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: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected](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, [email protected] (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. ***