    Immigration Enforcement: DHS Has Incorporated Immigration
    Enforcement Objectives and Is Addressing Future Planning
    Requirements (08-OCT-04, GAO-05-66).

    The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had five
    interior (non-border-related) immigration enforcement objectives
    to address federal immigration law violations: identify and
    remove criminal aliens from the United States; deter and
    dismantle alien trafficking and smuggling; respond to community
    reports and complaints about illegal immigration; minimize
    immigration benefit fraud; and block employers' access to
    undocumented workers. After the terrorist attacks of September
    11, 2001, the INS and other federal agencies began merging their
    law enforcement functions into the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland
    Security. Congress sought information on how the newly formed ICE
    was addressing legacy INS's immigration enforcement objectives.
    GAO addressed the following questions: (1) What is the status of
    ICE's efforts to incorporate legacy INS's interior immigration
    enforcement objectives? (2) How is ICE developing budget needs,
    workforce plans, and performance measures for immigration-related
    objectives?
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-66
        ACCNO:   A13003
      TITLE:     Immigration Enforcement: DHS Has Incorporated Immigration
    Enforcement Objectives and Is Addressing Future Planning
    Requirements
         DATE:   10/08/2004
      SUBJECT:   Agency missions
    	     Counterterrorism
    	     Fraud
    	     Future budget projections
    	     Illegal aliens
    	     Immigration or emigration
    	     Labor force
    	     Law enforcement
    	     National preparedness
    	     Performance measures
    	     Smuggling
    	     Strategic planning

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-05-66

    United States Government Accountability Office

     GAO	Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
              Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

    October 2004

    IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

    DHS Has Incorporated Immigration Enforcement Objectives and Is Addressing Future
                                 Planning Requirements

    GAO-05-66

    [IMG]

    October 2004

    IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

    DHS Has Incorporated Immigration Enforcement Objectives and Is Addressing Future
    Planning Requirements

                                     What GAO Found

    Though ICE does not have a formal, distinct interior enforcement strategy,
    all of the objectives contained in the legacy INS interior enforcement
    strategy have been incorporated within a broader mission aimed at
    strengthening homeland security through joint customs and immigration
    investigations. Two ICE offices-the Office of Investigations (OI) and the
    Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)-have responsibility for
    addressing these objectives. Through six enforcement units in four
    operating divisions, OI is primarily responsible for addressing the
    following legacy INS objectives: deterring, dismantling, and diminishing
    the smuggling and trafficking of aliens; responding to community
    complaints about illegal immigration; minimizing immigration benefit
    fraud; and removing employers' access to undocumented workers. DRO is
    primarily responsible for identifying and removing criminal aliens, with
    some assistance from OI.

    DRO has begun to align its strategic goals with its budget requests and
    workforce plans in order to determine what resources it needs in fiscal
    year 2005 and beyond. DRO is also developing performance measures to help
    identify future workforce plans and budget requests. For example, DRO is
    measuring the percentage of the fugitive alien population that is
    apprehended annually to determine whether resource levels are adequate.
    DRO officials said that until performance measures have been developed for
    all activities, it will be difficult to determine which efforts are most
    effective. To develop its budget request and workforce plans for fiscal
    year 2007 and beyond, OI field offices conducted baseline threat
    assessments to identify risks-such as the presence of a business that
    transports biological materials and may employ terrorists-on a regional
    basis. Related performance measures have been developed, but are not in
    use, therefore, they will not be used for workforce planning in ICE's
    fiscal year 2006 budget request. OI's fiscal year 2005 budget request was
    based on other considerations, such as the need to monitor foreign visa
    holders.

    The Department of Homeland Security reviewed a draft of this report and
    had no official comments.

                ICE Organization in the Department of Homeland Security

    Source: Department of Homeland Security.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief
    Background
    ICE Has Incorporated All Legacy INS Interior Enforcement

    Objectives ICE Immigration-Related Units Are Beginning to Align Budget and

    Workforce Plans with Related Performance Measures Concluding Observations
    Agency Comments

                                           1

                                          2 4

                                           6

    14 18 18

      Table

    Table 1: Legacy INS Interior Enforcement Strategy and Objectives

        Figures
                             Figure 1: DHS/ICE Organization Chart               6
                  Figure 2: Transition of the Legacy INS Interior Enforcement
                                 Strategy Objectives into ICE                   8
                          Figure 3: ICE OI Workforce Staffing Cycle            17

    Abbreviations

    BFU benefit fraud unit
    CBP Customs and Border Protection
    CIS (U.S.) Citizenship and Immigration Services
    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    DRO (Office of) Detention and Removal Operations
    OI Office of Investigations
    SAC special agent in charge
    ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

    October 8, 2004

    The Honorable John N. Hostettler
    Chairman
    Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
    Committee on the Judiciary
    House of Representatives

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    In January 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) formally
    implemented a strategy to focus resources on law enforcement activities
    the agency believed would have the greatest impact on reducing the size
    and growth of the illegal alien population in the United States. INS's
    interior enforcement strategy-so called because its enforcement
    activities focus on the interior of the United States, not the borders-had
    five objectives: (1) identify and remove criminal aliens from the United
    States and minimize recidivism; (2) deter, dismantle, and diminish the
    smuggling and trafficking of aliens; (3) respond to community reports and
    complaints about illegal immigration; (4) minimize immigration benefit
    fraud and other document abuse; and (5) block and remove employers'
    access to undocumented workers.

    After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the national debate on
    how best to address immigration-related crimes shifted. In particular, the
    need to identify and remove from the United States aliens who pose
    threats to homeland security-not just those who violated immigration
    laws-took on greater urgency. In response, in March 2003, three federal
    agencies-INS, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Federal Protective
    Service-began merging their law enforcement functions, expertise, and
    resources into the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE) within the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS).1
    ICE's mission, in part, is to move beyond the immigration-related offenses
    investigated by legacy INS in order to more broadly prevent terrorist and
    criminal activity by targeting the people, money, and materials that
    support terrorist-related organizations and activities. To this end, ICE

    1On November 25, 2003, the Federal Air Marshal Service was also
    transferred to ICE.

    brings together approximately 20,000 employees from various agencies in
    six operational units.

    You expressed interest in learning how ICE has integrated the objectives
    of the former INS interior enforcement strategy into its operations and
    whether ICE has determined what resources it needs to enforce federal
    immigration laws in the context of its broader objectives. In this report,
    we address the following questions: (1) What is the status of ICE's
    efforts to incorporate legacy INS's interior enforcement objectives? (2)
    How is ICE developing budget needs, workforce plans, and performance
    measures for immigration-related objectives?

    To determine how the legacy INS immigration objectives have been
    incorporated into ICE, we reviewed the DHS Strategic Plan and the mission
    descriptions and draft strategic plans that were available for the offices
    ICE officials identified as having immigration enforcement missions. We
    interviewed ICE directors, deputy assistant division directors, and unit
    chiefs about unit missions and strategies related to immigration
    enforcement. To determine how ICE is developing budget and workforce
    requirements for its immigration-related objectives, we interviewed
    relevant ICE officials, reviewed ICE budget submissions, and reviewed
    documents related to their case management system and operating guidance
    for the various ICE units performing immigrationrelated enforcement
    activities.

    We have work under way that will examine in more detail several interior
    enforcement objectives, including alien smuggling and related financial
    issues, immigration benefit fraud, and preventing employers from hiring
    undocumented workers. We will also be reporting on the transfer of
    selected legacy INS functions and activities into DHS.

    We conducted this review between March and September 2004 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief	Though ICE does not have a formal distinct interior
    enforcement strategy, all of the objectives contained in the legacy INS
    interior enforcement strategy have been incorporated within a broader
    mission aimed at strengthening homeland security through joint customs and
    immigration investigations. Two ICE offices-the Office of Investigations
    (OI) and the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)-now have
    responsibility for addressing these objectives. Through six enforcement
    units in four operating divisions, OI is primarily responsible for
    addressing

    the following legacy INS objectives: deterring, dismantling, and
    diminishing the smuggling and trafficking of aliens; responding to
    community reports and complaints about illegal immigration; minimizing
    immigration benefit fraud; and removing employers' access to undocumented
    workers. DRO is primarily responsible for one objective: identifying and
    removing criminal aliens, with some assistance from OI.

    DRO has begun to align its strategic goals with its budget requests and
    workforce plans in order to determine what resources it needs in fiscal
    year 2005 and beyond. For example, DRO's draft strategic plan includes a
    goal to use fugitive operations teams to help locate and apprehend
    criminal aliens. In its fiscal year 2005 budget request, DRO sought $50
    million to augment the fugitive operations teams for this purpose. DRO is
    also developing performance measures to help identify future workforce
    plans and budget requests. For example, DRO is measuring the percentage of
    the fugitive alien population that is apprehended annually to determine
    whether resource levels are adequate. DRO's performance measures will
    generally be based on six discrete budget categories within ICE that the
    House Committee on Appropriations has proposed creating for detention and
    removal operations. DRO officials acknowledged that until performance
    measures have been developed for all activities, it will be difficult to
    determine which efforts are most effective and where future resources
    should be allocated. While DRO will begin to use performance measure data
    to guide its fiscal year 2006 budget request, officials said these
    measures will be used more extensively for fiscal year 2007.

    As a first step toward developing budget requests and workforce plans for
    fiscal year 2007 and beyond, OI field offices conducted baseline threat
    assessments to identify risks-such as the presence of a business that
    transports biological materials and which may employ terrorists-on a
    regional basis. At the time of our review, ICE officials were reviewing
    action plans based on threat assessments submitted by the field offices.
    Related performance measures have been developed to assess how well a
    particular threat has been addressed. However, these measures are not in
    use because OI's director has not yet approved them. They will not be used
    for workforce planning in ICE's fiscal year 2006 budget request. OI's
    fiscal year 2005 budget request was not based on threat assessments, but
    on other considerations, such as the need to monitor foreign-student visa
    holders.

    The Department of Homeland Security reviewed a draft of this report and
    had no official comments.

    Background

    Legacy INS Interior Legacy INS's interior enforcement strategy was tied to
    five objectives, with

    Enforcement Strategy 	resources allocated to these objectives. Table 1
    summarizes each strategy and its objectives.

    Table 1: Legacy INS Interior Enforcement Strategy and Objectives

    Interior enforcement strategy
    (in priority order) Scope and objectives

    1. Identify and remove criminal aliens Identify and remove criminal aliens
    as they from the United States and minimize come out of the federal and
    state prison their recidivism. systems and remove those convicted of

    aggravated felonies currently in probation

    and parole status.

    2. Deter, dismantle, and diminish (organizations) smuggling or trafficking
    in aliens.

    3. Respond to community reports and complaints about illegal immigration.

    4. Minimize immigration benefit fraud and other document abuse.

    Disrupt and dismantle the criminal infrastructure that encouraged and
    benefited from illegal immigration; begin in source and transit countries
    and continue inside the United States, focusing on smugglers, counterfeit
    document producers, transporters, and employers who exploit and benefit
    from illegal immigration.

    Respond to local law enforcement issues and needs, with emphasis on
    working with local communities to identify and address problems that arise
    from the impact of illegal immigration, based on local threat assessments.

    Investigate and prosecute benefit fraud and document abuse, such as use of
    fraudulent marriage licenses, to promote integrity of the legal
    immigration system.

    5. Block and remove employers' access Deny employers access to
    unauthorized

    to undocumented workers. workers by checking their compliance with the
    employment verification requirements in the Immigration Reform and Control
    Act of 1986. This was to be coupled with efforts to control smuggling
    activity.

    Source: GAO.

    In 2003, we testified that on the basis of our previous work, INS faced
    numerous challenges to implementing its interior enforcement strategy.2

    2GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges to Implementing the Immigration
    Interior Enforcement Strategy, GAO-03-660T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10,
    2003).

    For example, the potential pool of aliens that had committed crimes that
    made them removable from the United States (termed criminal aliens) and
    fugitives (those aliens not in compliance with immigration status, orders,
    or laws) was in the hundreds of thousands. The number of individuals
    smuggled into the United States had increased dramatically, and alien
    smuggling had become more sophisticated, complex, organized, and flexible.
    Tens of thousands of aliens annually illegally seek immigration benefits,
    such as work authorization and change of visa status (e.g., from student
    to nonstudent), and some of these aliens use these benefits to enable them
    to conduct criminal activities. Hundreds of thousands of aliens
    unauthorized to work in the United States used fraudulent documents to
    circumvent the process designed to prevent employers from hiring them. In
    many instances, employers have been complicit in this activity. By
    assuming responsibility for the former INS strategy, ICE will face these
    same challenges.

    We also testified that fundamental management challenges existed in
    several of the interior enforcement programs and that addressing them
    would require the high-level attention and concerted efforts of ICE.3 For
    example, INS lacked reliable data to determine staff needs, clear and
    consistent guidelines and procedures for working-level staff, and
    appropriate performance measures to help assess program results. We stated
    that as ICE assumed responsibility for strategy implementation, ICE should
    consider how to address these challenges by improving resource allocation,
    program guidance, and performance measurement.

        ICE Mission and Organization

    Generally, ICE's mission is intended to reflect DHS's 2004 Strategic Plan,
    which states that immigration enforcement should be viewed as part of a
    comprehensive homeland security strategy that unifies and coordinates law
    enforcement operations across formerly separate agencies, such as Customs
    and INS. ICE is now the second largest investigative bureau in the federal
    government, with approximately 20,000 people. ICE's Office of
    Investigations is responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws.
    OI has about 6,000 agents in 27 field offices (headed by a special agent
    in charge, or SAC) throughout the United States. ICE's Office of Detention
    and Removal Operations is responsible for processing, detaining, and
    removing aliens illegally in the United States. DRO has 21 field offices
    throughout the United States and it operates eight secure detention

    3GAO-03-660T.

    facilities known as service processing centers and augments these centers
    with seven contract detention facilities. Figure 1 shows how ICE fits
    within the DHS organization.

    Figure 1: DHS/ICE Organization Chart

    Source: DHS.

    Field office staff of two ICE offices, OI and DRO, have incorporated the
    five legacy INS interior enforcement objectives. While ICE officials told
    us that a formal distinct interior enforcement strategy no longer exists,
    OI has established enforcement units within divisions that primarily
    address four of the objectives:

    o  	The legacy INS objective of deterring, dismantling, and diminishing
    smuggling or trafficking in aliens is now addressed by the human
    trafficking unit in the Smuggling and Public Safety Investigations
    Division.

    o  	The legacy INS objective of responding to community reports and
    complaints about illegal immigration is now addressed by two OI units:
    human trafficking and human rights within the Smuggling and Public Safety
    Investigations Division.

    o  	The legacy INS objective of minimizing immigration benefit fraud and
    other document abuse (e.g., fraudulent marriage licenses) is now

      ICE Has Incorporated All Legacy INS Interior Enforcement Objectives

    addressed by the identity and benefits fraud unit in the Smuggling and
    Public Safety Investigations Division, and the visa security unit in the
    International Affairs Division.

    o  	The legacy INS objective of blocking and removing employers' access to
    undocumented workers-particularly with respect to the nation's critical
    infrastructure, including airports, military installations, and defense
    contractors-is now addressed by the critical infrastructure protection
    unit in the National Security Investigations Division.

    In addition, an OI official said they are pursuing money laundering
    charges through the Financial Investigations Division as part of human
    trafficking and benefit fraud investigations. This capability did not
    exist in the legacy INS.

    DRO will be responsible for one legacy INS objective: identifying and
    removing criminal aliens and minimizing recidivism. The DRO divisions
    responsible for this objective include criminal alien and compliance
    enforcement. OI also has a role here. Its compliance enforcement unit
    within the National Security Investigations Division identifies certain
    aliens who are deemed a risk to national security. Figure 2 depicts where
    the five INS interior enforcement strategy objectives have been
    incorporated within ICE. Note that the figure does not show all ICE
    offices, divisions, or units that perform immigration-related work. Only
    those discussed in the report are shown.

    Figure 2: Transition of the Legacy INS Interior Enforcement Strategy Objectives
                                        into ICE

    Office
    Division
    Headquarters units

    Source: GAO analysis of ICE information.

    Deterring, Dismantling, and Diminishing Smuggling or Trafficking in Aliens

    The following discusses how OI and then DRO are addressing, or plan to
    address, each of the objectives in the legacy INS's interior enforcement
    strategy.

    In 2000, we reported that INS's ability to implement its antismuggling
    strategy was impeded by several factors.4 Under INS, two separate
    enforcement entities, the Border Patrol and the Investigations Program,
    conducted alien smuggling investigations. We concluded that due to a lack
    of program coordination in several border areas, there were multiple
    antismuggling enforcement units that overlapped in their jurisdictions,
    operated autonomously, and reported to different INS officials. According
    to INS's Investigations Program officials, the autonomy of the individual
    anti-smuggling field units and the lack of a single chain of command were
    major obstacles to a more effective antismuggling program.

    Within DHS, OI's Smuggling and Public Safety Investigations Division is
    primarily responsible for addressing human smuggling through its human
    trafficking unit. Some of the program coordination issues we identified in
    our prior report may be resolved. For example, according to an OI
    official, the Border Patrol will only have a minor role in human smuggling
    investigations and will be required to coordinate with OI before
    initiating an antismuggling investigation. In addition, ICE believes that
    it has instituted a single-chain-of-command structure, with its 27 SACs
    reporting directly to OI headquarters.

    OI officials said they believe that the merging of INS and legacy Customs
    investigators into OI could lead to enhanced alien-smuggling
    investigations. For example, OI officials said human smuggling and
    trafficking cases in INS would have been handled locally, for the most
    part, and the charges pursued would be primarily limited to immigration
    violations. INS needed to seek outside assistance if it wished to pursue
    additional charges, such as money laundering. With the merger of legacy
    Customs and the ensuing ability to investigate financial violations such
    as money laundering, additional charges can be pursued without the need
    for outside assistance. We have ongoing work reviewing ICE efforts to
    address alien smuggling, including the pursuit of associated financial
    issues.

    4GAO, Alien Smuggling: Management and Operational Improvements Needed to
    Address Growing Problem, GAO/GGD-00-103 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2000).

    Responding to community reports and complaints about illegal immigration

    Minimizing immigration benefit fraud and other document abuse

    OI officials told us that they have both ongoing and planned efforts to
    respond to community complaints about illegal immigration through two
    units in the Smuggling and Public Safety Division: human rights and human
    trafficking. According to ICE officials, operation ICE Storm is an example
    of how ICE has responded to community complaints arising from illegal
    immigration. ICE Storm is an ICE-directed task force formed in Phoenix,
    Arizona, created in response to a surge in violent crime in the Phoenix
    area related to alien smuggling. ICE Storm is a joint federal, state, and
    local effort to identify and then dismantle the financial infrastructure
    of these smuggling operations by seizing the assets used to transport or
    house the illegal aliens, or the financial proceeds generated by these
    crimes. The ICE Storm task force included all six ICE offices working in
    various capacities (see fig. 1); the U.S., state, and county attorney's
    offices; the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
    and Explosives; the Arizona Department of Public Safety; and the local
    police department and sheriff's office. In congressional testimony in May
    2004, ICE stated that the Phoenix Police Department credited ICE Storm
    with a 17 percent decline in homicides and an 82 percent decline in
    migrantrelated kidnappings in the final 3 months of 2003. In addition, OI
    has established a human rights unit responsible for public safety and
    transnational crimes that OI officials say will, among other things,
    address gang activities in communities and target gang members who are
    criminal aliens.

    In 2002, we reported that immigration benefit fraud-the practice of
    obtaining permission to enter, stay, or work in the United States through
    fraudulent means, such as false representation of marriage-and other types
    of document abuse, such as counterfeiting birth certificates or other
    documents, posed a serious problem that threatened the integrity of the
    legal immigration system.5 Some INS officials believed that some aliens
    were using the benefit application process to enable them to carry out
    illegal activities, such as crimes of violence, narcotics trafficking, and
    terrorism. Although this was a serious problem, INS did not have a
    comprehensive plan for coordinating its benefit fraud investigations and
    had not established guidance for opening and prioritizing investigations.
    With the creation of DHS, two separate organizations are now responsible
    for combating immigration benefit fraud: The U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services (CIS)-a DHS component outside of ICE-is

    5GAO, Immigration Benefit Fraud: Focused Approach Is Needed to Address
    Problems, GAO-02-66 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).

    Blocking and removing employers' access to undocumented workers

    responsible for adjudicating immigration benefit applications and for
    referring suspected fraudulent applications to OI. OI, for its part, is
    then responsible for investigating possible criminal violations related to
    persons applying for immigration benefits.

    ICE has taken steps to address some of the immigration benefit fraud
    problems we identified in our report. For example, ICE has created benefit
    fraud units (BFU)-field-based units under the headquarters identity and
    benefits fraud unit-that are to work with CIS service center officials in
    pursuing acts of suspected document and benefit fraud. To guide BFU field
    operations with regard to conducting immigration benefit fraud
    investigations, ICE is developing an immigration benefit fraud strategy.
    In its instructions to all SACs, ICE OI said BFUs are to pursue leads
    based on their urgency, with the highest priority reserved for those cases
    that pose an imminent threat to public safety and national security. BFUs
    are also expected to support the SACs in their field investigations of
    benefit fraud. ICE and CIS are in the process of developing a memorandum
    of understanding that is to describe each organization's roles and
    responsibilities and how the organizations will coordinate benefit fraud
    investigations. We have ongoing work on how well CIS and ICE are working
    together to combat immigration benefit fraud.

    To address other types of immigration-related document abuse, ICE created
    the visa security unit within ICE's International Affairs Division. This
    unit reviews applications for visas to detect travelers posing a threat to
    national security as well as fraudulent activities that may arise in the
    visa application process.

    Hundreds of thousands of aliens have used fraudulent documents to
    circumvent the process designed to prevent employers from hiring them. In
    many instances, employers are complicit in this activity. According to ICE
    officials, legacy INS pursued this objective through sanctions against any
    employer known or suspected of hiring undocumented workers and those with
    ties to human smuggling or suspected of worker exploitation. Following the
    events of September 11, 2001, legacy INS shifted its focus to businesses
    related to the nation's critical infrastructure, which include private or
    government entities such as airports and nuclear power plants. If these
    businesses were to be compromised by terrorists, this would pose a serious
    threat to domestic security. In April 2003, we testified that given ICE's
    limited resources, it needs to ensure that it targets those industries

    where employment of illegal aliens poses the greatest potential risk to
    national security.6

    ICE is pursuing this objective, now called critical infrastructure
    protection, by concentrating its enforcement resources on those industries
    where employment of illegal aliens poses the greatest potential threat to
    national security. ICE officials said they are continuing legacy INS's
    strategy of focusing particularly on the employment of undocumented
    workers at critical infrastructure facilities such as airports, military
    installations, defense contractors, and federal buildings. An example of
    critical infrastructure protection is Operation Tarmac, an ongoing
    national multiagency initiative focused on screening employees working in
    secure areas of U.S. airports. As of April 2004, Operation Tarmac had
    investigated almost 200 airports and audited nearly 6,000 businesses.
    These investigations resulted in the identification of nearly 5,000
    unauthorized workers. ICE said that in addition to identifying and
    removing undocumented workers at these types of facilities, its objective
    is to work with these industries-and the federal agencies with oversight
    responsibility for these industries, such as the Federal Aviation
    Administration-to reduce the possibility of undocumented workers obtaining
    employment in the future. We have ongoing work related to ICE's
    investigations into the hiring practices of employers and the employment
    verification process designed to help prevent employers from hiring
    undocumented workers.

    Our prior work found that although INS was to identify and remove criminal
    aliens as they came out of federal and state prison systems, INS had
    failed to identify all removable imprisoned criminal aliens.7 As a result,
    some who were released from prison were convicted of new felonies-and as
    such, were recidivists. DRO continues to face a significant challenge in
    identifying and removing criminal aliens and minimizing recidivism-that
    is, reducing the number of criminal aliens who are reincarcerated. Many
    aliens, including criminal aliens, are released from custody pending a
    final decision on their removal from the United States. DRO officials
    estimate that only 40 percent of aliens released from custody report for
    their deportation hearings. DRO also estimated that as of August 2004,
    there

    Identifying and removing criminal aliens and minimizing their recidivism

    6GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges to Implementing the Immigration
    Interior Enforcement Strategy, GAO-03-660T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10,
    2003).

    7GAO, Criminal Aliens: INS' Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned
    Aliens Continue to Need Improvement, GAO/T-GGD-99-47 (Washington, D.C.:
    February 25, 1999).

    were approximately 350,000 to 480,000 aliens who had been ordered to leave
    the United States, but DRO cannot verify that they have actually
    departed-and thus these individuals may still be residing in the United
    States as fugitives.

    DRO officials said they are taking three steps to address the objective of
    ensuring the departure of all removable aliens, in accordance with DRO's
    June 2003 draft strategic plan: (1) locate and remove the criminal aliens
    whose departure from the country can not be confirmed; (2) improve
    identification of criminal aliens as early as possible in the judicial
    process, including those already in custody in federal, state, and local
    facilities; and (3) more efficiently use DRO's existing prison bed space
    for the criminal aliens DRO places in custody. To carry out the first step
    of apprehending fugitive aliens who have received orders to leave the
    United States but have not done so, DRO established 16 fugitive operations
    teams, consisting of about 10 officers per team. DRO has requested funding
    for 30 more teams in fiscal year 2005. Officials said DRO is taking steps
    to address the second and third steps through a series of pilot projects
    to identify efficiency improvements in identifying and removing criminal
    aliens. For example, to better ensure criminal aliens are identified, DRO
    is exploring the feasibility of identifying individuals at the time of
    prosecution rather than while they are in prison. To ensure that aliens
    who are not detained while in immigration proceedings do not flee, DRO is
    exploring using alternatives to detention such as the use of ankle
    bracelets, home visits, and telephone reporting.

    OI's compliance enforcement unit also plays a role in identifying criminal
    aliens. This unit analyzes data contained in various systems, such as the
    Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, which contains
    information on international students and exchange visitors, to identify
    those who may have violated their terms of entry or who might otherwise
    pose a threat to national security.

      ICE Immigration-Related Units Are Beginning to Align Budget and Workforce
      Plans with Related Performance Measures

    Using fiscal year 2005 as a baseline, DRO has begun to align its strategic
    goals for fugitive operations and alien removal efforts, among others,
    with its workforce plans and budget requests. In addition, DRO is
    developing outcome-based performance measures to help determine how
    effectively it is performing its immigration-related functions overall.
    These performance measures are based on six discrete budget categories
    within ICE that the House Committee on Appropriations has proposed
    creating for detention and removal operations. To guide development of
    budget and workforce requirements for fiscal year 2007 and beyond, OI is
    conducting baseline threat assessments through its regional offices. OI's
    fiscal year 2005 budget request is based on other considerations,
    including a congressional mandate.

        DRO Is Developing Performance Measures That It Plans to Tie to Budgeting,
        Workforce Planning, and Strategic Goals for Fiscal Year 2005 and Beyond

    DRO has begun to align its strategic goals with its workforce plans and
    budget requests in order to determine what resources it needs in fiscal
    year 2005 and beyond. For example, DRO's draft strategic plan includes a
    goal to use its fugitive operations teams to help locate and apprehend
    criminal aliens. DRO currently has 16 fugitive operations teams. In its
    fiscal year 2005 budget request, DRO sought $50 million and 236 positions
    to staff 30 additional operations teams (bringing the total to 46 teams).
    DRO's strategic plan also includes a goal to hire other new staff (apart
    from fugitive operations teams) to assist in the removal of criminal
    aliens from federal, state, and local correctional institutions. To this
    end, DRO sought $30 million in its fiscal year 2005 request. The request,
    if approved, will enable DRO to hire 249 officers to perform this alien
    removal work, which is now done by OI.

    For future budget submissions, DRO is attempting to measure its workload
    in some areas in order to develop workforce plans and related budget
    requests. For example, to determine the resources that DRO will need to
    identify and remove criminal aliens in the future, DRO has contracted for
    a study to determine the current and projected number of removable aliens
    incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. DRO will also use the
    results of its pilot programs (e.g, electronic monitoring and home visits
    of nondetained aliens) to determine which efforts intended to prevent
    nondetained aliens from fleeing while in immigration proceedings, may
    merit additional funding.

    DRO is also developing performance measures, which are needed to help
    develop workforce plans and budget requests. For example, in fugitive
    operations, DRO is measuring the percentage of the fugitive alien
    population that is apprehended annually. DRO is developing its

    performance measures based on six discrete budget categories within ICE
    that the House Committee on Appropriations has proposed creating for
    detention and removal operations.8 The categories pertain to specific DRO
    functions in custody management, case management, fugitive operations,
    institutional alien removal, alternatives to detention, and alien
    transportation and removal. According to the House Committee on
    Appropriations report, the purpose of creating these categories is to
    improve the way budget information is presented and tracked so as to bring
    additional detail and clarity to the budget process. On the basis of this
    report, DRO has chosen to align new performance measures with the
    categories, using fiscal year 2005 as a baseline. In past testimony on
    legacy INS's interior enforcement strategy, we said that INS lacked
    management information, such as performance measures, that were needed to
    determine how many staff were required to meet program goals and allocate
    human capital resources.9

    DRO officials acknowledge that they face challenges as they continue to
    develop performance measures. DRO officials indicated, for example, that
    until they develop performance measures for all activities-and then use
    those measures to assess how well DRO is performing-it will be difficult
    to determine which of its efforts are most effective and where future
    resources should be allocated. For instance, DRO is not certain of the
    relative value of deploying fugitive operation teams in removing criminal
    aliens-for which it has performance measures-compared with other efforts
    where new performance measures are not yet fully developed, such as
    identifying removable aliens earlier in the judicial process. While DRO
    will begin to use performance measure data to guide its fiscal year 2006
    budget request, officials said these measures will be used more
    extensively for fiscal year 2007.

    DRO's ability to project staff needs is also challenged by the operations
    of other DHS components involved in immigration enforcement. DRO's draft
    strategic plan states, and DRO officials confirm, that they will need
    additional information on how ICE and non-ICE immigration enforcement
    entities, such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), plan to address

    8The six measures DRO is using are based on the funding categories
    recommended in the House Report 108-541, accompanying the Department of
    Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2005, H.R. 4567. The legislation
    was passed by the House on June 18, 2004. DRO officials said they are
    attempting to realign these six categories into five.

    9GAO-03-660T.

    apprehending illegal aliens. The demand for DRO's services is in part
    driven by how CBP, and others, perform. For example, the demand for DRO
    bed space in facilities that house criminal aliens is driven both by CBP's
    enforcement efforts and OI's success in investigating cases involving
    immigration violations. DRO must integrate the goals of these
    organizations with regard to their needs for detention space in order to
    estimate its staff requirements.

        OI Will Develop Budget and Workforce Plans Using Performance Measures Guided
        by Threat Assessments

    As a first step toward developing budget requests and workforce plans for
    fiscal year 2007 and beyond, OI field offices have conducted baseline
    threat-level assessments. According to officials, these threat assessments
    will help ICE to identify risks on a regional basis. For example, an ICE
    region might contain a business that transports biological materials.
    Terrorists may attempt to obtain employment at such a business in order to
    obtain such materials. As each field office completes its threat
    assessments, which are to be updated on a recurring basis, an action plan
    is developed to address the threats. For instance, OI could use its
    authority for critical infrastructure protection-as it has in Operation
    Tarmac-to develop a plan that checks the identities of persons who work at
    a business that transports biological materials, and help the business
    establish security policies. At the time of our review, ICE officials were
    reviewing action plans based on threat assessments submitted by the field
    offices.

    Once a plan for addressing a particular threat is in place, SACs will
    measure how well a particular threat has been addressed. Specifically,
    they intend to measure the impact of OI's investigative activities on
    deterring threats or decreasing vulnerabilities to national security. An
    OI official said new performance measures have been developed for this
    purpose but are not being used because OI's director has not yet approved
    them. These measures will not be used for workforce planning in ICE's
    fiscal year 2006 budget request. In accordance with the Government
    Performance and Results Act of 1993, OI told us it plans to base its new
    performance measures on outcomes, which assess results relative to goals.
    These measures will be used in place of traditional output measures, such
    as the number of cases initiated, work hours expended, arrests, and
    seizures.

    OI will use its performance measures to determine whether it should
    reallocate its existing staff or request additional staff to better
    address the threats identified in the threat-assessment process (see fig.
    3). ICE officials

    said linking threat assessments with workforce planning will become part
    of OI's staffing requirement methodology for future budget requests.

    Figure 3: ICE OI Workforce Staffing Cycle

    Source: GAO analysis of ICE information.

    OI's fiscal year 2005 budget request was not based on the threatassessment
    approach because required performance measures had not been developed. The
    2005 budget request was based on estimates of separate and unrelated
    needs, such as OI's anticipated workforce levels to carry out its
    compliance enforcement mission; and the creation of a visa security unit
    to work with the State Department in reviewing visa applications from
    other countries, including reviewing all visa requests from Saudi Arabia
    as mandated by Congress.10 For fiscal year 2005, for example, OI seeks an
    additional $16 million to add 130 compliance enforcement agents dedicated
    to monitoring foreign students and other visitors with visas who may pose
    a threat to national security. ICE officials said this request was based
    on workload estimates generated by the number of investigative leads
    created by the systems used to track aliens visiting the United States
    with visas. If funded, this would bring the proposed total to 165 agents
    in the field offices by the end of fiscal year 2005.

    10Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub.L.107-296 (2002))
    provides the Secretary of DHS with the authority to establish a visa
    security unit. On October 31, 2003, DHS assigned responsibility for
    creating this unit to ICE's Office of International Affairs, within OI.

    OI also seeks for fiscal year 2005 an additional $23 million to add 200
    agents to deter employers from hiring undocumented workers. OI estimates
    that with these additional resources it will complete 50 percent more
    investigations and present 50 percent more employer cases for prosecution,
    in fiscal year 2005 than in fiscal year 2004. Priority in this area will
    be given to investigation of critical infrastructure facilities and
    prosecution of employers suspected of human trafficking or smuggling
    offenses, criminal violations, or other forms of worker exploitation.

    Finally, OI officials said there are plans for deploying agents who may
    become available if DRO's budget request to assume the institutional
    removal program is included in DHS's budget appropriations for DRO for
    fiscal year 2005. In that case, OI anticipates using the 249 agents who
    would be freed up by this request to pursue criminal aliens on probation
    or parole and address alien involvement in street gangs. This activity is
    consistent with OI's responsibility for addressing local concerns about
    immigration violations and the identification and removal of criminal
    aliens.

    Concluding Observations

    Agency Comments

    Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has engaged in sweeping
    efforts to strengthen and enhance our nation's capacity to identify,
    assess, and respond to potential terrorist and terrorist-related
    organizations that threaten homeland security. In the 19 months since ICE
    was formed within DHS, ICE has begun to develop an organizational
    structure designed, among other things, to prevent terrorist activities
    tied to immigration violations and to remove criminal aliens who pose a
    threat to the United States. ICE is moving in the right direction by
    developing outcome-based performance measures and threat assessments for
    determining future budget and staffing requirements. If successful, this
    approach should help ICE measure its effectiveness in achieving its
    immigration-related goals and objectives and better ensure that limited
    resources are used effectively.

    The Department of Homeland Security reviewed a draft of this report and
    had no official comments.

    As agreed with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we
    plan no further distribution of the report until 30 days after its issue
    date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Homeland
    Security and appropriate congressional committees. We will also make
    copies

    available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
    available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
    contact Michael Dino at (213) 830-1150 or me at (202) 512-8777. Other
    individuals who made key contributions to this report are Amy Bernstein,
    Anthony DeFrank, Kathleen Ebert, Ann H. Finley, and Carolyn Ikeda.

    Sincerely yours,

    Richard M. Stana Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

      GAO's Mission

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    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.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site (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
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

      To Report Fraud, Contact:

    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov(202)
    512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
    NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

                               PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
    *** End of document. ***