1.) DEA and ICE Have Taken Actions to Implement Cross- Designation, Information-Sharing, and Deconfliction Provisions of the 2009 Agreement

DEA and ICE have taken actions to implement the 2009 Agreement’s  provisions. The agencies have implemented the Agreement’s cross- designation provisions through a revised process that is more streamlined  and has resulted in enhanced flexibility in maximizing investigative  resources, according to ICE Narcotics and Contraband Smuggling Unit  officials. ICE has also implemented the Agreement’s Fusion Center and  Special Operations Division information-sharing provisions by sharing  required data with these organizations. Additionally, DEA and ICE developed and implemented local deconfliction  protocols and used a variety of mechanisms to deconflict  counternarcotics investigations in accordance with the Agreement. DEA  and ICE headquarters and field office management officials interviewed  generally reported that the implementation of the Agreement and local  deconfliction protocols had generally improved deconfliction. DEA Operations and Management officials  reported that the cross-designation process is more efficient since DEA  now reviews one consolidated list of agents instead of numerous  individual requests. According to El Paso Intelligence Center and ICE Homeland Security  Investigations officials, ICE is working with the Center to complete the  data transfer by fall 2011. Agencies deconflict to (1) ensure officer  safety and (2) prevent one agency’s law enforcement activity from  compromising the other agency’s ongoing investigation because agencies  invest extensive time and resources in sophisticated law enforcement  operations. The worksheet provides information on the  investigation (e.g., the violation, suspect, and ICE office carrying out the  investigation, among other things). Field  management or first-line supervisors in other ICE offices reported that  they deconflicted by providing DEA with plans for a law enforcement  activity. She explained  that nexus issues associated with a specific case are resolved at the local  level. DEA and ICE Have Primarily Used Established Processes to Monitor the Agreement, and the Headquarters Review Team Did Not Identify Any Systemic Issues

According to DEA and ICE officials, the agencies have each primarily  used established processes to monitor the implementation of the 2009  Agreement. According to DEA and ICE headquarters officials, the May 2011 meeting  of the HRT constituted a review of the 2009 Agreement and affirmed that  there were no overarching or systemic issues of coordination or  deconfliction requiring headquarters-level intervention. The 2009 Agreement provides for monitoring  through the HRT, which is to periodically review the performance of the  Agreement. Additionally, ICE provided written technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. This  report addresses the following questions:  1. 2. To make our  selection we used the following criteria: geographic dispersion (e.g.,  northern border, southern border, and interior); the number and  proportion of ICE agents cross-designated to conduct counternarcotics  investigations; unique provisions in the local deconfliction protocols,  which vary from the template DEA and ICE headquarters distributed to  the field offices; metropolitan areas most often identified as originating  and receiving drug shipments by the Department of Justice’s 2010  National Drug Threat Assessment; and sites recommended by DEA or  ICE headquarters officials to illustrate different enforcement situations  that could affect implementation of the Agreement. To assess the extent to which DEA and ICE have taken actions to  monitor the implementation of the 2009 Agreement in domestic offices  and make any needed adjustments, we analyzed the 2009 Agreement to  identify actions to be taken to monitor its implementation and any  documentation, such as guidance or communications to the field from  DEA and ICE headquarters describing how the implementation of the  Agreement has been monitored and any mechanisms in place to obtain  information on how the Agreement is working in the field. Information from the interviews is not  generalizable to all DEA and ICE field offices nationwide, but provided  illustrative examples of these efforts. DEA and ICE Disseminated Information on the 2009 Agreement

After the signing of the 2009 Agreement, DEA and ICE headquarters  disseminated information about the Agreement through their respective  chains of command, communicated with field management about its  provisions, and directed the SACs in corresponding DEA and ICE field  offices to develop local deconfliction protocols to implement the  Agreement, as previously discussed.
Why GAO Did This Study

The 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment stated that the availability of illicit drugs is increasing. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), in the Department of Justice (DOJ), works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to carry out drug enforcement efforts. DEA and ICE signed a 2009 Interagency Agreement (Agreement) that outlined the mechanisms to provide ICE with authority to investigate violations of controlled substances laws (i.e., cross-designation). The Agreement also required DEA and ICE to deconflict (e.g., coordinate to ensure officer safety and prevent duplicative work) counternarcotics investigations, among other things. GAO was asked to assess the Agreement's implementation. This report addresses the extent to which DEA and ICE have taken actions (1) to implement the Agreement's cross-designation, deconfliction, and information-sharing provisions and (2) to monitor implementation of the Agreement and make needed adjustments. GAO analyzed documents such as the 2009 Agreement, related interagency agreements, and directives to field offices. GAO also interviewed DEA and ICE Headquarters officials as well as management officials and first line supervisors in 8 of the 21 DEA and 8 of 26 ICE field offices, based on geographic dispersion. Though not generalizable to all DEA and ICE offices, the interviews provided insights.

What GAO Found

DEA and ICE have taken actions to fully implement the cross-designation and deconfliction provisions of the Agreement, and are finalizing efforts to complete the information-sharing provisions. The Agreement allows ICE to select an unlimited number of agents for cross-designation consideration by DEA. The agencies have implemented these cross-designation provisions through a revised process that (1) elevated the levels at which requests are exchanged between the agencies and (2) consolidated multiple requests into one list of ICE agents. This new process is more streamlined and has resulted in enhanced flexibility in maximizing investigative resources, according to ICE officials. Also, DEA and ICE implemented local deconfliction protocols and used a variety of mechanisms (e.g., local deconfliction centers) to deconflict investigations. Further, in May 2011 DEA and ICE convened the Headquarters Review Team (HRT), comprised of senior managers from both agencies, who are, among other things, to resolve deconfliction and coordination issues that cannot be resolved at lower levels because they require management decisions. DEA and ICE headquarters and field office management officials GAO interviewed generally reported that the implementation of the Agreement and local deconfliction protocols had generally improved deconfliction by (1) ensuring officer safety and (2) preventing one agency's law enforcement activity from compromising the other agency's ongoing investigation. ICE has also partially implemented the Agreement's information-sharing provisions by sharing required data with two DOJ organizations that target drug trafficking organizations, and taking steps to share its drug-related data with a DEA organization focused on disrupting drug trafficking by fall 2011. DEA and ICE have conducted ongoing monitoring of the Agreement's implementation through established processes (e.g., supervisory chains of command) and according to officials from these agencies, the HRT did not identify any systemic issues. Specifically, DEA and ICE headquarters officials routinely coordinated with each other and their respective field offices to monitor the Agreement's implementation. DEA and ICE headquarters officials also said that the May 2011 meeting of the HRT, which is to periodically review the Agreement's implementation, constituted a review of the Agreement and affirmed that there were no overarching or systemic issues of coordination or deconfliction requiring headquarters-level intervention. DEA and ICE provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.