Department of Homeland Security
Addressing Management Challenges That Face Immigration Enforcement Agencies Gao ID: GAO-05-664T May 5, 2005The 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?
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.
GAO-05-664T, Department of Homeland Security: Addressing Management Challenges That Face Immigration Enforcement Agencies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-664T
entitled 'Department of Homeland Security: Addressing Management
Challenges That Face Immigration Enforcement Agencies' which was
released on May 5, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 5, 2005:
Department of Homeland Security:
Addressing Management Challenges That Face Immigration Enforcement
Agencies:
Statement of Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Issues:
GAO-05-664T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-664T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
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?
What GAO Found:
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.
Reorganization of INS into DHS:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-664T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Richard Stana at (202)
512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
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.
Summary:
A number of management challenges similar to those found at INS have
continued in the new organizations now responsible for immigration
enforcement functions. These INS management challenges included a lack
of clearly defined priorities and goals; difficulty determining whom to
coordinate with, when to coordinate, and how to communicate; and
inadequately defined roles resulting in overlapping responsibilities,
inconsistent program implementation, and ineffective use of resources.
In 1999 and 2001, we testified on these management challenges before
this subcommittee. Our 2001 testimony concluded that, while
restructuring may help address certain management challenges, the new
organization would still face significant challenges in assembling the
basic systems and processes that any organization needs to accomplish
its mission. These systems and processes 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. 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 the
immigration function was organized. In March 2003, the enforcement
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 in existence in the new
bureaus.
In evaluating solutions to ICE and CBP management challenges, including
potential structural changes, several factors may be considered. The
first factor is whether ICE and CBP currently have a good management
framework in place. Such a management framework, among other items,
would include a clearly defined and articulated mission, a
comprehensive strategic planning process for achieving the mission, an
organizational alignment that supports the mission and strategy,
performance measures to gauge their progress, and leadership and
accountability mechanisms. The second factor is whether ICE and CBP
have developed systems and processes to support such a management
framework which assists management in resolving management challenges.
For example, we have noted problems with ICE's disseminating guidance
related to operational activities. The third factor involves
recognizing that the management challenges in these two bureaus exist
in the broader context of the creation and evolution of DHS--the
largest reorganization of the federal government in over 50 years. 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. We designated DHS's transformation as a
high-risk area in 2003.
Background:
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,[Footnote 1] 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.
Figure 1: Figure 1. Transfer of Immigration Functions from INS into DHS:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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."[Footnote 2]
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."[Footnote 3]
Similar Management Challenges Continue:
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.[Footnote 4]
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.
Factors to Consider for Resolving Management Challenges:
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.
Management Framework for ICE and CBP:
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.[Footnote 5]
* 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.[Footnote 6] 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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8]
Systems and Processes Needed to Support Management Framework:
The second factor to consider for resolving management challenges is
whether CBP and ICE have the systems and processes needed to support
the management framework. While the management framework provides an
overarching structure for an organization, systems and processes
provide the means to implement the daily activities of running an
organization. Some of the specific systems and processes in CBP and ICE
that have raised concerns include:
* Dissemination of guidance relating to operational activities,
* Communication and coordination,
* Information technology systems, and:
Dissemination of Guidance Relating to Operational Activities:
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.
Communication and Coordination:
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.
Information Technology Systems:
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.[Footnote
9] 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.[Footnote 10]
Broader DHS Transformation and Management Integration Efforts May
Affect ICE and CBP Management Challenges:
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.[Footnote 11]
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.[Footnote 12]
* 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.[Footnote 13]
* 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.[Footnote 14]
* 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.[Footnote 15]
* 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,[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17]
* 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.[Footnote 18]
* 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.[Footnote
19]
* 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.[Footnote 20]
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.
Concluding Observations:
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.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] P.L. 107-296, Sec. 471(a).
[2] Statement of Dr. James Jay Carafano, Senior Research Fellow, The
Heritage Foundation, Before the Subcommittee on Management,
Integration, and Oversight, House Committee on Homeland Security
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2005).
[3] Statement of David Venturella, Former Acting Director of the Office
of Detention and Removal Operations, Department of Homeland Security,
Before the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight,
House Committee on Homeland Security (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2005).
[4] GAO, Immigration Enforcement: Challenges to Implementing the INS
Interior Enforcement Strategy, GAO-02-861T (Washington, D.C.: June 19,
2002); GAO, Immigration Benefit Fraud: Focused Approach Is Needed to
Address Problems, GAO-02-66 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002); GAO,
INS's Southwest Border Strategy: Resource and Impact Issues Remain
after Seven Years, GAO-01-842 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 2001); GAO,
Immigration Benefits: Several Factors Impede Timeliness of Application
Processing, GAO-01-488 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2001).GAO, Alien
Smuggling: Management and Operational Improvements Needed to Address
Growing Problem, GAO/GGD-00-103 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2000); and
Criminal Aliens: INS's Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens
Continue to Need Improvement, GAO/T-GGD-99-47 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.,
25, 1999); and GAO, Criminal Aliens: INS' Efforts to Identify and
Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to be Improved, GAO/T-GGD-97-154
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 1997).
[5] These success factors were derived from work we reported in GAO,
Homeland Security: Management Challenges Facing Federal Leadership, GAO-
03-260 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2002) and GAO, Results-Oriented
Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational
Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).
Additional key practices for successful mergers and organizational
transformations not discussed in this statement include focusing on a
key set of principles and priorities at the outset of the
transformation, setting implementation goals and a timeline to build
momentum and show progress, dedicating an implementation team to manage
the transformation process, establishing a communication strategy to
create shared expectations and report related progress, and involving
employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the
transformation.
[6] The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) provides
a strategic planning and management framework intended to improve
federal agencies' performance and hold them accountable for achieving
results. Our work on management structure and strategic planning is
based largely on GPRA.
[7] On September 9, 2002, GAO convened a roundtable of government
leaders and management experts to discuss the COO concept and how it
might apply within selected federal departments and agencies. See GAO,
Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer Concept: A
Potential Strategy to Address Federal Governance Challenges, GAO-03-
192SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2002).
[8] GAO, The Chief Operating Officer Concept and its Potential Use as a
Strategy to Improve Management at the Department of Homeland Security,
GAO-04-876R (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004).
[9] Until 2001, aliens who were issued final orders of removal from the
United States could be held in detention facilities indefinitely if
U.S. immigration authorities determined that the aliens were a threat
to the community or a flight risk. However, U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), many aliens with final
orders of removal, including aliens determined to be a threat to the
community or flight risk, could generally no longer be detained beyond
a period of 6 months if there was no significant likelihood of their
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[10] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 2005).
[11] GAO, Homeland Security: Overview of Department of Homeland
Security Management Challenges, GAO-05-573T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20,
2005).
[12] See GAO-05-573T
[13] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and
Sustained Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005).
[14] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning
Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability, GAO-05-300
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
[15] GAO, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Final Department
of Homeland Security Human Capital Regulations, GAO-05-320T
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2005). For more information on DHS's human
capital issues, see GAO, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on
Proposed DHS Human Capital Regulations, GAO-04-479T (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 25, 2003); Posthearing Questions Related to Proposed Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Human Capital Regulations, GAO-04-570R
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2004); Additional Posthearing Questions
Related to Proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Human Capital
Regulations, GAO-04-617R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2004); Human
Capital: DHS Faces Challenges in Implementing Its New Personnel System,
GAO-04-790 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2004); and Human Capital: DHS
Personnel System Design Effort Provides for Collaboration and Employee
Participation, GAO-03-1099 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003).
[16] Pub. L. No. 108-330 (Oct. 16, 2004).
[17] GAO, Financial Management: Department of Homeland Security Faces
Significant Financial Management Challenges, GAO-04-774 (Washington:
D.C.: July 19, 2004).
[18] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Formidable Information and
Technology Management Challenge Requires Institutional Approach, GAO-05-
702 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27, 2004).
[19] See GAO-05-179
[20] GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Needs a Strategy to Use DOE's
Laboratories for Research on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
Detection and Response Technologies, GAO-04-653 (Washington, D.C.: May
24, 2004).
