Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on		 
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions (18-SEP-07,	 
GAO-07-1240T).							 
                                                                 
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-07-1240T					        
    ACCNO:   A76447						        
  TITLE:     Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on      
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions		 
     DATE:   09/18/2007 
  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-07-1240T

   

     * [1]Summary
     * [2]Background
     * [3]Our Report Assesses DHS's Progress in Implementing Its Missi
     * [4]DHS Has Made Progress in Implementing Mission and Management
     * [5]Cross-cutting Issues Have Hindered DHS's Implementation Effo
     * [6]Concluding Observations
     * [7]GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
     * [8]GAO's Mission
     * [9]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [10]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [11]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [12]Congressional Relations
     * [13]Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT
Tuesday, September 18, 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-07-1240T

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 2003.1 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.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 about
60 years after its establishment, DOD continues to face a number of
serious management challenges.

1GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on Implementation
of Mission and Management Functions, [14]GAO-07-454 (Washington, D.C.:
August 17, 2007).

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

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.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.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
2003.5 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.

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

4GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [16]GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2003).

5GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [17]GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005), and GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [18]GAO-07-310
(Washington, D.C.: January 2007).

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. Going forward, we plan to continue to work with
DHS to further clarify the performance expectations we identified and our
criteria for assessing DHS's progress in meeting those expectations.
Through this constructive dialogue with DHS, we hope to establish a
mutually agreed-upon basis for any future evaluations of DHS's progress.

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

Source: GAO analysis.

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.

           o 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. In addition, transparency plays an important
           role in helping to ensure efficient and effective transformation
           efforts. In general, DHS has not made its management or
           operational decisions transparent enough so that Congress can be
           sure that it is effectively, efficiently, and economically using
           the funding it receives. Moreover, we have encountered access
           issues in numerous engagements, and these issues have affected our
           ability to do our work in a timely manner.

           o 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.

           o 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.

           o 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.

           o 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.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

6These 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.

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.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.

7We 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.

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. Going forward, we will work with DHS to further clarify the
performance expectations we identified and our criteria for assessing
DHS's progress in meeting those expectations. By engaging in a
constructive dialogue with DHS, we hope to establish a mutually
agreed-upon basis for any future evaluation of DHS's progress.

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.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

           o 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

Source: GAO analysis.

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.

           o 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 functions*especially related to acquisition,
           financial, human capital, and information management*are not yet
           fully integrated and wholly operational. Additionally,
           transparency plays an important role in helping to ensure
           efficient and effective transformation efforts. DHS has not made
           its management or operational decisions transparent enough so that
           Congress can be sure that it is effectively, efficiently, and
           economically using the billions of dollars in funding it receives
           annually. Moreover, we have encountered access issues in numerous
           engagements, and the lengths of delay have been both varied and
           significant and have affected our ability to do our work in a
           timely manner. The Secretary of DHS and the Under Secretary for
           Management have stated their desire to work with us to resolve
           access issues and to provide greater transparency, but have not
           yet proposed any change to DHS's policies or procedures for how
           DHS officials are to interact with GAO.

           o 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.

           o 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 the Transportation Security
           Administration (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.

           o 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.

           o 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, U.S.
           Customs and Border Protection (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
           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.

(440660)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product 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 ( [19]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
[20]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: [21]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [22][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [23][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, [24][email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

[25]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1240T .

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Norman J.

Highlights of [26]GAO-07-1240T , a testimony before the Committee on
Homeland Security, House of Representatives

September 18, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Progress Report on Implementation of Mission and Management Functions

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) recent 4 year anniversary
provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress DHS has made. As one of
the largest federal reorganizations in the last several decades, GAO has
reported that the creation of DHS 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 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 over the past 4 years.
Specifically, it addresses DHS's progress across 14 mission and management
areas and key themes that have affected DHS's implementation efforts.

How GAO Did This Study

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

Over the past 4 years, 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

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 expectations.

Key underlying themes have affected DHS's 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 DHS's
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 key elements of the transformation
process, such as developing a comprehensive transformation strategy. In
addition, transparency plays an important role in transformation efforts,
but DHS's decision making has not always been transparent and we have
encountered access issues in our engagements. 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 DHS's leading role in securing the homeland, it is critical that the
department's 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 department--a 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 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 DHS's comments on these expectations. 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. Going forward, we
plan to work with DHS to further clarify expectations and criteria and to
establish a mutually agreed-upon basis for any future evaluations of DHS's
progress.

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 GAO's and the DHS Office of Inspector
General's (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 have 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 DHS's progress relative to each performance expectation was not meant
to imply that DHS should have fully achieved the performance expectation
by the end of its fourth year. 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
DHS's actions have made the nation more secure in each area.

References

Visible links
  14. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454
  15. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-957T
  16. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-119
  17. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-207
  18. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
  19. http://www.gao.gov/
  20. http://www.gao.gov/
  21. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  22. mailto:[email protected]
  23. mailto:[email protected]
  24. mailto:[email protected]
  25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1240T
  26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1240T
*** End of document. ***