Detailed Information on the
National Protection & Programs Division: US-VISIT Exit and Entry System for Visitors Assessment

Demonstrate program management maturity through progress in attaining Capability Level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI).

Work with DHS to review, revise and finalize a long-term strategy that has specific milestones, goals, and measures for achieving the US-VISIT mission.

Develop performance measures and baseline data for all future capability enhancements, including the IDENT/IAFIS project, transition to 10 print, and all future capability enhancements that indicate the mission impact. Where appropriate, develop measures of cost efficiencies resulting from the investments.

Implement specific improvement plans to resolve GAO recommendations

Measure: Average cost per out-of-country overstay referrals processed

Explanation:By tracking the average cost to process an out-of-country overstay lead, this measures serves as an indicator of US-VISIT's efficiency in producing these leads for border intervention or for consulate review and action. An out-of-country overstay record indicates a visitor, processed biometrically through US-VISIT at entry, is deemed to have overstayed their authorized period of admission by 90 days or more based upon their reported departure dates (i.e. from airline manifests or I-94 departure records).

Measure: Average cost per in-country-overstay processed (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:The average cost to identify in-country overstays for Federal agencies (primarily Immigration and Customs Enforcement --ICE) about foreign travelers who have apparently overstayed their authorized period of admission and for which there is no departure record. These travelers are termed In-Country Overstays. This is an indicator of US-VISIT efficiency in producing in-country overstay leads for law enforcement.

Measure: Percent of in-country overstay leads deemed credible and forwarded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further investigation.

Explanation:An in-country overstay is defined as non-immigrant foreign traveler whose authorized period of admission granted at arrival in the United States has expired without an apparent subsequent departure, arrival, or status update recorded in the Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS) database. The program uses ADIS to identify Priority In-Country Overstay records for possible law enforcement action by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and then manually validates these records. The result of this process is vetted ADIS records that are likely to represent the travelers who are overstaying their authorized period of admission and are thus subject to adverse actions. These vetted records are then sent to ICE for further investigation. An upward trend indicates that US-VISIT is increasing the number of credible law enforcement leads identified for manual review, and thus assisting ICE investigations of illegal overstays.

Measure: Percentage of Exit Records Matched to Entry Records

Explanation:This measure represents the percentage of exit records matched to the entry record of foreign nationals visiting the United States through air and sea ports. DHS uses two linked systems that record visitor entries and exits: a biographic system based on electronic transmission of passenger manifests to DHS and a biometric system that utilizes digital fingerprint scans at all ports of entry for entry recording and a limited pilot program at 14 ports of entry for exit recording. Full deployment of the biometric exit system will enhance the capability of the system to affirmatively match entry and exit records of all visitors. These entry-exit matches allow DHS to determine whether a visitor complied with the period of authorized admission and to determine the number and percentage of visa overstays by country of citizenship. The baseline is the matching rate using only biographic information. That rate will increase as more records can be matched using biometric exit data.

Measure: Average biometric watch list search times for Department of State BioVisa queries. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:This measure is used to determine the average amount of time required to complete an automated search processed through the US-VISIT Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) system in response to queries from Consular Offices worldwide where fingerprints are captured as part of the BioVISA process. The service level agreement with Department of State is less than 15 minutes to provide critical identity and watch list information in a timely manner to not impede traveler processing. In light of past performance, US-VISIT has set an internal target of processing BioVisa searches within 5 minutes.

Measure: Average biometric watch list search times for queries from U.S. ports of entry (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:The average response time of biometric watchlist queries processed through the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) system in response to queries from ports of entry (POE) where fingerprints are captured. The service level agreement with Customs and Border Protection is less than 10 seconds to provide identity and watch list information to inspectors timely to facilitate traveler processing.

Measure: Average cost per in-country-overstay processed (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:The average cost to send information to Federal agencies (primarily Immigration and Customs Enforcement --ICE) about foreign travelers who have apparently overstayed their authorized period of admission. These travelers are termed In-Country Overstays. This is an indicator of US-VISIT efficiency in producing in-country overstay leads for law enforcement.

Measure: Reduction in Review Time for Privacy Redress

Explanation:Privacy redress is a process-oriented effort to resolve redress requests, which are visitors requesting review and, if necessary, correction of their data collected and maintained within US-VISIT systems. Requests are considered resolved when US-VISIT sends a disposition letter to the requestor. The goal is to reduce the average review time from 30 to 20 business days. This measure reflects US-VISIT's responsiveness to addressing visitors' concerns and relieving those concerns regarding the use and disposition of their biographic and biometric information. Days referenced are business days.

Measure: Percent of biometrically screened individuals inaccurately identified as being a on a US-VISIT watch list.

Explanation:US-VISIT provides biometric identity services to other DHS entities through the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) system to screen foreign visitors to determine whether those individuals are on a watch list. Accuracy of US-VISIT information is a key indicator of the quality of the information furnished to its customers. This measure attempts to assess the accuracy of data provided by the IDENT system by tracking the rate at which individuals screened against the watch list returns a false positive identification (false acceptance). In other words, the rate at which individuals that are not on the watch list are misidentified as being on a watch list.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program was established in May 2003. The program's mission is to create an automated alien entry and exit system that integrates the existing databases of DHS and the Department of State, that uses available data to match alien arrival and departure records, and that incorporates biometrics to screen visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States against law enforcement databases. US-VISIT collects, maintains, and shares information, including biometric identifiers, on foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States to determine whether the individuals should be prohibited from entering the United States; can receive, extend, change, or adjust immigration status; have overstayed or otherwise violated the terms of their admission; should be apprehended or detained for law enforcement action; or need special protection/attention (e.g., refugees). US-VISIT has satisfied all legislative mandates as of December 31, 2005, by deploying biometric entry screening capabilities to DOS visa-issuing posts and U.S. ports of entry. The goals of US-VISIT are (1) enhancing the security of United States citizens and visitors; (2) facilitating legitimate travel and trade; (3) ensuring the integrity of our immigration system; and (4) protecting the privacy of our visitors.

Evidence: Summary US-VISIT Legislative History; US-VISIT DHS FYHSP System and Report; DHS established the US-VISIT Program in response to a series of statutory initiatives including: section 2(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA), Public Law 106-215: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ215.106.pdf section 205 of the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act of 2000 (VWPPA), Public Law 106-396; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ396.106.pdf section 414 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107 section 302 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Border Security Act), Public Law 107-173; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ173.107.pdf and section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), P.L. 108-458. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108.pdf *All links found at www.firstgov.gov or www.gpoaccess.gov

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

Explanation: The Federal government does not manage its immigration system as a single enterprise but through multiple cabinet departments (State, Justice, and Homeland Security) and multiple DHS organizations: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The US-VISIT Program was designed to integrate all of these existing Federal immigration data systems. This integration will allow embassy consular officers, border inspectors and Border patrol agents, immigration enforcement agents, immigration benefit adjudicators to have access to all known data about a foreign national necessary to make the right decision about admission and status.

Evidence: Summary US-VISIT Legislative History: Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission) DHS established the US-VISIT Program to implement statutory requirements: section 2(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA), Public Law 106-215; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ215.106.pdf section 205 of the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act of 2000 (VWPPA), Public Law 106-396; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ396.106.pdf section 414 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107 section 302 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Border Security Act), Public Law 107-173; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ173.107.pdf and section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), P.L. 108-458. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108.pdf

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

Explanation: DHS specifically established the US-VISIT Program to implement a biometric entry and exit system and integrate information about non-U.S. citizens from across Federal agencies. No other agency or program is engaged in the integration of immigration and border management data systems at the Federal level.

Evidence: Interagency IPT Charter-Internal DHS Document DHS FYHSP System and Report- Internal DHS Document Section 103 Immigration and Nationality Act http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-1077?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act103 8 U.S.C. 1103, specifying authority of the Secretary of DHS over immigration http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001103----000-.html *U.S. Code can be found at Cornell University's Law site for U.S. Codes

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

Explanation: The first stages of the US-VISIT Program have been free of major flaws that would limit its effectiveness. The Program was designed to satisfy legislative mandates in three increments: Increment 1 for air and sea port capabilities; Increment 2 for land border port capabilities at the 50 busiest ports; and Increment 3 for all remaining land border ports. However, US-VISIT now faces a bigger challenge: the integration of immigration and criminal information and the deployment of exit. US-VISIT has not yet finalized a plan for how it will move from increase the accuracy and amount of information that is available to immigration officials and deploy exit. The Program completed an initial life cycle cost estimate (February 2003) that is based on the analysis of alternatives that were viable to meet the mission and goals of the envisioned system and program. The analysis of alternatives is evaluated annually to ensure that they are aligned with the mission and goals of the Program and provide an annual baseline as reflected in the Exhibit 300. US-VISIT is reviewed annually by the Government Accountability Office. GAO has recommended a number of improvements, and US-VISIT tracks the progress of these recommendations.

Evidence: US-VISIT Expenditure Plan, FY 2006-Internal DHS Document OMB 300, FY 2007-Internal DHS Document Program Environmental Assessment http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/US-VISIT_PEA_041006.pdf Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, December 2005- Not available unless purchased US-VISIT GAO Tracking System http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05202.html

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: US-VISIT provides a system to verify the identity of those who enter or apply for entry into the United States and to screen them against immigration, criminal, and national security information using fingerprints and a digital photograph. Since October 2004, US-VISIT has supported the full deployment of biometric screening capabilities to the Department of State's BioVisa Program, and since December 2005 has completed deploying this capability to all U.S. ports of entry that admit aliens. This biometric screening and identity verification capability supports CBP, Consular, ICE, and USCIS officers by providing them with access to known derogatory or other information about an alien, enabling those officials to make a better informed decision about visa eligibility, admissibility, or law enforcement action. US-VISIT has been effectively targeted in the deployment of an entry system.

Evidence: OMB 300, FY 2007-Internal DHS Document

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: US-VISIT has three specific long-term performance measures that measure the program's performance:" (1) The number of biometric watchlist hits on visa applicants at U.S. consular posts abroad. This represents individuals who applied for a U.S. visa for whom derogatory information exists, but was not revealed by a name-only check. (2) The number of biometric watchlist hits on alien travelers at the ports of entry. This represents individuals for whom derogatory information exists, but was not revealed by a name-only check. (3) The ratio of adverse actions resulting from total biometric watchlist hits at ports of entry. This represents individuals for whom the derogatory information revealed by the biometric check was sufficient to deny admission or take law enforcement action. These measures are considered outcomes as each watchlist "hit" constitutes a piece of critical information provided to decision-makers that they would not have otherwise had, thereby enabling a better informed decision. Better informed decisions contribute to the goals of enhancing national security and ensuring the integrity of the immigration system. In addition, US-VISIT is developing measures to monitor progress and performance for the transition from the current two fingerprint collection to ten fingerprint collection, and for the integration of the DHS and DOJ immigration and criminal databases (IDENT/IAFIS).

Evidence: US-VISIT DHS FYHSP System and FYHSP Report-Internal DHS Document Performance Accountability Report- http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/CFO_2005PAR_AppABC.pdf Performance Budget Overview http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Budget_PBO_FY2006.pdf Consolidated Weekly Summary Report- Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures. US-VISIT has baseline data from its first year of operations and has set an ambitious goal of increasing the ratio of adverse actions to total biometric watch list hits at ports of entry from the 30 percent figure achieved in FY 2005 to 48 percent in FY 2011. Such improvement increases CBP Officer productivity by allowing officers to focus on the high-risk travelers and facilitating travel by identifying known low-risk foreign travelers quickly and accurately. US-VISIT has also set ambitious targets for biometric watchlist hits at ports of entry and consular offices. However, these targets are generally declining. This may demonstrate that the biometric watchlist matching capabilities afforded by US-VISIT deter high-risk foreign travelers from seeking visas or admission to the United States through lawful channels. These targets are adjusted for planned enhancements to the data held in the watchlists and the expansion of the population of alien travelers subject to US-VISIT. Planned advances will make the immigration fingerprint database of DHS's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) and the criminal fingerprint database of DOJ's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) more interoperable. IDENT/IAFIS interoperability??the matching of US-VISIT biometric records against a broader array of FBI criminal history files??is expected to result in a spike in biometric watchlist hits. The addition of new classes of aliens subject to US-VISIT screening also increases the number of "hits" at the border such as the increase in hits with the addition of Visa Waiver Program (VWP) participants in September 2004. The DHS Future Years Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP) reports on the long-term performance improvement goals, and measures annual improvement targets and quarterly performance data to assess progress.

Evidence: US-VISIT DHS FYHSP System and FYHSP Report-Internal DHS Document Performance Accountability Report - http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/CFO_2005PAR_AppABC.pdf Performance Budget Overview http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Budget_PBO_FY2006.pdf Consolidated Weekly Summary Report - Internal DHS Document

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: The program has established a set of core performance measures that are reported in the DHS FYHSP and that measure contributions toward the US-VISIT long-term performance improvement goal of "Improving the identity and document verification capabilities available to immigration and border management stakeholders to enable them to make timely and accurate risk and eligibility decisions." Baseline data was collected in 2005 and the measures have annual performance improvement targets. In addition, US-VISIT compiles data daily and weekly to produce quarterly and annual summaries that can show progress toward long-term performance measures.

Evidence: US-VISIT DHS FYHSP System and FYHSP Report -Internal DHS Document Performance Accountability Report - http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/CFO_2005PAR_AppABC.pdf Performance Budget Overview http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Budget_PBO_FY2006.pdf Consolidated Weekly Summary Report- Internal DHS Document US-VISIT Quarterly Performance Report- Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: Performance measure baseline data and ambitious out-year targets for US-VISIT core performance measures have been established. In addition, quarterly performance updates to the DHS FYHSP are prepared to track progress toward annual targets. The FYHSP measures enable evaluation of performance against the long-term performance goal of "Improving the identity and document verification capabilities available to immigration and border management stakeholders to enable them to make timely and accurate risk and eligibility decisions."

Evidence: US-VISIT DHS FYHSP System and FYHSP Report-Internal DHS Document Performance Accountability Report- http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/CFO_2005PAR_AppABC.pdf Performance Budget Overview http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Budget_PBO_FY2006.pdf Consolidated Weekly Summary Report- Internal DHS Document

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: US-VISIT works closely with a number of Federal agencies, such as CBP, ICE, USCIS, and other Federal departments, such as State and Justice. All partners for every US-VISIT increment participate in project teams and are involved in establishing requirements; planning and coordinating schedules; designing, developing, testing, and deploying capabilities; and operating and maintaining deployed capabilities to provide mission enhancements. This practice will continue with the planned upgrades to the IDENT database and interoperability between the IDENT and IAFIS fingerprint databases. US-VISIT collaborates with stakeholder agencies to ensure optimal performance to meet their business needs. IDENT monitors a range of measures to assess service to stakeholder agencies. Further, IDENT provides feedback to stakeholder agencies on the quality of fingerprint submissions provided by their work locations as fingerprint quality is critical to effective biometric watchlist matching. IDENT provides weekly and monthly performance reports to its stakeholder agencies and holds monthly and semiannual meetings to discuss operational issues and trends.

Evidence: IDENT Monthly Status Review- Internal DHS Document IDENT Weekly Technical Review- Internal DHS Document Consolidated Weekly Summary Report- Internal DHS Document

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: The management of the US-VISIT program is reviewed regularly by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and by the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG). GAO reviews the management of the US-VISIT Program through an evaluation of the annual US-VISIT Expenditure Plan that is submitted to the Congressional appropriation subcommittees. All aspects of program management may be covered in these GAO reviews. The DHS OIG has also reviewed the US-VISIT program, issuing reports on US-VISIT implementation at land border ports and on US-VISIT information technology security practices. Further, US-VISIT hired an independent contractor in August 2005 to provide independent verification and validation (IV&V) services. The purpose of the IV&V program is to perform an independent analysis and risk assessment of the US-VISIT Program to identify, inform, and educate program managers and stakeholder entities of any areas of weakness or risk to its stated mission, as well as obtain any recommended solutions for remediation and/or mitigation. This effort provides US-VISIT management with insights into process and product risk, enables early detection and correction, and provides objective evidence of compliance with program performance and schedule and budget requirements. The contractor uses an assessment approach designed to ensure that weaknesses and risks are identified early and mitigated on a monthly basis. Prior reviews conducted by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, GAO and Inspector General Offices identified conditions supporting the intent of the US-VISIT program to integrate existing data systems of all stakeholder departments and agencies and incrementally deploy new, more effective capabilities. For example: ?? The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States concluded that: "The challenge is to see the common problem across agencies and functions and develop a conceptual framework??an architecture??for an effective screening system." ?? The Department of Justice Inspector General (Report Number I-2005-001) concluded that high-level attention was needed to ensure interoperability between the FBI's Integrated Automated Identification System, the DHS IDENT system, and Department of State. The agencies are now cooperating to establish such capability through an integrated product team.

Evidence: GAO-06-296, Homeland Security: Recommendations to Improve Management of Key Border Security Program Need to Be Implemented http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06296.pdf GAO-05-202, Homeland Security: Some Progress Made by Many Challenges Remain on U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Program http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05202.pdf DHS OIG 04-25, Audit of Passenger Processing Re-Engineering http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_PassengerProcessingReengineeringAudit_Mar04.pdf DHS OIG-06-16, US-VISIT System Security Management Needs Strengthening http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIGr_06-16_Dec05.pdf DHS OIG- 05-11, Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html DOJ Inspector General (Report Number I-2005-001), Follow-up Review of the Status of IDENT/IAFIS Integration. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/e0501/final.pdf IV&V Project Management Plan (Internal document)

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: US-VISIT participates in the DHS planning, programming, and budgeting and execution process. Through this process, US-VISIT aligns its annual and long term performance targets and Program activities in support of DHS strategic goals and objectives, identifies resources necessary to achieve these objectives, develops a resource allocation plan to outline their use, applies resources to programs that provide the capabilities required to achieve the strategic priorities, and develops budgets priced to implement the programming decisions. Program performance measures are used to develop program plans and future budgets.

Evidence: US-VISIT DHS FYHSP System and FYHSP Report- Internal DHS Document US-VISIT FY 2006 Expenditure Plan- Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: US-VISIT has been successful in its initial two years of operation deploying biometric identity verification capabilities. However, US-VISIT faces challenges in defining its long-term strategy and for implementation of the following new enhancements to US-VISIT: upgrading IDENT to a 10-fingerprint standard, pursuing interoperability between DHS and DOJ databases, deploying e-Passport readers to all ports of entry, and developing a radio frequency solution for land border entry and exit tracking.

Evidence:

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: US-VISIT collects a wide range of performance information such as daily and weekly reports on transaction volume, biometric and biographic watchlist hits, and visa overstay referrals. This data was baselined in FY 2005. This data is used to monitor trends and to work with other components to improve performance. US-VISIT increment project managers submit a Project Status Report weekly to higher US-VISIT executive management that provides headlines, schedule details for key milestones, financial details, earned value indices and variances, major risks and issues, and the project manager's assessment of the scope, schedule, budget and overall project status. These reports encompass the contributions of participating stakeholder agencies and provide critical information necessary for decision making on US-VISIT investment activity. US-VISIT reviews a Contract Performance Report each month, which includes Earned Value performance data. US-VISIT project managers use the data to integrate cost and schedule performance data with technical performance measures, identify the magnitude and impact of actual and potential problem areas causing significant cost and schedule variances, and provide valid and timely program status information to higher US-VISIT executive management. US-VISIT task order managers of Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) tasks rate contractor performance by completing a Contractor Performance Monitor Report. The report covers contractor, programmatic, cost/budget, schedule, technical performance, and functional area liaison activities. The information gathered from the monitors is used in evaluating CPAF tasks and in providing the initial report to the Performance Evaluation Board. US-VISIT holds a quarterly Program Management Review (PMR) to allow US-VISIT Directors to review the status of the entire program. US-VISIT project and functional managers present information that includes performance information from the key program partners. The PMR ensures that all efforts are coordinated, consistent, and not duplicative throughout the Program and reflects how well the Program is meeting and will meet its objectives. Budget, schedule milestones, scope, technical issues, risks and other program related issues are addressed so that informed decisions can be made. Action items are recorded to ensure that these issues are resolved.

Evidence: Quarterly Program Management Review (PMR) presentation slide decks - Internal DHS Document Monthly Contract Performance Reports (CPRs) - Internal DHS Document Weekly Project Status Reports - Internal DHS Document Daily Summary of US-VISIT/IDENT Results - Internal DHS Document Quarterly Performance Measures Report - Internal DHS Document Contractor Performance Monitor Report - Internal DHS Document

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: US-VISIT has collaborated with the Office of Personnel Management to develop detailed position descriptions that target key competencies. These competencies are identified by teams of managers, subject matter experts, and human resources professionals who ensure the alignment of specific skills with organizational objectives. Performance appraisals for Senior Executive Service personnel and other managers are evaluated in terms of the DHS Strategic Plan. All executives and managers at US-VISIT receive performance work plans consistent with the mission and vision of the Program. These work plans serve as the basis for their evaluations, which are documented and conducted in person by the Director and/or Deputy Director of US-VISIT. This approach to performance guidance and monitoring is mirrored throughout the organization; all employees of US-VISIT receive strategically aligned performance plans, and all employees are evaluated according to their proficiency in meeting strategic objectives. The US-VISIT Program holds Federal managers and all program partners accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. The US-VISIT Project Management Policy, dated January 23, 2006, sets guiding principles, direction, and expectations for US-VISIT project managers. US-VISIT Office Directors are responsible for ensuring that project managers in their respective organizations comply with this policy. Project managers are responsible for accomplishing assigned objectives such as providing estimates of cost, resources, schedule, and scope for their projects as part of a project plan. Project managers are responsible for developing, documenting, obtaining approval for, and maintaining the project plan for their projects. Project managers monitor project performance against the approved project plan and take corrective actions whenever there are significant deviations between actual and planned activities. Results of monitoring and corrective action activities are communicated to management and stakeholders. US-VISIT project managers and a US-VISIT Acquisition and Program Management Office team hold baseline reviews with contract cost account managers to establish a baseline to be used to compare planned cost/schedule estimates to actual. Each month, this team analyzes the Contract Performance Report received from the contractors to ensure that any data irregularities or poorly explained cost and schedule variances are documented and forwarded to the contractor for correction or further explanation. Team analysts examine those cost and schedule variances which exceed predetermined dollar and percentage thresholds to determine their causes, the actions to be taken to correct them and the impact, they may have on the success of the program.

Evidence: US-VISIT Project Management Policy - Internal DHS Document Monthly Contract Performance Reports (CPR) analysis - Internal DHS Document US-VISIT Deliverable Review Comment Sheets - Internal DHS Document US-VISIT Letters of Deliverable Acceptance of Rejection - Internal DHS Document US-VISIT Program Award Fee Plan- Internal DHS Document SBA Task Order Integrated Baseline Review documentation - Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: US-VISIT has an annual Expenditure Plan that guides the expenditure of its resouces. Consistent with that plan and the appropriate official has signed the purchase request, the item is approved for funding and the commitment and obligation of funds are recorded in the financial system and documented on the budget status report. The budget status report is updated whenever funding is committed or obligated and it is issued each week to US-VISIT directors and executives. US-VISIT also prepares financial reports regularly to analyze commitments, obligations, and expenditures. In April 2006, US-VISIT initiated a quarterly program financial review for the US-VISIT executive management team on budget execution issues. US-VISIT has an internal budget workgroup with program representatives that meets monthly to review the budget status report. During the last quarter of the fiscal year, the group meets more frequently to discuss funding balances and the steps that are necessary to execute end-of-year purchases. A monthly budget execution report is also prepared that contains US-VISIT's total obligation authority, actual obligations, expenditures, and unobligated authority. US-VISIT also complies with DHS reporting requirements for midyear review and unobligated balances to focus on the timely obligation of funds.

Evidence: Monthly Budget Execution Report - Internal DHS Document Annual US-VISIT Expenditure Plan - Internal DHS Document US-VISIT Budget Status Report - Internal DHS Document DHS Midyear Review - Internal DHS Document

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: The US-VISIT Program has documented procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. These procedures cover proposal evaluation, source selection, requirements development, configuration management, earned value management, integrated baseline reviews, award fee evaluation, invoice processing and review, and a variety of other program execution responsibilities. US-VISIT recognizes the importance of effective contractor management to ensure efficient use of resources to achieve program goals. The program has established a vigorous Earned Value Management System (EVMS) to track contractor adherence to schedule and cost targets. EVMS data for contractor performance is monitored continually and reported quarterly at US-VISIT program management reviews. Since March 2005, the program has been able to remain within the 10 percent variance targets set by the Office of Management and Budget for schedule and cost. This strong performance demonstrates US-VISIT's aggressive monitoring and control of cost and schedule performance through monthly earned value analyses and CPR reviews with the prime contractor. In the monthly CPR, each cost and schedule variance is briefed by the cognizant Control Account Manager (CAM) and potential corrective actions are evaluated with the goal of reducing the cost and schedule impacts to the program overall.

Evidence: Proposal Evaluation Procedure - Internal DHS Document Source Selection Procedure - Internal DHS Document Requirements Development Procedure - Internal DHS Document Configuration Management Plan - Internal DHS Document Earned Value Management Plan - Internal DHS Document Integrated Baseline Review Procedure - Internal DHS Document Award Fee Evaluation Plan- Internal DHS Document Invoice Processing and Review Procedure - Internal DHS Document Contract Administration and Management Plan (CAMP) - Internal DHS Document

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The US-VISIT Program works closely with other DHS components, other Federal agencies, state and local partners along the land border, and private groups. Examples of these relationships include: ??Weekly interagency team meetings of Federal Stakeholder agencies provide a communication forum for discussing general program direction and progress and for surfacing issues requiring more intensive collaboration among the agencies. ??Multi-agency Integrated Performance Teams (IPTs) are formed for each US-VISIT increment or project. Within each IPT, the participating agencies collaborate in setting requirements, and developing and implementing schedules and plans leading to the deployment of functionality responsive to legislative mandates and DHS strategic goals. For example, CBP participation in IPTs for early increments has been instrumental in deploying biometric identification capabilities at air, sea, and land border ports. US-VISIT has consistently met the 10 second average response time to port queries to IDENT set by CBP to avoid increasing foreign traveler processing time. ??The Department of State met its mandate to deploy a biometric capture capability in all consular offices by October 26, 2004. US-VISIT supported DOS by creating capability in the IDENT system to ensure that information is transmitted to and maintained in IDENT so that biometric checks are completed via IDENT prior to consular officers making a decision to issue a visa. IDENT provides both the ability to check against the biometric watchlist and against other enrolled identities so that DOS can determine if an individual has previously been encountered under another name. ??US-VISIT efforts to install travel document readers at ports of entry to enable biometric comparison and authentication of U.S.-issued travel documents and VWP passports is an example of the broad collaboration US-VISIT undertakes. US-VISIT has: o Coordinated with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and various VWP participating countries to develop and test the equipment and software necessary to biometrically compare and authenticate travel documents. o Hosted a technical interoperability test that included e-Passport reader manufacturers, e-Passport chip manufacturers, and representatives from participating countries, which identified major improvements manufacturers needed to make in their readers. o Collaborated with CBP to execute a mock test at Baltimore-Washington International Airport that provided valuable insights into technical improvements required with the development of biometric readers and passport chips. o Collaborated with CBP and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand in executing the First International Live Test of e-Passports in 2005. o Collaborated with CBP and the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore in executing the Second International Live Test of e-Passports in 2006.

Evidence: Increment IPT Charters - Internal DHS Document Program Control Group Monthly Meeting and the minutes- Internal DHS Document US-VISIT FY 2006 Expenditure Plan, Internal DHS Document

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: US-VISIT participates in DHS's program planning, budgeting and executing processes and utilizes the Federal Financial Management System (FFMS) to record and expend authorized appropriations. FFMS meets statutory requirements and assures that all financial transactions and records are strictly controlled and executed according to existing Federal laws and policies as prescribed by Congress, OMB, GAO, and DHS. US-VISIT reports financial information to DHS in a timely manner; and ICE Office of Financial Management staff prepare and submit all required Department of the Treasury reports and reconciliations. Under the supervision of the Director of the US-VISIT Program, the Office of Budget and Financial Management provides the leadership to help request, justify, and manage US-VISIT financial resources, and assures that funds are allocated and expended in accordance with the DHS, OMB, and Congressional appropriation intent and priorities. The Office of Budget and Financial Management: a. Constructs and advocates credible, defensible, and executable budgets to contribute to the cost-effective performance of the US-VISIT program and mission; ensures full accountability and control over financial assets of US-VISIT; and provides timely, accurate, and useful financial information for decision support. b. Establishes operating procedures for financial policies to safeguard the commitment to lawful, effective, and efficient use of appropriated funds; complies with applicable laws and DHS guidance in all phases of the budget cycle; and governs the formal process of prioritizing and applying funds to support US-VISIT. c. Coordinates the four levels of US-VISIT's comprehensive, integrated performance management system: externally reported measures, enterprise measures, office measures, and project and contract measures. Develops, maintains and tracks the externally reported measures and the enterprise measures. d. Establishes and maintains US-VISIT 's performance management process and further ensures the program's information technology investment management processes complies with relevant capital planning and investment control, legislation, processes, and guidance. e. Coordinates responses and submits the OMB 300 Capital Asset Plan and business cases to both DHS and OMB to obtain appropriate scoring to support required approvals. f. Ensures that various oversight organizations are provided timely, accurate, and complete details related to US-VISIT's mission performance and financial operations. g. Obtains a recommendation for approval of US-VISIT's expenditure plans as submitted to Congress, through the appropriate oversight agencies.

Evidence: Monthly Budget Execution Report - Internal DHS Document US-VISIT Annual Expenditure Plans - Internal DHS Document US-VISIT Budget Status Report - Internal DHS Document DHS Performance Accountability Report - http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/CFO_2005PAR_AppABC.pdf

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

Explanation: US-VISIT has been very successful in the implementation of entry procedures at air and sea ports of entry, as well as in secondary inspection at land ports of entry. However, US-VISIT still needs to finalize plans for capturing biometric exit data at the air and sea ports and for improving the collection of entry data in primary inspection at the land borders (through radio frequency technology or other technology); and develop plans for capturing exit data at the land borders, for deploying the new capablity for collecting ten fingerprints to all current US-VISIT ports of entry, and for integrating DHS and DOJ immigration and criminal databases. However, US-VISIT has taken meaningful steps to respond to GAO concerns by tracking the progress on each GAO recommendation. In 2005, US-VISIT established a Process Improvement program based on the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI)??. US-VISIT stood up a fully operational process improvement infrastructure with a Management Steering Group led by the US-VISIT Director, an Enterprise Process Group (EPG) led by the process improvement leader, and Process Action Teams (PATs). These groups developed a US-VISIT Process Improvement Plan. In 2005, the EPG initiated an organizational assessment against 13 CMMI?? process areas. For each of the 13 process areas, the team reviewed the document management system and other sources for artifacts, and interviewed US-VISIT personnel to determine how actual organizational behavior and documented evidence compares to CMMI expectations. Based on the results briefed to the Management Steering Group on August 18, 2005, Process Improvement will focus on six process areas in 2006: 1) project planning; 2) project monitoring and control; 3) requirements management; 4) configuration management; 5) risk management; and 6) process and product quality assurance. The Enterprise Process Group has updated the Process Improvement Plan to reflect this focus and gained approval by the management steering group. The goal is to achieve Capability Level 2 by October 2006 on these six process areas for two US-VISIT projects. Regular reviews throughout 2006 will track progress to determine if this goal is achievable based on progress made.

Evidence: GAO Recommendation Tracking Report - http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05202.html SCAMPI-C results - Internal DHS Document PAT Charters - Internal DHS Document Process Improvement Plan - Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: US-VISIT established three outcome measures to gauge progress in meeting US-VISIT's long-term performance goal of "Improving the identity and document verification capabilities available to immigration and border management stakeholders to enable them to make timely and accurate risk and eligibility decisions."

Evidence: US-VISIT Quarterly Performance Report- Internal DHS Document DHS FYHSP System and Report- Internal DHS Document Consolidated Weekly Summary Reports, January 20-26, 2006- Internal DHS Document Data Management Improvement Act Report for FY 2005 (Draft)- Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: US-VISIT will likely meet its annual performance goals for the identified measures. However, it has not yet finalized performance goals for: transition to 10 print, land border entry/exit project, and for IDENT/IAFIS interoperability.

Evidence: US-VISIT Quarterly Performance Measures Report- Internal DHS Document US-VISIT DHS FYHSP System and Report- Internal DHS Document US-VISIT OMB 300, FY 2007- Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: US-VISIT monitors several measures of efficiency and service to the traveling public and its Federal stakeholders. First, US-VISIT monitors the percent reduction in review time for privacy redress as a means for improving administrative efficiency. Privacy redress is a process-oriented effort to resolve requests by visitors to review and, if necessary, correct their data maintained within US-VISIT systems. Requests are considered resolved when US-VISIT sends a disposition letter to the requester. The long term goal is to reduce the average time from 30 days to 20 days, which is a 33 percent reduction in the overall processing time. This measure reflects US-VISIT's responsiveness to addressing visitors' concerns and relieving their concerns about the use and disposition of their biographic and biometric information. Second, US-VISIT has, and continues to deploy, functionality to enhance the decision-making capabilities of CBP and Consular Officers. The program focused on implementing functionality without impeding the flow of travelers through ports of entry and consular offices. A key indicator of program efficiency is the degree to which US-VISIT avoids cost overruns on the deployment of each capability. The impact of cost overruns could result in delays to improving security at our borders and increasing costs to taxpayers. This efficiency measure assesses the degree to which, on average, US-VISIT capability deployment will not exceed baseline costs or schedule by more than 10 percent annually or cumulatively over the life cycle of the program. Lastly, US-VISIT's Data Integrity Group (DIG) within the Office of Mission Operations focuses on the analysis and improvement of data to validate overstay records using the Arrival Departure Information System (ADIS) and a variety of other source systems. The DIG vetting process identifies overstay records and provides recommended leads to the ICE Compliance Enforcement Unit (CEU) for investigation. The primary function of the DIG is to assure the integrity of data shared with ICE. Therefore, the rate at which the DIG can supply these recommended leads to ICE-CEU, per information processing dollar expended, is a fundamental efficiency metric that US-VISIT plans to monitor.

Evidence: US-VISIT Core Performance Measures Report- Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: US-VISIT is the first program of its kind in the world and has worked with other nations to develop their own biometric entry and exit systems. Through its pursuit of Capability Level 2 of CMMI??, US-VISIT is self-assessing its operations against best practices employed by leading organizations. To achieve Capability Level 2, US-VISIT will be subject to an independent, external review panel in the fall of 2006. While a direct comparison between US-VISIT IDENT and the FBI's IAFIS systems is difficult, because the two systems serve different purposes and different constituencies, a comparison of operational statistics from the two systems does reflect favorably on US-VISIT 's performance. The IAFIS system, originally built to handle roughly 75,000??80,000 transactions per day, stores roughly 50 million sets of fingerprints for criminal and civil search purposes. IAFIS was designed to deliver a 24-hour response to civil inquiries and a 2-hour response to criminal inquiries. Criminal responses are currently averaging less than 40 minutes. US-VISIT's IDENT, which stores 53 million sets of fingerprints, currently handles more than 120,000 transactions per day with a 10 second response to transactions originated at ports of entry primary stations and 15 minute response to BioVisa and Border Crossing Card initial searches from the Department of State.

Evidence: SCAMPI-C scan results- Internal DHS Document Process Improvement Plan- Internal DHS Document

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

Explanation: US-VISIT has been reviewed externally. Those reviews evaluating US-VISIT Program effectiveness concluded that US-VISIT has strengthened U.S. border security through deployment of early biometric identity verification capabilities that have enabled border and consular officers to intercept criminals and other ineligible foreign visitors. The Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations gave the US-VISIT Program a "B." However, given the early stages of the program and the limited coverage of foreign travelers at the borders, these studies have refrained from final judgments of the long term success of the program. For example, the DHS Office of Inspector General concluded that enrollment of Visa Waiver Program countries in US-VISIT enhances the integrity of the immigration process (see OIG-05-11), while expressing concern about the large number of travelers who are exempt from US-VISIT enrollment. GAO reviews of the US-VISIT Program have primarily focused upon program management capabilities rather than upon program effectiveness. US-VISIT has developed mitigation plans for GAO recommendations and is tracking progress toward resolution. GAO monitors US-VISIT progress as part of its statutorily mandated expenditure plan reviews. In its latest assessment (GAO-06-296), GAO noted that US-VISIT has made some progress in addressing its recommendations but that further and expedited attention should be given to responding to the other recommendations. In addition, the lack of integration between IDENT and IAFIS continues to concern Congressional committees as well as the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. US-VISIT has also been criticized for the slow deployment of exit at the air and sea ports of entry.

Evidence: Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, commentary on US-VISIT Modernizing America's Welcome Mat, August 2005, by Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back905.html Real Challenges for Virtual Borders: The Implementation of US-VISIT, June 2005, by Rey Kozlowski for the Migration Policy Institute http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Koslowski_Report.pdf GAO-06-296, Homeland Security: Recommendations to Improve Management of Key Border Security Program Need to Be Implemented, February 2006 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06296.pdf OIG-05-11, Implementation of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program at Land Border Ports of Entry, February 2005 http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf