Central America: Improved Evaluation Efforts Could Enhance Agency Programs to Reduce Unaccompanied Child Migration
Published: 2015-07-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: According to DHS, the number of UAC apprehended at the U.S.-Mexican border climbed from nearly 28,000 in fiscal year 2012 to more than 73,000 in fiscal year 2014, with nearly three-fourths of those apprehended nationals of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Children from these three countries face a host of challenges, such as extreme violence and persistent poverty. Those who migrate can encounter even more dangers, such as robbery and abuse.
GAO was asked to review issues related to UAC migration. In February 2015, GAO reported on U.S. assistance to Central America addressing the rapid increase in UAC migration. This report reviews (1) U.S. assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras addressing agency-identified causes of UAC migration; (2) how agencies have determined where to locate these assistance efforts; and (3) the extent to which agencies have developed processes to assess the effectiveness of programs seeking to address UAC migration. GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed officials in Washington, D.C., and in Central America.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: U.S. agencies have sought to address causes of unaccompanied alien child (UAC) migration through recent programs, such as information campaigns to deter migration, developed in response to the migration increase and other long-standing efforts. The recent migration increase was likely triggered, according to U.S. officials, by several emergent factors such as the increased presence and sophistication of human smugglers (known as coyotes) and confusion over U.S. immigration policy. Officials also noted that certain persistent conditions such as violence and poverty have worsened in certain countries. In addition to long-standing efforts, such as U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) antipoverty programs, agencies have taken new actions. For example, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-led investigative units have increasingly sought to disrupt human smuggling operations.
U.S. agencies have located programs based on various factors, including long-term priorities such as targeting high-poverty and -crime areas, but have adjusted to locate more programs in high-migration communities. For example, Department of State (State) officials in Guatemala said they moved programs enhancing police anticrime capabilities into such communities, and USAID officials in El Salvador said they expanded to UAC-migration-affected locations.
Most agencies have developed processes to assess the effectiveness of programs seeking to address UAC migration, but weaknesses exist in these processes for some antismuggling programs. For example, DHS has established performance measures, such as arrests, for units combating UAC smuggling, but has not established numeric or other types of targets for these measures, which would enable DHS to measure the units' progress. In addition, DHS and State have not always evaluated information campaigns intended to combat coyote misinformation. DHS launched its 2013 campaign in April, but launched its 2014 campaign in late June after migration levels peaked. Neither agency evaluated its 2014 campaign. Collecting performance information on media campaigns can have value in informing future campaign efforts to reduce child migration.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DHS and State take steps to integrate evaluations into their planning for, and implementation of, future information campaigns intended to deter migration. GAO also recommends that DHS establish performance targets for its investigative units. DHS concurred with both recommendations, and State concurred with the one recommendation directed to it.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since 2012, there has been a rapid increase in the number of  apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexican border of unaccompanied alien  children (UAC)—foreign nationals under the age of 18 who are neither  with a parent nor with a legal guardian at the time they are apprehended.  According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the number of  UAC from any country apprehended at the U.S. border climbed from  nearly 28,000 in fiscal year 2012 to more than 42,000 in fiscal year 2013,  and to more than 73,000 in fiscal year 2014. Prior to fiscal year 2012,  most UAC apprehended at the border were Mexican nationals. However,  starting in fiscal year 2013, the total number of UAC from El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras surpassed the number of UAC from Mexico  and, in fiscal year 2014, far surpassed the number of UAC from Mexico.
Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras face a host of perils  both within their countries and along the migration route to the United  States. In February, we reported that U.S. officials in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras most commonly identified crime and violence  and economic concerns as among the primary causes of UAC migration  to the United States. These three countries have among the world’s  highest murder rates, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs  and Crime, along with a widespread presence of gangs in each, as well  as high poverty rates and a number of other persistent problems that  diminish living conditions. Children who migrate, however, can encounter  further risks, with some having to travel over a thousand miles to the U.S.  border, sometimes crossing the desert by foot or riding on top of trains.  Along the way, they can encounter numerous dangers, including robbery,  extortion, abandonment, rape, or murder.
A number of U.S. agencies provide assistance intended to improve living  conditions and strengthen rule of law in the three countries, including the  U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the Departments of  State (State), Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ), the  Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC); and the Inter-American  Foundation (IAF). The U.S. government also provides additional  assistance through the Central America Regional Security Initiative  (CARSI). In its fiscal year 2016 budget request, the administration  requested an additional $1 billion for Central America to support  assistance efforts intended to address underlying causes of migration.
We were asked to review a number of issues related to UAC migration.  We recently reported on U.S. efforts to screen and care for UAC migrants  who safely arrive at the border, and we plan to report in 2016 on efforts  to care for UAC once in U.S. custody. This report reviews (1) U.S.  assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras addressing agency- identified causes of UAC migration; (2) how agencies have determined  where to locate these assistance efforts; and (3) the extent to which  agencies have developed processes to assess the effectiveness of  programs seeking to address UAC migration.
To address the objectives for this review, we obtained written responses  from agency officials outlining what they identified as the causes of UAC  migration, and actions taken in response to the migration increase. To  assess these responses, we reviewed agency documents for programs  agencies identified as addressing causes of UAC migration, including  country and program strategies, operational plans, project proposal and  appraisal documents, and progress reports, among others. We also  interviewed U.S. and nongovernment officials in Washington, D.C., and  U.S., host government, and nongovernment officials in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras, where we also visited U.S. agency-supported  projects and met with children in each country. For more information on  our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to July 2015  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Since 2012, there has been a rapid increase in the number of UAC  apprehended at the U.S.-Mexican border. According to DHS’s U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the number of UAC from any  country apprehended at the border climbed from nearly 28,000 in fiscal  year 2012 to more than 42,000 in fiscal year 2013, and to more than  73,000 in fiscal year 2014. Prior to fiscal year 2012, the majority of UAC  apprehended at the border were Mexican nationals. However, as figure 1  shows, more than half of the UAC apprehended at the border in fiscal  year 2013, and nearly three-fourths of UAC apprehended in fiscal year  2014, were nationals of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Recent data indicate the pace of migration from Central America remains  high, though fewer migrants are being apprehended in the United States.  According to DHS’s Border Patrol—a component of CBP—through May  2015, there have been nearly 23,000 UAC apprehensions at the  southwest border in fiscal year 2015—compared with about 24,500  through May of fiscal year 2013 and nearly 47,000 through May of fiscal  year 2014. However, according to research from the nongovernmental  organization (NGO) the Washington Office on Latin America, Central  American migrants are being detained in Mexico at a higher rate this year  compared with last year, with more than 90,000 Central American  migrants detained in Mexico during the first 7 months of fiscal year 2015  compared with around 50,000 during the same period of fiscal year 2014.  Since 2012, apprehensions of UAC at the U.S.-Mexican border have  generally increased between January and May, as shown in figure 2,  according to data from DHS’s Border Patrol.
These three countries face a variety of socioeconomic challenges. In  February 2015, we reported that U.S. officials in El Salvador, Guatemala,  and Honduras identified crime and violence, and economic and  educational concerns, as among the primary causes of UAC migration to  the United States. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and  Crime, these countries had among the top five highest homicide rates  worldwide in 2012, the most recent year for which these statistics were  available for all three countries, with Honduras ranking first, with a  homicide rate of 90.4 per 100,000 inhabitants; El Salvador fourth, with a  rate of 41.2; and Guatemala fifth, with a rate of 39.9. According to this UN  office, the surge in homicide levels in Central America in recent years is  largely a result of violence related to the control of drug trafficking routes,  turf wars between criminal groups, and conflict between organized  criminal groups and the host government. A 2014 United Nations High  Commissioner for Refugees study on UAC from Central America and  Mexico noted that nearly half of the UAC interviewed for the study  reported being affected by violence committed by gangs or drug cartels,  while about a fifth reported being victims of domestic abuse. In addition,  according to 2011 World Bank data, more than 60 percent of Hondurans,  more than 50 percent of Guatemalans, and 30 percent of Salvadorans  live below the poverty level. According to a Wilson Center publication,  nearly 2 million Central Americans between the ages of 15 and 25 do not  have a job or go to school, and the highest proportion of these youth  come from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.In addition, all three  countries rank below the regional average on Transparency  International’s Corruption Perception Index.
In September 2014, the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras issued a regional plan in response to the recent migration  increase. The plan, referred to as the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity  in the Northern Triangle: A Road Map, outlines four strategic actions,  which seek to stimulate the productive sector to create economic  opportunities, develop opportunities for people, improve public safety and  enhance access to the legal system, and strengthen institutions to  increase people’s trust in the state. The plan notes that income inequality  presents a major challenge to the three countries, as 20 percent of the  wealthiest segments of the population account for more than half of  overall income. In addition, the plan identifies a limited supply and quality  of services in housing, early childhood health care, nutrition, and child  development as among the main challenges to development, while also  noting that weaknesses in the countries’ educational systems have  resulted in workforces with less schooling and more limited skills as  compared with those of other countries in the region.
In addition to the problems within these countries, children who migrate  illegally can encounter other risks during the journey to the United States.  The journey to the United States may be hundreds or over a thousand  miles, and some make this journey on foot over desert terrain, where  daytime summer temperatures can exceed 110 degrees Fahrenheit.  Others travel on top of trains, such as La Bestia, or “the Beast,” the name  given to the cargo trains that transport goods through Mexico to the  United States. According to NGO reports, whether traveling by foot or on  trains, child migrants are exposed to various dangers, including robbery,  extortion, forced recruitment into gangs, abandonment, rape, and murder.
A number of U.S. agencies provide assistance to the three countries. For  example, USAID, State, DHS, IAF, and MCC have programs providing  assistance in areas such as economic development, rule of law, citizen  security, law enforcement, education, community development, and  others. In fiscal year 2014, USAID, State, DHS, and IAF allocated a  combined $44.5 million for El Salvador, $88.1 million for Guatemala, and  $78 million for Honduras. In addition, MCC signed a threshold program  agreement with Honduras in fiscal year 2013 totaling $15.6 million, a  compact agreement with El Salvador in fiscal year 2014 totaling $277  million, and a threshold program agreement with Guatemala in fiscal year  2015 totaling $28 million. The U.S. government also provides additional  assistance through CARSI, which funds activities to improve law  enforcement and justice sector capabilities, prevent crime and violence,  and deter and detect border criminal activity, among other efforts in these  three countries as well as in Belize, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama.  Between fiscal years 2008 and 2014, U.S. agencies allocated more than  $800 million for CARSI activities from various accounts. We previously  reported that, through June 2013, more than 50 percent of funds  allocated for CARSI activities had been designated for activities in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Additional information on agency  funding to the three countries is provided in appendix II.
The administration has taken several recent actions related to these three  countries. In December 2014, the administration started an in-country  refugee and parole program, which is intended to allow certain parents  who are lawfully present in the United States to request access to the  U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for their children still living in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In addition, in March 2015, the  administration issued the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central  America, which includes the primary objectives of prosperity, governance,  and security, and goals of an economically integrated Central America  that is fully democratic; provides economic opportunities to its people;  enjoys more accountable, transparent, and effective public institutions;  and ensures a safe environment for its citizens. According to the  strategy, important successes would include the establishment of strong  regional coordination mechanisms and institutions; reducing violence to a  point where no Central American country is among the top 10 countries in  terms of homicide rates; a 50 percent reduction of the youth  unemployment rate in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala; full  implementation of ongoing electrical interconnection projects and other  initiatives aimed at making energy more affordable, cleaner, and more  sustainable; and steady economic growth throughout the region such that  the poverty rate is pushed to below 40 percent over the next decade.
In its fiscal year 2016 budget request, the administration requested $1  billion for Central America, an increase of more than 200 percent from  fiscal year 2014 levels. State and USAID have stated that the funding  would support the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America and  the priority objectives identified in the Alliance for Prosperity Plan.  According to agency budget documents, funding would seek to address  the underlying factors of undocumented migration from Central America,  among other priorities.
section_title: Agencies Seek to Address Causes of UAC Migration with Recently Developed and Long-standing Efforts
paragraphs: Agency officials noted that the rapid increase in UAC migration is due to  several emergent factors, including the proliferation of human smugglers,  or coyotes. Agencies have taken some actions in response to the rapid  increase in migration, including several intended to directly reduce illegal  migration and combat coyotes. In addition, agencies have a number of  long-standing efforts, developed prior to the increase in migration, that  seek to address pervasive violence, poverty, and other conditions  agencies also identified as contributing to migration.
subsections: section_title: A Mixture of Emergent Factors and Pervasive Problems Likely Triggered the Rapid Increase in Migration, According to Officials
paragraphs: Agency officials noted that a variety of factors likely caused the recent  rapid increase in UAC migration, including the increased presence of  coyotes, perceptions concerning U.S. immigration law, and recent  improvements in the U.S. economy. In addition, agency officials noted  that some pervasive problems have recently intensified in some places,  including rising levels of violence and insecurity and worsening economic  and social conditions.
subsections: section_title: Emergent Factors
paragraphs: All agency officials we spoke with from all three countries identified  several emergent factors as likely triggering the rapid increase in  migration, including the growing presence of coyotes as one of the top  factors. Agency officials from all three countries that we spoke to said that  coyotes had proliferated and grown more influential and sophisticated in  recent years. Officials from USAID and State in all three countries noted  that coyotes were often well known and trusted in communities.  According to USAID officials, when they conducted focus group  interviews in Honduras with youth and outreach center coordinators in  high-risk communities, including San Pedro Sula, participants noted that  coyotes were easy to access. In addition, agency officials we spoke to in  all three countries noted that coyotes had instituted new marketing and  messaging tactics. For example, numerous officials in all three countries  told us that coyotes offered package deals, such as offering three  attempts to migrate to the United States for one fee—known as a “three- for-one” deal. Coyotes have also intentionally spread rumors and  misinformation about U.S. immigration policy. For example, agency  officials told us that, in some cases, in an effort to drive smuggling  business, coyotes led many people to believe children could migrate to  the United States and receive permission to stay indefinitely, if they  arrived by a certain date.
According to agency officials, general perceptions concerning U.S.  immigration policy have played a growing role in UAC migration. Agency  officials noted they relied on outreach efforts, focus groups, and other  information sources to try to understand this factor. According to State  officials in El Salvador and Guatemala, local media outlets have  optimistically discussed comprehensive immigration reform efforts in the  United States and sometimes failed to discuss the complexity of  immigration reform. According to State officials, many Guatemalan  citizens believe undocumented migrants in the United States will be  encouraged to send for their children from Guatemala so they can come  to the United States and they can benefit together for any upcoming  comprehensive immigration reform, or even be eligible for Deferred  Action for Childhood Arrivals. In addition, according to USAID officials,  Honduran youth and coordinators of community centers who were  interviewed as part of a USAID focus group indicated they believed the  United States would allow migrant minors, mothers traveling with minors,  and pregnant women to stay for a period of time upon arrival in the United  States.
Agency officials also noted that recent improvements in the U.S. economy  had fueled increased UAC migration, enabling family reunification in the  United States. In particular, State and USAID officials in Honduras noted  that the improving economy had enabled parents who immigrated to the  United States to send money back to their home country to pay coyotes  so their children could migrate and reunify the family in the United States.
According to officials in El Salvador, as the economy improved there,  more Salvadorans have attempted to migrate to the United States to  reunify with family. Agency officials noted that many children have spent  years apart from their parents, being raised by a grandparent or another  family member, and that in some cases, aging grandparents were no  longer able to care for the children. This dynamic is further illustrated by  examples from an internal USAID analysis of migration causes in  Honduras, which highlighted migration-related risk factors associated with  children living with extended family or non-family members in Honduras.
Some agency officials also noted that the increased use of social media  has enabled migrating families to be in more regular contact and to  confirm if and when family members or friends arrive in the United States.  Additionally, according to a study performed by State contractors in El  Salvador, many people advertise immigration services through social  media and offer travel services to ensure safe arrival in the United States.  The use of social media can encourage migration, according to some  agency officials. For example, officials in Guatemala noted that social  media outlets enable migrants who have arrived in the United States to  share messages and pictures with families in their home countries, an act  that can serve as a powerful and influential endorsement of the decision  to migrate. Agency officials in El Salvador similarly noted that when a  potential migrant hears from someone in the United States who has  managed to arrive and remain there undocumented, the communication  can strongly influence their decision on whether to migrate.
section_title: Worsening of Pervasive Socio- economic Problems
paragraphs: Violence, poverty, and poor access to education and other services have  been pervasive development challenges in all three countries, predating  the UAC migration increase. However, according to agency officials we  spoke to in all three countries, some of these problems have grown worse  in recent years and could have contributed to the rise of UAC migration.  For example, in Honduras, agency officials noted that levels and  perceptions of violence had grown worse, in part because of the rise in  extortions. Worsening security concerns also negatively affect access to  education. For example, agency officials in El Salvador noted that many  children will not attend school after the seventh grade because traveling  to some schools requires crossing gang borders, and that girls in  particular face the risk of being attacked or raped en route. In Guatemala,  agency officials stated that poor economic and social conditions in the  Western Highlands had declined even further in recent years. In  addition, agency officials noted that deteriorating climate conditions,  including several consecutive years of drought and a coffee rust blight  that has hurt coffee production and cost jobs in Honduras and  Guatemala, exacerbated long-standing economic concerns in many  communities. Agency officials told us that, on the basis of their outreach  efforts, reporting from NGOs, academics, and government officials, and  focus groups, they had determined that these longstanding problems had  intensified.
In addition, we met with children from all three countries who offered  similar insights concerning the causes of migration. For example,  children at a USAID outreach center in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, noted  the lack of educational and job opportunities in their communities as a  reason for migrating. Children from a particularly violent neighborhood  told us it was even more difficult for them to obtain a job because  potential employers would sometimes choose not to hire them because of  where they live. Children also described the ways in which violence leads  to migration, such as by making it difficult for them to attend school if  doing so requires them to travel from one neighborhood to another and  cross a gang border. Children at an outreach center in El Salvador also  noted that sometimes, even with an education, one cannot find work in El  Salvador and that there are more opportunities and chances to succeed  in the United States. Children at this same center indicated that the desire  to migrate is even stronger for children with parents in the United States.  Children from a youth center in Guatemala also noted violence and  economic factors as motivations for migration, and many of these children  already had family or knew someone who had migrated.
section_title: Agency Actions Taken in Response to the Migration Increase Include Several Efforts to Combat Child Smuggling
paragraphs: Among the various agency actions taken in response to UAC migration,  several seek to directly combat coyotes, which agency officials identified  as a key emergent factor causing migration. Agencies also have  established efforts to increase legal migration and improve migrant return  centers.
subsections: section_title: Antismuggling Law Enforcement and Legislative Efforts
paragraphs: In response to the increase in UAC migration, DHS and State have  supported several law enforcement and legislative outreach efforts that  have marked an increased focus on investigating and dismantling  smuggling operations in all three countries. For example:
According to DHS officials from Homeland Security Investigations, in  response to the rapid increase in UAC migration in 2014, DHS shifted  the investigative priorities of its Transnational Criminal Investigative  Units (TCIU) to target child-smuggling operations in all three  countries. The units include host government police, customs officers,  and prosecutors, among others, and are intended to facilitate  information sharing and rapid bilateral investigations involving  trafficking of people, money, drugs, and weapons, and other priorities.  The units have focused their efforts on seeking to identify and  dismantle criminal organizations involved in smuggling. According to  DHS and DOJ officials, TCIUs across the three countries coordinate  efforts given the transnational nature of the smuggling rings. A DHS  official in Guatemala told us the unit there was able to dismantle two  of the seven criminal organizations it was investigating that were  actively smuggling children. DHS, with State’s Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) funding, has indicated it plans  to increase the size of these units.
State/INL in Honduras is working with a DOJ resident legal advisor to  assist the Honduran attorney general’s office in prosecuting trafficking  and alien-smuggling cases. This assistance includes, among other  things, providing training to Honduran prosecutors on developing  cases against smuggling organizations.
State/INL support in Guatemala has included assistance to reform  police training, with a new emphasis on UAC-related issues in the  community policing techniques, criminal investigations, and human  rights curricula.
State has participated in legislative and political outreach efforts to  combat smuggling. For example, in Guatemala, State has advocated  modifying certain laws that would better enable Guatemalan law  enforcement to investigate and prosecute these cases and, if  applicable, carry out appropriate penalties for the crimes.
section_title: Public Information Campaigns to Deter Migration
paragraphs: DHS and State carried out several public information campaigns between  2013 and 2015 intended to dissuade citizens of El Salvador, Guatemala,  and Honduras from migrating to the United States. Between the  aforementioned years, DHS carried out three public information  campaigns. The campaigns in 2013 and 2014 focused on warning  potential migrants of the dangers of the journey, while the 2015 campaign  sought to increase awareness of requirements under the executive action  on immigration, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, how it  will be implemented, and who is eligible. This campaign was launched in  January 2015 but was stopped February 16, 2015, because of a federal  court ruling that granted a preliminary injunction to prevent expansion of  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, among other things. The  campaigns ran in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, with  ads placed on radio and TV stations, and on billboards, bus stops, and in  and on buses (see fig. 3). According to an official from DHS CBP’s Office  of Public Affairs, in developing the 2013 dangers of the journey campaign,  DHS incorporated feedback from various U.S. agencies and a working  group composed of several DHS components; the embassies of El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras; and other international and  nongovernmental organizations. DHS does not currently have an active  campaign. The DHS official also noted DHS would like to develop a new  campaign for early 2016 if funding is available.
State public affairs officials we spoke to at the U.S embassies in all three  countries told us they used the DHS campaign materials and developed  their own materials to launch related public information campaigns in- country while also supporting similar host government campaigns. For  example, in Honduras the U.S embassy’s public affairs section used  social media and webinars to provide information on migration, while in  Guatemala the public affairs section at the U.S. embassy there placed  ads on newspapers, the radio, and buses. In El Salvador, public affairs  officials from the U.S embassy collaborated with the host government to  develop its message intended to deter migration. In addition, State  officials from the consular affairs sections from the U.S. embassies in  Guatemala and El Salvador have also made efforts to counter  misinformation. In Guatemala, State consular officials from the U.S  embassy incorporated UAC-related messages into their regular  community presentations, such as by adding Power Point slides  addressing the dangers of the journey and the importance of being aware  of coyotes, while State consular officers from the U.S. embassy in El  Salvador distributed information in consular waiting areas.
section_title: In-Country Refugee/Parole Program Intended to Increase Legal Migration
paragraphs: In an effort to increase legal migration and reduce the number of children  attempting to migrate to the United States, State and DHS have  collaborated to implement a new in-country refugee/parole processing  program. The program was announced in November 2014 and began  accepting applications the following month. There is currently no deadline  for filing an application through this program. Through this program,  qualifying parents in the United States can petition on behalf of their  children for refugee status and if the child is ineligible for refugee  admission but still at risk of harm, the child may be considered for parole  on a case-by-case basis. The child must be unmarried; under the age of  21; a national of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras; and residing in his  or her country of nationality. Once a parent submits an application  through a designated resettlement agency, DNA tests are conducted to  prove the biological relationship and the child is interviewed in country by  a DHS official to determine whether the child qualifies for refugee status.  As of June 2015, State officials in Washington D.C. reported that the  program had received 1,385 applications. Of those applications, 1,139  are from El Salvador, 225 from Honduras, and 21 from Guatemala. State  officials also reported no interviews have yet been conducted. A DHS  official in Guatemala noted DHS needed to improve their advertising of  the program to Guatemalan citizens. A State official in Washington, D.C.,  noted in particular that more information advertising the program in  indigenous languages was needed.
section_title: Efforts to Strengthen Migrant Return and Repatriation Centers
paragraphs: USAID and State have an interagency agreement to provide assistance  to strengthen migrant reception and repatriation efforts in all three  countries. Efforts under this program have included providing immediate,  basic assistance to returnees (see fig. 4); undertaking construction efforts  to expand and improve existing facilities; and working with host  governments to systemize data gathered from the returned migrants.  According to officials from the International Organization for Migration, an  intergovernmental organization that is implementing the program, this  improved data collection should enable better long-term tracking of  migrants—including the causes of their migration—and their ability to  return to and reintegrate with their communities of origin.
section_title: Agencies’ Long-standing Efforts Have Sought to Address Persistent Conditions Identified as Contributors to Migration
paragraphs: USAID, State, IAF, and MCC programs have long sought to address what  officials have identified as underlying causes of migration, including  persistent development challenges such as violence, poverty, and lack of  educational opportunities. For example, USAID’s Country Development  Cooperation Strategies (CDCS) for each country identify citizen security  and economic growth as strategic objectives. The agency supports  programs in each country seeking to reduce violence, improve economic  opportunities through improved agricultural practices and other efforts,  and increase access to education and health services, among others. For  example, the USAID crime and violence prevention project in El Salvador,  which focuses on expanding community-based crime and violence  prevention efforts and supporting the government of El Salvador’s  National Strategy on Violence prevention, includes capacity building for  municipalities to prevent violence and establishes outreach centers for  youth and children. The agency also supports similar efforts in Guatemala  and Honduras (see fig. 5).
State has supported programs in each of the three countries we reviewed  seeking to reduce violence and improve citizen security by offering  training and technical support to prosecutors, the police, and border patrol  units, among others (see fig. 6). For example, in Honduras, State officials  at the U.S embassy described justice sector capacity-building efforts  including strengthening host government judicial personnel’s ability to  develop cases against criminal organizations and other efforts. This  includes support for DOJ advisors in Honduras.
IAF officials said that IAF supports local initiatives in more than 880  communities in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, with nearly half of  its investment in the three countries intended to directly benefit youth  through job creation and other community-based activities. For example,  IAF provided training and technical assistance to help a farmer’s  cooperative in El Salvador improve its production and marketing of  organic coffee. Finally, MCC’s compact in El Salvador and threshold  program in Guatemala—each in development prior to the recent migration  increase—include programs to improve the quality of secondary  education to assist youth in finding employment.
USAID, State, and IAF outlined plans to modify some of these  longstanding efforts in response to the rise in UAC migration. For  example, in Guatemala, USAID outlined plans to increasingly target youth  at risk of migration through various programs and to introduce agricultural  programming, including coffee rust-resistant seedlings, and to provide  nonagricultural economic opportunities for youth. State and DHS have  outlined plans to strengthen border security efforts through their vetted  units to stem migration, and to increase the size of antigang units in an  effort to reduce violence. In addition, USAID, State, and IAF have each  outlined plans to expand various programs to additional communities  identified as having high levels of UAC migration. These efforts are  discussed in more detail later in the report.
section_title: Agencies Have Aligned Program Locations with Long- Term Strategic Objectives and Made Some Adjustments to Reach More Communities Affected by UAC Migration
paragraphs: Agencies have generally located programs in alignment with long-term  objectives for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, such as  addressing areas of high poverty and violence. In response to the rapid  increase in UAC migration to the United States, agency officials said that  they reviewed program locations and determined that most programs  were already located in areas that had experienced high levels of UAC  out-migration. However, officials also indicated that they have made some  adjustments and plan to locate more programs in communities with high  levels of UAC migration.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Generally Aligned Program Locations with Long-Term Strategic Objectives
paragraphs: Most of the agencies in our review have established development  objectives for Central America, some of which predate the rapid increase  in UAC migration. These objectives are outlined in various strategy and  planning documents. In some cases, the development objectives outline  priority geographic locations for programs that agencies have identified as  addressing underlying causes of UAC migration, such as crime and  poverty. USAID’s CDCS documents, for example, outline development  objectives for each country that focus on specific locations. For example,  in Honduras, the CDCS contains two development objectives. The first  development objective seeks to increase citizen security for vulnerable  populations in high-density urban areas with high crime rates, and  specifies two cities—Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula—and  municipalities in an area referred to as the Northern Corridor as the  geographic focus. The second development objective, to reduce  extreme poverty in western Honduras, specifies the six western  departments, which all have severe rates of poverty and undernutrition,  as the focus of programming. Similarly, the CDCS for Guatemala, which  contains an overarching goal of developing a more secure Guatemala  that fosters greater socioeconomic development in the Western  Highlands and sustainably manages its natural resources, states that the  majority of USAID resources will be allocated to programming in the  Western Highlands, while USAID officials noted most of the remainder  was dedicated to security efforts in urban areas. In El Salvador, where  USAID aims to increase citizen security, rule of law, and economic  opportunity, the CDCS states that the government of El Salvador has  identified 54 of 262 municipalities as “high crime,” where USAID will focus  its crime prevention and education activities.
State country planning documents similarly highlight strategic priorities for  the three countries, and in some cases outline priority geographic  locations. State Integrated Country Strategy documents, which are multi- year mission planning documents, outline strategic priorities, but do not  specify geographic locations to the same extent as USAID’s CDCS  documents. State/INL’s country plans indicate that they are aligned with  U.S strategies. In addition, these plans outline various program areas and  goals associated with these program areas. The plans specify priority  geographic locations for some programs associated with these program  area goals. For example, in support of the INL goal in El Salvador of  building the government’s ability to mitigate the influence of gangs and  improve citizen security, the INL country plan outlines plans to launch the  Model Police Precinct program in Quetaltepeque, Sonsonate, San Martin,  Antiguo Cuscatlan, and La Libertad.
MCC and IAF documents do not outline specific geographic priorities for  programs in the three countries, but MCC and IAF officials offered  examples of factors the agencies consider in determining where to locate  programs. For example, according to IAF officials, IAF awards its grants  to grassroots and community-based groups in communities with  economic and social disadvantages, often with a history of and increased  risk for migration. Geographic location is considered one element of the  selection strategy for each country. Also, according to an MCC official in  El Salvador, as part of a full-time inclusive school approach, the program  may invest in science labs in certain schools in order for other schools in  the vicinity to also access them.
section_title: Agencies Determined Many Programs Were Already Located in UAC Communities of Origin
paragraphs: Agency officials told us they drew on various sources of information to  understand which areas in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras had  high levels of UAC migration. In particular, they told us a key point of  reference was a DHS-produced map that showed the number of UAC by  location of origin based upon Border Patrol apprehension data from  January 1 to May 15, 2014. We previously reported that agency officials  used this map and DHS data on UAC locations of origin, along with other  sources of information, to understand underlying causes of UAC  migration and inform programming decisions. During our fieldwork for  this review, agency officials provided similar responses, noting that they  used this map and DHS data to understand UAC origins or to cross- reference data on UAC origins derived from other sources of information  produced by entities such as the International Organization for Migration,  USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives, host government agencies, and  other local organizations.
Agency officials told us that while the DHS-produced map may have  limitations, they believed it to be generally accurate. As we previously  reported, CBP officials identified various challenges to obtaining UAC  location information, including the inability of children to accurately relay  information on their origins, lack of documentation, and inability of border  agents interacting with children to collect or record their information  accurately. State/INL officials in El Salvador, in particular, stated they  did not believe that current available data on UAC origins were reliable as  a basis for locating programs as some INL staff who have previously  worked in the border regions believe that UAC provide false information  because they are concerned about being traced back to their  communities. In addition, some agency officials stated that the DHS map  lacked specificity or detail, such as identifying neighborhoods associated  with high UAC migration within the major cities. Nonetheless, USAID and  State officials in the three countries told us that the top UAC locations of  origin identified in the map were generally consistent, with a few  exceptions, with their understanding of the top UAC locations of origin.
Further, agency officials stated that their established programs were  already located in these areas. In Honduras, where over half of the DHS- identified top 20 municipalities in terms of UAC locations of origin are  situated, agency officials told us the DHS map confirmed for them that  programs already existed in those locations. In Guatemala, USAID and  State officials said that they consulted the DHS map and other available  information about UAC origin locations and determined that there was a  general overlap between those locations and agency programs. USAID  officials in Guatemala noted that about 60 percent of the agency’s  resources in Guatemala are used for activities in the Western Highlands,  which these officials said they have identified as the primary area of UAC  migration in that country. In El Salvador, USAID officials stated that,  according to their review of the DHS map, their programs were already  located in areas of high UAC migration. Finally, according to IAF, the  DHS map illustrated a general overlap between the location of its  grantees and locations with high levels of UAC migration.
We obtained information on the location of USAID and State/INL-funded  programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras; the location of IAF  grantees in these countries; and the top UAC locations of origin in each  country, as identified by DHS. Figure 7 shows the number of UAC  apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol between January and May 15, 2014,  by location of origin in each department across the three countries. Figure  8 shows the total the number of State and USAID programs and IAF  grantees in each department across the three countries. See appendix III  for figures that disaggregate the number of program locations by country  and by agency.
section_title: Agencies Plan to Locate More Programs in Communities Affected by High Levels of UAC Migration
paragraphs: Agencies have outlined plans and taken some steps in the three countries  since the recent rise in UAC migration by adding or expanding activities in  locations identified as having high levels of UAC migration. For example,  according to State/INL’s current country plan for Honduras, State plans to  expand violence prevention programs, such as the Gang Resistance  Education and Training Program, to reach three new police metropolitan  areas in Tegucigalpa and six police metropolitan areas in San Pedro  Sula, two areas in the country agencies have identified as having among  the highest levels of UAC migration. In El Salvador, USAID outlined plans  to expand educational opportunities to youth in additional municipalities  with high levels of migration. For example, the Adopt-A-School program,  which aims to support the efforts of the private sector, individuals, or  institutions who wish to provide financial and other support to schools,  has already been extended and expanded to reach additional  beneficiaries, including those in municipalities with high numbers of UAC  who have been repatriated to their communities of origin. In Guatemala,  USAID has outlined plans to expand citizen security efforts to areas  outside Guatemala City with high levels of violence and UAC migration,  and to expand crime prevention programs to departments in the Western  Highlands affected by high levels of migration. USAID has also outlined  planned programs that would target agriculture and small business  development activities to departments in the Western Highlands with high  migration levels. In addition, State/INL has outlined plans to expand  municipal policing efforts to the Western Highlands in response to high  levels of out-migration from those communities. Also, according to IAF  officials, IAF issued grants to several organizations in recent years to  support projects in migrant-sending communities or to address migrant  issues. As of June 2015, IAF officials indicated IAF had identified at least  19 new programs and 14 modified programs in El Salvador, Guatemala,  and Honduras that will seek to address underlying causes of migration in  areas with high levels of UAC migration.
However, agency officials also noted the importance of other factors in  locating programs. Agency officials suggested that long-term strategic  objectives, such as promoting economic growth and social development,  remain the focus of their work as they create and locate programs.  Moreover, other agency responses to the rise in UAC migration have  sought to address UAC migration but have not necessarily been located  in areas of high UAC migration. For example, efforts to rehabilitate  repatriation centers are located near borders or transit points; legal  technical assistance seeks to strengthen government institutional  capacity to combat smuggling; countersmuggling operations target key  migration routes; and public information campaign activities, such as  radio, television, and social media placements do not necessarily target  areas associated with high UAC migration.
section_title: Most Agencies Have Some Evaluation Processes in Place, but Weaknesses Exist in Performance Measurement of Some Antismuggling Programs
paragraphs: Most agencies have established evaluation processes to measure  progress of programs identified as addressing causes of UAC migration.  Agency processes to evaluate program effectiveness vary in approach,  though DHS and State have not always obtained timely feedback on  information campaigns intended to reduce migration, making it difficult to  know the effectiveness of these efforts. Agencies have outlined  challenges to and approaches for sustaining programs that seek to  address the causes of UAC migration.
subsections: section_title: Most Agencies Have Processes in Place to Measure Progress of Efforts Intended to Address Causes of UAC Migration
paragraphs: Most agencies we reviewed have processes in place to track the progress  of programs they have identified as addressing causes of UAC migration.  However, DHS has not established performance targets against which to  measure units that combat child smuggling, making it difficult to track the  progress of these efforts.
subsections: section_title: USAID and State Use Both Shared and Agency-Specific Mechanisms to Guide Performance Measurement
paragraphs: USAID has developed several documents to assist its missions in  developing and managing monitoring and evaluation efforts, which  include guidance on establishing performance indicators, baselines, and  targets, and on planning and managing evaluations. USAID missions also  articulate monitoring and evaluation plans through other key documents,  including CDCS documents and Performance Management Plans (PMP).  The three countries’ CDCS documents also outline illustrative evaluation  questions, which can be used to guide long-term program evaluations.   Table 1 provides examples of CDCS development objectives,  performance indicators, and evaluation questions for El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras.
Mission PMPs outline monitoring and evaluation plans—including  performance indicators, baseline data, and performance targets—to  assess progress toward the achievement of CDCS goals. USAID  established a PMP for Guatemala that was approved, according to the  agency, in October 2013, covering fiscal years 2012 through 2016, which  outlines targets by performance indicator by fiscal year for each  development objective. For example, for the mission goal of improving  levels of economic growth and social development in the Western  Highlands, one performance indicator is the prevalence of stunted  children under 5 years of age in target regions, with, according to USAID  officials, a goal of 63 percent in fiscal year 2013 and 54 percent in fiscal  year 2017. USAID anticipates the PMP for El Salvador will be completed  in October 2015, and the PMP for Honduras will be completed by late  summer 2015.
State’s INL bureau uses several documents to guide performance  planning and country-specific measurement of programs it has identified  as addressing causes of UAC migration. In 2013, State/INL developed  several documents to assist INL personnel with designing, monitoring,  and evaluating programs. INL country plans for these three countries  outline priority areas for INL programs in each country as well as metrics  for evaluation under these areas. These documents outline selected  activities, indicators, and performance targets for the three countries  across each INL program area. For example, the INL plan for El Salvador  outlines an objective of establishing model police precincts, with  performance targets such as establishing eight new model police  precincts within 2 years, and with homicides decreased by 10 percent in  these new model police precincts within 4 years. The INL plan for  Honduras outlines an objective of embedding a resident legal advisor to  improve case management capacity for complex crimes involving human  trafficking, with performance targets such as prosecutors increasing their  rate of case closure in each of the first 2 years.
State and USAID use various reporting mechanisms to monitor the  progress of activities identified as addressing causes of UAC migration.  Both State and USAID use State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs  (WHA) annual Performance Plan and Report (PPR) to track the  performance of CARSI activities. The fiscal year 2013 WHA PPR, which  was the most recent PPR available at the time of our review, provides  information on USAID and State performance outputs against established  targets. The WHA PPR provides some mission-specific performance  information, but generally measures progress at an aggregated regional  level. USAID and State also receive progress reports, such as weekly  and quarterly reports, that track outputs, activities, and accomplishments  during the reporting period. For example, weekly reports on State/INL- funded efforts to strengthen the Honduran border patrol provide updated  information on activities such as the number of UAC encountered, as well  as seizures, arrests, and inspections, with specific information on coyote  arrests. INL quarterly CARSI reports provide updated program  information on various CARSI efforts.
section_title: IAF Has Established Standard Indicators to Measure Programs
paragraphs: IAF has developed an approach, which it refers to as the Grassroots  Development Framework, to monitor its efforts, including selecting  project-specific performance indicators and progress reporting. At the  onset of specific projects, IAF works with grantee partners to select, from  a standard set of 41 indicators, a subset of indicators considered most  relevant to measuring the project’s desired objectives. Indicators cover  areas such as how projects provide for basic needs, training, jobs and  income, or how they improve organizational culture and capacity, among  others. According to IAF officials, IAF works with grantees to ensure they  know how each indicator is defined, to establish baseline conditions  against which to measure progress, and to assist them in collecting  performance data. Grantees are then required, according to IAF officials,  to report every 6 months throughout the grant period on their progress  against the selected indicators. IAF’s office of evaluation verifies and  aggregates results reported by grantees for its annual grant results report,  which provides information on basic activity outputs, such as the number  of beneficiaries receiving better access to health care as a result of a  project, as well as on what it refers to as intangible results, such as the  number of grantee partners reporting that individuals had improved their  self-esteem as a result of the project. IAF outlined many performance  indicators that would be used to measure the 17 projects it identified as  having been developed or modified in response to the rapid increase in  UAC migration in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Among the  most commonly used indicators for these 17 projects include the  acquisition and application of knowledge and skills and the mobilization of  resources.
section_title: MCC Plans to Develop Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plans for Compacts and Threshold Agreements
paragraphs: MCC has not yet developed monitoring and evaluation plans for its  compact with El Salvador or threshold program with Guatemala but  expects to do so in the near future. According to MCC’s compact with El  Salvador, MCC and the Salvadoran entity managing the compact will  develop a plan to monitor whether projects are on track to achieve their  intended results and evaluate to assess project implementation  strategies, provide lessons learned, determine cost-effectiveness, and  estimate the compact’s impact. The compact also notes that the results of  these activities will be made publicly available on MCC’s website.  According to MCC officials, a monitoring and evaluation plan for the El  Salvador compact will be developed 90 days after the compact enters into  force. According to MCC officials, MCC plans for the compact to enter  into force no later than September 30, 2015. According to MCC officials,  MCC expects to develop a monitoring and evaluation plan for its  threshold program with Guatemala sometime between September 2015  and March 2016.
section_title: DHS Has Not Established Performance Targets against Which to Assess Progress of Transnational Criminal Investigative Units
paragraphs: DHS/ICE has established performance indicators for its TCIUs, but has  not established performance targets, making it difficult to track progress  of these units’ efforts to combat UAC smuggling and other priorities. We  have previously reported that performance measurement allows  organizations to track progress in achieving their goals and gives  managers crucial information to identify gaps in program performance  and plan any needed improvements. In addition, according to Standards  for Internal Control in the Federal Government, managers need to  compare actual performance against planned or expected results and  analyze significant differences. DHS’s Transnational Criminal  Investigative Unit Executive Report provides overviews of TCIU efforts by  country, including country-specific priorities. The report also outlines basic  performance indicators used to track TCIU success. These measures are  divided into three performance categories—enforcement, capacity  building, and intelligence—with various types of outputs by category. The  report also outlines success stories and enforcement statistics by country,  such as the number of arrests and seizures. However, DHS/ICE has not  set targets for these performance measures.
A DHS official told us that State/INL, which provides funding for these  units, has lead responsibility for measuring their performance. State/INL  country plans for all three countries include a performance indicator of the  number of unit investigations conducted, and performance targets for the  number of investigations conducted within 2 and 4 years. According to  DHS/ICE officials, however, DHS was not involved in the development of  State/INL’s performance indicators and targets related to these units.  When asked, DHS officials did not indicate to us why they had not  established performance targets to accompany the performance  indicators DHS has already outlined in its Transnational Criminal  Investigative Unit Executive Report. Such targets would enable DHS to  compare outputs—such as arrests made, investigations conducted, or  foreign counterpart operations—against the pre-established targets, and  to better assess TCIU efforts.
section_title: Agencies Have Various Evaluation Processes, but DHS and State Have Collected Limited Information on the Impact of Public Information Campaigns
paragraphs: USAID, State, and IAF have established processes to evaluate the  effectiveness of their programs. However, DHS and State have not  consistently evaluated their information campaigns intended to reduce  migration, making it difficult to know the effectiveness of these efforts.
subsections: section_title: USAID Has Recently Evaluated Several of its Programs Intended to Address Causes of UAC Migration
paragraphs: USAID conducted several recent evaluations of its programs developed  before the rapid increase in UAC migration but identified as addressing  the causes of migration. These included evaluations of programs  addressing crime and violence prevention and workforce development.  For example, in July 2014, USAID published an evaluation of a workforce  readiness program, which seeks to strengthen the basic workforce  competencies of Honduran youth. The study, which was intended to  understand the characteristics of youth participating in the program and  the extent to which they had improved perceptions of their employability  after participating in it, concluded that youth saw significant gains in job- seeking behaviors, soft-skills development, and number of internships  obtained. The study also noted more work needed to be done with youth  to understand the skills necessary to compete for their desired jobs. In  addition, in October 2014, a study requested by USAID evaluating the  impact of community-based crime and violence prevention programs in El  Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama was  published. The evaluation, which gauged perceptions over time of crime  victimization and citizen security, found that, as a result of USAID’s  community-based prevention programs, residents feel safer, perceive  less crime and fewer murders, and express greater trust in police. The  study also found a decline in reported murders and extortions in  participating communities across the four countries.
According to a USAID official, the findings from these evaluations inform  future programming in several ways. First, USAID used these studies to  inform the design of the current CDCS for Honduras, which was approved  in December 2014. Second, the official noted that the workforce  readiness program assessment led USAID to more systematically pre- assess students before enrolling them in workforce readiness training  programs, which has led to improved certification rates among enrollees.  The USAID official also noted that the workforce readiness evaluation is  assisting the agency in developing a new workforce development activity  intended to better link training and employment for at-risk youth. Third,  the evaluation of the community-based crime and violence prevention  programs led to a broader commitment from USAID to apply community  policing principles to improve law enforcement and reduce violence and  homicides in Honduras, according to the official.
USAID officials and documents indicate that USAID plans to measure the  impact on migration of some future programs. USAID officials in  Honduras and Guatemala noted the agency has considered developing  indicators that could measure the effect of programs on migration, such  as whether a program affected a person’s decision to migrate. Two  documents for planned USAID projects in Guatemala outline efforts to  measure programs’ impact on migration. One document, for a proposed  youth employment project, notes that the program’s failure would be  judged when a youth drops out of the program because he or she  migrated to the United States, moved, or became involved in criminal  activities. Another document for a planned community-level violence  reduction project outlines a series of proposed results and performance  indicators, including one result of a reduced number of under-aged  migration from targeted communities with a related indicator of  percentage of households that report having sent under-aged youth to the  United States in the last 12 months. USAID officials in El Salvador,  however, noted that it would be difficult to measure the impact agency  programs have on decisions to migrate, in part because some migrate for  purposes of family reunification.
section_title: State Has Efforts Under Way to Evaluate INL-Funded Programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
paragraphs: State/INL awarded a contract to evaluate all countries under the CARSI  program, including programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,  which began in September 2014, according to State/INL. According to  State/INL, in addition to other oversight mechanisms, this contract will  evaluate projects that are designed to address causes of UAC migration.  This evaluation, which according to State/INL is scheduled to be  completed in September 2016, is expected to examine whether all  planned activities are being implemented and on schedule, whether  activities are sustainable, what impact the programs have had, and  whether programs have led to any unintended consequences, among  other things.
section_title: IAF Evaluates Projects at Several Points in Time
paragraphs: IAF conducts two types of project evaluations. First, IAF conducts an end- of-project assessment for all projects. According to IAF officials, upon the  completion of the grant, IAF conducts a close out visit to assess the  extent to which the project’s objectives have been achieved. According to  IAF officials, for this process the grantee partner compiles a narrative that  details the project’s design, implementation, results, and expected  sustainability and impact, and identifies what worked and what did not  and key lessons learned. IAF also compiles summaries of best practices  relevant to each project, according to IAF officials. Second, each year IAF  evaluates a smaller selection of projects that ended 5 years earlier.  According to IAF officials, IAF conducts these evaluations, which it refers  to as ex-post assessments, to determine the extent to which projects  proved to be sustainable subsequent to IAF’s involvement. IAF began  conducting ex-post assessments in 2009, according to IAF officials.  These evaluations provide information such as project results,  sustainability, and lessons learned. According to IAF officials, IAF has  thus far conducted two ex-post assessments of projects in El Salvador,  including an evaluation of a project intended to strengthen civic  engagement and an evaluation of an agricultural assistance project. IAF  has also conducted an ex-post assessment of a project to train midwives  in Guatemala. IAF has not evaluated a project in Honduras. According to  IAF officials, in 2015, IAF plans to evaluate projects with a focus on youth  engagement, including two projects in El Salvador and one in Guatemala.  IAF expects these evaluations to be available in 2016.
IAF is considering adjusting evaluations in response to the increase in  UAC migration. According to IAF officials, IAF is examining whether it  could adapt its grassroots development framework to capture migration  data, such as by developing a new indicator related to migration. IAF  officials also noted that IAF may add questions to focus group sessions— which IAF conducts to obtain qualitative information about programs— about why people decide to migrate from or stay in their home countries.
section_title: DHS and State Have Not Consistently Evaluated Public Information Campaigns
paragraphs: DHS has not evaluated all of its public information campaigns intended to  reduce migration. As we noted earlier, DHS carried out campaigns in  2013 and 2014 focused on the dangers of migration, and in 2015 to  increase awareness of requirements under the President’s executive  action on immigration. DHS’s Assistant Secretary for International Affairs  and Chief Diplomatic Officer has referred to these campaigns as essential  in combating the misinformation promoted by smuggling organizations,  and stated in March 2015 that DHS will continue to support them. DHS  ran its 2013 Dangers of the Journey campaign between February and  May, a peak migration period that year and in recent years. Specifically,  according to UAC apprehension data from DHS’s Border Patrol, the  months with the most UAC apprehensions between fiscal years 2010 and  2013 were, in order, March, April, and May. In fiscal year 2014 the top  four months were, in order, June, May, April, and March.
At the conclusion of the 2013 campaign’s first phase, in April 2013, DHS  evaluated the campaign, contracting for a survey of 1,800 citizens in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (600 per country), including an  equal mix of youth and parents, to assess the campaign’s impact. Among  the survey’s findings were that 72 percent of youth and adults recalled  seeing the campaign and 43 percent recalled the campaign’s tagline. The  survey results concluded that the campaign was highly credible, as it  reinforced information respondents had experienced firsthand. However,  according to a DHS/CBP official, CBP reporting and State research  indicates individuals in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras give more  credence to what they hear from relatives and friends than to what they  hear on the radio and television. Despite this reporting, DHS has not  conducted any subsequent campaign evaluations. Instead DHS launched  its 2014 campaign at the end of June, by which point migration levels had  already peaked and reached record levels, as shown in figure 9. Although  DHS tracked the total number of campaign spots, it did not evaluate the  campaign’s effectiveness.
A DHS document outlining the 2013 and 2014 campaigns indicates DHS  intended to evaluate the second campaign following its conclusion in  October 2014. However, an official from DHS’s office of public affairs told  us that DHS did not conduct the evaluation because of funding  constraints. While evaluations certainly add cost, they are an important  investment toward ensuring a campaign’s success. DHS therefore did not  obtain feedback on the effectiveness of its efforts to dissuade migration  during a year of record migration levels. Moreover, given that DHS does  not currently have an active campaign, and does not plan to launch a new  campaign until 2016 at the earliest, as much as 3 years or more may  pass between DHS campaign evaluations.
Similarly, while State has collected some information on its public  outreach efforts, it has not evaluated the effectiveness of its information  campaigns. As we noted earlier, State public affairs offices in all three  countries used the DHS campaign materials and developed their own  materials to launch related in-country public information campaigns. In  Honduras, the public affairs office tracked how many Facebook users the  campaigns reached, and how many of these users posted shares, likes,  and comments. For example, the office conducted a campaign on  Facebook and Twitter to discourage the public from hiring coyotes.  According to the embassy’s public affairs office, the campaign reached  more than 28,000 Facebook users, of which 1,765 posted shares, likes,  or comments. In addition, State has conducted in-country focus groups  and surveys that have informed some embassy public outreach efforts,  particularly concerning the likely impact of certain public messages.  However, according to public affairs officers we spoke to in all three  countries, State has not evaluated the effectiveness of its actual in- country information campaigns. These public affairs officers told us they  did not know what the impact of the campaigns was and believed it would  be difficult to measure their impact. One public affairs officer said that the  only information available on the campaigns’ impact is anecdotal. All  three of these officers expressed either uncertainty or doubt concerning  the effectiveness of past campaigns centered on the dangers of  migration, indicating that it is uncertain whether such campaigns  resonated with citizens of the three countries since the dangers were  already well known or would not dictate a person’s decision to migrate.
As we reported in the past, evaluating information campaigns on a regular  basis is a good practice that leading organizations follow, as doing so is  considered integral to a campaign’s success. Collecting this sort of  performance information on media campaigns can provide value in  informing future campaign efforts, particularly given DHS’s desire to  launch a new campaign early next year. Moreover, despite their cost,  evaluations are a key investment toward program success.
section_title: Agencies Have Outlined Challenges to and Approaches for Sustaining Programs Addressing the Causes of UAC Migration
paragraphs: Agencies have identified various challenges to sustaining programs  intended to address the underlying causes of UAC migration. USAID,  State, and IAF project documents outline various factors that can hamper  the long-term sustainability of projects, such as lack of accountability  within government institutions, lack of political will, low tax collection, poor  market conditions, and limited private sector engagement. For example,  one State/INL country plan notes the host government’s limited political  will to combat corruption, which is included as a key assumption  underlying police professionalization and reform efforts. Similarly, several  USAID project documents acknowledge that certain efforts may be only  partially sustainable over time because of challenges relating to the host  government, such as limited funds or weakened public institutions. In  addition, agency officials told us corruption within police and other  institutions and extortion against local businesses challenge the  sustainability of certain projects.
We observed examples of how some of these factors have the potential  to hamper assistance programs. For example, an interagency agreement  between State and DOJ outlining efforts to train Honduran prosecutors  includes an assumption that the government of Honduras would commit  to having a certain number of prosecutors available for at least 18 months  to participate in the program. However, at the time of our visit to the  country, there were no active prosecutors participating in Tegucigalpa. In  El Salvador, where we visited a vocational school that, according to  USAID officials, had been established in a joint partnership between  USAID and a Salvadoran private company, we observed a computer lab  filled with computers recently provided by USAID but with no teacher  present. According to USAID officials in El Salvador, the school had  asked the Salvadoran Ministry of Education to provide a salary for the  teacher, but it had not yet done so at the time of our visit.
Agencies have outlined approaches for seeking to ensure program  sustainability despite the challenges described above. State, USAID, IAF,  and MCC project documents emphasize the importance of prioritizing  improvements to government institutions; identifying sustainable funding  sources, such as the private sector; and advocating for legislative and  policy reforms that support program objectives. In addition, agency  officials have noted the importance of involving communities, the private  sector, and the police in program design to ensure they are invested in  and supportive of programs’ objectives. For example, MCC’s compact  with El Salvador outlines how MCC assistance over the duration of the  compact will decrease to ensure that the government of El Salvador  assumes an increasing percentage of related costs. IAF requires that its  grantee partners contribute and mobilize their own resources for their  projects and, according to IAF, it frequently works with its grantee  partners to put in place strategic and financial plans beyond the period of  the IAF grant. Some agency performance indicators seek to gauge  progress toward meeting sustainability goals, such as by tracking the  amount of private funds or other resources invested in community  programs in target municipalities, the passage of laws that can facilitate  key reforms, and the number of institutions with improved capacity as a  result of the program.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In recent years, the rapid increase in migration of unaccompanied alien  children from Central America has highlighted the crises these children  and their families face. U.S. agencies have efforts in place that seek to  bring about lasting improvements in these countries and have taken  actions with the goal of reducing migration. These actions include DHS’s  and State’s support to Transnational Criminal Investigative Units that  seek to disrupt and dismantle smuggling operations and to public  information campaigns warning citizens of the dangers of migration and  countering misinformation on U.S. immigration policy.
The agencies have limited information, however, on the effectiveness of  their efforts to reduce migration. While DHS/ICE has established  categories of performance measures for its investigative units, and tracks  basic statistical outputs associated with these categories, such as number  of arrests, it has not established performance targets that could be used  to gauge progress against preestablished goals for these important efforts  to combat smugglers.
In addition, DHS and State have collected limited information on the  effectiveness of their public information campaigns, with DHS evaluating  one of two campaigns and State evaluating none. In not evaluating its  2014 campaign in particular, DHS missed an opportunity to obtain  valuable feedback on its efforts to dissuade migration during a year of  record migration levels. Because DHS does not have an active campaign,  it could go 3 years or longer between campaign evaluations. Such  feedback could have offered insight on the effectiveness of past DHS  campaign messages, and on their timing, particularly given migration  levels had already peaked and reached record highs by the time DHS  launched its 2014 Dangers of the Journey campaign in late June. This  information would have been particularly valuable in informing any future  DHS campaigns. State has conducted research that has informed its  public outreach efforts. However, State has not evaluated its campaigns’  effectiveness. Timely feedback is critical as campaigns intended to deter  migration that is cyclical in nature are time-sensitive. Moreover, given the  increased presence of children in recent migration cycles, these  campaigns need to be timed right and deliver appropriate messages.  Carrying out ineffective campaigns could lead to higher levels of migration  to the United States, which is not only potentially costly in terms of U.S.  taxpayer resources but costly and dangerous to the migrants and their  families.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend the following two actions to strengthen agency  performance measurement related to deterring child smuggling.  Specifically, we recommend that:
The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security instruct appropriate  agency public affairs officers to integrate evaluation into their planning  for, and implementation of, future public information campaigns  intended to dissuade migration, such as campaigns warning of the  dangers of migration, providing facts on U.S. immigration policy, or  conveying other messages. This could include ensuring that available  migration data, such as DHS’s monthly data on UAC apprehensions,  is used to inform the timing of these campaigns, and that the results of  campaign evaluations are used to inform future campaigns to  enhance their effectiveness.
The Secretary of Homeland Security instruct DHS’s U.S. Immigration  and Customs Enforcement to establish annual performance targets  associated with the performance measures it has established for its  Transnational Criminal Investigative Units.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided State, USAID, DHS, IAF, MCC, and DOJ a draft of this  report. State, USAID, DHS, and MCC provided written comments on the  draft (see appendixes IV, V, VI, and VII, respectively). State concurred  with the one recommendation directed to it, and DHS concurred with both  recommendations. Specifically, State concurred with our recommendation  that DHS and State integrate evaluation into their planning for, and  implementation of, future public information campaigns intended to  dissuade migration. State noted that it uses a variety of methods to  determine the effectiveness and reach of information campaigns and will  integrate evaluations into these methods. DHS also concurred with this  recommendation and noted that it would consider and evaluate possible  markers and metrics of success relevant to each campaign’s specific  goals and target audiences. In addition, DHS concurred with our  recommendation to establish annual performance targets associated with  the performance measures it has established for its TCIUs. DHS also  noted that it would work with host nation partners to establish goals to  measure TCIU investigative activities and capacity development.
State, DHS, IAF, and DOJ provided technical comments, which we have  incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, the Acting  Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the  President of the Inter-American Foundation, the Chief Executive Officer of  the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Attorney General of the  United States. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the  GAO web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at GianopoulosK@gao.gov or 202-512-8612. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In this report, we reviewed (1) U.S. assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala,  and Honduras addressing agency-identified causes of unaccompanied  alien child (UAC) migration, (2) how agencies have determined where to  locate these assistance efforts, and (3) the extent to which agencies have  developed processes to assess the effectiveness of programs seeking to  address UAC migration.
To address our objectives, we obtained written responses from agency  officials identifying programs targeted at addressing agency-identified  causes of the rapid increase in UAC migration. We then obtained and  analyzed documentation for these programs. To understand broader  strategies underlying these programs, we reviewed various strategic and  planning documents specific to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,  including the Department of State (State) and U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) Integrated Country Strategies ,  USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS), State  annual operating plans, and State Bureau of International Narcotics and  Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) country plans for each country; the  Partnership for Growth El Salvador—United States Joint Country Action  Plan; and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact with El  Salvador. We also reviewed several interagency strategic and planning  documents regarding U.S. engagement with Central America, including  the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America, and the U.S.  Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime.
We also interviewed U.S. agency officials in Washington, including  officials from State, the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and  Justice (DOJ), USAID, MCC, and the Inter-American Foundation (IAF).  We also conducted fieldwork in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,  where we interviewed officials from State, DHS, and USAID in each  country, including the ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission, the  USAID mission directors, and DHS country attachés, and met with each  embassy’s interagency UAC working group. In addition, we met with DOJ  officials in El Salvador and Honduras, IAF officials and grantees in El  Salvador and Guatemala, and an MCC official in El Salvador. During our  fieldwork, we also interviewed representatives from host government  agencies in each country, and from nongovernmental organizations in  Washington and in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. We also  visited U.S.-funded programs in Central America, including migration  reception centers in El Salvador and Honduras. In addition, we met with  children in all three countries who discussed their perspectives on causes  of UAC migration, experiences, and participation in U.S.-supported  programs. Their responses are nongeneralizable.
To address our first objective on U.S. assistance in El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras addressing agency-identified causes of UAC  migration, we reviewed agency responses to a set of questions we  developed concerning what agencies identified as causes of the rapid  increase in UAC migration, and agency actions taken in response. In  addition, we asked officials we interviewed in Washington and in Central  America to discuss the causes of the rapid increase in UAC migration,  particularly seeking their perspective on what factors may have changed  or emerged in recent years to cause the rapid increase. We reviewed all  agency responses to determine the causes agency officials identified. We  also asked these officials to discuss agency responses to UAC migration,  including programs developed, modified, or planned in response, or  programs that predated the increase in migration but that agencies  identified as seeking to address underlying causes of migration. We also  reviewed agency documents concerning these programs, including  project concept papers and appraisal documents, progress-reporting  documents including weekly and quarterly reports, and embassy reporting  cables, among others. In addition, we obtained funding data from State,  USAID, DHS, and IAF on agency funding to El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras from fiscal years 2012 through 2014 and funding for specific  programs agencies identified as developed or modified in response to the  rapid increase in UAC migration. We asked agencies a series of  questions on how the funding data were produced, selected, and checked  for accuracy, among other things. We determined these data were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To address our second objective, on how agencies have determined  where to locate programs that seek to address underlying causes of  migration, we reviewed agency strategy documents, including those  described earlier such as USAID and State country strategies, to  determine agency strategic development objectives and, where  applicable, priority geographic locations for these objectives. We also  reviewed agency strategy and project documents to determine the  locations of certain programs developed or modified in response to the  rapid increase in UAC migration, including whether such programs were  located in areas affected by high levels of UAC migration. We asked  agency officials to discuss the factors they considered and prioritized in  determining where to locate programs, including programs predating the  rapid increase in UAC migration and programs developed in response to  the rapid increase in migration, and the extent to which agencies  considered communities identified as having high levels of UAC migration  in locating such programs. In addition, we asked agency officials how  they identified locations with high levels of UAC migration and their  perspectives on the accuracy of available information on UAC locations of  origin.
We also obtained information, for each country, on the location of UAC  communities of origin, of USAID and State/INL programs, and of IAF  grantees. In particular, we obtained DHS data on communities DHS  identified as having the highest levels of UAC migration between January  1, 2014, and May 15, 2014, for each country. These data included  information on UAC locations of origin at the municipal level, and were  used by DHS to create a map showing these DHS-identified top UAC  locations of origin. DHS officials noted that there were inherent limitations  in the accuracy of DHS apprehension data, which we discuss in this  report and the report we issued on this subject in February 2015. To  assess these data, we had a series of interviews with DHS officials to  discuss the process and methodology by which they obtained these data  on UAC apprehensions and used them to identify communities with the  highest levels of UAC migration and create maps showing these results.  We also discussed these DHS data with U.S. agency officials in  Washington and Central America. These officials noted they found the  DHS data to be generally accurate representations of their understanding  of the top UAC locations of origin. Moreover, some of these officials noted  that agencies also used the DHS maps in part to determine the extent to  which their programs aligned with these top UAC locations of origin.  Therefore, we determined that the DHS data on top UAC locations of  origin were contextually relevant to the agencies’ own understanding of  how the locations of their programs aligned with top UAC locations of  origin. In order to analyze the locations from the DHS data, we combined  the files to create a single master list of locations. We then matched this  list to the GeoNet Names Server file from the National Geospatial  Intelligence Agency to create a standardized list of names. We then  aggregated the locations by department, and presented them in broad  ranges. By aggregating these data by department and presenting them in  map form in broad ranges, we believe they provide a reliable indication of  the relative distribution of UAC-sending locations. We also obtained from  USAID and State/INL the locations of all programs in each country, and,  from IAF, the locations of IAF grantees in each country. As with the DHS  data, we matched this list of programs and grantees to the GeoNet  Names Server file from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to  create a standardized list of names, then aggregated the locations by  department, and presented them in broad ranges. We did not include  some program locations in our data due to a lack of specificity in agency  documents on the locations of certain programs. We provided this  information to offer context on the location of UAC communities of origin  and of U.S. agency programs and grantees.
To address our third objective, on the extent to which agencies have  developed performance indicators to assess the effectiveness of efforts  responsive to UAC migration, we reviewed agency documents on  programs agencies identified as responsive to the rapid increase in UAC  migration, including agency evaluation policies and guides, country  strategy and planning documents for each country, monitoring and  evaluation plans, standard operating procedures, program evaluations,  and quarterly and other progress reports. We also interviewed agency  officials in Washington, D.C., and in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras concerning steps they have taken to monitor and evaluate  programs that seek to address causes of UAC migration. We also  reviewed Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, and  prior GAO work on performance measurement. In determining the  importance of evaluating media campaigns as a good practice that  leading organizations follow, we assessed various sources, including  federal policies, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, prior GAO reports on U.S. public diplomacy, and literature  on practices for evaluating media campaigns. These sources outlined the  importance of integrating evaluations into media campaigns and noted  that while evaluations add cost, they are a worthwhile investment in  campaign success.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to July 2015  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Agency Funding to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras Overall and for Programs Addressing Child Migration
paragraphs: Agencies we reviewed, including the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID), the Departments of State (State) and Homeland  Security ( DHS), and the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), identified  overall funding allocated for programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 (see table 2). In addition to  the funding information provided in table 2, the MCC signed a threshold  program agreement with Honduras in fiscal year 2013 totaling $15.6  million, a compact agreement with El Salvador in fiscal year 2014 total  $277 million, and a threshold program agreement with Guatemala in fiscal  year 2015 totaling $28 million.
Agencies we reviewed also provided funding information on programs  they identified as most relevant to addressing unaccompanied alien child  (UAC) migration. Specifically, agencies identified programs that were  either developed or modified in response to the rapid increase in UAC  migration, and provided information on total obligations and  disbursements for these programs between fiscal years 2012 and 2014.  As is indicated in table 3, State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and  Law Enforcement noted it was unable to disaggregate UAC-targeted  aspects of ongoing funding streams, and instead provided funding  information for overall program areas that have been or will be used to  address root causes and instances of UAC migration from El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras. Funding information for USAID, DHS, and IAF  are provided in tables 4 through 6.
section_title: Appendix III: Information on Agency Program Locations and Unaccompanied Alien Child Apprehensions by Location of Origin
paragraphs: Figures 10 through 21 provide country-level information on the number of  apprehensions of unaccompanied alien children (UAC), by location of  origin, as identified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  between January and May 15, 2014, and on the number of U.S. Agency  for International Development (USAID), Department of State (State) and  its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL),  and Inter-American Foundation (IAF) programs and grantees in  Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Each agency provided these  data by municipality. These figures present these data aggregated at the  departmental level. Some locations are not represented in these figures  because of a lack of specificity in agency documents regarding the  location of the program. Further, the programs were not weighted in any  way, such as by number of beneficiaries or population served, or  resources allocated to the program location. See appendix I for more  information on how we obtained, analyzed, and presented this  information.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Millennium Challenge Corporation
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Judith Williams, Assistant  Director; Joe Carney; Rachel Girshick; Claudia Rodriguez; Dina Shorafa;  Ashley Alley; Martin De Alteriis; Seyda Wentworth; John Mingus; Oziel  Trevino; and Lynn Cothern made key contributions to this report.