GovernmentExecutive.com

The Homeland Security Department has been slow to implement a series of recommendations for strengthening its visitor tracking program, increasing the chance that it will fail to meet goals on time and on budget, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Tuesday.

GAO has issued 18 management-related recommendations for the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program since May 2003, the report (GAO-06-296) said. The suggestions involve cost-benefit analyses, cost estimates and justifications, testing plans and human resource plans.

The department has made some progress in adopting the recommendations, the congressional auditors found, but has been slow in many areas.

GAO found that DHS has fully implemented two recommendations: defining staff roles and responsibilities, and hiring an independent contractor for validation and verification.

But auditors found that implementation was "partially complete" on another 11 recommendations, with activities in place to address them but results not documented. These recommendations include development and implementation of security, risk management and testing plans; cost-benefit analyses of program components; performance of privacy impact assessments; development of acquisition controls; and assessments of completed work.

GAO identified an additional five recommendations as "in progress." They include developing cost-estimating practices and the identification of interdependencies between US VISIT and the Automated Commercial Environment program, an import-export processing system.

Auditors acknowledged that one previous recommendation, to assess the workforce and facilities impacts of introducing biometric travel documents at 50 land-based ports of entry, would be impractical to implement as written because the new system is already in use. Thus GAO replaced its previous guidance, which entailed gathering baseline data for those facilities, with a recommendation to explore other means of accomplishing an impact assessment.

DHS officials rejected many of the auditors' criticisms. In a lengthy response letter, Steven Pecinovsky, director of DHS's GAO/Inspector General Liaison Office, argued that many of the auditors' assessments failed to examine relevant documentation, overlooked US VISIT staff coordinating roles that address concerns including security and privacy, or otherwise failed to acknowledge the full extent of the department's implementation.

In other comments, Pecinovsky noted the shifting guidance and standards the program has been subject to over the past three years, arguing that it has responded rapidly to requirements relevant at particular times.

Nevertheless, "All three congressionally mandated phases of implementation were completed ahead of schedule and under budget," Pecinovsky wrote. "US-VISIT...has exceeded the goals set by Congress and DHS for this program."

Randolph Hite, GAO's director of information technology architecture and systems issues, emphasized the importance of implementing auditors' recommendations quickly.

"According to the program director, the pace of progress is attributable to competing demands on time and resources," he said. "The longer that the program takes to implement the recommendations, the greater the risk that the program will not meet its goals on time and within budget."

COMMENTS

• To ICE New York, N.Y.: I'm glad to see there is someone from legacy Customs who actually cares about enforcing our immigration laws. Unfortunately, you're assigned to what used to be called INS hell (NYC). When I worked in NY as an II, I never saw an INS SA respond to the POE. Their work schedule was M-F 9-5, which only after 9-11 changed. Mainly because a media report on an incident involving a van full of Pakistani illegals who were intercepted by NYPD. NYPD tried in vain to get INS SAs to respond. Their complaint to the media forced them to start working rotating shifts. What the media never found out is that those working the 23:00 to 07:00 shift were sneaking out and going home at 01:00 in the morning and were still getting paid LEAP. Majority of INS SAs became SAs for that reason GS-12 pay with little or no work. What other SAs in the government could actually work Monday-Friday 9 to 5? Since the merger CBP and ICE are back to the same INS mentality. While CBP has authority via their Port Director to place illegal aliens (not those arriving by plane) in proceedings, they still call ICE to do the "admin" work and when ICE fails to respond those aliens are simply let go. I'm sure the L-INS Supervisor is giving you misinformation. DRO doesn't need to be contacted. DRO takes the case over only after the charging document (NTA) has been issued, but your lazy L-INS comrades don't want to be bothered. Instead refer the cops to the 24-7 number for the LESC. Hopefully, they may be able to put more pressure than you can. Eventually all admin duties will go to DRO but apprehension of criminal aliens (ACAP) and those felons serving time in state prisons (IRP) are still under the jurisdiction of ICE-OI. No wonder why Fug Ops was taken from L-INS SAs. Because they never did any. During my years in NY I only met very and I mean very few SAs who knew their jobs or were competent enough to get by. The great majority were a bunch of inept prima donnas. I only hope that those good officers from ICE and CBP take some proactive action to shine a light on this disease call inaction. Immigration enforcement can not be reactive, it must instead be proactive. GovExec.com reader Posted February 28, 2006 7:49 PM
• My office receives numerous calls from local police, who report that they have aliens being released from their custody who are the subjects of detainers. We were told to refer them to Detention and Removal (DRO). However, on many occasions, when we called DRO, nobody answered the phone. We then had to tell the cops that there was nobody available to respond, and they had to let these aliens go. This is absolutely disgraceful! There are even instances of illegal aliens (overstays, bogus students, etc.) coming to the office to pick up seized passports, or for some other reason, and they are not arrested as per management! As a former Customs agent now drafted into ICE, I find this to be morally and legally reprehensible, and am not surprised at the poor morale and public image of this agency. If the intent of merging INS and Customs was to improve immigration enforcement, well folks, it's just not working. And to top things off, enforcement of laws traditionally enforced by Customs is way down as well, all over the United States. Meanwhile, experienced agents are fleeing in droves, either to other agencies or to premature retirement, thus losing the equivalent of literally thousands of years of experience. And to think that all this was supposed to make us safer after 9/11. GovExec.com reader Posted February 23, 2006 3:51 PM
• Can someone explain why DRO and OI should be together in the first place? Perhaps if DRO were a stand alone agency, ICE OI could get the funding it needs. GovExec.com reader Posted February 22, 2006 3:42 PM