Detailed Information on the
Coast Guard Migrant Interdiction Program Assessment

Improve methodology for performance measure data collection.

Develop a continuous strategic planning process.

Work towards a single, enterprise database to hold all migrant interdiction data.

Revise performance measure methodology to better gauge performance versus targets.

Measure: Percent of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the U.S. by maritime routes who are interdicted.

Explanation:This measure is the percent of all nationalities of undocumented migrants who are interdicted while attempting to enter the U.S. via maritime routes.

Measure: Number of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the U.S. via maritime routes.

Explanation:This measure is the sum of all migrants who would attempt to enter the U.S., its territories, or its possessions via maritime means. This measure is an effectiveness indicator for the programs deterrence efforts (i.e. biometrics in the Mona Pass) and is also used to predict the effect that source country policies may have on illegal immigration.

Measure: Percent of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the U.S. by maritime routes who are interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Explanation:This measure is the number of undocumented migrants of all nationalities interdicted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard (excluding partner agencies and governments) divided by the total flow of migrants toward the U.S. This measure helps the program determine whether it is keeping up with migrant smuggling trends. For instance, in response to Cuban smugglers using "go-fasts", the U.S. Coast Guard added new high-speed intercept boats in the Florida Straits and developed tactics and techniques to deal with non-compliant vessels. The U.S. Coast Guard standard is to interdict 50% of the migrants who attempt to enter the U.S. via maritime routes.

Measure: Migrant interdiction rate/operating expenses of migrant interdiction program.

Explanation:This measure shows the percentage of all nationalities of undocumented migrants who are interdicted by Federal entities while attempting to enter the U.S. via maritime routes per $10 million of programoperating expenses as calculated by the Coast Guard's Mission Cost Model.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Coast Guard's Migrant Interdiction program is to provide at-sea enforcement to interdict and process illegal and undocumented migrants as far from U.S. shores as possible. The purpose is as much a humanitarian mandate as a law enforcement requirement.

Evidence: The President, using the Executive power to control the borders of the U.S., has suspended the entry of undocumented aliens into the U.S. Executive Order 12807, issued in 1992, directs the Coast Guard to enforce this suspension as part of its border control function. Presidential Decision Directive 9, issued in June 1993 to establish national policy to prevent and suppress alien smuggling, mandates the Coast Guard interdict migrants as far at sea as possible. In Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993), the Supreme Court upheld the assertion of Executive Order 12807 that neither refugee screening procedures nor deportation processing requirements apply outside the territory of the U.S. In Executive Order 13276, issued in November 2002, the President delegated responsibilities concerning undocumented aliens interdicted or intercepted in the Caribbean Region to DHS, State, and Defense.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Every year, thousands of individuals attempt to illegally enter the United States via maritime migration and maritime alien smuggling. This activity is both unsafe and undermines U.S. sovereignty. The terrorist attacks of 2001 increased the national focus on border and transportation security and placed a greater emphasis on determining the true identities and nationalities of individuals interdicted at sea to guard against terrorists attempting to enter the country posing as migrants.

Evidence: Since 1980, the Coast Guard has interdicted over 300,000 migrants at sea from 47 different countries. The number of interdicted migrants has been increasing in recent years, from over 4,000 in 2002 to 6,000 in 2003. So far in 2004, nearly 9,000 migrants have been interdicted already, mostly from Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Although other agencies have migrant enforcement responsibilities (CIS, CBP, ICE), the Coast Guard is the only entity with both the capability and legal authority to conduct at-sea interdiction of illegal migrants.

Evidence: While the U.S. Navy, from a resource standpoint, has the capability to perform this mission, they do not have the legal authority. On the other hand, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the authority but only has small boats.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Migrant interdiction is a law enforcement activity, which is inherently governmental.

Evidence: No other program design would be appropriate.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency. While a certain level of resources and training is targeted specifically toward migrant interdiction at a steady-state level, Coast Guard also has a nearly immediate surge capability to increase its response for mass migration situations.

Evidence: During the Haitian mass migration threat in February and March 2004, Coast Guard assets from Districts along the east coast surged to the scene within 24 hours.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The long-term performance measure is to interdict or deter a set percentage of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the U.S. by maritime routes.

Evidence: USCG FY 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationUSCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: By 2009, Coast Guard aims to interdict or deter 95% of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the U.S. by maritime routes. Since the 2003 interdiction rate was 85.3%, this long-term goal is ambitious.

Evidence: USCG FY 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationUSCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The annual performance measure is to interdict or deter a set percentage of undocumented migrants attempting to enter the U.S. by maritime routes. The (new) efficiency measure is the number of migrants interdicted per resource-hour.

Evidence: USCG FY 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationUSCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Coast Guard aims to interdict or deter 87% of undocument migrants in 2004, 88% in 2005, and 89% in 2006.

Evidence: USCG FY 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationUSCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Coast Guard works closely with ICE, CBP, CIS, and State in migrant interdiction planning and operations, using interagency guidance, MOUs, liaison officers, joint campaign plans, and joint field/tactical level planning and operations.

Evidence: Operation Able Sentry

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) evaluation is currently conducting an independent evaluation that is scheduled for completion in June 2004.

Evidence: CNA statement of work

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Coast Guard's budget requests include detailed performance information. Additionally, the CG's Mission Cost Program model provides comprehensive cost information for individual programs, including overhead and other indirect costs, as well as direct costs. Funding for Coast Guard is provided through assets and people that perform multiple missions, most of them demand-driven, making it impossible to predict exact relationships between funding levels and performance measures for individual programs.

Evidence: USCG FY 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationUSCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The CNA evaluation was requested to address the lack of independent evaluations of the program.

Evidence: CNA statement of work for this evaluation

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Maritime Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) and Abstract of Operations (AOPS) databases provide high quality data supporting input measures (i.e., levels of effort such as cutter and aircraft patrol hours, numbers of boardings, etc.) and output measures (migrants interdicted). CG monitors migrant interdiction performance through regular reports; Commandant and DHS receives quarterly performance data. Assets, resource hours, and funds may be reallocated to address shifts in the threat.

Evidence: CG Annual Performance Report; Quarterly DHS performance update; Quarterly 2nd tier stats to GAO; CG Office of Law Enforcement migrant database; Commandant's Intent msgs.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: All officers within this program are held accountable for the performance of the program through the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and their individual Officer Evaluation Report (OER) which is done annually and or semi-annually. OERs directly impact promotion and assignment decisions. In fact, the OER is the ONLY required document that is looked at when considering assignment and promotion. Area and District program managers are also held accountable under the same system.

Evidence: Chapter 10, Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6); LCMA Items & Issue Papers; Q1 FY-04 PMA Report.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The Coast Guard obligates substantially all (over 99%) operating funds (Operating Expense Appropriation) each year. Virtually all capital acquisition funds (Acquisition, Construction and Improvement Appropriation) are obligated prior to expiring. The Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management enforces the provisions of COMDTINST 7100.3 (series), Financial Resources Management Manual that specify quarterly spending rates and funding carry over limits.

Evidence: Estimated obligations by quarter in apportionments. Obligation rates are tracked monthly by the Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management. Quarterly spend down rates are enforced in accordance with the Financial Resource Management Manual, COMDINST M7100.3 (series).

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: CG will have an efficiency measure for this program by June 14. CG also does competitively outsource various elements of the program, including a secured communications network with CIS and maintenance to the Law Enforcement Asset Needs computer model. The Coast Guard is pursuing a multi-year C4ISR improvement plan, which included several sensor and communication improvements. Additionally, the Coast Guard is implementing activity-based costing at support units to increase the understanding of business processes, identify areas of inefficiency, and improve resource management in support of CG assets and missions.

Evidence: Activity-based costing models at Integrated Support Commands; master plan for C4ISR. Efficiency measure June 14.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: CG has liaisons to State and to other DHS components to coordinate policy and interdiction operations with BTS, CIS, ICE, and CBP.

Evidence: State and the other DHS entities contributed to the DHS Caribbean Mass Migrantion Plan, VIGILANT SENTRY, which has been recently proven effective during the Haitian surge operations. CG has MOUs with CBP, ICE, Puerto Rico police, and the US Public Health Service.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: DHS received a qualified opinion on its 2003 audit, due in part to problems with Coast Guard documentation.?? The audit also identified five material weaknesses in Coast Guard specifically.?? This audit presented a number of unique and, in some cases, one-time challenges.?? In counsultation with KPMG LLP, Coast Guard has crafted and is implementing a remedial plan.

Evidence: Independent Auditors' Report on DHS' Financial Statements, Audit Report Number OIG-04-10

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Quality Performance Consultants assist the Coast Guard, Coast Guard units, and individuals in improving overall mission performance through improved management practices. As an example of a particular change CG has implemented, the CNA program evaluation is underway.

Evidence: CNA statement of work

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The performance goal for the past five years has been 87%. Of those five years, the goal has been met three times. Moreover, the progression has not been linear: after reaching 88% in 2002, the interdiction rate dropped to 85% in 2003. This pattern does not inspire confidence that the long-term goal of 95% will be met by 2009.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The performance goal for the past five years has been 87%. Of those five years, the goal has been met three times.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: There were 5,331Coast Guard migrant interdictions in FY03 compared to 2,409 in FY02, an increase in over 120% for interdictions, although funding did not increase.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#migrant

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No other migrant interdiction programs have performance measures.

Evidence: N/A

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) evaluation, scheduled for completion in June 2004, will be fairly positive.

Evidence: CNA statement of work