Border Patrol: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of Post-Apprehension Consequences
Published: 2017-01-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To address smuggling along the U.S. southwest border, the U.S. Border Patrol developed CDS—a process to classify each apprehended alien into criminal or noncriminal categories and apply consequences, such as federal prosecution. Each Border Patrol sector ranks up to eight consequences from Most to Least Effective and Efficient to reduce recidivism. GAO was asked to review and assess Border Patrol's implementation of CDS across the southwest border. This report examines the extent to which Border Patrol (1) has a methodology for calculating recidivism that allows it to assess CDS program effectiveness, (2) applied consequences it determined to be most effective and efficient in each southwest border sector and (3) established guidance and controls to monitor field implementation of CDS.
GAO analyzed Border Patrol's recidivism rate methodology; apprehension data and CDS application along the southwest border for fiscal years 2013 through 2015, the most recently available data; and DHS's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data on alien removals. GAO also interviewed Border Patrol personnel and reviewed CDS guidance.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol), an office within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection, uses an annual recidivism rate to measure performance of the Consequence Delivery System (CDS)—a process that identifies consequences as Most Effective and Efficient to deter illegal cross border activity in each sector—however, methodological weaknesses limit the rate's usefulness for assessing CDS effectiveness. GAO found that Border Patrol's methodology does not account for an alien's apprehension history beyond one fiscal year and neither accounts for nor excludes apprehended aliens for whom there is no record of removal after apprehension and who may have remained in the United States without an opportunity to recidivate. GAO's analysis of recidivism for fiscal year 2015 considering these factors showed a 29 percent recidivism rate, compared to Border Patrol's 14 percent recidivism rate. Border Patrol could more accurately assess recidivism and CDS effectiveness by strengthening its recidivism rate methodology, such as by using an alien's apprehension history beyond one fiscal year and excluding aliens for whom there is no record of removal from the United States.
Agent application of consequences Border Patrol identified in CDS guidance as the Most Effective and Efficient has declined from 28 percent in fiscal year 2013 to 18 percent in fiscal year 2015 across the southwest border. In addition, Border Patrol has not assessed reasons for the relatively low application of consequences determined to be the Most Effective and Efficient consequence in each sector; but some agency officials stated that challenges include agents' hesitation to apply consequences that require referral to federal partners facing capacity constraints, such as Department of Justice immigration courts. Assessing why agents do not apply the Most Effective and Efficient consequence could inform Border Patrol of actions needed to increase application of Most Effective and Efficient consequences to reduce recidivism. Border Patrol established some mechanisms to facilitate monitoring field implementation of CDS, but lacked controls to ensure effective performance management. For example, six of nine field locations missed performance targets for application of the Most Effective and Efficient consequences in fiscal year 2015 as shown in the figure below. Ensuring consistent oversight of performance management would provide greater assurance that Border Patrol is most effectively using CDS to address cross-border illegal activity.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making six recommendations to strengthen the methodology for measuring recidivism, assess reasons agents do not apply CDS guides' Most Effective and Efficient consequence, and ensure performance management oversight. DHS concurred with all but one recommendation, which relates to strengthening its recidivism methodology, citing other means to measure CDS performance. GAO believes the recommendation remains valid, as discussed in the report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Transnational criminal organizations represent a significant cross-border  threat to homeland security, controlling most smuggling of drugs and  guns, as well as an increasing percentage of human smuggling,  according to the 2012-2016 U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) Strategic  Plan. To help break the smuggling cycle between U.S. ports of entry on  the southwest border, Border Patrol, within the Department of Homeland  Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), developed  the Consequence Delivery System (CDS) in 2011 that Border Patrol now  uses across all U.S. borders. CDS is a process by which Border Patrol  agents are to classify each alien apprehended illegally crossing the  border and then apply one or more post-apprehension consequences  determined to be most effective and efficient to discourage alien  recidivism, that is, further apprehensions for illegal cross-border activity.  Border Patrol agents classify alien apprehensions into one of seven types  of criminal or noncriminal categories. The eight post-apprehension  consequences range in severity from criminal prosecution in federal court  to allowing an alien to voluntarily return to his or her home country.
Border Patrol established a CDS Program Management Office (CDS  PMO) at headquarters to develop CDS guidance and provide analytical  support for field implementation and oversight of the CDS program across  all border locations, including the nine southwest Border Patrol sectors.  Such support includes working with sector personnel to develop a CDS  guide each fiscal year that is unique to each sector which ranks each of  the available consequences from most effective and efficient to least  effective and efficient for each of the seven alien categories. As  circumstances permit, Border Patrol agents are to apply consequences to  each alien according to the relative rankings in each sector’s CDS guide,  and Border Patrol assesses CDS program effectiveness using various  performance indicators that include the rate of recidivism for aliens  illegally crossing the border between the ports of entry on the southwest  border. DHS also uses the CDS program recidivism rate for the  southwest border as one performance measure, among others, to report  on the status of U.S. border security.
You asked us to review and assess Border Patrol’s implementation of  CDS across the southwest border. This report addresses the following  three questions:  (1)  To what extent does Border Patrol’s methodology for calculating  recidivism allow the agency to assess CDS program  effectiveness?  (2)  To what extent have Border Patrol agents applied the  consequences identified in CDS guides as most effective and  efficient in each southwest border sector?  (3)  To what extent has Border Patrol established guidance and  controls to monitor field implementation of CDS?
To answer these questions, we reviewed Border Patrol’s implementation  of CDS from fiscal years 2013 through 2015 across all nine Border Patrol  sectors along the southwest border. We reviewed policies and  procedures related to CDS, such as Border Patrol procedures for  developing a CDS guide. We obtained and analyzed data from Border  Patrol on apprehensions and the use of CDS along the southwest border  from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2015. We also examined the  outcomes of Border Patrol apprehensions of aliens in fiscal years 2014  and 2015, including obtaining and analyzing U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE) data on enforcement actions and case status  for these aliens. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing  system documentation, interviewing knowledgeable officials about system  controls and conducting electronic testing, and we determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Further, we interviewed Border Patrol managers and agents from all nine  southwest border sectors to obtain their views on CDS. Additionally, we  visited three of Border Patrol’s southwest border sectors—the San Diego,  Tucson, and Rio Grande Valley sectors—to observe how agents in these  sectors applied CDS in their operations. We selected these sectors to  visit because they had the highest number of apprehensions in fiscal  years 2014 and 2015 as well as the most consequences listed in their  CDS guides for those fiscal years. We also interviewed officials at Border  Patrol headquarters, including staff from CDS PMO, about CDS guidance  and implementation throughout the southwest border and reviewed  program documentation. We reviewed our prior reports on Border Patrol,  and reports by the Congressional Research Service and the DHS  Inspector General. We compared the results of our analyses against  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, best practices  identified in our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, and Border  Patrol’s policies and procedures for CDS.
To address our first question regarding the extent to which Border Patrol’s  methodology for calculating recidivism allows the agency to assess CDS  program effectiveness, we reviewed Border Patrol’s methodology for  measuring recidivism included in DHS’s strategic plan and annual  performance reports. We analyzed Border Patrol’s data on apprehensions  to calculate recidivism for the entire southwest border using Border  Patrol’s methodology. To provide context on how the recidivism rate  may be affected by different methodologies, we also used alternative  methodologies to calculate recidivism rates using an alien’s apprehension  history over an expanded timeframe and accounted for the ICE reported  case status of an alien after apprehension. Specifically, we calculated  recidivism rates using aliens’ apprehension history from fiscal years 2013  through 2015 and accounted for the ICE reported removal status from  fiscal years 2014 through 2015. We compared the results of our analysis  to Border Patrol’s reported recidivism rate, and assessed the extent to  which Border Patrol’s methodology for calculating recidivism allows  Border Patrol management to perform monitoring activities that are  consistent with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government. We also interviewed officials from DHS’ Performance,  Analysis and Evaluation division, which oversees the management of the department’s performance measures, including assessing high priority  areas such as the effectiveness of DHS’s efforts to secure the U.S.  border.
To address our second question on the extent to which Border Patrol  agents applied the consequences identified in CDS guides as Most  Effective and Efficient in each southwest border sector, we compared the  Most Effective and Efficient consequence Border Patrol identified in each  sector’s CDS guide to consequences Border Patrol agents recorded  applying to each alien in Border Patrol’s apprehension database (the term  Most Effective and Efficient consequence will be used throughout this  report to denote Border Patrol’s highest-ranked consequence within each  CDS guide). Specifically, we made this comparison for Border Patrol  apprehensions in fiscal years 2013 through 2015 to obtain results for the  southwest border overall as well as across each of the nine Border Patrol  sectors and seven alien classifications. We discussed any challenges  Border Patrol agents may face in applying the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence identified in CDS guides, with sectors’ management and  staff. We also interviewed officials from federal partners that are involved  with implementing certain CDS consequences. These partners include  ICE, which detains aliens, litigates charges of removability in immigration  court proceedings and removes aliens from the United States; and the  Department of Justice (DOJ), which adjudicates administrative removal  proceedings or prosecutes criminal offenses in federal court. Within DOJ,  we spoke with officials from the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), which  provides pretrial detention services for criminal prosecutions, and the  United States Attorney’s (USAO) in the Southern District of Texas, the  District of Arizona, and the Southern District of California. These offices  conduct criminal prosecutions within their respective districts along the  southwest border.
To address our third question on the extent to which Border Patrol has  established guidance and controls to monitor field implementation of  CDS, we reviewed CDS PMO’s guidance to sectors on implementing  CDS, including existing guidance on estimating costs to implement  various consequences and policies and procedures for monitoring  performance and data integrity. Specifically, we analyzed CDS PMO’s  controls over field development and use of CDS cost estimates for fiscal  years 2013 through 2015 by reviewing and assessing cost estimates  developed by eight sectors implementing this guidance to determine the  accuracy, consistency, and completeness of these estimates and  compared our findings to best practices identified in our Cost Estimating  and Assessment Guide. We compared CDS performance results for  each sector to their respective performance targets in fiscal year 2015.  We also analyzed Border Patrol’s internal controls established to ensure  alien classifications in the apprehension database are accurate and  consistent and compared our findings to Border Patrol guidance on data  integrity and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2015 to January 2017  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: Border Patrol is to apply consequences under CDS to all apprehended  aliens, which numbered over 1.1 million along the southwest border from  fiscal year 2013 through 2015. Border Patrol agents implement CDS by  classifying apprehended aliens into one of seven noncriminal or criminal  categories and then applying one or more of eight different consequences  categorized as criminal, administrative or programmatic. Border Patrol  guidance states that Border Patrol agents must apply at least one  administrative consequence to every apprehended alien but may apply  more than one consequence, including using a mix of administrative,  criminal and programmatic consequences to a single apprehended  alien. Figure 1 provides an overview of CDS alien classifications and  Figure 2 provides an overview of possible consequences under CDS.
To assist Border Patrol agents in selecting the most appropriate  consequence, Border Patrol rank orders these consequences from Most  Effective and Efficient to Least Effective and Efficient for each alien  classification and presents this information in a CDS guide. Figure 3  provides an example of one sector’s CDS guide for fiscal year 2015.
According to CDS guidance, Border Patrol agents are encouraged to  reference their sectors’ CDS guide to select the Most Effective and  Efficient consequence based upon the alien’s classification. According to  CDS PMO officials, agents can use discretion in selecting the  consequence or consequences they apply to an alien based upon the  circumstances of the subject’s apprehension, federal partner agencies’  capacity to provide support, and the prioritization of a consequence in that  sector.
CDS PMO is responsible for providing guidance, training, analytical and  other support to sectors for implementation of the CDS guide. See figure  4 for a map of Border Patrol’s southwest border sectors’ boundaries.
CDS PMO facilitates the annual development of a CDS guide for each  sector. To develop each sector’s CDS guide, CDS PMO annually surveys  sector management and uses the results of these surveys to inform the  ranking of consequences. CDS PMO also requires each sector to  convene at least 15 field staff (such as Border Patrol agents) to assess 15  factors related to the efficiency and effectiveness of each consequence  for each alien classification. These factors include performance-related  factors, such as the extent to which a consequence reduces recidivism;  cost-related factors, such as Border Patrol’s cost to administer the  consequence; and schedule-related factors, such as the amount of time it  takes Border Patrol to apply a single consequence. To facilitate the  annual process, CDS PMO program staff present previous year’s data to  field staff related to 12 factors—such as the sectors’ estimated cost and  recidivism rate for each consequence—and direct field staff to use their  professional judgement for the remaining 3 factors (the extent a  consequence requires the assistance of strategic partners, is perceived  as severe by apprehended aliens, and has a deterring effect on other  aliens who consider crossing the border illegally). In addition to soliciting  sector staff preferences, sector management complete a survey in which  they are to prioritize factors regardless of the alien classification. After  analyzing these results from sector staff and management, CDS PMO  staff create a sector-specific guide that reflects the consequences’  ranking from Most Effective and Efficient (for the highest ranked  consequence), to Highly Effective and Efficient, Effective and Efficient,  Less Effective and Efficient, and Least Effective and Efficient (for the  lowest ranked consequence).
Most consequences available under CDS require the cooperation and  resources of other federal agencies to detain, prosecute, litigate, and  adjudicate removability of, or remove persons apprehended by Border  Patrol, (see figure 5). DHS’s ICE oversees detention facilities for persons  awaiting administrative adjudication of their removability from the United  States and eligibility for any requested relief or protection from removal by  DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), and for persons  awaiting ICE removal from the United States to their home country  pursuant to a final order of removal. Additionally, DOJ’s USMS oversees  detention for persons awaiting prosecution for criminal immigration and  other offenses by DOJ’s USAO. Those convicted of a criminal  immigration offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment are  incarcerated by DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons.
section_title: Border Patrol Methodology for Calculating Recidivism Makes It Difficult to Assess Effectiveness of the Consequence Delivery System
paragraphs: Border Patrol uses an annual recidivism rate for the southwest border,  along with other performance indicators, to monitor the effectiveness of  CDS; however, weaknesses in the methodology used to calculate this  rate limit its usefulness in assessing CDS. Border Patrol calculates its  recidivism rate on an annual basis by dividing the total number of aliens  apprehended multiple times within the fiscal year over the total number of  aliens apprehended in that same fiscal year, as shown in figure 6. Border  Patrol uses this rate among other performance indicators to assess the  effectiveness of CDS, and DHS also reports the rate in its Annual  Performance Report as one of six performance measures to assess  efforts securing U.S. air, land and sea borders.
In addition to using the recidivism rate to monitor performance of each  Border Patrol sector, Border Patrol uses the recidivism rate to determine  the effectiveness of CDS consequences and incorporates the recidivism  rate into risk assessments it uses to make resource allocation decisions.  However, two limitations in the rate’s methodology hinder its usefulness in  providing a complete picture of CDS effectiveness. These two limitations  include (1) not accounting for an alien’s apprehension history beyond one  fiscal year, and (2) not excluding apprehended aliens for whom ICE has  no record of removal and who may remain in the United States.
Alien apprehension history over multiple fiscal years. Border Patrol’s  methodology for calculating recidivism—the percent of aliens  apprehended multiple times along the southwest border within a fiscal  year—limits its ability to assess CDS effectiveness because this calculation does not account for an alien’s apprehension history over  multiple years. We and the DHS Office of Inspector General have  identified limitations with this methodology. In a 2015 report, the DHS  Office of Inspector General found that Border Patrol’s recidivism rate  methodology did not fully measure performance results because its  recidivism rate did not reflect an alien’s re-apprehension over multiple  years. Specifically, the Office of Inspector General found the  methodology did not properly account for persons apprehended near the  end of a fiscal year who may re-cross the border a short time later in the  new fiscal year, and recommended DHS develop and implement  performance measures that track alien recidivism and re-apprehension  rates over multiple fiscal years. DHS concurred with this recommendation  and stated that it would address it as part of its broader State of the  Border Risk Methodology— a strategy to identify high-risk areas along the  border and to use this information to support decisions regarding the  deployment of Border Patrol resources. However, in May 2016, CBP  officials told us that the State of the Border Risk Methodology  incorporates the same recidivism rate methodology discussed in the DHS  Inspector General’s finding and is not intended to measure or report on  performance of border security efforts overall. As of September 2016, the  DHS Office of Inspector General’s recommendation to track recidivism  over multiple fiscal years remained open.
Further, our analysis measuring recidivism on the southwest border using  multiple years of Border Patrol apprehension data showed a higher  recidivism rate than Border Patrol’s reported rate using one fiscal year of  apprehension data. Specifically, using apprehension data we obtained  from fiscal years 2013 through 2015, we found that 25 percent of aliens  apprehended in fiscal year 2015 were recidivists over this time period,  nearly double the Border Patrol-reported rate of 14 percent for fiscal year  2015. Additionally, while DHS reported in its Annual Performance Report  for 2017 that the recidivism rate for the southwest border had decreased  each year since the implementation of CDS in 2011, our analysis showed  that the recidivism rate using apprehensions across multiple years had  increased from 21 percent in fiscal year 2014 to 25 percent in fiscal year  2015.
Apprehended aliens for whom there is no ICE record of removal  from the United States. Another reason Border Patrol’s methodology for  calculating recidivism limits its ability to assess CDS effectiveness is  because Border Patrol’s calculation neither accounts for nor excludes  apprehended aliens who may remain in the United States. According to  ICE, aliens apprehended by Border Patrol may remain in the United  States after their apprehension if they obtain immigration status or  protection, or are awaiting the conclusion of immigration court  proceedings or criminal trial, or are serving prison sentences, among  other reasons. Our analysis of Border Patrol and ICE data showed that  Border Patrol included tens of thousands of aliens in the total number of  aliens apprehended when calculating the recidivism rate for fiscal years  2014 and 2015, for whom ICE did not have a record of removal after  apprehension and who may have remained in the United States without  an opportunity to recidivate. Specifically, our analysis of ICE enforcement  and removal data showed that about 38 percent of the aliens Border  Patrol apprehended along the southwest border in fiscal years 2014 and  2015 may have remained in the United States as of May 2016. This  percentage includes 133,594 of 334,427 aliens apprehended by Border  Patrol in fiscal year 2014 and 88,693 of 256,223 aliens apprehended by  Border Patrol in fiscal year 2015.
Our analysis measuring recidivism excluding aliens who ICE data show  were not removed and may remain in the United States showed a higher  recidivism rate than Border Patrol’s reported rate using all apprehended  aliens regardless of removal status. Specifically, using apprehension data  from fiscal year 2015 and excluding aliens Border Patrol apprehended but  for whom ICE data show had not been removed from the United States,  we calculated a recidivism rate of 18 percent compared to the DHS  reported recidivism rate of 14 percent.
Further, our analysis measuring recidivism using both an alien’s  apprehension history over multiple years and excluding aliens who may  remain in the United States showed an even higher recidivism rate than  Border Patrol’s reported recidivism rate or either method alone.  Specifically, our analysis using a three year apprehension history—from  fiscal year 2013 through 2015—and excluding aliens who may remain in  the United States showed a recidivism rate of 29 percent for fiscal year  2015, compared to a 14 percent recidivism rate reported by Border Patrol  as shown in figure 7.
CDS PMO officials stated that they include only one fiscal year of data in  their recidivism rate calculation so that the agency can compare results  and progress on an annual basis. However, analyzing apprehensions  beyond one fiscal year to measure recidivism could provide Border Patrol  with a more complete picture of CDS effectiveness and would not  preclude Border Patrol from also comparing annual changes in the  recidivism rate. While sector officials acknowledged that including  apprehended aliens who may remain in the United States in the  recidivism rate calculation is a limitation to assessing CDS effectiveness,  Border Patrol headquarters officials stated that including aliens who may  remain in the United States serving prison sentences in the recidivism  rate is appropriate because incarceration prevents recidivism. However,  the extent to which a CDS consequence resulting in incarceration  prevents recidivism for an alien would not be known until the alien is  returned to his or her home country. Further, due to the lack of  collaboration between Border Patrol and ICE, PMO and sector officials  stated that they do not have access to ICE enforcement and removal data  that would allow them to determine the number of aliens apprehended by  Border Patrol who may remain in the United States, including those  incarcerated. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  states that managers need operational data to determine whether they  are meeting their goals. Further, these standards state that information  should be shared within the organization to ensure managers and others  can effectively meet agency goals. Limitations in the methodology for  calculating the recidivism rate hinder Border Patrol’s ability to assess the  effectiveness of CDS over time. Strengthening the recidivism rate  methodology, such as by using an alien’s apprehension history beyond  one fiscal year and working with ICE to obtain access to alien case status  data on removals to consider exclusion of aliens who may remain in the  United States after their apprehension, would give Border Patrol a more  complete assessment of recidivism along the southwest border. This in  turn, would allow Border Patrol leadership to more effectively evaluate the  extent to which CDS is supporting its goal of securing the border to better  inform the effectiveness of CDS implementation and border security  efforts. Additionally, more complete information about recidivism would  help ensure that Border Patrol’s risk assessments are accurate and that  the decisions made based upon these risk assessments are sound.
section_title: Border Patrol Agents Did Not Generally Apply the Consequence Identified in CDS guides as the Most Effective and Efficient in Each Southwest Border Sector
paragraphs: Our analysis of Border Patrol agents’ application of the Most Effective and  Efficient consequences as defined in each southwest border sector’s  CDS guide showed that agents applied the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence for 18 percent of the approximately 300,000 apprehensions  in fiscal year 2015, a decline over the previous two years. Specifically,  our analysis comparing results from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year  2015 showed a decline in Border Patrol agents’ application of the Most  Effective and Efficient consequence from 28 percent of apprehensions in  fiscal year 2013 to 26 percent of apprehensions in fiscal year 2014 to 18  percent of apprehensions in fiscal year 2015. Over this three year time  period, our analysis further showed that Border Patrol agents increasingly  applied consequences CDS guides had identified as Highly Effective and  Efficient as well as Effective and Efficient, and had decreased the  application of the Less or Least Effective and Efficient consequences.  Among more than 300,000 apprehensions in fiscal year 2015, Border  Patrol applied a consequence CDS guides identified as Most Effective  and Efficient 18 percent of the time, either Highly Effective and Efficient or  Effective and Efficient 75 percent of the time, and Less- or Least-  Effective and Efficient 7 percent of the time. (See figure 8 for Border  Patrol’s application of Most to Least Effective and Efficient consequences  for fiscal years 2013 through 2015).
Further our analysis showed that Border Patrol agents varied by up to 39  percentage points in their application of the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence across the nine southwest border sectors, and applied the  Most Effective and Efficient consequence more often to aliens classified  as criminals than noncriminals. Specifically, Border Patrol agents in the El  Paso sector applied the Most Effective and Efficient consequence for 48  percent of apprehensions in fiscal year 2015—the highest percentage  across the nine sectors—while Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande  Valley sector applied the Most Effective and Efficient consequence for the  lowest percentage of apprehended aliens in fiscal year 2015—9 percent.  Across all types of alien classifications, Border Patrol agents applied the  Most Effective and Efficient consequence for 23 percent of alien  apprehensions classified as criminal in fiscal year 2015—including  targeted smugglers, suspected smugglers, and other criminals— compared to 17 percent of alien apprehensions categorized as  noncriminal—first, second, or third time apprehensions, persistent  apprehensions, and family units—with variance across sectors, as shown  in figure 9.
Border Patrol has not assessed reasons agent application of the Most  Effective and Efficient consequence in CDS guides is relatively low, but  cited various challenges including agent concerns about whether the  Most Effective and Efficient consequence has a greater impact on  recidivism than other consequences. While Border patrol agents use  discretion when applying consequences based on their sector’s CDS  guide, Border Patrol officials in one sector told us that the CDS guide did  not always reflect what they believe is the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence and that while the Most Effective and Efficient consequence  seemed appropriate for certain alien classifications, it did not seem  appropriate for other classifications. Our analysis of Border Patrol  apprehension data from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2015 after  excluding aliens who ICE data show have not been removed and may  remain in the United States, showed that while aliens classified as  criminals were less likely to recidivate when Border Patrol agents applied  the Most Effective and Efficient consequence, non-criminal aliens were  more likely to recidivate when Border Patrol agents applied the Most  Effective and Efficient consequence. Specifically, 22 percent of aliens  classified as criminal who were given the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence in fiscal year 2014 later recidivated in the time period fiscal  year 2014 through 2015 compared to 27 percent of aliens classified as  criminal and given other consequences. In contrast, 39 percent of aliens  classified as non-criminal given the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence in fiscal year 2014 later recidivated in the time period fiscal  year 2014 through 2015 compared to 24 percent of aliens classified as  non-criminal and given other consequences.
Another challenge includes a concern expressed by some Border Patrol  sector officials that federal partners do not have the capacity to timely and  fully implement consequences identified in CDS guides as Most Effective  and Efficient, which may result in apprehended aliens remaining in the  United States for an indeterminate amount of time. Specifically, some  Border Patrol sector officials said agents may not apply the Most Effective  and Efficient consequence listed in the CDS guide if it is Warrant or  Notice to Appear, since it involves ICE detention and monitoring of an  alien awaiting an immigration court date. Border Patrol officials in one  sector in Southern California said that ICE may have to release  noncriminal aliens from detention who were given a consequence of  Warrant or Notice to Appear, prior to the conclusion of their removal  proceedings, because it may take up to several years for the alien’s merit  hearing to occur in immigration court; and that agents are concerned that  aliens released from detention will not show up for their immigration  proceedings. According to EOIR, as of September 30, 2015, the number  of pending cases for immigration courts in Southern California ranged  from 975 cases in one court location to more than 50,000 in another  location, and DOJ data show that nationally, the number of initial  immigration cases EOIR completed for detained aliens decreased 55  percent from fiscal year 2011 to 2015. Our analysis of ICE case status  data for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 showed that 94 percent (109,080) of  the 116,409 aliens given a consequence of Warrant or Notice to Appear  had an open case status and may remain in the United States, compared  to 36 percent of aliens given other consequences.
Further, Border Patrol sector officials also told us that Border Patrol  agents in some sectors may be hesitant to apply the Most Effective and  Efficient consequence if it is a criminal prosecution and therefore requires  support from DOJ and the federal courts. Specifically, officials from three  southwest border sectors, two of which had a relatively high number of  apprehensions in fiscal year 2015, told us that the USAO districts with  which their sectors are aligned are limited in the number of criminal  immigration cases that they will accept from Border Patrol sectors due to  capacity and resource constraints of the USMS or the U.S. Courts. For  example, criminal prosecution (both standard and streamline) was the  Most Effective and Efficient consequence for five different alien  classifications in the CDS guide for the Rio Grande Valley sector in fiscal  year 2015. Rio Grande Valley sector officials said that while agents  apprehended over 129,000 aliens in fiscal year 2015, the sector can only  refer about 40 immigration-related cases each day to the corresponding  USAO District (Southern District of Texas) for prosecution. Once this daily  limit is reached, agents must apply an alternative consequence that is not  the Most Effective and Efficient as defined by the CDS guide. Officials  from the USAO Southern District of Texas stated that they limit the  number of cases they accept due to limitations in the capacity of the U.S.  Courts to provide physical space to conduct trials.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  managers should assess the risks facing an agency from both external  and internal sources and decide how to manage the risk and what actions  should be taken. In addition, management should have relevant and  reliable operational data to determine whether they are meeting their  goals for effective and efficient use of resources. While Border Patrol  officials at CDS PMO and across sectors gather perspectives on  consequences from agents during the annual development of the CDS  guides, Border Patrol does not routinely nor comprehensively collect  information from agents on why they did not apply the Most Effective and  Efficient consequence. Without this information, Border Patrol may not be  able to identify and assess the appropriate risk responses for addressing  agent challenges to applying the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence or determine any needed modifications to the development  of the CDS guides across sectors. With such an assessment, Border  Patrol could determine whether actions are needed to change agents’  application of CDS guides or modify development of the CDS guides to  strengthen effectiveness in reducing recidivism.
section_title: Border Patrol Could Enhance Guidance for CDS Cost Estimation and Strengthen Controls for Monitoring Performance and Data Integrity
subsections: section_title: Border Patrol Established CDS Guidance, but Guidance Does Not Ensure Valid Cost Estimation
paragraphs: CDS PMO established guidance for sectors to implement CDS, including  guidance on estimating the cost of applying CDS consequences.  However this guidance does not ensure Border Patrol develops valid cost  estimates for CDS consequences. On an annual basis, sector personnel  are to estimate the unit cost of applying each available consequence to a  single noncriminal, criminal, and family-unit alien within their sector.  According to CDS guidance, each sector is to report: average annual salaries for sector personnel as well as estimates of  personnel time spent processing an alien;  sector costs for office supplies used to process an alien, such as  folders and binders;  sector costs associated with facilities used for detaining an alien such  as rent and electricity;  sector costs for the housing and care of a detained alien, such as  bedding, meals, and toiletries; and  sector costs for transporting an alien.
These costs are to be based on the sector’s previous year’s expenses.  CDS PMO uses the cost estimates to provide data to sector personnel for  4 of the 15 factors they are to evaluate as part of the annual development  of the CDS guides. These factors include: (1) the cost per apprehension  by alien type; (2) the cost of the consequence per border mile where it is  available; (3) the cost per hour of Border Patrol processing time; and (4)  the total personnel hours to complete the consequence. Sector personnel  are encouraged to review these data when determining the ranking of  CDS consequences from Most Effective and Efficient to Least Effective  and Efficient.
However, our analysis of sector cost estimates identified errors,  variations, and omissions in how sectors estimated costs, which limited  the utility of the estimates in determining which consequences are Most  Effective and Efficient. Since fiscal year 2013, CDS PMO has provided  written guidance and workbooks to help sector staff estimate and examine cost differences among each of the CDS consequences, but  these workbooks include calculation errors on housing and care costs  that result in incorrect costs. Specifically, the workbooks calculate annual  housing and facility costs on a per hour basis, not a per alien basis, and  thus do not properly account for the volume of aliens each sector  apprehends in a given year. As a result, Border Patrol staff from the San  Diego sector using the workbooks estimated a cost of about $2,366 per  noncriminal alien receiving a consequence of reinstatement of a removal  order for fiscal year 2015. However, once we accounted for the number of  aliens apprehended in the San Diego sector—more than 25,000 aliens in  fiscal year 2015—we calculated a cost estimate of $282. Additionally, the  housing and care cost estimates do not account for personnel time  involved in housing an alien. For example, San Diego sector officials  estimated that a noncriminal alien is detained for 36 hours to process a  reinstatement of removal order, but estimated using six hours of  personnel time, rather than 42 hours which would account for both  processing and detention time. Further, the guidance does not state  which costs sectors should use in their cost estimates for consequences,  resulting in variation among sectors. For example, five sectors included  facility costs such as electricity, gas, and rent in their cost estimates for  the consequence of reinstating a removal order, while three other sectors  did not include any facility costs in their estimates for the same  consequence. As a result, the reported cost for this consequence for a  noncriminal alien ranged from $135 in Laredo sector to more than  $80,000 in Rio Grande Valley sector, see Table 1.
CDS PMO officials said that since each sector develops its own CDS  guide, differences in how sectors calculate facility costs may not change  the relative ranking of consequences as long as each sector is consistent  in applying their cost methodology across all consequences. Sector  officials also acknowledged that there might be additional errors in how  housing and care costs are calculated but were unsure of how the errors  would affect the annual development of the guides. However, we  determined that a cost estimate of $282 instead of $2,366 for a  reinstatement of removal for a noncriminal class alien in the San Diego  sector would change the relative ranking of this consequence from the  third to fifth most costly consequence, which could affect how Border  Patrol agents rank this consequence during the annual development of  the CDS guides. As another example, standard prosecution was originally  estimated as the least costly consequence for a criminal class alien in the  El Paso sector in fiscal year 2015. However, once we accounted for the  more than 13,000 aliens apprehended in this sector in 2015, we found  that the standard prosecution would be the most costly consequence  compared to other available consequences.
CDS program officials also stated that CDS guidance does not require  sector staff to include estimates of CDS implementation costs to federal  partners. As a result, consequences that Border Patrol considers Most  Effective and Efficient may not reflect the optimal use of resources for the  federal government overall. For example, by comparing Border Patrol  apprehension data to ICE case data, we found that 64 percent of Border  Patrol apprehensions required at least some involvement by ICE in fiscal  years 2014 and 2015 to support consequences requiring administrative  detention and removal of aliens from the United States. Additionally,  USMS reported that more than half of all prisoners it received in fiscal  year 2015 were from five federal districts along the southwest border  (Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Texas, and Western  Texas) and, by 2017, projected an increase of more than 7,000 prisoners  in those districts primarily for immigration-related offenses. According to  CBP, some consequences, such as criminal prosecution, require  involvement and resources of up to four federal agencies. CDS program  officials said that CDS guidance does not require sectors to include  federal partner costs because the CDS Program was designed around  the Border Patrol’s resources. However cost data are readily available for  some federal partners involved in implementing CDS consequences,  such as ICE and USMS, which provide detention services prior to and, as  appropriate, during the pendency of, administrative hearings or criminal  trials, respectively. For example, ICE reported an estimated daily housing  cost of $122 per day for each alien detained in fiscal year 2015, and we  estimated an average daily cost of $76 for detention services provided by  USMS in fiscal year 2015 along the southwest border. Including  estimation of known costs, such as these, would increase Border Patrol’s  cost estimates for consequences that require detention services—such as  criminal prosecution or a Warrant or Notice to Appear—and therefore  could affect the rankings Border Patrol agents assign these  consequences if they were to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of  consequences across the federal government.
Our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide states cost estimations used  to support decision-making must be logical, credible, and acceptable to a  reasonable person and avoid subjective judgement on which costs to  include. Additionally, the guidance states that if cost estimates are to  support the comparative ranking of different alternatives, cost elements of  alternatives should be estimated to make each alternative’s cost  transparent in relation to the others. Border Patrol would have greater  assurance that the consequences ranked as Most Effective and Efficient  within the CDS guides accurately reflect cost efficiency by revising cost  estimating guidance provided to sectors to more fully and reliably account  for Border Patrol and partner resources, as appropriate and available.
section_title: Border Patrol Sectors Set Some Performance Targets for CDS Implementation, but Did Not Fully Monitor or Communicate Results
paragraphs: Border Patrol established performance measures in fiscal year 2013 to  assess each sector’s application of the Most and the Least Effective and  Efficient consequences for alien apprehensions; however, the agency  does not fully monitor progress against these measures. To assess a  sector’s application of the Most Effective and Efficient consequence,  Border Patrol calculates the percentage of apprehensions in which agents  applied the Most Effective and Efficient consequence to aliens  apprehended in that sector. Border Patrol conducts the same calculation  to determine a sector’s application of the Least Effective and Efficient  consequence. According to CDS PMO officials, sector officials set their  own performance targets for performance measures based on previous  years’ trends related to the application of the Most and the Least Effective  and Efficient consequences. According to Border Patrol documentation,  sector officials can use these targets to increase their application of the  Most Effective and Efficient consequence and to decrease their  application of the Least Effective and Efficient consequence over time.
Our analysis of Border Patrol data on apprehensions and CDS  consequences showed that six of nine sectors missed some of their  established performance targets by a range of 1 percentage point to 37  percentage points, as displayed in figure 10. Officials from three of the  nine southwest sectors—Del Rio, El Centro and San Diego—reported  that sector management did not monitor the extent that their agents were  applying the consequences defined in CDS guides as Most or Least  Effective and Efficient as of March 2016. CDS PMO officials said that  while Border Patrol has a mechanism in place that sector management  can use to monitor their progress in meeting performance targets, CDS  PMO officials do not ensure sectors are monitoring performance or report  sectors’ performance information to Border Patrol headquarters. CDS  PMO officials said that they discontinued monitoring and reporting  performance results in fiscal year 2016 because sectors have access to  data which would allow sectors to monitor their own performance targets.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should monitor and assess the quality of performance over  time. Additionally, these standards state that information is needed  throughout an agency to achieve all its objectives. Without ensuring that  Border Patrol and sector management monitor progress in meeting  established performance targets and communicate CDS-related  performance targets, Border Patrol does not have the information it needs  to fully assess the extent to which CDS is achieving its goals of reduced  recidivism and cost efficiency.
section_title: Border Patrol Does Not Have Controls for Its Classification of Aliens Necessary to Apply the Most Effective and Efficient CDS Consequence
paragraphs: Border Patrol reports that agent classification of aliens into one of the  three criminal or four noncriminal classifications pursuant to CDS  guidance is critical to selecting the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence to deter future illegal border crossings. However, Border  Patrol does not have controls in place to fully ensure that aliens are  classified in accordance with CDS guidance. Border Patrol guidance to  sectors provides definitions and additional details to determine the  classification of each apprehension. For example, the guidance states  that a first-time apprehension classification may be used on an alien that  has been apprehended by another agency. Further, Border Patrol has  established CDS data integrity activities at headquarters and at each  sector as a control to better ensure the accuracy of data entry by Border  Patrol agents and make any necessary corrections. CDS PMO officials  said that they check the integrity of apprehension data for certain aspects,  such as CDS consequence applied, alien nationality, and gender, to  ensure quality and accuracy. According to CDS PMO officials, data  integrity checks are done on a weekly basis and CDS PMO receives a  quarterly report of potential errors in the data. CDS PMO then requests  sector staff make corrections to the data as needed.
However, our analysis of Border Patrol apprehension data for recidivists  from fiscal year 2013 through 2015 showed that Border Patrol did not  classify 49,128 of 434,866 (11 percent) of apprehensions in accordance  with the agency’s guidance. Of these 49,128 apprehensions, 15,309  apprehensions were for aliens previously apprehended and identified as a  type of criminal alien (targeted smuggler, suspected smuggler, or criminal  alien) and were subsequently classified either as a noncriminal alien or  different type of criminal alien, as shown in table 2. For example, 7,929  aliens apprehended from fiscal year 2013 through 2015 were classified as  a Criminal Alien (an alien with previous criminal convictions) and then  were later re-apprehended and classified as a Persistent Apprehension (a  noncriminal class alien arrested four or more times by Border Patrol).  According to Border Patrol guidance, agents should classify an  apprehension as a Criminal Alien apprehension if the apprehended alien  has any prior criminal convictions whereas agents should only classify an  alien as a Persistent Apprehension if another classification is not  appropriate.
Further, our analysis showed that criminal aliens not classified in  accordance with agency guidance were less likely to face prosecution  and more likely to be voluntarily returned to their home country than  criminal aliens overall. Specifically, of the approximate 15,000  apprehensions of criminal aliens who were not classified according to  CDS guidance between fiscal years 2013 and 2015, 8 percent were  recommended for criminal prosecution (3,912 apprehensions) compared  to 47 percent of all criminal aliens during that timeframe. Additionally, 24  percent of criminal aliens who were not classified between fiscal years  2013 and 2015 received the Least Effective and Efficient consequence of  voluntary return to their home country (3,717 apprehensions) as defined  in the CDS guides compared to 9 percent of all criminal aliens classified  during that timeframe.
CDS PMO officials provided several reasons why agents may not  consistently classify a criminal alien to include issues related to guidance,  implementation, and oversight. These officials said that agents received  oral direction from headquarters to reclassify criminal aliens who cannot  be given a consequence of federal prosecution, and that written data  integrity guidance to sectors did not include activities for checking the  accuracy of alien classifications. Further, officials said that agents may  not always take the time to review previous CDS classifications, and may  rely on other information sources that are incomplete and change over  time, such as national or local lists of aliens identified for targeted  enforcement. However, our review of individual alien CDS history  sometimes shows significant variance that may compromise the  usefulness of the CDS program. For example, one alien apprehended 54  times in the Rio Grande Valley sector between October 2012 and May  2015 was classified as a First Time Apprehension 6 times, a Second or  Third Time Apprehension 4 times, a Persistent Apprehension 22 times, a  Suspected Smuggler 15 times and a Targeted Smuggler 7 times.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  accurate and timely recording of events provide relevance and value to  management when controlling operations and making decisions.  Without correctly classifying alien apprehensions according to its  guidance, Border Patrol does not have reasonable assurance that aliens  receive the most appropriate consequences and that Border Patrol is  most effectively using CDS to address and reduce the threat from  smuggling and other criminal activity.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Border Patrol’s implementation of CDS represents a key component of  DHS’s efforts to secure the southwest land border from transnational  smuggling organizations and other threats. Additional actions on the part  of Border Patrol could strengthen implementation and oversight of the  CDS program. Specifically, measuring recidivism using an alien’s  apprehension history beyond one fiscal year and adjusting for aliens with  no record of removal who may remain in the United States after  apprehension would give Border Patrol a more complete assessment of  CDS performance, which in turn would allow Border Patrol leadership to  more effectively evaluate the extent to which CDS is supporting its goal of  securing the southwest border. Additionally, collecting information on  reasons agents do not apply the Most Effective and Efficient  consequence identified in sectors’ CDS guides could provide important  information about how to increase agents’ application of these  consequences or allow Border Patrol to consider how factors such as  federal partners’ capacity constraints may further inform a need to modify  the development process for each sector’s CDS guide. Revising guidance  to sectors for estimating costs to ensure these costs are accurately  calculated across consequences and inclusive of partner agencies’ costs,  where appropriate and available, would also help ensure that sector staff  and leadership are using valid information in determining which  consequences are Most Effective and Efficient during the annual  development of the CDS guides. Finally, mechanisms to monitor,  manage, and communicate results of sector performance, alien  classification, and data integrity efforts would provide Border Patrol with  greater assurance that CDS is functioning as intended.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better inform on the effectiveness of CDS implementation and border  security efforts, we recommend that the Chief of Border Patrol:  strengthen the methodology for calculating recidivism such as by  using an alien’s apprehension history beyond one fiscal year and  excluding aliens for whom there is no record of removal and who may  remain in the United States;  collect information on reasons agents do not apply the CDS guides’  Most Effective and Efficient consequences to assess the extent that  agents’ application of these consequences can be increased and  modify development of CDS guides, as appropriate;  revise CDS guidance to ensure consistent and accurate  methodologies for estimating Border Patrol costs across  consequences and to factor in, where appropriate and available, the  relative costs of any federal partner resources necessary to  implement each consequence; ensure that sector management is monitoring progress in meeting  their performance targets and communicating performance results to  Border Patrol headquarters management; and provide consistent guidance for alien classification and take steps to  ensure CDS PMO and sector management conduct data integrity  activities necessary to strengthen control over the classification of  aliens.
Additionally, we recommend the Secretary of Homeland Security direct  the Assistant Secretary of ICE and Commissioner of CBP to collaborate  on sharing immigration enforcement and removal data to help Border  Patrol account for the removal status of apprehended aliens in its  recidivism rate measure.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for their review and  comment. DOJ indicated that it did not have any formal comments on the  draft report in a December 13, 2016 email from the department’s Audit  Liaison. DHS provided written comments, which are noted below and  reproduced in full in appendix III, and technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. DHS concurred with five of the six  recommendations in the report and described actions underway or  planned to address them. DHS did not concur with one recommendation  in the report.
With regard to the first recommendation, to strengthen its methodology for  calculating recidivism such as by using an alien's apprehension history  beyond one fiscal year and excluding aliens for whom there is no record  of removal and who may remain in the United States, DHS did not  concur. DHS noted that CDS uses annual recidivism rate calculations to  measure annual change, which is not intended to be, or used, as a  performance measure for CDS, and that Border Patrol annually  reevaluates the CDS to ensure that the methodology for calculating  recidivism provides the most effective and efficient post apprehension  outcomes. DHS stated that external factors can affect the consequences  available to each sector, which may change over time, and thus using the  recidivism rate for multiple years would not benefit Border Patrol.  Additionally, DHS noted that the support Border Patrol provides to its  partners is not impacted by the aliens for whom there is no record of  removal and who may remain in the United States. DHS stated that  removing these individuals from the recidivism formula would not affect  the consequence given to a specific alien. DHS requested that we  consider this recommendation resolved and closed.
We continue to believe that Border Patrol should strengthen its  methodology for calculating recidivism, as DHS noted in its comments  that the recidivism rate is used as a performance measure by Border  Patrol and DHS. As noted in the report, strengthening the recidivism rate  methodology, such as by using an alien’s apprehension history beyond  one fiscal year, would not preclude its use for CDS as a measure of  annual change, and would provide Border Patrol a more complete  assessment of the rate of change in recidivism.  Further, while Border  Patrol stated that excluding individuals from the recidivism formula would  not affect the consequence given to an alien, recidivism is one of the  factors considered by sectors when developing its CDS guide each year,  and more complete information would help ensure that Border Patrol’s  risk assessments are accurate and that the decisions made based upon  these risk assessments are sound.  This in turn, would allow Border  Patrol leadership to more effectively evaluate the extent to which CDS is  supporting its goal of securing the border to better inform the  effectiveness of CDS implementation and border security efforts.
With regard to the second recommendation, to collect information on  reasons agents do not apply the CDS guides' Most Effective and Efficient  consequences to assess the extent that agents' application of these  consequences can be increased and modify development and of CDS  guides as appropriate,  DHS concurred.  DHS stated that each year CDS  PMO will interview subject matter experts from each sector to discuss the  situations where the Most Effective and Efficient consequence is not  applied to include in the annual development of their CDS guide. DHS  provided an estimated completion date of September 30, 2017.  Dependent on the methodology used by the subject matter experts to  collect such information needed to assess further actions to increase  agent application of the Most Effective and Efficient consequence or  modify CDS guides, these planned actions, if fully implemented, should  address the intent of the recommendation.
With regard to the third recommendation, to revise CDS guidance to  ensure consistent and accurate methodologies for estimating Border  Patrol costs across consequences and to factor in, where appropriate and  available, the relative costs of any federal partner resources necessary to  implement each consequence, DHS concurred.  DHS stated that CDS  PMO will add sector apprehension data to the "Cost per Apprehension"  factor, to account for the volume of apprehensions each year, and will  meet with sectors to assist with cost estimates prior to the development of  their CDS guides. DHS provided an estimated completion date of July 31,  2017.  However, DHS further stated that relative costs of its federal  partner's resources are irrelevant for CDS purposes as the program is  Border Patrol specific, and an attempt to associate costs to resources  spent by other federal agencies would not be prudent. We continue to  encourage Border Patrol consideration of available federal partner costs  incurred in supporting CDS consequences. As reflected in its agency  comments, DHS states Border Patrol relies on federal partners in order to  apply the Most Effective and Efficient consequences, that the application  of consequences requires a holistic approach, and that it cannot  effectively and efficiently achieve its mission without the assistance of  partnering agencies.  As Border Patrol has moved away from applying the  Border Patrol specific consequence of Voluntary Return to other  consequences requiring support and costs incurred by federal partners,  including these costs would provide greater assurance that the  consequences Border Patrol ranked as Most Effective and Efficient within  the CDS guides accurately reflect cost efficiency. Further, to the extent  that Border Patrol accounts for available federal partner costs as  appropriate, these planned actions, if fully implemented, should address  the intent of the recommendation.
With regard to the fourth recommendation, to ensure that sector  management is monitoring progress in meeting their performance targets  and communicating performance results to Border Patrol headquarters  management, DHS concurred.  DHS stated that CDS PMO will reinstitute  quarterly sector performance progress reports that will include sectors’  classification, recidivism, average apprehension per recidivist, and  displacement rates. DHS provided an estimated completion date of  September 30, 2017. These planned actions, if fully implemented and  communicated to Border Patrol headquarters management, should  address the intent of the recommendation.
With regard to the fifth recommendation, to provide consistent guidance  for alien classification and take steps to ensure CDS PMO and sector  management conduct data integrity activities necessary to strengthen  control over the classification of aliens, DHS concurred.  DHS stated that  CDS PMO will work with Border Patrol’s Enforcement Systems Division to  implement a program or rule within Border Patrol's system of record that  will allow the processing agent and supervisor to identify the alien's  previous CDS classification and to ensure accuracy and compliance.  DHS provided an estimated completion date of September 30, 2017. This  planned action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the  recommendation.
With regard to the sixth recommendation, that the Secretary direct the  Assistant Secretary of ICE and Commissioner of CBP to collaborate on  sharing immigration enforcement and removal data to help Border Patrol  account for the removal status of apprehended aliens in its recidivism rate  measure, DHS concurred. DHS stated that collecting and analyzing ICE  removal and enforcement data would not be advantageous to Border  Patrol for CDS purposes since CDS is specific to Border Patrol. However,  DHS also stated that CDS PMO and ICE have discussed the availability  of the removal and enforcement data and ICE has agreed to provide  Border Patrol with these data, if needed. DHS requested that we consider  this recommendation resolved and closed. While DHS’s planned actions  are a positive step toward addressing our recommendation, DHS needs  to provide documentation of completion of these actions for us to consider  the recommendation closed as implemented.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General of  the United States, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Border Patrol and ICE Data Supporting Border Patrol’s Recidivism Rate Methodology and Alternative Methods
paragraphs: Border Patrol collects and analyzes data on the number and classification  of apprehended aliens and the Border Patrol sector in which the alien was  apprehended. In addition, ICE collects and maintains data on the case  status of apprehended aliens, including if and when an alien was  removed from the United States. We used these Border Patrol and ICE  data to calculate recidivism using Border Patrol’s methodology and also  using three alternative methods. Specifically, we calculated a recidivism  rate using 1) Border Patrol’s method to consider aliens’ apprehension  history within the fiscal year; 2) aliens’ apprehension history over three  years (fiscal years 2013 through 2015); 3) Border Patrol’s method to  consider aliens’ apprehensions history only within the fiscal year after  excluding aliens who ICE data indicate have not been removed and may  remain in the United States; and 4) aliens’ apprehension history over  three years after excluding aliens who ICE data indicate have not been  removed and may remain in the United States. Figure 11 provides an  overview of Border Patrol’s recidivism rate calculation as well as the three  alternative methods we used to determine the extent to which Border  Patrol’s measure of recidivism assesses CDS effectiveness.
For each of the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border  and each of the seven alien classifications, tables 5 and 6 provide:  the unique number of apprehended aliens,  the recidivism rate based on Border Patrol’s methodology (aliens’  apprehension history within fiscal year 2015),  the recidivism rate based on alien apprehension history over three  years (fiscal years 2013 through 2015),  the recidivism rate based on an aliens’ apprehension history over  three years (fiscal years 2013 through 2015) and excluding aliens who  ICE data show have not been removed and may remain in the United  States, and  the percentage of apprehended aliens who ICE data show have not  been removed and may remain in the United States.
Table 3 presents data on apprehensions, recidivism, and aliens who may  remain in the United States by the sector of apprehension for fiscal year  2015. As the table illustrates, sectors varied significantly in the volume of  unique aliens apprehended for fiscal year 2015, ranging from a low of  less than 5,000 unique aliens apprehended in the Big Bend sector to a  high of more than 113,000 unique aliens apprehended in the Rio Grande  Valley sector. Using Border Patrol’s methodology considering only  recidivists within the fiscal year, the San Diego sector had the highest rate  of recidivism at 26 percent in fiscal year 2015. Our alternative analysis of  recidivism rates using alien apprehension history over three years (fiscal  years 2013 through 2015), showed that the San Diego sector had the  highest rate of recidivism at 45 percent. In fiscal year 2015, the Big Bend  sector had the lowest rate of recidivism considering only recidivists within  the fiscal year (2 percent) and also analyzing recidivism using alien  apprehension history over the 3 years (13 percent). Our analysis of  recidivism rates using alien apprehension history over 3 years after  excluding aliens who may remain in the United States showed that the  San Diego sector had the highest recidivism rate (45 percent) in fiscal  year 2015 and the Del Rio sector had the lowest recidivism rate (14  percent). The percentage of aliens apprehended by Border Patrol in fiscal  year 2015 who ICE data show had not been removed and may remain in  the United States as of May 2016 ranged from a high of 53 percent of  apprehended aliens in the Yuma sector to a low of 22 percent of  apprehended aliens in the Laredo sector.
Table 4 presents apprehension, recidivism and removal data by alien  classification for an alien’s most recent apprehension in fiscal year 2015.  As the table illustrates, aliens classified as first-time apprehensions  represented the majority of unique apprehensions, accounting for more  than 141,000 unique aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2015. In contrast,  targeted smuggler apprehensions were the least common type of  apprehension, with about 2,100 unique aliens classified as targeted  smugglers. Recidivism rates by alien classification varied across  methodologies. Aliens classified as Persistent Apprehensions had the  highest rate of recidivism using Border Patrol’s methodology only  considering recidivists within fiscal year 2015 (15 percent). However,  aliens classified as Targeted Smugglers had the highest rate of recidivism  considering aliens’ apprehension history over the 3 years (73 percent)  ending fiscal year 2015. In contrast, aliens classified as First-Time  Apprehensions had the lowest rate of recidivism considering only  recidivists within the fiscal year (one percent) and using apprehension  history over three years (two percent). Further, our analysis of recidivism  rates after excluding aliens who may remain in the United States and  considering aliens’ apprehension history over 3 years, showed that aliens  classified as Targeted Smugglers had the highest rate of recidivism (66  percent). The extent to which aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2015 may  remain in the United States ranged from a high of 93 percent for aliens  classified as a Family Unit Apprehension to a low of 11 percent for aliens  classified as a Second-or-Third Time Apprehension.
section_title: Appendix II: Most Effective and Efficient Consequences Identified in Southwest Border Patrol Sectors’ CDS Guides, Fiscal Years 2013 through 2015
paragraphs: Border Patrol agents implement CDS by classifying eligible apprehended  aliens into one of seven noncriminal or criminal categories based on the  circumstances of their apprehension and then applying one or more of  eight different criminal, administrative and programmatic consequences.  To assist Border Patrol agents in selecting the most appropriate  consequence, Border Patrol rank orders these consequences from Most  Effective and Efficient to Least Effective and Efficient for each alien  classification and presents this information in an annual CDS guide for  each Border Patrol sector. Table 5 provides an overview of the frequency  with which each CDS consequence was identified in CDS guides as Most  Effective and Efficient for all nine Southwest Border Patrol sectors across  all alien classifications and fiscal years 2013 through 2015. To different  extents depending on the sector and year, seven of eight consequences  were identified as Most Effective and Efficient for one or more types of  alien populations. The eighth consequence—Voluntary Return—was  never identified as a Most Effective and Efficient consequence from fiscal  year 2013 through fiscal year 2015 and was identified as the Least  Effective and Efficient consequence across all sectors for all noncriminal  classifications during fiscal years 2013 through 2015.
Among the three categories of consequences—Administrative, Criminal,  and Programmatic—Administrative consequences were most frequently  identified (60 percent) as Most Effective and Efficient in CDS guides,  followed by criminal consequences (37 percent), and the programmatic  consequence (3 percent). Among the eight consequences within these  three categories, Warrant or Notice to Appear was most frequently  identified as Most Effective and Efficient (36 percent) followed by  Standard Prosecution (26 percent). Excluding Voluntary Return, the  extent to which the remaining five consequences were identified as the  Most Effective and Efficient ranged from 2 percent to 13 percent.
Over these years, more sector CDS guides moved toward identifying  Standard Prosecution as Most Effective and Efficient, and moved away  from the administrative consequence of Warrant or Notice to Appear, as  shown in table 6.
Figures 12 and 13 show the Most Effective and Efficient consequences  identified in each southwest Border Patrol sector’s CDS guide for fiscal  years 2013 through 2015 by types of noncriminal aliens and criminal  aliens, respectively. For alien family apprehensions, CDS guides  consistently identified only administrative consequences as Most Effective  and Efficient, primarily Warrant or Notice to Appear.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Lacinda C. Ayers (Assistant  Director), Giselle Cubillos-Moraga, Kathleen Donovan, Cynthia Grant,  Michele Fejfar, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, DuEwa Kamara, Jon Najmi,  Christine San, and Mike Tropauer made key contributions to this report.