Southwest Border: Issues Related to Private Property Damage
Published: 2015-04-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Persons illegally crossing the United States' southwest border and corresponding law enforcement activity may, at times, result in private property damage. Such damage that persists over extended periods of time can result in expensive repairs for landowners. GAO was asked to identify the types of private property damage experienced along the southwest border, as well as the extent to which the federal government addresses such damage.
This report (1) describes the types of private property damage landowners along the southwest border are experiencing and the steps taken by CBP to collect information on such damage, and (2) examines the extent to which CBP addresses private property damage suspected to be caused by illegal border crossers and enforcement activities. GAO analyzed documentation, including administrative tort claims and memos implementing the Border Community Liaison Program; conducted a visit to south Texas; and interviewed Border Patrol officials, as well as landowners living along the southwest border, regarding private property damage that occurs and how, if at all, it is addressed.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Landowners GAO spoke with reported that damage occurs to private properties along the southwest border on a regular basis. The most prevalent types of damage reported include broken fences and gates (see picture below), which can result in destroyed crops and injured livestock. According to 33 landowners GAO spoke with, the majority of damage is caused by illegal border crossers; however, 21 of these landowners said they had also experienced damage that may have resulted from Border Patrol as well as state law enforcement activities or were aware of such occurrences in their community. Landowners may file a Standard Form 95 (SF 95) administrative tort claim to seek compensation for private property damage allegedly caused by the negligent or wrongful conduct of an employee of any U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) component, including Border Patrol while acting within the scope of their office or employment, but few landowners have filed such claims. Of the 821 SF 95s filed during fiscal year 2013, 16 were related to private property damage along the southwest border, with a total of $11,622 paid to 7 of the 16 claimants.
According to Border Patrol officials, agents generally adhere to ranch etiquette, which entails treating private property and its owners respectfully while conducting enforcement efforts. To further promote this concept, CBP established a Border Community Liaison (BCL) Program within Border Patrol in 2011, in which designated agents serve as the conduit between Border Patrol and the community. To enhance relationships with the community, liaisons work with landowners to address, when appropriate, damage allegedly caused by illegal border crossers or their pursuit by Border Patrol. The BCL Program has helped foster community relationships. However, new BCL agents have not received training specific to their role, such as those agents who assumed the BCL role in 2014. Moreover, a mechanism does not exist to track which or how many BCL agents have received training specific to their role. Given that CBP has stated that there is frequent turnover of agents in this position, providing BCL agents with training specific to their role and tracking the receipt of such training could help better ensure that BCL agents have the necessary skills to meet the goals of the BCL Program, including facilitating information sharing between Border Patrol and the community on border security issues.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that Border Patrol ensure that agents serving in the BCL role receive training and track the receipt of such training. DHS concurred with this recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Persons illegally crossing or attempting to cross the United States’  southwest border with Mexico and corresponding law enforcement activity  by federal agents may, at times, result in private property damage.  Landowners in this region have reported various types of private property  damage including broken gates, destroyed crops, and injured or lost  livestock. According to landowners we spoke with, repairing these types  of damage has proven to be both expensive and time-consuming, placing  a heavy burden on landowners in this area. In particular, this population  of landowners has expressed frustration over damage that persists over  extended periods of time, resulting in expensive repairs.
Securing U.S. borders is the responsibility of the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), in collaboration with other federal, state, local,  and tribal entities. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a  component within DHS, is the lead agency for border security, and one of  its top priorities is preventing, detecting, and apprehending illegal border  crossers. The U.S. Border Patrol is the CBP component charged with  ensuring security along border areas between ports of entry, which are  the officially designated ports or places at which a person may apply for  admission into the United States.
To better understand the impact of illegal activity on landowners along the  southwest border, you asked us to review the types of damage  experienced, as well as the extent to which the federal government  provides avenues for compensation or otherwise addresses such  damage. This report addresses the following two questions:
What types of private property damage are landowners along the  southwest border experiencing potentially as a result of illegal border  crossers and enforcement activities, and what steps, if any, has CBP  or other entities taken to collect information on such damage?
To what extent does CBP take action to address private property  damage suspected to have been caused by illegal border crossers  and related enforcement activities?
To describe the types of private property damage landowners along the  southwest border are experiencing potentially as a result of illegal border  crossers and enforcement activities, we interviewed officials from Border  Patrol headquarters and all nine southwest border sectors, as well as  officials from five associations representing landowners along the  southwest border, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and relevant  local government officials. These officials were selected based on their  jurisdiction and areas of responsibility related to our review. Information  we obtained from the associations, the Texas Department of Public  Safety, and local government officials cannot be generalized, but  provided us with perspectives on the types and frequency of private  property damage occurring along the southwest border and the extent to  which information is collected and maintained on such damage.
In September 2014, we conducted a visit to south Texas—specifically the  Laredo and Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Border Patrol sectors—where we  interviewed 33 selected landowners living along the southwest border to  obtain information on the types of property damage they have  experienced. The landowners interviewed were identified by the South  Texans’ Property Rights Association and Border Patrol sector officials as  having experienced private property damage. The information obtained  during these interviews is not generalizable to all landowners living along  the southwest border. We also toured ranches, farms, and other private  property along the southwest border to view how such property could be  damaged and to observe actual damage. We reviewed relevant  documentation outlining CBP’s roles and responsibilities in accordance  with the applicable statutes, including the Federal Tort Claims Act  (FTCA), which permits individuals injured by the wrongful or negligent  acts or omissions of federal employees to seek and receive  compensation from the federal government through an administrative  process and, ultimately, through the federal courts. We interviewed  officials from other CBP offices, including the Office of Administration and  the Office of Chief Counsel (OCC)—the offices that receive, review, and  process the administrative tort claims—to obtain a full description of the  tort claims process from commencement to, where applicable, payment.  During our interviews with the 33 selected landowners, we also gathered  information on their experiences filing administrative tort claims against  CBP. We also reviewed OCC documentation on all administrative tort  claims for $10,000 or less to identify the number of claims filed, approved,  and denied related to private property damage along the southwest  border during fiscal year 2013. We selected fiscal year 2013 because  that was the most recent full fiscal year for which claims data were  available. We also obtained a listing of all claims citing incidents related to  private property damage along the southwest border over $10,000 from  CBP’s OCC field offices from fiscal years 2009 through 2014. We  selected fiscal years 2009 through 2014 to provide a 6-year range for  claims given our initial conversations with OCC about the small number of  claims for more than $10,000 received. We assessed the reliability of this  information by consulting with CBP officials and conducting an  independent analysis of the data, and determined that the administrative  tort claims documents were reliable for the purpose of reporting the  number of administrative tort claims for $10,000 or less filed, paid, and  denied in fiscal year 2013, as well as reporting the number of claims over  $10,000 from fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
To determine the extent to which CBP takes action to address private  property damage along the southwest border that is suspected to have  been caused by illegal border crossers and corresponding enforcement  activities related to the interdiction or apprehension of such individuals,  we analyzed documentation, such as training videos and materials, and  interviewed headquarters and field Border Patrol officials on Border  Patrol’s efforts in this regard. We also interviewed selected landowners  and Border Patrol officials to obtain their perspectives on Border Patrol’s  efforts to address private property damage and what, if any,  improvements could be made to these efforts. Further, we analyzed  documentation, such as CBP and Border Patrol implementation plans,  and interviewed CBP and Border Patrol officials about the Border  Community Liaison (BCL) Program to gather information on the efforts  under way to enhance relationships with local communities and to  ascertain how Border Patrol agents are trained to interact with the public.  We compared Border Patrol’s efforts to train its BCL agents against  standards in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government as  well as GAO’s guide for assessing federal training programs. Additional  details on our scope and methodology are contained in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2014 to April 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
subsections: section_title: Southwest Border Terrain and Land Ownership
paragraphs: The United States’ border with Mexico spans almost 2,000 miles, with  Arizona and Texas sharing 387 and 697 miles of that border respectively.  The U.S. border with Mexico comprises different types of terrain, a fact  that presents a significant challenge to border security efforts. For  example, in Arizona, the border is characterized by desert and rugged  mountains; in Texas, the border is divided by the Rio Grande. Southern  California comprises coastal beaches, inland mountains, rugged canyons,  and high desert, whereas in New Mexico the border is mountainous.  Additionally, the area along the southwest border is composed of federal,  state, tribal, and private lands; federal and tribal lands make up 632 miles,  or approximately 33 percent, of the nearly 2,000 total border miles.  Private and state-owned lands constitute the remaining 67 percent of the  border, most of which is located in Texas. See figure 1 for a map of the  southwest border.
In Texas, farms and ranches, sometimes passed down from generation to  generation, are commonplace. According to the Texas Department of  Agriculture, Texas has 248,800 farms and ranches covering 130.2 million  acres. Texas is also the nation’s leading cattle and cotton producer, with  cattle sales earning $10.5 billion in 2012, and is the leading exporter of  beef with $855 million in exports. The top crops grown in south Texas  include cotton, sugarcane, grain sorghum, and citrus.
Damage to privately owned property in south Texas could negatively  affect business and the safety of the farms and ranches on or near the  border. The damage can include bent and cut fences; rammed and  battered gates; stolen and destroyed vehicles; broken irrigation pipes;  and discarded garbage, including empty water jugs, clothing, and  backpacks. See figures 2, 3, and 4 for examples of private property  damage experienced by landowners in south Texas.
section_title: Border Patrol Efforts
paragraphs: Threats along the southwest border include illegal border crossers and  the smuggling of drugs, firearms, and currency by criminal networks.  Along the southwest border, Border Patrol has 9 sectors and 73 stations,  and Border Patrol reported that about 79 percent of apprehensions and  almost 90 percent of drug seizures in this region occurred in the Laredo,  Tucson, and RGV sectors during fiscal year 2013. Additionally, according  to Border Patrol data, agents apprehended a total of 821,308 illegal  border crossers in these 3 sectors from fiscal years 2011 to 2013, with  yearly increases in Laredo and RGV.
To enhance partnerships and interactions with the community along the  northern and southern borders, CBP implemented the Border Community  Liaison (BCL) Program within Border Patrol in 2011and expanded this  program to all CBP components in 2012. Within Border Patrol, BCL  agents conduct outreach and educate the community on the role and  responsibilities of CBP and its offices. BCL agents are located within  each of Border Patrol’s 20 sectors across the United States and many of  its stations. In addition, as part of the BCL Program, the ranch liaison  position has been created in some sectors and stations along the  southwest border to specifically work with the ranching community.  Among other things, BCL agents and ranch liaisons serve as a direct line  for landowners to report property damage that allegedly resulted from  illegal border crossers or law enforcement activity to Border Patrol.
section_title: CBP Administrative Tort Claims Process
paragraphs: CBP has a tort claims process, pursuant to which individuals may make a  claim for compensation by submitting a completed Standard Form 95 (SF  95), which sets forth allegations of property damage or loss, personal  injury, or death caused by the negligent acts or omissions of an employee  of CBP. As part of this process, CBP’s OCC is to review the submitted  claim to determine whether an individual is eligible for compensation  under the FTCA, and where the claim cannot be settled under the FTCA,  then under 19 U.S.C. § 1630 or the Small Claims Act (SCA). Upon its  review of the claim and applicable legal standards, OCC is to make a  recommendation to the appropriate deciding official as to (1) whether to  grant or deny the claim, and (2) the amount, if any, to be offered in  settlement of a claim that is either fully or partially granted. Generally,  under the FTCA, a claimant may be eligible for compensation where such  claimant suffers injury or loss of property or personal injury or death  caused by a CBP employee’s negligent or wrongful act or omission  committed within the scope of his or her official duties, subject to certain  exceptions. The claimant must submit a claim meeting the applicable  legal requirements, and also provide sufficient evidence and  documentation in support of the claim. Granted claims can be paid from  CBP’s Salaries and Expenses account or the Department of the  Treasury’s Judgment Fund, depending on the dollar amount and statutory  basis pursuant to which the claim was granted. See figure 5 for a  flowchart of the steps CBP is to take during the administrative tort claims  process.
section_title: Landowners Experience Property Damage Potentially as a Result of Illegal Border Crossers and Corresponding Enforcement Activity; the Extent of Such Damage Is Unknown
subsections: section_title: Landowners Reported Experiencing Private Property Damage on a Regular Basis in Certain Southwest Border Sectors
paragraphs: Landowners we spoke with reported that damage occurs to private  properties in south Texas on a regular basis, the majority of which affects  fencing as a result of individuals trying to illegally cross the border.  Damage reported by landowners includes broken gates, destroyed crops,  and injured or lost livestock. For example, suspected illegal border  crossers cutting directly through private fields have resulted in bent or  broken crops, ultimately diminishing the crop yield. Additionally,  landowners reported livestock falling ill as a result of eating trash left  behind by illegal border crossers, as well as cattle being severely injured  by speeding vehicles. Property damage is particularly problematic when it  occurs in the middle of the night and landowners are not alerted until the  morning, or depending on the type and size of the ranch, until days or  weeks later, according to the landowners we interviewed. This type of  damage can lead to the escape of livestock, which could result in injury  not only to the animal, but also to area drivers.
Although the 33 landowners we spoke to stated that most damage they  experienced is caused by illegal border crossers, 21 of these landowners  have also experienced damage that may have resulted from Border  Patrol as well as state law enforcement activities or were aware of such  events occurring in their community. Examples of such damage reported  by landowners include agents accidentally setting fire to grass with  catalytic converters, speeding on and damaging unpaved roads, and  crashing into fences and pipelines. A farm manager told us that despite  putting up a sign prohibiting Border Patrol’s use of dragging tires, a  process used to clear footprints and other signs left by illegal border  crossers, dragging was still occurring on this property, resulting in  damaged crops. This farm manager explained that dust caused by  dragging can be particularly harmful to grapefruit trees, which are plentiful  in south Texas. Some landowners in south Texas installed ladders along  their fences to discourage illegal border crossers from damaging the  fences in an attempt to circumvent Border Patrol. However, landowners  told us that illegal border crossers are not using the provided ladders, and  as a result, they are continuing to experience fence damage. See figure 6  for an example of a ladder along a fence we observed during our visit to  south Texas.
Some landowners keep records of the property damage they experience  potentially as a result of illegal border crossers and corresponding  enforcement activities. For example, local landowners and law  enforcement collected information on an ad hoc basis on private property  damage from 2011 to 2014 in Kleburg, Jim Wells, Brooks, Duval, and  Kenedy Counties in Texas, citing over $120,000 of fence and gate  damage during that time period. Some landowners reported that fence  damage could cost up to about $30,000 per mile to replace depending on  the type and height of fence. A ranch could have multiple layers of fence  around the property of varying types, a fact that may increase potential  repair costs. Damage to fencing can also lead to additional costs to the  landowner in the form of escaped livestock. One ranch manager stated  that a lost or killed cow can cost between $1,000 and $1,500. In addition,  ranch managers explained that cattle are separated for various reasons,  including breeding and disease quarantine, and a cut fence could allow  the cattle to merge, resulting in the potential loss of revenue. For  example, another ranch manager stated that if 20 cows were not able to  be bred, this could result in lost revenue of approximately $26,000. This  ranch manager also stated that it cost about $500 per incident to repair  fence damage, and in 2013, the ranch spent about $31,000 on such  repairs. Another ranch manager stated that the world record class White- tail buck on the property cost up to $30,000 each and even one displaced  or lost buck resulting from a cut or bent fence would be a major financial  loss.
Border Patrol sector officials have cited damaged fencing as the most  common type of damage as well, but the extent to which private property  damage occurs is unknown. According to CBP officials, collecting such  information would be resource-intensive and would not change the  administrative tort claims process or agents’ responsibilities related to  securing the border. BCL agents in stations within five of the nine  southwest border sectors are collecting some information on private  property damage and corresponding repairs. For example, one sector  independently keeps a log of each SF 95 filed and whether the claim was  granted or denied, wherever possible. BCL agents in another sector log  how many times they have spoken to ranchers, any complaints or  comments the ranchers might have, and if the ranchers have made any  types of repairs, but there is no specific log for reported private property  damage. One station keeps a log of damage suspected to be caused by  persons illegally crossing the border and Border Patrol agents, and the  cost of temporary repairs made on the property to address the reported  damage. Border Patrol sector officials expressed mixed opinions on the  benefits of collecting data on property damage. Officials from one sector  told us that collecting data related to property damage would assist them  in managing their resources; however, officials from the other eight  sectors, as well as CBP headquarters officials we met with did not cite a  need for collecting such information.
section_title: Few Landowners Sought Compensation from CBP in Fiscal Year 2013 for Private Property Damage through the Administrative Tort Claims Process
paragraphs: Landowners may file a SF 95 administrative tort claim seeking  compensation for private property damage allegedly caused by the  negligent or wrongful conduct of an employee of Border Patrol or any  CBP component, where such employee acted within the scope of his or  her official duties. We found that few landowners have filed such claims  and of the 33 landowners we spoke with during our visit to south Texas,  30 landowners were unaware that they could seek compensation for  property damage from CBP, as discussed later in this report. The 3  landowners who did know about the SF 95 stated that they were  uninterested in filing such a claim either because the process seemed  overly complicated or because most of the damage they experienced was  not a result of Border Patrol’s actions, but rather a result of individuals  attempting to illegally cross the border. Landowners told us that they  repair and pay for property damage themselves and do not file insurance  claims to pay for the repairs or seek redress at the state or local level,  where available.
CBP maintains some information on claims filed against the agency.  Specifically, claims documentation including, but not limited to, the claim;  communications between OCC and the deciding official; the decision  letter; and voucher for payment, if applicable, is retained at the  appropriate OCC location. OCC has a case file tracking system that is  used to track the status of its cases, including administrative tort claims  filed against the agency. In our review of all 821 SF 95s from fiscal year  2013, 16 were related to private property damage along the southwest  border, as we have defined this term for the purposes of this report. Ten  of these claims involved allegations of incidents that occurred in south  Texas. Of the 16 related claims submitted in fiscal year 2013, a total of  $27,383 in claims for $10,000 or less was submitted to CBP for property  damage, averaging $1,700 per incident, and a total of $11,622 was paid  out to claimants. On average, claims cases were closed in approximately  3.6 months from opening. Of the 16 related claims, 3 claims were granted  in full, 4 were partially granted, and 9 were denied. Examples from the  claims that were submitted include CBP vehicles crashing through  properties and damaging fences, gates, irrigation pipes, and crops. One  claim alleged that a CBP agent caused fence damage, allowing two bulls  to wander onto the road and be hit by oncoming traffic. Another claim  alleged that a CBP vehicle collided with the vehicle it was pursuing and  started a fire in a sugarcane field. Reasons for claims filed in fiscal year  2013 being denied include insufficient evidence of negligence or wrongful  conduct on the part of the CBP agent, or damage known to have been  caused by a third party. For example, 1 claim stated that a CBP agent  struck a cow and crippled it, but was denied on the basis of insufficient  evidence because the cow could not be located. Another claim, in which a  CBP vehicle in a pursuit tore through a barbed wire gate, was denied  because the vehicle being pursued struck the gate first. CBP provided us  with a total listing of 6 claims over $10,000 involving incidents along the  southwest border from fiscal years 2009 to 2014. Of the 6 claims, 3 were  settled, 3 were denied, and none were granted in full. The claims over  $10,000 sought compensation based on allegations of roads damaged by  government vehicles, killed livestock, damaged fencing, and structural  damage to buildings.
section_title: CBP Has Taken Action to Address Property Damage along the Southwest Border, but Border Community Liaison Agents Lack Training Specific to Their Responsibilities
subsections: section_title: Ranch Etiquette and the Border Community Liaison Program Have Helped Foster Community Relationships
paragraphs: According to Border Patrol officials, Border Patrol agents generally  adhere to what is referred to as ranch etiquette when working with the  community and crossing onto private property. This entails treating  private property and its owners and operators with respect and dignity  while on patrol and conducting enforcement efforts. For example, agents  are expected to stay on established roads, drive within established speed  limits, seek oral permission from landowners before entering their  property when appropriate, and close gates when leaving a property. In  the Laredo sector, agents are to mark gates with red tape as a reminder  to close gates when departing private property. See figure 7 for a picture  of a gate with red tape in the Laredo sector.
New recruits are to receive training on ranch etiquette as part of their  post-Border Patrol Academy curriculum. The training is web-based and  includes information on agents’ legal authority to pursue, question, or  apprehend suspected illegal border crossers they track or follow onto  farm or ranch properties within 25 miles of the border. This training also  stresses the importance of developing and maintaining positive  relationships within the community.
In an effort to enhance Border Patrol’s relationships with landowners and  the community as a whole, Border Patrol initiated the BCL Program in  April 2011 in all Border Patrol sectors. According to the July 2012 CBP  BCL implementation memo, the term “border community liaison” means  the person who facilitates the exchange of information between a CBP  operational component office and the border community while fostering  resolution of issues at a local level. This memo further states that  formalization of the BCL Program function and associated positions will  enhance CBP’s interaction with communities and provide a fact-based  understanding of community views, concerns, and issues as they relate to  CBP. It also notes that the program will assist the community in gaining  knowledge of the CBP mission, functions, authorities, and responsibilities  as a way of easing the path to a better understanding of the complex  policymaking and operational environments related to border security and  the facilitation of travel and trade.
While the direction for the BCL Program as implemented by Border Patrol  is to come from its headquarters in Washington, D.C., each sector is  responsible for the implementation of the program, including designating  a program manager and BCL agents. According to the BCL Program  training manual, developed in May 2011, the efforts of BCL agents will  vary by location based on the community and specific threats to that area.  Under the BCL Program, some sectors, including Laredo, RGV, and  Yuma, have also designated agents to serve as ranch and farm liaisons  to work directly with local ranchers and farmers. Although the  implementation plan does not specify the duration of the period in which  agents will serve as BCL agents, Border Patrol sector officials we met  with stated that agents typically serve in this role for about 1 to 2 years. In  November 2014, the former BCL national program manager stated that  the term lengths for BCL agents are based on the individual needs of  Border Patrol sectors and stations. Officials from six of the nine sectors  we met with reported that BCL agents communicate with landowners on a  regular basis to help foster and maintain positive relationships. When we  discussed the BCL Program with landowners during our visit to south  Texas, 21 of the 33 landowners stated that their relationship with Border  Patrol has improved in recent years.
To foster community relationships, some BCL agents located in sectors  and stations along the southwest border have taken steps to repair or  otherwise address property damage that may have resulted from illegal  border crossers and their pursuit by law enforcement. In particular,  officials from seven of the nine sectors we met with stated that agents will  try to provide a temporary repair to property damage that they either  come across during their patrol or may have been involved in, such as  mending fences. For example, in the Laredo sector, BCL agents told us  that landowners will call their local BCL agent and report illegal border  crossers and any damage they may have caused in their attempt to cross  the border and circumvent Border Patrol. When they become aware of  such damage, Laredo BCL agents reported they will, depending on the  circumstances, attempt to temporarily repair the damage regardless of  whether Border Patrol may have been involved in the incident that caused  the damage. Specifically, Laredo BCL agents told us that they will make  an effort to provide temporary fence repairs when they come across new  damage at night to prevent livestock from wandering before the  landowners have a chance to fix the damage themselves. According to  the Laredo BCL agents, these repairs are usually temporary fixes until the  landowner can make more permanent repairs. The liaisons explained that  by temporarily repairing the fences, they are alleviating the concern that  cattle or other wildlife will roam the ranch and potentially stray onto  highways, injuring themselves and others, and they are facilitating  positive relationships with the community. All of the 33 landowners we  met with stated that they typically repair any damage potentially resulting  from illegal border crossers and their pursuit themselves.
One station in the RGV sector began a pilot program in August 2014 to  repair some of the more severely damaged fencing within the station’s  area of responsibility. Specifically, the station allocated funds to hire  someone to temporarily repair fencing, and for the materials needed to  make the repairs. BCL agents at this station stated that these repairs will  likely provide temporary fixes until the landowner has the time and money  to make more permanent repairs. According to the Patrol Agent in Charge  at this station, this program has been well received by ranchers and even  cited by landowners as a best practice during ranchers’ meetings with  RGV and Laredo sector officials. BCL agents from the Laredo sector and  a station within the RGV sector stated that repairing damaged fencing is a  worthwhile effort; however, there is no funding earmarked for such repairs  and stations must use funding from their operational budgets to pay for  the materials. BCL agents from a station in the Laredo sector stated that  they have tracked the funding spent on repairing fences for about 2 years  and their stations spends about $500 per year. Border Patrol  headquarters officials responsible for overseeing Border Patrol’s BCL  Program stated that they are not in favor of agents repairing property  damage, for a variety of reasons. According to these officials, agents  should be spending their time executing their primary mission of securing  the border and landowners seeking redress for any damage allegedly  caused by Border Patrol should utilize the administrative tort claim  process. They also noted that because agents are not trained to make  repairs, they do not know if BCL agents have the skill set to make fence  repairs and that the agency could potentially be exposed to liability if  repairs are made improperly and further damage to property or persons  occurs as a result. For example, if the fence fails because a repair made  by a BCL agent was insufficient, the agency may be liable to the property  owner or any injured third party for the subsequent damage, according to  a Border Patrol official. In February 2015, Border Patrol headquarters  officials stated that they are reviewing the programs in place at the sector  and station levels to temporarily repair private property damage and may  instruct the field not to make such repairs.
section_title: Border Patrol Agents Lack Training Specific to Their Border Community Liaison Role and Responsibilities
paragraphs: In 2012, CBP established a national training program for the BCL  program to provide training and information to CBP staff serving as BCLs,  including those within Border Patrol. However, CBP did not provide this  training in fiscal year 2014, does not have documented plans to provide  the training in future years, and does not have a mechanism to track  whether CBP staff serving as BCL agents have received the training. The  BCL training developed in 2012 includes documentation on the BCL  Program operations plan that focuses on the mission, goals, and  execution of the program. This training also covers the importance of  being familiar with the local community, tips for dealing with challenging  situations, and details how to achieve an effective working relationship  between a Border Patrol station and its local community. CBP established  this training program to ensure standard program operations.
The BCL training was initially provided to border community liaisons after  the program was first implemented in 2012 over a 3-day period, according  to the former national BCL program manager. In 2013, BCL training was  shared with border community liaisons, including those within Border  Patrol, via CBP’s intranet system. However, BCL training was not offered  in fiscal year 2014 because of resource constraints, including the fiscal  year 2013 sequestration, according to the former BCL program  manager. According to officials overseeing the BCL Program within  Border Patrol, funding for BCL training in fiscal year 2015 has been  approved internally and in April 2015 DHS reported that this training  would be conducted in fiscal year 2015. However, as of February 2015,  Border Patrol did not know whether the training will be offered in future  years. Moreover, as of March 2015, CBP did not have documented plans  to provide BCL training in fiscal year 2015 or future years, according to  the acting national program manager.
In the absence of the national BCL training, some sectors have  developed their own training for BCL agents. Specifically, officials from  five sectors we met with told us that because national BCL training has  not been recently offered, they are conducting their own training specific  to their own needs that covers ranch etiquette, as well as BCL agent roles  and responsibilities. For example, in the El Paso sector, Border Patrol  agents developed a course specific to the sector’s BCL agents that  addresses the goals of the BCL Program, the benefits of the program,  and the responsibilities of the BCL agents, among other things. The  training also includes a video in which landowners discuss how they  would like to interact with Border Patrol and how their property should be  treated. BCL agents from one station within the RGV sector stated that,  about quarterly, they ask ranchers to speak to agents about ranch  etiquette and the respect they expect for their property. Another station  within the RGV sector worked with local ranchers to develop ranch  etiquette rules for its agents. Among other things, these rules include  abiding by posted speed limits, traveling on established roads, locking all  ranch entry gates, and leaving all the gates inside a ranch the way they  were found. These rules also state that agents will report any damage to  fences, locks, gates, or other property that they observe or witness to a  supervisor. RGV sector officials stated that they may implement these or  similar rules sector-wide. Additionally, the former national program  manager noted that all BCL training materials are available via CBP’s  internal website to BCL program officials in the field and can be accessed  at any time.
Although some sectors have developed their own training for border  community liaisons and the national training materials are accessible via  CBP’s internal website, CBP headquarters and field officials identified the  importance of liaisons receiving the national training for various reasons.  For example, the former national BCL program manager, as well as  officials overseeing the BCL Program within Border Patrol, stated that it is  important for BCL agents to take the national training because of the high  turnover in the BCL agent role. Specifically, officials told us that, in most  cases, Border Patrol agents serve in the BCL role for 1- to 2-year periods.  Thus, officials stated that it is important for agents to receive the national  training so they can effectively carry out their BCL duties while serving in  the role. Further, Border Patrol agents we met with from six of the nine  southwest border sectors told us that their BCL agents do not receive  routine training on their roles and responsibilities, and officials from three  of these six sectors stated that additional training is needed for BCL  agents. Officials from one sector noted that it would be beneficial if CBP  headquarters offered BCL national training to ensure sectors and stations  were all operating in a coordinated fashion to address the goals of the  national BCL program. Moreover, two BCL agents we interviewed told us  that they had not received instruction, beyond on-the-job training, on their  role and responsibilities, including responding to and addressing private  property damage. These BCL agents, for example, were not aware that  landowners could file a SF 95 to seek compensation for property damage  allegedly caused by the negligent or wrongful conduct of an employee of  Border Patrol or any CBP component, where such employee acted within  the scope of his or her official duties. As stated previously, of the 33  landowners we spoke with during our visit to south Texas, 30 landowners  were unaware that they could seek compensation for property damage  from CBP. Within Border Patrol, BCL agents are to serve as the focal  point for landowners to report suspected illegal border crossers, as well  as to report potentially related damage sustained to private property.
In addition, CBP does not have a mechanism to track whether Border  Patrol agents serving as BCLs have received the national training. Border  Patrol officials told us that because of high turnover rates in the BCL  agent position and that most agents serve in the BCL role for 1 to 2 years,  it is likely that most current BCL agents, including those who assumed  their role in 2014, have not received the national training. However, in the  absence of a mechanism for tracking completion of the national training,  CBP could not provide us with information on the number or percentage  of current BCL agents who have received training. According to the  former and acting national BCL program managers, Border Patrol is  responsible for ensuring that its BCL agents receive training. They  explained that when national BCL training was last held, in 2013, CBP  headquarters relied on Border Patrol sectors and stations to identify  which BCL agents were in need of this training and would likely follow that  approach again for any future training. In addition, there has also been  turnover in the positions that oversee the BCL Program both in  headquarters, as well as in Border Patrol, which limits the agency’s  knowledge of which current BCL agents have or have not received BCL  training.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for  management to identify appropriate knowledge and skills needed for  various jobs and provide needed training. The standards also state that  only when the right personnel for the job are on board and are provided  the right training, tools, structure, incentives, and responsibilities is  operational success possible. GAO’s guide for assessing federal training  programs states that effectively implementing training and development  programs provides agencies with the opportunity to empower employees  and improve performance. GAO’s guide also states that agencies  should use tracking or other control mechanisms to ensure that all  employees receive appropriate training. Given the frequent turnover of  agents in the BCL role, providing these liaisons with training specific to  their responsibilities and tracking the receipt of such training could help  better ensure that BCL agents have the necessary skills to meet the  established goals of the BCL Program, including facilitating information  sharing between Border Patrol and the community on border security  issues.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Landowners we spoke to living along the U.S. southwest border report  experiencing private property damage on a regular basis, suspected to be  caused, in large part, by individuals illegally attempting to cross the  border. Landowners reported that, to a lesser degree, Border Patrol may,  in the course of its law enforcement activities, potentially bear  responsibility for property damage experienced by the private  landowners, in certain instances. While the extent of private property  damage along the southwest border is unknown, the impact on those  living in the region can be substantial. Positive working relationships with  local communities are an essential aspect of Border Patrol’s efforts along  the southwest border, and according to the July 2012 CBP BCL  implementation memo, the main responsibility of those serving in the BCL  role is to help foster and maintain those relationships. Landowners can  contribute to Border Patrol’s situational awareness and increase agents’  ability to more quickly and appropriately respond to illegal activity along  the border with help from BCL agents. Ensuring that BCL agents receive  national training specific to their role and tracking the receipt of such  training could help better position BCL agents to meet the established  goals of the BCL Program, including facilitating information sharing  between Border Patrol and the community on border security issues. BCL  training could also help BCL agents assist landowners in mitigating the  negative effects of property damage.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help strengthen the knowledge and experience of agents serving as  BCLs, we recommend that the Chief of the Border Patrol ensure that  agents serving in the BCL role receive training and track the receipt of  such training.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for comment. DHS agreed with  our recommendation. The department’s response is reprinted in appendix  II. DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. In its response, DHS provided information about planned  corrective action in response to our recommendation. DHS stated that  Border Patrol is in the process of planning a training course for BCL  agents who have yet to receive BCL training and sector program  managers are soliciting and submitting names of those agents who  require such training. Border Patrol’s Law Enforcement Operations  Directorate’s Liaison Division included one class of 20 students in its  fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and based on funding received, will  conduct a BCL training class in fiscal year 2015. DHS also stated that  Border Patrol submitted a Training Records and Enrollment Network code  request form to CBP’s Office of Training and Development, which is to  enable CBP to track which agents attend this course. The Office of  Training and Development approved this request on March 24, 2015, and  the estimated completion date is September 30, 2015.
Conducting BCL training in fiscal year 2015 and completing efforts to  track the receipt of such training are positive steps toward addressing our  recommendation. However, we continue to believe that given the typical  1- to 2-year term lengths of agents serving in the BCL role, it will be  important for Border Patrol to take steps to ensure BCL training is held in  future years as well to help better ensure that all BCL agents have the  necessary skills to meet the established goals of the BCL Program,  including facilitating information sharing between Border Patrol and the  community on border security issues.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland  Security and interested congressional committees. In addition, the report  is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. 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 key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses (1) the types of private property damage  landowners along the southwest border are experiencing, potentially as a  result of illegal border crossers and corresponding enforcement activities,  and what steps, if any, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or  other entities have taken to collect information on such damage and (2)  the extent to which CBP takes action to address private property damage  suspected to have been caused by illegal border crossers and related  enforcement activity. While we collected information on private property  damage along the southwest border—Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and  California —we primarily focused our efforts on south Texas, where there  is the largest amount of privately owned land, and where CBP data  currently indicate the highest level of apprehensions of illegal border  crossers.
For the purpose of this report, the term “private property damage” is  defined as property damage that occurs on or to land that is privately  owned or managed by individuals or commercial entities. For example,  rammed gates, bent or broken fences, damaged piping systems, killing of  livestock, and damaged crops occurring on such properties are all  considered private property damage. For our reporting purposes, we  reviewed private property damage suspected to have been caused by  illegal border crossers and Border Patrol’s enforcement efforts.
To describe the types of private property damage landowners along the  southwest border are experiencing potentially as a result of illegal border  crossers and corresponding enforcement activities, we interviewed  officials from Border Patrol headquarters and all nine southwest sectors,  as well as officials from five associations representing landowners along  the southwest border, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and  relevant local government officials. These officials were selected based  on their jurisdiction and areas of responsibility related to our review. We  obtained their perspectives on the types and frequency of private property  damage occurring along the southwest border and the extent to which  information is collected and maintained on such damage. Information we  obtained from the associations, the Texas Department of Public Safety,  and local government officials cannot be generalized, but provided us  with perspectives on the types and frequency of private property damage  occurring along the southwest border and the extent to which information  is collected and maintained on such damage.
In September 2014, we conducted a visit to south Texas—Laredo and  RGV sectors—where we interviewed 33 selected landowners, including  ranchers and farmers, living along the southwest border to obtain  information on the types of property damage they have experienced. The  landowners interviewed were identified by the South Texans’ Property  Rights Association and Border Patrol sector officials as having  experienced private property damage. The information obtained during  these interviews is not generalizable to all landowners living along the  southwest border. We also toured ranches, farms, and other private  property along the southwest border to view how such property could be  damaged and to observe actual damage.
In addition, we reviewed relevant documentation outlining CBP’s role and  responsibilities in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA),  which enables landowners to seek compensation from CBP for property  damage allegedly caused by the negligent or wrongful conduct of an  employee of Border Patrol or any CBP component, where such employee  acted within the scope of his or her official duties. We interviewed  officials from other CBP offices, including the Office of Chief Counsel  (OCC) and the Office of Administration—the offices that receive, review,  and process the administrative tort claims—to obtain a full description of  CBP’s administrative tort claims process from commencement to, where  applicable, payment. We also interviewed selected landowners to collect  information on their experiences filing administrative tort claims against  CBP. We reviewed all 821 CBP administrative tort claims for $10,000 or  less to identify the number of claims filed, approved, and denied related to  landowner damage along the southwest border during fiscal year 2013.  Of these 821 claims, we identified 16 that sought compensation for  private property damage, as defined for the purposes of our report, along  the southwest border, and 10 of these involved incidents that took place  in south Texas. We selected fiscal year 2013 because that was the most  recent full fiscal year for which claims data were available. Claims data  were not available electronically; therefore, we manually sorted through  documentation on all 821 claims. In particular, we reviewed the claim  form and decision letter for each claim filed with CBP in fiscal year 2013.  When necessary, we followed up with CBP to obtain further clarification  on claims to confirm whether they concerned private property damage  along the southwest border. We also obtained a listing of all claims  related to private property damage along the southwest border more than  $10,000 from CBP’s OCC field offices from fiscal years 2009 through  2014. We selected fiscal years 2009 through 2014 to provide us a 6-year  range for claims given our initial conversations with OCC about the small  number of claims for more than $10,000 received. We assessed the  reliability of this information by consulting with internal experts and  conducting an independent analysis of the data, and determined that the  administrative tort claims documents were reliable for the purpose of  reporting the number of administrative tort claims filed, paid, and denied  in fiscal year 2013, as well as reporting the number of claims for more  than $10,000 filed from fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
To determine the extent to which CBP takes action to address private  property damage suspected to have been caused by illegal border  crossers and corresponding enforcement activities, we gathered  documentation such as training videos and materials, and interviewed  headquarters and field Border Patrol officials on Border Patrol’s efforts to  address property damage along the southwest border. We also  interviewed the 33 selected landowners and Border Patrol officials to  obtain their perspective on Border Patrol’s efforts to address damage and  what, if any, improvements could be made to these efforts. Further, we  collected documentation, such as CBP and Border Patrol implementation  plans, and interviewed CBP and Border Patrol officials on the Border  Community Liaison (BCL) Program to ascertain how Border Patrol agents  are trained to interact with the public. We compared Border Patrol’s  efforts to train its BCL agents against standards in Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government, as well as in GAO’s guide for  assessing federal training programs.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2014 to April 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: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Jeanette Espinola, Assistant  Director; Meg Ullengren; and Nada Raoof made key contributions to this  report. Also contributing to the report were David Alexander, Frances  Cook, Dominick Dale, Eric Hauswirth, Stanley Kostyla, Thomas Lombardi,  Jan Montgomery, and Jon Najmi.