Border  Patrol uses a variety of land-based surveillance technologies under the  Southwest Border Technology Plan to assist its efforts to secure the  border by interdicting illicit cross-border activity and apprehending  individuals attempting to cross the border illegally. Southwest Border Technology Plan

As noted above, the 2014 Southwest Border Technology Plan  incorporated the 2011 Arizona Technology Plan and included plans to  extend land-based surveillance technology deployments beyond Arizona  to the remainder of the southwest border, beginning with selected areas  in Texas and California. The identified shortfall in required capability is a capability  gap. CBP Has Made Progress Deploying Technology along the Southwest Border, and Is Still Developing Guidance for Future Planning Processes

		Border Patrol Has Completed Deployment of Select Surveillance Technology to Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico, and Has Further Deployment Activities Underway

As of October 2017, Border Patrol had initiated or completed the planned  deployment of select technologies to sectors across areas in Arizona,  Texas, California, and New Mexico. Specifically,  according to Border Patrol officials, it has completed deployments of all  planned RVSS, MSC, and Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS), as well as  15 of 53 IFT systems to Arizona. The  deployment status of surveillance technologies is shown in table 1. Border Patrol’s Technology Programs Have Experienced Delays, but Are on Track against Revised Schedules and Cost Baselines

Border Patrol has revised schedules and cost estimates for its three  highest-cost programs—IFT, RVSS, and MSC—and as of October 2017,  is on track to meet those revised schedules and estimates; however, risks  remain in Border Patrol’s deployment efforts. Border Patrol Is Developing Guidance to Help Sectors Identify and Plan for Future Technology Needs and Deployments

Border Patrol’s RMP and other initiatives are intended to help inform  future technology deployment decisions, but, as we reported in February  2017, additional actions are needed to ensure station officials understand  the process and their respective roles and responsibilities. We recommended, among other things, that  CBP analyze available data on apprehensions and seizures and  technological assists, in combination with other relevant performance  metrics or indicators, to determine the contribution of surveillance  technologies to CBP’s border security efforts. Border Patrol Measures Technologies’ Assistance in Apprehensions and Seizures, but Data Are of Limited Quality and Usability

Border Patrol agents collect and report data on asset assists, which are  instances in which technologies or other assets (such as canine teams,  bicycle patrols, or air support from CBP’s Air and Marine Operations)  contributed to an apprehension or seizure; however, the agency does not  have sufficient controls to ensure the accuracy and reliability of that data. For example, stations  in the Rio Grande Valley sector recorded assists from IFTs in nearly 500  instances from June through September 2016, which cannot be accurate,  since the sector does not have IFTs. However, Border Patrol has not provided written  guidance to the sectors on how to oversee data integrity or conduct  quality checks of asset assist data, and Border Patrol’s guidance on how  to enter asset assist data is limited. Border Patrol also reported using post-implementation reviews to collect  agent feedback and identify improvements. However, additional guidance to better ensure the quality of  these data (including agent training and managerial review), would help  Border Patrol determine the mission benefits of its surveillance  technologies, which in turn could be used to inform Border Patrol’s  resource allocation decisions. Recommendations for Executive Action

The Chief of the Border Patrol should issue guidance for sectors to  improve the quality and usability of its surveillance technology asset  assist information to help ensure it has reliable data so that Border Patrol  can be better positioned to measure the impact of these technologies on  its border security efforts and inform future investments.
Why GAO Did This Study

The southwest border has long been vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity. In fiscal year 2016, Border Patrol apprehended over 409,000 illegal entrants. Border Patrol has employed a variety of land-based surveillance technologies to assist in securing the border. GAO has reported regularly on CBP's progress and challenges deploying surveillance technologies.
GAO was asked to review CBP's use of surveillance technology. This report examines (1) the deployment status of surveillance technology programs and the extent to which CBP has developed plans for future technology deployments and (2) what data are available on the contributions of deployed technologies to CBP's border security efforts and the extent to which CBP has assessed technology performance.
GAO analyzed technology program documents; interviewed CBP and Border Patrol officials; and conducted site visits to Arizona and south Texas to observe the operation of various land-based technologies. We selected these locations because CBP has deployed or has plans to deploy a mix of technologies there, among other factors.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Border Patrol, within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has made progress deploying surveillance technology along the southwest U.S. border under its 2011 Arizona Technology Plan (ATP) and 2014 Southwest Border Technology Plan. The ATP called for deployment of a mix of radars, sensors, and cameras in Arizona; the 2014 plan expanded these deployments to the rest of the southwest border. As of October 2017, Border Patrol had completed the planned deployment of select technologies to Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico. For example, in Arizona, Border Patrol deployed all planned Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS) and Mobile Surveillance Capability (MSC) systems, and 15 of 53 planned Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) systems. Border Patrol also deployed all planned MSC systems to Texas, California, and New Mexico and completed contract negotiations to deploy RVSS to Texas. These technology programs have experienced delays, but are currently on track against revised program schedules and cost baselines. To plan for future technology deployments, Border Patrol reports it will use its Requirements Management Process (RMP)––a process designed to facilitate planning by, among other things, identifying capability gaps and collecting agents' feedback––and other initiatives. Border Patrol is currently developing written guidance for the RMP to ensure station officials understand their roles and responsibilities in the process.
Border Patrol agents collect and report data on asset assists, which are instances in which technologies or other assets (such as canine teams) contributed to an apprehension or seizure; however, Border Patrol has not provided sufficient guidance to ensure the accuracy and reliability of that data. For example, agents incorrectly attributed some apprehensions or seizures to certain technologies rather than others. Stations in the Rio Grande Valley sector recorded assists from IFTs in about 500 instances from June through December 2016; however, this sector does not have IFTs. Data integrity and quality checks are the responsibility of individual sectors, but Border Patrol has provided limited guidance on how to ensure data quality. Without sufficient guidance to ensure the quality of asset assist data, Border Patrol is limited in its ability to determine the mission benefits of its surveillance technologies and use information on benefits to inform resource allocation decisions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Border Patrol issue guidance to improve the quality and usability of its asset assist information. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendation.