Department of Homeland Security
DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and Identify Shortfalls Gao ID: GAO-10-714 June 22, 2010The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a variety of responsibilities that utilize foreign language capabilities, including investigating transnational criminal activity and staffing ports of entry into the United States. GAO was asked to study foreign language capabilities at DHS. GAO's analysis focused on actions taken by DHS in three of its largest components--the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, this report addresses the extent to which DHS has (1) assessed its foreign language needs and existing capabilities and identified any potential shortfalls and (2) developed foreign language programs and activities to address potential foreign language shortfalls. GAO analyzed DHS documentation on foreign language capabilities, interviewed DHS officials, and assessed workforce planning in three components that were selected to ensure broad representation of law enforcement and intelligence operations. While the results are not projectable, they provide valuable insights.
DHS has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and existing capabilities and to identify potential shortfalls. GAO and the Office of Personnel Management have developed strategic workforce guidance that recommends, among other things, that agencies (1) assess workforce needs, such as foreign language needs; (2) assess current competency skills; and (3) compare workforce needs against available skills. However, DHS has done little at the department level, and individual components' approaches to addressing foreign language needs and capabilities and assessing potential shortfalls have not been comprehensive. Specifically: (1) DHS has no systematic method for assessing its foreign language needs and does not address foreign language needs in its Human Capital Strategic Plan. DHS components' efforts to assess foreign language needs vary. For example, the Coast Guard has conducted multiple assessments, CBP's assessments have primarily focused on Spanish language needs, and ICE has not conducted any assessments. By conducting a comprehensive assessment, DHS would be better positioned to capture information on all of its needsand could use this information to inform future strategic planning. (2) DHS has no systematic method for assessing its existing foreign language capabilities and has not conducted a comprehensive capabilities assessment. DHS components have developed various lists of foreign language capable staff that are available in some offices, primarily those that include a foreign language award program for qualified employees. Conducting an assessment of all of its capabilities would better position DHS to manage its resources. (3) DHS and its components have not taken actions to identify potential foreign language shortfalls. DHS officials stated that shortfalls can affect mission goals and officer safety. By using the results of needs and capabilities assessments to identify foreign language shortfalls, DHS would be better positioned to develop actions to mitigate shortfalls, execute its various missions that involve foreign language speakers, and enhance the safety of its officers and agents. DHS and its components have established a variety of foreign language programs and activities but have not assessed the extent to which they address potential shortfalls. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have established foreign language programs and activities, which include foreign language training and award payments. These programs and activities vary, as does DHS's ability to use them to address shortfalls. For example, foreign language training programs generally do not include languages other than Spanish, and DHS officials were generally unaware of the foreign language programs in DHS's components. Given this variation and decentralization, conducting a comprehensive assessment of the extent to which its programs and activities address shortfalls could strengthen DHS's ability to manage its foreign language programs and activities and to adjust them, if necessary. GAO recommends that DHS comprehensively assess its foreign language needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls, assess the extent to which existing foreign language programs are addressing foreign language shortfalls, and ensure that these assessments are incorporated into future strategic planning. DHS generally concurs with the recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: David C. Maurer Team: Government Accountability Office: Homeland Security and Justice Phone: (202) 512-9627GAO-10-714, Department of Homeland Security: DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and Identify Shortfalls
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-714
entitled 'Department Of Homeland Security: DHS Needs to
Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and
Identify Shortfalls' which was released on July 29, 2010.
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.
Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Department Of Homeland Security:
DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and
Capabilities and Identify Shortfalls:
GAO-10-714:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GA0-10-714, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a variety of
responsibilities that utilize foreign language capabilities, including
investigating transnational criminal activity and staffing ports of
entry into the United States. GAO was asked to study foreign language
capabilities at DHS. GAO's analysis focused on actions taken by DHS in
three of its largest components”the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). Specifically, this report addresses the extent to which DHS has
(1) assessed its foreign language needs and existing capabilities and
identified any potential shortfalls and (2) developed foreign language
programs and activities to address potential foreign language
shortfalls GAO analyzed DHS documentation on foreign language
capabilities, interviewed DHS officials, and assessed workforce
planning in three components that were selected to ensure broad
representation of law enforcement and intelligence operations. While
the results are not projectable, they provide valuable insights.
What GAO Found:
DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and
Capabilities and Identify Shortfalls What GAO Found DHS has taken
limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and existing
capabilities and to identify potential shortfalls. GAO and the Office
of Personnel Management have developed strategic workforce guidance
that recommends, among other things, that agencies (1) assess
workforce needs, such as foreign language needs; (2) assess current
competency skills; and (3) compare workforce needs against available
skills. However, DHS has done little at the department level, and
individual components' approaches to addressing foreign language needs
and capabilities and assessing potential shortfalls have not been
comprehensive. Specifically:
* DHS has no systematic method for assessing its foreign language
needs and does not address foreign language needs in its Human Capital
Strategic Plan. DHS components' efforts to assess foreign language
needs vary. For example, the Coast Guard has conducted multiple
assessments, CBP's assessments have primarily focused on Spanish
language needs, and ICE has not conducted any assessments. By
conducting a comprehensive assessment, DHS would be better positioned
to capture information on all of its needs and could use this
information to inform future strategic planning.
* DHS has no systematic method for assessing its existing foreign
language capabilities and has not conducted a comprehensive
capabilities assessment. DHS components have developed various lists
of foreign language capable staff that are available in some offices,
primarily those that include a foreign language award program for
qualified employees. Conducting an assessment of all of its
capabilities would better position DHS to manage its resources.
* DHS and its components have not taken actions to identify potential
foreign language shortfalls. DHS officials stated that shortfalls can
affect mission goals and officer safety. By using the results of needs
and capabilities assessments to identify foreign language shortfalls,
DHS would be better positioned to develop actions to mitigate
shortfalls, execute its various missions that involve foreign language
speakers, and enhance the safety of its officers and agents.
DHS and its components have established a variety of foreign language
programs and activities but have not assessed the extent to which they
address potential shortfalls. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have
established foreign language programs and activities, which include
foreign language training and award payments. These programs and
activities vary, as does DHS's ability to use them to address
shortfalls. For example, foreign language training programs generally
do not include languages other than Spanish, and DHS officials were
generally unaware of the foreign language programs in DHS's
components. Given this variation and decentralization, conducting a
comprehensive assessment of the extent to which its programs and
activities address shortfalls could strengthen DHS's ability to manage
its foreign language programs and activities and to adjust them, if
necessary.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DHS comprehensively assess its foreign language
needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls, assess the
extent to which existing foreign language programs are addressing
foreign language shortfalls, and ensure that these assessments are
incorporated into future strategic planning. DHS generally concurs
with the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-714] or key
components. For more information, contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-
9627 or maurerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Needs and
Capabilities and Identify Potential Shortfalls:
DHS Has Developed a Variety of Foreign Language Programs, but the
Extent to Which They Address Foreign Language Shortfalls Is Not Known:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance:
Appendix III: Federal Interagency Language Roundtable Proficiency
Scale:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: DHS Select Component Responsibilities for Which There Is
Potential for Use of Foreign Language Capabilities:
Table 2: DHS Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Assessments and
Needs:
Table 3: DHS Components' and Offices' Knowledge of Foreign Language
Capabilities:
Table 4: Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Programs and
Activities:
Table 5: DHS Components' and Offices' with Foreign Language Award
Programs:
Table 6: Federal Foreign Language Proficiency Levels:
Abbreviations:
CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection:
CSRS: Civil Service Retirement System:
CTR: Counter-Terrorist Response:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DLPT: Defense Language Proficiency Test:
DRO: Office of Detention and Removal Operations:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FERS: Federal Employees' Retirement System:
FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:
ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
ILR: Interagency Language Roundtable:
OCHCO: Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PAU/TAG: passenger analysis unit and tactical group:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 22, 2010:
The Honorable Daniel K Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
In the wake of a changing security environment, federal agencies'
needs for personnel with foreign language proficiencies have grown
significantly. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, the United States established the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), which has a variety of missions, including protecting
against terrorism, securing and managing the nation's borders, and
enforcing immigration and custom laws, among others. DHS's components
are located on our coastlines and land borders and throughout the
country and abroad. In carrying out their daily responsibilities, many
of the men and women at DHS frequently interact with individuals who
do not speak English, or rely on information that needs to be
translated from another language to English. DHS staff encounter a
wide array of languages and dialects, under sometimes difficult and
unpredictable circumstances, including arrests, surveillance, and
interviewing individuals. Foreign language skills are vital for DHS
personnel to effectively communicate and overcome language barriers
encountered during critical operations, and are a key element to the
success of the department's homeland security responsibilities.
Since 2002, we have issued a series of reports[Footnote 1] on two key
aspects of foreign language capabilities across the federal
government.[Footnote 2] Our work has examined (1) the use of foreign
language skills as well as (2) the nature and impact of foreign
language shortages at federal agencies, particularly those that play a
central role in national security. We have reported that lack of
foreign language capability at some agencies, including the
Departments of Defense and State as well as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), have resulted in backlogs in translation of
intelligence documents and other information, adversely affected
agency operations, and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement,
intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts. We and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have developed strategic
workforce planning guidance that has formed the basis for our prior
reviews on foreign language capabilities at other departments. We
recommended that these agencies adopt a strategic, results-oriented
approach to manage foreign language capabilities, including setting a
strategic direction, assessing agency gaps in foreign language skills,
and taking actions to help ensure that foreign language capabilities
are available when needed, among other things.[Footnote 3] Most
recently, in September 2009, we reported that Department of State
documents did not contain measurable goals, objectives, resource
requirements, and milestones for reducing its foreign language gaps,
and recommended that a more comprehensive strategic approach be
established to more effectively guide and assess progress in meeting
foreign language requirements.[Footnote 4]
In response to your request, this report discusses foreign language
capabilities at DHS. For this review, our analysis focused on actions
taken by DHS to assess its foreign language capabilities and address
shortfalls in three of its largest components”the U.S. Coast Guard,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). We also focused on some offices in those components
that use foreign language capabilities to carry out law enforcement
and intelligence activities. Specifically, this report addresses the
extent to which DHS has (1) assessed its foreign language needs and
existing capabilities and identified any potential shortfalls and (2)
developed foreign language programs and activities to address any
foreign language shortfalls For this work, we obtained all available
foreign language-related assessments conducted by three DHS components
and seven offices within those components.[Footnote 5] The earliest
assessment was conducted in 1999, and the most recent assessment was
conducted in 2009. We selected the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE to review
because they comprise a broad representation of program areas whose
missions include law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities. We
then selected locations based on geographic regions, border locations,
and language use. The locations we visited were San Antonio and
Laredo, Texas; Artesia, New Mexico; New York City and Buffalo, New
York; Miami, Florida; and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Although the results
are not projectable, they provided us with valuable insights about the
exposure to and use of foreign languages across DHS, primarily
Spanish. We examined documentation on foreign language needs and
capabilities, including DHS's strategic plans for fiscal years 2004
through 2008 and 2008 through 2013, human capital plans for fiscal
years 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013, and DHS's Work Force
Planning Guide and Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report.
[Footnote 6] Further, we interviewed knowledgeable DHS officials in
DHS's Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) and conducted
over 430 interviews with component officials for all the locations we
visited to obtain information on existing capabilities and potential
foreign language capability shortfalls.[Footnote 7] We compared DHS
activities to criteria in our and OPM's strategic workforce planning
guidance.[Footnote 8] We also visited CBP's Border Patrol Academy at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to observe the Spanish
Language Program, interviewed officers in training and program
officials about their training program, and examined documentation on
foreign language training development for all existing programs at
select component offices. Appendix I contains additional details on
our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through June
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
DHS Use of Foreign Language Capabilities:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and brought together the
workforces of 22 distinct agencies governed by multiple legacy rules,
regulations, and laws for hundreds of occupations.[Footnote 9] The
department's 216,000 employees include a mix of civilian and military
personnel in fields ranging from law enforcement, science,
professional, technology, administration, clerical professions,
trades, and crafts. DHS has a vital role in preventing terrorist
attacks, reducing our vulnerability to terrorism, and minimizing the
damage and facilitating the recovery from attacks that do occur. The
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism calls on all government
agencies to review their foreign language programs. Further, the
National Strategy for Homeland Security articulates activities to
enhance government capabilities, including prioritizing the
recruitment and retention of those having relevant language skills at
all levels of government.[Footnote 10] The 9/11 Commission, a
statutory bipartisan commission created in 2002, concluded in 2004
that significant changes were needed in the organization of
government, to include acquiring personnel with language skills and
developing a stronger language program.[Footnote 11]
DHS has a variety of law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities
that utilize foreign language capabilities. For example, DHS
undertakes immigration enforcement actions involving thousands of non-
English-speaking foreign nationals and conducts criminal
investigations that cross national borders, among other things.
Conducting investigations and dismantling criminal organizations that
transport persons and goods across the borders illegally are
operations where foreign language capabilities help DHS to identify
and effectively analyze terrorist intent. DHS also reports that
foreign language capabilities enhance its ability to more effectively
communicate with persons who do not speak English to collect and
translate intelligence information related to suspected illegal
activity.
At the component level, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE are among DHS's
largest components with law enforcement and intelligence
responsibilities that have a potential use of foreign language
capabilities. Table 1 briefly describes the law enforcement and
intelligence roles and responsibilities of these components.
Table 1: DHS Select Component Responsibilities for Which There Is
Potential for Use of Foreign Language Capabilities:
DHS components: U.S. Coast Guard;
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where
there is potential for foreign language use: Enforces immigration laws
at sea by interdicting, communicating with, and boarding vessels to
intercept undocumented persons; denying these persons illegal entry to
the United States via maritime routes; and disrupting and deterring
illegal activity while encountering persons of various nationalities.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection:
DHS components: U.S. Border Patrol;
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where
there is potential for foreign language use: Conducts operations to
prevent terrorists, terrorist weapons, inadmissible aliens, smugglers,
and narcotics and other contraband from entering the United States
between ports of entry while approaching individuals and groups to
interview, gathering information, and examining documents and records
of individuals with varying backgrounds.
DHS components: Office of Air and Marine;
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where
there is potential for foreign language use: Operates air and marine
forces to detect and interdict drugs and weapons, and prevents acts of
terrorism and the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and
other contraband along or across the borders and within the United
States, Canada, the Bahamas, Mexico, and the Caribbean while
encountering a variety of foreign languages in use in the operating
area.
DHS components: Office of Field Operations;
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where
there is potential for foreign language use: Conducts operations to
prevent terrorists, terrorist weapons, inadmissible aliens, smugglers,
and narcotics and other contraband from entering the United States.
Conducts operations to facilitate legitimate trade and travel at the
nation's air, land, and sea ports of entry while using judgment and
applying behavioral and cultural analysis, questioning individuals,
and examining documents. Encounters and overcomes language and
cultural obstacles to make determinations and to further compliance
with U.S. laws.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
DHS components: Office of Detention and Removal Operations:
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where
there is potential for foreign language use: Performs enforcement
functions for individuals who are subject to removal or criminal
proceedings by reviewing documentation and interviewing persons at
various stages of deportation, encountering a variety of foreign
languages. Also analyzes records and develops and uses informants to
develop leads on where individuals of varying backgrounds may be found
to obtain and execute warrants of arrest.
DHS components: Office of Investigations:
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where
there is potential for foreign language use: Identifies and recruits
sources of information to develop investigations, conduct interviews,
and communicate with criminal targets in proactive investigations that
may involve persons who speak foreign languages.
DHS components: Office of Intelligence;
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where
there is potential for foreign language use: Collects intelligence
information through various sources, which may require foreign
language capabilities, and conducts interviews of persons of interest
and develops reports on intelligence information to support homeland
security activities.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS documentation.
[End of table]
OCHCO is responsible for departmentwide human capital policy and
development, planning, and implementation. In this role, OCHCO works
with the components to ensure the best approach for the department's
human capital initiatives. Specifically, OCHCO establishes DHS-wide
policies and processes and works with components to ensure that the
policies and processes are followed to ensure mission success.
Additionally, OCHCO provides strategic human capital direction to and
certification of departmental programs and initiatives, such as DHS's
foreign language capabilities.
DHS Components Have a Variety of Missions:
The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency, the only military agency
within DHS, and serves as the lead agency for maritime homeland
security, enforcing immigration laws at sea. In support of DHS's
mission to control U.S. borders, the Coast Guard's Ports, Waterways,
and Coastal Security mission goal is to manage terror-related risk in
the maritime domain. Additionally, its responsibilities include (1)
interdicting undocumented persons attempting to illegally enter the
United States via the maritime sector and (2) boarding vessels to
conduct inspections and screenings of crew and passengers in its
attempt to reduce the number of illegal passenger vessels entering the
United States, among other things. For example, Coast Guard Maritime
Safety and Security Teams conduct patrols and monitor migration flow
from countries neighboring the Caribbean Basin, including Colombia,
Venezuela, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. In fiscal year 2009, the
Coast Guard increased its presence in the vicinity of Haiti to deter
mass migration and interdicted nearly 3,700 undocumented persons
attempting to illegally enter the United States. Additionally, during
fiscal year 2009, the Coast Guard reported screening over 248,000
commercial vessels and 62 million crew and passengers for terrorist
and criminal associations prior to arrival in U.S. ports, identifying
400 individuals with terrorism associations. The Coast Guard conducts
approximately 10,000 law enforcement boardings while interdicting
drugs each year in the southern Caribbean, which is where the Coast
Guard is likely to encounter non-English speakers.
CBP is the federal agency in charge of securing U.S. borders and three
of its offices”the Offices of U.S. Border Patrol, Air and Marine, and
Field Operations”share a mission of keeping terrorists and their
weapons from entering the United States while carrying out its other
responsibilities, including interdicting illegal contraband and
persons seeking to enter at and between U.S. ports of entry while
facilitating the movement of legitimate travelers and trade.[Footnote
12] CBP regularly engages with foreign nationals in carrying out its
missions and is DHS's only component authorized to make final
admissibility determinations regarding arrivals of cargo and
passengers. Annually, CBP reports that it has direct contact with
approximately 1 million people crossing borders through ports of entry
each day. It is through these contacts that CBP has a potential
likelihood of encountering non-English speakers. As a result, foreign
language skills are needed to assist CBP federal law enforcement
officers in enforcing a wide range of U.S. laws. In 2009, CBP
encountered over 224,000 undocumented immigrants and persons not
admissible at the ports of entry. CBP employs over 45,000 employees,
including border patrol agents stationed at 142 stations with 35
permanent checkpoints, Air and Marine agents and officers, and CBP
officers and agriculture specialists stationed at over 326 ports of
entry located at airports, seaports, and land borders along more than
5,000 miles of land border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with
Mexico, and 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline. Border patrol agents work
between the ports of entry to interdict people and contraband
illegally entering the United States. CBP's Office of Air and Marine
manages boats and aircraft to support all operations to interdict
drugs and terrorists before they enter the United States. CBP officers
work at foreign and domestic ports of entry to prevent cross-border
smuggling of contraband, such as controlled substances, weapons of
mass destruction, and illegal goods.
ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS, with more than 20,000
employees worldwide. ICE has immigration and custom authorities to
prevent terrorism and criminal activity by targeting people, money,
and materials that support terrorist and criminal organizations. ICE
and three of its offices”the Offices of Detention and Removal
Operations, Investigations, and Intelligence”identifying,
apprehending, and investigating threats arising from the movement of
people and goods into and out of the United States. In fiscal year
2009, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations completed 387,790
removals, 18,569 more than in fiscal year 2008. ICE's Office of
Investigations investigates a broad range of domestic and
international activities arising from illicit movement of people that
violates immigration laws and threatens national security. For
example, investigations where there is a potential use of foreign
language capabilities include those for human trafficking and drug
smuggling, illegal arms trafficking, and financial crimes. In 2009,
ICE initiated 6,444 investigations along U.S. borders. ICE's Office of
Intelligence is responsible for collecting operational and tactical
intelligence that directly supports law enforcement and homeland
security missions.
Guidance on Strategic Workforce Planning:
Strategic workforce planning helps ensure that an organization has the
staff with the necessary skills and competencies to accomplish
strategic goals. We and OPM have developed guidance for managing human
capital and developing strategic workforce planning
strategies.[Footnote 13] Since 2001, we have reported strategic human
capital management as an area with a high risk of vulnerability to
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In January 2009, we reported
that while progress has been made in the last few years to address
human capital challenges, ample opportunities exist for agencies to
improve in several areas.[Footnote 14] For example, we reported that
making sure that strategic human capital planning is integrated with
broader organizational strategic planning is critical to ensuring that
agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to address their
current and emerging human capital challenges.[Footnote 15]
Our and OPM's workforce planning guidance recommends, among other
things, that agencies (1) assess their workforce needs, such as their
foreign language needs; (2) assess current competency skills, such as
foreign language capabilities; and (3) compare workforce needs against
available skills to identify any shortfalls, such as those related to
foreign language capabilities.
DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Needs and
Capabilities and Identify Potential Shortfalls:
DHS has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and
capabilities and to identify potential shortfalls. DHS efforts could
be strengthened if it conducts a comprehensive assessment of its
foreign language needs and capabilities and uses the results of this
assessment to identify any potential shortfalls. By doing so, DHS
could better position itself to manage its foreign language workforce
needs to help fulfill its organizational missions.
DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Its Foreign Language Needs:
DHS has not comprehensively assessed its foreign language needs
because, according to DHS senior officials, there is no legislative
directive for the department to assess its needs for foreign
languages. As a result, DHS lacks a complete understanding of the
extent of its foreign language needs. According to DHS officials, the
department relies on the individual components to address their
foreign language needs. However, while some DHS components have
conducted various foreign language assessments, these assessments are
not comprehensive and do not fully address DHS's foreign language
needs for select offices or programs consistent with strategic
workforce planning. Specifically, the components' foreign language
assessments assess primarily Spanish language needs rather than
comprehensively addressing other potential foreign language needs
their workforces are most likely to encounter in fulfilling their
missions.
While DHS's Human Capital Strategic Plan discusses efforts to better
position the department to have the right people in the right jobs at
the right time, DHS has not linked these efforts to addressing its
workforce's foreign language needs. DHS's strategic plan acknowledges
the department's multifaceted workforce and the complexity of DHS
operations, and envisions "a department-wide approach that enables its
workforce to achieve its mission," but it does not discuss how its
planned efforts will help ensure that the workforce's foreign language
needs are met.[Footnote 16] Further, the DHS Quadrennial Homeland
Security Review, which was completed in February 2010, does not
address foreign language capabilities and needs.[Footnote 17] The
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 called
for each quadrennial review to be a comprehensive examination of the
homeland security strategy of the nation, including recommendations
regarding the long-term strategy and priorities of the assets,
capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of the department.
[Footnote 18] As we previously reported, strategic human capital
planning that is integrated with broader organizational strategic
planning is critical to ensuring that agencies have the talent and
stall mix they need to address their human capital challenges.
[Footnote 19] While the department states that there is no legislative
directive for it to assess its foreign language capabilities and
relies on the individual components, considering foreign language
capabilities when setting its strategic future direction would help
DHS to more effectively guide its efforts and those of its components
in determining the foreign language needs necessary to achieve mission
goals and address its needs and any potential shortfalls.
The extent to which components have conducted language assessments of
their foreign language needs varies. These assessments were limited
primarily to Spanish as well as the needs of the workforce in certain
offices, locations, and positions rather than comprehensive
assessments addressing multiple languages and needs of the workforce
as a whole. Table 2 shows the various assessments that were conducted
at the component level and in certain offices.
Table 2: DHS Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Assessments and
Needs:
DHS component: U.S. Coast Guard;
Office: Foreign Language Program Office;
Language assessments: 1999 Foreign Language Needs Assessment;
2008 Foreign Language Speakers Needs Assessment; 2009 Foreign Language
Speakers Interpreter and Linguist Performance Analysis[A];
Foreign language needs: Spanish, Haitian-Creole, Russian, Vietnamese,
Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, French, Indonesian,
Portuguese, and Tagalog
DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
Office: U.S. Border Patrol;
Language assessments: None;
Foreign language needs: Spanish[B].
DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
Office: Office of Air and Marine;
Language assessments: 2009 Marine Interdiction Agent (MIA) Critical
Analysis to Support Spanish Language Need[C];
Foreign language needs: Spanish.
DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
Office: Office of Field Operations;
Language assessments: 2004 Spanish Language Proficiency Determination
for Customs and Border Protection Officer[D];
Foreign language needs: Spanish.
DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office: Office of Detention and Removal Operations;
Language assessments: None;
Foreign language needs: Spanish[E].
DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office: Office of Investigations;
Language assessments: None;
Foreign language needs: None specified.
DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office: Office of Intelligence;
Language assessments: None;
Foreign language needs: None specified.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS components' documentation.
[A] U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Law Enforcement, Foreign Language
Needs Assessment, Final Report (Washington, D.C., 1999); Foreign
Language Speakers, Needs Assessment (Petaluma, Calif., 2008); and
Foreign Language Speakers Interpreter and Linguists, New Performance
and Planning Front End Analysis (Petaluma, Calif., 2008).
[B] The agency administrative provision governing the requirements and
procedures that are applicable to the training, evaluation, and
examination of border patrol agent trainees, including their Spanish
language skills, is Section 2301.02 of the Administrative Manual and
went into effect on May 20, 1983.
[C] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Marine Interdiction Agent
(MIA) Critical Task Analysis to Support Spanish Task-Based Language
Training, Final High Level Recommendations Report (Alexandria, Va.,
2009).
[D] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Spanish Language Proficiency
Determination for Customs and Border Protection Officer, Report and
Recommendations (Washington, D.C., 2004).
[E] The Office of Detention and Removal Operations prior to its
transfer to DHS had identified and established Spanish foreign
language requirements, but after the transfer in March 2003 those
requirements were rescinded and then reinstated in 2007.
[End of table]
Coast Guard. Since 1999, the Coast Guard has conducted three
assessments that identified the need for certain foreign language
capabilities, which have resulted in the Coast Guard establishing
requirements for certain foreign languages award program.
Additionally, according to the Coast Guard's Foreign Language Program
Manager, by obtaining information from Coast Guard leadership and
operational units, the Coast Guard determines what languages are
encountered most in the field. Additionally, the official stated that
annual reviews are conducted to determine how best to allocate the
Coast Guard's foreign language linguist and interpreter positions. A
"linguist" is expected to use his or her foreign language skills on an
almost daily basis in support of a specific function within his or her
unit, while interpreting is a collateral duty that can be filled by
any qualified personnel. According to Coast Guard officials, they face
difficulty in meeting their foreign language needs because of the
difficulties experienced by personnel in obtaining qualifying
proficiency scores on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT).
[Footnote 20] To meet foreign language program requirements, DLPT
testing results are used to make allocation decisions for foreign
language speakers. For example, according to the Foreign Language
Program Manager, at one of its offices near Brownsville, Texas, the
Coast Guard has native Spanish-speaking personnel who successfully use
Spanish during operations but are not testing high enough on the DLPT
and thus are not considered during allocation decisions for foreign
language needs.
CBP. CBP has conducted two assessments since 2004 that have primarily
focused on Spanish language needs. CBP's needs assessments are based
on a task-based analysis. For example, CBP assessed critical tasks
necessary to carry out certain operations, such as its officers
requesting and analyzing biographical information from persons
entering the United States and addressing suspects attempting to
smuggle people, weapons, drugs, or other contraband across borders.
These encounters may require foreign language skills, primarily
Spanish for offices such as the U.S. Border Patrol, the Office of Air
and Marine, and the Office of Field Operations. However, CBP's foreign
language assessment for its Office of Field Operations included only
those CBP officers located along the southwest border, in Miami, and
in Puerto Rico, and this assessment did not include its foreign
language needs in other field offices around the country. CBP's U.S.
Border Patrol conducted similar assessments, which focused on
assessing its foreign language training program, while the Office of
Air and Marine's foreign language assessment determined the extent of
its Spanish language needs and, as a result, established its Spanish
language training program.
ICE. According to ICE officials, rather than conducting foreign
language needs assessments, ICE primarily identifies its needs based
on daily activities. That is, ICE relies on its agents' knowledge of
foreign languages they have encountered most frequently during their
daily law enforcement and intelligence operations. However, ICE has
not collected data on what those daily needs are. Without such data,
ICE is not in a position to comprehensively assess its language needs.
According to ICE officials, in 2007, ICE reinstated the Spanish
language requirements that were in place prior to the formation of DHS
for its Office of Detention and Removal Operations. Further, for its
Offices of Investigations and Intelligence, it utilizes foreign
language interpreter services by contract for foreign languages
necessary, including Spanish.[Footnote 21]
The components' efforts to assess their foreign language needs are
varied and not comprehensive. Specifically, the assessments have been
limited to certain languages, locations, programs, and offices. As a
result, component officials we spoke with identified foreign language
needs that are not captured in these assessments, such as the
following:
* In the five CBP and ICE offices we visited near the Mexican border,
we were told that they have encountered foreign language needs for
variations of Spanish language skills, such as Castilian, border, and
slang Spanish (that is, Spanish dialects in certain geographic regions
that use words and phrases that are not part of the official
language). According to ICE officials, in 2009, its Office of
Detention and Removal Operations experienced a need for Mandarin
Chinese language skills because of an influx of encounters with
Chinese speakers near the Mexican border. However, CBP and ICE have
not assessed their needs for Chinese speakers.
* In the three CBP and ICE offices we visited near the Canadian
border, we were told that their encounters primarily involve Spanish,
Arabic, and Quebecois French speakers. However, CBP and ICE have not
assessed their needs for Arabic and Quebecois French speakers.
* In the seven Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE offices we visited in the
Caribbean region, we were told that they primarily encounter Puerto
Rican and slang Spanish, Haitian-Creole, and Patois. Although the
Coast Guard has assessed its need for some of these languages, CBP and
ICE have not assessed their needs in these languages.
( Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE offices in New York report that their
primary language needs include Colombian Spanish, Arabic, Chinese,
Urdu, and Fulani. Although the Coast Guard has assessed its need for
these languages, CBP and ICE have not assessed their needs for Arabic,
Chinese, Urdu, and Fulani.
According to DHS officials, foreign language skills are an integral
part of the department's operations. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE
officials in the seven components generally agreed that a
comprehensive approach to conducting a foreign language needs
assessment would be beneficial. By conducting a comprehensive
assessment, DHS would be in a better position to address its foreign
language needs. In addition, this assessment would enable the Coast
Guard, CBP, and ICE to comprehensively assess their component-level
foreign language needs.
DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Capabilities:
DHS, including the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, has not comprehensively
assessed its existing foreign language capabilities. However,
components have various lists of staff with foreign language
capabilities, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: DHS Components' and Offices' Knowledge of Foreign Language
Capabilities:
DHS component: U.S. Coast Guard
Office: Foreign Language Program Office;
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Personnel
voluntarily identified as foreign language speakers, in certain
languages and proficiency levels, and meet foreign language award
program requirements.
DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
Office: U.S. Border Patrol;
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: All officers and
agents that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish language skills
through the Border Patrol Academy.
DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
Office: Office of Air and Marine;
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Officers and
agents that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish language skills
through the Border Patrol Academy.
DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
Office: Office of Field Operations;
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Officers and
agriculture specialists that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish
language skills through the Office of Field Operation's academy.
Officers and agriculture specialists voluntarily identified as foreign
language speakers, in certain languages and proficiency levels, and
meet foreign language award program requirements.[A]
DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office: Office of Detention and Removal Operations;
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Some officers and
agents that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish language skills
through ICE's academy.
DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office: Office of Investigations;
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Agents
voluntarily identified as foreign language speakers, in certain
languages and proficiency levels, and meet foreign language award
program requirements.
DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office: Office of Intelligence;
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: None documented.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS components' documentation.
[A] In general, under 19 U.S.C. 267a, cash awards for foreign language
proficiency may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury, be paid to customs officers (as referred to in section 267
(e)(1) of this title) to the same extent and in the manner as would be
allowable under subchapter III of chapter 45 of title 5 with respect
to law enforcement officers (as defined by section 4521 of such title).
[End of table]
Although DHS and its components maintain these lists that identify
some of their staff with foreign language capabilities, these lists
generally capture capabilities for personnel in certain components or
offices, primarily those that include a foreign language award program
for qualified employees. These include the Coast Guard, CBP's Office
of Field Operations, and ICE's Office of Investigations.
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, through its foreign language award
program for foreign language skills, has developed a list that
identifies personnel with certain proficiencies in one or more
authorized foreign languages and meets program requirements. For
example, the list identifies a Coast Guard member with a certain
proficiency level in Spanish at the Miami Sector office. However,
these lists contain the personnel voluntarily identified as speaking
an authorized foreign language and have successfully met the program's
requirements and receiving award payments. While this list identifies
some personnel who speak at least one of the 12 authorized languages,
it does not account for personnel who successfully carry out an
operation utilizing their foreign language skills but are unable to
meet the proficiency requirements per the DLPT. According to the
Foreign Language Program Manager, a challenge exists in assigning
foreign language speakers while aligning their foreign language
proficiencies per the DLPT to the operational needs in the field. As a
result, personnel who speak a foreign language are being utilized but
are not considered part of Coast Guard's foreign language capabilities
and are unable to receive foreign language award payments. In May
2010, the Coast Guard made some changes to its foreign language
program and expanded compensation requirements to include other
proficiency levels and award payments, which could improve its ability
to identify foreign language resources that were unaccounted for prior
to this change to meet its foreign language needs.[Footnote 22]
CBP. CBP, through its foreign language award program in its Office of
Field Operations, has developed a list that identifies CBP officers
and agriculture specialists with a certain proficiency level in a
foreign language. Additionally, it identifies those officers and
agriculture specialists who (1) have received Spanish instruction
through its academy, and (2) speak Spanish in certain field office
locations.
ICE. ICE, through its foreign language award program in its Office of
Investigations, has developed a list that identifies certain agents
with a certain proficiency level in a foreign language. For example,
the list includes an agent with a certain proficiency level in
Jamaican Patois at the New York field office. Further, although it's
Offices of Detention and Removal Operations and Intelligence do not
have foreign language award programs, they have developed lists in
their individual offices of employees with foreign language
capabilities. For example, one list identifies an intelligence
research specialist at the Office of Intelligence in Miami who speaks
Haitian-Creole, but does not include his proficiency level.
Across all three components, while certain offices have developed
lists of staff with foreign language capabilities, component officials
told us that their knowledge of foreign language capabilities is
generally obtained in an ad hoc manner. For example, at each of the
seven locations we visited, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials told
us that they generally do not use the lists described above to obtain
knowledge of their colleagues' foreign language capabilities, but
rather have knowledge of their colleagues' foreign language
capabilities through their current or past interactions. For example,
according to ICE intelligence analysts, existing foreign language
capabilities in ICE's Office of Intelligence are not systematically
identified in the lists, but the specialists are aware of colleagues
who have proficiencies in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Haitian-
Creole. Component officials stated that the inability to identify all
existing capabilities may result in intelligence information
potentially not being collected, properly translated, or analyzed in
its proper context for additional foreign languages and thus affect
the timeliness and accuracy of information. Moreover, they said that
this information may be vital in tactical and operational intelligence
to direct law enforcement operations and develop investigative leads.
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE staff at each of the seven locations we
visited generally agreed that more detailed information on existing
capabilities could help them to better manage their resources. These
officials told us that while Spanish language proficiency may be
identified as an existing capability, it may not always be available
and generally the levels of proficiencies vary. For example, according
to one ICE immigration enforcement agent in the Office of Detention
and Removal Operation's fugitive operation program, he speaks Spanish
but is not proficient. He told us that there have been cases in which
he needed assistance from an agent who was proficient in Spanish to
converse with Spanish speakers. As the agent was not proficient in
Spanish, he said he did not apprehend certain individuals because he
was unable to verify their immigration status because he could not
communicate with them.
Although DHS has some knowledge of its existing capabilities in
certain components and offices, conducting an assessment of foreign
language capabilities consistent with strategic workforce planning”
that is, collecting data in a systematic manner that includes all of
DHS's existing foreign language capabilities”would better position DHS
to manage its resources.
DHS Has Not Taken Actions to Identify Foreign Language Shortfalls:
DHS, including the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, has not taken actions to
identify potential foreign language shortfalls. Moreover, DHS's Human
Capital Strategic Plan does not include details on assessing potential
shortfalls, as called for by best strategic workforce planning
practices. DHS officials in OCHCO told us that in response to our
review, they had canvassed the components to assess DHS's foreign
language shortfalls and that the components' response was that they
address shortfalls through contracts with foreign language interpreter
and translation services. This canvassing was not based on a
comprehensive assessment of needs and capabilities, which calls into
question the extent to which it could comprehensively identify
shortfalls. According to OCHCO officials, OCHCO plans to conduct a
review and realignment of the DHS Human Capital Strategic Plan, and
officials said that the plan will include more specific direction to
the components on workforce planning guidance.
We also found that the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have not taken
actions to identify foreign language shortfalls. According to
component officials, they face foreign language capability shortfalls
that affect their ability to meet their missions. At the Coast Guard,
CBP, and ICE locations we visited, 238 of over 430 staff we
interviewed identified ways that foreign language shortfalls can
increase the potential for miscommunication, affect the ability to
develop criminal cases and support criminal charges, increase the risk
of loss or delay of intelligence, and can have a negative impact on
officer safety. For example, according to the Border Patrol Academy's
Spanish Language Program officials, as part of the Spanish language
training, a video is shown of an actual incident in which a Texas law
enforcement officer begins interviewing four Spanish-speaking
individuals during a routine traffic stop. The video was recorded by
the law enforcement officer's dashboard video camera. In the video,
the four suspects exit the car and begin conversing in Spanish among
each other while the officer appears to have difficulty understanding
what the individuals are saying. Seconds later, the four individuals
attacked the officer, took his gun, and shot the officer to death.
As another example, an ICE special agent told us that in the course of
conducting a drug bust in 1991, he had been accidentally shot by a
fellow agent because of, among other things, foreign language
miscommunications. According to the agent and other sources familiar
with the incident, he was working as the principal undercover agent in
a drug sting operation in Newark, New Jersey. At the time of the
incident, prior to the formation of DHS, he was working as a U.S.
Customs Service agent. The undercover operation involved meeting and
communicating in Spanish with two Colombian drug dealers as part of a
cocaine bust. According to the agent, there were up to 18 other
federal agents involved in the operation, at least two of whom were
fluent in Spanish. Further, agents were videotaping and monitoring the
conversation between the federal agent and the drug dealers from a
nearby command post. However, the agent told us that none of the law
enforcement officers in the command post who were covertly monitoring
his dialogue with the drug dealers spoke or understood Spanish. The
agent stated that as a result, law enforcement officers were signaled
to rush in prematurely to make the arrests. In the chaos that ensued,
the agent was accidentally shot by a fellow agent and paralyzed from
the chest down. According to the agent, as well as other agents
familiar with the incident, had there been Spanish-speaking officers
in the command post to interpret the audio transmissions from the
agent, the accidental shooting may have been avoided. By conducting an
assessment of needs and capabilities, and using the results of these
assessments to identify shortfalls, DHS can be better positioned to
take action to mitigate these shortfalls, which will help to ensure
the safety of its officers and agents as they fulfill the department's
mission.
DHS Has Developed a Variety of Foreign Language Programs, but the
Extent to Which They Address Foreign Language Shortfalls Is Not Known:
DHS has established a variety of foreign language programs; however,
officials stated that they have not addressed the extent to which
these programs address existing shortfalls. According to DHS officials
in OCHCO, DHS's foreign language programs are managed at the component
level and are based on component operational capabilities and mission
requirements. The components have established programs and activities,
which consist of foreign language training, proficiency testing,
foreign language award programs, contract services, and interagency
agreements.[Footnote 23] Table 4 summarizes the extent to which
foreign language programs and activities have been established in
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE select offices.
Table 4: Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Programs and
Activities:
Programs and activities: 1. Language training[A]
Description: Foreign language training (other than Spanish);
U.S. Coast Guard: Partial;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Partial;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No.
Programs and activities: 1. Language training[A];
Description: Academy Spanish language training;
U.S. Coast Guard: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No.
Programs and activities: 1. Language training[A];
Description: Post-academy self-guided, Web-based software;
U.S. Coast Guard: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Partial;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes.
Programs and activities: 2. Proficiency testing;
Description: Oral proficiency interview;
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No.
Programs and activities: 2. Proficiency testing;
Description: Automated over the phone;
U.S. Coast Guard: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No.
Programs and activities: 2. Proficiency testing;
Description: Defense Language Proficiency Test 5[C];
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No.
Programs and activities: 3. Contract services;
Description: Language services by contract;
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes.
Programs and activities: 4. Interagency agreements;
Description: Memorandums of understanding and other similar agreements
between components and other agencies;
U.S. Coast Guard: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes.
Programs and activities: 4. Interagency agreements;
Description: Agreements between components and other agencies to
leverage language resources as needed;
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes.
Programs and activities: 5. Foreign language award programs[D];
Description: A monetary award paid as an incentive for law enforcement
officers with foreign language skills[E];
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No;
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes;
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS and component documentation.
Legend:
OBP = Office of Border Protection;
OFO = Office of Field Operations;
DRO = Office of Detention and Removal Operations;
OI = Office of Investigations;
FIG = Office of Intelligence;
Yes = office manages the specified foreign language program or
activity;
No = office does not manage the specified foreign language program or
activity;
Partial = foreign language program or activity is temporarily managed,
but not permanently established.
[A] Spanish training program proficiency is based on an evaluation on
the ability to carry out certain tasks in Spanish and a passing score
of 56 out of 80.
[B] Select components use different versions of a six-level scale to
describe proficiency in language, also known as the Interagency
Language Roundtable (ILR) Scale. The scale starts at zero”no knowledge
of the given language”and goes up to five”proficiency equivalent to
that of an educated native speaker of the language. App. III contains
additional details on the ILR Scale.
[C] The Defense Language Institute produced this test, which is used
to assess the general language proficiency of native English speakers
in a specific foreign language, in the skills of reading and
listening, and includes an oral proficiency interview.
[D] The foreign language award program provides, in general, a
discretionary monetary award for the use of foreign language skills
that is in addition to basic pay and does not increase an employee's
base salary. Payment of the award is subject to the availability of
funds.
[E] In general, under the foreign language award program provisions
for law enforcement officers, the term "law enforcement officer'
includes those personnel whose duties have been determined to be
primarily the "investigation, apprehension, and detention of
individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal
laws of the U.S."
[End of table]
According to DHS officials in OCHCO, decisions on whether to establish
programs and activities to develop foreign language capabilities are
left to the discretion of individual components and are based on
component operational capabilities and mission requirements. As shown
in table 4, foreign language programs and activities varied across DHS
and within select DHS components. For example, four of the seven
component offices we reviewed maintain Spanish language training
programs, and some of these offices require that officers complete
Spanish language training before they are assigned to their duty
stations. The five types of foreign language programs and activities
used within and among the components are language training,
proficiency testing, foreign language award programs, contract
services, and interagency agreements.
* Spanish language training. Before officers can be assigned to their
duty stations, some components require that they complete a Spanish
language training program. Specifically, U.S. Border Patrol requires
the completion of an 8-week task-based Spanish language training
program. The Office of Field Operations has a 6-week basic Spanish
training program requirement, and the Office of Air and Marine
requires 6 weeks of task-based Spanish language training. The Office
of Detention and Removal Operations has a requirement for a 6-week
basic Spanish training program. These programs are designed to provide
officers with a basic Spanish language competency. U.S. Border Patrol
and Office of Air and Marine agents and officers are required to
attend Spanish language training only if they do not pass a Spanish
language proficiency exam.[Footnote 24]
* Foreign language proficiency tests. Several proficiency tests are
used by different components, and the type of test that is used
depends on the foreign language for which proficiency is being
assessed.[Footnote 25] The Coast Guard's proficiency test is produced
by the Defense Language Institute and consists of a set of tests that
include an oral interview to assess language proficiency in the skills
of reading and listening. ICE's proficiency test consists of an oral
interview for all foreign languages assessed, while CBP uses a
combination of both oral and automated telephone tests for assessing
proficiency in similar foreign languages, such as the Spanish language.
* Contract services. Contract services consist of contracts held by
individual components and offices for interpreter and translation
services. The use of language contract services depends on the unique
requirements of the operation in individual offices. For example, the
U.S. Border Patrol provides funding for translation services and the
Coast Guard contracts annually for Haitian-Creole interpreter
services. Select components utilize over-the-phone language contract
services, while other components also utilize in-person translation
and transcription contract services. Additionally, DHS's U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services operates and manages the Language
Services Section, comprising both intermittent and full-time language
specialists who may provide assistance to some offices in CBP and ICE
in certain cases.
* Interagency agreements. Interagency agreements consist of individual
component offices establishing professional relationships with other
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies as a result of
carrying out joint operations. Additionally, these agreements vary by
component, office, and location, and may often depend on the extent to
which other agencies in those areas work closely with DHS. The
interagency cooperation we observed during our site visits largely
occurs on an ad hoc basis. For example, component officials in Miami
told us that local, state, and federal government officials provide
translation assistance as needed without any written agreement between
agencies.
* Foreign language award programs. The foreign language award program
consists of certain DHS personnel voluntarily identified as being
proficient in an authorized foreign language and meeting program
requirements, including certain proficiency levels and minimum usage
requirements. As shown in table 5, the usage requirement and award
payment vary by component. Specifically, the Coast Guard does not have
a usage requirement, while CBP and ICE offices require that certain
DHS staff use the language 10 percent of the time, or 208 hours each
year. The usage requirement for special interest languages is only
twice per 6-month increment. Further, Coast Guard interpreters receive
up to $200 each month and linguists receive up to $300 each month,
while CBP and ICE employees can receive up to 5 percent of basic pay
as an award payment.
Table: 5: DHS Components' and Offices' with Foreign Language Award
Programs:
Component and office: U.S. Coast Guard;
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills:
Coast Guard personnel;
Usage requirement to receive award payments: Not applicable;
Authorized foreign languages: Spanish, Haitian-Creole, Russian,
Vietnamese, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, French,
Indonesian, Portuguese, and Tagaloga;
Award: Up to $200 a month for an interpreter; Up to $300 a month for a
linguist;
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $600,000[B].
Component and office: U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Office of
Field Operations;
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills:
Only CBP officers and agriculture specialists[C];
Usage requirement to receive award payments: Two uses biannually;
Authorized foreign languages: Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Punjabi, Turkish,
Uzbek, Tajik, Turkoman, Uighur, Somali, Amharic, Tigrinya, Bahasa,
Tagalog, Kurdish, Russian, and Chechen[D];
Award: Up to 5 percent of basic pay;
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $15,262,833.
Component and office: U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Office of
Field Operations;
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills:
Only CBP officers and agriculture specialists[C];
Usage requirement to receive award payments: 10 percent = 208 hours
annually;
Authorized foreign languages: All foreign languages;
Award: Up to 5 percent of basic pay;
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $15,262,833.
Component and office: Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Office of
Investigations;
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills:
All law enforcement officers;
Usage requirement to receive award payments: 10 percent = 208 hours
annually;
Authorized foreign languages: All foreign languages;
Award: Up to 5 percent of basic pay;
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $1,834,316.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS and component documentation.
[A] The Coast Guard annually determines what languages are encountered
most in the field by obtaining information from Coast Guard leadership
and operational units.
[B] The Coast Guard's active duty pay account is funded for foreign
language proficiency pay as a yearly recurring rate for this amount.
[C] In general, under 19 U.S.C. § 267a, cash awards for foreign
language proficiency may be paid to certain specified customs officers
to the same extent and in the same manner as are allowable with
respect to law enforcement officers under 5 U.S.C. 4521 et seq. In
addition, according to CBP, the current state of its foreign language
award program is a result of a negotiated agreement between CBP and
the National Treasury Employee's Union.
[D[ The Office of Field Operation's languages of special interest are
not part of its 2004 assessment but were identified as part of the
antiterrorism mission.
[End of table]
Components have established some language award programs as an
incentive for certain DHS employees to develop foreign language
capabilities to address components' language needs. According to ICE
officials, statutory language providing authorization for their
foreign language award program is limited to those employees who meet
a statutory definition of the term law enforcement officer.[Footnote
26] For example, with respect to the law enforcement officer
definition, intelligence research specialists in ICE have not been
determined to meet such definition and be eligible to receive award
payments for their use of foreign language skills. In addition,
component requirements may also affect eligibility for foreign
language awards. For example, according to CBP, although U.S. Border
Patrol agents are law enforcement officers, Spanish language skills
are a requirement for employment of that position, therefore agents do
no receive award payments for their use of Spanish or other foreign
language skills. Additionally, CBP told us that it is not opposed to
assessing its options regarding foreign language needs.
While DHS components have a variety of foreign language programs and
activities, DHS has not assessed the extent to which these programs
and activities address potential shortfalls at the department or
component levels. OPM's strategic workforce planning guidance
recommends that agencies assess potential shortfalls in human capital
resources, such as foreign language capability, by comparing needs
against available stalls. OCHO officials told us that DHS has not
performed a department-level assessment of the extent to which the
programs address potential shortfalls because DHS has delegated
responsibility for foreign language programs to the components.
However, we found that the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE also have not
assessed the extent to which their programs address potential
shortfalls.
Although foreign language programs and activities at select components
contribute to the development of DHS's foreign language capabilities,
DHS's ability to use them to address potential foreign language
shortfalls varies. For example, the foreign language training programs
generally do not include languages other than Spanish, nor do they
include various Spanish dialects.[Footnote 27] According to several
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials we spoke with, their foreign
language programs and activities were established to develop specific
foreign language capabilities, primarily in Spanish. Officers we
interviewed noted that these programs and activities generally do not
account for variations of the Spanish language spoken in certain
regions of the country, which can potentially have fatal consequences,
particularly during undercover operations. Further, according to
agents we interviewed in Puerto Rico, both the agents and criminals
understand that the Spanish phrase "tumbarlo"[Footnote 28] in the
Caribbean region means "kill him," while agents from the southern
border understand this phrase to mean "arrest him." As another example
of the vital role of foreign language proficiency in certain
operations, we were told that foreign language capabilities in one
operation enabled an agent to infiltrate a prolific drug trafficking
organization. While working in a long-term drug smuggling
investigation, the agent came under suspicion by members of the
trafficking organization. However, the agent was able to utilize
Spanish language skills and dialect to avoid being discovered as a
U.S. federal agent and escape execution by his captors.
Further, in certain cases, according to component officials, the
programs and activities are not well suited for some operational
needs. CBP and ICE officials noted that although their foreign
language training programs and activities are used for the Spanish
language, they maintain a language service contract for an over-the-
phone, 24-hour translation service in over 150 languages. However,
according to component officials we spoke with in the Coast Guard,
CBP, and ICE, this resource is limited depending on the unique
requirements of operations within and among components. Specifically,
the component officials said that this resource is limited because of
(1) the time it can take to obtain an interpreter over the phone, (2)
difficulty in relying on over-the-phone interpretation while
conducting operations at sea, and (3) the inability to use an
interpreter who is over the phone for an on-the-spot discussion and
resolution of an issue or problem encountered in the field. For
example, officials stated that during an operation in which they
entered a house suspected of harboring individuals trafficked into the
United States, an officer intercepted a phone call from one of the
individuals who was involved in this illegal activity who spoke
Russian. In other operations, according to intelligence analysts we
spoke with, it is difficult or impossible to develop detainees' trust
during phone interviews to obtain intelligence.[Footnote 29] For
example, according to all of the agents we interviewed, potential
informants are difficult or impossible to recruit when the discussion
is occurring through a third-party interpreter on the phone. Because
the components have not assessed the programs and activities, they
have not addressed this limitation.
Furthermore, these programs and activities are managed by individual
components or offices within components. According to several Coast
Guard, CBP, and ICE officials, they manage their foreign language
programs and activities as they did prior to the formation of DHS. At
the department level and within the components, many of the officials
we spoke with were generally unaware of the foreign language programs
or activities maintained by other DHS components. In addition, many of
the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials at all seven locations we
visited stated that they relied on colleagues from current or past
interactions to interpret or identify other foreign language
resources. Given this decentralization, conducting an assessment of
the extent to which its program and activities address shortfalls
could strengthen DHS's ability to manage its foreign language programs
and activities and to adjust them, if necessary, to address shortfalls.
Conclusions:
Since its formation in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, DHS and three of its largest components”the Coast
Guard, CBP, and ICE”have performed vital roles in carrying out a range
of law enforcement and intelligence activities to help protect the
United States against potential terrorist actions and other threats.
To achieve its mission, it is important that DHS and its components
manage their human capital resources in a way that ensures that
fundamental capabilities, such as foreign language capabilities, are
available when needed. Foreign language capabilities are especially
important for DHS, as its employees frequently encounter foreign
languages while carrying out their daily responsibilities. While DHS
has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and
capabilities, it has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the
department's and its components' foreign language needs and
capabilities nor has it fully identified potential shortfalls.
Further, although the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have a variety of
foreign language programs and activities in place, they have not
assessed the extent to which the programs and activities they have
established address foreign language shortfalls. As a result, DHS
lacks reasonable assurance that it's varied and decentralized foreign
language programs and activities are meeting its needs.
We have recommended that other federal agencies, including the
Departments of Defense and State and the FBI, take actions to help
ensure that their foreign language capabilities are available when
needed. Similar opportunities exist for DHS to help ensure that
foreign language capabilities are available to effectively communicate
and overcome language barriers encountered during critical operations,
such as interdicting the transport of contraband and other illegal
activities. Comprehensively assessing its foreign language needs and
capabilities and identifying any potential shortfalls and the extent
to which its programs and activities are addressing these shortfalls
would better position DHS to ensure that foreign language capabilities
are available when needed. Further, considering the important role
foreign language plays in DHS's missions, incorporating the results of
foreign language assessments into the department's future strategic
and workforce planning documents would help DHS ensure that it
addresses its current and future foreign language needs.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that DHS can identify its foreign language capabilities
needed and pursue strategies that will help its workforce effectively
communicate to achieve agency goals, we recommend that the Secretary
of Homeland Security (1) comprehensively assess DHS's foreign language
needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls, (2) assess
the extent to which existing foreign language programs and activities
address foreign language shortfalls, and (3) ensure that the results
of these foreign language assessments are incorporated into the
department's future strategic and workforce planning documents.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of our report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for review and comment on June 9, 2010. On June 14, 2010, DHS
provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV. In
commenting on our report, DHS stated that it concurred with our
recommendations and identified actions planned or under way to
implement them.
Regarding our first recommendation that DHS comprehensively assess its
foreign language needs and capabilities and identify potential
shortfalls, DHS concurred and stated that OCHCO will work with the
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to establish the DHS Joint
Task Force consisting of those components and offices that have
language needs in order to identify requirements and assess the
necessary skills.
DHS also concurred with our second recommendation to assess the extent
to which existing foreign language programs and activities address
foreign language shortfalls, and stated that the DHS Joint Task Force
will work to recommend a system for the department to track, monitor,
record, and report language capabilities. DHS also stated that with
respect to the foreign language skills required by DHS personnel
stationed abroad, this task force will include the Office of
International Affairs.
DHS also agreed with our third recommendation to ensure that the
results of these foreign language assessments are incorporated into
the department's future strategic and workforce planning documents and
stated that OCHCO will ensure that DHS-wide language policies and
processes are incorporated into the DHS Human Capital Strategic Plan.
DHS also provided written technical comments, which we considered and
incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
Secretary of Homeland Security and interested congressional
committees. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9627 or at maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
David C. Maurer:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our first and second objectives, we reviewed operations in
three Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components and seven
offices. We selected the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
because they constitute a broad representation of program areas whose
missions include law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities. We
selected the Coast Guard's Foreign Language Program Office; CBP's
Office of U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Air and Marine, and Office of
Field Operations; and ICE's Office of Detention and Removal
Operations, Office of Investigations, and Office of Intelligence to
ensure that we had a mix of different program sizes and a broad
representation of program areas whose missions include law enforcement
and intelligence responsibilities and are most likely to involve
foreign nationals, foreign language documents, or both. We then
selected a nonprobability sample of seven site visit locations”San
Antonio and Laredo, Texas; Artesia, New Mexico; New York and Buffalo,
New York; Miami, Florida; and San Juan, Puerto Rico”to identify and
observe foreign language use at select DHS components. We selected
these locations based on geographic regions, border locations, and
language use. Although the results are not projectable, they provided
us with valuable insights. During our site visits, we spoke to over
430 DHS staff in law enforcement and intelligence units, and observed
the use of foreign language skills where foreign language capabilities
are deemed vital to meeting mission requirements, including the
following:
* We interviewed Coast Guard officials at the Command, Sector,
District, and Stations and Intelligence and Enforcement
representatives of the Coast Guard in New York, Miami, and San Juan.
During an operational boat ride tour at Station Miami Beach, we
observed an encounter involving Spanish-speaking individuals.
* We spoke with officials in ICE's Detention, Fugitive, Intelligence
and Criminal Alien Operations units. We also observed interviewing and
processing at five detention facilities and processing centers.
* We interviewed ICE intelligence research specialists who were sent
to the southern border and Mexico City in support of operations,
including Armas Cruzadas,[Footnote 30] in 2009, and obtained
information on arrests, seizures, and significant events. We also
interviewed an intelligence research specialists who provided foreign
language support in Spanish for ICE's 2009 gang surge operation and an
analyst who was sent to Haiti to conduct law enforcement training in
the Haitian-Creole language, and obtained copies of reports needing
translations.
* We spoke with ICE officials in the Drug Smuggling, Human Trafficking
and Smuggling,[Footnote 31] Worksite Enforcement, and Immigration and
Customs Fraud units. We interviewed four Title DI wiretap
transcription monitor linguists in San Antonio and observed a targeted
area of responsibility for surveillance composed of Spanish-speaking
populations that select DHS components encounter while carrying out
operations in New York City.
* We observed "Operation-Cooperation" at the Lincoln Juarez Bridge
Number 2 at the Service Port of Entry in Laredo. The operation
consisted of CBP border patrol agents and customs officers conducting
outbound vehicle inspections to confiscate illegal weapons and cash.
We also observed interviews and inspections, fingerprinting, and the
permit/visa issuance process.
* We observed passenger processing[Footnote 32] and interviews
conducted by a passenger analysis unit and tactical group (PAU/TAG)
[Footnote 33] and passenger Enforcement Roving and Counter-Terrorist
Response (CTR) teams[Footnote 35] at the Miami and San Juan
international airports.
* We observed the Border Patrol Laredo Sector's initial processing of
illegal immigrants at the Laredo North Station by 14 Border Patrol
interns (refereed to as interns by the U.S. Border Patrol while
receiving post-academy training in the field).
* In addition, we interviewed members of the Border Patrol's
International Liaison Unit, Border Intelligence Center, and Joint
Terrorism Task Force in Laredo, Buffalo, Miami, and San Juan.
* We also interviewed officials in the Swanton Sector located on the
northern border and reviewed documents on its Quebecois French
training initiatives.
During our site visit to Artesia, New Mexico we observed the Spanish
Language Program at U.S. Border Patrol's Law Enforcement Academy at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. While conducting this
site visit, we interviewed officers in training and program officials
and examined documentation, such as training manuals, lessons, and
videos on foreign language training development.
We also examined documentation on foreign language needs and
capabilities, including DHS's strategic plans for fiscal years 2004
through 2008 and 2008 through 2013, human capital plans for fiscal
years 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013, and Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review Report and Work Force Planning Guidance to
determine whether DHS's plans provide details on how to address actual
workforce needs, such as foreign language capabilities. Further, we
interviewed knowledgeable officials in DHS's Office of the Chief Human
Capital Officer and conducted over 430 interviews with component
officials (component officials consist of Coast Guard members; Border
Patrol agents; Air and Marine agents and officers; CBP officers and
agriculture specialists; and ICE officers, special agents, and
intelligence research specialists) for all the locations we visited to
determine the extent to which they have assessed their foreign
language needs and existing capabilities and identified any potential
shortfalls We also interviewed these component officials and other DHS
staff to determine the extent to which they have foreign language
programs in place to develop operational foreign language
capabilities. We compared DHS activities to our and the Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) workforce planning criteria We also
examined and analyzed relevant studies and observed the use of foreign
language proficiencies in a number of law enforcement operations.
Finally, we considered our prior work on human capital strategic
workforce planning related to foreign language needs and capabilities
for the Departments of Defense and State and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through June
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance:
We and OPM have developed guidance for managing human capital and
developing workforce planning strategies.
Strategic workforce planning helps ensure that an organization has
staff with the necessary skills and competencies to accomplish its
strategic goals. Since 2001, we have reported strategic human capital
management as an area with a high risk of vulnerability to fraud,
waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In January 2009, we reported that
while progress has been made in the last few years to address human
capital challenges, ample opportunities exist for agencies to improve
in several areas.[Footnote 35] For example, we reported that making
sure that strategic human capital planning is integrated with broader
organizational strategic planning is critical to ensuring that
agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to address their
current and emerging human capital challenges.[Footnote 36]
We have also issued various policy statements and guidance reinforcing
the importance of sound human capital management and workforce
planning. Our 2004 human capital guidance states that the success of
the workforce planning process that an agency uses can be judged by
its results”how well it helps the agency attain its mission and
strategic goals”not by the type of process used.[Footnote 37] Our 2002
strategic human capital guidance also highlights eight critical
success factors in strategic human capital management, including
making data-driven human capital decisions and targeted investments in
people.[Footnote 38] To make data-driven human capital decisions, the
guidance states that staffing decisions, including needs assessments
and deployment decisions, should be based on valid and reliable data.
Furthermore, the guidance states that to make targeted investments in
people, organizations should clearly document the methodology
underlying their human capital approaches. We have identified these
factors, among others, as critical to managing human capital
approaches that facilitate sustained workforce contributions.
Our 2004 guidance on strategic workforce planning outlines key
principles for effective workforce planning. These principles include
(1) involving management, employees, and other stakeholders in the
workforce planning process; (2) determining critical skills and
competencies needed to achieve results; (3) developing workforce
strategies to address shortfalls and the deployment of staff; (4)
building the capabilities needed to address administrative and other
requirements important in supporting workforce strategies; and (5)
evaluating and monitoring human capital goals.[Footnote 39]
OPM has also issued strategic workforce planning guidance to help
agencies manage their human capital resources more strategically.
[Footnote 40] The guidance recommends that agencies:
* analyze their workforce needs,
* conduct competency assessments and analysis, and,
* compare workforce needs against available skills.
Along with OPM, we have encouraged agencies to consider all available
flexibilities under current authorities in pursuing solutions to
longstanding human capital problems. In addition, our guidance
outlines strategies for deploying staff in the face of finite
resources.[Footnote 41]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Federal Interagency Language Roundtable Proficiency
Scale:
Federal agencies use the foreign language proficiency scale
established by the federal Interagency Language Roundtable to rank an
individual's language skills. The scale has six levels from 0 to 5”
with 5 being the most proficient”for assessing an individual's ability
to speak, read, listen, and write in another language. Proficiency
requirements vary by agency and position but tend to congregate at the
second and third levels of the scale. (See table 6.)
Table 6: Federal Foreign Language Proficiency Levels:
Proficiency level: 0 - None;
Language capability requirements: No practical capability in the
language.
Proficiency level: 1 - Elementary;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to satisfy
basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements.
Proficiency level: 2 - Limited working;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to meet
routine social demands and limited job requirements. Can deal with
concrete topics in past, present, and future tense.
Proficiency level: 3 - General professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language with
sufficient ability to participate in most discussions on practical,
social, and professional topics. Can conceptualize and hypothesize.
Proficiency level: 4 - Advanced professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language fluently
and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs.
Has range of language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation,
and counseling.
Proficiency level: 5 - Functionally native;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language at a
functional level equivalent to a highly articulate, well-educated
native speaker.
Source: Interagency Language Roundtable documents.
Note: When proficiency substantially exceeds one base skill level yet
does not fully meet the criteria for the next base level, a plus sign
(+) designation may be added.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Homeland Security:
June 14, 2010:
David C. Maurer:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Maurer:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report, GA0-10-714: "DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign
Language Needs and Capabilities and Address Shortfalls ". DHS
generally concurs with the report's recommendations.
As GAO notes, Department components have been responsible for
determining their foreign language requirements and for identifying
and implementing methods for satisfying them. The Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) coordinates the Department's efforts
in the area of Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Given the importance
of language skills to the accomplishment of the agency's mission, the
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) has considered GAO's
recommendations and will take the following actions in the immediate
future:
* OCHCO will ensure that DHS-wide language policies and processes are
incorporated into our Human Capital Strategic Plan;
* OCHCO will work with CRCL to establish a DHS Joint Language Task
Force consisting of those components and offices which have language
needs in order to identify requirements and assess the necessary
skills; recommend a system so that the Department can track, monitor,
record, and report language capabilities; and identify the functional
office responsible for managing DHS-wide language capabilities. This
work will include the Office of International Affairs with respect to
the foreign language skills required by DHS personnel stationed abroad.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report and we look forward working with you on future homeland
security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov.
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, William W. Crocker III,
Assistant Director; Yvette Gutierrez-Thomas, Analyst-In-Charge;
Stephen L. Caldwell; Wendy Dye; Rachel Beers; Virginia Chanley;
Geoffrey R. Hamilton; Lara Kaskie; Adam Vogt; Robert Lowthian; Candice
Wright; Mona Nichols Blake; and Minty Abraham made key contributions
to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited
English Proficient Persons. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-91]. Washington, D.C.: April 26,
2010.
Iraq: Iraqi Refugees and Special Immigrant Visa Holders Face
Challenges Resettling in the United States and Obtaining U.S.
Government Employment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-274]. Washington, D.C.: March 9,
2010.
State Department: Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-290T]. Washington,
D.C.: December 9, 2009.
State Department: Diplomatic Security's Recent Growth Warrants
Strategic Review. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-156].
Washington, D.C.: November 12, 2009.
Department of State: Persistent Staffing and Foreign Language Gaps
Compromise Diplomatic Readiness. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1046T]. Washington, D.C.: September
24, 2009.
Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent
Foreign Language Shortfalls. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955]. Washington, D.C.: September
17, 2009.
Department of State: Additional Steps Needed to Address Continuing
Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-874]. Washington, D.C.: September
17, 2009.
Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and
Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and Regional
Proficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568].
Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.
Defense Management: Preliminary Observations on DOD's Plans for
Developing Language and Cultural Awareness Capabilities. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-176R]. Washington, D.C.: November
25, 2008.
State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1154T]. Washington, D.C.: August 1,
2007.
U.S. Public Diplomacy: Strategic Planning Efforts Have Improved, but
Agencies Face Significant Implementation Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-795T]. Washington, D.C.: April 26,
2007.
Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-894]. Washington, D.C.: August 4,
2006.
Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More
Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-737]. Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2006.
U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim
Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-535].
Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006.
Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit from
Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-859]. Washington, D.C.: September
13, 2005.
State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being
Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-139]. Washington, D.C.: November
19, 2003.
Foreign Affairs: Effective Stewardship of Resources Essential to
Efficient Operations at State Department, USAID. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-1009T]. Washington, D.C.: September
4, 2003.
State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment
System Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-626]. Washington, D.C.: June 18,
2002.
Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help Address Staffing and
Proficiency Shortfalls. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-514T]. Washington, D.C.: March 12,
2002.
Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing
and Proficiency Shortfalls. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-375]. Washington, D.C.: January 31,
2002.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See Related GAO Products at the end of this report.
[2] In this report, we refer to foreign language capabilities as the
capabilities that include a range of language skills, proficiencies,
and resources to conduct operations related to homeland security
involving foreign language (e.g., language-proficient staff, language
services obtained through contracts, and inter- and intra-agreements
between DHS and other federal agencies).
[3] GAO, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-375] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31,
2002).
[4] GAO, Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address
Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17,
2009).
[5] In this report, we refer to select component offices as the Coast
Guard's Foreign Language Program Office; CBP's Office of U.S. Border
Patrol, Office of Air and Marine, and Office of Field Operations; and
ICE's Office of Detention and Removal Operations, Office of
Investigations, and Office of Intelligence.
[6] Department of Homeland Security, Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland
(Washington, D.C., February 2010).
[7] We interviewed the following component officials: Coast Guard
personnel; Border Patrol agents; Air and Marine officers; CBP officers
and agriculture specialists; and ICE officers, special agents, and
intelligence research specialists.
[8] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003), and Office of Personnel Management,
Migration Planning Guidance Documents: Workforce Planning Best
Practices (Washington, D.C., May 2008).
[9] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135
(2002).
[10] National Strategy for Combating Terrorism Report (Washington,
D.C., February 2003), and National Strategy for Homeland Security
(Washington, D.C., October 2007).
[11] The 9/11 Commission was established in the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-306, 116 Stat.
2383 (2002). The commission was mandated to provide recommendations
for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of
terrorism, among other things. On July 22, 2004, the commission
released its public report.
[12] U.S. ports of entry include land border crossings along the
Canadian and Mexican borders, seaports, and U.S. airports for
international flight arrivals.
[14] For a more complete discussion of human capital management and
workforce planning guidance, see appendix II.
[14] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January
2009).
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-04-39].
[16] Department of Homeland Security, Human Capital Strategic Plan
Fiscal Years 20092013 (Washington, D.C., October 2008).
[17] Department of Homeland Security, Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review Report.
[18] Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 544 (2007).
[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-04-39].
[20] The DLPT is a battery of foreign language tests produced by the
Defense Language Institute to assess language proficiency in a
specific foreign language in the skills of reading and listening, and
also includes an interview to determine oral proficiency.
[21] Services obtained by contract include interpretation,
translation, and transcription. For example, ICE's Office of
Investigations conducts wiretapping (intercepting of communications
content) under Title III that may include conversations in a foreign
language that can be interpreted or translated through contact
services to support criminal investigations. ICE Title III
investigations include the investigation of possible crimes related to
narcotics, human trafficking and smuggling, technology transfer,
financial investigations, and gangs.
[22] A foreign language award program incentivizes some employees by
providing a discretionary monetary award that is in addition to basic
pay based on the use of certain foreign language skills and
proficiencies.
[23] Services obtained by contract include face-to-face and over-the-
phone interpretation, document translation, and video/audio media
transcribing and translating. Select components' language services
requests include immigration cases involving deportation, employment
authorizations, investigation, and processing deferred inspections and
complicated bank transactions involving foreign countries and
represented by specific banking or financial terminology native to a
country.
[24] U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Air and Marine agents and
officers are administered a telephonic recognition Spanish proficiency
test that is delivered over the telephone by a computerized testing
system.
[25] The proficiency tests used by select components include (1) the
DLPT 5, administered by the Defense Language Institute's Foreign
Language Center for foreign language proficiency pay certification;
(2) the Language Testing International test; (3) the FBI's test; (4)
the Foreign Language Institute's test, which are used to conduct oral
proficiency interviews; and (5) ordinate versant, which is an
automated telephonic language proficiency test that measures broad-
based language proficiency.
[26] Statutory language (5 U.S.C. § 4521 et seq.) authorizing agencies
to pay an incentive award to law enforcement officers who possess and
make substantial use of one or more foreign languages in the
performance of official duties define "law enforcement officer" to
mean, in general, (1) those qualifying as law enforcement officers
under Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or Federal Employees'
Retirement System (FERS) laws and regulations and (2) members of
certain other specified groups, such as a member of the United States
Secret Service Uniformed Division, a member of the United States Park
Police, and a special agent in the Diplomatic Security Service. In
general, CSRS and FERS law enforcement officer definitional criteria
include those personnel whose duties have been determined to be
primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals
suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the
United States.
[27] U.S. Border Patrol's Spanish Training Program includes specific
scenario activities (ranging from 10 to 50 minutes long) on how other
cultures differ from the Mexican culture, including words and phrases
not part of the formal Spanish language.
[28] The English translation for "tumbarlo" is "overthrow the..."
[29] Intelligence research specialists report that as part of
"operation last call," they often conduct or participate in interviews
designed to obtain intelligence information or investigative leads,
primarily with respect to individuals of interest who are in ICE
custody.
[30] Armas Cruzadas is a DHS operation intended to identify, disrupt,
and dismantle trans-border weapons smuggling networks.
[31] ICE defines human trafficking (exploitation-based) as the
recruitment, harboring, and transportation of a person through the use
of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to
involuntary servitude, among other things. ICE defines human smuggling
(transportation-based) as the importation of people into the United
States involving deliberate evasion of immigration laws, including
transporting and harboring illegal persons.
[32] Passenger processing is the core process that includes all
aspects of the processing of inbound and outbound air, sea, and land
passengers; this process includes, but is not limited to, the initial
processing and any secondary inspections.
[33] PAU/TAGs are units charged with using automated systems to target
high-risk passengers, conducting threat analysis, or utilizing after-
action reports to identify threats.
[34] A CTR team is made up of CBP officers assigned to special teams,
drawing from personnel with prior counterterrorism, antiterrorism, or
intelligence-related training or experience. Such a unit is charged
with the interdiction of high-risk passengers attempting to facilitate
entry of contraband or who are associated with terrorist activities.
[35] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January
2009).
[36] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39].
[37] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39].
[38] See GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
[39] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39].
[40] Office of Personnel Management, Key Components of a Strategic
Human Capital Plan (Washington, D.C., September 2005), and Migration
Planning Guidance Documents: Workforce Planning Best Practices
(Washington, D.C., May 2008).
[41] GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency
Leaders, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OCG-00-14G],
Version 1 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
