BORDER PATROL

Goals and Measures Not Yet 

in Place to Inform Border 

Security Status and 

Resource Needs

Statement of Rebecca Gambler, Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Border 

and Maritime Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. EST

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

GAO-13-330T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-330T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Border and 

Maritime Security, Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives

February 26, 2013 

BORDER PATROL

Goals and Measures Not Yet in Place to Inform 

Border Security Status and Resource Needs

Why GAO Did This Study

Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s (CBP) Border Patrol has 

primary responsibility for securing the 

southwest border between ports of 

entry. CBP reported apprehending

over 327,000 illegal entrants and 

making over 17,150 seizures of drugs 

along the border in fiscal year 2011.

Across the border, most 

apprehensions (over 38 percent) and 

drug seizures (28 percent) occurred in 

the Tucson sector. This statement 

discusses (1) apprehension and other 

data CBP collects to inform changes in 

southwest border security and data 

used to show effectiveness of resource 

deployments, and (2) the extent to 

which Border Patrol has developed 

goals and measures to identify 

resource needs under its new strategic 

plan. This statement is based on 

GAO’s December 2012 report on 

CBP’s management of southwest 

border resources and prior reports on 

DHS’s efforts to measure border 

security, with selected updates from 

February 2013 on Border Patrol fiscal 

year 2012 operations data. To conduct 

prior work, GAO analyzed DHS 

documents and data from fiscal years 

2006 to 2011, and interviewed CBP 

officials, among other things. To 

conduct selected updates, GAO 

reviewed Border Patrol data and 

interviewed Border Patrol officials.

What GAO Recommends

In a December 2012 report, GAO 

recommended that CBP ensure 

Border Patrol develops milestones 

and time frames for developing 

border security goals and measures

to assess progress made and inform 

resource needs. DHS concurred with 

these recommendations and plans to 

address them.

What GAO Found

Since fiscal year 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has used 

changes in the number of apprehensions on the southwest border between ports 

of entry as an interim measure for border security as reported in its annual 

performance plans. In fiscal year 2011, DHS reported a decrease in 

apprehensions, which met its goal to secure the southwest border. Our analysis 

of Border Patrol data showed that apprehensions decreased within each 

southwest border sector from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, generally mirroring 

decreases in estimated known illegal entries. Border Patrol attributed these 

decreases in part to changes in the U.S. economy and improved enforcement 

efforts. In addition to apprehension data, sector management collect and use 

other data to assess enforcement efforts within sectors. Our analysis of these 

data show that the percentage of estimated known illegal entrants apprehended 

from fiscal years 2006 to 2011 varied across southwest border sectors; in the 

Tucson sector, for example, there was little change in the percentage of 

estimated known illegal entrants apprehended over this time period. The

percentage of individuals apprehended who repeatedly crossed the border 

illegally declined across the border by 6 percent from fiscal years 2008 to 2011.

Further, the number of seizures of drugs and other contraband across the border 

increased from 10,321 in fiscal year 2006 to 18,898 in fiscal year 2011.

Additionally, southwest border sectors scheduled more agent workdays in fiscal 

year 2011 to enforcement activities for patrolling the border than for any other 

enforcement activity. The Tucson sector, for example, scheduled 73 percent of 

workdays for enforcement activities; of these, 71 percent were scheduled for 

patrolling within 25 miles of the border. Other sectors scheduled from 44 to 70 

percent of enforcement workdays for patrolling the border. Sectors assess how 

effectively they use resources to secure the border, but differences in how they 

collect and report data preclude comparing results. Border Patrol issued 

guidance in September 2012 to improve the consistency of sector data collection 

and reporting, which may allow comparison of performance in the future. 

Border Patrol is developing performance goals and measures to define border 

security and the resources needed to achieve it, but has not identified milestones 

and time frames for developing and implementing goals and measures under its 

new strategic plan. Prior to fiscal year 2011, DHS used operational control—-the 

number of border miles where Border Patrol had the capability to detect, respond 

to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity—as its goal and measure for border 

security and to assess resource needs to accomplish this goal. At the end of 

fiscal year 2010, DHS reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 

873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles. In fiscal year 2011, 

citing a need to establish new goals and measures that reflect a more 

quantitative methodology and an evolving vision for border control, DHS 

transitioned to using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border as an 

interim goal and measure. As GAO previously testified, this interim measure, 

which reports on program activity levels and not program results, limits DHS and 

congressional oversight and accountability. Milestones and time frames could 

assist Border Patrol in monitoring progress in developing goals and measures 

necessary to assess the status of border security and the extent to which existing 

resources and capabilities are appropriate and sufficient. 

View GAO-13-330T. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777

or gamblerr@gao.gov. 
Page 1 GAO-13-330T 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our past work regarding the 

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to deploy and manage 

resources along the southwest border and to assess the results of those 

efforts. In fiscal year 2011, DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) reported spending over $4 billion to secure the U.S. border with 

Mexico.1 The Office of Field Operations, within CBP, is responsible for 

securing the national borders at designated U.S. land border ports of 

entry.2 Border Patrol, also within CBP, is the federal agency with primary 

responsibility for securing the borders between the ports of entry. CBP 

has divided geographic responsibility for southwest border miles between 

ports of entry among nine Border Patrol sectors. In fiscal year 2011, 

Border Patrol reported apprehending over 327,000 illegal entrants and 

making over 17,150 seizures of drugs along the southwest border. Across 

the southwest border, the Tucson sector reported making the most 

apprehensions—over 38 percent—and the most drug seizures—more 

than 28 percent—in fiscal year 2011. 

Border Patrol is moving to implement a new strategy for securing the 

border between ports of entry. Border Patrol’s 2004 National Border 

Patrol Strategy (2004 Strategy), developed following the terrorist attacks 

of September 11, 2001, was designed to facilitate the buildup and 

deployment of border resources to ensure the agency had the right mix of 

personnel, technology, and infrastructure and to deploy those resources 

in a layered approach at the immediate border and in other areas distant 

from the border. For example, from fiscal years 2004 through 2011, the 

number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border nearly doubled, 

from about 9,500 to about 18,500; and DHS reported that since fiscal 

year 2006, about $4.4 billion has been invested in southwest border 

technology and infrastructure. Through fiscal year 2010, these resources 

were used to support DHS’s goal to achieve “operational control” of the 

 

1

This figure represents the estimated percentage of net costs applied to the southwest 

border for CBP’s Border Security and Control Between the Ports of Entry and Border 

Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology programs.

2

Ports of entry are officially designated facilities that provide for the arrival at, or departure 

from, the United States.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-330T 

nation’s borders by reducing cross-border illegal activity. The extent of 

operational control—also referred to as effective control—was defined as 

the number of border miles where Border Patrol had the capability to 

detect, respond to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity. In May 2012, 

Border Patrol issued the 2012-2016 Border Patrol Strategic Plan (2012-

2016 Strategic Plan), stating that the buildup of its resource base and the 

operations conducted over the past two decades would enable the Border 

Patrol to focus on mitigating risk rather than increasing resources to 

secure the border. This new strategic plan emphasizes using intelligence 

information to inform risk relative to threats of cross-border terrorism, drug 

smuggling, and illegal migration across locations; integrating border 

security operations with those of other law enforcement partners; and 

developing rapid response capabilities to deploy the resources 

appropriate to changes in threat.

My testimony today summarizes the findings of our December 2012 

report on CBP’s management of resources at the southwest border, and 

our past work highlighting DHS’s processes for measuring security at the 

southwest border.3 As requested, my statement discusses (1) what 

apprehension and other data show about Border Patrol efforts and 

deployments across the southwest border and to what extent the data 

show these deployments to have been effective in securing the border, 

and (2) the extent to which Border Patrol has developed goals and 

measures to identify resource needs under its new strategic plan and 

assess results.

My statement is based on prior products that examined CBP’s 

management of resources and DHS’s processes for measuring security 

at the southwest border, with selected updates related to Border Patrol 

fiscal year 2012 operations data conducted in February 2013. For the 

past products, among other methodologies, we analyzed Border Patrol 

planning and operational assessment documents, interviewed relevant 

DHS officials, and analyzed data related to Border Patrol performance 

and cross-border threats for fiscal years 2006 through 2011; we 

 

3

See GAO, Border Patrol: Key Elements of New Strategic Plan Not Yet in Place to Inform 

Border Security Status and Resource Needs, GAO-13-25 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 

2012); Border Patrol Strategy: Progress and Challenges in Implementation and 

Assessment Efforts, GAO-12-688T (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2012); and Border Security: 

Preliminary Observations on Border Control Measures for the Southwest Border, 

GAO-11-374T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2011).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-330T 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

our report.4 We also analyzed data supporting the border security 

measures reported by DHS in its annual performance reports for fiscal 

years 2005 through 2012.5 More detailed information on our scope and 

methodology can be found in our report and testimonies. For the selected 

updates, we interviewed Border Patrol officials and analyzed Border 

Patrol fiscal year 2012 apprehension and seizure data; we determined 

that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

testimony. We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. These 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. 

 

4

GAO-13-25. 

5

See GAO-12-688T and GAO-11-374T. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-330T 

Since fiscal year 2011, DHS has used changes in the number of 

apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as an 

interim measure for border security as reported in its annual performance 

reports. In fiscal year 2011, DHS reported data meeting its goal to secure 

the land border with a decrease in apprehensions. In addition to collecting 

data on apprehensions, Border Patrol collects and analyzes various data 

on the number and types of entrants who illegally cross the southwest 

border between the ports of entry, including collecting estimates on the 

total number of identified—or “known”—illegal entries. Border Patrol’s 

estimate of known illegal entries includes illegal, deportable entrants who 

were apprehended, in addition to the number of entrants who illegally 

crossed the border but were not apprehended because they crossed back 

into Mexico (referred to as turn backs) or continued traveling into the U.S. 

interior (referred to as got aways).6 Border Patrol collects these data as 

 

6 We defined these illegal entries as estimated “known” illegal entries to clarify that the 

estimates do not include illegal entrants for which Border Patrol does not have reasonable 

indications of cross-border illegal activity. These data are collectively referred to as known 

illegal entries because Border Patrol officials have what they deem to be a reasonable 

indication that the cross-border activity occurred. Indications of illegal crossings are 

obtained through various sources such as direct agent observation, referrals from credible 

sources (such as residents), camera monitoring, and detection of physical evidence left on 

the environment from animal or human crossings.

Apprehensions 

Decreased across the 

Southwest Border 

from Fiscal Years 

2006 to 2011, but Data 

Limitations Preclude 

Comparing Overall 

Effectiveness of 

Resources Deployed 

across Southwest 

Border Sectors

Apprehensions Decreased 

at about the Same Rate as 

Estimated Known Illegal 

Entries across the 

Southwest Border from 

Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011; 

Other Data Provide a 

Broader Perspective on 

Changes in Border 

Security 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-330T 

an indicator of the potential border threat across locations. Border Patrol 

data show that apprehensions within each southwest Border Patrol sector 

decreased from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, generally mirroring the 

decrease in estimated known illegal entries within each sector.7 In the 

Tucson sector, for example, our analysis of Border Patrol data showed 

that apprehensions decreased by 68 percent from fiscal years 2006 to 

2011, compared with a 69 percent decrease in estimated known illegal 

entries, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Border Patrol Apprehensions and Estimated Known Illegal Entries in 

Tucson Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011

 

7

Border Patrol arrests both deportable aliens and nondeportable individuals, but for the 

purposes of this testimony we define “apprehensions” to include only deportable aliens, in 

keeping with Border Patrol’s definition. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

deportable aliens include those who are inadmissible to the United States or present in 

violation of U.S. law, who have failed to maintain their status or violated the terms of their 

admission, or who have committed certain criminal offenses or engaged in terrorist 

activities, among others. (See 8 U.S.C. § 1227 for a complete list of the classes of 

deportable aliens.) Aliens with lawful immigration status and U.S. citizens would be 

considered nondeportable.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-330T 

Border Patrol officials attributed the decrease in apprehensions and 

estimated known illegal entries from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 within 

southwest border sectors to multiple factors, including changes in the 

U.S. economy and successful achievement of its strategic objectives.8

Border Patrol’s ability to address objectives laid out in the 2004 Strategy 

was strengthened by increases in personnel and technology, and 

infrastructure enhancements, according to Border Patrol officials. For 

example, Tucson sector Border Patrol officials said that the sector 

increased manpower over the past 5 years through an increase in Border 

Patrol agents that was augmented by National Guard personnel, and that 

CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI) provided border fencing and other 

infrastructure, as well as technology enhancements.9 Border Patrol 

officials also attributed decreases in estimated known illegal entries and 

apprehensions to the deterrence effect of CBP consequence programs—

programs intended to deter repeated illegal border crossings by ensuring 

the most efficient consequence or penalty for individuals who illegally 

enter the United States. Data reported by Border Patrol following the 

issuance of our December 2012 report show that total apprehensions 

across the southwest border increased from over 327,000 in fiscal year 

2011 to about 357,000 in fiscal year 2012.10 It is too early to assess 

 

8

Specifically, these objectives were to (1) deter illegal entries through improved 

enforcement—defined as increasing the certainty of apprehensions through the proper 

mix of assets and implementing prosecution strategies that establish a deterrent effect in 

targeted locations—and (2) leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of 

enforcement personnel. Border Patrol defines “smart border” technology to include 

camera systems for day/night/infrared operations, sensors, aerial platforms, and other 

systems.

9

The number of Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector increased from nearly 2,600 in 

fiscal year 2006 to about 4,200 in fiscal year 2011, augmented by 9,000 National Guard 

personnel deployed periodically from June 2006 through July 2008 under Operation Jump 

Start. Under SBI, CBP expended approximately $850 million on technology in Arizona 

such as wide-area and mobile surveillance systems, to augment Tucson sector 

operations. Other infrastructure as of March 2012 included installation of 352 miles of 

pedestrian fencing and 299 miles of vehicle fencing along the southwest border, for a 

combined total of 651 miles of fencing.

10See GAO-13-25. Our analysis of Border Patrol data—queried as of March 2012—also 

shows over 327,000 apprehensions across the southwest border in fiscal year 2011.

According to Border Patrol officials, any differences in our apprehension and seizure 

numbers and those of Border Patrol are due to variances in when the data were “queried,” 

or reported—that is, Border Patrol reports apprehension and other data on an “end-ofyear” basis, and therefore agency data do not reflect adjustments or corrections made 

after that reporting date. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-330T 

whether this increase indicates a change in the trend for Border Patrol 

apprehensions across the southwest border.

Border Patrol collects other types of data that are used by sector 

management to help inform assessment of its efforts to secure the border 

against the threats of illegal migration, smuggling of drugs and other 

contraband, and terrorism. These data show changes, for example, in the 

(1) percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who are apprehended, 

(2) percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who are apprehended 

more than once (repeat offenders), and (3) number of seizures of drugs 

and other contraband. Border Patrol officials at sectors we visited, and 

our review of fiscal years 2010 and 2012 sector operational assessments, 

indicated that sectors have historically used these types of data to inform 

tactical deployment of personnel and technology to address cross-border 

threats; however, the agency has not analyzed these data at the national 

level to inform strategic decision making, according to Border Patrol 

headquarters officials. These officials stated that greater use of these 

data in assessing border security at the national level may occur as the 

agency transitions to the new strategic plan.

Apprehensions compared with estimated known illegal entries. Our 

analysis of Border Patrol data showed that the percentage of estimated 

known illegal entrants who were apprehended by the Border Patrol over 

the past 5 fiscal years varied across southwest border sectors. The 

Tucson sector, for example, showed little change in the percentage of 

estimated known illegal entrants who were apprehended by Border Patrol 

over the past 5 fiscal years. Specifically, our analysis showed that of the 

total number of estimated known aliens who illegally crossed the Tucson 

sector border from Mexico each year, Border Patrol apprehended 62 

percent in fiscal year 2006 compared with 64 percent in fiscal year 2011, 

an increase of about 2 percentage points. Border Patrol headquarters 

officials said that the percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who 

are apprehended is primarily used to determine the effectiveness of 

border security operations at the tactical—or zone—level but can also 

affect strategic decision making. The data are also used to inform overall 

situational awareness at the border, which directly supports field planning 

and redeployment of resources.

Repeat offenders. Changes in the percentage of persons apprehended 

who have repeatedly crossed the border illegally (referred to as the 

recidivism rate) is a factor that Border Patrol considers in assessing its 

ability to deter individuals from attempting to illegally cross the border. 

Our analysis of Border Patrol apprehension data showed that the 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-330T 

recidivism rate has declined across the southwest border by about 6 

percentage points from fiscal years 2008 to 2011 in regard to the number 

of apprehended aliens who had repeatedly crossed the border in the prior 

3 years.11 Specifically, our analysis showed that the recidivism rate across 

the overall southwest border was about 42 percent in fiscal year 2008 

compared with about 36 percent in fiscal year 2011. The Tucson sector 

had the third-highest recidivism rate across the southwest border in fiscal 

year 2011, while the highest rate of recidivism occurred in El Centro 

sector, as shown in figure 2. According to Border Patrol headquarters 

officials, the agency has implemented various initiatives designed to 

address recidivism through increased prosecution of individuals 

apprehended for crossing the border illegally.12

 

11We used a rolling 3-fiscal year time period to determine the percentage of 

apprehensions of deportable aliens in a given year who had previously been apprehended 

for illegally crossing the border in any of the previous 3 years, at any southwest border 

location. We used four rolling 3-fiscal year time periods because our analysis covered a 5-

year period and required comparable time periods to assess recidivism in each fiscal year. 

Using a single time period would result in a bias, given that some apprehensions in earlier 

years would be incorrectly classified as nonrecidivist.

12Border Patrol’s 2012-2016 Strategic Plan emphasizes the importance of the application 

of appropriate consequences to illegal entrants. Border Patrol has developed a new 

Consequence Delivery System that guides management and agents in evaluating each 

individual apprehended and identifying the ideal consequence to break the smuggling 

cycle. Consequences delivered under the system include administrative, criminal 

prosecution, and programmatic elements that are designed to stem the flow of illegal 

activity.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-330T 

Figure 2: Recidivism and NonRecidivism Numbers and Percentages for Border 

Patrol Apprehensions across Southwest Border Patrol Sectors, Fiscal Year 2011

Seizures of drugs and other contraband. Border Patrol headquarters 

officials said that data regarding seizures of drugs and other contraband 

are good indicators of the effectiveness of targeted enforcement 

operations, and are used to identify trends in the smuggling threat and as 

indicators of overall cross-border illegal activity, in addition to potential 

gaps in border coverage, risk, and enforcement operations. However, 

these officials stated that these data are not used as a performance 

measure for overall border security because while the agency has a 

mission to secure the border against the smuggling threat, most 

smuggling is related to illegal drugs, and that drug smuggling is the 

primary responsibility of other federal agencies, such as the Drug 

Enforcement Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations.

Our analysis of Border Patrol data indicated that across southwest border 

sectors, seizures of drugs and other contraband increased 83 percent 

from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, with drug seizures accounting for the vast 

majority of all contraband seizures. Specifically, the number of drug and 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-330T 

contraband seizures increased from 10,321 in fiscal year 2006 to 18,898 

in fiscal year 2011. Most seizures of drugs and other contraband occurred 

in the Tucson sector, with about 28 percent, or 5,299, of the 18,898 

southwest border seizures occurring in the sector in fiscal year 2011 as 

shown in figure 3.13 Data reported by Border Patrol following the issuance 

of our December 2012 report show that seizures of drugs and other 

contraband across the southwest border decreased from 18,898 in fiscal 

year 2011 to 17,891 in fiscal year 2012.14 It is too early to assess whether 

this decrease indicates a change in the trend for Border Patrol seizures 

across the southwest border. 

Figure 3: Number and Percentage of Seizures of Drugs and Other Contraband 

across Southwest Border Patrol Sectors, Fiscal Year 2011

 

13Drugs accounted for the vast majority of all contraband seizures; contraband seizures 

other than drugs include firearms, ammunition, and money. Although drug seizures 

increased 81 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, the percentage of all 

contraband seizures that were drug seizures compared with the percentage of all 

contraband seizures remained nearly constant, averaging about 93 percent over this time 

period.

14GAO-13-25. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-330T 

Southwest border sectors scheduled most agent workdays for 

enforcement activities during fiscal years 2006 to 2011, and the activity 

related to patrolling the border accounted for a greater proportion of 

enforcement activity workdays than any of the other activities. Sectors 

schedule agent workdays across various activities categorized as 

enforcement or nonenforcement.15 Across enforcement activities, our 

analysis of Border Patrol data showed that all sectors scheduled more 

agent workdays for “patrolling the border”—activities defined to occur 

within 25 miles of the border—than any other enforcement activity, as 

shown in figure 4. Border Patrol duties under this activity include 

patrolling by vehicle, horse, and bike; patrolling with canines; performing 

sign cutting; and performing special activities such as mobile search and 

rescue.16 Other enforcement activities to which Border Patrol scheduled 

agent workdays included conducting checkpoint duties, developing 

intelligence, and performing aircraft operations.

 

15The percentage of total agent workdays scheduled for deployment across enforcement 

activities compared with nonenforcement activities in fiscal year 2011 ranged from a low of 

66 percent in the Yuma sector to a high of 81 percent in the Big Bend sector. The Tucson 

sector scheduled 73 percent of agent workdays across enforcement activities in fiscal year 

2011. Examples of nonenforcement activities include administrative duties, training, and 

intelligence support.

16“Sign” is the collective term for evidence that Border Patrol agents look for and find after 

they have dragged dirt roads using tires lying on their sides flat on the ground and pulled 

by chains behind a sport utility vehicle. “Sign” can be footprints, animal prints, and tire or 

bicycle tracks—any indication in the smooth surface created by the drag. The term 

“cutting” refers to the practice of concentrating on the marks within discrete, manageable 

slices or segments of terrain. Border Patrol agents track illegal cross-border activity by 

cutting for sign to find persons who may have crossed the border illegally. 

Sectors Schedule Agents to 

Patrol the Border More 

than Other Enforcement 

Activities; Data Limitations 

Preclude Comparison of 

Overall Effectiveness 

across Sectors
 

Page 12 GAO-13-330T 

Figure 4: Border Patrol Agent Workdays Scheduled across Enforcement Activities 

across Southwest Border Sectors, Fiscal Year 2011

Note: Percentage may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.

Border Patrol sectors and stations track changes in their overall 

effectiveness as a tool to determine if the appropriate mix and placement 

of personnel and assets are being deployed and used effectively and 

efficiently, according to officials from Border Patrol headquarters. Border 

Patrol calculates an overall effectiveness rate using a formula in which it 

adds the number of apprehensions and turn backs in a specific sector 

and divides this total by the total estimated known illegal entries—

determined by adding the number of apprehensions, turn backs, and got 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-330T 

aways for the sector.17 Border Patrol sectors and stations report this 

overall effectiveness rate to headquarters. Border Patrol views its border 

security efforts as increasing in effectiveness if the number of turn backs 

as a percentage of estimated known illegal entries has increased and the 

number of got aways as a percentage of estimated known illegal entries 

has decreased.

Border Patrol data showed that the effectiveness rate for eight of the nine 

sectors on the southwest border increased from fiscal years 2006 through 

2011.18 For example, our analysis of Tucson sector apprehension, turn 

back, and got away data from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 showed 

that while Tucson sector apprehensions remained fairly constant at about 

60 percent of estimated known illegal entries, the percentage of reported 

turn backs increased from about 5 percent to about 23 percent, while the 

percentage of reported got aways decreased from about 33 percent to 

about 13 percent, as shown in figure 5. As a result of these changes in 

the mix of turn backs and got aways, Border Patrol data showed that 

enforcement effort, or the overall effectiveness rate for Tucson sector, 

improved 20 percentage points from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2011, 

from 67 percent to 87 percent.

 

17Border Patrol officials stated that only entrants who can be traced back to a cross-border 

entry point in a border zone are to be reported as got aways. These officials also noted 

that while the agency strives to minimize variance in the collection of these data by using 

standard terminology and consistent collection and reporting methods, in many cases the 

determination of a turn back or got away depends on agent judgment. Patrol agents-incharge are responsible for ensuring that Border Patrol agents are aware of the integrity of 

data collection at their respective stations and field commanders must ensure the accurate 

counting of got away data for reconciling possible inconsistencies in data between 

operational boundaries.

18The exception was the Big Bend sector, which showed a decrease in the overall 

effectiveness rate from 86 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 68 percent in fiscal year 2011.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-330T 

Figure 5: Number of Tucson Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions, Turn Backs, and 

Got Aways as a Percentage of Estimated Known Illegal Entries, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2011

Border Patrol headquarters officials said that differences in how sectors 

define, collect, and report turn back and got away data used to calculate 

the overall effectiveness rate preclude comparing performance results 

across sectors. Border Patrol headquarters officials stated that until 

recently, each Border Patrol sector decided how it would collect and 

report turn back and got away data, and as a result, practices for 

collecting and reporting the data varied across sectors and stations based 

on differences in agent experience and judgment, resources, and terrain. 

In terms of defining and reporting turn back data, for example, Border 

Patrol headquarters officials said that a turn back was to be recorded only 

if it is perceived to be an “intended entry”—that is, the reporting agent 

believed the entrant intended to stay in the United States, but Border 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-330T 

Patrol activities caused the individual to return to Mexico.19 According to 

Border Patrol officials, it can be difficult to tell if an illegal crossing should 

be recorded as a turn back, and sectors have different procedures for 

reporting and classifying incidents. In terms of collecting data, Border 

Patrol officials reported that sectors rely on a different mix of cameras, 

sign cutting, credible sources, and visual observation to identify and 

report the number of turn backs and got aways.20

According to Border Patrol officials, the ability to obtain accurate or 

consistent data using these identification sources depends on various 

factors, such as terrain and weather. For example, data on turn backs 

and got aways may be understated in areas with rugged mountains and 

steep canyons that can hinder detection of illegal entries. In other cases, 

data may be overstated—for example, in cases where the same turn back 

identified by a camera is also identified by sign cutting. Double counting 

may also occur when agents in one zone record as a got away an 

individual who is apprehended and then reported as an apprehension in 

another zone. As a result of these data limitations, Border Patrol 

headquarters officials said that while they consider turn back and got 

away data sufficiently reliable to assess each sector’s progress toward 

border security and to inform sector decisions regarding resource 

deployment, they do not consider the data sufficiently reliable to 

compare—or externally report—results across sectors.

Border Patrol headquarters officials issued guidance in September 2012 

to provide a more consistent, standardized approach for the collection 

and reporting of turn back and got away data by Border Patrol sectors. 

Each sector is to be individually responsible for monitoring adherence to 

the guidance. According to Border Patrol officials, it is expected that once 

the guidance is implemented, data reliability will improve. This new 

guidance may allow for comparison of sector performance and inform 

 

19Officials said that sometimes illegal entrants can be “drop offs” or “decoys” to lure 

agents away from a specific area so others can cross, such as smugglers returning to 

Mexico to pick up another load, or an individual crossing the border to steal an item and 

take it back to Mexico.

20“Camera” indicates that one of the remote cameras caught sight of an individual; “sign 

cut” indicates that an agent encountered footprints that led him/her to believe that an 

unauthorized crossing took place; “credible source” indicates a report by a non-Border 

Patrol witness, who could be a local law enforcement agent, a citizen, or a ground sensor; 

“visual” indicates an agent actually witnessed an unauthorized crossing
 

Page 16 GAO-13-330T 

decisions regarding resource deployment for securing the southwest 

border.

Border Patrol officials stated that the agency is in the process of 

developing performance goals and measures for assessing the progress 

of its efforts to secure the border between ports of entry and for informing 

the identification and allocation of resources needed to secure the border, 

but has not identified milestones and time frames for developing and 

implementing them. Since fiscal year 2011, DHS has used the number of 

apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as an 

interim performance goal and measure for border security as reported in 

its annual performance report. Prior to this, DHS used operational control 

as its goal and outcome measure for border security and to assess 

resource needs to accomplish this goal.21 As we previously testified, at 

the end of fiscal year 2010, Border Patrol reported achieving varying 

levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 

southwest border miles.22 For example, Yuma sector reported achieving 

operational control for all of its border miles. In contrast, the other 

southwest border sectors reported achieving operational control ranging 

from 11 to 86 percent of their border miles, as shown in figure 6. Border 

Patrol officials attributed the uneven progress across sectors to multiple 

factors, including terrain, transportation infrastructure on both sides of the 

border, and a need to prioritize resource deployment to sectors deemed 

to have greater risk of illegal activity.

 

21Border Patrol sector officials assessed the miles under operational control using factors 

such as operational statistics, third-party indicators, intelligence and operational reports, 

resource deployments, and discussions with senior Border Patrol agents. 

22GAO-11-374T. 

Border Patrol Has Not 

Yet Developed Goals 

and Measures for 

Assessing Efforts and 

Identifying Resource 

Needs under the New 

Strategic Plan 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-330T 

Figure 6: Southwest Border Miles under Operational Control by Border Patrol 

Sector, as of September 30, 2010

DHS transitioned from using operational control as its goal and outcome 

measure for border security in its Fiscal Year 2010-2012 Annual 

Performance Report. Citing a need to establish a new border security 

goal and measure that reflect a more quantitative methodology as well as 

the department’s evolving vision for border control, DHS established the 

interim performance goal and measure of the number of apprehensions 

between the land border ports of entry until a new border control goal and 

measure could be developed. We previously testified that the interim goal 

and measure of number of apprehensions on the southwest border 

between ports of entry provides information on activity levels, but it does 

not inform program results or resource identification and allocation 

decisions, and therefore until new goals and measures are developed, 

DHS and Congress could experience reduced oversight and DHS 

accountability.23 Further, studies commissioned by CBP have 

documented that the number of apprehensions bears little relationship to 

 

23GAO-12-688T. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-330T 

effectiveness because agency officials do not compare these numbers 

with the amount of cross-border illegal activity.24

Border Patrol officials stated that the agency is in the process of 

developing performance goals and measures for assessing the progress 

of its efforts to secure the border between ports of entry and for informing 

the identification and allocation of resources needed to secure the border, 

but has not identified milestones and time frames for developing and 

implementing them. According to Border Patrol officials, establishing 

milestones and time frames for the development of performance goals 

and measures is contingent on the development of key elements of the 

2012-2016 Strategic Plan, such as a risk assessment tool, and the 

agency’s time frames for implementing these key elements—targeted for 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014—are subject to change. Specifically, under 

the 2012-2016 Strategic Plan, the Border Patrol plans to continuously 

evaluate border security—and resource needs—by comparing changes in 

risk levels against available resources across border locations. Border 

Patrol officials stated the agency is in the process of identifying 

performance goals and measures that can be linked to these new risk 

assessment tools that will show progress and status in securing the 

border between ports of entry, and determine needed resources, but has 

not established milestones and time frames for developing and 

implementing goals and measures because the agency’s time frames for 

implementing key elements of the plan are subject to change.25

Standard practices in program management call for documenting the 

scope of a project as well as milestones and time frames for timely 

completion and implementation to ensure results are achieved.26 These 

standard practices also call for project planning—such as identifying time 

frames—to be performed in the early phases of a program and recognize 

 

24For example, see Homeland Security Institute, Measuring the Effect of the Arizona 

Border Control Initiative (Arlington, Va.: Oct. 18, 2005).

25Border Patrol officials stated that DHS and Border Patrol have established a 

performance goal—linked to relevant measures—addressing border security that, as of

October 2012, was being used as an internal management indicator. However, a DHS 

official said it has not been decided whether this goal and the associated measures will be 

publicly reported or used as an overall performance goal and as measures for border 

security.

26The Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management© (Newtown 

Square, Penn., 2006).
 

Page 19 GAO-13-330T 

that plans may need to be adjusted along the way in response to 

unexpected circumstances. Time frames for implementing key elements 

of the 2012-2016 Strategic Plan can change; however, milestones and 

time frames for the development of performance goals and measures 

could help ensure that goals and measures are completed in a timely 

manner.

To support the implementation of Border Patrol’s 2012-2016 Strategic 

Plan and identify the resources needed to achieve the nation’s strategic 

goal for securing the border, we recommended in our December 2012 

report that Border Patrol establish milestones and time frames for 

developing a (1) performance goal, or goals, for border security between 

the ports of entry that defines how border security is to be measured and 

(2) performance measure, or measures—linked to a performance goal or 

goals—for assessing progress made in securing the border between 

ports of entry and informing resource identification and allocation efforts.27

DHS agreed with these recommendations and stated that it plans to 

establish milestones and time frames for developing goals and measures 

by November 30, 2013. Milestones and time frames could better position 

CBP to monitor progress in developing and implementing goals and 

measures, which would provide DHS and Congress with information on 

the results of CBP efforts to secure the border between ports of entry and 

the extent to which existing resources and capabilities are appropriate 

and sufficient.

Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and members of the 

subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you may have at this time.

 

27GAO-13-25. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-330T 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Rebecca 

Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. In addition, contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key 

contributions to this statement included Lacinda Ayers (Assistant 

Director), Frances A. Cook, Barbara A. Guffy, Stanley J. Kostyla, Brian J. 

Lipman, Jerome T. Sandau, and Ashley D. Vaughan.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441134)
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.
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.