Summary
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has established a program--the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)--to collect, maintain, and share information, including biometric identifiers, on selected foreign nationals who travel to the United States. By congressional mandate, DHS is to develop and submit for approval an expenditure plan for US-VISIT that satisfies certain conditions, including being reviewed by GAO. Among other things, GAO was asked to determine whether the plan satisfied these conditions and to provide observations on the plan and DHS's program management.
DHS's fiscal year 2005 expenditure plan and related documentation at least partially satisfied all conditions established by the Congress, including meeting the capital planning and investment control requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For example, DHS has developed a plan and a process for developing, implementing, and institutionalizing a program to manage risk. In its observations about the expenditure plan and DHS's management of the program, GAO recognizes accomplishments to date and addresses the need for rigorous and disciplined program practices. For example, US-VISIT has acquired the services of a prime integration contractor to augment its ability to complete US-VISIT. However, DHS has not employed rigorous, disciplined processes typically associated with successful programs, such as tracking progress against commitments. More specifically, the fiscal year 2005 plan does not describe progress against commitments made in previous plans (e.g., capabilities, schedule, cost, and benefits). According to GAO's analysis, delays have occurred in delivering capability to track the entry and exit of persons entering the United States at air, land, and sea ports of entry. Such information is essential for oversight. Additionally, the effort to pilot alternatives for delivering the capability to track the departure of persons exiting the United States is faced with a compressed time line, missed milestones, and potentially reduced scope. In particular, the pilot evaluation period has been reduced from 3 to 2 months, and as of early November 2004, the alternatives were deployed and operating in only 5 of the 15 ports of entry scheduled to be operational by November 1, 2004. According to US-VISIT officials, this is largely due to delays in DHS granting security clearances to the civilian employees who would operate the equipment at the ports of entry. These changing facts and circumstances surrounding the pilot introduce additional risk concerning US-VISIT's delivery of promised capabilities and benefits on time and within budget.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change
from "In process" to "Implemented" or "Not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Randolph C. Hite
Government Accountability Office: Information Technology
(202) 512-6256
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To better ensure that the US-VISIT program is worthy of investment and is managed effectively, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security to ensure that the USVISIT program director fully and explicitly discloses in all future expenditure plans how well DHS is progressing against the commitments that it made in prior expenditure plans.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Status: In process
Comments: On August 15, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security submitted its US-VISIT fiscal year 2006 expenditure plan to the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees. We currently have work ongoing to determine whether the plan addresses this recommendation.
Recommendation: To better ensure that the US-VISIT program is worthy of investment and is managed effectively, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security to ensure that the USVISIT program director reassesses its plans for deploying an exit capability to ensure that the scope of the exit pilot provides for adequate evaluation of alternative solutions and better ensures that the exit solution selected is in the best interest of the program.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Status: In process
Comments: The US-VISIT program office has taken actions to expand the scope and time frames of the pilot. For example, it extended the time frame for data collection and evaluation to April 2005, which is about 7 months beyond the date for which all exit pilot evaluation tasks were to be completed. Notwithstanding the expanded scope of the pilot, questions remain about whether the exit alternatives have been evaluated sufficiently to permit selection of the best exit solution for national deployment. For example, each of the three exit alternatives was evaluated against three criteria, including compliance with the US-VISIT exit process (i.e., foreign travelers providing information as they exit the United States). However, across the three alternatives, the average compliance with this process was only 24 percent, which raises questions as to the effectiveness of the three alternatives. The evaluation report cites several reasons for the low compliance rate, including that compliance during the pilot was voluntary. The report further concludes that national deployment of the exit solution will not have the desired compliance rate unless the exit process incorporates an enforcement mechanism, such as not allowing persons to reenter the United States if they do not comply with the exit process. Program officials stated that no formal evaluation has been conducted of enforcement mechanisms or their effect on compliance. The program director stated that he agrees that additional evaluation is needed to assess the impact of implementing potential enforcement mechanisms and plans to do so. According to the program's fiscal year 2006 expenditure plan, the program plans to spend $33.5 million to support the current 14 locations where the exit pilot is deployed while concurrently developing a comprehensive exit plan. The plan also states that the program will test other enforcement compliance models. These models are to consider, among other things, integrating biometric exit into airport check-in processes and options for integrating biometric exit into existing airline processes. US-VISIT anticipates that further testing will enable the program to finalize a concrete deployment option. Until the program office adequately evaluates the exit alternatives and knows whether the alternative to be selected will be effective, the program office will not be in a position to select the exit solution that is in the best interest of the program.
Recommendation: To better ensure that the US-VISIT program is worthy of investment and is managed effectively, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security to ensure that the USVISIT program director develops and implements processes for managing the capacity of the USVISIT system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Status: In process
Comments: According to program officials, they have initiated efforts to develop a capacity management process, including a high-level description of the necessary steps, such as identifying tools needed to implement the process. However, a plan, including specific tasks and milestones for developing and implementing capacity management processes, has not yet been developed.
Recommendation: To better ensure that the US-VISIT program is worthy of investment and is managed effectively, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security to ensure that the USVISIT program director follows effective practices for estimating the costs of future increments.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Status: In process
Comments: The latest US-VISIT-related cost estimate (Increment 1B) establishes the costs associated with three exit solutions for air and sea POEs. However, it is not consistent with effective cost estimating practices. For example, these estimates did not include a detailed work breakdown structure and omitted important cost elements, such as system testing. In addition, the uncertainties associated with the Increment 1B cost estimate were not identified. Program officials stated that they recognize the importance of developing reliable cost estimates and have initiated actions to more reliably estimate the costs of future increments. For example, as part of its process improvement program, the program has chartered a cost-analysis process action team, which is to develop, document, and implement a cost-analysis policy, process, and plan for the program. Program officials also stated that they have hired additional contracting staff with cost-estimating experience.
Recommendation: To better ensure that the US-VISIT program is worthy of investment and is managed effectively, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security to ensure that the USVISIT program director makes understanding the relationships and dependencies between the US-VISIT and ACE programs a priority matter, and reports periodically to the Under Secretary on progress in doing so.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Status: In process
Comments: Since we last reported, program officials reported that they had established a US-VISIT/ACE integrated project team to, among other things, ensure that the two programs are programmatically and technically aligned. The team has discussed potential areas of focus and agreed to three areas: RF technology, program control, and data governance. However, it does not have an approved charter, and it has not developed explicit plans or milestone dates for identifying the dependencies and relationships between the two programs. Program officials stated that the team has met three times and plans to meet on a quarterly basis going forward.
