Unaccompanied Alien Children: Improved Evaluation Efforts Could Enhance Agency Programs to Reduce Migration from Central America
Published: 2015-10-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since 2012 there has been a rapid increase in the number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexican border of UAC from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Current data indicate the rate of UAC migration from Central America in 2015 is lower than the record levels of 2014, though apprehensions increased in August 2015. Children from these three countries face a host of challenges, such as extreme violence and persistent poverty.
This testimony summarizes the findings from GAO's July 2015 report, which reviewed (1) U.S. assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras addressing agency-identified causes of UAC migration; (2) how agencies have determined where to locate these assistance efforts; and (3) the extent to which agencies have developed processes to assess the effectiveness of programs seeking to address UAC migration. This testimony also provides updated information on several topics covered in the report. GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed officials in Washington, D.C., and in Central America for the report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO reported in July 2015 that U.S. agencies had sought to address causes of unaccompanied alien child (UAC) migration through recent programs, such as information campaigns to deter migration, developed in response to the migration increase and other long-standing efforts. The increase in migration since 2012 was likely triggered, according to U.S. officials, by several factors such as the increased presence and sophistication of child smugglers (known as coyotes) and confusion over U.S. immigration policy. Officials also noted that certain persistent conditions such as violence and poverty have worsened in certain countries. In addition to long-standing efforts, such as U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) antipoverty programs, agencies had taken new actions. For example, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-led investigative units had increasingly sought to disrupt human smuggling operations.
GAO found that U.S. agencies located programs based on various factors, including long-term priorities such as targeting high-poverty and -crime areas, but adjusted to locate more programs in high-migration communities. For example, Department of State (State) officials in Guatemala said they moved programs enhancing police anticrime capabilities into such communities, and USAID officials in El Salvador said they expanded to UAC migration-affected locations.
GAO found that most agencies had developed processes to assess the effectiveness of programs seeking to address UAC migration, but weaknesses existed in these processes for some antismuggling programs. For example, DHS had established performance measures, such as arrests, for units combating UAC smuggling, but had not established numeric or other types of targets for these measures, which would enable DHS to measure the units' progress. In addition, DHS and State had not always evaluated information campaigns intended to combat coyote misinformation. DHS launched its 2013 campaign in April, but launched its 2014 campaign in late June after migration levels peaked. Neither agency evaluated its 2014 campaign. DHS has reported that it plans to evaluate its ongoing campaign before the end of this year.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO's July 2015 report included recommendations that DHS and State integrate evaluations into their information campaigns intended to deter migration, and that DHS establish performance targets for its investigative units. DHS concurred with both recommendations, and said that it plans to evaluate its most recent campaign. State also concurred with the recommendation directed to it.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent work on U.S. agency  efforts to reduce unaccompanied child migration from Central America.  As has been well documented, in the past several years, there has been  a large increase in the number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexican  border of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras. Data indicate that fewer children from these  three countries were apprehended in fiscal year 2015 than fiscal year  2014; however, apprehensions of children increased in August 2015  compared to previous months this year and exceeded those from August  2014. A number of U.S. agencies provide assistance intended to improve  living conditions and strengthen rule of law in the three countries.
My testimony summarizes the findings from our report issued in July  2015, which reviewed (1) U.S. assistance in El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras addressing agency-identified causes of UAC migration; (2) how  agencies have determined where to locate these assistance efforts; and  (3) the extent to which agencies have developed processes to assess the  effectiveness of programs seeking to address UAC migration. This  testimony also provides updated information on several topics we  covered in our July 2015 report. This report is part of a body of work that  GAO has conducted on this issue. In February 2015, we reported on  agency-identified causes of, and actions taken in response to, the rapid  increase in unaccompanied child migration, and in July 2015 we also  reported on U.S. efforts to screen and care for UAC migrants who safely  arrive at the border. We also have ongoing work on U.S. agency efforts  to care for UAC once they are in U.S. custody.
To address the objectives in our July 2015 report, we reviewed  documents for programs that agencies identified as addressing causes of  UAC migration, including country and program strategies, operational  plans, project proposal and appraisal documents, and progress reports,  among others. We also interviewed U.S. and nongovernment officials in  Washington, D.C., and U.S., host government, and nongovernment  officials in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, where we visited U.S.  agency-supported projects and met with children in each country. Further  details on our scope and methodology can be found in our July 2015  report. To provide updated information on several topics, we contacted  agency officials and reviewed agency documents and studies conducted  by nongovernmental organizations. The work upon which this testimony is  based was conducted 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: According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the number of  UAC from any country apprehended at the U.S. border climbed from  nearly 28,000 in fiscal year 2012 to more than 42,000 in fiscal year 2013,  and to more than 73,000 in fiscal year 2014. Prior to fiscal year 2012,  most UAC apprehended at the border were Mexican nationals. However,  as figure 1 shows, starting in fiscal year 2013, the total number of UAC  from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras surpassed the number of  UAC from Mexico and, in fiscal year 2014, far surpassed the number of  UAC from Mexico.
Recent data and research indicate that, while fewer UAC are being  apprehended in the United States in 2015, the pace of migration from  Central America remains high. According to DHS, as of August 2015,  apprehensions at the southwest border are down 46 percent compared  with last year—with more than 35,000 UAC apprehended in fiscal year  2015 compared with about 66,000 through the same time period in fiscal  year 2014. However, analyses of DHS data indicate that apprehensions  in the month of August 2015 increased compared to previous months this  year and exceeded by nearly 50 percent August 2014 apprehensions.  Moreover, research by two nongovernmental organizations indicates that  a greater number of Central Americans this year are being apprehended  in Mexico. According to the Migration Policy Institute, Mexico has  increased its enforcement capacity and is apprehending a greater number  of Central American migrants, including children. Specifically, in its study  published in September 2015, the institute projected that Mexico’s  apprehensions of children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras  will increase this year by 9,000. In addition, according to research  conducted by the Washington Office on Latin America, Mexico has  greatly increased its rate of apprehension of Central American migrants.  These studies indicate that many Central American children who in the  past may have made it to the U.S. border and been counted in U.S.  apprehension statistics, have this year been apprehended in Mexico.
Children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras face a host of perils  both within their countries and along the migration route to the United  States. These countries have among the world’s highest murder rates,  according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, along with a  widespread presence of gangs, high poverty rates, and a number of other  persistent problems. Children who migrate can encounter further risks  along the journey, including robbery, extortion, abandonment, rape, or  murder. A number of U.S. agencies provide assistance to the three  countries. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the  Department of State (State), DHS, the Millennium Challenge Corporation  (MCC), and the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) have programs  providing assistance in areas such as economic development, rule of law,  citizen security, law enforcement, education, community development,  and others. In fiscal year 2014, USAID, State, DHS, and IAF allocated a  combined $44.5 million for El Salvador, $88.1 million for Guatemala, and  $78 million for Honduras. In addition, MCC signed a threshold program  agreement with Honduras in fiscal year 2013 totaling $15.6 million, a  compact agreement with El Salvador in fiscal year 2014 totaling $277  million, and a threshold program agreement with Guatemala in fiscal year  2015 totaling $28 million. Additional information on agency- and  program-specific funding is included in our July 2015 report.
In September 2014, the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras issued a regional plan in response to the recent migration  increase. The plan, referred to as the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity  in the Northern Triangle: A Road Map, outlines four strategic actions that  seek to stimulate the productive sector to create economic opportunities,  develop opportunities for people, improve public safety and enhance  access to the legal system, and strengthen institutions to increase  people’s trust in the state. In addition, in March 2015, the administration  issued the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America, with the  primary objectives of prosperity, governance, and security, and the goals  of an economically integrated Central America that is fully democratic;  provides economic opportunities for its people; has more accountable,  transparent, and effective public institutions; and is a safe environment for  its citizens.
section_title: Agencies Seek to Address UAC Migration with Recently Developed and Long-standing Efforts
subsections: section_title: Agency-Identified Causes of Increase in UAC Migration
paragraphs: As we reported in July 2015, according to agency officials a variety of  factors likely caused the rapid increase in UAC migration of recent years,  including the increased presence of coyotes, perceptions concerning U.S.  immigration law, recent improvements in the U.S. economy, the increased  use of social media, and the worsening of pervasive problems.
Increased presence of smugglers (or coyotes). Agency officials from all  three countries that we spoke to said that smugglers, also known as  coyotes, had proliferated and grown more influential and sophisticated in  recent years. Officials from USAID and State in all three countries noted  that coyotes were often well known and trusted in communities. In  addition, agency officials we spoke to in all three countries noted that  coyotes had instituted new marketing and messaging tactics, such as  offering three attempts to migrate to the United States for one fee— known as a “three-for-one” deal. Coyotes had also intentionally spread  rumors and misinformation about U.S. immigration policy. For example,  agency officials told us that, in some cases, in an effort to drive smuggling  business, coyotes led many people to believe children could migrate to  the United States and receive permission to stay indefinitely if they  arrived by a certain date.
Perceptions of U.S. immigration policy. According to agency officials,  general perceptions concerning U.S. immigration policy had played a  growing role in UAC migration. According to State officials in El Salvador  and Guatemala, local media outlets had optimistically discussed  comprehensive immigration reform efforts in the United States and  sometimes failed to discuss the complexity of immigration reform. In  addition, according to USAID officials, Honduran youth and coordinators  of community centers who were interviewed as part of a USAID focus  group indicated they believed the United States would allow migrant  minors, mothers traveling with minors, and pregnant women to stay for a  period of time upon arrival in the United States.
Improvements in U.S. economy and family reunification. Agency officials  also noted that recent improvements in the U.S. economy had fueled  increased UAC migration, enabling family reunification in the United  States. For example, State and USAID officials in Honduras noted that  the improving economy had enabled parents who immigrated to the  United States to send money back to their home country to pay coyotes  so their children could migrate and reunify the family in the United States.  According to officials in El Salvador, as the economy improved there,  more Salvadorans have attempted to migrate to the United States to  reunify with family.
Increased use of social media. The use of social media can encourage  migration, according to some agency officials. For example, officials in  Guatemala noted that social media outlets enable migrants who arrive in  the United States to share messages and pictures with families in their  home countries, an act that can serve as a powerful and influential  endorsement of the decision to migrate. Additionally, according to a study  performed by State contractors in El Salvador, many people advertise  immigration services through social media and offer travel services to  ensure safe arrival in the United States.
Worsening of longstanding pervasive challenges. Violence, poverty, and  poor access to education and other services have been pervasive  development challenges in all three countries, predating the UAC  migration increase. However, according to agency officials we spoke to in  all three countries, some of these problems had grown worse in recent  years and could have contributed to the rise of UAC migration. For  example, in Honduras, agency officials noted that levels and perceptions  of violence had grown worse, in part because of the rise in extortions.  Worsening security concerns also negatively affect access to education.  For example, agency officials in El Salvador noted that many children will  not attend school after the seventh grade because traveling to some  schools requires crossing gang borders, and that girls in particular face  the risk of being attacked or raped en route. In Guatemala, agency  officials stated that poor economic and social conditions in the Western  Highlands—a remote, mountainous area in the western part of  Guatemala, inhabited by over 20 different indigenous groups—had  declined even further in recent years. In addition, agency officials noted  that deteriorating climate conditions, including several consecutive years  of drought and a coffee rust blight that has hurt coffee production and  cost jobs in Honduras and Guatemala, exacerbated long-standing  economic concerns in many communities.
For our July 2015 report, we met with children from all three countries  who offered similar insights concerning the causes of migration. For  example, children at a USAID outreach center in San Pedro Sula,  Honduras, noted the lack of educational and job opportunities in their  communities as a reason for migrating. Children from a particularly violent  neighborhood told us it was even more difficult for them to obtain a job  because potential employers would sometimes choose not to hire them  because of where they live. Children at an outreach center in El Salvador  also noted that sometimes, even with an education, one cannot find work  in El Salvador and that there are more opportunities and chances to  succeed in the United States. Children at this same center indicated that  the desire to migrate is even stronger for children with parents in the  United States.
Prior to this hearing, we asked agency officials for their observations on  what factors may have led to the overall decline in UAC apprehensions in  fiscal year 2015 as well as the increase in UAC apprehensions in August  2015. Several DHS offices offered various perspectives for these  changes in UAC apprehension numbers. Officials from U.S. Customs and  Border Protection’s (CBP) U.S. Border Patrol and from U.S. Immigration  and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations  stated that most of the decrease in the number of UAC apprehensions in  fiscal year 2015 could be attributed to Mexico’s increased enforcement of  its own southern border. Concerning the uptick in apprehensions in  August 2015, officials from CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol and DHS’s Office of  Intelligence and Analysis stated that the increase could be attributed to  the recent U.S. policy change ending the detention of migrant families.  According to these officials, the policy change may have created the  impression that the United States is allowing family units into the country  and then releasing them, which could serve as a motivating factor for  migration. Similarly, officials from ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations  stated that interviews with migrants have indicated that migrants believe  that if they arrive in the United States with children, they will not be  detained for a long time and will be allowed to stay in the United States.  Officials from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations stated that  there is no definitive answer for what may have caused the increase in  apprehensions in August 2015, but that some of the same factors that  caused the UAC migration increase in 2014, such as pursuit of economic  opportunities, desire for family reunification, and violence, could be  considered.
section_title: Agency Efforts Seeking to Address UAC Migration
paragraphs: In our July 2015 report, we found that among the various agency actions  taken in response to UAC migration, several sought to directly combat  coyotes, which agency officials identified as a key emergent factor  causing migration. Agencies also had established efforts to increase legal  migration and improve migrant return centers, and had identified other  longstanding efforts as seeking to address underlying causes of  migration.
Antismuggling efforts. In response to the increase in UAC migration, we  found that DHS and State had supported several law enforcement and  legislative outreach efforts with an increased focus on investigating and  dismantling smuggling operations in all three countries. For example,  according to DHS officials, in response to the rapid increase in UAC  migration in 2014, DHS shifted the investigative priorities of its  Transnational Criminal Investigative Units (TCIU)—which include host  government police, customs officers, and prosecutors, among others—to  target child-smuggling operations in all three countries. A DHS official in  Guatemala told us the unit there was able to dismantle two of the seven  criminal organizations it was investigating that were actively smuggling  children. In addition, State in Honduras is working with a Department of  Justice resident legal advisor to assist the Honduran attorney general’s  office in prosecuting trafficking and alien-smuggling cases, while State  support in Guatemala included assistance to reform police training, with a  new emphasis on UAC-related issues in the community policing  techniques, criminal investigations, and human rights curricula. State also  participated in legislative and political outreach efforts to combat  smuggling. For example, in Guatemala, State has advocated modifying  certain laws that would better enable Guatemalan law enforcement to  investigate and prosecute these cases.
Public information campaigns to deter migration. We also found that DHS  and State had carried out several public information campaigns between  2013 and 2015 intended to dissuade citizens of El Salvador, Guatemala,  and Honduras from migrating to the United States. DHS’s campaigns in  2013 and 2014 focused on warning potential migrants of the dangers of  the journey. DHS had launched two campaigns in 2015, including one to  increase awareness of requirements under the executive action on  immigration, which was launched in January 2015 but was stopped  February 16, 2015, because of a federal court ruling that granted a  preliminary injunction to prevent expansion of Deferred Action for  Childhood Arrivals, among other things. DHS also has an ongoing  campaign, “Know the Facts,” which was launched in Mexico, El Salvador,  Guatemala, and Honduras in late July. According to DHS, the campaign,  which was developed with the Department of State and was approved by  the White House, is intended to deter individuals from Mexico, El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras from entering the United States  illegally by increasing awareness of U.S. immigration policies and  enhanced border security efforts, as well as the dangers posed by  smugglers. The campaign was extended to run through the end of  November due to the increase in the number of UACs arriving to the  United States, according to DHS. State public affairs officials we spoke to  at the U.S embassies in all three countries told us they used the DHS  campaign materials and developed their own materials to launch related  public information campaigns in-country while also supporting similar host  government campaigns.
In-country refugee parole program. In an effort to increase legal migration  and reduce the number of children attempting to migrate to the United  States, we found that State and DHS had collaborated to implement a  new in-country refugee/parole processing program. The program was  announced in November 2014 and began accepting applications the  following month.
Efforts to strengthen migrant return and repatriation centers. USAID and  State also have an interagency agreement to provide assistance to  strengthen migrant reception and repatriation efforts in all three countries.  Efforts under this program have included providing immediate, basic  assistance to returnees; undertaking construction efforts to improve  existing facilities; and working with host governments to systemize data  gathered from the returned migrants.
Longstanding efforts seeking to address underlying causes of migration.  We also reported that USAID, State, IAF, and MCC programs have long  sought to address what officials have identified as underlying causes of  migration, including persistent development challenges such as violence,  poverty, and lack of educational opportunities. For example, USAID  supports programs in each country seeking to reduce violence, improve  economic opportunities through improved agricultural practices and other  efforts, and increase access to education and health services, among  others. State supports programs in each of the three countries seeking to  reduce violence and improve citizen security by offering training and  technical support to prosecutors, the police, and border patrol units,  among others. IAF officials said that IAF supports local initiatives in more  than 880 communities in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, with  nearly half of its investment in the three countries intended to directly  benefit youth through job creation and other community-based activities.  MCC’s compact in El Salvador and threshold program in Guatemala— each in development prior to the recent migration increase—include  programs to improve the quality of secondary education to assist youth in  finding employment.
USAID, State, and IAF outlined plans to modify some of these  longstanding efforts in response to the rise in UAC migration. For  example, in Guatemala, USAID outlined plans to increasingly target youth  at risk of migration through various programs and to introduce agricultural  programming, including coffee rust-resistant seedlings, and to provide  nonagricultural economic opportunities for youth. State and DHS have  outlined plans to strengthen border security efforts through their vetted  units to stem migration, and to increase the size of antigang units in an  effort to reduce violence.
section_title: Agencies Aligned Program Locations with Long-Term Strategic Objectives and Made Some Adjustments to Reach More Communities Affected by UAC Migration
paragraphs: Our July 2015 report found that agencies had generally located programs  in alignment with long-term objectives for El Salvador, Guatemala, and  Honduras, such as addressing areas of high poverty and violence. These  objectives are outlined in various strategy and planning documents. In  some cases, the development objectives outline priority geographic  locations for programs that agencies have identified as addressing  underlying causes of UAC migration, such as crime and poverty. USAID’s  Country Development Cooperation Strategy documents, for example,  outline development objectives for each country that focus on specific  locations. State country planning documents similarly highlight strategic  priorities for the three countries, and in some cases outline priority  geographic locations.
Agency officials told us they drew on various sources of information to  understand which areas in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras had  high levels of UAC migration, including information produced by DHS,  USAID, and entities such as the International Organization for Migration,  host government agencies, and other local organizations. In particular,  they told us a key point of reference was a DHS-produced map that  showed the number of UAC by location of origin based upon DHS  apprehension data from January 1 to May 15, 2014. DHS officials  identified various challenges to obtaining UAC location information,  including the inability of children to accurately relay information on their  origins, lack of documentation, and inability of border agents interacting  with children to collect or record their information accurately.  Nonetheless, USAID and State officials in the three countries told us that  the top UAC locations of origin identified in the map were generally  consistent, with a few exceptions, with their understanding of the top UAC  locations of origin.
Further, agency officials stated that their established programs were  already located in these areas. In Honduras, where over half of the DHS- identified top 20 municipalities in terms of UAC locations of origin are  situated, agency officials told us the DHS map confirmed for them that  programs already existed in those locations. In Guatemala, USAID and  State officials said that they consulted the DHS map and other available  information about UAC origin locations and determined that there was a  general overlap between those locations and agency programs. USAID  officials in Guatemala noted that about 60 percent of the agency’s  resources in Guatemala are used for activities in the Western Highlands,  which these officials said they have identified as the primary area of UAC  migration in that country. In El Salvador, USAID officials stated that,  according to their review of the DHS map, their programs were already  located in areas of high UAC migration. Finally, according to IAF, the  DHS map illustrated a general overlap between the location of its  grantees and locations with high levels of UAC migration. We obtained  information on the location of USAID and State/INL-funded programs in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras; the location of IAF grantees in  these countries; and the top UAC locations of origin in each country, as  identified by DHS. Our July 2015 report includes a series of figures that  present this information.
In our July 2015 report, we found agencies had outlined plans and taken  some steps in the three countries since the recent rise in UAC migration  by adding or expanding activities in locations identified as having high  levels of UAC migration. For example, according to State’s current  country plan for Honduras, State plans to expand violence prevention  programs, such as the Gang Resistance Education and Training  Program, to reach three new police metropolitan areas in Tegucigalpa  and six police metropolitan areas in San Pedro Sula, two areas in the  country agencies identified as having among the highest levels of UAC  migration. In El Salvador, USAID outlined plans to expand educational  opportunities to youth in additional municipalities with high levels of  migration. As of June 2015, IAF officials indicated IAF had identified at  least 19 new programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that will  seek to address underlying causes of migration in areas with high levels  of UAC migration.
section_title: Most Agencies Had Some Evaluation Processes in Place, but Weaknesses Existed in Performance Measurement of Some Antismuggling Programs
paragraphs: As we reported in July 2015, most agencies we reviewed had established  processes to measure and evaluate programs agencies identified as  addressing underlying causes of migration. For example, USAID had  conducted several recent evaluations of its programs developed before  the rapid increase in UAC migration but identified as addressing the  causes of migration, including programs addressing crime and violence  prevention and workforce development. USAID officials and documents  indicated that USAID also planned to measure the impact on migration of  some future programs, such as whether a program affected a person’s  decision to migrate. State awarded a contract, which began in September  2014, to evaluate all countries under the CARSI program, including  projects that are designed to address causes of UAC migration in El  Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. IAF also conducts two types of  project evaluations, including an end-of-project assessment for all  projects, and evaluations of a subset of projects that ended 5 years  earlier. According to IAF officials, in 2015, IAF planned to evaluate  projects with a focus on youth engagement, including two projects in El  Salvador and one in Guatemala. IAF expected these evaluations to be  available in 2016.
However, we found that several DHS and State programs intended to  reduce migration and counter smugglers had weaknesses in performance  measurement. First, DHS had established performance indicators for its  TCIUs, but had not established performance targets, making it difficult to  track progress of these units’ efforts to combat UAC smuggling and other  priorities. DHS’s Transnational Criminal Investigative Unit Executive  Report provides overviews of TCIU efforts by country, including basic  performance indicators used to track TCIU success. These measures are  divided into three performance categories—enforcement, capacity  building, and intelligence—with various types of outputs by category.  However, DHS had not set targets for these performance measures. We  concluded in our July 2015 report that establishing such targets would  enable DHS to compare outputs—such as arrests made—against the  pre-established targets, and to better assess TCIU progress. In our July  2015 report, we recommended that DHS establish annual performance  targets associated with the performance measures it has established for  these units. DHS concurred with our recommendation, and noted that it  would work with host nation partners to establish goals to measure TCIU  investigative activities and capacity development. Last month, DHS  reported to us that it also planned to create additional annual TCIU  performance measures in areas such as capacity building, international  cooperation, and collaboration. DHS noted it would use these measures,  alongside an analysis of host country conditions that can affect TCIU  efforts, to determine TCIU successes and inform efforts moving forward.
Second, we found that DHS and State had not consistently evaluated  their information campaigns intended to combat the misinformation  promoted by smuggling organizations and reduce migration, making it  difficult to know the effectiveness of these efforts. DHS evaluated its 2013  campaign but did not evaluate its 2014 campaign. An official from DHS’s  office of public affairs told us that DHS did not evaluate its 2014 campaign  because of funding constraints. Moreover, DHS launched this campaign  at the end of June 2014, by which point migration levels had already  peaked, reaching record levels, as shown in figure 3.
Similarly, we found that while State had collected some information on its  public outreach efforts, it had not evaluated the effectiveness of its  information campaigns, according to public affairs officers we spoke to in  all three Central American countries. These public affairs officers told us  they did not know what the impact of the campaigns was and believed it  would be difficult to measure their impact. All three of these officers  expressed either uncertainty or doubt concerning the effectiveness of  past campaigns centered on the dangers of migration, indicating that it is  uncertain whether such campaigns resonated with citizens of the three  countries since the dangers were already well known or would not dictate  a person’s decision to migrate.
In our July 2015 report, we concluded that evaluations are an important  investment toward ensuring a campaign’s success, and that timely  feedback is critical as campaigns intended to deter cyclical migration are  time-sensitive. Moreover, given the increased presence of children in  recent migration cycles, these campaigns need to be timed right and  deliver appropriate messages. In our July 2015 report, we recommended  that State and DHS integrate evaluation into their planning for, and  implementation of, future public information campaigns intended to  dissuade migration. DHS and State concurred with our recommendation  and indicated they would take steps to strengthen campaign evaluation  efforts. DHS has since noted that it will use performance metrics for its  ongoing “Know the Facts” campaign in an effort to measure audience  recall awareness of the campaign and its impact. DHS noted in particular  that its post-campaign research will include face-to-face interviews in the  capital cities and some secondary markets in El Salvador, Guatemala,  Honduras, and Mexico—totaling about 1,400 interviews in each country— with interviews anticipated to begin at the end of October and a final  report published by the end of November or early December.
Aside from challenges in performance measurement, USAID, State, and  IAF project documents outline various factors that can hamper the long- term sustainability of projects, such as lack of accountability within  government institutions, lack of political will, low tax collection, poor  market conditions, and limited private sector engagement. In our July  2015 review, we observed examples of how some of these factors have  the potential to hamper assistance programs. For example, an  interagency agreement between the departments of State and Justice  outlining efforts to train Honduran prosecutors includes an assumption  that the government of Honduras would commit to having a certain  number of prosecutors available for at least 18 months to participate in  the program. However, at the time of our visit to the country, there were  no active prosecutors participating in Tegucigalpa. In El Salvador, where  we visited a vocational school that, according to USAID officials, had  been established in a joint partnership between USAID and a Salvadoran  private company, we observed a computer lab filled with computers  recently provided by USAID but with no teacher present. According to  USAID officials in El Salvador, the school had asked the Salvadoran  Ministry of Education to provide a salary for the teacher, but the ministry  had not yet done so at the time of our visit. Agencies have outlined  approaches for seeking to ensure program sustainability despite the  challenges described above, such as by prioritizing improvements to  government institutions; identifying sustainable funding sources, such as  the private sector; and advocating for legislative and policy reforms that  support program objectives. In addition, agency officials have noted the  importance of involving communities, the private sector, and the police in  program design to ensure they are invested in and supportive of  programs’ objectives.
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff has any questions about this testimony, please contact  me at GianopoulosK@gao.gov or 202-512-8612. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this statement.
GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Judith  Williams, Assistant Director; Joe Carney; Rachel Girshick; Claudia  Rodriguez; Dina Shorafa; Ashley Alley; Martin De Alteriis; Seyda  Wentworth; John Mingus; Oziel Trevino; and Lynn Cothern.
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.