網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Highghts of CAD 05-5€ 1 4 lastimony before the Subcommittee on tar migration Bo dei Securty, and Claim Commullee on the Judiciary, House of Bepresentalives

Why GAO Did This Study
The Department of Hoai lank!
Secustiy (DHS) assured
responsibihty for the immigration
programe of the former
Inigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) in 2003. The three
DHS bureaus with primary
responsibility for immigration
pictims at HS. Castrims and
Border Protection (CBP). U.S.
Imunition and Customs
enricit (ICE), uds
Citizenship and Imnogratki
Services (1) This testimony
focuses on COP CR, whudu
wuk nyer the comugration
enforcement fimet CBP is
responsible for fimctions related to
misretime and border patrol and
FCE is responsible for lunctions
mlated iu investas,
intelligence, detention, and
Tenewal

What GAO Found
A number of sinilar management challenges that had been experienced by
INS have continued in the new organizations now responsible for
immigration enforcement functions. In 2001, GAO testified that, while
restructuring may help address certain management challenges, INS faced
significant challenges in assembling the basic systems and processes that
any organization needs to accomplish its mission. These include clearly
delinealed roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures thal effectively
balance competing prioritics, effective internal and external
communications and coordination, and automation systems that provide
accurate and timcly information. In March 200.1, the functions of the INS
were transferred to the new DUS and placed in the newly created ICE and
CBP. In 2004, we reported that many similar management challenges we
found at INS were sull in existence in the new burcaus

In evaluating solutions to ICE and CBP management challenge's, including
potential structural changes, scveral factors might be considered. The first
factor is whether ICE and CBP Currently have good management
frameworks in place. Such a management framework, among other items,
would include a clear mission, a strategic planning process, good
organizational aligninent, performance measures, and leadership and
accountability mechanisms. The second factor is whether ICE and CBP' have
developed systems and processes to support the management frameworks
they may have in place. The third factor is that the management challenges
in these two bureaus exist in the larger context of the creation and evolution
of DIIS. The transformation and integration activities at DIIS can take
5-7 years to accomplish, and some management challenges might be
resolved in this process.

The Sutcoinu tee on linnigraliori,
Berzint Security, and Chains, House
Committee on the Judiclary, held a
hearing as discuss management
ullinjes and potential sinictural
Cangas Some research
Un matofs buvo suggested
structural changes to address
management challenges, mcluding
ancora CUP and ICE

[blocks in formation]

This testimony addresses the
following questions: (1) Have ICE
And (BP (memutteri similar
trawanment challenges to their
encounteger at INS?
(2) What factors might be
considered in addressing some of
the management chalenges that
uxlab ICE and CBP?

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Ingaton and Bada Panel

Fnom

weitgalio tendo
Dolarbon and Asma

Sauce 34 analysis o CHE

wew.9a4wogibije po GAO-0684
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodo oy chick on the nk above
For more information, contact Richard Stana
al (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov

United States Government Accountability Office

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to share our views on management challenges relating to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), whose functions were formerly under the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Customs Service, as this committee considers potential structural changes to enhance the enforcement of immigration laws. We have conducted numerous reviews of both specific programs and overall management in these components, and at the legacy agencies that preceded them. In my testimony today, I will discuss the following topics:

Have ICE and CBP encountered similar management challenges to those encountered at INS?

What factors might be considered in addressing some of the

management challenges that exist at ICE and CBP? The purpose of my comments is to provide the Subcommittee with oversight information as potential changes to the structure of ICE and CBP are considered. My comments are based on our wide-ranging, completed work, and our institutional knowledge of homeland security and various government organizational and management issues. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Summary

A number of management challenges similar to those found at INS have
continued in the new organizations now responsible for immigration
enforcement functions. These INS management challenges included a lack
of clearly defined priorities and goals; difficulty determining whom to
coordinate with, when to coordinate, and how to communicate; and
inadequately defined roles resulting in overlapping responsibilities,
inconsistent program implementation, and ineffective use of resources. In
1999 and 2001, we testisied on these management challenges before this
subcommittee. Our 2001 testimony concluded that, while restructuring
may help address certain management challenges, the new organization
would still face significant challenges in assembling the basic systems and
processes that any organization needs to accomplish its mission. These
systems and processes include clearly delineated roles and
responsibilities, policies and procedures that effectively balance

[blocks in formation]

competing priorities, effective internal and external communications and coordination, and automation systems that provide accurate and timely information. We noted that unless these elements were established, enforcing our immigration laws, providing services to eligible aliens, and effectively participating in the government wide efforts to combat terrorism would be problematic regardless of how the immigration function was organized. In March 2003, the enforcement functions of the INS were transferred to the new DHS and placed in the newly created ICE and CBP. In 2004, we reported that many similar management challenges we found at INS were in existence in the new bureaus.

In evaluating solutions to ICE and CBP management challenges, including potential structural changes, several factors may be considered. The first factor is whether ICE and CBP currently have a good management framework in place. Such a management framework, among other items, would include a clearly defined and articulated mission, a comprehensive strategic planning process for achieving the mission, an organizational alignment that supports the mission and strategy, performance measures to gauge their progress, and leadership and accountability mechanisms. The second factor is whether ICE and CBP have developed systems and processes to support such a management framework which assists management in resolving management challenges. For example, we have noted problems with ICE's disseminating guidance related to operational activities. The third factor involves recognizing that the management challenges in these two bureaus exist in the broader context of the creation and evolution of DHS the largest reorganization of the federal government in over 50 years. The experience of successful transformations and change management initiatives in large public and private organizations suggests that it can take 5-7 years until such initiatives are fully implemented and cultures are transformed in a substantial manner. Further, some management challenges at ICE and CBP might be affected by department-wide management initiatives. We designaled DHS's transformation as a high-risk arca in 2003.

Background

Immigration enforcement includes, among other things, patrolling 8.000 miles of international boundaries to prevent illegal entry into the United States; inspecting over 500 million travelers each year to determine their admissibility, 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.

Page 2

GAO-08-6641

Immigration functions also include providing services or benefits to facilitate entry, residence, employment, and naturalization of legal immigrants; processing millions of applications each year, making the right adjudicative decision in approving or denying the applications; and rendering decisions in a timely manner.

When INS was abolished in 2003 by the Homeland Security Act of 2002,' its enforcement functions were transferred to two bureaus within the DHS. First, INS's interior enforcement programs—investigations, intelligence, and detention and removal—were placed in ICE. Within ICE, investigators and intelligence analysts from former INS and the U.S. Customs Service were merged into the investigations and intelligence offices, while staff from former INS's detention and removal program were placed in the detention and removal office. Second, inspectors from former INS, Customs, and Agriculture and Plant Health Inspection Service, as well as former INS's Border Patrol agents were incorporated into CBP. Both (BP and ICE report to the Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security, who in turn reports to the Deputy Secretary of the DHS. For service functions, INS's Immigration Services Division, responsible for processing applications for immigration benefits, was placed in Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), which reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of DHS. Figure 1 shows the transition of INS functions into DHS.

[blocks in formation]

Figure 1. Transfer of Immigration Functions from INS into DHS

Former agency - Inmigration and Naturalization Service (NS),

[graphic]

Survloos

Anspections and Border Patrol

ostigations Intelligence Delention and Bemoved

Now chapartment

Department of Homeland Security

(Secretary)

Com
Guard

Seca
Service

stor Star end Local Governor Coordinator

Deputy Secrelasy

Under CIS
in DHS

Cice
Intematon

Affairs

Liga for Prvati

O.S. Chizenship and enigration Service (C13)

Eat arx
Inapoli
Sec Directorate

Em C
Frednies and
Response auctorze

tromar Alyse

and rasti ucture
Ceprant Directorate

Scene and
Tech Oy
Dredhrady

Hari
Deck

Transportelor

Security
Adiron

Shared sonde

Federal Enforcement Training

Center

Us Customs and
Border Protection

Under CBP

in DHS

ICBP)

Okolor
Domenic
Preparedness

Under ICE

In DHS

U.S. Immigration

and Custom Entonement ICES

Sour CAD analysis President's fiscal year budget, FL 10729

Transition efforts for CBP posed fewer challenges than for ICE.
Specifically, CBP brought together INS and Customs inspections programs

Page 4

GAO-08-6641

« 上一頁繼續 »