One of the mission areas is border and transportation  security. Twelve Federal Watch Lists Are Maintained by Nine Agencies

Nine federal agencies, which prior to the establishment of DHS spanned  five different cabinet-level departments, currently maintain 12 terrorist and  criminal watch lists. Specifically, while federal agencies report that they are generally  sharing watch list data with each other, they also report that sharing with  organizations outside of the federal government is limited. Further, these systems would have to be connected to each other via a  telecommunications network or networks. However, two agencies  supported efforts to consolidate these lists. Since then, the DHS Chief  Information Officer told us that DHS has assumed responsibility for these  efforts. To date, the federal watch list environment has been  characterized by a proliferation of systems, among which information  sharing is occurring in some cases but not in others. To determine and implement the appropriate level of watch list  consolidation and standardization, we further recommend that this  collaborative effort include 1. updating the watch list information provided in this report, as needed,  and using this information to develop an architectural understanding of  our nation’s current or “as is” watch list environment; 2. defining the requirements of our nation’s target or “to be” watch list  architectural environment, including requirements that address any  agency-unique needs that can be justified, such as national security  issues and civil liberty protections; 3. basing the target architecture on achievement of the mission goals and  objectives contained in the President’s homeland security strategy and  on congressional direction, as well as on opportunities to leverage state  and local government and private-sector information sources; 4. developing a near-term strategy for implementing the target  architecture that provides for the integration of existing watch lists, as  well as a longer-term strategy that provides for migrating to a more  consolidated and standardized set of watch lists; 5. ensuring that these strategies provide for defining and adopting more  standard policies and procedures for watch list sharing and addressing  any legal issues affecting, and cultural barriers to, greater watch list  sharing; and 6. developing and implementing the strategies within the context of the  ongoing enterprise architecture efforts of each of the collaborating  departments and agencies. We will also send copies to the Directors of the  Offices of Homeland Security and Management and Budget, and the  Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice,  State, Transportation, and the Treasury. An additional GAO contact and staff acknowledgments  are listed in appendix V.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to identify (1) federal databases and systems that  contain watch lists, the agencies that maintain and use these watch lists in  protecting our nation’s borders, and the kinds of data these watch lists  contain; (2) whether federal agencies’ sharing of watch list data is governed  by policies and procedures; (3) whether watch lists are (a) being  exchanged among federal agencies and between federal agencies and state,  local, and private organizations and (b) supported by common system  architectures (system hardware, software, and data characteristics); and  (4) whether opportunities exist for consolidating watch lists. 11.
Why GAO Did This Study

Terrorist and criminal watch list systems--sometimes referred to as watchout, lookout, target, or tip-off systems--are important tools in controlling and protecting our nation's borders. The events of September 11, 2001, and other incidents since then, have highlighted the need to share these watch lists. In light of the importance of border security, GAO was asked to identify federal databases and systems that contain watch lists, the agencies that maintain and use them in protecting our nation's borders, the kind of data they contain, whether federal agencies are sharing information from these lists with each other and with state and local governments and private organizations, the structural characteristics of those lists that are automated, and whether opportunities exist to consolidate these watch lists.

What GAO Found

Generally, the federal government's approach to using watch lists in performing its border security mission is decentralized and nonstandard, largely because these lists were developed in response to individual agencies' unique missions, including their respective legal, cultural, and systems environments. Specifically, nine federal agencies--which prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spanned the Departments of Defense, Justice, State, Transportation, and the Treasury--develop and maintain 12 watch lists. These lists include overlapping but not identical sets of data, and different policies and procedures govern whether and how these data are shared with others. As a general rule, this sharing is more likely to occur among federal agencies than between federal agencies and either state and local government agencies or private entities. Further, the extent to which such sharing is accomplished electronically is constrained by fundamental differences in the watch lists' systems architecture (that is, the hardware, software, network, and data characteristics of the systems). Two agencies identified opportunities to standardize and consolidate these lists, which GAO believes would improve information sharing. The President's homeland security strategy further recognizes the need to address the proliferation of these lists. While the Office of Homeland Security was reportedly pursuing consolidation as part of an effort to develop a border and transportation security blueprint, referred to as an enterprise architecture, the DHS Chief Information Officer told us that the department had recently taken responsibility for the blueprint. However, we were not provided enough information to evaluate these efforts.