We primarily focused the performance expectations on DHS’s homeland security-related functions. We generally did not identify performance expectations related to DHS’s nonhomeland security functions, although we did identify some performance expectations that relate to these functions. We also did not apply a weight to the performance expectations we developed for DHS, although qualitative differences between the expectations exist. We recognize that these expectations are not time bound, and DHS will take actions to satisfy these expectations over a sustained period of time. Therefore, our assessment of DHS’s progress relative to each performance expectation refers to the progress made by the department during its first 4 years. Our assessment of DHS’s progress relative to each performance expectation is not meant to imply that DHS should have fully achieved the performance expectation by the end of its fourth year. To identify the performance expectations, we examined responsibilities set for the department by Congress, the Administration, and department leadership. In doing so, we reviewed homeland security-related legislation, such as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. We also reviewed DHS appropriations acts and accompanying conference reports for fiscal years 2004 through 2006. We did not consider legislation enacted since September 2006 in developing the performance expectations. To identify goals and measures set by the Administration, we reviewed relevant homeland security presidential directives and executive orders. For the goals and measures set by the department, we analyzed the DHS Strategic Plan, Performance Budget Overviews, Performance and Accountability Reports, and component agencies’ strategic plans. For management areas, we also examined effective practices identified in our prior reports. We analyzed these documents to identify common or similar responsibilities for DHS mission and management areas and synthesized the responsibilities identified in the various documents to develop performance expectations for DHS. We obtained and incorporated feedback from our subject matter experts on these performance expectations. We also provided the performance expectations to DHS for review and incorporated DHS’s feedback. Based primarily on our prior work and DHS IG work, as well as updated information provided by DHS between March and June 2007, we examined the extent to which DHS has taken actions to achieve the identified performance expectations in each area and make a determination as to whether DHS has achieved the key elements of each performance expectation based on the criteria listed below: Generally achieved: Our work has shown that DHS has taken actions to satisfy most of the key elements of the performance expectation but may not have satisfied all of the elements. Generally not achieved: Our work has shown that DHS has not yet taken actions to satisfy most of the key elements of the performance expectation but may have taken steps to satisfy some of the elements. No assessment made: Neither we nor the DHS IG have completed work and/or the information DHS provided did not enable us to clearly assess DHS’s progress in achieving the performance expectation. Therefore, we have no basis for making an assessment of the extent to which DHS has taken actions to satisfy the performance expectation. An assessment of “generally achieved” indicates that DHS has taken sufficient actions to satisfy most elements of the expectation; however, an assessment of “generally achieved” does not signify that no further action is required of DHS or that functions covered by the expectation cannot be further improved or enhanced. Conversely, “generally not achieved” indicates that DHS has not yet taken actions to satisfy most elements of the performance expectation. An assessment of “generally not achieved” may be warranted even where DHS has put forth substantial effort to satisfy some but not most elements of an expectation. In cases when we or the DHS IG have not completed work upon which to base an assessment of DHS actions to satisfy a performance expectation and/or the information DHS provided did not enable us to clearly determine the extent to which DHS has achieved the performance expectation, we indicated “no assessment made.” We analyzed the extent of our work, the DHS IG’s work, and DHS’s updated information and conferred with our subject matter experts to determine whether the work and information were sufficient for a making a determination of generally achieved or generally not achieved. Between March and June 2007, we obtained updated information from DHS and met with program officials to discuss DHS’s efforts to implement actions to achieve the performance expectations in each mission and management area. We incorporated DHS’s additional information and documentation into the report and, to the extent that DHS provided documentation verifying its efforts, considered them in making our assessments of DHS’s progress. For each performance expectation, an analyst on our staff reviewed our relevant work, DHS IG reports, and updated information and documentation provided by DHS, including information received during meetings with DHS officials. On the basis of this review, the analyst made a determination that either DHS generally achieved the performance expectation or generally did not achieve the performance expectation, or the analyst identified that no determination could be made because neither we nor the DHS IG had completed work and DHS did not provide us with updated information and documentation. A second analyst then reviewed each determination to reach concurrence on the assessment for each performance expectation by reviewing the first analyst’s summary of our reports, relevant DHS IG reports, and DHS’s updated information and documentation. In cases when the first and second analyst disagreed, the two analysts reviewed and discussed the assessments and relevant documents to reach concurrence. Then, our subject matter experts reviewed the summary of our reports, relevant DHS IG reports, and DHS’s updated information and documentation to reach concurrence on the assessment for each performance expectation. To develop criteria for assessing DHS’s progress in each mission and management area, we analyzed criteria used for ratings or assessments in our prior work, in DHS IG reports, and in other reports and studies, such as those conducted by the 9-11 Commission and the Century Foundation. We also reviewed our past work in each mission and management area and obtained feedback from our subject matter experts and DHS officials on these criteria. Based on this analysis, we developed the following criteria for assessing DHS’s progress in each mission and management area: Substantial progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 75 percent of the identified performance expectations. Moderate progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 50 percent but 75 percent or less of the identified performance expectations. Modest progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 25 percent but 50 percent or less of the identified performance expectations. Limited progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve 25 percent or less of the identified performance expectations. After making a determination as to whether DHS has generally achieved or generally not achieved the identified performance expectations, we added up the number of performance expectations that we determined DHS has generally achieved. We divided this number by the total number of performance expectations for each mission and management area, excluding those performance expectations for which we could not make an assessment. Based on the resulting percentage, we identified DHS’s overall progress in each mission and management area, as (1) substantial progress, (2) moderate progress, (3) modest progress, or (4) limited progress. Our subject matter experts reviewed the overall assessments of progress we identified for DHS in each mission and management area. Our assessments of the progress made by DHS in each mission and management area are based on the performance expectations we identified. The assessments of progress do not reflect, nor are they intended to reflect, the extent to which DHS’s actions have made the nation more secure in each area. For example, in determining that DHS has made modest progress in border security, we are not stating or implying that the border is modestly more secure than it was prior to the creation of DHS. In addition, we are not assessing DHS’s progress against a baseline in each mission and management area. We also did not consider DHS component agencies’ funding levels or the extent to which funding levels have affected the department’s ability to carry out its missions. We also did not consider the extent to which competing priorities and resource demands have affected DHS’s progress in each mission and management area relative to other areas, although competing priorities and resource demands have clearly affected DHS’s progress in specific areas. In addition, because we and the DHS IG have completed varying degrees of work (in terms of the amount and scope of reviews completed) for each mission and management area, and because different DHS components and offices provided us with different amounts and types of information, our assessments of DHS’s progress in each mission and management area reflect the information available for our review and analysis and are not necessarily equally comprehensive across all 14 mission and management areas. For example, as a result of the post-September 11, 2001, focus on aviation, we have conducted more reviews of aviation security, and our methodology identified a much larger number of related performance expectations than for the department’s progress in surface transportation security. Further, for some performance expectations, we were unable to make an assessment of DHS’s progress because (1) we had not conducted work in that area, (2) the DHS IG’s work in the area was also limited, and (3) the supplemental information provided by DHS was insufficient to form a basis for our analysis. Most notably, we were unable to make an assessment for four performance expectations in the area of immigration enforcement. This affected our overall assessment of DHS’s progress in that area as there were fewer performance expectations to tally in determining the overall level of progress. We conducted our work for this report from September 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 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 may 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.