Border Patrol: Goals and Measures Not Yet in Place to Inform Border Security Status and Resource Needs
Published: 2013-02-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) Border Patrol has primary responsibility for securing the southwest border between ports of entry. CBP reported apprehending over 327,000 illegal entrants and making over 17,150 seizures of drugs along the border in fiscal year 2011. Across the border, most apprehensions (over 38 percent) and drug seizures (28 percent) occurred in the Tucson sector. This statement discusses (1) apprehension and other data CBP collects to inform changes in southwest border security and data used to show effectiveness of resource deployments, and (2) the extent to which Border Patrol has developed goals and measures to identify resource needs under its new strategic plan. This statement is based on GAOs December 2012 report on CBPs management of southwest border resources and prior reports on DHSs efforts to measure border security, with selected updates from February 2013 on Border Patrol fiscal year 2012 operations data. To conduct prior work, GAO analyzed DHS documents and data from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, and interviewed CBP officials, among other things. To conduct selected updates, GAO reviewed Border Patrol data and interviewed Border Patrol officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has used changes in the number of apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as an interim measure for border security as reported in its annual performance plans. In fiscal year 2011, DHS reported a decrease in apprehensions, which met its goal to secure the southwest border. Our analysis of Border Patrol data showed that apprehensions decreased within each southwest border sector from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, generally mirroring decreases in estimated known illegal entries. Border Patrol attributed these decreases in part to changes in the U.S. economy and improved enforcement efforts. In addition to apprehension data, sector management collect and use other data to assess enforcement efforts within sectors. Our analysis of these data show that the percentage of estimated known illegal entrants apprehended from fiscal years 2006 to 2011 varied across southwest border sectors; in the Tucson sector, for example, there was little change in the percentage of estimated known illegal entrants apprehended over this time period. The percentage of individuals apprehended who repeatedly crossed the border illegally declined across the border by 6 percent from fiscal years 2008 to 2011. Further, the number of seizures of drugs and other contraband across the border increased from 10,321 in fiscal year 2006 to 18,898 in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, southwest border sectors scheduled more agent workdays in fiscal year 2011 to enforcement activities for patrolling the border than for any other enforcement activity. The Tucson sector, for example, scheduled 73 percent of workdays for enforcement activities; of these, 71 percent were scheduled for patrolling within 25 miles of the border. Other sectors scheduled from 44 to 70 percent of enforcement workdays for patrolling the border. Sectors assess how effectively they use resources to secure the border, but differences in how they collect and report data preclude comparing results. Border Patrol issued guidance in September 2012 to improve the consistency of sector data collection and reporting, which may allow comparison of performance in the future.
Border Patrol is developing performance goals and measures to define border security and the resources needed to achieve it, but has not identified milestones and time frames for developing and implementing goals and measures under its new strategic plan. Prior to fiscal year 2011, DHS used operational control---the number of border miles where Border Patrol had the capability to detect, respond to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity--as its goal and measure for border security and to assess resource needs to accomplish this goal. At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles. In fiscal year 2011, citing a need to establish new goals and measures that reflect a more quantitative methodology and an evolving vision for border control, DHS transitioned to using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border as an interim goal and measure. As GAO previously testified, this interim measure, which reports on program activity levels and not program results, limits DHS and congressional oversight and accountability. Milestones and time frames could assist Border Patrol in monitoring progress in developing goals and measures necessary to assess the status of border security and the extent to which existing resources and capabilities are appropriate and sufficient.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: In a December 2012 report, GAO recommended that CBP ensure Border Patrol develops milestones and time frames for developing border security goals and measures to assess progress made and inform resource needs. DHS concurred with these recommendations and plans to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our past work regarding the  Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to deploy and manage  resources along the southwest border and to assess the results of those  efforts. In fiscal year 2011, DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection  (CBP) reported spending over $4 billion to secure the U.S. border with  Mexico. The Office of Field Operations, within CBP, is responsible for  securing the national borders at designated U.S. land border ports of  entry. Border Patrol, also within CBP, is the federal agency with primary  responsibility for securing the borders between the ports of entry. CBP  has divided geographic responsibility for southwest border miles between  ports of entry among nine Border Patrol sectors. In fiscal year 2011,  Border Patrol reported apprehending over 327,000 illegal entrants and  making over 17,150 seizures of drugs along the southwest border. Across  the southwest border, the Tucson sector reported making the most  apprehensions—over 38 percent—and the most drug seizures—more  than 28 percent—in fiscal year 2011.
Border Patrol is moving to implement a new strategy for securing the  border between ports of entry. Border Patrol’s 2004 National Border  Patrol Strategy (2004 Strategy), developed following the terrorist attacks  of September 11, 2001, was designed to facilitate the buildup and  deployment of border resources to ensure the agency had the right mix of  personnel, technology, and infrastructure and to deploy those resources  in a layered approach at the immediate border and in other areas distant  from the border. For example, from fiscal years 2004 through 2011, the  number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border nearly doubled,  from about 9,500 to about 18,500; and DHS reported that since fiscal  year 2006, about $4.4 billion has been invested in southwest border  technology and infrastructure. Through fiscal year 2010, these resources  were used to support DHS’s goal to achieve “operational control” of the  nation’s borders by reducing cross-border illegal activity. The extent of  operational control—also referred to as effective control—was defined as  the number of border miles where Border Patrol had the capability to  detect, respond to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity. In May 2012,  Border Patrol issued the 2012-2016 Border Patrol Strategic Plan (2012- 2016 Strategic Plan), stating that the buildup of its resource base and the  operations conducted over the past two decades would enable the Border  Patrol to focus on mitigating risk rather than increasing resources to  secure the border. This new strategic plan emphasizes using intelligence  information to inform risk relative to threats of cross-border terrorism, drug  smuggling, and illegal migration across locations; integrating border  security operations with those of other law enforcement partners; and  developing rapid response capabilities to deploy the resources  appropriate to changes in threat.
My testimony today summarizes the findings of our December 2012  report on CBP’s management of resources at the southwest border, and  our past work highlighting DHS’s processes for measuring security at the  southwest border. As requested, my statement discusses (1) what  apprehension and other data show about Border Patrol efforts and  deployments across the southwest border and to what extent the data  show these deployments to have been effective in securing the border,  and (2) the extent to which Border Patrol has developed goals and  measures to identify resource needs under its new strategic plan and  assess results.
My statement is based on prior products that examined CBP’s  management of resources and DHS’s processes for measuring security  at the southwest border, with selected updates related to Border Patrol  fiscal year 2012 operations data conducted in February 2013. For the  past products, among other methodologies, we analyzed Border Patrol  planning and operational assessment documents, interviewed relevant  DHS officials, and analyzed data related to Border Patrol performance  and cross-border threats for fiscal years 2006 through 2011; we  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  our report. We also analyzed data supporting the border security  measures reported by DHS in its annual performance reports for fiscal  years 2005 through 2012. More detailed information on our scope and  methodology can be found in our report and testimonies. For the selected  updates, we interviewed Border Patrol officials and analyzed Border  Patrol fiscal year 2012 apprehension and seizure data; we determined  that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  testimony. We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions, based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Apprehensions Decreased across the Southwest Border from Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011, but Data Limitations Preclude Comparing Overall Effectiveness of Resources Deployed across Southwest Border Sectors
subsections: section_title: Apprehensions Decreased at about the Same Rate as Estimated Known Illegal Entries across the Southwest Border from Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011; Other Data Provide a Broader Perspective on Changes in Border Security
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2011, DHS has used changes in the number of  apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as an  interim measure for border security as reported in its annual performance  reports. In fiscal year 2011, DHS reported data meeting its goal to secure  the land border with a decrease in apprehensions. In addition to collecting  data on apprehensions, Border Patrol collects and analyzes various data  on the number and types of entrants who illegally cross the southwest  border between the ports of entry, including collecting estimates on the  total number of identified—or “known”—illegal entries. Border Patrol’s  estimate of known illegal entries includes illegal, deportable entrants who  were apprehended, in addition to the number of entrants who illegally  crossed the border but were not apprehended because they crossed back  into Mexico (referred to as turn backs) or continued traveling into the U.S.  interior (referred to as got aways). Border Patrol collects these data as  an indicator of the potential border threat across locations. Border Patrol  data show that apprehensions within each southwest Border Patrol sector  decreased from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, generally mirroring the  decrease in estimated known illegal entries within each sector. In the  Tucson sector, for example, our analysis of Border Patrol data showed  that apprehensions decreased by 68 percent from fiscal years 2006 to  2011, compared with a 69 percent decrease in estimated known illegal  entries, as shown in figure 1.
Border Patrol officials attributed the decrease in apprehensions and  estimated known illegal entries from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 within  southwest border sectors to multiple factors, including changes in the  U.S. economy and successful achievement of its strategic objectives.  Border Patrol’s ability to address objectives laid out in the 2004 Strategy  was strengthened by increases in personnel and technology, and  infrastructure enhancements, according to Border Patrol officials. For  example, Tucson sector Border Patrol officials said that the sector  increased manpower over the past 5 years through an increase in Border  Patrol agents that was augmented by National Guard personnel, and that  CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI) provided border fencing and other  infrastructure, as well as technology enhancements. Border Patrol  officials also attributed decreases in estimated known illegal entries and  apprehensions to the deterrence effect of CBP consequence programs— programs intended to deter repeated illegal border crossings by ensuring  the most efficient consequence or penalty for individuals who illegally  enter the United States. Data reported by Border Patrol following the  issuance of our December 2012 report show that total apprehensions  across the southwest border increased from over 327,000 in fiscal year  2011 to about 357,000 in fiscal year 2012. It is too early to assess  whether this increase indicates a change in the trend for Border Patrol  apprehensions across the southwest border.
Border Patrol collects other types of data that are used by sector  management to help inform assessment of its efforts to secure the border  against the threats of illegal migration, smuggling of drugs and other  contraband, and terrorism. These data show changes, for example, in the  (1) percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who are apprehended,  (2) percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who are apprehended  more than once (repeat offenders), and (3) number of seizures of drugs  and other contraband. Border Patrol officials at sectors we visited, and  our review of fiscal years 2010 and 2012 sector operational assessments,  indicated that sectors have historically used these types of data to inform  tactical deployment of personnel and technology to address cross-border  threats; however, the agency has not analyzed these data at the national  level to inform strategic decision making, according to Border Patrol  headquarters officials. These officials stated that greater use of these  data in assessing border security at the national level may occur as the  agency transitions to the new strategic plan.
Apprehensions compared with estimated known illegal entries. Our  analysis of Border Patrol data showed that the percentage of estimated  known illegal entrants who were apprehended by the Border Patrol over  the past 5 fiscal years varied across southwest border sectors. The  Tucson sector, for example, showed little change in the percentage of  estimated known illegal entrants who were apprehended by Border Patrol  over the past 5 fiscal years. Specifically, our analysis showed that of the  total number of estimated known aliens who illegally crossed the Tucson  sector border from Mexico each year, Border Patrol apprehended 62  percent in fiscal year 2006 compared with 64 percent in fiscal year 2011,  an increase of about 2 percentage points. Border Patrol headquarters  officials said that the percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who  are apprehended is primarily used to determine the effectiveness of  border security operations at the tactical—or zone—level but can also  affect strategic decision making. The data are also used to inform overall  situational awareness at the border, which directly supports field planning  and redeployment of resources.
Repeat offenders. Changes in the percentage of persons apprehended  who have repeatedly crossed the border illegally (referred to as the  recidivism rate) is a factor that Border Patrol considers in assessing its  ability to deter individuals from attempting to illegally cross the border.  Our analysis of Border Patrol apprehension data showed that the  recidivism rate has declined across the southwest border by about 6  percentage points from fiscal years 2008 to 2011 in regard to the number  of apprehended aliens who had repeatedly crossed the border in the prior  3 years. Specifically, our analysis showed that the recidivism rate across  the overall southwest border was about 42 percent in fiscal year 2008  compared with about 36 percent in fiscal year 2011. The Tucson sector  had the third-highest recidivism rate across the southwest border in fiscal  year 2011, while the highest rate of recidivism occurred in El Centro  sector, as shown in figure 2. According to Border Patrol headquarters  officials, the agency has implemented various initiatives designed to  address recidivism through increased prosecution of individuals  apprehended for crossing the border illegally.
Seizures of drugs and other contraband. Border Patrol headquarters  officials said that data regarding seizures of drugs and other contraband  are good indicators of the effectiveness of targeted enforcement  operations, and are used to identify trends in the smuggling threat and as  indicators of overall cross-border illegal activity, in addition to potential  gaps in border coverage, risk, and enforcement operations. However,  these officials stated that these data are not used as a performance  measure for overall border security because while the agency has a  mission to secure the border against the smuggling threat, most  smuggling is related to illegal drugs, and that drug smuggling is the  primary responsibility of other federal agencies, such as the Drug  Enforcement Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations.
Our analysis of Border Patrol data indicated that across southwest border  sectors, seizures of drugs and other contraband increased 83 percent  from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, with drug seizures accounting for the vast  majority of all contraband seizures. Specifically, the number of drug and  contraband seizures increased from 10,321 in fiscal year 2006 to 18,898  in fiscal year 2011. Most seizures of drugs and other contraband occurred  in the Tucson sector, with about 28 percent, or 5,299, of the 18,898  southwest border seizures occurring in the sector in fiscal year 2011 as  shown in figure 3. Data reported by Border Patrol following the issuance  of our December 2012 report show that seizures of drugs and other  contraband across the southwest border decreased from 18,898 in fiscal  year 2011 to 17,891 in fiscal year 2012. It is too early to assess whether  this decrease indicates a change in the trend for Border Patrol seizures  across the southwest border.
Southwest border sectors scheduled most agent workdays for  enforcement activities during fiscal years 2006 to 2011, and the activity  related to patrolling the border accounted for a greater proportion of  enforcement activity workdays than any of the other activities. Sectors  schedule agent workdays across various activities categorized as  enforcement or nonenforcement. Across enforcement activities, our  analysis of Border Patrol data showed that all sectors scheduled more  agent workdays for “patrolling the border”—activities defined to occur  within 25 miles of the border—than any other enforcement activity, as  shown in figure 4. Border Patrol duties under this activity include  patrolling by vehicle, horse, and bike; patrolling with canines; performing  sign cutting; and performing special activities such as mobile search and  rescue. Other enforcement activities to which Border Patrol scheduled  agent workdays included conducting checkpoint duties, developing  intelligence, and performing aircraft operations.
Border Patrol sectors and stations track changes in their overall  effectiveness as a tool to determine if the appropriate mix and placement  of personnel and assets are being deployed and used effectively and  efficiently, according to officials from Border Patrol headquarters. Border  Patrol calculates an overall effectiveness rate using a formula in which it  adds the number of apprehensions and turn backs in a specific sector  and divides this total by the total estimated known illegal entries— determined by adding the number of apprehensions, turn backs, and got  aways for the sector. Border Patrol sectors and stations report this  overall effectiveness rate to headquarters. Border Patrol views its border  security efforts as increasing in effectiveness if the number of turn backs  as a percentage of estimated known illegal entries has increased and the  number of got aways as a percentage of estimated known illegal entries  has decreased.
Border Patrol data showed that the effectiveness rate for eight of the nine  sectors on the southwest border increased from fiscal years 2006 through  2011. For example, our analysis of Tucson sector apprehension, turn  back, and got away data from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 showed  that while Tucson sector apprehensions remained fairly constant at about  60 percent of estimated known illegal entries, the percentage of reported  turn backs increased from about 5 percent to about 23 percent, while the  percentage of reported got aways decreased from about 33 percent to  about 13 percent, as shown in figure 5. As a result of these changes in  the mix of turn backs and got aways, Border Patrol data showed that  enforcement effort, or the overall effectiveness rate for Tucson sector,  improved 20 percentage points from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2011,  from 67 percent to 87 percent.
Border Patrol headquarters officials said that differences in how sectors  define, collect, and report turn back and got away data used to calculate  the overall effectiveness rate preclude comparing performance results  across sectors. Border Patrol headquarters officials stated that until  recently, each Border Patrol sector decided how it would collect and  report turn back and got away data, and as a result, practices for  collecting and reporting the data varied across sectors and stations based  on differences in agent experience and judgment, resources, and terrain.  In terms of defining and reporting turn back data, for example, Border  Patrol headquarters officials said that a turn back was to be recorded only  if it is perceived to be an “intended entry”—that is, the reporting agent  believed the entrant intended to stay in the United States, but Border  Patrol activities caused the individual to return to Mexico. According to  Border Patrol officials, it can be difficult to tell if an illegal crossing should  be recorded as a turn back, and sectors have different procedures for  reporting and classifying incidents. In terms of collecting data, Border  Patrol officials reported that sectors rely on a different mix of cameras,  sign cutting, credible sources, and visual observation to identify and  report the number of turn backs and got aways.
According to Border Patrol officials, the ability to obtain accurate or  consistent data using these identification sources depends on various  factors, such as terrain and weather. For example, data on turn backs  and got aways may be understated in areas with rugged mountains and  steep canyons that can hinder detection of illegal entries. In other cases,  data may be overstated—for example, in cases where the same turn back  identified by a camera is also identified by sign cutting. Double counting  may also occur when agents in one zone record as a got away an  individual who is apprehended and then reported as an apprehension in  another zone. As a result of these data limitations, Border Patrol  headquarters officials said that while they consider turn back and got  away data sufficiently reliable to assess each sector’s progress toward  border security and to inform sector decisions regarding resource  deployment, they do not consider the data sufficiently reliable to  compare—or externally report—results across sectors.
Border Patrol headquarters officials issued guidance in September 2012  to provide a more consistent, standardized approach for the collection  and reporting of turn back and got away data by Border Patrol sectors.  Each sector is to be individually responsible for monitoring adherence to  the guidance. According to Border Patrol officials, it is expected that once  the guidance is implemented, data reliability will improve. This new  guidance may allow for comparison of sector performance and inform  decisions regarding resource deployment for securing the southwest  border.
section_title: Border Patrol Has Not Yet Developed Goals and Measures for Assessing Efforts and Identifying Resource Needs under the New Strategic Plan
paragraphs: Border Patrol officials stated that the agency is in the process of  developing performance goals and measures for assessing the progress  of its efforts to secure the border between ports of entry and for informing  the identification and allocation of resources needed to secure the border,  but has not identified milestones and time frames for developing and  implementing them. Since fiscal year 2011, DHS has used the number of  apprehensions on the southwest border between ports of entry as an  interim performance goal and measure for border security as reported in  its annual performance report. Prior to this, DHS used operational control  as its goal and outcome measure for border security and to assess  resource needs to accomplish this goal. As we previously testified, at  the end of fiscal year 2010, Border Patrol reported achieving varying  levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000  southwest border miles. For example, Yuma sector reported achieving  operational control for all of its border miles. In contrast, the other  southwest border sectors reported achieving operational control ranging  from 11 to 86 percent of their border miles, as shown in figure 6. Border  Patrol officials attributed the uneven progress across sectors to multiple  factors, including terrain, transportation infrastructure on both sides of the  border, and a need to prioritize resource deployment to sectors deemed  to have greater risk of illegal activity.
DHS transitioned from using operational control as its goal and outcome  measure for border security in its Fiscal Year 2010-2012 Annual  Performance Report. Citing a need to establish a new border security  goal and measure that reflect a more quantitative methodology as well as  the department’s evolving vision for border control, DHS established the  interim performance goal and measure of the number of apprehensions  between the land border ports of entry until a new border control goal and  measure could be developed. We previously testified that the interim goal  and measure of number of apprehensions on the southwest border  between ports of entry provides information on activity levels, but it does  not inform program results or resource identification and allocation  decisions, and therefore until new goals and measures are developed,  DHS and Congress could experience reduced oversight and DHS  accountability. Further, studies commissioned by CBP have  documented that the number of apprehensions bears little relationship to  effectiveness because agency officials do not compare these numbers  with the amount of cross-border illegal activity.
Border Patrol officials stated that the agency is in the process of  developing performance goals and measures for assessing the progress  of its efforts to secure the border between ports of entry and for informing  the identification and allocation of resources needed to secure the border,  but has not identified milestones and time frames for developing and  implementing them. According to Border Patrol officials, establishing  milestones and time frames for the development of performance goals  and measures is contingent on the development of key elements of the  2012-2016 Strategic Plan, such as a risk assessment tool, and the  agency’s time frames for implementing these key elements—targeted for  fiscal years 2013 and 2014—are subject to change. Specifically, under  the 2012-2016 Strategic Plan, the Border Patrol plans to continuously  evaluate border security—and resource needs—by comparing changes in  risk levels against available resources across border locations. Border  Patrol officials stated the agency is in the process of identifying  performance goals and measures that can be linked to these new risk  assessment tools that will show progress and status in securing the  border between ports of entry, and determine needed resources, but has  not established milestones and time frames for developing and  implementing goals and measures because the agency’s time frames for  implementing key elements of the plan are subject to change.
Standard practices in program management call for documenting the  scope of a project as well as milestones and time frames for timely  completion and implementation to ensure results are achieved. These  standard practices also call for project planning—such as identifying time  frames—to be performed in the early phases of a program and recognize  that plans may need to be adjusted along the way in response to  unexpected circumstances. Time frames for implementing key elements  of the 2012-2016 Strategic Plan can change; however, milestones and  time frames for the development of performance goals and measures  could help ensure that goals and measures are completed in a timely  manner.
To support the implementation of Border Patrol’s 2012-2016 Strategic  Plan and identify the resources needed to achieve the nation’s strategic  goal for securing the border, we recommended in our December 2012  report that Border Patrol establish milestones and time frames for  developing a (1) performance goal, or goals, for border security between  the ports of entry that defines how border security is to be measured and  (2) performance measure, or measures—linked to a performance goal or  goals—for assessing progress made in securing the border between  ports of entry and informing resource identification and allocation efforts.  DHS agreed with these recommendations and stated that it plans to  establish milestones and time frames for developing goals and measures  by November 30, 2013. Milestones and time frames could better position  CBP to monitor progress in developing and implementing goals and  measures, which would provide DHS and Congress with information on  the results of CBP efforts to secure the border between ports of entry and  the extent to which existing resources and capabilities are appropriate  and sufficient.
Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and members of the  subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy  to answer any questions you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact Rebecca  Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. In addition, contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key  contributions to this statement included Lacinda Ayers (Assistant  Director), Frances A. Cook, Barbara A. Guffy, Stanley J. Kostyla, Brian J.  Lipman, Jerome T. Sandau, and Ashley D. Vaughan.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.