According to INS, it has  invested about $5 million in the plan in fiscal year 2002. However, Justice  has not established an effective process for overseeing its component  agency IT investments, and for the four key INS system investments that  we reviewed, it has not ensured that INS satisfied approved cost, schedule,  and performance investment commitments. In effect, Justice and INS  recognize that baseline investment information is vital to Justice’s ability to  oversee progress and performance in delivering promised system  capabilities and value, on time and within budget. For the four key IT investments that we reviewed, Justice has not followed  its own guidance and measured progress against approved cost, schedule,  performance, and benefit commitments. According to Justice officials, they do not monitor the progress of INS IT  investments against project commitments because doing so has not been a  high enough priority to justify adequate oversight resources and because  INS does not have up-to-date baseline and project data available to permit  such oversight. Specifically,  Justice intends to (1) develop process steps and procedures for managing  investments in departmentwide IT projects; (2) implement a tool to  improve its collection and oversight of component agency budget  information and assist in overseeing these agencies’ IT investments;  (3) develop a process to support the department in overseeing component  agency IT investments so that they meet cost, schedule, and performance  goals; and (4) identify and assess the skills, staffing, and other resources  needed to conduct this oversight, among other things. Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen Justice’s oversight of its component agency IT investments,  we recommend that the Attorney General direct the Justice CIO to ensure  that oversight of IT investments is treated as a departmental priority, that  initiatives intended to introduce missing oversight controls and capabilities  are expeditiously planned and implemented, and that significant deviations  from these oversight improvement initiative plans be reported to the  Attorney General. Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Our objective was to determine whether the Department of Justice  (Justice) has effectively overseen four key Immigration and Naturalization  Service (INS) information technology (IT) investments: the Automated I-94  System, the Enforcement Case Tracking System, the Automated Biometric  Identification System, and the Integrated Card Production System.
Why GAO Did This Study

To help carry out its mission to protect the public from criminal activity, the Department of Justice invests about $2 billion annually in information technology (IT). In particular, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), a Justice agency, invested about $459 million in IT in fiscal year 2002. GAO was asked to determine, for key INS IT system investments, whether Justice's oversight has been effective, ensuring that these systems deliver promised capabilities and benefits on time and within budget.

What GAO Found

Justice has not effectively overseen INS's investment in IT systems. A key indicator of oversight effectiveness is the quality of the process followed in conducting oversight. In this regard, successful public and private organizations ensure that such processes, at a minimum, provide for measuring progress against investment commitments--that is, project agreements defining what system capabilities and benefits will be delivered, by when, and at what cost. Justice does not yet have such an oversight process. Moreover, for four key INS IT investments that GAO was asked to review (see table), oversight activities that Justice has performed have not included measuring progress against approved cost, schedule, performance, and benefit commitments. As a result, Justice has not been positioned to take timely corrective action to address its component agencies' deviations from established investment commitments, and adequately ensure that promised capabilities are delivered on time and within budget. According to Justice officials, the department has not conducted this level of oversight because it has not given enough priority to the task, and because INS does not have the data that Justice would need to conduct such oversight. Justice recognizes the need to strengthen its oversight of component agencies' IT investments, and has plans to do so. Among these is an initiative to develop steps and procedures for overseeing component agency IT investments so that they meet cost, schedule, and performance goals. However, these initiatives have not progressed to the point that the department has detailed plans governing what will be done and when it will be done. Moreover, the process improvements that these initiatives are intended to put in place must still be implemented and followed before they will produce real benefits.