Border Security: Partnership Agreements and Enhanced Oversight Could Strengthen Coordination of Efforts on Indian Reservations
Published: 2013-04-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Individuals seeking to enter the United States illegally may attempt to avoid screening procedures at ports of entry by crossing the border in areas between these ports, including Indian reservations, many of which have been vulnerable to illicit cross-border threat activity, such as drug smuggling, according to DHS. GAO was asked to review DHS's efforts to coordinate border security activities on Indian reservations. This report examines DHS's efforts to coordinate with tribal governments to address border security threats and vulnerabilities on Indian reservations. GAO interviewed DHS officials at headquarters and conducted interviews with eight tribes, selected based on factors such as proximity to the border, and the corresponding DHS field offices that have a role in border security for these Indian reservations. While GAO cannot generalize its results from these interviews to all Indian reservations and field offices along the border, they provide examples of border security coordination issues. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in December 2012. Information that DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) deemed sensitive has been redacted.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is coordinating in a variety of ways with tribes, such as through joint operations and shared facilities and Operation Stonegarden--a DHS grant program intended to enhance coordination among local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in securing United States borders. However, the Border Patrol and tribes face coordination challenges. Officials from five tribes reported information-sharing challenges with the Border Patrol, such as not receiving notification of federal activity on their lands. Border Patrol officials reported challenges navigating tribal rules and decisions. Border Patrol and DHS have existing agreements with some, but not all, tribes to address specific border security issues, such as for the establishment of a law enforcement center on tribal lands. These agreements could serve as models for developing additional agreements between the Border Patrol and other tribes on their specific border security coordination challenges. Written government-to-government agreements could assist Border Patrol and tribal officials with enhancing their coordination, consistent with practices for sustaining effective coordination. DHS established an office to coordinate the components' tribal outreach efforts, which has taken actions such as monthly teleconferences with DHS tribal liaisons to discuss tribal issues and programs, but does not have a mechanism for monitoring and overseeing outreach efforts, consistent with internal control standards. Such monitoring should be performed continually; ingrained in the agency's operations; and clearly documented in directives, policies, or manuals to help ensure operations are carried out as intended. Implementing an oversight mechanism could help enhance DHS's department-wide awareness of and accountability for border security coordination efforts with the tribes while identifying those areas that work well and any needing improvement.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DHS examine the benefits of government-to-government agreements with tribes and develop and implement a mechanism to monitor border security coordination efforts with tribes. DHS concurred with our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The United States shares over 5,000 miles of border with Canada, and  over 1,900 miles of border with Mexico. Individuals seeking to enter the  United States illegally or to smuggle contraband may attempt to avoid the  Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border  Protection (CBP) screening procedures at ports of entry (POE) by  crossing the borders in areas between POEs, including Indian  reservations on the borders. Eighty-six miles of the northern border and  68 miles of the southwest border are on 13 Indian reservations, many of  which are vulnerable to illicit cross-border threat activity, such as drugs,  weapons, and human smuggling, according to DHS officials.the security of Indian reservations is a key part of the overall integrity of  U.S. borders.
The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian  tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution  of the United States, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial  decisions. In recognition of that special relationship, executive agencies  have been charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation  and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies  that have tribal implications, and are responsible for strengthening the  government-to-government relationships between the United States and  Indian tribes.various components within DHS, in collaboration with other federal, state,  local, and tribal entities. CBP, a component within DHS, is the frontline  agency responsible for preventing terrorists and their weapons of  terrorism from entering the United States and interdicting persons and  contraband crossing the border illegally. The Border Patrol is the CBP  component charged with carrying out this mission along border areas  between the POEs.
Securing U.S. borders is the primary responsibility of  As part of this mission, Border Patrol agents operate on Indian  reservations on or near the border. U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE), also within DHS, is responsible for investigating the  sources of cross-border crimes and dismantling illegal operations,  including on Indian reservations. According to the 2012 through 2016  Border Patrol Strategic Plan, homeland security missions—such as  border security missions—are conducted through collaboration with an  array of homeland security partners, including state, local, tribal, and  territorial governments. In May 2011, DHS issued a Tribal Consultation  Policy to, among other things, promote border security coordination on  Indian reservations.
You asked us to review federal collaboration with tribal governments on  border security issues. In response, this report addresses the following  question: To what extent is DHS coordinating with tribal governments to  address border security threats and vulnerabilities on Indian  reservations?
This report is a public version of the prior sensitive report that we  provided to you. DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the  Department of the Interior (DOI) deemed some of the information in the  prior report as law enforcement sensitive, which must be protected from  public disclosure. Therefore, this report omits sensitive information  regarding a question about border security threats and vulnerabilities, as  well as the names and locations of the Indian tribes and reservations  within the review, and techniques used to carry out border security  missions. Although the information provided in this report is more limited  in scope, the overall methodology used for both reports is the same.
To determine the extent to which DHS is coordinating with tribes to  address border security threats and vulnerabilities, we reviewed federal  strategies, such as DHS’s Northern Border Strategy, and policies and  plans, such as DHS’s Plan of Action to Develop a Tribal Consultation and  Coordination Policy, which address coordination with tribal governments.  In reviewing coordination between the federal government and tribal  governments, we focused primarily on DHS’s Office of Intergovernmental  Affairs Tribal Desk (Tribal Desk)—DHS’s designated lead for tribal  relations and consultation—and the Border Patrol—the lead federal  agency charged with securing the border in areas between the ports of  entry—where the Indian reservations in our review are located. We  reviewed DHS’s Tribal Consultation and Coordination Plan, our prior work  on effective interagency collaboration, and our Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government to assess DHS’s efforts to oversee  and monitor coordination with tribes on border security. Additionally, to  determine the benefits and challenges regarding coordination between  the governments, we conducted interviews with tribal officials such as  chairmen and police chiefs, from eight different Indian reservations along  the northern and southwest borders, selected based on their proximity to  the borders according to U.S. Census data. We also interviewed  headquarters officials at DHS, DOJ, and DOI, to obtain information on  their efforts related to border security on Indian reservations. We  conducted interviews with officials from 10 Border Patrol stations, 7  Border Patrol sectors responsible for patrolling the Indian reservations in  our review, and various other entities involved in border security on  Indian reservations, including seven state and major urban area fusion  centers, two Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST), and  three Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs). While we cannot  generalize information obtained from these interviews to all Indian  reservations and federal agencies’ field units along the northern and  southwest borders, we selected these tribes and locations to provide  examples of the way federal agencies coordinate with tribal governments  on border security issues.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to April 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The federal government recognizes Indian tribes as distinct, independent  political communities with inherent powers of self-government that include  enacting substantive law over internal matters and enforcing that law in  their own forums. The United States has a trust responsibility to  federally recognized Indian tribes and maintains a government-to- government relationship with those tribes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs  (BIA) within DOI provides law enforcement on Indian reservations unless  tribes opt to assume responsibility for law enforcement or the state in  which the reservation is located has criminal jurisdiction. Federal crimes  such as illegally crossing the border or drug smuggling across the border  fall under the authority of federal law enforcement whether they occur on  Indian reservations or not. However, tribal law enforcement generally has  the authority to arrest offenders on Indian reservations and detain them  until they can be turned over to the proper authorities, even if the tribe  itself lacks criminal jurisdiction. Further, tribal law enforcement officers  can be cross-deputized to enforce federal laws. For example, ICE  designated a tribal law enforcement officer with customs authority and  this officer provides intelligence to ICE and assists with ICE  investigations.
DHS and its components have established a number of different offices to  assist with facilitating tribal coordination on all homeland security issues,  including border security. As shown in table 1, these components and  offices have a variety of roles in supporting border security efforts on  Indian reservations. Fusion centers, while not DHS components or  offices, also support border security on Indian reservations by providing  information to tribes.
DHS and its components also have strategies, as shown in table 2, that  help facilitate coordination between DHS and tribes to address border  security on Indian reservations.
section_title: DHS Is Coordinating with Tribes on Border Security, but Could Strengthen Efforts by Establishing Agreements and Oversight
subsections: section_title: DHS and Tribes Use a Variety of Methods to Coordinate on Border Security and Report Positive Aspects of This Coordination
paragraphs: The Border Patrol is coordinating and sharing information with tribes in a  number of ways to address border security issues. The Border Patrol and  six tribes reported using one or more of the following coordination  methods: Operation Stonegarden—a DHS grant program intended to  enhance coordination among local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal law  enforcement agencies in securing United States borders—task forces  such as BESTs and IBETs, fusion centers, tribal and public land liaisons,  and joint operations and shared facilities to coordinate on border  security. Border Patrol and tribal officials report that they share border  security–related information through the BEST and IBET forums, and  tribal officials reported receiving border security–related information from  fusion centers. In addition, according to Border Patrol and tribal officials,  the Border Patrol uses tribal or public lands liaisons to coordinate with  tribes on border security. Another way Border Patrol and tribal officials  said they coordinate on these issues is by tribal law enforcement using  Operation Stonegarden funds to support daily coordination with the  Border Patrol, including participating in joint patrols with the Border Patrol.  In addition to these methods, the Border Patrol and tribes reported using  joint operations, such as patrolling together in the same vehicles and  using shared facilities, to coordinate on border security. Table 3 contains  more detailed information regarding these coordination methods.
In addition to these mechanisms, tribal and Border Patrol officials  reported using other coordination methods, such as agent-to-tribal police  officer interaction, meetings, and e-mails to coordinate on border security.  For instance, although officials from two of the tribes in our review said  their tribes do not use any of the coordination methods described in table  3, both tribes reported using meetings to coordinate as the need arises  with the Border Patrol on border security issues. Officials from six of the  eight tribes and 4 of the 10 Border Patrol stations we contacted reported  that these methods of contact are the most beneficial for coordinating on  border security. Officials from one tribe in our review reported that the  timely sharing of information via e-mail is the tribe’s most important  coordination mechanism with federal agencies. Officials from another  tribe explained that leadership from the responsible Border Patrol Sector  regularly calls the tribal chairman to discuss border security issues, as  well as holding frequent meetings. Officials from four of the eight tribes  and 4 of the 10 stations we interviewed also reported that they  communicate daily with each other.
Officials from some of the tribes and Border Patrol sectors and stations  we contacted reported positive aspects of coordinating to address border  security issues. Specifically, officials from five of the eight tribes we  contacted reported having a good or effective relationship with the Border  Patrol. In particular, officials from two of the tribes we reviewed, as well as  the corresponding Border Patrol sectors and stations, reported that there  are positive aspects of DHS’s overall coordination with the tribes to  address border security threats. For example, officials from one of the  tribes explained that tribal law enforcement officers have a good working  relationship with the Border Patrol and that the Border Patrol is the best  federal agency they have worked with in terms of coordinating with the  tribe. Tribal officials cautioned that while the tribe has a good relationship  with the Border Patrol, the majority of tribal community members do not  want any Border Patrol presence on the reservation and that the tribal  community is very mistrusting of nontribal entities, including law  enforcement agencies. Border Patrol sector officials—who staff the sector  responsible for border security on one of the two reservations—stated  that in addition to productive monthly Border Patrol–tribal leadership  meetings and daily interaction between Border Patrol agents and tribal  law enforcement, the Border Patrol was the first federal law enforcement  agency invited to speak at tribal schools and community meetings.
Officials from one of the tribes in our review also reported that DHS and  the Border Patrol at both the national and local levels are more sensitive  to tribal concerns now than in the past and that the Border Patrol is willing  to work with tribal law enforcement in sharing intelligence and keeping the  lines of communication open. For instance, tribal officials explained that  they have quarterly meetings with the Border Patrol sector during which  the Border Patrol shares existing and future border security strategies  with the tribe, including the decision of whether to deploy surveillance  towers on the reservation. As a result of this interaction, the tribe,  according to tribal officials, feels involved in the decision to potentially  install towers on the reservation to help monitor and better secure the  border. In the past, these types of decisions would have occurred without  consulting the tribe, according to tribal officials. Border Patrol sector  officials—who staff the sector responsible for border security on the  Indian reservation—stated that the sector has never enjoyed a better  level of communication or mutual understanding with the tribe and much  of this can be attributed to the level of coordination with the tribe,  particularly the regular meetings held between Border Patrol agents and  tribal officials.
section_title: Government-to- Government Agreements Could Assist DHS and Tribes with Improving Their Border Security Partnerships
paragraphs: Although Border Patrol and tribal officials reported positive aspects of  coordination, officials from seven of the eight tribes we contacted reported  coordination challenges related to border security. According to tribal  officials, the Border Patrol does not consistently communicate to the  tribes information that would be useful in tribal law enforcement efforts to  assist in securing the border. Specifically, officials from five of the eight  tribes we reviewed reported coordination challenges related to not  receiving notification and information from federal agencies, including the  Border Patrol, regarding federal law enforcement activity on their  respective reservations. The following examples illustrate these  coordination challenges.
Officials from one of the tribes in our review reported that they are not  given advance notification of Border Patrol law enforcement actions,  such as independently patrolling the reservation or the deployment of  undercover surveillance teams, occurring on their reservation. These  officials reported that they would be in a better position to support  federal agencies with border security efforts if they received  information regarding planned federal law enforcement actions in a  more timely manner. Border Patrol officials from the sector stated that  the Border Patrol notifies tribal law enforcement of its own operations,  as well as joint operations, which often involve tribal law enforcement,  on the reservation. However, the Border Patrol does not provide  detailed information on its patrol schedule and dates and times of  operations, among other enforcement activities, to non-law- enforcement entities.
A tribal official from another Indian reservation stated that there are  numerous law enforcement agencies with different enforcement  objectives working on the reservation and that there have been a few  instances in which a tribal law enforcement unit and another federal  agency were tracking the same suspects unaware of each other’s  presence. These situations, according to tribal officials, were  problematic because the agencies were concerned that the overall  operation would fail because of the lack of notification by each agency  of its respective operations. Although a Border Patrol official with  border security responsibilities on this Indian reservation was not  aware of the Border Patrol being involved in such incidents, according  to tribal officials, when tribal officials and the Border Patrol work  together, they can complement each other and act as force multipliers  by utilizing their respective resources. We have previously reported on  the importance of deconfliction and coordinating to prevent law  enforcement entities from unknowingly interrupting each other or  duplicating each other’s efforts. Moreover, CBP reports that in some  areas along the border, surveillance and response capabilities are  limited, so the success of its border security initiatives depends on  leveraging intelligence and partnerships with federal, state, local, and  tribal governments.
Officials from a third tribe in our review reported that although the tribe  provides information to federal agencies, these agencies do not  consistently provide information, particularly information related to  tribal members, to the tribe. For instance, in 2009, Border Patrol and a  county sheriff’s deputy responded to an incident involving two  individuals who tried to illegally cross the border on tribal lands.  Although the tribe was conducting operations in the area and could  have responded to this incident, tribal officials stated that they did not  receive information about the illegal crossing from the Border Patrol.  Border Patrol officials from the sector with responsibility for this Indian  reservation were not able to confirm Border Patrol involvement in this  incident.
Further, according to Border Patrol officials, in some cases, coordination  challenges with tribes have affected the Border Patrol’s ability to patrol  and monitor the border so as to prevent and detect illegal immigration and  smuggling. Border Patrol officials from three of the seven Border Patrol  sectors and 5 of the 10 stations we contacted reported coordination  challenges related to understanding and collaborating with tribes within  tribal government rules. Specifically, officials from two sectors that include  Indian reservations and corresponding stations reported coordination  challenges related to tribal government rules that hindered law  enforcement in working together to secure the border.
Border Patrol officials from one of the sectors with border security  responsibilities on an Indian reservation in our review stated that the  reservation faces border threats and is vulnerable, in part, because  the Border Patrol cannot patrol as frequently as it would like to on the  reservation. The Border Patrol is limited, because of tribal decisions,  in the type of border security enforcement, particularly the  implementation of visible countermeasures, such as mobile  surveillance systems or integrated fixed towers, it can implement on  the reservation, according to these Border Patrol officials. Further,  these Border Patrol officials stated that some tribal members are  opposed to the Border Patrol’s presence on the reservation, which,  because of the potential for volatile protests by these tribal members,  impedes the Border Patrol’s ability to patrol certain areas of the  reservation, including a road in a major smuggling area. As a result of  these issues, Border Patrol officials reported that the Border Patrol  cannot apply all of its capabilities, particularly technology, to address  border security threats and vulnerabilities on the reservation. Tribal  officials from this Indian reservation stated that although the Border  Patrol is not permitted to implement border security technologies on  the reservation because of tribal community preferences, the Border  Patrol is able to implement technologies and checkpoints just off of  the reservation. Border Patrol headquarters officials stated that the  implementation of these countermeasures off of instead of on the  reservation adjacent to the border hampers the Border Patrol’s ability  to secure the border.
Border Patrol officials from a sector with an Indian reservation  reported that the tribe has negotiated with the Border Patrol via its  tribal resolution process and other means to limit the tactical  infrastructure the Border Patrol sector uses to support the border  security mission on the reservation. For example, the Border Patrol is  limited in the deployment of tactical checkpoints and must negotiate  regarding the deployment location of vehicle-mounted radar  systems.mounted radar system had to be moved to a tactically less   According to the Border Patrol, in one case, a vehicle- advantageous position because of tribal concerns over its location on  a sacred mountain.
According to the Border Patrol, the tribal resolution process for  gaining approval from the tribe to implement border security  countermeasures is difficult to navigate, which significantly affects the  Border Patrol’s ability to quickly respond to threats, and reduces the  Border Patrol’s presence on the border. The tribal resolution process,  according to Border Patrol officials, includes several steps for  soliciting feedback and approval for all proposed Border Patrol actions  from all of the tribe’s districts and communities. Border Patrol sector  and station officials expressed concerns about individual community  members, including those possibly involved in cross-border crime,  being able to prevent passage of the resolution. These officials also  stated that the tribe has changed the approval process without  communicating these changes to the Border Patrol, which makes it  difficult for the Border Patrol to adapt to the changes for both new  projects and projects already under consideration by the tribe.
Tribal officials stated that the Border Patrol established temporary  camps on its own initiative without gaining approval from the tribal real  estate office, so the tribal officials had the Border Patrol remove the   However, these officials acknowledged that the resolution  camps.process is lengthy and can be tedious for Border Patrol officials,  particularly since the Border Patrol has deadlines it must meet to  receive funding for projects. They also recognized that some of the  tribal districts were not familiar with the steps required by the  resolution process. As a result, tribal officials have established a tribal  committee to ensure the districts and the Border Patrol better  understand the approval process.
Given these coordination challenges, written agreements between the  Border Patrol and tribes could provide a mechanism to help resolve  coordination issues, such as the tribes’ lack of notification and information  from federal agencies regarding law enforcement activity on their  reservations, when they emerge. We have previously reported on  practices that can enhance and sustain effective collaboration, such as  establishing common standards, policies, or procedures to use in  collaborative efforts and the development of written agreements to  document collaboration. We reported that as agencies bring diverse  cultures to the collaborative effort, it is important to address these  differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the  mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort.  Regarding the use of written agreements to document collaborative  efforts, we have reported on the utility and benefits of written government- to-government agreements between U.S. government agencies and  foreign governments or other sovereign entities to improve cooperation.These agreements, in part, provide a legal framework for improving  partnerships, facilitate information exchange, define tasks to be  accomplished by each entity, and establish written assurances of each  entity’s commitments. A government-to-government agreement could  help DHS and tribal governments to come together as partners to  establish complementary goals and strategies for achieving shared  results in securing the border on tribal lands.
Border Patrol headquarters officials reported that they have considered  the potential utility and benefits of written government-to-government  agreements with individual tribes to address border security challenges.  In addition, DHS has entered into memorandums of agreements (MOA)  with individual tribes on other security-related issues, which have  benefited DHS and the tribes. For example, DHS entered into MOAs with  individual tribes regarding the implementation of the Enhanced Tribal  Card, which is a DHS program that allows all federally recognized tribes  to work with CBP to produce a card denoting citizenship and identity that  can be accepted for entry at the POEs. A DHS official from CBP’s Land  Border Integration Project Management Office responsible for negotiating  these MOAs with the tribes reported that the MOAs were designed to  protect tribal sovereignty, as well as describe the steps the tribes must  take to produce a card. These MOAs, according to this official, are  binding and protect both the tribes and CBP from expending resources on  developing the card without assurances that the card will meet the  requirements of the program.
Both Border Patrol and tribal officials reported that a written government- to-government agreement could benefit their border security coordination.  Border Patrol sector officials responsible for border security on one of the  reservations stated that the establishment of such an agreement explicitly  describing the steps required to obtain approval for Border Patrol actions,  including the tribe’s resolution process and mechanisms for notifying the  Border Patrol when changes are made to the process or approval  requirements, could help resolve challenges for the Border Patrol in  coordinating with the tribe. Tribal officials also reported that a  government-to-government agreement could assist with resolving  remaining coordination challenges by supporting overall coordination and  ensuring that coordination processes are followed. Officials from another  tribe in our review stated that they would also be receptive to an  agreement that shows respect for the tribe and its practices, is developed  with tribal participation, and involves senior DHS officials with negotiating  capabilities. Border Patrol sector officials with responsibility for another of  the reservations in our review stated that they considered pursuing an  agreement with the tribe, but decided instead to actively engage tribal  council officials, law enforcement officers, and community members in  resolving issues, a course of action that has, according to Border Patrol  officials, been effective in gaining the support of tribal leadership and law  enforcement. The Border Patrol sector officials noted, though, that if  agreements with tribal officials were pursued, senior DHS officials would  need to be involved in the negotiation of any government-to-government  agreements because tribal leadership officials do not view the Border  Patrol, as a law enforcement agency, as the appropriate federal  government representative for negotiating these types of agreements.  Officials from both of these tribes emphasized the importance of tribal  sovereignty and the need for the federal government to interact with tribes  on a government-to-government basis. An assessment of the utility of  written, government-to-government agreements between DHS and  individual tribal governments to address and mitigate specific coordination  challenges, particularly for tribes facing border security threats, could help  DHS build on its tribal partnerships. Further, agreements that are  tailored to help resolve specific challenges, such as not receiving  notification and information from federal agencies regarding federal law  enforcement activity on the tribes’ respective reservations could bring  greater transparency to tribal government rules for the Border Patrol.  Utilizing written agreements to help ensure the partners are working  together to secure the borders could better position the Border Patrol and  tribes to address their coordination challenges.
section_title: Establishment of an Oversight Mechanism Could Enhance DHS’s Border Security Coordination with Tribes
paragraphs: DHS IGA and Tribal Desk officials reported that they have taken various  actions to coordinate with tribes on a range of homeland security–related  issues, including border security. For instance, DHS components,  including the Border Patrol, have tribal liaisons who manage their  components’ tribal outreach efforts. The Tribal Desk, which is responsible  for coordinating tribal consultation and outreach with the component  liaisons, holds monthly teleconferences with these liaisons to discuss  tribal issues and programs, according to IGA and Tribal Desk officials.  DHS also has a Tribal Consultation Policy that outlines the guiding  principles under which DHS engages with the tribal governments. DHS,  according to DHS IGA and Tribal Desk officials, disseminated this policy  to all federally recognized tribes and presented the policy at national tribal  conferences. DHS’s Tribal Desk, according to DHS IGA and Tribal Desk  officials, is working with the tribes daily to address tribal issues and  improve its tribal partnerships. However, DHS IGA and Tribal Desk  officials reported that the Tribal Desk does not have oversight of the  components’ tribal outreach efforts, including border security  coordination, because their role is one of a coordination mechanism. The  Tribal Desk is aware of the components’ outreach to the tribes, but it does  not have the authority to track the effectiveness of such outreach to  determine if the outreach is occurring and if any changes to outreach  efforts are needed. According to DHS IGA and Tribal Desk officials, each  component, including CBP, is responsible for conducting its own tribal  outreach and is only required to report to the leadership of its respective  components and is not required to report to the Tribal Desk on its  coordination efforts. As a result, there is no department-wide oversight  mechanism for ensuring the effectiveness of components’ border security  coordination with the tribes.
According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,  controls should generally be designed to ensure that ongoing monitoring  occurs in the course of normal operations and assesses the quality of  performance over time. Such monitoring should be performed  continually; ingrained in the agency’s operations; and clearly documented  in directives, policies, or manuals to help ensure operations are carried  out as intended. We have also previously reported that federal agencies  can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts by, in part, developing  oversight mechanisms—or mechanisms to monitor and evaluate their  results—to identify areas for improvement. Oversight mechanisms can  assist with reinforcing agency accountability for its collaborative efforts.
DHS, in accordance with a 2009 Presidential Memorandum on tribal  consultation, developed an Action Plan and corresponding Progress  Report in 2010 that described various action items designed to establish  regular and meaningful collaboration with tribal officials, and to monitor at  the department level tribal partnerships to protect the safety and security  of all people on tribal lands and throughout the nation. The 2009  memorandum requires all federal agencies to submit to OMB a detailed  action plan of the steps the agency will take to ensure meaningful and  timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that  have tribal implications. As DHS was formulating the Action Plan, tribes  recommended, among other things, that DHS develop accountability and  tracking mechanisms to ensure that the agency is responding to issues  that are raised through tribal consultation. The Action Plan and its 2010  Progress Report call for the implementation of various action items  designed to monitor and oversee DHS’s tribal coordination efforts at the  department level, including appointing a Senior Advisor for tribal affairs to  provide policy advice and leadership on tribal issues and determining the  feasibility and usefulness of establishing an internal leadership advisory  council on tribal affairs. According to the Action Plan, this intra-agency  council, staffed by DHS IGA and composed of officials from the  department and components, would provide ongoing advice to the  Secretary of Homeland Security on issues and policies that affect tribes,  including border security, as well as bringing together DHS leadership  from across the department’s divisions and components to ensure  consistency on policies affecting tribes. According to DHS officials, while  DHS took steps to hire a Senior Advisor, the position was ultimately not  sustainable because of staff turnover and a lack of funding for the  position. DHS officials further noted that the position of Director of Tribal  Affairs within the Intergovernmental Affairs office was established to help  fulfill this role. Additionally, DHS officials reported that they did not  establish an advisory council because of personnel limitations, among  other issues. The implementation of such action items, or another  oversight and monitoring mechanism, could better position DHS to  assess the effectiveness of partnerships with tribes at the department  level.
We have identified coordination challenges related to border security  since the establishment of the Action Plan by DHS. For example, officials  from seven of the eight tribes we contacted reported coordination  challenges related to border security, such as the Border Patrol’s lack of  consistent communication of border security–related information with the  tribes. As DHS was developing its Action Plan, it received feedback from  tribes regarding the need to establish accountability and tracking  mechanisms to ensure that DHS is responding to issues raised by tribes.  For example, in summarizing feedback received from tribes, DHS noted  in the Action Plan that tribal leaders expressed frustration regarding the  expenditure of significant time and resources engaging with a federal  agency only to see very little response or consideration of tribal  recommendations. However, DHS does not have a mechanism to monitor  and provide accountability for coordination efforts, as suggested by the  tribes and the Action Plan, to position DHS to, for example, identify  departmental and component coordination successes as well as areas  needing improvement, including addressing coordination challenges that  have remained since DHS obtained feedback from tribes in developing  the plan. An oversight mechanism, such as one or more of those  identified in DHS’s Action Plan, could help identify and address these  coordination challenges as well as determine which coordination efforts  work well. Further, such a mechanism could help DHS enhance its  awareness of and accountability for components’ border security  coordination efforts with the tribes and better look across the department  to determine the progress being made and the improvements needed to  more effectively coordinate border security with the tribes.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The nature and complexity of Indian reservations on or near the border,  along with the vulnerabilities and threats they face, highlight the  importance of DHS and tribes working together to enhance border  security. The Border Patrol, in particular, is coordinating and sharing  information with tribes in a variety of ways to address border security on  Indian reservations. However, these coordination efforts could be  strengthened. Government-to-government agreements with tribes to  address specific challenges, such as federal agency notification to tribes  of law enforcement actions occurring on the reservation, that have  emerged between the Border Patrol and individual tribes could help better  position the Border Patrol and the tribes to resolve their coordination  challenges and better work together to secure the border. Further, DHS  does not have a mechanism to monitor and provide oversight for its tribal  coordination efforts—including border security—that would allow the  agency to hold components accountable for effective coordination and, as  a result, is not well positioned to identify areas of coordination needing  improvement. We have reported on the importance of monitoring and  oversight for sustaining and enhancing collaboration, and DHS’s Action  Plan contains action items designed, in part, to assist with its monitoring  and oversight of its tribal partnerships. A monitoring and oversight  mechanism could yield additional information and insights on the  effectiveness of DHS’s coordination with tribes, as well as help reinforce  accountability when coordinating to address border security issues.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance DHS-tribal coordination on border security on Indian  reservations, including DHS’s monitoring and oversight of these  coordination efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland  Security take the following two actions: examine, or direct CBP to examine, as appropriate, the potential  benefits of government-to-government written agreements with tribes  facing border security threats, and develop and implement a mechanism to monitor DHS’s department- wide border security coordination efforts with tribes.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOJ and DOI for comment. We  received written comments from DHS on the draft report, which are  summarized below and reproduced in full in appendix I. DHS concurred  with both recommendations. DOJ and DOI did not provide written  comments to include in this report. DOJ provided technical comments via  an e-mail received on December 7, 2012, which we incorporated as  appropriate. DOI provided oral technical comments on December 7,  2012, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Regarding the first recommendation, that DHS examine or direct CBP to  examine, as appropriate, the potential benefits of government-to- government written agreements with tribes facing border security threats,  DHS concurred. DHS stated that more formalized government-to- government agreements between CBP and tribal nations should be  developed for substantive issues. DHS further noted that written  agreements, subject to legal review prior to signature, will memorialize  both the issues and solutions. DHS stated that the DHS  Intergovernmental Affairs office will work with CBP in the coming year to  determine how the recommendation can be implemented. We will  continue to monitor DHS’s efforts.
Regarding the second recommendation, that DHS develop and  implement a mechanism to monitor DHS’s department-wide border  security coordination with tribes, DHS concurred. DHS agreed that  developing an agency-wide program could further enhance the interests  of the tribes and the department for border security and many other  programs. DHS stated that, in consultation with tribes, it will convene an  internal group to discuss the feasibility of establishing a permanent  program or an intra-agency oversight committee to address border  security and other issues related to interaction and program delivery with  tribes. This action, if implemented effectively, should address the intent of  the recommendation.
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. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix II.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov  In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director),  David Alexander, Frances Cook, Kevin Copping, Corey Guilmette, Eric  Hauswirth, Linda Miller, John Mingus, Robin Nye, Jessica Orr, and Jerry  Sandau made key contributions to this report.