When INS was abolished in 2003 by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, its  enforcement functions were transferred to two bureaus within the DHS. Within ICE, investigators  and intelligence analysts from former INS and the U.S. Customs Service  were merged into the investigations and intelligence offices, while staff  from former INS’s detention and removal program were placed in the  detention and removal office. For  service functions, INS’s Immigration Services Division, responsible for  processing applications for immigration benefits, was placed in  Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), which reports directly to the  Deputy Secretary of DHS. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (Secretary)
Transition efforts for CBP posed fewer challenges than for ICE. Whether further structural changes are warranted is one of the topics that  this hearing is to address. Therefore, the department needs to  articulate how it envisions conducting its missions five to ten years from  now and let this vision drive the organizational design, particularly the  structure of border security operations.” Another witness stated,  “Whether the decision is ultimately made to merge ICE and CBP or not,  the real issues will remain unless the underlying mission, vision, and  planning occur in a unified manner.”

	Similar Management Challenges Continue

Over the years, we have issued numerous reports that identified  management challenges INS experienced in its efforts to achieve both  effective immigration law enforcement and service delivery. We testified  that while restructuring may help address certain management challenges,  we saw an organization (INS) that faced significant challenges in  assembling the basic building blocks that any organization needs: clearly  delineated roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures that  effectively balance competing priorities, effective internal and external  communications and coordination, and automation systems that provide  accurate and timely information. In 2004, we reported DHS experienced management challenges similar to  those we had found at INS. Further, we reported in 2004 that CBP  and ICE lacked formal guidance for addressing some overlapping  responsibilities. Factors to Consider for Resolving Management Challenges

As this Subcommittee, DHS officials, and other stakeholders consider  potential structural changes to ICE and CBP, we have identified three  factors to consider for resolving management challenges including (1) a  management framework for ICE and CBP, (2) systems and processes to  support this framework, and (3) the context of the larger DHS  transformation. Management Framework for ICE and CBP

Based on our work on the creation and development of DHS, and  additional work on transformation and mergers, we have identified a  number of key success factors. Those factors that I would like to focus on  today include clarity of mission, strategic planning, organizational  alignment, performance measures, and leadership focus and  accountability. Broader DHS Transformation and Management Integration Efforts May Affect ICE and CBP Management Challenges

In addition to considering developing a management framework and  corresponding systems and processes, it is important to consider these  changes in the larger context of the transformation of DHS. Further, some management  challenges at ICE and CBP might be affected by department-wide  management initiatives. Resolving these challenges at  the top levels could help address similar management challenges in DHS’s  component organizations including ICE and CBP.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumed responsibility for the immigration programs of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 2003. The three DHS bureaus with primary responsibility for immigration functions are U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). This testimony focuses on CBP and ICE, which took over the immigration enforcement function. CBP is responsible for functions related to inspections and border patrol, and ICE is responsible for functions related to investigations, intelligence, detention, and removal. The Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, House Committee on the Judiciary, held a hearing to discuss management challenges and potential structural changes. Some research organizations have suggested structural changes to address management challenges, including a merger of CBP and ICE. This testimony addresses the following questions: (1) Have ICE and CBP encountered similar management challenges to those encountered at INS? (2) What factors might be considered in addressing some of the management challenges that exist at ICE and CBP?

What GAO Found

A number of similar management challenges that had been experienced by INS have continued in the new organizations now responsible for immigration enforcement functions. In 2001, GAO testified that, while restructuring may help address certain management challenges, INS faced significant challenges in assembling the basic systems and processes that any organization needs to accomplish its mission. These include clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, policies and procedures that effectively balance competing priorities, effective internal and external communications and coordination, and automation systems that provide accurate and timely information. In March 2003, the functions of the INS were transferred to the new DHS and placed in the newly-created ICE and CBP. In 2004, we reported that many similar management challenges we found at INS were still in existence in the new bureaus. In evaluating solutions to ICE and CBP management challenges, including potential structural changes, several factors might be considered. The first factor is whether ICE and CBP currently have good management frameworks in place. Such a management framework, among other items, would include a clear mission, a strategic planning process, good organizational alignment, performance measures, and leadership and accountability mechanisms. The second factor is whether ICE and CBP have developed systems and processes to support the management frameworks they may have in place. The third factor is that the management challenges in these two bureaus exist in the larger context of the creation and evolution of DHS. The transformation and integration activities at DHS can take 5-7 years to accomplish, and some management challenges might be resolved in this process.