwest border counties, but it 

provides insights on the perspectives that law enforcement 

representatives have on crime occurring in southwest border 

communities.

We selected departments from each 

of four states, and we selected large departments because on the basis 

of our review of the UCR SRS data, in general, large departments had 

more reported crimes than did smaller departments. A list of the 24 

southwest border counties can be found in appendix I. In total, we 

interviewed officials from 37 state and law enforcement agencies on the 

southwest border.

To describe efforts agencies have taken to track spillover crime, we 

collected information, such as crime reports and documentation on 

categories of data collected, from and conducted interviews with the state 

and local law enforcement agencies identified above, as well as with 

federal agencies that have responsibilities for combating drug cartel–

related activities along the southwest border. For example, these federal 

agencies include components and intelligence offices from DHS, such as 

 

7

The California Department of Justice is the agency that collects and reports crime data in 

California. However, in response to our interview request, California Department of Justice

officials referred us to the California Highway Patrol as the agency best qualified to 

discuss what crime data are collected in the California jurisdictions along the southwest 

border.

8

Officials from 2 sheriffs’ offices in Texas were not available for interviews and 1 sheriff’s 

office in Texas declined our request for an interview.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

CBP and DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis; Department of Justice 

(DOJ), such as Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the FBI; and 

interagency task forces, such as the Border Enforcement Security Task 

Force.9

To identify concerns about spillover crime, we reviewed threat 

assessments for the southwest border developed by federal agencies, 

such as DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. In addition, we 

included questions in our interviews with the officials from 37 state and 

local law enforcement agencies about their concerns regarding the 

existence and potential effects of crime from Mexico spilling into their 

communities. In addition, to obtain the perspectives of local businesses in 

southwest border counties about what concerns, if any, they may have 

about spillover crime, we interviewed officials from Chambers of 

Commerce in four of the five counties we visited—Cameron, Hidalgo, 

Santa Cruz, and Webb Counties.

We asked agencies about their efforts to track spillover crime, any 

challenges they encountered in doing so, and whether they collected or 

tracked other data they considered related to spillover crime and violence 

on the southwest border. Specifically, we analyzed CBP data on the 

number of assaults on Border Patrol agents in southwest border patrol 

sectors from fiscal years 2006 through 2012, and the number of assaults 

on Office of Field Operations personnel at southwest border ports of entry 

for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the date ranges for which these data were 

available. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed relevant 

documentation, such as procedures for collecting data consistently, and 

interviewed officials responsible for the data. On the basis of our efforts, 

we determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report.

10

 

9

The Border Enforcement Security Task Force is led by DHS’s Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement in partnership with federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement 

counterparts to stem cross-border criminal activity and associated violence. There are 14 

teams located along the southwest border.

While the results of these interviews 

are not generalizeable to all local businesses or Chambers of Commerce 

on the southwest border, they provide perspectives about the effects that 

violence in Mexico might have had on the businesses in their 

communities.

10We did not interview officials from a Chamber of Commerce in Pima County because 

the county’s major city, Tucson, is not located directly on the border with Mexico. 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

To describe steps that agencies have taken to address spillover crime, 

we reviewed agency protocols and contingency plans, such as the DHS 

Operations Plan for Southwest Border Violence, from and conducted 

interviews with federal, state, and local agencies and task forces

identified above. Additional details on our scope and methodology are 

contained in appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 through 

February 2013, in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government has taken a number of steps to combat threats 

posed by drug cartels, including potential crime and violence directed 

against U.S. citizens and government interests. For example, in 2008, the 

U.S. government began a program—known as the Mérida Initiative—to 

provide Mexico and the countries of Central America with financial and 

technical assistance for counterdrug efforts, among others.11 In March 

2009, as a response to the violence in Mexico, DHS announced a new 

southwest border initiative to guard against violent crime spillover into the 

United States by increasing the deployment of personnel and technology 

along the southwest border. In addition, in June 2009, the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy issued the National Southwest Border 

Counternarcotics Strategy with the goal to substantially reduce the flow of 

illicit drugs, drug proceeds, and associated instruments of violence across 

the southwest border.12

 

11According to the State Department, the Mérida Initiative received $1.6 billion since its 

start in fiscal year 2008.

To accomplish this goal, the strategy listed 

disrupting and dismantling drug-trafficking organizations along the 

12This strategy was issued pursuant to Section 1110 of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-469, § 1110, 120 Stat. 3502, 3543-

44).

Background

Federal Border Security 

and Counternarcotics 

Efforts
 

Page 7 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

southwest border as one of its key objectives. In August 2010, President 

Barack Obama signed an emergency supplemental appropriation for 

border security, which included $600 million in supplemental funds for 

enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities.

13 The 

President also separately authorized the temporary deployment of up to 

an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to assist law 

enforcement agencies in their efforts to target illicit networks’ trafficking in 

people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money, and the violence associated 

with these illegal activities. Moreover, in May 2011, DHS Secretary 

Napolitano stated that CBP, in partnership with independent third-party 

stakeholders, had begun the process of developing an index to 

comprehensively and systematically measure security along the 

southwest border and quality of life in the region. As we reported in May 

2012, this index—the Border Condition Index—is being developed, and 

accordingly, it is too early to determine how it will be used to provide 

oversight of border security efforts.14

At the federal level, five agencies in two departments are responsible for 

securing the border and combating drug cartel–related activities along the 

southwest border. These agencies enforce federal laws related to, among 

other things, immigration, drugs, weapons, and organized crime. 

Additionally, they collect data related to their criminal investigations and 

operations to support prosecutions. Specifically, they track violations of 

federal criminal statutes relevant to their responsibilities, including the 

number of pending and closed cases, arrests, convictions, indictments, 

seizures, and forfeitures. Table 1 presents information on these law 

enforcement agencies and their responsibilities.

 

13Among other items, the supplemental appropriation provided $244 million to hire new 

and maintain existing levels of Border Patrol agents and CBP officers on the southwest 

border and $80 million for new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and 

supporting investments along the southwest border. It also provided $196 million for DOJ 

to increase federal law enforcement activities in the southwest border region. (Pub. L. No. 

111-230, 124 Stat. 2485, 2485, 2486, 2486-87 (2010)).

14In the past, we have reported on a variety of DHS border security programs and related 

performance goals and measures. For a list of our reports that examined DHS’s efforts to 

secure the U.S. borders, please see Related Products page in GAO, Border Patrol 

Strategy: Progress and Challenges in Implementation and Assessment Efforts, 

GAO-12-688T (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2012).

Federal, State, and Local 

Responsibilities
 

Page 8 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Table 1: Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Components Combating Drug Cartel-Related Activities 

along the Southwest Border

Organization Responsibilities

DOJ Drug Enforcement Administration Enforce drug laws; pursue investigations and develop intelligence with the goal of 

identifying, infiltrating, and dismantling drug-trafficking organizations and disrupting 

their operations.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Enforce laws and conduct investigations related to combating transnational and 

national criminal organizations and enterprises. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

Enforce laws and pursue investigations related to stopping illegal gun trafficking 

from the United States to Mexico.

DHS U.S. Customs and Border Protection Enforce U.S. immigration laws and interdict persons and contraband crossing the 

border illegally. Within CBP, the Office of Field Operations is responsible for the 

interdictions at the legal border crossing points, and the Border Patrol is 

responsible for the interdictions between those points.

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement

Enforce federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration. 

Within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security 

Investigations is responsible for enforcing U.S. laws covering a wide range of 

domestic and international activities arising from the illegal movement of people 

and goods into, within, and out of the United States to combat transnational 

criminal organizations.

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents and interviews with agency officials.

In addition to enforcing laws, a number of agencies have intelligence 

components and oversee interagency task forces responsible for 

collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information related to threats 

from the drug cartels. These components include DHS’s Office of 

Intelligence and Analysis and intelligence offices within CBP and U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as DOJ’s DEA, and 

the FBI. These entities produce various intelligence products, such as 

threat assessments, related to Mexican drug cartel-related activities in 

support of law enforcement operations. Also, the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy, in the Executive Office of the President, is responsible for 

coordinating the national drug control effort, and designates areas within 

the United Sates that are significant centers of illegal drug production, 

manufacturing, importation, or distribution as High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Areas. Law enforcement agencies in these designated areas 

collect and share intelligence and coordinate interagency task forces to 

target drug-trafficking operations.

At the state and local levels, sheriffs’ offices and municipal police 

departments are responsible for investigating and tracking crime 

occurring in their jurisdictions, based on the laws of their respective 

states. If the investigation determines that the criminal violation falls under 

federal purview, such as an immigration violation, the local law 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

enforcement agency may refer the case to the appropriate federal agency 

and might not track such cases in its records. The Departments of Public 

Safety in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and the state Department of 

Justice in California, are responsible for overseeing the process for 

collecting, validating, and publishing crime data from local agencies.15

These agencies voluntarily submit crime data to the FBI, which is 

responsible for publishing and archiving national crime statistics.

The FBI oversees the UCR Program, the federal government’s 

centralized repository for crime data. The UCR Program provides a 

nationwide view of crime, and is based on the voluntary submission of a 

variety of statistics by city, county, and state law enforcement agencies.16

Begun in 1930, the UCR Program established a system to collect 

summary data, known as SRS data, and now contains 8 types of violent 

and property crimes, referred to as Part I offenses, that are reported to 

law enforcement agencies.17

 

15The California Department of Justice is the agency that collects and reports crime data 

in California. However, in response to our interview request, the agency referred us to the 

California Highway Patrol as the agency best qualified to discuss what crime data are 

collected in the California jurisdictions along the southwest border.

Violent crimes are composed of murder and 

nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated 

assault. Property crimes are composed of burglary, larceny-theft, motor 

vehicle theft, and arson. If multiple offenses are reported for an individual 

crime incident, only the highest-level offense is recorded. Offense data 

submitted to the FBI by local law enforcement agencies show the 

aggregate counts for reported crimes and arrests for the 8 Part I offenses 

and aggregate counts on arrests made for 21 other offenses, such as 

embezzlement, prostitution, and drug abuse violations. These UCR data 

can be used to measure fluctuations in the type and volume of crime for 

specific offenses in a particular jurisdiction for which they have been 

collected.

16University and college, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies also submit crime 

data to the UCR Program.

17In addition to the SRS data, the UCR Program contains statistics on the number of 

sworn officers and civilian law enforcement personnel, data on incidents in which law 

enforcement officers are killed or assaulted while performing their duties, and data on 

incidents of hate crimes. 

The UCR Program
 

Page 10 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

The FBI reported that 18,233 law enforcement agencies in the United 

States, representing 97.8 percent of the U.S. population, submitted UCR 

data in 2011. As of November 2012, law enforcement agencies in 46 

states and the District of Columbia were submitting UCR data through a 

state UCR Program, or a district system in the case of the District of 

Columbia. In the remaining 4 states, local law enforcement agencies 

submit UCR data directly to the FBI. State programs are to conform to 

national UCR Program standards, definitions, and quality control 

procedures in order for their data to be submitted to the FBI. The FBI is to 

help state UCR Programs meet these requirements by, among other 

actions, reviewing and editing data submitted by individual agencies and 

providing technical assistance on reporting procedures.

To meet the needs of the law enforcement community for more detailed 

crime data, the FBI introduced NIBRS in 1988 with the intent that local 

law enforcement agencies will transition from the SRS to NIBRS at their 

own pace. NIBRS collects data on more types of offenses than the 

traditional SRS and includes details on individual incidents, such as 

information on offenders, victims, property, and whether multiple offenses 

are reported in an individual crime incident. NIBRS collects offense and 

arrest data on 46 specific crimes grouped in 22 offense categories, which 

include 8 Part I offenses and other offenses, such as extortion and 

kidnapping. In addition, NIBRS collects arrest data for 10 other crimes, 

such as trespassing and driving under the influence. The data can be 

used to examine linkages among offenses, offenders, victims, property, 

and arrestees. Tables that list offenses collected for the UCR SRS and 

the NIBRS programs and summarize the main differences between the 

two crime data systems can be found in appendix III.

NIBRS allows local law enforcement agencies to report a wider range of 

offenses and arrests. However, the FBI reported that, as of 2011, 7,819 

law enforcement agencies, representing 28 percent of the U.S. 

population, contributed NIBRS data to the UCR Program. According to 

senior FBI officials, because of the voluntary nature of the UCR Program, 

implementation of the NIBRS occurs at the pace commensurate with the 

resources, abilities, and limitations of the contributing law enforcement 

agency. Since participation in the program is limited, the FBI converts 

NIBRS data submitted by law enforcement agencies to the format for the 

SRS data system. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

UCR SRS data provide the best available information on crime levels and 

crime trends in southwest border counties. Our interviews with officials 

from 33 of the 36 local law enforcement agencies in the southwest border 

counties determined that SRS data are the only crime data that those 

agencies collect in a systematic way—that is, in an automated form that 

can be readily retrieved and analyzed.18

The UCR data cannot be used to draw conclusions about the extent to 

which crimes are attributable to spillover from Mexico. The SRS does not 

collect data on all types of crimes committed in the United States that 

have been associated with Mexican drug-trafficking organizations, such 

as particular types of kidnappings or home invasions. Further, the SRS 

does not collect enough information, such as a motivation for committing 

a crime, to identify a link between violent or property crime rates and 

crimes associated with spillover from Mexico, such as drug trafficking. 

Because of its summary nature, the SRS does not provide data about 

individual crime incidents, including details on offenses, arrests, 

victim/offender relationships, or whether multiple offenses occurred in an 

individual crime incident. In addition, UCR data might also underreport the 

actual amount of crime that has occurred, since not all crimes are 

reported to law enforcement. For example, law enforcement officials with 

whom we spoke stated that individuals who may have been assaulted or 

robbed in the course of drug trafficking and other illicit activities are 

hesitant to report their involvement to the police. Moreover, senior FBI 

officials stated that NIBRS data, although more comprehensive than SRS

data, also might not include sufficient detail to provide information on 

spillover crime even if they were more widely available.

Our analysis determined that the 

remaining 3 local law enforcement agencies also systematically collect 

SRS data, but we do not know if they also systematically collect other 

crime data because these agencies were not available to participate in 

our interviews. The sheriff’s office in Yuma County, Arizona, is the only 

southwest border law enforcement agency that collects NIBRS data.

 

18This includes officials from all 12 police departments and 21 out of 24 sheriffs’ offices 

who we interviewed. In addition, according to the officials from state agencies responsible 

for collecting crime data, border counties in Arizona and New Mexico do not systematically 

collect crime data beyond what they submit to the UCR Program. Further, border counties 

in California, in addition to the data they submit to the UCR Program, systematically 

collect data on antireproductive rights, deaths in custody, and violent crimes against 

senior citizens, among others. In addition, border counties in Texas systematically collect 

data on family violence. 

Best Available Data 

Cannot Be Used to 

Make Insights about 

Spillover Crime but 

Show a General 

Decline in Reported 

Crime Rates in 

Counties with 

Sufficiently Complete 

Data along the 

Southwest Border
 

Page 12 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Cognizant of these limitations, we analyzed SRS crime data to calculate 

violent and property crime rates for both border and nonborder counties in 

the four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 

Texas. Our analyses of SRS data for border and nonborder counties 

showed that in all four states, both violent and property crime rates per 

100,000 population were generally lower in 2011 than in 2004.19 Figure 1 

shows the changes in crime rates from 2004 through 2011 for southwest 

border and nonborder counties. (Detailed data for fig.1 can be found in 

app. IV.)

 

19We excluded New Mexico from these analyses for 2004 because local law enforcement 

agencies in the 3 border counties (Dona Ana, Luna, and Hidalgo) submitted incomplete 

SRS data to the FBI. One New Mexico nonborder county (De Baca) did not report SRS

violent or property crime data to the FBI. Further, according to UCR Program practice, 

because of limited participation and varying data collection practices by law enforcement 

agencies nationwide, we excluded arson crimes when calculating property crime rates.
Page  GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Source: GAO analysis of Uniform Crime Reporting data; MapInfo (map).

Texas

Arizona New Mexico

California

San Diego

Hidalgo

Cameron

Starr

Hidalgo

Webb

Val Verde

Terrell

Presidio

Hudspeth

Culberson

El Paso

Cochise

Pima

Yuma

Santa Cruz

Imperial

Luna

Doña

Ana

Brewster

Jeff Davis

Kinney

Maverick

Zapata

Note: We report crime rates per 100,000 population for large border counties. Large border counties 

are: Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma Counties in Arizona; Imperial and San Diego Counties in 

California; Dona Ana and Luna Counties in New Mexico; and, Cameron, El Paso, Hidalgo, Maverick, 

Starr, Val Verde, and Webb Counties in Texas. For small counties we report numbers of crimes, 

instead of crime rates per 100,000 population. The small border counties are: Hidalgo County in New 

Mexico; Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Presidio, Terrell, and Zapata Counties in 

Texas.

Interactive graphic Figure 1: Violent and Property Crime Rates in Southwest Border States by Border and Nonborder 

Counties, 2004-2011

Mouse over the state or county names to find out more information about border crime statistics.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

With respect to violent crimes, as shown in figure 1,

• The violent crime rate was lower in border counties than nonborder 

counties for three of the four southwest border states. Comparing all 

border counties combined with all nonborder counties combined 

within each state, the violent crime rate in California and Texas border 

counties was lower than in nonborder counties each year from 2004 

through 2011, and lower in New Mexico border counties each year 

from 2005 through 2011. In contrast, the violent crime rate in Arizona 

border counties was higher than in nonborder counties from 2004 to 

2011.

• The violent crime rate declined over time in both border and 

nonborder counties across all southwest border states. Comparing 

2011 with 2004, the violent crime rate in border counties in 2011 was 

lower by 33 percent in Arizona, 26 percent in California, and 30 

percent in Texas. In nonborder counties, the decrease was 22 

percent, 25 percent, and 24 percent, respectively. The violent crime 

rate in border counties in New Mexico was lower by 8 percent in 2011 

than in 2005, and in nonborder counties the decrease was 19 percent.

• With two exceptions, the violent crime rate was lower over time in 

large border counties across the southwest border states. The violent 

crime rate in 2011 was lower than in 2004 in 10 of 12 large border 

counties in Arizona, California, and Texas with sufficiently complete 

data for analysis. The violent crime rate in Dona Ana County, New 

Mexico, was lower in 2011 than in 2005. Additionally, across all 7 

small border counties with sufficiently complete data for analysis, the 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

total number of violent crimes for these counties in 2011 was also 

lower than in 2004.20

With respect to property crimes, as shown in figure 1,

• The property crime rate in border counties was either lower or similar 

to the rate in nonborder counties in three of the four southwest border 

states.21 Comparing all border counties combined with all nonborder 

counties combined within each state, the property crime rate in 

California border counties was lower than the rate in nonborder 

counties each year from 2009 through 2011. Each year from 2004 

through 2008, the crime rate in California border and nonborder 

counties was similar. The rate in Texas border counties was similar to 

the rate in nonborder counties each year from 2004 through 2011. 

The rate in New Mexico border counties was lower than in nonborder 

counties in all years, 2005 through 2011.

• The property crime rate declined over time in both border and 

nonborder counties in three of the four southwest border states.22

 

20We designated large border counties as those with populations of 25,000 or more. We 

designated small border counties as those with populations of less than 25,000. Based on 

these designations, there are 15 large and 9 small border counties in the four states. The 

large border counties are Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma Counties in Arizona; 

Imperial and San Diego Counties in California; Dona Ana and Luna Counties in New 

Mexico; and Cameron, El Paso, Hidalgo, Maverick, Starr, Val Verde, and Webb Counties 

in Texas. The small border counties are Hidalgo County in New Mexico; Brewster, 

Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Presidio, Terrell, and Zapata Counties in Texas. 

When we conducted county-level analyses of violent crime rates, we excluded 2 large 

counties (Santa Cruz, Arizona, and Luna, New Mexico) and 2 small counties (Hidalgo, 

New Mexico, and Presidio, Texas) because the SRS data submitted by law enforcement 

agencies to the FBI were incomplete. For the same reason, from 2004 we excluded 1 

large county (Dona Ana, New Mexico). For small counties, we report numbers of crimes, 

instead of crime rates per 100,000 population, because, in general, these counties have 

relatively low numbers of reported crimes, and small year-to-year changes in these 

numbers can lead to large percentage changes in the crime rate.

Comparing 2011 with 2004, the property crime rate in border counties 

in 2011 was lower by 35 percent in California and 28 percent in 

21For state-level analyses—that is, when we separately combined border and nonborder 

counties within their states for our analyses of property crimes—we excluded Arizona 

because Tucson, in Pima County, reported the data improperly, according to the FBI, and 

Tucson accounts for about 40 percent of the total population of Arizona’s border counties. 

22As stated previously, for state-level analyses we excluded Arizona because Tucson, in 

Pima County, reported the data improperly, according to the FBI, and Tucson accounts for 

about 40 percent of the total population of Arizona’s border counties. 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Texas. In nonborder counties, the decrease was 23 percent and 22 

percent, respectively. The property crime rate in border counties in 

New Mexico was lower by 7 percent in 2011 than in 2005, and in 

nonborder counties the decrease was 18 percent.

• The property crime rate was lower over time in large border counties 

across the southwest border states. The property crime rate in 2011 

was lower than in 2004 in all 11 large border counties in Arizona, 

California, and Texas with sufficiently complete data for analysis. The 

property crime rate in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, was lower in 

2011 than in 2005. Additionally, across all 7 small border counties 

with sufficiently complete data for analysis, the total number of 

property crimes for these counties in 2011 was also lower than in 

2004.23

Comparing UCR SRS and NIBRS data for the Yuma County sheriff’s 

office, we found comparable decreases in violent crimes. Specifically, we 

found that the total number of violent crimes reported through NIBRS was 

32 percent lower in 2010 than in 2007, when the office began reporting 

NIBRS data. The number of violent crimes reported in the SRS format 

was 33 percent lower in 2010 than in 2007. (Additional detail on our 

analysis results is presented in app. V.) Local law enforcement officials 

with whom we spoke provided a range of factors that they thought 

contributed to declining violent and property crime rates, including 

increased law enforcement presence, either federal, local or a 

combination of both, and new infrastructure, such as a border fence.

 

23When we conducted county-level analyses of property crime rates, we excluded 3 large 

counties (Pima and Santa Cruz, Arizona, and Luna, New Mexico) and 2 small counties 

(Hidalgo, New Mexico, and Presidio, Texas) because the SRS data submitted by local law 

enforcement agencies to the FBI were incomplete or improperly reported. From 2004, we 

excluded 1 large county (Dona Ana, New Mexico) because SRS data were incomplete.

Few Law 

Enforcement 

Agencies Track 

Spillover Crime along 

the Southwest Border
 

Page 17 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Federal law enforcement agencies have few efforts under way to track 

what might be considered to be spillover crime, including violence, for 

several reasons. First, while several federal components established a 

definition of spillover crime, there is no common government definition of 

such crime. For example, in 2009, the DEA reported that U.S. intelligence 

and law enforcement agencies agreed to define spillover violence as 

deliberate, planned attacks by drug cartels on U.S. assets, including 

people and institutions. This definition does not include trafficker-ontrafficker violence. On the other hand, according to officials from DHS’s 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis, also in 2009, in partnership with other 

intelligence agencies, DHS developed definitions of spillover violence that 

include violence in the United States directed by Mexican drug cartels 

and violence committed by cartel members or their associates against 

each other. Second, DHS and DOJ components, including those that 

have a formal definition of spillover crime, either do not collect data for the 

purposes of tracking spillover crime, or do not maintain such data in an 

automated format that can be readily retrieved and analyzed. However, 

officials from Arizona and Rio Grande Valley Border Enforcement 

Security Task Forcesmultiagency teams led by DHS’s ICE to combat 

cross-border criminal activitystated that while data are not tracked 

systematically, teams maintain information on violent activities related to 

drug and human smuggling they identify during the course of their 

investigations. Teams use this information, which includes home 

invasions, assaults on individuals during illegal border crossings, and 

robberies of drug traffickers, to inform their assessments of violent trends 

along the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition, the Executive Committee for 

Southwest Border Intelligence and Information Sharing, cochaired by the 

DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis and Texas Department of Public 

Safety, has been working since April 2012 to propose new terms and 

definitions for various facets of border-related crime and violence and 

identify new metrics and indicators to measure such crime. The 

committee plans to complete this effort in March 2013.

CBP reported that while it does not specifically define spillover crime, it 

does collect and maintain automated, retrievable data on assaults against 

Border Patrol agents and officers at ports of entry. CBP recognizes that 

these data do not directly measure the extent of spillover crime but may 

serve as an indirect indicator of such crime. With respect to Border Patrol 

agents, CBP maintains data on physical assaults, assaults with a vehicle, 

assaults with weapons, assaults with rocks, and assaults with instruments 

Federal Law Enforcement 

Agencies
 

Page 18 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

other than rocks. CBP data show that the total number of assaults against 

Border Patrol agents in southwest border sectors in fiscal year 2012 (549) 

was about 25 percent lower than in fiscal year 2006 (729).24

Figure 2: Assaults against Border Patrol Agents in Southwest Border Patrol Sectors 

by Category, Fiscal Years 2006-2012

Generally, 

assaults increased from 2006 (729) through 2008 (1,085), decreased 

slightly from 2008 (1,085) through 2010 (1,049), and decreased sharply 

from 2010 (1,049) through 2012 (549). (See fig 2.)

Notes: Rocking assaults are thrown rocks, for example, by drug or alien smugglers, at Border Patrol 

agents with the intent of threatening or inflicting physical harm. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Border Patrol has divided geographic responsibility for border 

security operations along the southwest border among nine sectors, each of which has a 

headquarters with management personnel. 

 

24Border Patrol has divided geographic responsibility for border security operations along 

the southwest border among nine sectors, each of which has a headquarters with 

management personnel; these sectors are further divided geographically into varying 

numbers of stations, with agents assigned to patrol defined geographic areas. 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

In each fiscal year from 2006 through 2011, there were more rockings—

defined as thrown rocks, for example by drug or human smugglers, at 

Border Patrol agents with the intent of threatening or inflicting physical 

harm—than all other assaults combined in Border Patrol sectors along 

the southwest border. In 2012, when the number of rockings was at a 7-

year low, there were 51 fewer rockings than all other assaults. While the 

total number of assaults for all sectors combined in 2012 is smaller than 

in 2006, certain southwest border sectors show an increase in the 

number of all assaults other than rockings in 2012 from 2006. For 

example, the Tucson sector experienced 91 such assaults in 2012 

compared with 76 in 2006, and the Rio Grande Valley sector experienced 

77 such assaults compared with 41 in 2006. (Additional analysis of 

assault trends for fiscal years 2006 through 2012 by Border Patrol sector 

is presented in appendix VI.) CBP officials cited several factors that could 

affect a change in the number of assaults against Border Patrol agents, 

including changes in the level of illegal activity crossing the border, as 

well as changes in Border Patrol presence along the border. Also, CBP 

officials reported that from September 2004 through November 2012, 3 

out of 22 Border Patrol agent deaths on the southwest border had a 

nexus to cross-border crime, while the remaining deaths mostly resulted 

from vehicular accidents or health issues.

With respect to officers at ports of entry, CBP maintains data on physical 

assaults, assaults with a vehicle, and assaults with a weapon. For the 2 

fiscal years that CBP has reliable data, the data show that assaults 

against officers at southwest border ports of entry declined from 37 

assaults in fiscal year 2011 to 26 assaults in fiscal year 2012.25

In addition, the FBI reported that its Latin American Southwest Border 

Threat Section—created to focus on issues specifically related to drug 

cartels—began in fiscal year 2010 to classify incidents of violent crime 

with links to Mexico, including kidnappings of American citizens and nonterrorism-related hostage taking occurring in or having a substantial 

nexus to Mexico or Central and South America. According to the FBI, 

under the new classifications, from October 2009 through September 

2012, it investigated and closed five cases involving kidnappings of 

American citizens and five cases involving non-terrorism-related hostage 

 

25CBP reported that, prior to 2011, it did not systematically collect data on assaults 

against officers at ports of entry. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

taking. None of these cases occurred in the United States. FBI officials 

cautioned that drug cartel related crimes, such as kidnappings and home 

invasions, are highly underreported and are not captured in national crime 

statistics.

Only 1 of the 37 state and local law enforcement agencies that we 

interviewedthe Texas Department of Public Safetystated that it tracks 

spillover crime. There are several reasons spillover crime is not more 

widely measured and tracked across these agencies. First, there is no 

common definition of spillover crime shared by the border law 

enforcement communities, and our interviews with border sheriffs and 

police officials indicated that their opinions on what types of incidents 

constitute spillover crime vary. For example, the Texas Border Sheriff’s 

Coalition defined spillover crime as any action on one side of the border 

that is the result of violence or the threat of violence that causes a 

reaction on the other side of the border, such as a law enforcement 

response, or an economic or social impact. The Luna County, New 

Mexico, sheriff’s office defined spillover crime as occurring when a person 

is injured by any means by an act along the border that has a direct 

nexus to Mexican drug-trafficking organizations. The Cochise County, 

Arizona, sheriff’s office defined spillover crime as any crime associated 

with cross-border trafficking. Officials from 27 out of 37 state and local law 

enforcement agencies stated that it would be at least somewhat useful to 

have a common definition of spillover crime, because it would establish 

types of activities that constitute spillover crime and allow agencies to 

track such crime, among other uses.26 However, officials from 22 of those 

27 agencies also stated that accomplishing such a task might be 

challenging.27

 

26Two of the 37 agencies did not provide comments on this issue.

The reasons cited included differences of opinion among 

border counties about what incidents represent spillover crime and 

differences in the missions and priorities of federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies. As discussed previously in this report, the Texas 

Department of Public Safety and the DHS Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis are leading an effort by select state and local law enforcement 

agencies to propose new terms and definitions and identify metrics for 

various facets of border-related crime and violence by March 2013.

27Two of the 27 agencies did not provide comments on this issue.

State and Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies
 

Page 21 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Second, no state or local law enforcement agency we interviewed in our 

review systematically collects data on what might be considered to be 

spillover crime in a way that can be used to analyze trends. Officials from 

the Texas Department of Public Safety, the single agency that said it 

tracks spillover crime, stated that the department collects data on crimes 

it considers to be related to spillover, such as murders, kidnappings, and 

shootings related to activities of the Mexican drug cartels.28

While the Texas Department of Public safety is the only state or local law 

enforcement agency we interviewed that reported collecting data 

specifically on spillover crime, 6 out of 37 law enforcement agencies we 

spoke with stated that they collect information on cross-border and drugrelated activities, which could be elements of spillover crime. Specifically,

The 

department manages six intelligence centers along the border that, 

according to officials, rely on a variety of sources, including incident 

reports from sheriffs’ offices, news reports, and intelligence information 

from interagency task forces, to assess which incidents can be clearly 

linked to Mexico and determined to be spillover crime. However, officials 

stated that spillover incidents reported by the department cannot be used 

to analyze trends over time because they are not collected systematically 

and may be incomplete. For example, the incident reports can vary by 

sheriff’s office in terms of what is reported and how incidents are 

characterized. For example, we found in our interviews with Texas border 

sheriffs’ offices that each office may have different ways of capturing 

information on incidents and may consider different incidents to be related 

to spillover crime.

• Officials from 3 sheriffs’ offices in Arizona and Texas and 1 police 

department in California stated their agencies collect information on 

incidents that involve aliens without lawful immigration status to track 

cross-border activity. However, the officials noted that the data are too 

general to determine whether a specific crime incident is attributable 

to spillover from Mexico.

• Officials from the Laredo, Texas, Police Department stated that since 

2003, the department has tracked incidents of drug smuggling, human 

smuggling, and the types of weapons seized. According to officials, 

while the data contribute to intelligence necessary to determine 

 

28The Texas Department of Public Safety defines spillover crime as any crime reported in 

the NIBRS that occurs in Texas as a result of an unsecured border with Mexico.
 

Page 22 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

whether a crime is cartel-related, the data do not contain sufficient 

detail to determine whether a specific crime incident is attributable to 

spillover from Mexico.

• Officials from the San Diego office of the California Highway Patrol 

stated that in 2012 their field office began tracking how often they 

respond to calls from CBP’s Office of Field Operations to investigate 

incidents at the port of entry. However, the officials noted that the data 

could not be a measure for spillover crime because the incident may 

not always result in a crime or an arrest and may not be related to 

cartel activity or involve Mexican nationals.

Officials from 27 out of 37 state and local law enforcement agencies 

stated that it would be at least somewhat useful to collect spillover crime 

data.29 Some of the reasons given were that the data would enhance 

intelligence, identify trends, and assist the agencies in making decisions 

about deploying resources. In addition, some officials said that data on 

spillover crime could help agencies apply for grants. However, the 

majority also expressed concerns about the burden of collecting 

additional information. Specifically, officials from 22 out of 37 state and 

local agencies stated that they have limited technological, financial, and 

human resources to collect additional data.

Officials from all of the DHS and DOJ components we interviewed stated 

that while they do not believe that spillover violence has been a significant 

problem, they expressed concerns about the potential for it to occur in the 

 

29Two of the 37 agencies did not provide comments on this issue.

Law Enforcement 

Agencies Have 

Varying Concerns 

about Potential 

Effects of Violent 

Crime in Mexico on 

Border Communities

Federal Concerns
 

Page 23 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

future because drug cartels employ increasingly violent methods to 

interact with rivals and law enforcement agencies in Mexico. Threat 

assessments conducted by DHS and DOJ during fiscal years 2006 

through 2012 do not indicate that violence from Mexico spilled over the 

southwest border. For example, the assessments indicate that violent 

infighting among rival Mexican cartels has remained largely in Mexico, 

and crimes such as kidnappings and home invasion robberies directed 

against drug traffickers have remained largely isolated instances in U.S. 

border communities.30 However, DHS threat assessments have reported 

that the threat facing U.S. law enforcement personnel from drugtrafficking organizations has been increasing, as evidenced by more 

aggressive tactics used by drug-trafficking organizations and smugglers 

to confront or evade law enforcement. Examples of such tactics include 

ramming or impeding police vehicles, fleeing at high speeds, and carrying 

weapons.

Officials from 37 state and local law enforcement agencies and four 

Chambers of Commerce we interviewed expressed varying concerns 

regarding the extent to which violent crime from Mexico spills into and 

potentially affects their border communities. Officials in 31 of the 37 state 

and local law enforcement agencies stated that they have not observed 

violent crime from Mexico regularly spilling into their counties; 

nonetheless, officials from 33 of the 37 agencies said they are at least 

somewhat concerned about the potential for spillover crime to occur. 

Officials noted that there is always potential for the high levels of violence 

in Mexico, such as organized murders and kidnappings for ransom, to 

spread to their border towns. A senior DEA official in the El Paso, Texas, 

region testified in March 2009 that the southwest border is the principal 

arrival zone for most illicit drugs smuggled into the United States and is 

 

30 The assessment reviewed UCR data for 2009, because at the time it was the most 

recent year for which complete data were available. For further information on the scope 

and methodology used to conduct this assessment, please see DHS Office of Intelligence 

and Analysis, Assessment: The Impact of Mexican Drug Violence on Crime Along the U.S. 

Southwest Border, IA-0240-11 (Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2011).

State and Local Concerns
 

Page 24 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

also the predominant staging area for the drugs’ distribution throughout 

the country.31

Further, state and local law enforcement officials expressed concerns 

about safety threats to law enforcement officers and residents who might 

encounter drug and human smugglers transiting through border 

communities, and according to some officials, smugglers are increasingly 

aggressive in evading capture and likely to be armed. For example, a 

New Mexico sheriff stated that while there have not been any serious 

injuries, drug smugglers ram police vehicles to stop a pursuit or speed 

through residential neighborhoods to avoid capture. In addition, armed 

cartel members on the Mexican border sometimes engage in gunfights 

with rival smugglers returning from the United States. According to the 

sheriff, such activities could result in vehicular accidents or shootings at 

U.S. law enforcement officers. An Arizona sheriff stated that most of the 

violence the office sees involves trafficker-on-trafficker violence. For 

example, a crew of smugglers might steal drug or human cargo from 

other smugglers to sell it themselves. In addition to the potential for 

violence during the event, there is also a potential for violence because of 

retaliation for the stolen goods. Officials in a California police department 

stated that auto thefts have increased, and officials believe that an 

increasing proportion of these thefts are related to cartel activity as cars 

are stolen to transport drug loads to the final destination after being 

transported over the border. Examples of some crimes that local officials 

attributed to spillover from Mexico include the following:

• A border sheriff in Arizona stated that a rancher was most likely 

murdered in 2010 by a smuggler.

• Officials in a Texas police department stated that they investigated a 

murder in 2010 that they attributed to spillover crime. Investigators in 

the case determined that the victim was a cartel member and the 

perpetrator was from a rival cartel in Mexico and had crossed the 

border to assassinate the rival cartel member.

• Officials in a California police department stated that a vehicle in 

Mexico was engaged in a gunfight with the Mexican police and the 

vehicle crossed the border into the United States.

 

31Violence along the Southwest Border, Before the House Appropriations Committee 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, 111th Cong.

(Washington, DC.: Mar. 24, 2009) (Statement of Joseph Arabit, Special Agent in Charge 

of Drug Enforcement Administration’s El Paso Region). 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

• A sheriff in a border county in Texas stated that the property crime 

rates in his county had increased in 2008 because over a series of 

months, a group of smugglers from Mexico were burglarizing houses 

on their way back to Mexico. They were eventually arrested and 

prosecuted.

According to state and local law enforcement officials, many crimes 

associated with drug-trafficking threats are unreported, since in many 

instances, both the perpetrators and the victims may be involved in 

criminal activity, and the victim may not be in this country legally. Further, 

the sheriff of a rural county in Texas stated that while statistics indicate 

that there is little crime in his county, it may be because there are very 

few law enforcement officials or residents to confront or resist smugglers 

moving through the county, not because criminal activity is not 

occurring.32 Similarly, a sheriff from another rural county in Texas stated 

that he believes that an enhanced law enforcement presence in the Rio 

Grande Valley may force illicit activity toward his county because it is less 

populated than other counties and smugglers are less likely to be 

confronted there. Moreover, according to some local law enforcement 

officials, the levels of violent crime in Mexico can have effects on the 

border communities that are not captured in the crime statistics. The 2011 

Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center threat assessment stated 

that the southwest border violence, such as kidnappings and home 

invasions carried out by Mexican criminal organizations, and gang-related 

violence, present the most substantial threat to public safety in Arizona.33

While 33 of 37 law enforcement agencies expressed some concern about 

spillover crime, officials from 11 of the 37 agencies stated that they do not 

treat spillover crime differently than they would any other crime. In 

addition, an Arizona sheriff and a police official from the same county 

stated that they are not more concerned about spillover crime because 

their county has not experienced any incidents of kidnappings or 

extortion, which could be indicators that crime has spilled over from 

Mexico.

 

32We define rural counties as those with populations less than 25,000.

33The Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center is a fusion center—generally, a 

collaborative effort of federal, state, local, or tribal government agencies that combines 

resources and expertise to maximize their ability to respond to criminal or terrorist 

activity—that provides intelligence, investigative, and technical support to agencies that 

are critical to Arizona and the country’s homeland security efforts. 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

In addition to concerns about crime and violence potentially spilling over 

from Mexico, local law enforcement officials provided a number of 

examples of how the violence in Mexico affects local communities:

• U.S. citizens that cross the border daily, such as for school or 

employment are vulnerable to extortion or recruitment by cartels. For 

example, police officials in a California border city stated that cartel 

members in Mexico have come into the United States to recruit gang 

members, and a sheriff in a county in New Mexico stated that in his 

county, 400 or more U.S. citizens live in Mexico but attend school in 

the United States. The students may be recruited or coerced to 

smuggle drugs into the United States on their way to school.

• A Texas sheriff stated that a local college was forced to close after 

bullets from a gunfight originating in Mexico hit the college dorm 

building.

• Cartels may target public officials and law enforcement for corruption. 

Specifically, we were told of cases from local law enforcement in both 

New Mexico and Arizona in which public officials had been corrupted 

by a Mexican cartel.

• Sheriff and police department officials in counties in Texas, Arizona, 

and New Mexico stated that cartel members may reside with their 

families in U.S. border communities because they are considered to 

be safe havens. An officer in one police department stated a concern 

that there is a potential for violent altercations in the United States 

between cartel members living in their community that represent rival 

Mexican cartels.

In addition, we spoke with Chamber of Commerce officials in one Arizona 

and three Texas border counties, and they all stated that they have not 

seen spillover violence from Mexico, but that violence in Mexico has 

nonetheless negatively affected businesses in their border communities. 

Specifically, they said that violence in Mexico has resulted in a perception 

that border communities are not safe and this has hindered economic 

growth and tourism. For example, an official from a Chamber of 

Commerce in one Texas county stated that local universities and 

hospitals have difficulty recruiting students and staff. Additionally, 

Chamber of Commerce officials in all three Texas counties said that 

violence in Mexico and more delays and stricter searches at the border 

have impeded Mexican consumers’ ability to more easily cross the border 

and purchase goods and services from the local U.S. businesses.
 

Page 27 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

At the federal level, officials from DOJ and DHS and their components 

stated that they have undertaken a number of efforts, both individually 

and through interagency partnerships, related to drug smuggling and 

cartel activity with a focus on the southwest border; however, all but one 

of these efforts do not specifically target spillover crime. For example, the 

FBI created a Latin American Southwest Border Threat Section to focus 

on issues specifically related to drug cartels. Also, DHS issued Border 

Violence Protocols in 2006 that set out the steps that CBP and Mexican 

government personnel are to follow when reporting incidents of border 

violence, and further updated them in 2011 to enhance coordination 

between the U.S. and Mexican agencies.34 Moreover, interagency task 

forces provide a forum for federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies to, among other things, share information and conduct 

coordinated enforcement activities to combat drug smuggling and cartel 

activity. Additional details on these and other efforts are contained in 

appendix VII.35

DHS developed the Operations Plan for Southwest Border Violence in 

October 2008 to address the possibility that spillover crime, such as a 

significant violent and spontaneous event that results in unintended 

cascading effects spilling over the border, may exceed DHS’s assets to 

respond in those locations. This contingency plan describes the various 

roles and responsibilities that DHS components are to undertake to 

coordinate an agency-wide response to a variety of potential threats of 

violence that could arise along the southwest border, such as credible 

threats against U.S. facilities or personnel. Although the plan is to be 

updated annually, senior officials at DHS’s Office of Operations 

Coordination and Planningthe office responsible for coordinating and 

facilitating development of the plan among the DHS componentsstated 

that the plan has not been revised or updated in the 4 years since it was 

finalized.36

 

34CBP does not maintain data on these incidents, with the exception of the assaults 

against agents and officers, in an automated format that can easily be retrieved and 

analyzed.

According to these officials, DHS components have 

35For a comprehensive discussion of federal efforts to combat drug cartel activities, see 

an appendix in CRS, Southwest Border Violence: Issues in Identifying and Measuring 

Spillover Violence, R41075 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 25, 2011).

36According to senior officials at DHS’s Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, 

this plan has never been activated as the conditions for activation have not yet been met.

Law Enforcement 

Agencies Have 

Initiatives that Target

Border-related Crime, 

Including a Federal 

Contingency Plan to 

Address Violent Crime 

Spilling Over from 

Mexico
 

Page 28 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

undertaken related planning efforts, such as establishing local-level 

coordination mechanisms to increase coordination and information 

sharing along the southwest border. In addition, officials at DHS’s Office 

of Operations Coordination and Planning stated that they do not plan to 

update the Operations Plan for Southwest Border Violence at this time 

because DHS has shifted to a more strategic approach to planning that 

will provide the framework for all of DHS’s planning efforts. The officials 

could not provide additional details on what the new strategic approach 

would entail because it is still in the early stages of development. To 

complete its framework, DHS is awaiting approval of planning guidance 

that it submitted to the President in June 2012. DHS developed the 

planning guidance pursuant to Presidential Policy Directive 8, a directive 

that called for DHS to develop an integrated set of guidance, programs, 

and processes to enable the nation to meet its national preparedness 

goals. DHS’s Office of Operations Coordination and Planning intends to 

develop DHS’s strategic framework in accordance with the new planning 

guidance and expects to complete the framework by October 2014. The 

officials said they will then decide whether to update the Southwest 

Border Violence Operations Plan so it follows the new planning guidance 

or replace the operations plan with other plans developed under the 

strategic framework.

At the state and local levels, officials from all law enforcement agencies 

that we spoke with stated that their agencies had undertaken some 

efforts, either individually or in partnership with other agencies, to combat 

criminal activities often associated with spillover crime, such as drug and 

human smuggling. Generally, these efforts aim to increase state and local 

law enforcement agencies’ capacity to combat criminal activities 

associated with spillover crime, such as forming units that focus on such 

crime, participating in federal grant programs, coordinating enforcement 

activities, and facilitating information sharing. Specific examples of state 

and local law enforcement efforts are contained in appendix VII.

We provided a draft of our report to, DHS, DOJ, and the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy for their review and comment. DHS provided written 

comments, which are reprinted in full in appendix VIII. In its comments, 

DHS stated that it was pleased with our discussion of the initiatives that 

law enforcement agencies have undertaken to target border-related 

crime, including a DHS contingency plan for responding to a significant 

southwest border violence escalation and interagency task forces that 

combat drug smuggling and cartel activity. In addition, DHS reiterated its 

commitment to working with many partners across the federal 

Agency Comments
 

Page 29 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

government, public and private sectors, and internationally, to mitigate 

spillover crime along the southwest border. DOJ and the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy did not provide official written comments. All 

three agencies provided technical comments which we have incorporated 

where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy and other interested parties. In addition, the report is

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in 

appendix IX. 

Cary Russell

Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Southwest Border Counties by 

State

Page 30 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

There are 24 U.S. counties that share a border with Mexico. These 

counties are arranged below by state, in an alphabetical order.

1. Cochise County

2. Pima County

3. Santa Cruz County

4. Yuma County

5. Imperial County

6. San Diego County

7. Dona Ana County 

8. Hidalgo County

9. Luna County

10. Brewster County

11. Cameron County

12. Culberson County

13. El Paso County

14. Hidalgo County

15. Hudspeth County

16. Jeff Davis County

17. Kinney County

18. Maverick County

19. Presidio County

20. Starr County 

21. Terrell County

22. Val Verde County

23. Webb County

24. Zapata County

Appendix I: Southwest Border Counties by 

State 

Arizona

California

New Mexico

Texas
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

This report addresses the following questions: (1) What information do 

reported crime rates in southwest border communities provide on 

spillover crime and what do they show? (2) What efforts, if any, have 

federal, state, and select local law enforcement agencies made to track 

spillover crime along the southwest border? (3) What concerns, if any, do 

these agencies have about spillover crime? (4) What steps, if any, have 

these agencies taken to address spillover crime?

To address the first question, we analyzed Summary Reporting System 

(SRS) data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform 

Crime Reporting (UCR) Program—the government’s centralized 

repository for crime data—from January 2004 through December 2011 for 

the four southwest border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 

Texas).1 We selected January 2004 as the initial date because it provided 

us with data for more than 2 years prior to December 2006, when 

Mexican President Felipe Calderón took office and began a major military 

offensive against Mexican drug cartels. We also analyzed UCR’s National 

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data, available from January 

2007 through December 2010, for the single southwest border law 

enforcement agency reporting such data—the sheriff’s office in Yuma 

County, Arizona.2

 

1

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in 

November 2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise 

these data until the end of the calendar year 2012.

To assess the reliability of the UCR data, we conducted 

analyses to test for irregularities in the data, reviewed FBI documentation 

on how the data can and cannot be used and on the FBI’s procedures for 

ensuring UCR data quality, and interviewed FBI officials knowledgeable 

about the data. On the basis of this assessment, we excluded some 

counties from our analysis because they did not report complete crime 

data to the FBI. We concluded that the data for the remaining counties 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. In addition, we 

reviewed crime reports and documentation on crime databases published 

by the FBI, state agencies, and local law enforcement agencies in the 

four southwest border states. To further determine the types of data that 

are systematically collected, how these data are recorded and used in 

2

NIBRS includes data on individual crime incidents, including information about the nature 

and types of specific offenses in the incident, characteristics of the victims and offenders, 

and the types and value of any property stolen and recovered. We did not analyze 2011 

NIBRS data for the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office because the FBI said the office was 

experiencing record management system problems and could not provide complete 2011 

NIRBS data.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

southwest border counties, and what information these data provide on 

spillover crime, we reviewed guidance documents and research reports 

developed by federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

and Congressional Research Service. Also, we interviewed 

knowledgeable officials from a total of 37 state and local agencies on the 

southwest border that are responsible for investigating and tracking crime 

occurring in their jurisdictions. At the state level, we conducted interviews 

with officials from the California Highway Patrol and the Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Texas Departments of Public Safety. 3 At the local level, we 

interviewed officials representing 21 of 24 sheriffs’ offices in southwest 

border counties (4 in Arizona, 2 in California, 3 in New Mexico, and 12 in 

Texas), and 12 large municipal police departments in these border 

counties (4 in Arizona, 3 in California, 1 in New Mexico, and 4 in Texas).4

Moreover, to obtain information on spillover crime and efforts by law 

enforcement agencies along the U.S.-Mexico border to combat such 

crime, we conducted site visits to five southwest border counties in 

Arizona and Texas. These visits were to (1) Tucson, Pima County, 

Arizona; (2) Nogales, Santa Cruz County, Arizona; (3) Brownsville, 

Cameron County, Texas; (4) McAllen, Hidalgo County, Texas; and (5) 

Laredo, Webb County, Texas. We selected these locations because they 

represent diverse rural and urban environments, as well as have a range 

of border geographic features, such as rivers, mountains, agricultural 

deltas, and deserts that may pose different challenges for crossing the 

U.S. border from Mexico. These factors might have an effect on the levels 

and types of crime occurring in southwest border communities. As part of 

our visits, we met with federal officials, such as U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) agents and officers operating between and at the ports 

We selected departments from each of four states, and we selected large 

departments because according to our review of the UCRSRS data, in 

general, large departments had more reported crimes than did smaller 

departments. A list of the 24 southwest border counties can be found in 

appendix I.

 

3

The California Department of Justice is the agency that collects and reports crime data in 

California. However, in response to our interview request, California Department of Justice

officials referred us to the California Highway Patrol as the agency best qualified to 

discuss what crime data are collected in the California jurisdictions along the southwest 

border. 

4

Officials from 2 sheriffs’ offices in Texas were not available for interviews, and 1 sheriff’s 

office in Texas declined our request for an interview.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

of entry along the southwest border, state law enforcement officials from 

the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and local law enforcement 

officials, such as sheriffs in Santa Cruz and Hidalgo Counties and officials 

in the Tucson and Nogales Police Departments. The information we 

obtained from these visits is not generalizable to all southwest border 

counties. However, the information provides valuable insights into the 

types of crime information that are available to law enforcement agencies 

and perspectives on crime occurring in southwest border communities.

To address the second question, we collected information, such as crime 

reports and documentation on categories of data collected, from and 

conducted interviews with state and local law enforcement agencies 

identified above, as well as federal agencies and interagency task forces 

that have responsibilities for combating drug cartel–related activities 

along the southwest border. Federal agencies include Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) and DOJ headquarters and field offices, 

including DHS’s CBP, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 

Office of Policy, Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, and 

intelligence offices, such as the Office of Intelligence and Analysis; as 

well as DOJ’s FBI; Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Interagency task forces—

that is, partnerships of federal, state, and local law enforcement 

counterparts—include Arizona’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, El 

Paso Intelligence Center, and Border Enforcement Security Task Forces 

in Arizona and Texas. State and local agencies include those identified 

above, as well as Arizona’s Alliance for Countering Transnational 

Threats, the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, and members 

of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition. We asked agencies about their 

efforts to track spillover crime, any challenges they encountered in doing 

so, and whether they collected or tracked other data they considered 

related to spillover crime and violence on the southwest border. 

Specifically, we analyzed CBP data on the number of assaults on Border 

Patrol agents in southwest border patrol sectors from fiscal years 2006 

through 2012, and the number of assaults on Office of Field Operations 

personnel at southwest border ports of entry for fiscal years 2011 and 

2012, the date ranges for which these data were available. To assess the 

reliability of the CBP data on assaults and other crimes against agents 

and personnel, we reviewed relevant documentation, such as procedures 

for collecting data consistently, and interviewed CBP staff responsible for 

the data. On the basis of our efforts, we determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

To address the third question, we analyzed threat assessments by federal 

agencies, covering the time period from 2004 through 2012, to determine 

the extent to which these agencies identified Mexican drug cartel–related 

threats facing southwest border communities and law enforcement agents 

in those communities. Specifically, we analyzed 4 DHS Office of 

Intelligence and Analysis assessments that focused on violence along the

entire southwest border covering the time period from 2006 through 2011. 

In addition, we analyzed the total of 12 Border Patrol threat assessments 

and Operational Requirements-Based Budgeting Process documents 

containing threat information for the Laredo, Tucson, and Rio Grande 

Valley sectors: 1 assessment in sample fiscal years 2004, 2007, 2009, 

and 2012 per each sector to discern any trends in crime and violence 

along the southwest border over time.5 We selected the three Border 

Patrol sectors to correspond to the locations of our site visits. We 

selected these particular years because they approximate release dates 

of the DHS Intelligence and Analysis assessments to help identify 

potential similarities or differences in trends. To obtain additional context 

on potential threats facing southwest border communities, we reviewed 

several other assessments, such as National Drug Intelligence Center 

assessment (2011) and an Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center 

assessment (2011), and other documentation, such as congressional 

reports and testimonies.6 To obtain perspectives on a range of concerns 

regarding the existence and potential effects of spillover crime, in addition 

to interviews with the officials from 37 state and local law enforcement 

agencies and federal officials identified above, we interviewed officials 

from Chambers of Commerce in four of the five counties we visited—

Cameron, Hidalgo, Santa Cruz, and Webb Counties.

7

 

5

Border Patrol has divided geographic responsibility for border security operations along 

the southwest border among nine sectors, which are further divided geographically into 

varying numbers of stations, with agents assigned to patrol defined geographic areas. 

Operational Requirements-Based Budgeting Program documents provide an operational 

assessment for each sector about Border Patrol resources needed to address threats and 

help the agency determine how and where to allocate additional agents, technology, and 

infrastructure. 

While the results of 

6

The National Drug Intelligence Center was established to consolidate drug intelligence 

from national security and law enforcement agencies and produce information on activities 

of drug-trafficking organizations. On June 15, 2012, the National Drug Intelligence Center 

closed. The Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center provides intelligence, 

investigative, and technical support to agencies that are critical to Arizona and the 

country’s homeland security efforts. 

7

We did not interview officials from a Chamber of Commerce in Pima County because the 

county’s major city, Tucson, is not located directly on the border with Mexico. 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

these interviews are not generalizeable to all local businesses or 

Chambers of Commerce on the southwest border, they provide 

perspectives about the effects that violence in Mexico might have had on 

the businesses in their communities.

To address the fourth question, we reviewed and analyzed information, 

such as fact sheets and contingency plans, from and conducted 

interviews with all of the federal, state, and local agencies and task forces 

previously discussed.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 through 

February 2013, in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix III: Comparison of UCR SRS with 

NIBRS 

Page 36 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Appendix III provides information about differences between the UCR 

SRS and NIBRS. As shown in table 2, the SRS collects aggregate 

offense information for Part I offenses, and arrest information for Part I 

and Part II offenses. NIBRS collects offense information on each 

occurrence of crimes listed under Group A offenses and arrest 

information for Group A and Group B offenses.

Appendix III: Comparison of UCR SRS with 

NIBRS 
Appendix III: Comparison of UCR SRS with 

NIBRS 

Page 37 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Table 2: Uniform Crime Reporting Summary Reporting System and National-Incident Based Reporting System Offenses

UCR SRS NIBRS

Part I offenses

1. Criminal homicide

2. Forcible rape

3. Robbery

4. Aggravated assault

5. Burglary

6. Larceny-theft (except motor vehicle theft)

7. Motor vehicle theft

8. Arson 

Part II offenses

1. Other assaults

2. Forgery and counterfeiting

3. Fraud

4. Embezzlement

5. Stolen property: buying, receiving, or possessing

6. Vandalism

7. Weapons: carrying, possessing, etc.

8. Prostitution and commercialized vice

9. Sex offenses

10. Drug abuse violations

11. Gambling

12. Offenses against the family and children

13. Driving under the influence

14. Liquor laws

15. Drunkenness

16. Disorderly conduct

17. Vagrancy

18. Suspicion

19. Curfew and loitering laws (persons under 18)

20. Runaways (persons under 18)

21. All other offenses

Group A offenses (Part I offenses underlined)

1.

2. 

 Arson

3. Bribery

Assault offenses

4. 

5. Counterfeiting/forgery

Burglary/breaking and entering

6. Destruction/damage/vandalism of property

7. Drug/narcotic offenses

8. Embezzlement

9. Extortion/blackmail

10. Fraud offenses

11. Gambling offenses

12. 

13. Kidnapping/abduction

Homicide offenses

14. 

15. 

Larceny/theft offenses

16. Pornography/obscene materials

Motor vehicle theft

17. Prostitution offenses

18. 

19. 

Robbery

20. Sex offenses, nonforcible

Sex offenses, forcible

21. Stolen property offenses (receiving, etc.)

22. Weapons laws violations

Group B offenses

1. Bad checks

2. Curfew/loitering/vagrancy violations

3. Disorderly conduct

4. Driving under the influence

5. Drunkenness

6. Family offenses, nonviolent

7. Liquor law violations

8. Peeping tom

9. Trespass of real property

10. All other offenses

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ information.
Appendix III: Comparison of UCR SRS with 

NIBRS 

Page 38 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Table 3 summarizes the main differences between the two crime data 

systems. 

Table 3: Types of Information in Uniform Crime Reporting Summary and National-Incident Based Reporting Systems 

Summary of types of

information in SRS

Summary of

types of information in NIBRS 

Consists of monthly aggregate crime counts for 8 Part I

offenses.

Consists of individual incident records for 8 Part I offenses and 38 

other offenses. 

Gives a tally of the incidents. Does not contain information

on each reported incident.

Contains information on each incident reported to police, including

• characteristics of victim(s) and offender(s),

• relationship between the victim and offender,

• crimes committed,

• injuries at the incident scene,

• weapons used,

• arrests made, and

• incident location.

Reports only the most serious crime committed, suppressing 

counts of lesser offenses in multiple-offense incidents (with 

some exceptions.) For example, if a murderer has raped his 

victim, only murder is reported.

Requires officers to report multiple offenses, victims, and offenders. 

This allows researchers to compare and analyze multiple incidents.

Does not distinguish between attempted and completed 

crimes. 

Distinguishes between attempted and completed crimes.

Does not provide information about simple assault, which is 

the most commonly reported domestic violence offense.

Provides information about cases involving simple assault.

Records rape of females only. Records rape of males and females.

Collects weapon information for murder, robbery, and 

aggravated assault.

Collects weapon information for all violent offenses.

Provides counts on arrests for the 8 Part I offenses and 21 

other offenses.

Provides details on arrests for the 8 Part I offenses and 49 other 

offenses.

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ information.
Appendix IV: UCR Data Tables for Southwest 

Border Counties, 2004-2011 

Page 39 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

a. Violent crime rates per 100,000 for all border counties combined by state, 2004-2011

State 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arizona 641.3 623.4 572.4 508.2 490.8 440.9 427.7 428.1

California 467.7 470.5 456.9 459 424.7 420.7 374.9 347.3

New Mexico N/A 435.4 450.7 435.8 420.0 410.0 371.2 399.2

Texas 480.5 434.0 388.0 391.0 416.2 405.4 365.2 338.9

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Notes: N/A stands for not available. Local law enforcement agencies in New Mexico border counties 

did not submit complete data to the FBI in 2004. 

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in November 

2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until the end of 

the calendar year 2012. 

b. Violent crime rates per 100,000 for all nonborder counties combined by state, 2004-2011

State 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arizona 469.0 524.4 495.0 471.7 435.6 389.6 370.4 363.8

California 557.9 531.6 540.9 528.5 510.0 478.4 446.7 417.3

New Mexico N/A 709.0 692.3 698.1 683.0 645.2 593.9 577.3

Texas 547.1 540.7 531.8 523.8 518.2 500.3 459.9 414.8

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Notes: N/A stands for not available. New Mexico violent crime rate for 2004 not calculated because 

comparable data for border counties not available. 

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in November 

2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until the end of 

the calendar year 2012. 

c. Violent crime rates per 100,000 for large counties (population of 25,000 or more) by state, 2004-2011

State County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arizona 

Cochise 737.9 628.7 692.8 582.6 526.0 576.9 534.4 641.3

Pima 640.2 649.7 591.8 522.5 518.6 439.2 429.3 431.9

Santa Cruz Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Yuma 609.9 502.4 474.3 444.6 377.5 410.1 376.5 326.7

California

Imperial 455.1 511.5 421.7 336.9 289.6 355.4 354.1 268.4

San Diego 468.4 468.3 458.7 465.7 432.1 424.3 376.0 351.5

New Mexico

Dona Ana N/A 442.2 466.5 443.3 429.5 410.4 352.0 369.7

Appendix IV: UCR Data Tables for Southwest 

Border Counties, 2004-2011 
Appendix IV: UCR Data Tables for Southwest 

Border Counties, 2004-2011 

Page 40 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

c. Violent crime rates per 100,000 for large counties (population of 25,000 or more) by state, 2004-2011

State County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Luna Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Texas

Cameron 467.0 489.8 431.3 408.7 422.8 334.3 330.9 293.4

El Paso 506.4 409.9 379.1 400.3 437.1 436.3 420.7 395.6

Hidalgo 514.9 463.6 378.7 341.3 360.3 406.6 314.2 295.4

Maverick 315.6 425.2 361.0 554.5 518.9 207.9 241.4 335.7

Starr 271.1 213.8 148.4 260.4 287.7 281.1 293.6 242.6

Val Verde 143.6 132.8 81.7 162.6 194.1 194.0 178.0 202.4

Webb 532.7 502.5 545.7 565.8 602.1 575.4 508.6 464.6

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Notes: N/A stands for not available. Local law enforcement agencies in Dona Ana County, New 

Mexico, did not submit complete data to the FBI in 2004. 

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in November 

2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until the end of 

the calendar year 2012. 

d. Number of reported violent crimes for small counties (population under 25,000) by state, 2004-2011

State County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

New Mexico

Hidalgo Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Texas

Brewster 22 33 21 27 23 27 15 10

Culberson 2 1 0 4 1 0 5 3 

Hudspeth 5 7 9 7 3 2 10 1 

Jeff Davis 3 6 7 0 8 6 5 3 

Kinney 0 0 0 5 4 1 7 0 

Presidio Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Terrell 7 1 3 1 2 1 4 4 

Zapata 54 33 34 28 46 39 37 21

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Note: The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in 

November 2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until 

the end of the calendar year 2012. 
Appendix IV: UCR Data Tables for Southwest 

Border Counties, 2004-2011 

Page 41 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

e. Property crime rates per 100,000 for all border counties combined by state, 2004-2011

State 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arizona Local law enforcement agencies did not submit complete data to the FBI.

California 3,306.2 3,323.9 3,199.8 3,093.4 2,880.1 2,372.8 2,251.5 2,145.3

New Mexico N/A 3,421.7 3,163.4 3,260.3 3,088.7 3,118.0 3,020.0 3,199.4

Texas 4,594.0 4,268.0 4.014.0 4,080.4 4,115.3 4,128.8 3,758.6 3,324.8

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Notes: N/A stands for not available. Local law enforcement agencies in New Mexico border counties 

did not submit complete data to the FBI in 2004. 

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in November 

2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until the end of 

the calendar year 2012. 

f. Property crime rates per 100,000 for all nonborder counties combined by state, 2004-2011

State 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arizona Not computed because comparable data for border counties not available.

California 3,415.2 3,316.4 3,173.3 3,027.8 2,926.2 2,761.7 2,674.3 2,628.1

New Mexico N/A 4,410.6 4,222.5 3,948.4 4,036.6 3,928.9 3,494.9 3598.0

Texas 4,491.4 4,343.0 4,093.3 4,128.3 3,974.0 4,005.3 3,790.0 3,520.4

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Notes: N/A stands for not available. New Mexico violent crime rate for 2004 not calculated because 

comparable data for border counties not available. 

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in November 

2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until the end of 

the calendar year 2012. 

g. Property crime rates per 100,000 for large counties (population of 25,000 or more) by state, 2004-2011

State County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arizona 

Cochise 3,498.6 3,384.9 3,903.0 3,575.5 2,934.7 2,827.3 2,523.0 2,519.8

Pima Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Santa Cruz Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Yuma 3,486.5 3,562.6 3,567.2 3,304.9 2,593.5 2,648.1 2,481.7 2,191.1

California

Imperial 3,722.3 4,059.0 4,062.9 3,749.9 3,805.1 3,399.0 3,399.0 3,378.9

San Diego 3,285.0 3,285.7 3,154.0 3,057.2 2,829.3 2,316.2 2,192.0 2,078.8

New Mexico

Dona Ana N/A 3,357.1 3,122.3 3,217.0 3,173.9 3,264.0 3,062.5 3,229.0
Appendix IV: UCR Data Tables for Southwest 

Border Counties, 2004-2011 

Page 42 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

g. Property crime rates per 100,000 for large counties (population of 25,000 or more) by state, 2004-2011

State County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Luna Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Texas

Cameron 5,422.1 5,004.7 4,701.9 4,857.0 4,864.2 4,769.0 4,549.0 4,111.9

El Paso 3,293.5 3,115.2 3,211.1 3,079.5 3,109.8 2,915.2 2,589.3 2,375.4

Hidalgo 5,645.2 5,249.8 4,514.7 4,549.9 4,618.6 4,996.3 4,693.8 3,956.0

Maverick 3,087.0 2,697.7 3,298.4 3,168.7 3,264.9 3,235.4 2,856.7 2,635.4

Starr 2,117.8 1,726.5 1,619.6 1,740.3 1,970.8 1,904.2 1,871.5 1,715.6

Val Verde 2,743.3 2,849.1 2,402.7 2,889.7 2,125.1 1,853.3 1,837.2 1,939.6

Webb 6,344.3 5,767.6 5,618.0 6,071.2 6,184.7 5,822.3 4,771.8 4,381.1

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Notes: N/A stands for not available. Local law enforcement agencies in Dona Ana County, New 

Mexico, did not submit complete data to the FBI in 2004. 

The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in November 

2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until the end of 

the calendar year 2012. 

h. Number of reported property crimes for small counties (population under 25,000) by state, 2004-2011

State County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

New Mexico

Hidalgo Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Texas

Brewster 174 158 164 157 138 184 112 179

Culberson 9 3 4 10 2 11 10 7 

Hudspeth 42 41 32 41 34 22 44 22

Jeff Davis 11 10 12 13 11 8 9 14

Kinney 2 0 5 9 28 27 14 2 

Presidio Local law enforcement agencies in the county did not submit complete data to the FBI.

Terrell 15 7 11 13 17 66 30 9 

Zapata 448 292 214 239 145 272 279 264

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Note: The FBI provided GAO with the 2011 SRS data when it publicly released these data in 

November 2012. According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies were able to revise these data until 

the end of the calendar year 2012. 
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 43 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

We analyzed UCR SRS crime data in the four southwest border states: 

Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.1 This appendix presents the 

results of our analyses of SRS crime data broken out by violent and 

property crimes for southwest border counties, separately and combined 

within each state, for the period 2004 through 2011. We also present the 

results of analyses of violent and property crime data for nonborder 

counties, combined within each state, and compare the nonborder county 

crime rates per 100,000 population with border county crime rates. We 

also analyzed available NIBRS data, covering the period 2007 through 

2010, for the Yuma County, Arizona, sheriff’s office.

2 The office is the 

single southwest border law enforcement agency that collects NIBRS 

data. 

All border and nonborder counties. We analyzed SRS violent crime 

data for all 4 border counties in Arizona, both border counties in 

California, all 3 border counties in New Mexico, and all 15 border counties 

in Texas. We also analyzed these data for all 11 nonborder counties in 

Arizona, all 56 nonborder counties in California, 29 of 30 nonborder 

counties in New Mexico, and all 239 nonborder counties in Texas.3 The 

violent crime rate for the New Mexico border counties was lower in 2011 

than in 2005, but the rate in New Mexico’s border counties decreased 

less than in its nonborder counties.4

• The violent crime rate in Arizona’s border counties was higher than in 

Arizona’s nonborder counties in each year from 2004 through 2011. 

For the border counties in each of 

the other states, we found that the violent crime rate was lower in 2011 

than in 2004, and the rate in the border counties decreased more than in 

the nonborder counties. Specifically, as shown in figure 3,

 

1

As we discussed previously in this report, although SRS data provide the best available 

information on crime levels and crime trends in southwest border counties, because of its 

limitations, it cannot be used to draw conclusions about the extent to which crimes are 

attributable to spillover from Mexico.

2

The FBI converts NIBRS data submitted by law enforcement agencies to the format for 

the SRS data system.

3

One New Mexico nonborder county, De Baca, did not report SRS violent crime data to 

the FBI.

4

We excluded New Mexico from these analyses for 2004 because local law enforcement 

agencies in the 3 border counties (Dona Ana, Luna, and Hidalgo) submitted incomplete 

SRS violent crime data to the FBI.

Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data

Violent Crime along the

Southwest Border 

Reported through the UCR 

SRS
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 44 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

However, the crime rate decreased in both, with the rate in border 

counties being 33 percent lower in 2011 than 2004, and the rate in 

nonborder counties being 22 percent lower.

• The violent crime rate in California’s border counties was lower than in 

California’s nonborder counties in each year from 2004 through 2011. 

For border counties, the rate was 26 percent lower in 2011 than in 

2004. The violent crime rate in California’s nonborder counties 

generally decreased and was 25 percent lower in 2011 than in 2004.

• The violent crime rate in New Mexico’s border counties was lower 

than in New Mexico’s nonborder counties in each year from 2005 

through 2011. The decrease in crime rate in border counties (8 

percent) was smaller than the decrease in nonborder counties (19 

percent).

• The violent crime rate in Texas’s border counties was lower than in 

Texas’s nonborder counties in each year from 2004 to 2011. For 

border counties, the rate was 30 percent lower in 2011 than in 2004, 

while the rate for nonborder counties was 24 percent lower.
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 45 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Figure 3: Violent Crime Rates per 100,000 Population In Southwest Border and Nonborder Counties, Combined by State, 

2004-2011

Note: The figure does not include New Mexico for 2004 because local law enforcement agencies in 

the 3 New Mexico border counties (Dona Ana, Luna, and Hidalgo) submitted incomplete SRS violent 

crime data to the FBI. 
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 46 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Large border counties. We analyzed SRS violent crime data for all 13 

large southwest border counties—that is, counties with populations of 

25,000 or more—that submitted sufficiently complete data to the FBI to 

enable us to calculate the violent crime rate.5

Of these, in 10 of the 12 large border Arizona, California, and Texas 

counties, the rate was lower in 2011 than in 2004. In 2 large border 

counties in Texas, the violent crime rate increased (see fig. 1). 

Specifically, (1) in Maverick County, Texas, the violent crime rate 

increased by 6 percent; and (2) in Val Verde County, Texas, the violent 

crime rate increased by 41 percent, largely because of an increase in 

aggravated assaults. Although lower in 2011 than in 2004, the violent 

crime rate in Cochise County, Arizona, increased 20 percent from 2010 to 

2011, principally because of an increase in aggravated assaults. The 

violent crime rate in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, was lower in 2011 

than in 2005. However, the rate increased 5 percent between 2010 and 

2011, largely because of increases in robberies and aggravated assaults. 

Comparing UCR SRS and NIBRS data for the Yuma County sheriff’s 

office—the single southwest border law enforcement agency that reports 

NIBRS data—we found comparable decreases in violent crimes. 

Specifically, we found that the total number of violent crimes reported 

through NIBRS was 32 percent lower in 2010 than in 2007, when the 

office began reporting NIBRS data. The number of violent crimes reported 

in the SRS format was 33 percent lower in 2010 than in 2007. Overall, the 

total number of violent crime offenses reported by the Yuma County 

sheriff’s office through NIBRS was about 1 percent higher than those 

reported through the SRS. 

Small border counties. The southwest border has 9 small counties—

that is, counties with populations of less than 25,000.6

 

5

These analyses are based on reported violent crimes in 13 of 15 large counties along the 

southwest border. We designated large border counties as those with populations of 

25,000 or more. The 15 large border counties are Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yuma 

Counties in Arizona; Imperial and San Diego Counties in California; Dona Ana and Luna 

Counties in New Mexico; and Cameron, El Paso, Hidalgo, Maverick, Starr, Val Verde, and 

Webb Counties in Texas. We excluded 1 large border county in New Mexico (Luna) and 1 

large border county in Arizona (Santa Cruz) because SRS violent crime data local law 

enforcement agencies submitted to the FBI were incomplete. For the same reason, we 

excluded 2004 data for Dona Ana County, New Mexico.

The average 

6

The 9 small border counties are Hidalgo County in New Mexico and Brewster, Culberson, 

Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Presidio, Terrell, and Zapata Counties in Texas.
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 47 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

combined population of these 9 counties from 2004 through 2011 was 

about 46,000. Our analysis of SRS violent crime data for 7 of the 9 

counties with sufficiently complete data shows that the total number of 

reported violent crimes in these small counties decreased by 55 percent, 

that is, from a total of 93 violent crimes in 2004 to 42 in 2011 (see fig. 4).7

Figure 4: Total Number of Reported Violent Crimes in Seven Small Southwest 

Border Counties, 2004-2011

Notes: The 7 counties are Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Terrell, and Zapata 

Counties in Texas. The average combined total population for the 7 counties from 2004 through 2011 

was about 36,000. 

 

7

For small counties, we report numbers of crimes, instead of crime rates per 100,000 

population, because, in general, these counties have relatively low numbers of reported 

crimes, and small year-to-year changes in these numbers can lead to large percentage 

changes in the crime rate. We excluded Hidalgo County, New Mexico, and Presidio 

County, Texas, because SRS violent crime data local law enforcement agencies 

submitted to the FBI were incomplete.
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 48 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

All border and nonborder counties. We analyzed SRS property crime 

data for both border counties in California, all 3 border counties in New 

Mexico, and all 15 border counties in Texas.8 We also analyzed the data 

for the nonborder counties in California, New Mexico, and Texas.9 For the 

border counties in California and Texas, we found that the reported 

property crime rate in 2011 was lower than in 2004, and the rate in the 

border counties decreased more than in the nonborder counties. The rate 

for New Mexico border counties was lower in 2011 than in 2005, but the 

rate in New Mexico’s border counties decreased less than in its 

nonborder counties.10

• Each year from 2009 through 2011, the property crime rate in 

California’s border counties was lower than the rate in California’s 

nonborder counties; and each year from 2004 to 2008, the rate in 

border and nonborder counties was similar. For border counties, the 

rate was 35 percent lower in 2011 than in 2004. The property crime 

rate in California’s nonborder counties decreased each year and was 

23 percent lower in 2011 than in 2004.

Specifically, as shown in figure 5,

• The property crime rate in New Mexico’s border counties was lower 

than in New Mexico’s nonborder counties in each year from 2005 to 

2011. The decrease in crime rate in border counties (7 percent) was 

smaller than the decrease in nonborder counties (18 percent).

• The property crime rate in Texas’s border counties was similar to the 

rate in nonborder counties in nearly all years. However, the crime rate 

decreased in both, with the rate in border counties being 28 percent 

lower in 2011 than 2004, and the rate in nonborder counties being 22 

percent lower.

 

8

We excluded Arizona because Tucson, in Pima County, reported property crime data 

improperly, according to the FBI, and Tucson accounts for about 40 percent of the total 

population of Arizona’s border counties. Further, according to UCR Program practice, 

because of limited participation and varying data collection practices by law enforcement 

agencies nationwide, we excluded arson crimes when calculating property crime rates.

9

One New Mexico nonborder county, De Baca, did not report SRS property crime data to 

the FBI.

10We excluded New Mexico from these analyses for 2004 because local law enforcement 

agencies in the 3 border counties (Dona Ana, Luna, and Hidalgo) submitted incomplete 

SRS property crime data to the FBI.

Reported Property Crime 

along the Southwest 

Border through the UCR 

SRS
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 49 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Figure 5 : Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Population for Border and Nonborder Counties Combined by State, 2004-2011

Note: The figure does not include New Mexico for 2004 because local law enforcement agencies in 

the 3 New Mexico border counties (Dona Ana, Hidalgo, and Luna) submitted incomplete SRS 

property crime to the FBI, or Arizona because Tucson, in Pima County, reported property crime data 

improperly, according to the FBI, and Tucson accounts for about 40 percent of the total population of 

Arizona’s border counties. 
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 50 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Large border counties. We analyzed SRS property crime data for the 12 

large southwest border counties that submitted sufficiently complete data 

to the FBI to enable us to calculate the reported property crime rate.11

Small border counties. Our analysis of SRS data for 7 of 9 counties with 

sufficiently complete data shows that the total number of reported 

property crimes in these small counties decreased by about 29 percent, 

that is, from a total of 701 crimes in 2004 to 497 in 2011 (see fig. 6).

Of 

these, in all 11 large border counties in Arizona, California, and Texas, 

the SRS data showed that the crime rate was lower in 2011 than in 2004, 

although there was variability in the rate in some counties, such as 

Cochise County, Arizona, and Val Verde County, Texas, over the years 

(see fig. 1). The reported property crime rate in Dona Ana County, New 

Mexico, was lower in 2011 than in 2005. Comparing UCR SRS and 

NIBRS data for the Yuma County sheriff’s office, we found that both 

showed a decrease in property crimes. Specifically, the total number of 

property crimes reported through NIBRS was 27 percent lower in 2010 

than in 2007, when the office began reporting NIBRS data. The number of 

property crimes reported in the SRS format was 33 percent lower in 2010 

than in 2007. Overall, the total number of property crime offenses 

reported through NIBRS was about 24 percent higher than those reported 

through in the SRS format. 

12

 

11These analyses are based on reported property crimes in 12 of 15 large counties along 

the southwest border. We excluded 1 border county in New Mexico (Luna) because local 

law enforcement agencies did not submit complete SRS property crime data to the FBI. 

For the same reason, we excluded 2004 data for Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Also, 

we excluded 2 of 4 border counties in Arizona (Pima and Santa Cruz) because data were 

incomplete or, according to the FBI, were reported improperly.

12We excluded Hidalgo County, New Mexico, and Presidio County, Texas, because SRS

property crime data local law enforcement agencies submitted to the FBI were incomplete.
Appendix V: Results from Analyzing UCR SRS 

and NIBRS Crime Data 

Page 51 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Figure 6: Total Number of Reported Property Crimes in Small Southwest Border 

Counties, 2004-2011

Notes: The 7 counties are Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney, Terrell, and Zapata 

counties in Texas. 

The average combined total population for the 7 counties from 2004 through 2011 was about 36,000. 
Appendix VI: Assaults against Border Patrol 

Agents by Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 

2006-2012 

Page 52 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Analysis of assault trends for fiscal years 2006 through 2012 by Border 

Patrol sector is presented in figure 7 and source data for the analysis are 

presented in table 4.

Appendix VI: Assaults against Border Patrol 

Agents by Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 

2006-2012 
Page  GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Source: GAO (analysis), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (data), Mapinfo (map).

Sector boundry

State line

Sector name

State names

Legend

California

Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma

Texas

Oceanside

San Diego

Tijuana

Yuma

Tucson

Nogales

Las Cruces

El Paso

Fort Hancock Van Home

Alpine

Marfa

Del Rio

Eagle Pass

Laredo

Rio Grande City

Brownsville

Kingsville

Corpus Christi

Big Bend

Tucson El Paso

Del Rio

El Centro

Laredo

Yuma

Rio Grande Valley

San Diego

Notes: Rocking assaults are thrown rocks, for example by drug or alien smugglers, at Border Patrol 

agents with the intent of threatening or inflicting physical harm.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Border Patrol has divided geographic responsibility for border 

security operations along the southwest border among nine sectors, each of which has a 

headquarters with management personnel.

Interactive graphic Figure 7: Number of Assaults against Border Patrol Agents by Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal 

Years 2006-2012

Move mouse over the sector name to learn more about the sector.
Appendix VI: Assaults against Border Patrol 

Agents by Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 

2006-2012 

Page 54 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Table 4: Data Tables on Assaults against Border Patrol Agents by Border Patrol 

Sector, Fiscal Years 2006-2012

Big Bend Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 

All other assaults 2 5 0 3 2 2 1 

Del Rio Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 3 7 9 8 2 1 0 

All other assaults 13 26 10 15 6 8 14

El Centro Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 4 102 125 174 176 107 25

All other assaults 13 32 23 14 20 17 10

El Paso Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 34 40 66 25 106 21 8 

All other assaults 25 38 22 25 11 16 9 

Laredo Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 3 13 23 75 18 5 10

All other assaults 36 25 21 43 32 21 33

Rio Grande Valley Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 14 12 18 48 25 36 48

All other assaults 41 39 60 63 68 72 77
Appendix VI: Assaults against Border Patrol 

Agents by Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 

2006-2012 

Page 55 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

San Diego Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 140 214 294 203 100 46 73

All other assaults 60 40 83 49 30 31 60

Tucson Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 116 124 169 189 340 188 73

All other assaults 76 86 86 72 81 63 91

Yuma Sector

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rocking assaults 120 133 65 34 26 22 12

All other assaults 29 41 11 16 6 9 5 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data
Appendix VII: Select Federal, State, and Local 

Law Enforcement Efforts along the Southwest 

Border

Page 56 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Select efforts by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to 

address crime along the southwest border are presented in tables 5 and 

6.

Table 5: Select Federal Law Enforcement Entities’ Efforts to Combat Mexican Drug Cartel-Related Activities along the 

Southwest Border

Organization Efforts 

DOJ Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 

The FBI created a Latin American Southwest Border Threat Section to focus on issues 

specifically related to drug cartels. Within this section, “hybrid-squads,” dedicated to 

combating violent crime along the border, are to address crosscutting issues through 

investigations of different types of crimes related to drug-trafficking organizations and 

eliminate traditional law enforcement stovepipes to focus on the issue more 

holistically. The FBI also has nine border liaison officers who, among other things, are 

tasked with investigating acts of violence that occur in border areas.

DHS U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection 

DHS, jointly with the government of Mexico, issued Border Violence Protocols in 2006 

that set out the steps that CBP and Mexican government personnel are to follow when 

reporting incidents of border violence, such as incursions, assaults on U.S. officers or 

private citizens, potential cross-border pursuits, significant arrests and seizures, and 

attacks or threats against critical U.S. infrastructure. The protocols, still in effect, were 

the result of an action plan for combating border violence that DHS and the Mexican 

government collaboratively prepared. DHS sought to expand on these protocols by 

issuing Border Violence Prevention Protocols in December 2011. The newer protocols 

set out a number of steps to enhance coordination between the United States and 

Mexico, including producing joint risk assessments and conducting coordinated 

patrols. CBP officials stated in June 2012 that they are still in the process of 

implementing these new protocols.

Interagency 

task forces

Border Enforcement Security 

Task Force 

The Border Enforcement Security Task Force stems cross-border criminal activity and 

associated violence through efforts that identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal 

organizations posing a significant threat to border security. The task force is led by ICE

in partnership with its state, local, and foreign law enforcement counterparts. There are 

14 Border Enforcement Security Task Force teams located along the southwest border 

in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.

High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area program 

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program provides assistance to federal, state, 

local, and tribal law enforcement agencies operating in areas determined to be critical 

drug-trafficking regions of the United States. The purpose of the program is to reduce 

drug trafficking and production in the United States by facilitating information sharing 

and coordinated enforcement activities. Participating agencies make up the High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Executive Boards, which are composed of an equal 

number of federal and nonfederal (state, local, and tribal) law enforcement leaders. 

There are five southwest border designated areas in California, Arizona, New Mexico, 

West Texas, and South Texas.

Appendix VII: Select Federal, State, and Local 

Law Enforcement Efforts along the 

Southwest Border
Appendix VII: Select Federal, State, and Local 

Law Enforcement Efforts along the Southwest 

Border

Page 57 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Organization Efforts 

Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces 

The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces Program aims to reduce the 

availability of drugs, and the violence and other criminal activity associated with the 

drug trade, by disrupting and dismantling major drug-trafficking organizations, moneylaundering organizations, and related criminal enterprises by targeting high-level cartel 

members. The program operates nationwide and combines the resources of many 

federal, state, and local agencies. Led by DOJ, participating agencies include 94 U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the 

DEA; the FBI; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Coast Guard; ICE/Homeland Security 

Investigations; U.S. Marshals Service; the Criminal Division of DOJ; and numerous 

state and local agencies. The program has four “strike forces” (San Diego, Arizona, 

South Texas, and West Texas) that operate along the southwest border by colocating 

federal prosecutors with investigative agents from multiple agencies.

Alliance to Combat 

Transnational Threats 

The Alliance to Combat Transnational Threats operates in Arizona and New 

Mexico/West Texas and brings together law enforcement agencies to share 

intelligence, deploy tactical resources, and coordinate enforcement activities to “deter, 

deny, degrade, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations, and their ability to 

operate.” Led by DHS, participating agencies include CBP; ICE; as well as over 60 

other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

Executive Committee for 

Southwest Border Intelligence 

and Information Sharing

The Executive Committee serves as a forum to address state and local intelligence 

needs; reinforce best practices; and advise local, state, or federal leadership on 

southwest border intelligence and information-sharing issues within the state and local 

environment. Coled by DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the Texas 

Department of Public Safety, participating agencies include select fusion centers, 

sheriffs’ offices, and police departments. In April 2012, the committee formed the 

Southwest Border Violence and Crime Working Group to identify new metrics and 

indicators to measure border-related crime and violence, and propose new terms and 

definitions for various facets of such crime. The Working Group plans to complete this 

work by mid-March 2013.

El Paso Intelligence Center The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), located in Texas, is a national law 

enforcement intelligence center administered by the DEA that provides time-sensitive, 

actionable information and intelligence to over 39,000 federal, state, local, tribal, and 

international law enforcement officers, agents, and analysts who are approved center 

users. Participating agencies at EPIC include representatives from 24 different federal, 

state, and local agencies.

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents.
Appendix VII: Select Federal, State, and Local 

Law Enforcement Efforts along the Southwest 

Border

Page 58 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Table 6: Select State and Local Law Enforcement Efforts to Target Border-Related Crime

Effort Description

Operation Stonegarden Operation Stonegarden is a federal grant program administered by DHS’s Federal Emergency 

Management Agency to provide funds to state and local agencies to hire additional law 

enforcement personnel; provide overtime pay, travel, and lodging expenses; and procure 

equipment to increase law enforcement presence and enhance their capabilities for securing the 

southwest border. Twenty-three out of 37 state and local law enforcement agencies we spoke to 

stated that they receive Operation Stonegarden funding.

Deputization across jurisdictional 

boundaries

The Luna County, New Mexico, Sheriff’s Office seeks to increase local law enforcement capacity 

by developing memorandums of understanding with neighboring jurisdictions, allowing deputies 

from other counties to operate in their county so they can work together and present a larger law 

enforcement presence along the border.

Border Crimes Unit The Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Office formed a border crimes enforcement unit in 2008 to 

deal with an increase in crimes related to illegal trafficking of drugs and people. This unit is 

responsible for patrolling rural areas and interdicting drug traffickers; undocumented aliens; and 

those who commit crimes such as homicide, assault, rape, and robbery against undocumented 

aliens.

Arizona Counter Terrorism 

Information Center

This fusion center provides intelligence, investigative, and technical support to state, local, tribal, 

and federal law enforcement agencies on a variety of issues, including border security. It 

produces annual threat assessments on crime trends and criminal activity in Arizona. The center 

is a joint effort of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Arizona Department of Homeland 

Security, the FBI, and other participating agencies.

Joint Intelligence Operations 

Centers 

Led by the Texas Department of Public Safety, the centers are responsible for analyzing 

intelligence and collecting border security information; collaborating with state, local, and federal 

law enforcement partners to conduct intelligence-directed border enforcement operations; and 

ensuring information exchange between agencies.

Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition The coalition is an association of sheriffs from counties on or near the Texas-Mexico border. It 

provides a forum for joint law enforcement efforts.

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents and interviews.
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 59 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Error! No text of specified style in document.

Page 60 GAO-13-175 Crime along the Southwest Border

Cary Russell, (202) 512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Rebecca Gambler, Director; 

Cindy Ayers, Assistant Director; Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director; David 

Alexander; Hiwotte Amare; Eric Hauswirth; Margaret McKenna; Erin 

O’Brien; Yanina G. Samuels; and Julia Vieweg made significant 

contributions to the work.

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441037)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.