Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on		 
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions (06-SEP-07,	 
GAO-07-1081T).							 
                                                                 
The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) recent 4-year	 
anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress	 
DHS has made. The creation of DHS was one of the largest federal 
reorganizations in the last several decades, and GAO has reported
that it was an enormous management challenge and that the size,  
complexity, and importance of the effort made the challenge	 
especially daunting and critical to the nation's security. Our	 
prior work on mergers and acquisitions has found that successful 
transformations of large organizations, even those faced with	 
less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at least 5 to 7
years to achieve. This testimony is based on our August 2007	 
report evaluating DHS's progress since March 2003. Specifically, 
it addresses DHS's progress across 14 mission and management	 
areas and key themes that have affected DHS's implementation	 
efforts.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1081T					        
    ACCNO:   A75747						        
  TITLE:     Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on      
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions		 
     DATE:   09/06/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Information management				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Risk management					 
	     Strategic information systems planning		 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Agency organizational structure			 
	     Information sharing				 
	     Program coordination				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 
	     GAO High Risk Series				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-1081T

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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

Testimony before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 1:30 p.m. EST: 

Thursday, September 6, 2007: 

Department Of Homeland Security: 

Progress Report on Implementation of Mission and Management Functions: 

Statement of David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States: 

GAO-07-1081T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-1081T, a testimony before the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Homeland Securityï¿½s (DHS) recent 4-year anniversary 
provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress DHS has made. The 
creation of DHS was one of the largest federal reorganizations in the 
last several decades, and GAO has reported that it was an enormous 
management challenge and that the size, complexity, and importance of 
the effort made the challenge especially daunting and critical to the 
nationï¿½s security. Our prior work on mergers and acquisitions has found 
that successful transformations of large organizations, even those 
faced with less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at least 5 
to 7 years to achieve. This testimony is based on our August 2007 
report evaluating DHSï¿½s progress since March 2003. Specifically, it 
addresses DHSï¿½s progress across 14 mission and management areas and key 
themes that have affected DHSï¿½s implementation efforts. 

How GAO Did this Study: 

To assess DHSï¿½s progress for the report, GAO identified performance 
expectations for each mission and management area based on legislation, 
homeland security presidential directives, DHS and component agenciesï¿½ 
strategic plans, and other sources. 

GAO analyzed these documents to identify responsibilities for DHS and 
obtained and incorporated feedback from DHS officials on the 
performance expectations. On the basis of GAOï¿½s and the DHS Office of 
Inspector Generalï¿½s (IG) prior work and updated information provided by 
DHS, GAO judged the extent to which DHS has taken actions to generally 
achieve each performance expectation. An assessment of generally 
achieved indicated that, in our view, DHS has taken actions to satisfy 
most elements of the expectation, and an assessment of generally not 
achieved indicated that, in our view, DHS has not yet taken actions to 
satisfy most elements of the expectation. In cases when we or the DHS 
IG had not completed work upon which to base an assessment or the 
information DHS provided did not enable us to clearly determine the 
extent to which DHS has achieved the performance expectation, we 
indicated no assessment made. 

Our assessment of DHSï¿½s progress relative to each performance 
expectation was not meant to imply that DHS should have fully achieved 
the performance expectation at this point. On the basis of this 
analysis, GAO determined whether DHS has made limited, modest, 
moderate, or substantial progress in each mission and management area. 
The assessments of progress do not reflect, nor are they intended to 
reflect, the extent to which DHSï¿½s actions have made the nation more 
secure in each area. 

What GAO Found: 

Since its establishment in March 2003, DHS has made varying levels of 
progress in implementing its mission and management areas, as shown in 
the following table. In general, DHS has made more progress in its 
mission areas than in its management areas. Within its mission areas, 
DHS has made progress in developing plans and programs, but has faced 
challenges in its implementation efforts. 

Table: Summary of Assessments of DHS's Progress in Mission and 
Management Areas: 

Mission/Management area: Border security; 
Number of performance expectations: 12; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 5; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 7; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/Management area: Immigration enforcement; 
Number of performance expectations: 16; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 8; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 4; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 4; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/Management area: Immigration services; 
Number of performance expectations: 14; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 5; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 9; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/Management area: Aviation security; 
Number of performance expectations: 24; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 17; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 7; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/Management area: Surface transportation security; 
Number of performance expectations: 5; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 3; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 2; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/Management area: Maritime security; 
Number of performance expectations: 23; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 17; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 4; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 2; 
Overall assessment of progress: Substantial. 

Mission/Management area: Emergency preparedness and response; 
Number of performance expectations: 24; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 5; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 18; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 1; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/Management area: Critical infrastructure protection; 
Number of performance expectations: 7; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 4; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 3; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/Management area: Science and technology; 
Number of performance expectations: 6; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 1; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 5; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/Management area: Acquisition management; 
Number of performance expectations: 3; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 1; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 2; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/Management area: Financial management; 
Number of performance expectations: 7; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 2; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 5; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/Management area: Human capital management; 
Number of performance expectations: 8; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 2; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 6; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/Management area: Information technology management; 
Number of performance expectations: 13; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 2; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 8; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 3; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/Management area: Real property; 
Number of performance expectations: 9; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 6; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 3; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Total;
Number of performance expectations: 171; 
Number of expectations generally achieved: 78; 
Number of expectations generally not achieved: 83; 
Number of expectations not assessed: 10. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Definitions: 

Substantial progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more 
than 75 percent of the identified performance expectations. 

Moderate progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 
50 percent but 75 percent or less of the identified performance 
expectations. 

Modest progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve more than 
25 percent but 50 percent or less of the identified performance 
expectations. 

Limited progress: DHS has taken actions to generally achieve 25 percent 
or less of the identified performance expectations. 

[End of table] 

Key underlying themes have affected DHSï¿½s implementation efforts. These 
include strategies to achieve agency transformation, strategic planning 
and results management, risk management, information sharing, and 
partnerships and coordination. For example, we have designated DHSï¿½s 
implementation and transformation as high-risk. While DHS has made 
progress in transforming its component agencies into a fully 
functioning department, it has not yet addressed elements of the 
transformation process, such as developing a comprehensive 
transformation strategy. DHS also has not yet fully adopted and applied 
a risk management approach in implementing its mission and management 
functions. Some DHS component agencies have taken steps to do so, but 
this approach is not yet used departmentwide. In addition, DHS has 
taken steps to share information and coordinate with homeland security 
partners but has faced difficulties in these partnership efforts. 

Given DHSï¿½s leading role in securing the homeland, it is critical that 
the departmentï¿½s mission and management programs operate as efficiently 
and effectively as possible. DHS has taken important actions to secure 
the border and transportation sectors and to prepare for and respond to 
disasters. DHS has had to undertake these missions while also working 
to transform itself into a fully functioning cabinet departmentï¿½a 
difficult task for any organization. As DHS moves forward, it will be 
important for the department to continue to develop more measurable 
goals to guide implementation efforts and to enable better 
accountability. It will also be important for DHS to continually 
reassess its mission and management goals, measures, and milestones to 
evaluate progress made, identify past and emerging obstacles, and 
examine alternatives to effectively address those obstacles. 

What GAO Recommends: 

While this testimony contains no new recommendations, GAO has made 
approximately 700 recommendations to DHS. DHS has implemented some of 
these recommendations and taken actions to address others. However, we 
have reported that the department still has much to do to ensure that 
it conducts its missions efficiently and effectively while it 
simultaneously prepares to address future challenges that face the 
department and the nation. 

In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS raised some concerns 
regarding aspects of our methodology, including the criteria used and 
consistent application of the criteria. We believe that we have fully 
disclosed and consistently applied the methodology in our report and 
that it provides a sound basis for our progress report. DHS also 
disagreed with our assessment for 42 of the 171 performance 
expectations. Our report provides a detailed response to DHSï¿½s comments 
on the 42 expectations. Overall, we appreciate DHSï¿½s concerns and 
recognize that in such a broad-based endeavor, some level of 
disagreement is inevitable, especially at any given point in time. 
However, we have been as transparent as possible regarding our purpose, 
methodology, and professional judgments. 

[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1081T]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Norman J. Rabkin at (202) 
512-8777 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Department 
of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to implement its major mission and 
management functions. At your request we issued a report last month 
evaluating progress DHS has made since March 2003.[Footnote 1] This 
report defines specific actions DHS is to achieve based on legislation, 
homeland security presidential directives, DHS strategic planning 
documents, and other sources and reports the progress the department 
has made in implementing programmatic and management activities based 
on its achievement of these actions. However, the assessments of 
progress are not indicative of the extent to which DHS's actions have 
made the nation more secure in each area. Moreover, our assessments do 
not imply that DHS would have or should have achieved all of the 
actions we identified. On the other hand, failure to effectively 
implement these actions could have serious consequences for our 
homeland security, and it is important for Congress and other 
stakeholders to have a sense of the department's accomplishments to 
date as well as areas for further focus to help inform oversight and 
investment decisions. 

Prior to the creation of DHS, we testified on whether the 
reorganization of government agencies might better address the nation's 
homeland security needs.[Footnote 2] At that time, we testified that 
the nation had a unique opportunity to create an effective and 
performance-based organization to strengthen the nation's ability to 
protect its borders and citizens. We noted that the magnitude of the 
challenges that the new department would face would require substantial 
time and effort and that implementation of the new department would be 
extremely complex. Often it has taken years for the consolidated 
functions in new organizations to effectively build on their combined 
strengths, and it is not uncommon for management challenges to remain 
for decades. For example, the 1947 legislation creating the Department 
of Defense (DOD) was amended by Congress in 1949, 1953, 1958, and 1986 
to improve the department's structural effectiveness. Despite these and 
other changes made by DOD, we have reported that more than 50 years 
after its establishment, DOD continues to face a number of serious 
management challenges. 

DHS began operations in March 2003 with missions that include 
preventing terrorist attacks from occurring within the United States, 
reducing U.S. vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing the damages from 
attacks that occur, and helping the nation recover from any attacks. 
The department has initiated and continued the implementation of 
various policies and programs to address these missions as well as its 
nonhomeland security functions.[Footnote 3] DHS has also taken actions 
to integrate its management functions and to transform its component 
agencies into an effective cabinet department. In 2003, we designated 
the implementation and transformation of DHS as high-risk because it 
represented an enormous undertaking that would require time to achieve 
in an effective and efficient manner.[Footnote 4] Additionally, the 
components merged into DHS already faced a wide array of existing 
challenges, and any DHS failure to effectively carry out its mission 
would expose the nation to potentially serious consequences. The area 
has remained on our high-risk list since 2003.[Footnote 5] In 
designating the implementation and transformation of DHS as high-risk, 
we noted that building an effective department would require consistent 
and sustained leadership from top management to ensure the needed 
transformation of disparate agencies, programs, and missions into an 
integrated organization. Our prior work on mergers and acquisitions, 
undertaken before the creation of DHS, found that successful 
transformations of large organizations, even those faced with less 
strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at least 5 to 7 years to 
achieve. 

My comments are based on the results of a report issued last month 
evaluating the extent to which DHS has achieved congressional and 
Administration expectations in its major mission and management areas. 
In my testimony, I will explain how we conducted our work for the 
report and discuss the results of that work. I will also discuss the 
key themes that have affected the department's efforts to implement its 
mission and management areas. These key themes include agency 
transformation, strategic planning and results management, risk 
management, information sharing, and partnerships and coordination. 

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

Summary: 

Our report provides assessments of DHS's progress across 14 mission and 
management areas. For each area we identified performance expectations 
based on responsibilities set out in legislation, homeland security 
presidential directives and executive orders, DHS planning documents, 
and other sources. Our analysts and subject matter experts reviewed our 
prior work, DHS Inspector General (IG) work, and information DHS 
provided to assess whether DHS generally achieved each expectation. We 
used these performance expectation assessments to determine DHS's 
overall progress in each mission and management area. In commenting on 
a draft of our report, DHS raised concerns about our methodology, 
including the criteria we used for assessing the extent to which DHS 
has achieved each performance expectation and our consistent 
application of the criteria. We discussed our criteria and methodology 
with DHS officials throughout our review and took steps to ensure their 
consistent application. We believe that our methodology provides a 
sound basis for our progress report. Overall, we appreciate DHS's 
concerns and recognize that in such a broad-based endeavor, some level 
of disagreement is inevitable. However, we have been as transparent as 
possible regarding our purpose, methodology, and professional 
judgments. 

DHS has made varying levels of progress in implementing its mission and 
management areas since March 2003, as shown in table 1. In general, DHS 
has made more progress in its mission areas than in its management 
areas, which reflects an understandable focus on implementing efforts 
to secure the nation. Within its mission areas, DHS has made progress 
in developing plans and programs but has faced difficulties in 
implementing them. In commenting on a draft of the report issued last 
month, DHS disagreed with our assessments for 42 of the 171 performance 
expectations. We provide a detailed response to DHS's comments on the 
42 expectations in the report. 

Table 1: Summary of Assessments of Progress Made by DHS in Its Mission 
and Management Areas: 

Mission/ management area: Border security; 
Number of performance expectations: 12; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 5; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 7; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/ management area: Immigration enforcement; 
Number of performance expectations: 16; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 8; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 4; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 4; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/ management area: Immigration services; 
Number of performance expectations: 14; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 5; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 9; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/ management area: Aviation security; 
Number of performance expectations: 24; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 17; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 7; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/ management area: Surface transportation security; 
Number of performance expectations: 5; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 3; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 2; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/ management area: Maritime security; 
Number of performance expectations: 23; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 17; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 4; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 2; 
Overall assessment of progress: Substantial. 

Mission/ management area: Emergency preparedness and response; 
Number of performance expectations: 24; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 5; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 18; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 1; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/ management area: Critical infrastructure and key resources 
protection; 
Number of performance expectations: 7; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 4; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 3; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/ management area: Science and technology; 
Number of performance expectations: 6; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 1; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 5; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/ management area: Acquisition management; 
Number of performance expectations: 3; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 1; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 2; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/ management area: Financial management; 
Number of performance expectations: 7; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 2; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 5; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Modest. 

Mission/ management area: Human capital management; 
Number of performance expectations: 8; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 2; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 6; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/ management area: Information technology management; 
Number of performance expectations: 13; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 2; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 8; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 3; 
Overall assessment of progress: Limited. 

Mission/ management area: Real property management; 
Number of performance expectations: 9; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 6; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 3; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 0; 
Overall assessment of progress: Moderate. 

Mission/ management area: Total; 
Number of performance expectations: 171; 
Number of performance expectations generally achieved: 78; 
Number of performance expectations generally not achieved: 83; 
Number of performance expectations not assessed: 10; 
Overall assessment of progress: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

A variety of cross-cutting issues have affected DHS's efforts to 
implement its mission and management functions. These key issues 
include agency transformation, strategic planning and results 
management, risk management, information sharing, and partnerships and 
coordination. 

* We initially designated the implementation and transformation of DHS 
as a high-risk area because it represented an enormous undertaking that 
would require time to achieve and the components to be merged into DHS 
already faced a wide array of challenges. We continued this designation 
in 2005 and 2007 in part because DHS's management systems and functions 
are not yet fully integrated and wholly operational. 

* DHS has not always implemented effective strategic planning efforts 
and has not yet fully developed performance measures or put in place 
structures to help ensure that the agency is managing for results. For 
example, we have reported that some component agencies have had 
difficulties developing outcome-based goals and measures for assessing 
program performance. We have also noted that DHS faces inherent 
challenges in developing outcome-based goals and measures to assess the 
effect of its efforts on strengthening homeland security. 

* The National Strategy for Homeland Security and DHS's strategic plan 
have called for the use of risk-based decisions to prioritize DHS's 
resource investments. We have found that while some DHS component 
agencies, such as the Coast Guard, have taken steps to apply risk-based 
decision making in implementing some of its mission functions, other 
components have not utilized such an approach. 

* We have designated information sharing for homeland security as high- 
risk in part because the nation still lacks an implemented set of 
governmentwide policies and processes for sharing terrorism-related 
information. The federal government has issued a strategy for how it 
will put in place the overall framework and policies for sharing 
information with critical partners. DHS has taken actions to implement 
its information-sharing responsibilities, but we have reported that DHS 
faces challenges in continuing to develop productive information- 
sharing relationships with federal agencies, state and local 
governments, and the private sector. 

* The National Strategy for Homeland Security underscores the 
importance of DHS partnering with other stakeholders, as the majority 
of the strategy's initiatives are intended to be implemented by three 
or more federal agencies. DHS has taken steps to strengthen partnering 
frameworks and capabilities. However, we have also reported on 
difficulties DHS faces in its partnership efforts, such as in 
coordinating with its emergency preparedness and response partners in 
the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Given DHS's leading role in securing the homeland, it is critical that 
the department's mission and management programs are operating as 
efficiently and effectively as possible. DHS has taken important 
actions to secure the border and transportation sectors and to prepare 
for and respond to disasters. DHS has had to undertake these missions 
while also working to transform itself into a fully functioning cabinet 
department--a difficult task for any organization. As it moves forward, 
DHS will continue to face the challenges that have affected its 
operations thus far, including transforming into a high-performing, 
results-oriented agency; developing results-oriented goals and measures 
to effectively assess performance; developing and implementing a risk-
based approach to guide resource decisions; and establishing effective 
frameworks and mechanisms for sharing information and coordinating with 
homeland security partners. DHS has undertaken efforts to address these 
challenges but will need to give continued attention to these efforts 
in order to efficiently and effectively identify and prioritize mission 
and management needs, implement efforts to address those needs, and 
allocate resources accordingly. As DHS continues to evolve and 
implements its programs, we will continue to review its progress and 
report to Congress and the public on our work. 

Background: 

In July 2002, President Bush issued the National Strategy for Homeland 
Security. The strategy set forth overall objectives to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's 
vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and assist in the 
recovery from attacks that occur. The strategy set out a plan to 
improve homeland security through the cooperation and partnering of 
federal, state, local, and private sector organizations on an array of 
functions. The National Strategy for Homeland Security specified a 
number of federal departments, as well as nonfederal organizations, 
that have important roles in securing the homeland. In terms of federal 
departments, DHS was assigned a leading role in implementing 
established homeland security mission areas. 

In November 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted into 
law, creating DHS. This act defined the department's missions to 
include preventing terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing 
U.S. vulnerability to terrorism; and minimizing the damages, and 
assisting in the recovery from, attacks that occur within the United 
States. The act also specified major responsibilities for the 
department, including to analyze information and protect 
infrastructure; develop countermeasures against chemical, biological, 
radiological, and nuclear, and other emerging terrorist threats; secure 
U.S. borders and transportation systems; and organize emergency 
preparedness and response efforts. DHS began operations in March 2003. 
Its establishment represented a fusion of 22 federal agencies to 
coordinate and centralize the leadership of many homeland security 
activities under a single department.[Footnote 6] 

A variety of factors have affected DHS's efforts to implement its 
mission and management functions. These factors include both domestic 
and international events, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and 
major homeland security-related legislation. Figure 1 provides a 
timeline of key events that have affected DHS's implementation. 

Figure 1: Selected Key Events That Have Affected Department of Homeland 
Security Implementation: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of figure] 

Our Report Assesses DHS's Progress in Implementing Its Mission and 
Management Functions: 

Our report assesses DHS's progress across 14 mission and management 
areas. We based these areas on those identified in the National 
Strategy for Homeland Security, the goals and objectives set forth in 
the DHS strategic plan and homeland security presidential directives, 
our reports, and studies conducted by the DHS IG and other 
organizations and groups, such as the 9/11 Commission and the Century 
Foundation. The 14 we identified are: 

1. Border security: 

2. Immigration enforcement: 

3. Immigration services: 

4. Aviation security: 

5. Surface transportation security: 

6. Maritime security: 

7. Emergency preparedness and response: 

8. Critical infrastructure and key resources protection: 

9. Science and technology: 

10. Acquisition management: 

11. Financial management: 

12. Human capital management: 

13. Information technology management: 

14. Real property management: 

For each mission and management area, we identified performance 
expectations and vetted them with DHS officials. These performance 
expectations are a composite of the responsibilities or functions-- 
derived from legislation, homeland security presidential directives and 
executive orders, DHS planning documents, and other sources--that the 
department is to achieve.[Footnote 7] Our analysts and subject matter 
experts reviewed our prior work, DHS IG work, and evidence DHS provided 
between March and July 2007, including DHS officials' assertions when 
supported by documentation. On the basis of this analysis and our 
experts' judgment, we then assessed the extent to which DHS had 
achieved each of the expectations we identified. We made preliminary 
assessments for each performance expectation based solely on GAO and 
DHS IG work. In March through July, we received additional information 
from DHS, which we reviewed and used to inform our final assessments. 
In some cases the assessments remained the same as our preliminary 
ones, and in other cases they changed. 

When our review of our prior work, the DHS IG's work, and DHS's 
documentation indicated that DHS had satisfied most of the key elements 
of a performance expectation, we concluded that DHS had generally 
achieved it. When our reviews showed that DHS had not yet satisfied 
most of the key elements of a performance expectation, we concluded 
that DHS had generally not achieved it. More specifically, where our 
prior work or that of the DHS IG indicated DHS had not achieved a 
performance expectation and DHS did not provide documentation to prove 
otherwise, we concluded that DHS had generally not achieved it. For a 
small number of performance expectations we could not make an 
assessment because neither we nor the DHS IG had completed work and the 
information DHS provided did not enable us to clearly assess DHS's 
progress. 

We used these performance expectation assessments to determine DHS's 
overall progress in each mission and management area. After making an 
assessment for each performance expectation, we added up those rated as 
generally achieved. We divided this number by the total number of 
performance expectations for the mission or management area, excluding 
those performance expectations for which we could not make an 
assessment. If DHS generally achieved more than 75 percent of the 
identified performance expectations, we identified its overall progress 
as substantial. When the number achieved was more than 50 percent but 
75 percent or less, we identified its overall progress as moderate. If 
DHS generally achieved more than 25 percent but 50 percent or less, we 
identified its overall progress as modest. For mission and management 
areas in which DHS generally achieved 25 percent or less of the 
performance expectations, we identified overall progress as limited. 

We and the DHS IG have completed varying degrees of work for each 
mission and management area, and DHS's components and offices provided 
us with different amounts and types of information. As a result, our 
assessments of DHS's progress in each mission and management area 
reflect the information available for our review and analysis and are 
not equally comprehensive across all 14 mission and management areas. 
It is also important to note that while there are qualitative 
differences between the performance expectations, we did not weigh some 
more heavily than others in our overall assessments of mission and 
management areas. We also recognize that these expectations are not 
time bound, and DHS will take actions to satisfy these expectations 
over a sustained period of time. Our assessment of DHS's progress 
relative to each performance expectation refers to the progress made by 
the department since March 2003 and does not imply that DHS should have 
fully achieved each performance expectation at this point. 

In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS took issues with our 
methodology. First, DHS believed that we altered the criteria we used 
to judge the department's progress. We did not change our criteria; 
rather we made a change in terminology to better convey the intent 
behind the performance expectations that DHS achieve them instead of 
merely take actions that apply or relate to them. Second, DHS took 
issue with the binary standard approach we used to assess each 
performance expectation. We acknowledge the limitations of this 
standard in our report but believe it was appropriate for our review 
given that the Administration has generally not established 
quantitative goals and measures for the expectations. Therefore, we 
could not assess where along a spectrum of progress DHS stood in 
achieving each performance expectation. Third, DHS was concerned about 
an apparent shift in criteria we applied after the department provided 
us additional information and documents. What DHS perceived as a change 
in criteria for certain performance expectations was really the process 
by which we disclosed our preliminary assessment; analyzed additional 
documents and information from DHS; and updated and, in many cases 
revised, our assessments based on the additional inputs. Fourth, DHS 
raised concerns with consistency in our application of the methodology. 
Our core team of GAO analysts and managers reviewed all inputs from GAO 
staff to ensure consistent application of our methodology, criteria, 
and analytical process, and our quality control process included 
detailed reviews of the report's facts as well as assurances that we 
followed generally accepted government auditing standards. Finally, DHS 
points outs that we treated all performance expectations as if they 
were of equal significance. In our report, we acknowledged that 
differences exist, but we did not weight the performance expectations 
because congressional, departmental, and others' views on the relative 
priority of each expectation may be different, and we did not believe 
it was appropriate to substitute our judgment for theirs. 

Overall, we appreciate DHS's concerns and recognize that in such a 
broad-based endeavor, some level of disagreement is inevitable, 
especially at any given point in time. However, we have been as 
transparent as possible regarding our purpose, methodology, and 
professional judgments and believe that our methodology provides a 
sound basis for the progress report. 

DHS Has Made Progress in Implementing Mission and Management Functions 
but Has Faced Difficulties in Its Implementation Efforts: 

Our report shows that since March 2003, DHS has attained some level of 
progress in implementing the performance expectations in all of its 
major mission and management areas, but the rate of progress among 
these areas has varied. Overall, DHS has made more progress in its 
mission areas than in its management areas, reflecting an 
understandable focus on implementing efforts to secure the homeland. As 
DHS continues to mature as an organization, we believe it will be able 
to put more focus--and achieve more expectations--in the management 
areas. 

Within its mission areas, DHS has made more progress in developing 
strategies, plans, and programs than in implementing them. For example, 
in the area of border security we found that DHS has developed a 
multiyear strategy and initiative for identifying illegal border 
crossings between ports of entry. However, DHS is in the early stages 
of implementing this strategy, and we and the DHS IG identified 
problems with implementation of past programs with similar objectives. 
Likewise, in the area of emergency preparedness and response, DHS has 
developed the National Incident Management System. However, we have 
reported that much more work remains for DHS to effectively coordinate 
its implementation. 

Below we provide more information on progress made by DHS in its 
mission and management areas. 

* DHS's border security mission includes detecting and preventing 
terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States; 
facilitating the orderly and efficient flow of legitimate trade and 
travel; interdicting illegal drugs and other contraband; apprehending 
individuals who are attempting to enter the United States illegally; 
inspecting inbound and outbound people, vehicles, and cargo; and 
enforcing laws of the United States at the border. As shown in table 2, 
we identified 12 performance expectations for DHS in the area of border 
security and found that DHS has generally achieved 5 of them and has 
generally not achieved 7 others. 

Table 2: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Border Security 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 5; 

Generally achieved: Implement a biometric entry system to prevent 
unauthorized border crossers from entering the United States through 
ports of entry; 

Generally achieved: Develop a program to detect and identify illegal 
border crossings between ports of entry; 

Generally achieved: Develop a strategy to detect and interdict illegal 
flows of cargo, drugs, and other items into the United States; 

Generally achieved: Provide adequate training for all border- related 
employees; 

Generally achieved: Develop staffing plans for hiring and allocating 
human capital resources to fulfill the agency's border security 
mission; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 7; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a biometric exit system to collect 
information on border crossers leaving the United States through ports 
of entry; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a program to detect and identify 
illegal border crossings between ports of entry; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a strategy to detect and interdict 
illegal flows of cargo, drugs, and other items into the United States; 

Generally not achieved: Implement effective security measures in the 
visa issuance process; 

Generally not achieved: Implement initiatives related to the security 
of certain documents used to enter the United States; 

Generally not achieved: Ensure adequate infrastructure and facilities; 

Generally not achieved: Leverage technology, personnel, and information 
to secure the border; 

Generally not achieved: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Modest. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's immigration enforcement mission includes apprehending, 
detaining, and removing criminal and illegal aliens; 
disrupting and dismantling organized smuggling of humans and contraband 
as well as human trafficking; investigating and prosecuting those who 
engage in benefit and document fraud; blocking and removing employers' 
access to undocumented workers; and enforcing compliance with programs 
to monitor visitors. As shown in table 3, we identified 16 performance 
expectations for DHS in the area of immigration enforcement and found 
that DHS has generally achieved 8 of them and has generally not 
achieved 4 others. For 4 performance expectations, we could not make an 
assessment. 

Table 3: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Immigration Enforcement 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 8; 

Generally achieved: Develop a program to ensure the timely 
identification and removal of noncriminal aliens subject to removal 
from the United States; 

Generally achieved: Assess and prioritize the use of alien detention 
resources to prevent the release of aliens subject to removal; 

Generally achieved: Develop a program to allow for the secure 
alternative detention of noncriminal aliens; 

Generally achieved: Develop a prioritized worksite enforcement strategy 
to ensure that only authorized workers are employed; 

Generally achieved: Develop a comprehensive strategy to interdict and 
prevent trafficking and smuggling of aliens into the United States; 

Generally achieved: Develop a law enforcement strategy to combat 
criminal alien gangs in the United States and cross-border criminal 
activity; 

Generally achieved: Develop a program to screen and respond to local 
law enforcement and community complaints about aliens who many be 
subject to removal; 

Generally achieved: Develop staffing plans for hiring and allocating 
human capital resources to fulfill the agency's immigration enforcement 
mission; 

Generally achieved: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 4; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a program to ensure the timely 
identification and removal of noncriminal aliens subject to removal 
from the United States; 

Generally not achieved: Ensure the removal of criminal aliens; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a prioritized worksite enforcement 
strategy to ensure that only authorized workers are employed; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a comprehensive strategy to interdict 
and prevent trafficking and smuggling of aliens into the United States; 

Performance expectation: No assessment made; 
Total: 4; 

No assessment made: Implement a program to allow for the secure 
alternative detention of noncriminal aliens; 

No assessment made: Implement a law enforcement strategy to combat 
criminal alien gangs in the United States and cross-border criminal 
activity; 

No assessment made: Disrupt and dismantle mechanisms for money 
laundering and financial crimes; 

No assessment made: Provide training, including foreign language 
training, and equipment for all immigration enforcement personnel to 
fulfill the agency's mission; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Moderate. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's immigration services mission includes administering immigration 
benefits and working to reduce immigration benefit fraud. As shown in 
table 4, we identified 14 performance expectations for DHS in the area 
of immigration services and found that DHS has generally achieved 5 of 
them and has generally not achieved 9 others. 

Table 4: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Immigration Services 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 5. 

Generally achieved: Institute process and staffing reforms to improve 
application processes; 

Generally achieved: Establish online access to status information about 
benefit applications; 

Generally achieved: Establish revised immigration application fees 
based on a comprehensive fee study; 

Generally achieved: Communicate immigration-related information to 
other relevant agencies; 

Generally achieved: Create an office to reduce immigration benefit 
fraud; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 9; 

Generally not achieved: Eliminate the benefit application backlog and 
reduce application completion times to 6 months; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Establish a timetable 
for reviewing the program rules, business processes, and procedures for 
immigration benefit applications; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Institute a case 
management system to manage applications and provide management 
information; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Develop new programs 
to prevent future backlogs from developing; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Establish online 
filing for benefit applications; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Capture biometric 
information on all benefits applicants; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Implement an automated 
background check system to track and store all requests for 
applications; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Establish training 
programs to reduce fraud in the benefits process; 

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Implement a fraud 
assessment program to reduce benefit fraud; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Modest. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's aviation security mission includes strengthening airport 
security; providing and training a screening workforce; prescreening 
passengers against terrorist watch lists; and screening passengers, 
baggage, and cargo. As shown in table 5, we identified 24 performance 
expectations for DHS in the area of aviation security and found that 
DHS has generally achieved 17 of them and has generally not achieved 7 
others. 

Table 5: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Aviation Security 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 17l; 

Generally achieved: Implement a strategic approach for aviation 
security functions; 

Generally achieved: Ensure the screening of airport employees against 
terrorist watch lists; 

Generally achieved: Hire and deploy a federal screening workforce; 

Generally achieved: Develop standards for determining aviation security 
staffing at airports; 

Generally achieved: Establish standards for training and testing the 
performance of airport screener staff; 

Generally achieved: Establish a program and requirements to allow 
eligible airports to use a private screening workforce; 

Generally achieved: Train and deploy federal air marshals on high- risk 
flights; 

Generally achieved: Establish standards for training flight and cabin 
crews; 

Generally achieved: Establish a program to allow authorized flight deck 
officers to use firearms to defend against any terrorist or criminal 
acts; 

Generally achieved: Establish policies and procedures to ensure that 
individuals known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk or threat to 
security are identified and subjected to appropriate action; 

Generally achieved: Develop and implement processes and procedures for 
physically screening passengers at airport checkpoints; 

Generally achieved: Develop and test checkpoint technologies to address 
vulnerabilities; 

Generally achieved: Deploy explosive detection systems (EDS) and 
explosive trace detection (ETD) systems to screen checked baggage for 
explosives; 

Generally achieved: Develop a plan to deploy in-line baggage screening 
equipment at airports; 

Generally achieved: Pursue the deployment and use of in-line baggage 
screening equipment at airports; 

Generally achieved: Develop a plan for air cargo security; 

Generally achieved: Develop and implement procedures to screen air 
cargo; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 7; 

Generally not achieved: Establish standards and procedures for 
effective airport perimeter security;  

Generally not achieved: Establish standards and procedures to 
effectively control access to airport secured areas; 

Generally not achieved: Establish procedures for implementing biometric 
identifier systems for airport secured areas access control; 

Generally not achieved: Develop and implement an advanced prescreening 
system to allow DHS to compare domestic passenger information to the 
Selectee List and No Fly List; 

Generally not achieved: Develop and implement an international 
passenger prescreening process to compare passenger information to 
terrorist watch lists before aircraft departure; 

Generally not achieved: Deploy checkpoint technologies to address 
vulnerabilities; 

Generally not achieved: Develop and implement technologies to screen 
air cargo; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Moderate. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's surface transportation security mission includes establishing 
security standards and conducting assessments and inspections of 
surface transportation modes, which include passenger and freight rail; 
mass transit; highways, including commercial vehicles; and pipelines. 
As shown in table 6, we identified 5 performance expectations for DHS 
in the area of surface transportation security and found that DHS has 
generally achieved 3 of them and has generally not achieved 2. 

Table 6: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Surface Transportation 
Security Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 3; 

Generally achieved: Develop and adopt a strategic approach for 
implementing surface transportation security functions; 

Generally achieved: Conduct threat, criticality, and vulnerability 
assessments of surface transportation assets; 

Generally achieved: Administer grant programs for surface 
transportation security; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 2; 

Generally not achieved: Issue standards for securing surface 
transportation modes; 

Generally not achieved: Conduct compliance inspections for surface 
transportation systems; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Moderate. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's maritime security responsibilities include port and vessel 
security, maritime intelligence, and maritime supply chain security. As 
shown in table 7, we identified 23 performance expectations for DHS in 
the area of maritime security and found that DHS has generally achieved 
17 of them and has generally not achieved 4 others. For 2 performance 
expectations, we could not make an assessment. 

Table 7: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Maritime Security 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 17; 

Generally achieved: Develop national plans for maritime security;  

Generally achieved: Develop national plans for maritime response;  

Generally achieved: Develop national plans for maritime recovery; 

Generally achieved: Develop regional (port-specific) plans for 
security; 

Generally achieved: Develop regional (port-specific) plans for 
response;  

Generally achieved: Ensure port facilities have completed vulnerability 
assessments and developed security plans; 

Generally achieved: Ensure that vessels have completed vulnerability 
assessments and developed security plans;  

Generally achieved: Exercise security, response, and recovery plans 
with key maritime stakeholders to enhance security, response, and 
recovery efforts; 

Generally achieved: Implement a port security grant program to help 
facilities improve their security capabilities;  

Generally achieved: Establish operational centers to monitor threats 
and fuse intelligence and operations at the regional/port level; 

Generally achieved: Collect information on incoming ships to assess 
risks and threats;  

Generally achieved: Develop a vessel-tracking system to improve 
intelligence and maritime domain awareness on vessels in U.S. waters; 

Generally achieved: Collect information on arriving cargo for screening 
purposes; 

Generally achieved: Develop a system for screening and inspecting cargo 
for illegal contraband;  

Generally achieved: Develop a program to work with foreign governments 
to inspect suspicious cargo before it leaves for U.S. ports;  

Generally achieved: Develop a program to work with the private sector 
to improve and validate supply chain security;  

Generally achieved: Develop an international port security program to 
assess security at foreign ports;  

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 4. 

Generally not achieved: Develop regional (port-specific) plans for 
recovery; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a national facility access control 
system for port secured areas; 

Generally not achieved: Develop a long-range vessel-tracking system to 
improve maritime domain awareness; 

Generally not achieved: Develop a program to screen incoming cargo for 
radiation; 

Performance expectation: No assessment made; 
Total: 2; 

No assessment made: Develop a national plan to establish and improve 
maritime intelligence;  

No assessment made: Develop standards for cargo containers to ensure 
their physical security; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Substantial. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's emergency preparedness and response mission includes preparing 
to minimize the damage and recover from terrorist attacks and 
disasters; helping to plan, equip, train, and practice needed skills of 
first responders; and consolidating federal response plans and 
activities to build a national, coordinated system for incident 
management. As shown in table 8, we identified 24 performance 
expectations for DHS in the area of emergency preparedness and response 
and found that DHS has generally achieved 5 of them and has generally 
not achieved 18 others. For 1 performance expectation, we could not 
make an assessment. 

Table 8: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Emergency Preparedness 
and Response Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 5; 

Generally achieved: Establish a program for conducting emergency 
preparedness exercises; 

Generally achieved: Develop a national incident management system; 

Generally achieved: Provide grant funding to first responders in 
developing and implementing interoperable communications capabilities; 

Generally achieved: Administer a program for providing grants and 
assistance to state and local governments and first responders; 

Generally achieved: Allocate grants based on assessment factors that 
account for population, critical infrastructure, and other risk 
factors; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 18; 

Generally not achieved: Establish a comprehensive training program for 
national preparedness; 

Generally not achieved: Conduct and support risk assessments and risk 
management capabilities for emergency preparedness; 

Generally not achieved: Ensure the capacity and readiness of disaster 
response teams; 

Generally not achieved: Coordinate implementation of a national 
incident management system; 

Generally not achieved: Establish a single, all-hazards national 
response plan; 

Generally not achieved: Coordinate implementation of a single, all- 
hazards response plan; 

Generally not achieved: Develop a complete inventory of federal 
response capabilities; 

Generally not achieved: Develop a national, all-hazards preparedness 
goal; 

Generally not achieved: Develop plans and capabilities to strengthen 
nationwide recovery efforts; 

Generally not achieved: Develop the capacity to provide needed 
emergency assistance and services in a timely manner; 

Generally not achieved: Provide timely assistance and services to 
individuals and communities in response to emergency events; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a program to improve interoperable 
communications among federal, state, and local agencies; 

Generally not achieved: Implement procedures and capabilities for 
effective interoperable communications; 

Generally not achieved: Increase the development and adoption of 
interoperability communications standards; 

Generally not achieved: Develop performance goals and measures to 
assess progress in developing interoperability; 

Generally not achieved: Provide guidance and technical assistance to 
first responders in developing and implementing interoperable 
communications capabilities; 

Generally not achieved: Provide assistance to state and local 
governments to develop all-hazards plans and capabilities; 

Generally not achieved: Develop a system for collecting and 
disseminating lessons learned and best practices to emergency 
responders; 

Performance expectation: No assessment made; 
Total: 1;

No assessment made: Support citizen participation in national 
preparedness efforts; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Limited. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's critical infrastructure and key resources protection activities 
include developing and coordinating implementation of a comprehensive 
national plan for critical infrastructure protection, developing 
partnerships with stakeholders and information sharing and warning 
capabilities, and identifying and reducing threats and vulnerabilities. 
As shown in table 9, we identified 7 performance expectations for DHS 
in the area of critical infrastructure and key resources protection and 
found that DHS has generally achieved 4 of them and has generally not 
achieved 3 others. 

Table 9: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Critical Infrastructure 
and Key Resources Protection Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 4; 

Generally achieved: Develop a comprehensive national plan for critical 
infrastructure protection; 

Generally achieved: Develop partnerships and coordinate with other 
federal agencies, state and local, governments, and the private sector; 

Generally achieved: Identify and assess threats and vulnerabilities for 
critical infrastructure; 

Generally achieved: Support efforts to reduce threats and 
vulnerabilities for critical infrastructure;  

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 3; 

Generally not achieved: Improve and enhance public/private information 
sharing involving attacks, threats, and vulnerabilities; 

Generally not achieved: Develop and enhance national analysis and 
warning capabilities for critical infrastructure; 

Generally not achieved: Provide and coordinate incident response and 
recovery planning efforts for critical infrastructure; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Moderate. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's science and technology efforts include coordinating the federal 
government's civilian efforts to identify and develop countermeasures 
to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and other emerging 
terrorist threats. As shown in table 10, we identified 6 performance 
expectations for DHS in the area of science and technology and found 
that DHS has generally achieved 1 of them and has generally not 
achieved 5 others. 

Table 10: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Science and Technology 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 1; 

Generally achieved: Coordinate with and share homeland security 
technologies with federal, state, local, and private sector entities;  

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 5. 

Generally not achieved: Develop a plan for departmental research, 
development, testing, and evaluation activities;  

Generally not achieved: Assess emerging chemical, biological, 
radiological, and nuclear threats and homeland security 
vulnerabilities;  

Generally not achieved: Coordinate research, development, and testing 
efforts to identify and develop countermeasures to address chemical, 
biological, radiological, nuclear, and other emerging terrorist 
threats;  

Generally not achieved: Coordinate deployment of nuclear, biological, 
chemical, and radiological detection capabilities and other 
countermeasures;  

Generally not achieved: Performance expectation: Assess and evaluate 
nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological detection capabilities 
and other countermeasures;  

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Limited. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's acquisition management efforts include managing the use of 
contracts to acquire goods and services needed to fulfill or support 
the agency's missions, such as information systems, new technologies, 
aircraft, ships, and professional services. As shown in table 11, we 
identified 3 performance expectations for DHS in the area of 
acquisition management and found that DHS has generally achieved 1 of 
them and has generally not achieved 2 others. 

Table 11: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Acquisition Management 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 1; 

Generally achieved: Assess and organize acquisition functions to meet 
agency needs; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 2; 

Generally not achieved: Develop clear and transparent policies and 
processes for all acquisitions;  

Generally not achieved: Develop an acquisition workforce to implement 
and monitor acquisitions; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Modest. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's financial management efforts include consolidating or 
integrating component agencies' financial management systems. As shown 
in table 12, we identified 7 performance expectations for DHS in the 
area of financial management and found that DHS has generally achieved 
2 of them and has generally not achieved 5 others. 

Table 12: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Financial Management 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 2; 

Generally achieved: Designate a department Chief Financial Officer who 
is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; 

Generally achieved: Prepare corrective action plans for internal 
control weaknesses; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 5; 

Generally not achieved: Subject all financial statements to an annual 
financial statement audit;  

Generally not achieved: Obtain an unqualified financial statement audit 
opinion;  

Generally not achieved: Substantially comply with federal financial 
management system requirements, applicable federal accounting 
standards, and the U.S. Standard General Ledger at the transaction 
level;  

Generally not achieved: Obtain an unqualified opinion on internal 
control over financial reporting;  

Generally not achieved: Correct internal control weaknesses; 


Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Modest. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's key human capital management areas include pay, performance 
management, classification, labor relations, adverse actions, employee 
appeals, and diversity management. As shown in table 13, we identified 
8 performance expectations for DHS in the area of human capital 
management and found that DHS has generally achieved 2 of them and has 
generally not achieved 6 others. 

Table 13: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Human Capital Management 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 2; 

Generally achieved: Develop a results-oriented strategic human capital 
plan;  

Generally achieved: Create a comprehensive plan for training and 
professional development;  

Generally achieved: Generally not achieved; Total: 6; 

Generally not achieved: Implement a human capital system that links 
human capital planning to overall agency strategic planning; 

Generally not achieved: Develop and implement processes to recruit and 
hire employees who possess needed skills;  

Generally not achieved: Measure agency performance and make strategic 
human capital decisions;  

Generally not achieved: Establish a market-based and more performance- 
oriented pay system;  

Generally not achieved: Seek feedback from employees to allow for their 
participation in the decision-making process; 

Performance expectation: Implement training and development programs in 
support of DHS's mission and goals; 

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Limited. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's information technology management efforts include developing 
and using an enterprise architecture, or corporate blueprint, as an 
authoritative frame of reference to guide and constrain system 
investments; defining and following a corporate process for informed 
decision making by senior leadership about competing information 
technology investment options; applying system and software development 
and acquisition discipline and rigor when defining, designing, 
developing, testing, deploying, and maintaining systems; establishing a 
comprehensive, departmentwide information security program to protect 
information and systems; having sufficient people with the right 
knowledge, skills, and abilities to execute each of these areas now and 
in the future; and centralizing leadership for extending these 
disciplines throughout the organization with an empowered Chief 
Information Officer. As shown in table 14, we identified 13 performance 
expectations for DHS in the area of information technology management 
and found that DHS has generally achieved 2 of them and has generally 
not achieved 8 others. For 3 performance expectations, we could not 
make an assessment. 

Table 14: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Information Technology 
Management Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; 
Total: 2; 

Generally achieved: Organize roles and responsibilities for information 
technology under the Chief Information Officer; 

Generally achieved: Develop policies and procedures to ensure 
protection of sensitive information; 

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 8; 

Generally not achieved: Develop a strategy and plan for information 
technology management; 

Generally not achieved: Develop measures to assess performance in the 
management of information technology;  

Generally not achieved: Implement a comprehensive enterprise 
architecture;  

Generally not achieved: Develop a process to effectively manage 
information technology investments;  

Generally not achieved: Implement a process to effectively manage 
information technology investments;  

Generally not achieved: Develop policies and procedures for effective 
information systems development and acquisition; 

Generally not achieved: Implement policies and procedures for effective 
information systems development and acquisition; 

Generally not achieved: Implement policies and procedures to 
effectively safeguard sensitive information; 

Performance expectation: No assessment made; 
Total: 3;

No assessment made: Strategically manage information technology human 
capital; 

No assessment made: Develop a comprehensive enterprise architecture; 

No assessment made: Provide operational capabilities for information 
technology infrastructure and applications; 

No assessment made: Overall assessment of progress; Total: Limited. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

* DHS's responsibilities for real property management are specified in 
Executive Order 13327, "Federal Real Property Asset Management," and 
include establishment of a Senior Real Property Officer, development of 
an asset inventory, and development and implementation of an asset 
management plan and performance measures. As shown in table 15, we 
identified 9 performance expectations for DHS in the area of real 
property management and found that DHS has generally achieved 6 of them 
and has generally not achieved 3 others. 

Table 15: Summary of Our Assessments for DHS's Real Property Management 
Performance Expectations: 

Performance expectation: Generally achieved; Total: 6. 

Generally achieved: Establish a Senior Real Property Officer who 
actively serves on the Federal Real Property Council;  

Generally achieved: Complete and maintain a comprehensive inventory and 
profile of agency real property;  

Generally achieved: Provide timely and accurate information for 
inclusion in the governmentwide real property inventory database; 

Generally achieved: Develop an Office of Management and Budget- 
approved asset management plan;  

Generally achieved: Establish an Office of Management and Budget- 
approved 3-year rolling timeline with certain deadlines by which the 
agency will address opportunities and determine its priorities as 
identified in the asset management plan; 

Generally achieved: Establish real property performance measures;  

Performance expectation: Generally not achieved; 
Total: 3; 

Generally not achieved: Demonstrate steps taken toward implementation 
of the asset management plan;  

Generally not achieved: Use accurate and current asset inventory 
information and real property performance measures in management 
decision making;  

Generally not achieved: Ensure the management of agency property assets 
is consistent with the agency's overall strategic plan, the agency 
asset management plan, and the performance measures;  

Performance expectation: Overall assessment of progress; 
Total: Moderate. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

Our report contains detailed information on DHS's progress in achieving 
each of the performance expectations, including a detailed summary of 
our work, the DHS IG's work, and DHS documentation and officials' 
statements. We also provide our basis for each assessment. In 
commenting on a draft of our report, DHS disagreed with our assessments 
for 42 of the 171 performance expectations noted above. In our report, 
we provide detailed responses to DHS's comments on the 42 performance 
expectations. We look forward to discussing our assessments in all the 
mission and management areas in more detail with the committee and 
subcommittees to help inform their ongoing oversight efforts. 

Cross-cutting Issues Have Hindered DHS's Implementation Efforts: 

Our work has identified cross-cutting issues that have hindered DHS's 
progress in its mission and management areas. These issues include: (1) 
transforming and integrating DHS's management functions; (2) 
establishing baseline performance goals and measures and engaging in 
effective strategic planning efforts; (3) applying and improving a risk 
management approach for implementing missions and making resource 
allocation decisions; (4) sharing information with key stakeholders; 
and (5) coordinating and partnering with federal, state, local, and 
private sector agencies entities. 

* The creation of DHS is an enormous management challenge, and DHS 
faces a formidable task in its transformation efforts as it works to 
integrate over 170,000 federal employees from 22 component agencies. 
Each component agency brought differing missions, cultures, systems, 
and procedures that the new department had to efficiently and 
effectively integrate into a single, functioning unit. At the same time 
it weathers these growing pains, DHS must still fulfill its various 
homeland security and other missions. DHS has developed a strategic 
plan, is working to integrate some management functions, and has 
continued to form necessary partnerships to achieve mission success. 
Despite these efforts, we reported earlier this year that DHS 
implementation and transformation remains high-risk because DHS has not 
yet developed a comprehensive management integration strategy and its 
management systems and functionsï¿½especially related to acquisition, 
financial, human capital, and information managementï¿½are not yet fully 
integrated and wholly operational. 

* A number of DHS's programs lack outcome goals and measures, a fact 
that may hinder the department's ability to effectively assess the 
results of program efforts or fully assess whether the department is 
using resources effectively and efficiently, especially given various 
agency priorities for resources. In particular, we have reported that 
some of DHS's components have not developed adequate outcome-based 
performance measures or comprehensive plans to monitor, assess, and 
independently evaluate the effectiveness of their plans and 
performance. For example, in August 2005 we reported that U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement lacked outcome goals and measures 
for its worksite enforcement program and recommended that the agency 
set specific time frames for developing these goals and measures. 
Further, we have reported that many of DHS's border-related performance 
goals and measures are not fully defined or adequately aligned with one 
another, and some performance targets are not realistic. We have also 
recognized that DHS faces some inherent difficulties in developing 
performance goals and measures to address its unique mission and 
programs, such as in developing measures for the effectiveness of its 
efforts to prevent and deter terrorist attacks. 

* Within its sphere of responsibility, DHS cannot afford to protect 
everything against all possible threats. As a result, DHS must make 
choices about how to allocate its resources to most effectively manage 
risk. In April 2007, DHS established the new Office of Risk Management 
and Analysis to serve as the DHS Executive Agent for national-level 
risk management analysis standards and metrics; develop a standardized 
approach to risk; develop an approach to risk management to help DHS 
leverage and integrate risk expertise across components and external 
stakeholders; assess DHS risk performance to ensure programs are 
measurably reducing risk; and communicate DHS risk management in a 
manner that reinforces the risk-based approach. It is too early to tell 
what effect this office will have on strengthening departmentwide risk 
management activities. Several DHS component agencies have taken steps 
toward integrating risk-based decision making into their decision- 
making processes. For example, the Coast Guard has developed security 
plans for seaports, facilities, and vessels based on risk assessments. 
Other components have not always utilized such an approach. In 
addition, DHS has not performed comprehensive risk assessments in 
transportation, critical infrastructure, and the immigration and 
customs systems to guide resource allocation decisions. For example, 
DHS has not fully utilized a risk-based strategy to allocate resources 
among transportation sectors. Although TSA has developed tools and 
processes to assess risk within and across transportation modes, it has 
not fully implemented these efforts to drive resource allocation 
decisions. 

* In 2005, we designated information sharing for homeland security as 
high-risk and continued that designation in 2007. We recently reported 
that the nation still lacked an implemented set of governmentwide 
policies and processes for sharing terrorism-related information but 
has issued a strategy on how it will put in place the overall 
framework, policies, and architecture for sharing with all critical 
partners--actions that we and others have recommended. DHS has taken 
some steps to implement its information-sharing responsibilities. For 
example, DHS implemented a network to share homeland security 
information. States and localities are also creating their own 
information "fusion" centers, some with DHS support. However, DHS did 
not fully adhere to key practices in coordinating efforts on its 
homeland security information network with state and local information 
sharing initiatives and faces other information-sharing challenges, 
including developing productive information-sharing relationships among 
the federal government, state and local governments, and the private 
sector. 

* To secure the nation, DHS must form effective and sustained 
partnerships among legacy component agencies and also with a range of 
other entities, including other federal agencies, state and local 
governments, the private and nonprofit sectors, and international 
partners, but has faced difficulties in doing so. Thirty-three of the 
43 initiatives the National Strategy for Homeland Security are required 
to be implemented by three or more federal agencies. In addition, the 
private sector is a key homeland security partner. For example, DHS 
must partner with individual companies and organizations to protect 
vital national infrastructure, such as the nation's water supply, 
transportation systems, and chemical facilities. In October 2006 we 
reported that all 17 critical infrastructure sectors had established 
their respective government councils, and nearly all sectors had 
initiated their voluntary private sector councils in response to the 
National Infrastructure Protection Plan. In addition, through its 
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, CBP has worked in 
partnership with private companies to review their supply chain 
security plans. However, DHS has faced some challenges in developing 
other effective partnerships and in clarifying the roles and 
responsibilities of various homeland security stakeholders. For 
example, federal and private sector stakeholders stated that the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has not provided them with 
the information they would need to support TSA's efforts for the Secure 
Flight program. Further, lack of clarity regarding roles and 
responsibilities caused DHS difficulties in coordinating with its 
emergency preparedness and response partners in responding to 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Concluding Observations: 

Given the leading role that DHS plays in securing the homeland, it is 
critical that the department's mission programs and management systems 
and functions operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. In 
the more than 4 years since its establishment, the department has taken 
important actions to secure the border and the transportation sector 
and to defend against, prepare for, and respond to threats and 
disasters. DHS has had to undertake these critical missions while also 
working to transform itself into a fully functioning cabinet 
department--a difficult undertaking for any organization and one that 
can take, at a minimum, 5 to 7 years to complete even under less 
daunting circumstances. At the same time, a variety of factors, 
including Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, threats to and attacks on 
transportation systems in other countries, and new responsibilities and 
authorities provided by Congress have forced the department to reassess 
its priorities and reallocate resources to address key domestic and 
international events and to respond to emerging issues and threats. 

As it moves forward, DHS will continue to face the challenges that have 
affected its operations thus far, including transforming into a high- 
performing, results-oriented agency; developing results-oriented goals 
and measures to effectively assess performance; developing and 
implementing a risk-based approach to guide resource decisions; and 
establishing effective frameworks and mechanisms for sharing 
information and coordinating with homeland security partners. DHS has 
undertaken efforts to address these challenges but will need to give 
continued attention to these efforts in order to efficiently and 
effectively identify and prioritize mission and management needs, 
implement efforts to address those needs, and allocate resources 
accordingly. Efforts to address these challenges are especially 
important given the threat environment and long-term fiscal imbalance 
facing the nation. While this testimony contains no new 
recommendations, in past products GAO has made approximately 700 
recommendations to DHS. DHS has implemented some of these 
recommendations and taken actions to implement others. However, we have 
reported that the department still has much to do to ensure that it 
conducts its missions efficiently and effectively while it 
simultaneously prepares to address future challenges that face the 
department and the nation. 

A well-managed, high-performing Department of Homeland Security is 
essential to meeting the significant homeland security challenges 
facing the nation. As DHS continues to evolve, implement its programs, 
and integrate its functions, we will continue to review its progress 
and performance and provide information to Congress and the public on 
its efforts. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any 
questions you and the Committee members may have. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Norman J. 
Rabkin, Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at 202-512- 
8777 or [email protected]. Other key contributors to this statement were 
Jason Barnosky, Rebecca Gambler, Kathryn Godfrey, Christopher Keisling, 
Thomas Lombardi, Octavia Parks, and Sue Ramanathan. 

Footnotes:  

[1] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on 
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions, GAO-07-454 
(Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2007). 

[2] GAO, Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues, 
GAO-02-957T (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002). 

[3] Examples of nonhomeland security functions include Coast Guard 
search and rescue and naturalization services. 

[4] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2003). 

[5] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2005), and GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 
(Washington, D.C.: January 2007). 

[6] These 22 agencies, offices, and programs were U.S. Customs Service; 
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Federal Protective 
Service; Transportation Security Administration; Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center; Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service; Office for Domestic Preparedness; Federal Emergency Management 
Agency; Strategic National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical 
System; Nuclear Incident Response Team; Domestic Emergency Support 
Team; National Domestic Preparedness Office; Chemical, Biological, 
Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures Program; Environmental 
Measures Laboratory; National BW Defense Analysis Center; Plum Island 
Animal Disease Center; Federal Computer Incident Response Center; 
National Communications System; National Infrastructure Protection 
Center; Energy Security and Assurance Program; Secret Service; and U.S. 
Coast Guard. 

[7] We did not consider performance expectations derived from sources 
arising after September 2006, such as the Security and Accountability 
for Every (SAFE) Port Act and the fiscal year 2007 DHS appropriations 
act. 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "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: [hyperlink, http://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: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected] (202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***