	Background

		DHS’s Strategic Framework and Efforts Abroad to Combat Terrorism

DHS conducts four main types of efforts abroad that can help to combat  terrorism by thwarting terrorists and their plots before they reach the  homeland: deploying programs and activities abroad—especially screening and  targeting programs, along with select immigration benefit  processing—to help interdict people who present a threat to the  homeland and the money, information, and goods used to carry out  terrorist and other transnational criminal agendas sooner in the trade,  travel, and immigration cycles; working with and sharing information with international and federal  partners to help counter terrorism and other international crime; working alongside foreign officials to support them in assessing their  own security vulnerabilities and implementing mitigating actions; and helping other nations strengthen their security infrastructure by  providing training and consultations, conducting assessments, or  providing equipment. DHS Conducts Mission Activities and Capacity Building Abroad That Can Help Combat Terrorism

The DHS components within our review carry out programs and activities  abroad within their areas of expertise—border, maritime, aviation, and  cyber security; immigration; and law enforcement, among others—that  are designed to limit the movement of people and goods that could pose  a threat to the homeland before they reach the United States. They also  deliver training and technical assistance designed to enhance partner  nations’ ability to limit such movement globally. According to our analysis  of expenditure data and FTE data provided to us by DHS, DHS OIA and  the components within our review spent approximately $451 million  dollars on activities abroad in fiscal year 2012 and had about 1,800 FTEs  stationed abroad in almost 80 countries as of May 2013. DHS and State Identified Five Key DHS Contributions to U.S. We also identified a  variety of challenges DHS and other personnel in the U.S. missions have  faced. As shown in figure 4,  according to our survey results, the majority of the 41 DCM respondents  indicated that DHS has significantly or moderately contributed to  combating terrorism goals for each of the types of contributions we  identified. The 12 factors we identified generally fall into two categories: (1) efforts to  foster a collaborative climate, and (2) mechanisms to leverage resources  and clarify roles and responsibilities. Fewer  than half of respondents identified any of the challenges as moderate or  significant challenges. Some respondents elaborated about the extent to which U.S. mission  understanding of DHS’s role is a challenge. DHS Has Acted to Enhance Department- wide Alignment, but Could Have Better Assurance That Resources Abroad Support Highest Priorities

DHS has taken actions to increase organizational and programmatic  alignment for its resource use abroad—including establishing an  intradepartmental governance board, reviewing the department’s  international footprint, and creating a department-wide international  engagement plan. However, DHS has not established mechanisms to  help ensure that decisions to deploy resources abroad—which are made  at the individual component level—effectively, efficiently, and consistently  align with department-wide strategic priorities. DHS Has Not Established Mechanisms to Help Ensure Department-wide Organizational and Programmatic Alignment in Its Resource Use Abroad

Although a stated goal of DHS’s QHSR is to strengthen the homeland  security enterprise and mature the department through improved  organizational alignment across the components and programmatic  alignment to homeland security missions, DHS has not established  mechanisms to help provide assurance of alignment of its resource use  abroad with department-wide and government-wide strategic priorities. Specifically, it (1) has not established specific department-wide strategic  priorities to guide organizational and programmatic alignment; (2) does  not have an institutionalized mechanism to ensure ongoing monitoring of  alignment between resource use and strategic priorities; and (3) does  not have the means to produce reliable, comparable cost data to support  analysis of organizational and programmatic alignment in its department- wide resource use abroad. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for  agencies to implement policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms  to enforce management’s directives—for example, to help achieve the  goals of organizational and programmatic alignment and efficient,  effective management processes around its resource deployment abroad. Although DHS has a broad mission set and decision making about  resource use abroad is decentralized, it has not established specific  department-wide strategic priorities—such as specific types of activities or  target regions to further combating terrorism goals—for resource use  abroad to help promote organizational alignment in resource decision  making. DHS does not have comparable cost data for its programs and activities  abroad and has not established a standardized framework to capture  these data to help inform resource decision making and to achieve  management efficiencies when addressing issues that are common  across the department. Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to help ensure that DHS’s resource use abroad aligns with the  highest department-wide and U.S. government-wide priorities, we  recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following  three actions: establish specific department-wide priorities for resource use abroad; establish a routine, institutionalized mechanism to ensure alignment of  the department’s resource use abroad with the highest department- wide and government-wide strategic priorities; and establish a common reporting framework to allow for the collection of  reliable, comparable department-wide cost data for resource use  abroad. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to answer the following questions: (1) What  programs, activities, and resources does the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) have abroad to help combat terrorism? (2) How, if at all,  has DHS contributed to U.S. missions’ efforts to combat terrorism and  what factors, if any, have facilitated or hampered those contributions? To examine how DHS has contributed to U.S. missions’ efforts to combat  terrorism and the factors that have facilitated or hampered those  contributions, we reviewed documentation about DHS’s component  activities abroad and State programs and activities on which DHS  collaborates. We analyzed the responses to our interviews about the nature and scope  of DHS activities abroad and DHS counterterrorism activities with State  and DHS officials at headquarters and with federal officials in the first 3 of  the 10 site visits, to identify types of knowledge and skill contributions  DHS has made to U.S. missions and any challenges and impacts DHS  and its federal partners have encountered. Fiscal year 2008 data  are unavailable.
Why GAO Did This Study

Combating terrorism is a governmentwide effort, to which DHS contributes. In such efforts abroad, DHS partners with the Department of State (State)-- the lead agency at U.S. missions. DHS deploys resources abroad to carry out programs and build capacity within its areas of expertise--border, maritime, aviation, and cyber security; immigration; and law enforcement.
GAO was asked to examine DHS's efforts abroad to combat terrorism. This report answers the following questions: (1) What programs, activities, and resources does DHS have abroad to help combat terrorism? (2) How, if at all, has DHS contributed to U.S. missions and what, if any, factors have affected contributions? (3) To what extent has DHS aligned resource use abroad with strategic priorities?
GAO analyzed DHS expenditures for fiscal years 2008-2012, personnel data for May 2013 and documents, such as national strategies and management directives. GAO also interviewed DHS and State officials in headquarters and 10 countries, selected on the basis of factors such as the size of DHS's presence. The results from site visits cannot be generalized but provided insights. GAO also surveyed DHS and State personnel in all 57 U.S. missions where DHS has a presence.

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) carries out a variety of programs and activities abroad within its areas of expertise that could have the effect of thwarting terrorists and their plots while also combating other categories of transnational crime, and DHS expended approximately $451 million on programs and activities abroad in fiscal year 2012. For example, through the Visa Security Program, DHS has deployed personnel abroad to help prevent the issuance of visas to people who might pose a threat. As of May 2013, DHS has stationed about 1,800 employees in almost 80 countries to conduct these and other activities. In addition, DHS has delivered training and technical assistance in areas such as border and aviation security to officials from about 180 countries to enhance partner nations' security capacities.
GAO identified five types of contributions DHS has made to U.S. missions (e.g., embassies and consulates), 12 factors that support DHS's ability to contribute, and a range of challenges and impacts related to DHS contributions. On the basis of surveys of DHS and State officials abroad, GAO found that DHS has significantly or moderately contributed to combating terrorism goals for each of the types of contributions GAO identified, including building relationships, identifying threats, and sharing information. The factors GAO identified that facilitated DHS's ability to contribute fell into two general categories: (1) facilitating a collaborative climate and (2) leveraging resources and clarifying roles and responsibilities. GAO also identified a variety of challenges, including DHS domestic management effectively coordinating with personnel abroad and partners at U.S. missions understanding of DHS's role. Fewer than half of respondents identified any challenge as moderate or significant. For impacts arising from these challenges, less than one-third of respondents identified them as causing a significant or moderate impact.
DHS has taken actions to increase organizational and programmatic alignment, but has not established mechanisms to ensure that resource use abroad aligns with department-wide and government-wide strategic priorities. DHS has a stated objective to improve alignment across the department, and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for agencies to implement mechanisms to help ensure achievement of their objectives. Although DHS conducted a onetime review of the department's international footprint and created a departmentwide international engagement plan, DHS has not established mechanisms to help ensure that decisions to deploy resources abroad--which are made at the individual component level--align with department-wide and government-wide strategic priorities. Specifically, DHS (1) has not established department-wide strategic priorities for international engagement, such as specific types of activities or target regions to further combating terrorism goals; (2) does not have a mechanism for monitoring alignment between resource deployment abroad and strategic priorities; and (3) does not have reliable, comparable cost data for its programs and activities abroad and has not established a standardized framework to capture these data. Strategic priorities, a mechanism to routinely monitor alignment between strategic priorities and resource deployment abroad, and reliable cost data could provide DHS with critical information to make informed resource deployment decisions and help achieve its objective to improve organizational alignment across components.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS establish (1) department-wide strategic priorities, (2) an institutionalized mechanism to review resource alignment abroad, and (3) a method to collect reliable and comparable cost data for resources abroad. DHS concurred with these recommendations.