In July 2002, President Bush issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security. The strategy set forth overall objectives to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from attacks that occur. The strategy set out a plan to improve homeland security through the cooperation and partnering of federal, state, local, and private sector organizations on an array of functions. The National Strategy for Homeland Security specified a number of federal departments, as well as nonfederal organizations, that have important roles in securing the homeland. In terms of federal departments, DHS was assigned a leading role in implementing established homeland security mission areas. In November 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted into law, creating DHS. This act defined the department’s missions to include preventing terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing U.S. vulnerability to terrorism; and minimizing the damages, and assisting in the recovery from, attacks that occur within the United States. The act also specified major responsibilities for the department, including to analyze information and protect infrastructure; develop countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear, and other emerging terrorist threats; secure U.S. borders and transportation systems; and organize emergency preparedness and response efforts. DHS began operations in March 2003. Its establishment represented a fusion of 22 federal agencies to coordinate and centralize the leadership of many homeland security activities under a single department. A variety of factors have affected DHS’s efforts to implement its mission and management functions. These factors include both domestic and international events, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and major homeland security-related legislation. Figure 1 provides a timeline of key events that have affected DHS’s implementation. Our report assesses DHS’s progress across 14 mission and management areas. We based these areas on those identified in the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the goals and objectives set forth in the DHS strategic plan and homeland security presidential directives, our reports, and studies conducted by the DHS IG and other organizations and groups, such as the 9/11 Commission and the Century Foundation. The 14 we identified are 5. Surface transportation security 7. Emergency preparedness and response 8. Critical infrastructure and key resources protection 9. Science and technology 12. Human capital management 13. Information technology management 14. Real property management For each mission and management area, we identified performance expectations and vetted them with DHS officials. These performance expectations are a composite of the responsibilities or functions—derived from legislation, homeland security presidential directives and executive orders, DHS planning documents, and other sources—that the department is to achieve. Our analysts and subject matter experts reviewed our prior work, DHS IG work, and evidence DHS provided between March and July 2007, including DHS officials’ assertions when supported by documentation. On the basis of this analysis and our experts’ judgment, we then assessed the extent to which DHS had achieved each of the expectations we identified. We made preliminary assessments for each performance expectation based solely on GAO and DHS IG work. In March through July, we received additional information from DHS, which we reviewed and used to inform our final assessments. In some cases the assessments remained the same as our preliminary ones, and in other cases they changed. When our review of our prior work, the DHS IG’s work, and DHS’s documentation indicated that DHS had satisfied most of the key elements of a performance expectation, we concluded that DHS had generally achieved it. When our reviews showed that DHS had not yet satisfied most of the key elements of a performance expectation, we concluded that DHS had generally not achieved it. More specifically, where our prior work or that of the DHS IG indicated DHS had not achieved a performance expectation and DHS did not provide documentation to prove otherwise, we concluded that DHS had generally not achieved it. For a small number of performance expectations we could not make an assessment because neither we nor the DHS IG had completed work and the information DHS provided did not enable us to clearly assess DHS’s progress. We used these performance expectation assessments to determine DHS’s overall progress in each mission and management area. After making an assessment for each performance expectation, we added up those rated as generally achieved. We divided this number by the total number of performance expectations for the mission or management area, excluding those performance expectations for which we could not make an assessment. If DHS generally achieved more than 75 percent of the identified performance expectations, we identified its overall progress as substantial. When the number achieved was more than 50 percent but 75 percent or less, we identified its overall progress as moderate. If DHS generally achieved more than 25 percent but 50 percent or less, we identified its overall progress as modest. For mission and management areas in which DHS generally achieved 25 percent or less of the performance expectations, we identified overall progress as limited. We and the DHS IG have completed varying degrees of work for each mission and management area, and DHS’s components and offices provided us with different amounts and types of information. As a result, our assessments of DHS’s progress in each mission and management area reflect the information available for our review and analysis and are not equally comprehensive across all 14 mission and management areas. It is also important to note that while there are qualitative differences between the performance expectations, we did not weigh some more heavily than others in our overall assessments of mission and management areas. We also recognize that these expectations are not time bound, and DHS will take actions to satisfy these expectations over a sustained period of time. Our assessment of DHS’s progress relative to each performance expectation refers to the progress made by the department since March 2003 and does not imply that DHS should have fully achieved each performance expectation at this point. In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS took issues with our methodology. First, DHS believed that we altered the criteria we used to judge the department’s progress. We did not change our criteria; rather we made a change in terminology to better convey the intent behind the performance expectations that DHS achieve them instead of merely take actions that apply or relate to them. Second, DHS took issue with the binary standard approach we used to assess each performance expectation. We acknowledge the limitations of this standard in our report but believe it was appropriate for our review given that the Administration has generally not established quantitative goals and measures for the expectations. Therefore, we could not assess where along a spectrum of progress DHS stood in achieving each performance expectation. Third, DHS was concerned about an apparent shift in criteria we applied after the department provided us additional information and documents. What DHS perceived as a change in criteria for certain performance expectations was really the process by which we disclosed our preliminary assessment; analyzed additional documents and information from DHS; and updated and, in many cases revised, our assessments based on the additional inputs. Fourth, DHS raised concerns with consistency in our application of the methodology. Our core team of GAO analysts and managers reviewed all inputs from GAO staff to ensure consistent application of our methodology, criteria, and analytical process, and our quality control process included detailed reviews of the report’s facts as well as assurances that we followed generally accepted government auditing standards. Finally, DHS points outs that we treated all performance expectations as if they were of equal significance. In our report, we acknowledged that differences exist, but we did not weight the performance expectations because congressional, departmental, and others’ views on the relative priority of each expectation may be different, and we did not believe it was appropriate to substitute our judgment for theirs. Overall, we appreciate DHS’s concerns and recognize that in such a broad- based endeavor, some level of disagreement is inevitable, especially at any given point in time. However, we have been as transparent as possible regarding our purpose, methodology, and professional judgments and believe that our methodology provides a sound basis for the progress report. Going forward, we will work with DHS to further clarify the performance expectations we identified and our criteria for assessing DHS’s progress in meeting those expectations. By engaging in a constructive dialogue with DHS, we hope to establish a mutually agreed- upon basis for any future evaluation of DHS’s progress. Our report shows that since March 2003, DHS has attained some level of progress in implementing the performance expectations in all of its major mission and management areas, but the rate of progress among these areas has varied. Overall, DHS has made more progress in its mission areas than in its management areas, reflecting an understandable focus on implementing efforts to secure the homeland. As DHS continues to mature as an organization, we believe it will be able to put more focus—and achieve more expectations—in the management areas. Within its mission areas, DHS has made more progress in developing strategies, plans, and programs than in implementing them. For example, in the area of border security we found that DHS has developed a multiyear strategy and initiative for identifying illegal border crossings between ports of entry. However, DHS is in the early stages of implementing this strategy, and we and the DHS IG identified problems with implementation of past programs with similar objectives. Likewise, in the area of emergency preparedness and response, DHS has developed the National Incident Management System. However, we have reported that much more work remains for DHS to effectively coordinate its implementation. Below we provide more information on progress made by DHS in its mission and management areas. DHS’s border security mission includes detecting and preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States; facilitating the orderly and efficient flow of legitimate trade and travel; interdicting illegal drugs and other contraband; apprehending individuals who are attempting to enter the United States illegally; inspecting inbound and outbound people, vehicles, and cargo; and enforcing laws of the United States at the border. As shown in table 2, we identified 12 performance expectations for DHS in the area of border security and found that DHS has generally achieved 5 of them and has generally not achieved 7 others.