Detailed Information on the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Office of Investigations Assessment

The agency will work to increase cooperation with other Federal law agencies in order to prevent conflicting investigations and to utilize all resources in common investigative goals.

The agency will work to increase cooperation with other Federal law agencies in order to prevent conflicting investigations and to utilize all resources in common investigative goals.

The agency will work to increase cooperation with other Federal law agencies in order to prevent conflicting investigations and to utilize all resources in common investigative goals.

The agency will work to create a consistent and reliable office relocation process to allocate resources in a specific geographical area.

The agency will work to increase cooperation with other Federal law agencies in order to prevent conflicting investigations and to utilize all resources in common investigative goals.

The agency will work to formulate budgets based on risk assessments that identify and address emerging or evolving risks.

The agency will work to formulate budgets based on risk assessments that identify and address emerging or evolving risks.

The agency will work to formulate budgets based on risk assessments that identify and address emerging or evolving risks.

The agency will work to formulate budgets based on risk assessments that identify and address emerging or evolving risks.

The 2006 Budget proposed $34 million in initiatives for the Visa Security Program, the Homeland Security Data Network, and increased worksite enforcement.

The agency will develop stronger financial control of its resources and develop stronger internal control mechanisms to track the expenditure of funds.

The agency will continue its progress in instituting controls to hold managers accountable for performance results.

The agency will work to increase cooperation with other Federal law agencies in order to prevent conflicting investigations and to utilize all resources in common investigative goals.

The agency will ensure collection of critical performance data for the program??s measures.

The agency will continue its progress in instituting controls to hold managers accountable for performance results.

The agency will work to formulate budgets based on risk assessments that identify and address emerging or evolving risks.

Measure: Percent of closed cases which have an enforcement consequence (arrest, indictment, conviction, seizure, fine or penalty)

Explanation:This is a Federal law enforcement measure that demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of investigative casework by comparing completed cases with tangible results.

Measure: Dollar value of monetary instrument seizures derived from and/or used to support criminal activity

Explanation:Removal of financial support is a key crime inhibiting factor. The higher the volume of tangible criminal resources, the higher the enforcement interference into criminal activity.

Measure: Percent of closed cases which have an enforcement consequence (arrest, indictment, conviction, seizure, fine or penalty)

Explanation:This long-term measure also has defined annual targets that demonstrate measurable progression towards goal accomplishment.

Measure: Dollar value of monetary instrument seizures derived from and/or used to support criminal activity

Explanation:This long-term measure also has defined annual targets that demonstrate measurable progression towards goal accomplishment.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The OI Program enforces trade and immigration laws through the investigation of activities, persons, and events that may pose a threat to U.S. safety and security. In particular, it investigates and strives to prevent illegal trafficking in weapons (including WMDs and NBCR agents), narcotics and contraband smuggling, human smuggling and trafficking, money laundering and other financial crimes, fraudulent trade practices, child pornography, and child sex tourism. Its role is crucial in the prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States.

Evidence: *OI Mission Statement *DHS Strategic Plan 2004 *DHS Future Year planning/budget strategy

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: OI is focused on preventing terrorists and criminal organizations from exploiting the vulnerabilities of U.S. financial, national security, public safety, and immigration systems. OI also works to shut down the apparatus, pipelines, and infrastructure that foster and facilitate the development, growth, and sustainment of criminal organizations and criminal systems. Its investigations are strengthened through the use of multiple enforcement authorities including from Titles 8, 18 19, 21, and 31.

Evidence: *OI Mission Statement *DHS Strategic Plan 2004

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The program does not duplicate other Federal, state, and local efforts. OI's mission is to prevent terrorist and other criminal activity that exploits vulnerabilities in the U.S. trade and immigration systems, endangering the safety and security of the U.S. In the Federal sector, the OI program is in many cases complementary to, but distinct from, other law enforcement agencies; where this occurs, OI works to define protocols with those agencies to avoid duplication and waste. For example, ICE has an MOA with FBI on terrorist financing and material support investigations, which identifies respective roles and mandates coordination, information sharing, and joint investigations, as necessary. The statutes OI enforces are Federal criminal and administrative violations that do not overlap with state and local authorities or efforts. Frequently, however, ICE works with state and local agencies on specific criminal task forces to maximize impact.

Evidence: *Titles 8, 18, 19, 21, and 31 *MOAs, MOUs and Interagency Agreements affecting OI [e.g., with FBI, National Center for Missing and Exploited (NCMEC), U.S. Coast Guard, Treasury, DOJ, Marshals Service, the State of Alabama]

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: OI has structured its program around three critical strategic areas of the Homeland Security National Strategy: (1) strengthen national security, (2) combat smuggling and promote public safety, and (3) secure the nation's economic system from terrorist and criminal exploitation. Each of these core operational divisions represents a consolidation of legacy authorities and expertise. Effectiveness and efficiency are enhanced through cross-training all agents.

Evidence: *HQ Functional Design Operational Components - May 22, 2003 *Field Design Document April 30, 2003 *Homeland Security National Strategy *SAC/RAC Template

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: OI continuously responds to shifting and evolving threats to effectively target the highest priorities. The National Security Investigations Division (NSI) recently partnered with the FBI to support its analytical "Fall Threat" initiative and, simultaneously, formed, funded and staffed "Operation Front Line," to address potential vulnerabilities in immigration and trade systems relative to the national security of the United States. In addition, OI has targeted resources to heightened threat such as airports (Operation Tarmac), nuclear power plants (Operation Glow Worm), human smuggling (Operation ICE Storm & the Arizona Border Control Initiative), and illegal money transfers (Cornerstone).

Evidence: *Operation Front Line *Cornerstone *ICE Storm *ABC Initiative *Operation Predator *Project Shield America

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The primary performance measure targets efficient investigative results that impact criminals and terrorists by measuring arrests, indictments, convictions, seizures, and fines against completed cases. A second measure, "Dollar value of monetary instrument seizures derived from and/or used to support criminal activity," directly measures the success of removing financial incentives for criminals and terrorists to operate.

Evidence: *DHS Performance Budget Overview (PBO) *Draft OI Strategic Plan

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: OI's primary long-term measure has an ambitious annual target for 2004 of 58.7% which is a 1.5% increase over FY 2003. This 2004 outcome target is particularly ambitious considering challenges such as combining agency budgets, personnel systems, and cross-training agents. With regard to the second measure mentioned in 2.1, the dollar value of monetary instrument seizures is ambitiously targeted for 2004 at $269.1M with annual increases, compared to the FY 2003 baseline of $256.3M. The FY 2004 total for the end of the 3rd quarter is $173.5M.

Evidence: *DHS Future Year planning/budget strategy *DHS Performance Budget Overview

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Both long-term measures have specific annual targets. The "real-time" TECS law enforcement database can track performance by the month or quarter, enabling fine tuned program adjustments as necessary. OI's progress towards its primary goal is requested and reviewed quarterly by ICE and DHS. All FY 2005 and 2006 budget requests have OI sub-program performance measures that tie 5 years of annual performance output targets directly to requested resource enhancements. Each law enforcement program within OI has its own output measure of success (such as "visitor over-stay lead resolution" or "visa application review") for management use, guiding investigative efforts, helping OI track towards its long-term goal.

Evidence: *ICE Performance Budget Overview *DHS Performance Accountability Report

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Annual targets were developed in FY 2003 based on data drawn from several sources. While OI is transitioning to a new consolidated data system in FY 2004, FY 2005 will be the first complete year of collecting data in a uniform manner and utilizing one system. Based on the legacy Customs historical average of $250M/year, the OI secondary goal target of $269.1M of "monetary instruments" seized is ambitious.

Evidence: *DHS Performance Budget Overview *Draft Report: Utilization of TECS and ENFORCE to Report All Enforcement Statistics for ICE Investigations

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Although the methods of criminal investigation OI uses to achieve its mission are similar to other law enforcement agencies, the objectives of closing vulnerabilities and preventing future terrorist attacks are distinct. OI works in partnership with numerous trade and financial private sector groups and with Federal, state, local, and tribal public sector agencies. In order to avoid duplication and wasted effort, OI uses a variety of mechanisms to influence its partners and secure commitment to annual and long-term goals. These mechanisms include Memorandums of Understanding and Memorandums of Agreement; co-location of OI agents with partner agencies (e.g., Terrorist Threat Intelligence Center); full-time liaison officers to partner agencies (e.g., TEOAF); and private sector partnership agreements. The results of these mechanisms are measured as contributing to the progress towards closing identified vulnerabilities.

Evidence: *MOUs/MOAs/Interagency Agreements (e.g., DOJ, Treasury, various DHS components, Alabama) *Arizona Border Control Initiative *ICE Liaison List *Cornerstone *Tarmac *ICE Storm *Shield America *Operation Predator *National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Since ICE was established in March 2003, GAO and the DHS OIG have started about 60 audits of OI and, including those begun before then, they have completed over 20 in final since 3/1/03. The scope of these audits has generally focused on the national conduct of program activity, with criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, performance, and identification of program weaknesses. While GAO/OIG do not share their audit schedule with OI, the volume of reviews demonstrates that OI is regularly audited by these independent reviewers. Recommendations identify areas for either correction or improvement; of the audits completed in final, only 8 had recommendations for OI, the majority of which were minor in nature. OI ensures that corrective actions are undertaken and completed both timely and substantively. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is establishing procedures to conduct efficiency and effectiveness audits of SAC offices on a 3-year cycle and overseas offices on a 4-year cycle; the first inspection is expected by early fall of 2004.

Evidence: *GAO and OIG Audits and findings *OPR and MO Functional Statements *See answer to 4.5 for effectiveness

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: As a new agency, OI is currently in the process of developing baseline performance and resource data during the first full year of its existence, based on systemic vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities will be defined based on intelligence and risk analysis; an Action Plan will be developed based on the vulnerabilities; progress in accomplishing the action items will be measured; and the cost of such progress will be quantified, thus linking the budget to outcome. As a result, budgets will be constructed based on the costs involved in achieving the desired outcomes, and performance measures will then become the mechanism for determining whether the outcomes are achieved and, if so, how efficiently.

Evidence: *OI's FY 2006 Budget Requests

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: OI has reviewed its planning efforts and taken the following corrective actions: drafted a Strategic Plan with broad participation from managers in various programmatic areas (to be finalized by the end of 4th quarter FY04); planning to revisit performance metrics with lessons learned during OI's transition year (FY05 will be the base year for measuring program success); developing a process improvement policy for TECS data entry, the main source of performance data reporting; completed threat assessments at each SAC office as a basis for strategic decision-making; and completed threat assessments of financial systems prone to abuse or exploitation (a corrective action recommended by GAO). Additionally, the potential for improved performance has been identified and realized in areas such as reducing violence related to human trafficking in the Arizona area (Operation ICE Storm and the Arizona Border Control Initiative); reducing the presence of aliens who are child sex predators (Operation Predator); and identifying financial system vulnerabilities (Cornerstone).

Evidence: *Draft OI Strategic Plan focuses on strategic direction *Operations resulting from management strategic needs assessment & planning (Operation ICE Storm, Arizona Border Control Initiative, Operation Predator, Cornerstone)

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: OI previously used two data collection systems - TECS/SEACATS and PAS. OI will have consolidated all reporting into TECS by the end of the 3rd quarter of FY 2004. Data from TECS is available in real-time and is continuously validated within OI. OI uses a variety of routine and ad hoc reports from TECS to measure efficiency and effectiveness. The current combination of data systems, primarily TECS, enables OI to measure all activity necessary to manage and improve performance.

Evidence: *Data Compendium based on TECS *Performance Tracking memo dated 1/29/04 *Format for Financial Threat Assessments *Project Shield America weekly statistical report *Cornerstone March 2004 Performance Report *Leadtrac tracks assignment of leads to the field and the results of the resultant field investigations *Draft Report: Utilization of TECS and ENFORCE to Report All Enforcement Statistics for ICE Investigations

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: OI has deficiences in this area but is moving to rectify these problems. As part of the MOU/MOA process, OI is striving to overcome current obstacles to smooth cooperation by setting goals and objectives for each program partner covered by these MOUs/MOAs. New SES and senior manager workplans are being created to address accountability for operational, financial, and other management areas. DHS has developed a Department-wide personnel system, including accountability and performance standards for employees. Until this system is fully implemented, OI is operating under legacy performance systems.

Evidence: *Draft SES annual performance plans in accordance with the new DHS HR system *Quarterly (budget) report *Statement of work for contractor support to Executive Information Unit *CEE Capital Asset Plan & Business Case *Homeland Security Enterprise Architecture Project *MOUs/MOAs/Interagency Agreements (e.g., DOJ, Treasury, various DHS components, Alabama)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: OI has difficulties in maintaining strong fiscal controls. Its current system relies on FFMS, a system with flaws that OI and ICE are working to resolve. In FY 2004, the ICE Office of Budget distributed funding to OI monthly. For all SAC offices, OI's Financial and Logistics Management Unit (FLMU) developed a cost model based on prior year expenses to distribute monthly financial plans. For Headquarters offices, financial plans were developed based on Deputy Assistant Director program estimates. Once financial plans were solidified, offices expended funding as given and provided obligations and expense reports to FLMU on a quarterly basis. This report is an Excel spreadsheet that provides obligations, expenditures, and funds available by object class codes at the division and SAC level and provides an explanation of the intended uses of unobligated balances. The FFMS is a 'real time' system and provides data as of the point in time that data is requested via the report functions. Therefore, it is possible to track obligations and expenditures on as frequent a basis as needed.

Evidence: *Allotments from ICE *Spending Plans *Field Obligation/Expenditures Reports

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: ICE is working aggressively with contractors to remedy shortcomings of FFMS, the financial management system of ICE, with the goal of putting robust capabilities in place for the start of FY 2005. Also, DHS is developing a Department-wide financial system, EMERGE2. Meanwhile, OI has developed ad hoc mechanisms to monitor cost efficiencies. OI Budget Execution, within the FLMU, gets monthly allocations from ICE Budget which are then distributed to the HQ and field units by object class codes. The HQ and field units are required to reconcile their local ledgers against FFMS and make quarterly reports to OI Budget Execution. This reconciling process serves to validate the local ledgers and to correct any missing or erroneous entries in FFMS. The current reconciliation requirements were determined based upon the expected needs of the FLMU. Quarterly reporting was implemented to prevent overtaxing the field offices. More frequent reconciliations are requested before providing additional funds for 'special' needs.

Evidence: *DHS investment review process requirements *OMB requirements *Exhibit 300 Light Guidance *CEE Capital Asset Plan & Business Case *Draft (IT) Performance Reference Model

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: As a new program, OI is negotiating protocols with related agencies to build effective collaboration (see #2.5). While OI has made significant progress in the last year, there remain certain areas where additional negotiation with other law enforcement and regulatory agencies, such as Treasury and DEA, is necessary. The following examples demonstrate effectiveness: The successful partnering of OI's Operation Predator and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has resulted in 3,247 arrests of child predators in the past year. ICE and CBP officers effected over 10,200 Intellectual Property Rights seizures valued at over $159M over the past 18 months. In the 1st quarter of FY 2004, homicides decreased 30% in Phoenix due to Operation ICE Storm, an OI, federal, and state collaboration to combat violent crime by Human Smuggling organizations.

Evidence: *Examples of task forces: JTTF, OCDETF, HIDTAs, IBETs, ICE Storm, and the Arizona Border Control Initiative. *Liaison positions assigned full time to other Federal agencies, e.g., CIA, CBP, Department of State, FBI, FinCEN, ONDCP. *Multiple MOUs, MOAs, and Interagency Agreements. *Partnering with private sector, e.g., Project Shield America, Cornerstone, NCMEC. *Partnering with ICE's FAMS, etc. *National Money Laundering Coordination Center processes requests for DEA, FBI, & IRS and provides support to DOJ attorneys in Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering section. *National Child Victim Identification Program *Human Smuggling & Trafficking Center.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: OI and its parent component, ICE, have not yet developed strong financial management practices. Its current practices are ad-hoc and rely on manual reconciliation. ICE is working to resolve the FFMS problems, but those problems still remain. Through the use of monthly and quarterly reviews that track by object class code, OI monitors the use of the funding allocated to the HQ and field units. The units are responsible for reconciling their accounts against the ICE FFMS, reporting any problems or issues that may occur. OI's FLMU provides a summary quarterly review of all of OI to the Director with analysis and recommendations. During the 4th QTR of the fiscal year, FLMU provides the Director weekly and then daily financial status reports. OI requires that all reprogramming of money must be approved through the FLMU which ensures that funds are directed and expended as intended. Financial management guidelines, as well as training on financial systems, are provided to the units.

Evidence: *Quarterly Reports *Procedures *Excel Tracking Report

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: OI's Management Oversight Unit (MO) has dedicated staff to participate in each GAO and OIG initiative from start to finish, including the response to findings & recommendations. (Since ICE was 'stood up,' about 60 audits have been started and over 20 are final.) MO staff ensure that corrective actions are undertaken and completed both timely and substantively. (Comparable effort will be directed to the OPR audits - with their 30-60 day followup on identified deficiencies - when initiated.) An example of corrective action taken is the implementation of a threat assessment program to target money laundering, in response to a recommendation in GAO Report 03-813. OI has a cooperative relationship with OPR, working closely to help develop a protocol for OPR's Self-Inspection Program, which is expected to begin by mid-fall and will identify deficiencies/areas for improvement. Additionally, OI's Executive Information Unit regularly conducts data quality analyses and ensures that corrective actions are taken where problems are identified.

Evidence: *OI Organization Chart *Cross-training Plans *SAC/RAC Templates *Functional Statements for OPR and MO *GAO Report 03-813 and Corrective Action *Standardized Reports & Data Analysis *Data Quality Handbook *Annual Data Quality Report *Draft OI Strategic Plan

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The annual target for OI's 2004 primary long-term performance goal is 58.7%. As of the end of the 3rd quarter of FY 2004, the annual goal status is 43.7%. The target was set based on multiple legacy forms of data collection which were not totally consistent. Consequently, the target was set too high. Despite that, OI's current performance is 74% of the target level, and increasing quarterly. The dollar value of monetary instrument seizures target for 2004 is $269.1M. The FY 2004 total seizures for the end of the 3rd quarter is $173.5M.

Evidence: *TECS Reports *Performance Budget Overview (PBO).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: As a new program, OI is making progress toward meeting its annual performance goals and refining its methodology for measuring performance. The percentage of cases that result in an enforcement consequence and the dollar value of seizures of monetary instruments derived from and/or used to support criminal activity remain the capstone performance measures. Significant achievements in addressing vulnerabilities in financial, trade, intellectual property, human smuggling, and critical infrastructure protection have occurred. (See #s 1.5, 2.5, 2.8, and 3.5.)

Evidence: *TECS Reports *Draft OI Strategic Plan *Draft ICE Strategic Plan *DHS planning/budget document *Performance Budget Overview (PBO).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Since inception, OI has been integrating its human resources, financial, and IT systems. OI has made significant achievements to that end: consolidating law enforcement reporting into TECS, an investigative case management database; consolidating to a standard single financial database; through purchases of standard equipment; national contracts for services; integration of law enforcement training; and refinement of the SAC office structure. The SAC Management Template Initiative proposes a realignment of field office personnel realizing a savings of $1.8M. Single systems and uniform data entry procedures save special agent time and increase investigative efforts. Merging the law enforcement training academies and reducing the agent basic training course from 14 to 12 weeks allow agents trained in both customs and immigration law to graduate and conduct OI operations 2 weeks earlier. Agency-wide purchases of equipment and services has reduced management and maintenance costs and improved operating efficiency for standard use, operator training, and repair.

Evidence: *TECS: Now the Consolidated "One-Source" Investigative Database *SAC Management Template Initiative *August 15, 2003, memorandum to OI SACs, entitled "TECS II and SEACATS Training Plan" *January 20, 2004, memorandum to OI SACs, entitled "Mandatory Use of Law Enforcement Systems for Investigations" *January 27, 2004, memorandum to OI SACs, entitled "Additional Guidance for the Mandatory Use of Law Enforcement Systems" *January 7, 2004, memorandum to OI SACs, entitled "Special Agent Cross Training" *ICE Special Agent Training (ICESAT) Curriculum

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: OI has a combination of legal authorities unique in Federal law enforcement, investigating violations of Titles 8, 18, 19, 21 (as cross-designated DEA agents), and 31 of the US Code and other customs and immigration related laws. OI is the only Federal law enforcement agency charged with investigating both customs and immigration laws. In addition, OI conducts fruitful partnerships with the private sector, such as with the financial and banking industry and with the FBI in JTTF terrorist financing investigations, to share trends and patterns in money laundering activity. Such partnerships are complementary and build on respective skills and expertise.

Evidence: *OI works closely with other federal law enforcement agencies such as DEA, FBI, TSA, USCG, and ATF, as well as with other Federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies. For example, OI is an active participant in several highly effective task forces, including the OCDETFs, HIDTAs, and JTTFs. *OI also has several MOUs, MOAs, and Interagency Agreements with other Federal agencies, e.g., the MOU between the DEA and USCS regarding Title 21 and the MOU between ICE and the FBI concerning terrorist-related financial investigations.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: GAO and OIG have completed over 20 audits since ICE began. Although Audits tend to focus on weaknesses and deficiencies, findings and recommendations generally support a rating of "mostly effective" (See ICE OPR assessment); for example, OIG-04-17, reviewing ICE's Drug Enforcement efforts, noted that "there are no known material weaknesses" in funds accountability. GAO-03-165, on Combatting Terrorism Overseas, remarked that the new strategies, including OI's, were a positive step in combatting terrorism. In addition to GAO and OIG, the ICE OPR is preparing to initiate Management Inspections of OI offices and programs, as well as instituting a Self-Inspection Program for all field and headquarters offices.

Evidence: *GAO/OIG Completed Audits *OPR Functional Statements *OPR & OI assessment of OI's effectiveness