Department of Homeland Security: Addressing Management Challenges That Face Immigration Enforcement Agencies
Published: 2005-05-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumed responsibility for the immigration programs of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 2003. The three DHS bureaus with primary responsibility for immigration functions are U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). This testimony focuses on CBP and ICE, which took over the immigration enforcement function. CBP is responsible for functions related to inspections and border patrol, and ICE is responsible for functions related to investigations, intelligence, detention, and removal. The Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, House Committee on the Judiciary, held a hearing to discuss management challenges and potential structural changes. Some research organizations have suggested structural changes to address management challenges, including a merger of CBP and ICE. This testimony addresses the following questions: (1) Have ICE and CBP encountered similar management challenges to those encountered at INS? (2) What factors might be considered in addressing some of the management challenges that exist at ICE and CBP?
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: A number of similar management challenges that had been experienced by INS have continued in the new organizations now responsible for immigration enforcement functions. In 2001, GAO testified that, while restructuring may help address certain management challenges, INS faced significant challenges in assembling the basic systems and processes that any organization needs to accomplish its mission. These include clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures that effectively balance competing priorities, effective internal and external communications and coordination, and automation systems that provide accurate and timely information. In March 2003, the functions of the INS were transferred to the new DHS and placed in the newly-created ICE and CBP. In 2004, we reported that many similar management challenges we found at INS were still in existence in the new bureaus. In evaluating solutions to ICE and CBP management challenges, including potential structural changes, several factors might be considered. The first factor is whether ICE and CBP currently have good management frameworks in place. Such a management framework, among other items, would include a clear mission, a strategic planning process, good organizational alignment, performance measures, and leadership and accountability mechanisms. The second factor is whether ICE and CBP have developed systems and processes to support the management frameworks they may have in place. The third factor is that the management challenges in these two bureaus exist in the larger context of the creation and evolution of DHS. The transformation and integration activities at DHS can take 5-7 years to accomplish, and some management challenges might be resolved in this process.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to share our views on management  challenges relating to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and  Border Protection (CBP), whose functions were formerly under the  Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Customs Service, as  this committee considers potential structural changes to enhance the  enforcement of immigration laws. We have conducted numerous reviews  of both specific programs and overall management in these components,  and at the legacy agencies that preceded them. In my testimony today, I  will discuss the following topics:    Have ICE and CBP encountered similar management challenges to  those encountered at INS?
What factors might be considered in addressing some of the  management challenges that exist at ICE and CBP?
The purpose of my comments is to provide the Subcommittee with  oversight information as potential changes to the structure of ICE and  CBP are considered. My comments are based on our wide-ranging,  completed work, and our institutional knowledge of homeland security  and various government organizational and management issues. We  conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Immigration enforcement includes, among other things, patrolling 8,000  miles of international boundaries to prevent illegal entry into the United  States; inspecting over 500 million travelers each year to determine their  admissibility; apprehending, detaining, and removing criminal and illegal  aliens; disrupting and dismantling organized smuggling of humans and  contraband as well as human trafficking; investigating and prosecuting  those who engage in benefit and document fraud; blocking and removing  employers’ access to undocumented workers; and enforcing compliance  with programs to monitor visitors.
Immigration functions also include providing services or benefits to  facilitate entry, residence, employment, and naturalization of legal  immigrants; processing millions of applications each year; making the  right adjudicative decision in approving or denying the applications; and  rendering decisions in a timely manner.
When INS was abolished in 2003 by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, its  enforcement functions were transferred to two bureaus within the DHS.  First, INS’s interior enforcement programs—investigations, intelligence,  and detention and removal—were placed in ICE. Within ICE, investigators  and intelligence analysts from former INS and the U.S. Customs Service  were merged into the investigations and intelligence offices, while staff  from former INS’s detention and removal program were placed in the  detention and removal office. Second, inspectors from former INS,  Customs, and Agriculture and Plant Health Inspection Service, as well as  former INS’s Border Patrol agents were incorporated into CBP. Both CBP  and ICE report to the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation  Security, who in turn reports to the Deputy Secretary of the DHS. For  service functions, INS’s Immigration Services Division, responsible for  processing applications for immigration benefits, was placed in  Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), which reports directly to the  Deputy Secretary of DHS. Figure 1 shows the transition of INS functions  into DHS.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (Secretary)
Transition efforts for CBP posed fewer challenges than for ICE.  Specifically, CBP brought together INS and Customs inspections programs  that, prior to the transition, largely worked side by side in many land ports  of entry around the country and that shared similar missions. In contrast,  ICE is a patchwork of agencies and programs that includes INS’s  investigations and intelligence programs, Customs’ investigations and  intelligence programs, the Federal Protective Service, and the Federal Air  Marshals. In combining the investigations programs, ICE has been tasked  with merging former INS investigators who specialized in immigration  enforcement (e.g., criminal aliens) with former Customs investigators who  specialized in customs enforcement (e.g., drug smuggling).
The integration of INS and Customs investigators into a single  investigative program has involved the blending of two vastly different  workforces, each with its own culture, policies, procedures, and mission  priorities. Both programs were in agencies with dual missions that prior to  the merger had differences in investigative priorities. For example, INS  primarily looked for illegal aliens and Customs primarily looked for illegal  drugs. In addition, INS investigators typically pursued administrative  violations, while Customs investigators typically pursued criminal  violations.
Whether further structural changes are warranted is one of the topics that  this hearing is to address. Some observers have proposed merging ICE and  CBP. For example, the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic  and International Studies (CSIS), in a report on DHS management,  suggested a possible merger of ICE and CBP to address some of these  management problems. A Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage  Foundation stated in a March 2005 congressional testimony, “DHS needs  to be organized not to accommodate the present, but to build toward the  ideal organization of the future. Therefore, the department needs to  articulate how it envisions conducting its missions five to ten years from  now and let this vision drive the organizational design, particularly the  structure of border security operations.” Another witness stated,  “Whether the decision is ultimately made to merge ICE and CBP or not,  the real issues will remain unless the underlying mission, vision, and  planning occur in a unified manner.”
section_title: Similar Management Challenges Continue
paragraphs: Over the years, we have issued numerous reports that identified  management challenges INS experienced in its efforts to achieve both  effective immigration law enforcement and service delivery. For example,  in 1997 we reported that INS lacked clearly defined priorities and goals  and that its organizational structure was fragmented both  programmatically and geographically. Additionally, after reorganization in  1994, field managers still had difficulty determining whom to coordinate  with, when to coordinate, and how to communicate with one another  because they were unclear about headquarters offices’ responsibilities and  authority. We also reported that INS had not adequately defined the roles  of its two key enforcement programs—Border Patrol and investigations— which resulted in overlapping responsibilities, inconsistent program  implementation, and ineffective use of resources. INS’s poor  communication led to weaknesses in policies and procedures. In later  reports, we showed that broader management challenges affected INS’s  efforts to implement programs to control the border, deter alien  smuggling, reduce immigration benefit fraud, reduce unauthorized alien  employment, remove criminal aliens, and manage the immigration benefit  application workload and reduce the backlog.
In 1999 and 2001, we testified on these management challenges before this  subcommittee. Our 2001 testimony was delivered at the time when  Congress, the Administration, and others had offered various options for  restructuring the INS to deal with its management challenges. We testified  that while restructuring may help address certain management challenges,  we saw an organization (INS) that faced significant challenges in  assembling the basic building blocks that any organization needs: clearly  delineated roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures that  effectively balance competing priorities, effective internal and external  communications and coordination, and automation systems that provide  accurate and timely information. We noted that unless these elements  were established, enforcing our immigration laws, providing services to  eligible aliens, and effectively participating in the government-wide efforts  to combat terrorism would be problematic regardless of how INS was  organized.
In 2004, we reported DHS experienced management challenges similar to  those we had found at INS. For example, some officials noted that in some  areas related to investigative techniques and other operations, unresolved  issues regarding the roles and responsibilities of CBP and ICE give rise to  disagreements and confusion, with the potential for serious consequences.  As in 1999 and 2001, we reported in 2004 that selected operations had  reportedly been hampered by the absence of communication and  coordination between CBP and ICE. Further, we reported in 2004 that CBP  and ICE lacked formal guidance for addressing some overlapping  responsibilities.
section_title: Factors to Consider for Resolving Management Challenges
paragraphs: As this Subcommittee, DHS officials, and other stakeholders consider  potential structural changes to ICE and CBP, we have identified three  factors to consider for resolving management challenges including (1) a  management framework for ICE and CBP, (2) systems and processes to  support this framework, and (3) the context of the larger DHS  transformation. These factors are important to help identify the most  suitable and appropriate course of action to address management  challenges.
subsections: section_title: Management Framework for ICE and CBP
paragraphs: Based on our work on the creation and development of DHS, and  additional work on transformation and mergers, we have identified a  number of key success factors. Those factors that I would like to focus on  today include clarity of mission, strategic planning, organizational  alignment, performance measures, and leadership focus and  accountability.
Clarity of Mission: We have previously reported on the importance of  establishing a coherent mission that defines an organization’s culture  and serves as a vehicle for employees to unite and rally around. As  such, a comprehensive agency mission statement is the first GPRA- required element of a successful strategic plan. In successful  transformation efforts, developing, communicating, and constantly  reinforcing the mission gives employees a sense of what the  organization intends to accomplish, as well as helps employees figure  out how their positions fit in with the new organization and what they  need to do differently to help the new organization achieve success.  However, as noted above, while CBP was created from programs that  generally shared similar missions, ICE blended agencies with distinct  mission priorities and cultures, and thus faces a greater challenge in  creating a unified bureau.
Strategic Planning: Closely related to establishing a clear mission is  strategic planning—a continuous, dynamic, and inclusive process that  provides the foundation for the fundamental results that an  organization seeks to achieve. The starting point for this process is the  strategic plan that describes an organization’s mission, outcome- oriented strategic goals, strategies to achieve these goals, and key  factors beyond the agency’s control that could impact the goals’  achievement, among other things. As with the mission, strategic goals  for a transforming organization must be clear to employees, customers,  and stakeholders to ensure they see a direct personal connection to the  transformation.
Organizational Alignment: To ensure that form follows function, an  organizational alignment that supports the mission and strategic goals  is another component of the management framework. Leading  organizations recognize that sound planning is not enough to ensure  their success. An organization’s activities, core processes, and  resources must be aligned to support its mission and help it achieve its  goals. Such organizations start by assessing the extent to which their  programs and activities are structured to accomplish their mission and  desired outcomes.
Performance Measures: Effective implementation of this framework  requires agencies to clearly establish results-oriented performance  goals in strategic and annual performance plans for which they will be  held accountable, measure progress towards those goals, determine the  strategies and resources to effectively accomplish the goals, use  performance information to make the programmatic decisions  necessary to improve performance, and formally communicate results  in performance reports.
Leadership Focus and Accountability: To be successful,  transformation efforts must have leaders, managers, and employees  who have the individual competencies to integrate and create synergy  among the multiple organizations involved in the transformation effort.  Leaders need to be held accountable for ensuring results, recognizing  when management attention is required and taking corrective action.  High-performing organizations create this clear linkage between  individual performance and organizational success and thus transform  their cultures to be more results-oriented, customer-focused, and  collaborative in nature. As we have reported, a Chief Operating Officer  (COO)/Chief Management Officer (CMO) may effectively provide the  continuing, focused attention essential to successfully completing  these multi-year transformations in agencies like DHS. At DHS, we  have reported that the COO/CMO concept would provide the  department with a single organizational focus for the key management  functions involved in the business transformation of the department, as  well as for other organizational transformation initiatives.
section_title: Systems and Processes Needed to Support Management Framework
subsections: section_title: Dissemination of Guidance Relating to Operational Activities
paragraphs: The lack of program guidance has adversely impacted ICE’s ability to  efficiently and effectively perform its mission. In May 2004, we reported  that ICE had not provided its deportation officers with guidance on how to  prioritize their caseload of aliens who required supervision after release  from detention. Consequently, ICE was unable to determine whether and  to what extent such aliens had met the conditions of their release. We  recommended that ICE develop and disseminate guidance to enable  deportation officers to prioritize ICE’s caseload of aliens on orders of  supervision so that ICE could focus its limited resources on supervising  aliens who may be a threat to the community or who are not likely to  comply with the conditions of their release.
Also, in October 2004, we reported that ICE headquarters and field offices  had a lack of uniform policies and procedures for some ICE operations  that had caused confusion and hindered the creation of a new integrated  culture. ICE headquarters officials told us that they were prioritizing the  establishment of uniform policies and that until a new ICE policy is  established, field offices are required to use the policies of the former  agencies.
section_title: Communication and Coordination
paragraphs: Shortfalls in communications about administrative support services were  also a source of frustration in DHS. In October 2004, we reported that DHS  was in the process of developing and implementing systems and processes  called “shared services.” In December 2003, DHS instituted a shared  service system in which certain mission support services—such as human  resources—are provided by one bureau to the other bureaus. However,  there were weaknesses in how the shared services program was  communicated to employees. Officials in CBP, CIS, and ICE expressed  confusion about shared services when we interviewed them 3 to 4 months  after the system was instituted. Many field officials said they did not know  what constituted shared services, what processes they should have been  using for receiving assistance from a shared service provider, or how many  of their staff administrative positions would be reassigned to positions in  other offices as shared service providers.
Further, CBP, CIS, and ICE officials also expressed frustration with  problems they have encountered coordinating their administrative systems  managed within the agency and not a part of shared services, including  travel, budget, and payroll. Some ICE field officials also expressed  concern about their ability to manage their budgets and payroll problems,  because of the systems used for these functions.
section_title: Information Technology Systems
paragraphs: Information technology systems and information sharing in general are  also an area of concern. For example, ICE did not have information that  provides assurance that its custody reviews are timely and its custody  determinations are consistent with the Supreme Court decision and  implementing regulations regarding long term alien detention. One reason  ICE had difficulty providing assurance is that it lacked complete, accurate,  and readily available information to provide to deportation officers when  post order custody reviews are due for eligible aliens. In addition, ICE did  not have the capability to record information on how many post order  custody reviews had been made pursuant to regulations and what  decisions resulted from those reviews. Therefore, ICE managers could not  gauge overall compliance with the regulations for aliens who have been  ordered to be removed from the United States. Although ICE was in the  process of updating its case management system, ICE officials said that  they did not know when the system will have the capability to capture  information about the timeliness and results of post order custody  reviews. In 2005, we designated information sharing mechanisms for  homeland security as a high-risk issue, based on root causes behind  vulnerabilities, as well as actions needed on the part of the agency  involved.
section_title: Broader DHS Transformation and Management Integration Efforts May Affect ICE and CBP Management Challenges
paragraphs: In addition to considering developing a management framework and  corresponding systems and processes, it is important to consider these  changes in the larger context of the transformation of DHS. We designated  DHS’s transformation as a high-risk area in 2003, based on three factors. First,  DHS faced enormous challenges in implementing an effective  transformation process, developing partnerships, and building  management capacity because it had to transform 22 agencies into one  department. Second, DHS faced a broad array of operational and  management challenges that it inherited from its component legacy  agencies. Finally, DHS’s failure to effectively address its management  challenges and program risks could have serious consequences for our  national security. Overall, DHS has made some progress, but significant  management challenges remain to transform DHS into a more efficient  organization while maintaining and improving its effectiveness in securing  the homeland.
The experience of successful transformations and change management  initiatives in large public and private organizations suggests that it can  take 5-7 years until such initiatives are fully implemented and cultures are  transformed in a substantial manner. Further, some management  challenges at ICE and CBP might be affected by department-wide  management initiatives. The management challenges of the DHS  transformation create additional challenges for its components, including  ICE and CBP, such as:    Providing focus for management efforts: Although DHS has been  operating about 2 years, it has had two Secretaries, three Deputy  Secretaries, and additional turnover at the Undersecretary and  Assistant Secretary levels. The recent turnover in DHS’s top leadership  raises questions about the department’s ability to provide the  consistent and sustained senior leadership necessary to achieve  integration over the long term.
Monitoring transformation and integration: DHS’s integration of  varied management processes, systems, and people—in areas such as  information technology, financial management, procurement, and  human capital------as well as administrative services is important to  provide support for the total integration of the department. Total  integration of the department, including its operations and programs, is  critical to ultimately meeting its mission of protecting the homeland.  Overall, we found that while DHS has made some progress in its  management integration efforts, it has the opportunity to better  leverage this progress by implementing a comprehensive and sustained  approach to its overall integration efforts.
Improving strategic planning: DHS released its first strategic plan in  2004 that details its mission and strategic goals. DHS’s strategic plan  addresses five of the six GPRA-required elements—a mission  statement, long-term goals, strategies to achieve the goals, external key  factors, and program evaluations—but does not describe the  relationship between annual and long-term goals.
Managing human capital: DHS has been given significant authority to  design a new human capital system free from many of the  government’s existing civil service requirements, and has issued final  regulations for this new system. Although we reported the  department’s efforts generally reflected important elements of effective  transformations and included many principles that are consistent with  proven approaches to strategic human capital management, DHS has  considerable work ahead to define the details of the implementation of  the system.
Strengthening financial management infrastructure: DHS faces  significant financial management challenges. Specifically, it must  address numerous internal control weaknesses, meet the mandates of  the DHS Financial Accountability Act, and integrate and modernize its  financial management systems, which individually have problems and  collectively are not compatible with one another. In July 2004, we  reported that DHS continues to work to reduce the number of financial  management service providers and to acquire and deploy an integrated  financial enterprise solution.
Establishing an information technology framework: DHS has  recognized the need for a strategic management framework that  addresses key information technology disciplines, and has made a  significant effort to make improvements in each of these disciplines.  However, much remains to be accomplished before it will have fully  established a department-wide information technology management  framework. To fully develop and institutionalize the management  framework, DHS will need to strengthen strategic planning, develop the  enterprise architecture, improve management of systems development  and acquisition, and strengthen security.
Managing acquisitions: DHS faces the challenge of structuring its  acquisition organization so that its various procurement organizations  are held accountable for complying with procurement policies and  regulations and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well-spent.
Coordinating research and development: DHS has not yet completed a  strategic plan to identify priorities, goals, objectives, and policies for  the research and development of homeland security technologies, and  additional challenges remain in its coordination with other federal  agencies.
Despite real and hard-earned progress, DHS still has significant challenges  to overcome in all of its management areas. Resolving these challenges at  the top levels could help address similar management challenges in DHS’s  component organizations including ICE and CBP.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: In closing, it is important to understand the expectations and limitations of  various proposals to address management challenges at ICE and CBP that  we and others have identified. With respect to potential restructuring,  reorganizing an agency or function to better align it with the mission and  strategic planning process is desirable, whereas reorganizing mainly to  address underlying weaknesses in supporting systems and processes, such  as a lack of coordination and cooperation among units or a lack of  guidance relating to operational activities, might not be productive. As we  have seen to date, reorganizing immigration and customs functions,  without fixing existing problems with underlying systems and processes,  has not resolved long-standing management issues. In addition, ICE and  CBP may not be able to resolve some of these challenges alone if they are  affected by DHS department-wide management initiatives and  developments. To assist the Congress in its oversight and in ensuring  accountability in homeland security programs, we will continue to monitor  and evaluate ICE and CBP programs as they meet, and hopefully  overcome, their management challenges.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond  to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may  have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact Richard Stana  at 202-512-8777.
Other key contributors to this statement were Stephen L. Caldwell,   Lisa Brown, Mary Catherine Hult, Lori Kmetz, Sarah E. Veale, and  Katherine Davis.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It 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.