Information on Immigration Enforcement and Supervisory Promotions
in the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection (13-JUN-06,	 
GAO-06-751R).							 
                                                                 
After the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  
in March 2003, two legacy enforcement agencies--the former	 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the U.S. Customs
Service (USCS)--were among the 22 federal agencies brought	 
together within DHS. This transformation in turn merged the	 
legacy INS and USCS investigators into the U.S. Immigration and  
Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations (OI), and	 
legacy INS and USCS inspectors, among others, into Customs and	 
Border Protection (CBP). It has been nearly 3 years since the	 
merger and efforts to integrate thousands of federal employees	 
within ICE and CBP continue. Congress raised questions about	 
ongoing human capital challenges brought about by the integration
of legacy enforcement employees within ICE and CBP. In prior	 
work, we have reported on the management and human capital	 
challenges DHS faces as it merges the workforces of legacy	 
agencies, including the need to clarify the roles and		 
responsibilities of the new agencies, the difficulty of legacy	 
staff operating from separate locations, and how it decides to	 
allocate investigative resources. This report addresses the	 
following objectives: (1) How many investigative work years were 
dedicated to immigration enforcement activities for fiscal years 
1999 through 2005? (2) What factors does ICE use as the basis for
allocating its investigative resources? (3) What assessments do  
ICE and CBP use as a basis for making decisions on supervisory	 
promotions? (4) Have ICE and CBP supervisory promotions been	 
distributed between legacy INS and USCS staff in proportion to	 
the supervisory staff each legacy agency brought to ICE and CBP? 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-751R					        
    ACCNO:   A55526						        
  TITLE:     Information on Immigration Enforcement and Supervisory   
Promotions in the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration  
and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection	 
     DATE:   06/13/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Employee promotions				 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Human capital management				 
	     Immigration					 
	     Investigations by federal agencies 		 
	     Labor force					 
	     Work measurement					 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-751R

     

     * briefingslidesv2_.pdf
          * Order by Mail or Phone

June 13, 2006

The Honorable John N. Hostettler

Chairman

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Immigration,

Border Security, and Claims

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Subject: Information on Immigration Enforcement and Supervisory Promotions
in the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection

After the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March
2003, two legacy enforcement agencies-the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) and the U.S. Customs Service (USCS)-were
among the 22 federal agencies brought together within DHS.1 This
transformation in turn merged the legacy INS and USCS investigators2 into
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of
Investigations (OI), and legacy INS and USCS inspectors,3 among others,
into Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It has been nearly 3 years since
the merger and efforts to integrate thousands of federal employees within
ICE and CBP continue. You raised questions about ongoing human capital
challenges brought about by the integration of legacy enforcement
employees within ICE and CBP. In prior work, we have reported on the
management and human capital challenges DHS faces as it merges the
workforces of legacy agencies, including the need to clarify the roles and

1 Prior to the merger, INS was part of the Department of Justice and USCS
was part of the Department of the Treasury.

2 Investigators in legacy INS conducted investigations into
immigration-related cases, such as alien smuggling, while legacy USCS
investigators conducted investigations into customs-related cases, such as
international money laundering and the import and export of illegal drugs.
ICE investigators conduct investigations of both immigration and
customs-related cases.

3 Inspectors in legacy INS primarily conducted immigration-related
inspections at ports of entry, such as inspections of persons entering the
country for admissibility. Legacy USCS inspectors primarily conducted
customs-related inspections at ports of entry, such as inspections for the
entry of goods and merchandise into the country. CBP officers conduct both
immigration and customs-related inspections at ports of entry.

responsibilities of the new agencies, the difficulty of legacy staff
operating from separate locations, and how it decides to allocate
investigative resources.4

This report addresses the following objectives:

           1. How many investigative work years were dedicated to immigration
           enforcement activities for fiscal years 1999 through 2005?
           2. What factors does ICE use as the basis for allocating its
           investigative resources?
           3. What assessments do ICE and CBP use as a basis for making
           decisions on supervisory promotions?
           4. Have ICE and CBP supervisory promotions been distributed
           between legacy INS and USCS staff in proportion to the supervisory
           staff each legacy agency brought to ICE and CBP?

To obtain information on investigative work years on immigration
enforcement, we compared investigative resource use data from legacy INS
for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 from its Performance Analysis System5
to similar data for ICE for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 using the
investigative case categories added to its Treasury Enforcement
Communication System (TECS) after the formation of ICE.6 We define
immigration enforcement as the number of work years7 spent on
investigations by legacy INS and ICE investigative staff of criminal
aliens (aliens who were arrested for criminal activity unrelated to their
immigration status), human smuggling (the surreptitious entry of people
into the United States for profit by a third party in violation of
immigration laws) and trafficking (the surreptitious entry of people into
the United States for profit by a third party in violation of immigration
laws that involves the threat of force or coercion), employers of
unauthorized workers (improper employment of undocumented workers),
identity and benefit fraud (willful misrepresentation of material fact on
the petition or application for an immigration benefit and the
manufacturing, counterfeiting, alteration, sale and use of fraudulent
documents to circumvent immigration laws and/or for other criminal
activity), and other immigration violations.

To determine the factors ICE uses to allocate investigative resources, we
used our previous 2006 report that examined how ICE allocates its
investigative resources.8 To determine the assessments ICE and CBP use to
make supervisory promotion decisions, we interviewed ICE and CBP human
capital and program officials who were knowledgeable about human capital
policies and actions and reviewed documentation concerning these policies
and actions. Finally, to determine if ICE and CBP supervisory promotions
have been distributed between legacy INS and USCS staff in proportion to
the supervisory staff each legacy agency brought to ICE and CBP, we
analyzed ICE and CBP personnel and supervisory promotion decisions. We did
not independently review any ICE or CBP promotion decisions.

4 GAO, Homeland Security: Management Challenges Remain in Transforming
Immigration Programs, GAO-05-81 (Washington, D.C.: October 2004). GAO,
Homeland Security: Better Management Practices Could Enhance DHS's Ability
to Allocate Investigative Resources, GAO-06-48SU (Washington, D.C.:
December 2005).

5 PAS is the system INS used to record the time it devoted to immigration
activities, including investigations.

6 TECS is a management information system used by legacy USCS to document
its investigative activities. Before the formation of ICE, TECS contained
investigative case categories to capture activity for Customs-related
investigations. In fiscal year 2004, additional case categories for
immigration investigative activities were added to these.

7 Work years equal total investigative hours divided by 2,080, the number
of hours in a standard work year.

8 See GAO-06-48SU.

To assess the reliability of the investigative resource and human capital
data, we discussed the data collection methods and internal control
processes for ensuring data quality with responsible officials and staff
and reviewed the data for reasonableness. To test the human capital data
for reasonableness, we used the data to compute frequencies and other
summary analyses, examined the data and summary analyses for outliers
(large values that are inconsistent with other data), and compared the
data/analyses to other known agency documentation. We found that the data
we used for our analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.

In April 2006, we briefed your offices on the results of our work. This
report conveys the information provided during those discussions with some
additional detail (see enclosure).

We performed our work from January 2006 through May 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                                    Summary

           o  Investigative work years for immigration enforcement were
           generally declining under INS, but have increased since ICE was
           formed in 2003. Specifically, investigative work years for
           immigration enforcement under INS decreased by about 14 percent
           from fiscal years 1999 through 2002, and increased in fiscal year
           2003. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001, INS was
           having difficulty recruiting and retaining staff and INS
           experienced about an 8 to 9 percent annual attrition in
           investigative staff, which in part explains the decrease in work
           years during the 1999 through 2002 period. The number of
           investigative work years spent on immigration enforcement
           investigations rose by 2 percent in fiscal year 2004 and by 16
           percent in fiscal year 2005.

           o  ICE uses a combination of factors to allocate its investigative
           resources, including whether an investigation indicates a
           potential threat to national security, the execution of special
           programs run out of headquarters divisions and units like
           Operation Community Shield, which targets violent street gang
           members, and carry-over legacy activities, such as support for
           implementation of the national drug control strategy. About half
           of ICE investigative resources were used for drug, financial (the
           criminal or civil violation of financial laws enforced by ICE,
           such as money laundering), and general alien (the varied criminal
           and administrative cases where the subject's alienage is a
           requirement of the offense) investigations in fiscal years 2004
           and 2005.

           o  ICE and CBP supervisory promotion decisions are based on
           weighted assessments measuring supervisory skills as well as
           knowledge of investigative and inspectional procedures and laws.
           Assessments common to ICE and CBP that do not require specialized
           legacy agency knowledge and are evaluated through testing are
           Critical Thinking (logic and problem solving), Managerial Writing
           (written communication), and an In-basket Job Simulation (ability
           to prioritize and manage). The Job Knowledge Test in ICE measures
           knowledge of customs and immigration laws and general
           investigative procedures across the range of ICE investigative
           activities and is divided into equally weighted sections testing
           knowledge of smuggling and public safety, financial
           investigations, investigative services, national security
           investigations, and general criminal investigations techniques.
           CBP's Career Experience Inventory measures knowledge of customs
           and immigration laws and inspectional procedures as well as
           experience performing supervisory and management functions. We did
           not verify these assessments or test how well they measure the
           knowledge and skills they address.

           o  For one promotion cycle in ICE, legacy INS staff received about
           two-thirds of the total supervisory promotions to GS grades 14 and
           15. In fiscal year 2004, ICE noncompetitively promoted more than
           200 legacy INS GS-13 supervisors to GS-14 to bring about parity
           with legacy USCS supervisory investigators who were at the GS-14
           grade level. Promotions were more proportional to existing on
           board distributions of legacy supervisory personnel in fiscal year
           2005, that is, legacy INS supervisors constituted 34 percent of
           the GS-14 and -15 supervisors and received 36 percent of the
           promotions that year. At CBP, the distribution of GS-12 to -15
           supervisory promotions for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 was
           generally proportional to the distribution of legacy staff in
           those positions at the start of each fiscal year. For example, in
           fiscal year 2004, legacy INS staff constituted 34 percent of the
           on board supervisors and received 30 percent of the promotions,
           while legacy USCS staff constituted 66 percent of the on board
           supervisors and received 70 percent of the promotions.

Agency Comments

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of
Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security responded that it
had no comments.

As we agreed with your office, we will send copies to the Department of
Homeland Security, and other interested congressional committees.

If your office or staff has any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8816 or by e-mail at [email protected] or Michael
Dino, Assistant Director, at (213) 830-1150 or [email protected]. Key
contributors to this report were Amy Bernstein, Tony DeFrank, Curtis
Groves, Wilfred Holloway, Wendy Johnson, Mimi Nguyen, and Jeremy Sebest.

Richard M. Stana, Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Enclosure

Enclosure I

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.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***