Detailed Information on the
Customs and Border Protection: CBP Air and Marine Assessment

CBP A&M submitted its updated National Strategic Plan in September 2007, which includes operational plans, costs, performance measures, investment strategies and the recapitalization plan. The fourth primary Northern Border Air Wings site was opened in September 2007 (North Dakota) and the fifth and final primary air site in Detroit, Michigan is scheduled to open in the September 2008. These five primary air sites along the Northern Border were Congressionally mandated to not only establish an A&M presence along the Northern Border, but also, because the northern border is diverse as to geography, weather, threat, highway/road infrastructure, and population centers, flexibility regarding the most efficient deployment for law enforcement make air and marine forces a necessity.

As threats evolve and new intelligence is brought to light, CBP A&M reviewed and, when necessary, refocused on its National Strategic Plan to ensure that our goals, measures and objectives are focused on areas where its capabilities will pay the highest operational dividends. CBP A&M will review all performance measures and refine and/or develop new outcome based measures for submission to the PAR/PART in the spring of 2008. CBP A&M will review all performance measures and, if necessary, refine and develop new ones for submission to the PAR/PART in the spring of 2008.

Establish a more comprehensive leadership training and mentoring program to continue improving the quality of the program's management. This plan will complement the merger of two similar but not identical air forces and provide the fine tuning needed to execute CBP A&M's primary mission of border security as well as its traditional missions of the interdiciton of contraband.

Increasing attention to annual goals that were not met in 2006 and posting existing independent evaluations to demonstrate how programs are effective and achieving results. Reviewing annual measures in 2007 to ensure focus on outcomes that are increasingly ambitious and challenge the status quo. CBP will also benchmark against similar air components. Gaining final approval for operational plans for the integrated air and marine program and continue establishment of the Northern Border air wing. Efficiency measures will be monitored for impact.

Measure: Percent of at-risk miles under strategic air surveillance (strategic air coverage)

Explanation:This measure shows the progress made toward expanding strategic air surveillance coverage along the borders and approaches to the borders of the U.S. by the end of the decade. The measure is the percent of border miles of at risk that is under surveillance by CBP patrol-type aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems). Measuring surveillance is an evolving metric. In FY03 and FY04 metrics were based on the measurement of 7200 P-3 flight hours provided in support of drug enforcement. In FY05, the UAV was introduced and added to these total hours. Effective FY07 the measure will be represented by the miles of at risk borders under strategic air surveillance in response to the anti-terrorism mission.

Measure: Extending physical zone of security beyond the borders (%

Explanation:This measure monitors A&M efforts in reducing, with the intent of ultimately denying, the use of border air space for acts of terrorism or smuggling using intelligence and threat assessments. The number of Targets of Interest (TOI) has been reduced over time as strategic surveillance and tactical responses by CBP interceptors and patrols, work with the Border Patrol on the ground, to deter the use of air routes into the U.S. A&M continues to gather and analyze intelligence on past and current threat patterns to forecast and disseminate information about potential and emerging threats. To highlight the effectiveness of these practices, commencing in the 1970's, there were over 7,000 known Targets Of Interests (TOI) violating the southwestern border airspace. This number was reduced to approximately 150 in the mid-1980's and further reduced to 10 in 2005. The targeted goals for this measure is to maintain this low level of border incursions at a minimum and reduce it if possible, until there are no border incursions.

Measure: Enhanced utility and flexibility of air fleet

Explanation:The measure shows the progress towards increasing security in the air environment through realignment of the number and types of CBP aircraft to support CBP's anti-terrorism border protection, anti-drug, and customs and immigration enforcement support missions. A more flexible air fleet, capable of performing multiple missions, allows CBP A&M to standardize the airfleet ultimately reducing types of aircraft from 18 to 8, while mission support flight hours meet annual plans. Streamlining the types of aircraft in the fleet eases training requirements, maintenance and parts inventories, and creates economies of scale by reducing the total number of aircraft in the fleet by about 40 assets.

Measure: Offshore Maritime Detainments

Explanation:Maritime entry upon U.S. soil is considered a failure in the President's Maritime Domain Awareness Program as the one vessel that touches shore could contain a Weapons of Mass Destruction. Effective in FY2006, the measure will be increasing the percentage of non-compliant vessels forcibly stopped before reaching U.S. border shoreline. In FY 2003 thru FY 2005 the measure is stated as the actual number of forcible stops which does not answer the question of how many vessels were not stopped. The number dropped to 9 in FY05 due to the cummulative loss of over 25 marine enforcement officers who have not yet been replaced. In FY 2006 and 2007, Marine Officers are expected to be replaced, which will permit a more agressive target to be set. Additionally, in late 2006, data are now being recorded to permit the capture of information regarding the universe of non-compliant vessels attempting to reach the US Shorline.

Measure: Reduce aircraft flight hour costs

Explanation:Actual flight hour cost is an industry standard for gauging efficiencies. Presently, air assets are maintained through a mix of local and centralized maintenance and supply chain management that is inefficient. A&M is establishing a nation-wide aviation maintenance contract in FY 2008 that will cover all air assets, with the exception of the UAS, and that will be centralized to gain efficiencies in maintenance practices and supply chain management. The measure will be report actual average flight hour cost by year with the goal of reducing costs 2% per year commencing FY 2009.

Measure: Percent of air support launches accomplished to support border ground agents to secure the border.

Explanation:In FY 2006, all air assets of CBP were merged into CBP Air and Marine (AM), creating the largest law enforcement air force in the world with enhanced mission support to AM's primary customer, the Office of Border Patrol. A primary and important measure for Air and Marine (AM) is its capability to launch an aircraft when a request is made for aerial support. This measure captures the percent of all requests made for air support to which AM was able to respond.

Measure: Number of assists to Border Patrol..

Explanation:This measure reports on A&M support to law enforcement entities. The measure shows the number of assists for which CBP A&M launched an aircraft to assist the Border Patrol

Measure: Number of assists to ICE.

Explanation:This measure reports on A&M support to law enforcement entities. The measure shows the number of assists for which CBP A&M launched an aircraft to assist ICE.

Measure: Number of assists to Other Federal Law Enforcement.

Explanation:This measure reports on A&M support to law enforcement entities. The measure shows the number of assists for which CBP A&M launched an aircraft to assist Other Federal Law Enforcement.

Measure: Number of assists to State and Local Law Enforcement.

Explanation:This measure reports on A&M support to law enforcement entities. The measure shows the number of assists for which CBP A&M launched an aircraft to assist state and local Law Enforcement.

Measure: The annual number of short landings (where smuggler/terrorist aircraft are forced to land "short" of the US border)

Explanation:This measure shows the number of confirmed suspect air targets of interest successfully forced to land short of the border within Mexican Government designated high risk areas of Baja and Sonora, Mexico. Short landing statistics illustrate the positive outcome brought about by A&M's presensce and capabilities in deterring smuggler/terrorist aircraft from successfully bringing drugs or other illegal conveyences into the U.S. by forcing their aircraft to land short of the border. Annual targets are set to decrease the percentage of confirmed suspect air targets by 5%/year.

Measure: Number of assists to Other Federal Law Enforcement.

Explanation:This measure reports on A&M support to law enforcement entities. The measure shows the number of assists for which CBP A&M launched an aircraft to assist Other Federal Law Enforcement.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The creation of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) marked the first time in our Nation's history that a single border agency was charged with the management, control and protection of all our Nation's borders. As the single border agency, CBP's priority mission is to keep terrorists and terrorist weapons out of our country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws. CBP retains oversight of all frontline federal border security personnel and functions at, between, and beyond our Nation's more than 300 official ports of entry. In 2005, as part of an active effort to protect our borders, the resources and personnel of Air and Marine Operations and Border Patrol's air and marine operations were combined to create Customs and Border Protection Air. Originally part of U.S. Customs, the Air and Marine branch moved to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before finally returning to CBP. This group is joined by air and marine components from the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) with some port resources. On October 1, 2005, CBP Air became the largest single law enforcement air force in the world. On January 17, 2006, CBP consolidated all marine assets, program and personnel and placed them under the newly titled Office of CBP Air and Marine (A&M).

Evidence: CBP A&M is an important component of CBP's layered enforcement strategy for border security. With more than 1,200 field personnel, 263 aircraft, and 190 marine vessels, A&M supports multiple operational objectives: - Anti-terrorism missions include protecting, controlling and enforcing federal law at our land and coastal borders and the airspace above our borders. - Traditional missions of staunching drug smuggling and interdicting illegal drugs, including interdiction at and near our borders, as well as source and transit zone operations. - DHS missions, such as response and recovery to natural disasters and terrorism. - Other law enforcement missions. Ultimately, the integration and unification of our air and marine resources under one organization has built a force that best supports CBP's priority mission of anti-terrorism as well as border security, drug interdiction and other important missions.

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

Explanation: Aviation assets enhance CBP's ability to perform its mission; providing air domain awareness is a critical contribution. Aviation crews can infuse intelligence into all CBP operations by acting as the "eyes," resulting in safer and more efficient targeting for both land and marine enforcement operations. Smugglers who attempt border crossings illegally by air are different from those who attempt land crossings. Access to an aircraft and someone who can pilot it are indicators of a more sophisticated or better-financed smuggler. Aircrews flying at the borders intercept aircraft that may be carrying illegal aliens, contraband or potential terrorists attempting unauthorized entry. CBP pilots ensure our airspace is secure by making air-to-air, air-to-land and air-to-sea interdictions. From the air, pilots and aircrew can look down on the land or seascape, and spot anyone attempting unauthorized entry. Once aircrews sight a target, they can coordinate with marine and ground personnel to stop breaches of our border. This vantage point provides reconnaissance and enforcement advantages in intercepting illegal traffic.

Evidence: A&M program operations disrupt the distribution networks of narcotics traffickers by assisting in at least 50 percent of the cocaine seizures in this country. In the first eight months of FY 2006, A&M kept 52,037 pounds of cocaine and 53,546 pounds of marijuana from crossing our borders. A&M is responsible for 95,000 miles of shoreline, but also operates boats in lakes and rivers. But labels cannot begin to explain the wide variety of settings in which our marine personnel operate. The environments are so different that there are two distinct positions for marine personnel: marine interdiction agent and Border Patrol agent (marine). Marine interdiction agents usually work in coastal/lake waters, but may patrol in any marine environment. Marine Border Patrol agents principally work in either river or lake environments, but may also work in coastal waters along the coasts of Florida or California. Air and marine assets complement each other. Pilots and boat crews frequently coordinate their tours of duty so that marine patrols can benefit from the aerial view that aircraft provide. This global overview of the marine environment is invaluable in being able to track, identify and intercept boats that merit further examination before they reach shore

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

Explanation: The integration and unification of aviation and marine resources under CBP A&M prevents the potential duplication of efforts. The new structure refocused air and marine personnel, vessels and aircraft to better support the agency's anti-terrorism mission and enhance border security. The organizational realignment of air and marine forces combines two operational entities with similar missions into one unit under a single agency with one chain of command that is dedicated to a clear, coordinated mission.

Evidence: Part of CBP A&M's mission is to support other agencies' efforts. A&M uses the world's largest law enforcement air force and all marine assets to assist DHS and other agency counterparts in their efforts at or near the borders. For example, in April 2006, A&M provided over 340 flight hours in support of ICE. During that month, A&M supported ICE on 135 missions. A&M's operational support resulted in successes that would otherwise not have been achieved. A&M's air units frequently provide operational support to both ICE and US Coast Guard (USCG). In April 2006, air interdiction agents from CBP apprehended three alleged smugglers traveling in a "go-fast" speedboat laden with cocaine about 900 miles southwest of Costa Rica. The cocaine has an estimated street value of $35 million. CBP's P-3 aircraft detected and tracked the vessel and coordinated its interception by a Coast Guard cutter. A&M marine units also assist in ensuring ICE and USCG success. In June 2006, ICE received notice of an A&M aircraft report of contact with a lights out go-fast vessel off the Florida coast. An A&M marine unit on routine patrol intercepted the vessel and subsequently transferred 43 migrants to the USCG cutter. No other program at the Federal level can achieve the results CBP A&M is currently producing. The assets A&M possess and its specific mission allow it to not only meet its goals as an office, but to also assist other agencies who would not otherwise be able to carry out operations that are in need of air or marine assistance at or surrounding our borders. State and local forces that work toward securing our Nation face similar resource needs and turn to A&M for assistance. In addition, A&M supports the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), a 24-hour multi-agency coordination center for air and marine detection, monitoring, and interdiction operations that has unprecedented fidelity for common operational air picture.

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

Explanation: The newly integrated CBP A&M is functioning under a common vision that is linked to the mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons, drugs and illegal migrants from infiltrating our borders. Building a common organizational culture from the legacy programs is challenging, but because the goals of the pre-merger organizations were preserved, the new organizational structure simply places the programs' goals in a larger global context, allowing the unified vision to create a common culture. Pilot and marine cultures are complementary; the relationship between the two shared law enforcement cultures is already strong due to the understanding that comes from working on missions together. CBP A&M adapts to real-world needs and exists as an agency in response to the need for consolidation of assets to ensure faster response times, more precise missions, and greater border security from terrorists and their weapons. As the consolidation of assets occurred in January 2006 and due to the constant attention paid to mission needs, A&M's approach to achieving goals is both as efficient and effective as possible.

Evidence: This office also provides surveillance services to law enforcement (domestic investigative) efforts to detect, monitor, intercept, and track suspect conveyances involved with the illegal movement of people, illicit drugs, and other contraband through source, transit, and arrival zones. In past months, this has included support of the Mexican Government in detection and monitoring of illegal air trafficking of narcotics via Operation Halcon, conducting aerial surveillance and interdiction of illegal narcotics smugglers along the Northwest border with the Canadian Government, supporting drug interdiction operations in source and transit zones in Central and South America through the Joint Inter-Agency Task Force (JIATF) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and providing support for drug interdiction in the Bahamas through Operation Bahamas, Turks and Caicos. The AMOC in Riverside, Calif., integrates, assimilates, and disseminates military and civilian radar tracking data to provide real-time intelligence to CBP aircraft and vessels. CBP aircrews can also access electronic data that provide the history of a suspect plane and criminal background checks on the pilots. The command and control infrastructure in use is seen as the lynchpin of the future??information integration and coordination using computers and software. Increased use of global positioning systems and other software to improve geo-positioning facilitates handoffs from air to land or sea to land. This real-time intelligence and electronic data collection technology are current and provide a high degree of effectiveness for A&M. Such systems allow for a high rate of success and a highly effective program. Boat captains and the crews can obtain the history of ownership, registration, and any criminal record of a boat owner through communication networks. The center is the final link in the sophisticated A&M enforcement chain. Better intelligence results in better targeting and increased safety for our land, air and marine crews as they intercept those who want to violate the integrity of our borders.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Funds appropriated to A&M are targeted to meet mission goals through an internal review process that involves an initial budget based on projected needs and experience in understanding how to adjust those needs over the course of the year. A&M uses a Funds Control Board to constantly monitor the flow of dollars and to shift resources as needed. As much operational direction comes from DHS, our coordination with the other applicable DHS offices results in a full evaluation of where A&M is spending the money appropriated to our office and ensures that each operational effort supports our defined mission. A&M's organizational structure is designed to effectively accomplish its mission by creating a unified chain of command. By aligning day-to-day tactical control with operational field commanders, A&M maximizes its assets to support operational strategies. Strategic placement of our air and marine assets create an environment in which short turnaround is possible for the use of assets in all operations, both internal and external. Frequent detection and seizure of illegal persons and goods attempting to approach or cross America's borders display the efficient use of resources and the vital mission those resources support. For example, in the first eight months of FY 2006, A&M kept 52,037 pounds of cocaine and 53,546 pounds of marijuana out of the United States. To best address these threats, environments, and strategic mission sets, a proposed deployment end-state is laying a framework that takes into consideration the entirety of our Nation's border and, as necessary, strategic interior sites. The single organizational structure facilitates opportunities for efficiency gains through consolidation of procurement, training, and maintenance including: ?? management of budget and planning; ?? administrative management of personnel and equipment, including hiring, training and equipping personnel; ?? pilot and vessel operator training; ?? readiness; ?? procurement and maintenance of aircraft, vessels and their associated support equipment; ?? setting safety policies and standards; and ?? other administrative matters not directly involved in daily direction and control.

Evidence: A&M is efficiently employing its resources by instituting a lease/loan program for standing up new branches and units along the Northern Border. Rather than creating brand new facilities, A&M personnel evaluates existing facilities, including hangars and warehouses, in cities of interest. Upon positive evaluation, A&M works with the owners of those facilities to arrange lease or loan options as a cost-saving effort. CBP A&M provided support to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and DHS officials in the aftermath of national emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina. This works toward A&M's mission by helping to protect our infrastructure and by recreating and maintaining control over a vulnerable coastal port. A&M works with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Defense (DoD), Department of State, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Adminisration (TSA) to provide security to National Special Security Events and supports FAA and DHS in providing air traffic control services in support of Temporary Flight Restrictions, work that also provides security for our infrastructure and monitors the air space above our border and interior as location of the event requires.

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: Long-term measures examine outcomes such as providing strategic air coverage (measure 1) and extending the zone of security beyond the nation's physical boundaries (measure 2), supports our priority mission of reducing the threats to our interior due to border infiltration and violation of related laws and minimize threat levels.

Evidence: In performance measure 1, "Provide strategic air coverage," shows the miles of U.S. border at risk that is under surveillance by CBP patrol-type aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems). Measuring surveillance has evolved as the needs for air surveillance have changed. The A&M program adapted to these changes as the focus of interest also included anti-terrorism components as well as the traditional drug enforcement. In FY03 and FY04 metrics were based on the measurement of 7200 P-3 flight hours provided in support of drug enforcement. In FY05, the UAS was introduced and added to these total hours. For FY2006, we will continue our efforts at the 7200-hour baseline and employ the UAV to assist in meeting program goals. Beginning in FY 2007, the measure will be represented by the percent of "at risk" borders under strategic air surveillance. The term "at risk" is one that is evaluated according to up-to-the-minute information and intelligence. Border areas that are "at risk" are not continually in the exact same location from month-to-month and year-to-year. As the risk of border incursions moves from one area to another, the need for air surveillance also changes. The measure itself will show the percent of miles of border under strategic surveillance, of those miles deemed "high risk" on the southwest border. Eventually, this measure will also include the northern border as the program expands. Another example of a long-term measure that reflects the contribution to A&M's long-term goals is performance measure 2, "Extending the zone of security." This measure shows how air surveillance has been used to reduce the number of airspace violations along the southern border. The number of Targets of Interest (TOI) has been reduced over time as strategic surveillance and tactical responses by CBP interceptors and patrols work with the Border Patrol on the ground to deter the use of air routes into the U.S. A&M continues to gather and analyze intelligence on past and current threat patterns to forecast and disseminate information about potential and emerging threats. To highlight the effectiveness of these practices, commencing in the 1970's, there were over 7,000 known Targets Of Interests (TOI) violating the southwestern border airspace. This number was reduced to approximately 150 in the mid-1980's and further reduced to 10 in 2005. The targeted goals for this measure is to maintain this low level of border incursions at a minimum and reduce it if possible, until there are no border incursions.

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

Explanation: Each of the long-term performance measures (1, 2, 3, & 5) has set ambitious targets for the future. Targets set for the performance measures correspond with goals in the Strategic Transition Plan developed to set a solid course through 2011. The end-state of the CBP A&M's 10-year Strategic Air Transition Plan represents an extremely ambitious effort to standardize and modernize its existing fleet and identifies the need to have a specific number of primary and secondary site locations and additional personnel to meet a growing need. Targets for A&M's performance measures are set so that the program will be challenged to meet them each fiscal year.

Evidence: Each long-term measure is evaluated annually to determine whether A&M is meeting the targets set for that fiscal year. As an example of an ambitious target, Measure 6, "Achieve an annual 'no launch' rate of 5% or less" shows a significant improvement. The primary and most important performance measured for CBP A&M, or any air force, is its capability and/or capacity to provide (or launch) an aircraft when a request is made for aerial support. This industry standard immediately lets management know where problems or gaps exist and what is needed to correct the problem. These gaps may take days to years to remedy, but constant awareness of this measurement highlights problems. Just a few years ago, in 2003, the actual no launch rate was 15%. Now it is under 5%. This rate is used to measure the number of requests A&M was unable to respond to as a result of three factors: because an aircraft was unavailable due to maintenance; because the correct type of aircraft needed for the mission was unavailable; or because the correct type of aircraft was available, but an incorrect crew or the required crew-size was unavailable to launch the mission. There are numerous other reasons why aircraft would not be launched; these are the causes most commonly used to monitor progress. Targets changed in FY 2004 and FY 2005 are based on insufficient maintenance support or aging aircraft. The availability of resources, direction from higher authority, and practical limitations on contracting and staffing ultimately determine the pace of implementation. Implementation activities that drive resource requirements are as follows: ?? Revitalization/modernization of the air fleet, including supporting infrastructure (measure 3) ?? Activation of new operating sites; de-activation of non-essential sites (program milestone) ?? Expansion/redistribution of the air and marine work force (program milestone) ?? Centralization/standardization of fleet maintenance, asset inventories, training (program milestone) ?? Sustaining operations and maintenance base as economic conditions change (program milestone) ?? Exploration of technological opportunities to gain effectiveness and efficiencies (program milestone) ?? Modification of the strategic plan to accommodate changes in threats, priorities, and the available funding (program milestone). Additionally, there are a number of annual output measures that support A&M's overall Strategic Goal 3: Protecting America's air domain and its citizens through support of its traditional mission, which includes drug interdiction through seizures and providing air support to the Border Patrol and other law enforcement entities. Data from 2003 through 2006 year-to-date show how A&M has extended the nation's zone of security through successful counter-narcotic operations (measures 7-10) and by supporting federal, state and local law enforcement operations (measures 11-14) at, above and beyond the borders. In measures 11-14, the change in A&M's mission is clearly shown as there is a dramatic increase in air support for the Border Patrol without degradation in support to ICE or State and locals. Support to other federal agencies has nearly doubled given the events of Hurricane Katrina and other recent natural disasters.

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: Performance measure 6 and 15 show how A&M's annual performance measures contribute to the overall outcome of the program. In measure 4, A&M shows future planning to for reducing costs. In performance measure 6, "Achieve an annual 'no launch' rate of 5% or less," illustrates the most important outcome measured for A&M, or any air force: its capability and/or capacity to launch an aircraft when a request is made for aerial support. Having a low no launch rate shows A&M's ability to respond to border concerns supporting the mission to impact the unlawful movement of people and goods across the borders of the United States. Air intercept operations deny the use of border airspace to smugglers and terrorists and protect the nation's vital infrastructure from airborne attacks. Direct support of field operations is achieved by airlifting agents from A&M and ICE where and when they are needed, pursuing suspects attempting to evade federal agents, and evacuating detainees and suspects to processing facilities and detention sites. When required, A&M agents assist in the arrest and detention of suspects and in the humanitarian airlift of citizens in danger. Because no other civilian organization can provide the same range of air and marine support to enforce our Nation's laws, having and maintaining a low "no launch rate" is critical. Shown in measure 15, the annual outcome of Operation Halcon illustrates A&M's success in reducing the number of confirmed suspect air targets of interest successfully forced to land short of the border within Mexican Government designated high risk areas of Baja and Sonora, Mexico. Measure 4 "Reduce aircraft flight hour costs," looks at aircraft flight-hour-cost. By establishing a nationwide maintenance contract to cover all manned air assets, in FY 2008, A&M will gain efficiencies in maintenance and supply chain management. Working toward the success of this measure allows A&M to continue to meet all of its mission goals while employing resources more effectively and efficiently.

Evidence: The annual "no launch rate" shows the percent of all requests CBP A&M was unable to respond to based on 3 factors; aircraft unavailable due to maintenance; correct type of aircraft needed for mission unavailable; correct type of aircraft available, but incorrect crew or crew-size unavailable to launch. In fiscal year 2005, A&M set a target for a 23% no launch rate, which was far exceeded by the rate of only 4.41%. In FY 2006, based on available funding, CBP A&M continues to expand its efforts to increase presence along the Northern Border, including the opening of a facility in Great Falls, MT, acquisition of new aircraft and sensors, and expansion of CBP A&M base staffing. Short landing statistics, shown in measure 15, illustrate the positive outcome brought about by A&M's presensce and capabilities in deterring smuggler/terrorist aircraft from successfully bringing drugs or other illegal conveyences into the U.S. by forcing their aircraft to land short of the border. Additionally, measures 7, 8, 9, and 10 show A&M's continued success in meeting its annual goals in support of their traditional mission of staunching drug smuggling and interdicting illegal drugs, including interdiction at and near our borders, as well as source and transit zone operations through the seizure of cocaine, marijuana, heroin and other opiates, and methamphetamines. Measures 11, 12, 13, and 14 show A&M's support for other DHS missions and other law enforcement missions through their assists to the Border Patrol, ICE, other Federal agencies, and to state and local law enforcement entites.

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

Explanation: Attaining the targeted 5% no launch rate in performance measure 6 is an ambitious goal. Maintaining this rate or less will be a challenge in a newly re-organized environment, but one which A&M is still on track to meet for this fiscal year. In measure 15, annual targets are set to decrease the percentage of confirmed suspect air targets stopped short of crossing the US border by 5%/year. Performance measures 1 and 2 are long-term measures with ambitious annual goals. In both measures, targets have been set that reflect the new mission and structure of the organization.

Evidence: In, measure 6, "Achieve an annual 'no launch' rate of 5% or less," describing A&M's ability to launch an aircraft when one is requested shows that the organization is constantly evaluating where gaps may exist and that they have taken steps necessary to correct any problems that may have arisen. Just in FY 2003, the actual no launch rate was 15%. Now it is being maintained at a rate under 5%. The typical no launch baseline is 23%. The lower the percentage of no launches, the more successful the program is as more interdictions were sucessfully launched. Targets set annually for measure 15 show A&M's success at reducing attempts by smugglers or terrorists to bring illegal substances or threaten the US by not allowing them access to the border with a goal of reducing the attempts by 5% each year. Annual goals set for measure 2 show a tremendous success in reducing Targets of Interest (TOIs) from over 7,000 annually on the southwest border in the 1970's to just 10 in FY 2005. Again, attaining such success was challenging: maintaining this level of success as an annual targeted goal keeps the level of effort high and the desire to maintain this continued level of support.

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: CBP A&M enjoys excellent cooperative relations with a wide variety of Federal, state and local law enforcement and other agencies and task force operations (FAA, DoD, Department of State, US Secret Service (USSS), DEA, TSA, and JIATF). In addition, we maintain partnerships with the Governments of Canada and Mexico, Central and South America, Peru, Bahamas, Turks, and Caicos, to include the lesser and greater Antilles, law enforcement agencies. Discussions with these agencies are regular and frequent. These cooperative efforts facilitate the flow of intelligence and exchange of information relating to the CBP priority mission of keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the United States. A&M partners with Federal agencies and state and local law enforcement entites to help meet both A&M goals and those of our partners. These partnerships enable each organization involved to supplement its resources and are essential to providing the necessary layered defense system at our borders. Measures 11-14 show the number of times that A&M provided assistance to other Law Enforcement entities. When an agency requests assistance with an aircraft or a vessel entering our coastal region of control or border airspace, it contacts the Command-on-Duty (COD) Officer at the relevant branch. The COD Officer then deploys the appropriate resources to aid in halting the problem before it crosses into the United States. Partner organizations at all levels are aware of this protocol and it results in a well-run mechanism for establishing and maintaining partnerships that are integral to A&M operations. All efforts are logged through the AMORS database system. Every time a boat or plane moves, A&M must fill out a report that includes Targets of Interest. If a person, vessel or aircraft is identified as suspect, it is given a target number so all efforts toward that target go under that number. It is also possible to retrieve statistics from that system, including how many hours each plane flew, pilot flew, boat was on the water, or other relevant data.

Evidence: Organizational relationships are being established and as of this report, there exists a mix of legacy and draft memoranda of understanding (MOU) and interagency agreements. A&M has a draft MOU with the USCG that creates a symbiotic relationship between the two agencies. First, the USCG assists A&M with the Pleasure Boat Strategy, to try to achieve maritime domain awareness. Private maritime craft present a unique issue and, because A&M targets small and fast vessels, A&M works with USCG small boat search and rescue stations to perform joint marine patrols to identify foreign vessels that may be smuggling drugs or migrants. In the waters surrounding Cuba and Haiti, USCG stations large patrol boats at choke points. It is here that A&M is able to assist USCG. As most boats used to smuggle are small and fast, A&M is better equipped to interdict these foreign vessels. The USCG requests assistance on chases about once each week. In addition, USCG recently adopted A&M's high-speed pursuit tactics and doctrine regarding both warning shots and disabling tactics. A&M also has a standing agreement with the FAA and DoD in regard to A&M's work on the Long Range Radar Joint Program Office (LRR). In 2004, FAA presented an official position that they had a decreasing need for primary radar. The funding for that program was shifted to DoD (75%) and DHS (25%) in FY 2005. For FY 2006, DoD and DHS now share the funding equally. The LRR exists to sustain the current level of primary radar coverage and A&M is the sole DHS representative in the office. A&M works with the Air Combat Command's Joint National Airspace Security Defense Planning Group and the FAA's National Defense Program to ensure the sustainability of the primary radar. The current radar continues to track non-cooperative aircraft until the next generation radar system is developed and implemented.

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: Independent evaluations were conducted by government review officers and outside contractors for the effectiveness of legacy A&M operations. In 2005, the GAO analyzed efforts taken to facilitate coordination of air and marine assets and challenges faced in coordinating the assets of three agencies. GAO recommended that DHS clarify the roles and responsibilities of the three agencies. In response to that recommendation, DHS consolidated all aviation and marine assets into one organization, CBP A&M, to coordinate operations and maximize operational efficiencies. Unbiased parties conducted these evaluations and no evaluating party has a conflict of interest with A&M's mission and goals. Regular evaluations are part of the budget process or are targeted as needed. A&M's general internal controls program conducts evaluations designed to identify and clarify relevant indicators of interest for measuring effectiveness. The Office of Policy and Planning, Office of Internal Affairs, and Office of Management Inspections, Integrity and Assurance conduct these evaluations.

Evidence: A&M is currently participating in GAO reviews on the following topics: DHS Operations Centers (GAO 440451), US Efforts to Assist Mexico and Central American countries to Interdict/Disrupt Drug Trafficking (GAO 320426), and Review of Law Enforcement Authority and Training (GAO 440485). Additional reports in which A&M is currently involved include: OIG Review of DHS Maritime Alien Interdiction Operations and Processing of Aliens Who Have Been Interdicted at Sea, and Review of Gulf Coast Hurricanes Mission Assignments. Independent evaluations conducted by GAO in July 2005, DHS Office of Inspector General in April 2004, contractor Booz Allen Hamilton (at DHS' direction), in February 2004, and contractor KPMG identified specific indicators used in evaluating effectiveness. The GAO report (GAO-05-928T) reviewed the threat assessment for U.S. aviation, violations of restricted airspace and policies in place to manage the response to airspace violations. GAO recommended that A&M strengthen the interagency process for managing the response to violations of restricted airspace. In response to Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 62, which was signed in May 1998, the legacy Customs organization established the National Capitol Region Air Branch (NCR). NCR was established to perform all training and operational requirements associated with PDD 62 airspace security missions. As of October 1, 2006, after carrying that mission for several years, NCR will no longer be under the control of A&M. Securing airspace is still an important part of A&M's mission, however, and, in coordination with the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and personnel from CBP's Office of Field Operations, A&M works to secure the air, land, and sea that surround national security events such as the Presidential Inauguration and the State of the Union address. During the coordination of air and marine assets, A&M leads efforts to sort, intercept, investigate, and escort suspect aircraft that approach any temporary flight restriction airspace. The National Airspace Security Operations Center near Washington, D.C. and the Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside, Calif. work to monitor the airspace to provide real time notification of any threat to a secure area. In an effort to keep America safe, CBP uses all available assets and personnel to ensure the safety of the American public from potential terrorist threats at any major event held in the United States. Since A&M's undertaking of this mission, there have been no acts of terrorism or security breaches in restricted airspace. In April 2004, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG-04-20) audited the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) to determine whether guidelines for rendering assistance to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies were adequate. The OIG concluded the guidelines were too general in nature and did not include specific procedures to verify requests for assistance were valid and appropriate. Booz Allen Hamilton's (BAH) report presented a baseline of current DHS aviation environment, an assessment of aviation capabilities, and identified overlaps in aviation capability, assets, training, maintenance/logistics, facilities, and acquisition that could be leveraged to recognize efficiencies in response time and operating expenses. The merger of the two air forces was DHS's direct response to the majority of these findings. DHS has had an Aviation and Maritime Council in place since approximately 2003. The group reviews all aviation related matters, including acquisitions, to determine synergistic operational needs and the types of platforms that should be purchased. This group also includes the requirements of the USCG as well for an overall DHS approach. KPMG first reported to CBP A&M in FY 2005 and has continually updated its report. The most recent update is from first quarter FY 2006 and is currently under review and advisement.

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: Annual budget justifications use performance measure results to justify the budget request. CBP A&M has identified long-term performance goals described in budget requests and Congressional Justification documents. CBP's budget requests convey to congressional appropriators what is getting accomplished with new funds requested. For instance, to meet increasing DHS mission needs, in 2004, the AMOC expanded its area of surveillance and responsibility by 125%, necessitating an increase from eight full-time scope positions to 18 full-time scope positions. Also in 2004, A&M is planning a "sister" unit to AMOC, called the National Air Security Operations Center (NASOC). The NASOC was developed in 2005 to meet the demands of our Homeland Security missions and to provide continuity of this capability in the event of a catastrophic loss at the AMOC. Funding for this project created two independent, yet linked, command and control facilities that can provide continuity of operations for one another. In its current organizational structure, CBP A&M has only participated in one full budget formulation cycle since its inception. However, all requests for funding are directly linked to annual and long term performance goals as outlined in the Strategic Air Transition Plan and are presented in as complete and transparent manner as possible. Implementation of the recently completed CBP Air Strategic Plan requires steady growth in both annual budgets and staffing. Efficiencies and budgetary offsets are expected as older, less dependable air assets are retired, maintenance efforts are streamlined, training is integrated, and inventories are adjusted. However, the net savings is not likely to cover the investments needed to achieve the strategic end-state. Annually, CBP considers initiatives that incrementally support the plan's implementation. The availability of resources, direction from higher authority, and practical limitations on contracting and staffing ultimately determines the pace of implementation. The implementation activities that drive resource requirements are as follows: ?? Revitalization/modernization of the air fleet, including supporting infrastructure ?? Activation of new operating sites; de-activation of non-essential sites ?? Expansion/redistribution of the air and marine work force ?? Centralization/standardization of fleet maintenance, asset inventories, training ?? Sustaining operations and maintenance base as economic conditions change ?? Exploration of technological opportunities to gain effectiveness and efficiencies ?? Modification of the strategic plan to accommodate changes in threats, priorities, and the available funding.

Evidence: The budget request for this office included a request for funding for an Unmanned Aircraft System, which would directly support Strategic Goal 2: Maximizing Anti-terrorism and Border Security by Expanding and Improving Patrols and Surveillance Along the Borders to Detect, Deter, and Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons. The funding of this program allows for more constant and reliable surveillance and reduces flight hour costs for the overall mission. A&M budget requests are geared toward both its mission and its annual performance measures. For example, the FY 2007 President's Budget Request includes $265.5 million to support the A&M force, including $2.1 million for recurring operations of the Montana air wing, which A&M is establishing in FY 2006. Both of these requests support a major A&M milestone, executing specific funding for the establishment of five air sites along the Northern Border. A&M supports a gradual revitalization of its air force over the coming years to best meet mission needs. This support includes the already requested funding to continue the UAS program, requests for which are included in the FY 2007 budget.

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

Explanation: DHS and CBP took great efforts to assure the formation of CBP A&M consolidated entity and made the appropriate corrective actions on the strategic and operational deficiencies of its legacy offices. The Strategic Air Transition Plan identifies the need for strong management and infrastructure systems to effectively support our agents and their operations in the field. The CBP Air and Marine Operations Council, including the Assistant Commissioner of CBP A&M and the Chief of Office of Border Patrol, was established to advise the Commissioner of CBP on critical air and marine matters and to further a balanced consideration of cross-cutting strategic issues and asset deployment concerns.

Evidence: CBP A&M completed its 2006-2011 Strategic Air Transition Plan and others are being developed (i.e., Strategic Marine Transition Plan). All programmatic plans are linked to the CBP Strategic Plan and to the budget cycle. Updates to this Strategic Plan are provided to Congress on a recurring basis to present the current state of CBP's efforts to gain effective control of the borders. Strategic planning deficiencies that existed in legacy programs did not disappear at the formation of A&M. Personnel, however, have taken great steps to create an efficient organizational structure that is constantly reviewed to ensure the proper chain of command and correct protocols are understood and followed. In addition, executive level staff evaluate the program and the consequences of consolidation of assets. While few of the resources that are a part of A&M are new and each component existed separately prior to the merger of assets, the office as it now exists is very new. The establishment of a comprehensible hierarchy and the Assistant Commissioner's constant communiqu??s with headquarters and field personnel created an environment to allow for growth and strength. As strategic planning deficiencies present themselves, A&M has an established structure to recognize and evaluate them and to take the steps to correct them. In addition, as the needs of our program become more obvious in terms of geography, A&M is taking the steps to create the "strategic end-state," a restructuring of branches and units throughout the United States to best meet the mission requirements. An example of this is the stand-up of several new branches on the Northern Border as the need for additional monitoring in this section of our country has become more apparent. A&M expects the first of these stand-ups to be completed in Great Falls, MT. in June 2006.

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: Performance data are captured routinely as part of the normal work process through the Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) and input to the Air & Marine Operations Report (AMOR). Data are available in real-time and are continuously validated within CBP A&M. As part of the DHS Future Year Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP), CBP A&M developed a set of measures including outcome, output, and efficiency measures against which progress in meeting annual goals is measured. These measures are used in budget justification documents and provide valuable insights into our performance. Each Division Director at HQ and each Director of Aviation Operations in the field analyze the results of their respective areas of responsibilities and provide "roll up" data to leadership on a regular basis. These results are first reviewed with the local Field Commanders (partners) for concurrence, irregularities and recommendations for corrective actions attached with timelines established. Within HQ, resource, maintenance and human capital reviews are conducted on an almost daily basis to insure funding is being directed correctly and to realign funding as operational tempos dictate.

Evidence: A&M has developed a set of measures including outcome, output, and efficiency measures against which progress in meeting annual goals is measured. These measures are used in budget justification documents and provide valuable insights into our performance. Performance data is captured routinely as part of the normal work process through the TECS and input to the AMOR. Data are available in real-time and are continuously validated within CBP A&M. A&M's support of the JIATF also results in the regular collection of performance data, which is then used by A&M partner organizations within JIATF. Additionally, A&M contributes to interagency databases to allow for an accurate tally of all federal seizures. A&M consistently collects information on: ?? Human resources (manpower by category; location) ?? National Air Missions & Operations (deviations; short landings; penetrations; launches; seizures) ?? Operational readiness ?? Maintenance funding projections ?? Air incident rate per 1,000 hours ?? Air incident major causes ?? Marine incident rate per 1,000 hours ?? Marine incident major causes Program Directors meet with the Assistant Commissioner weekly to provide reports of findings, action workload, performance measures, and staffing issues. On a quarterly basis, these meetings include more in-depth analyses of those issues and include briefings on quarterly results, evaluated levels of resource allocation, and on-going funding.

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: Performance standards that address accountability for operational, financial and other management areas are included as critical elements in the senior management performance agreement. Managers must perform their operations within the resources and budgets provided annually, which are based upon the fiscal year Budget Execution Plan. Contractors are additionally held accountable for their performance through various contract incentives, including award fee and performance-based type contracts.

Evidence: Federal managers are held accountable for program performance. Every manager and supervisor is subject to a Performance Management Program, a set of detailed expectations tailored to the individual and their job. In addition to the individualized narrative provided, each person is evaluated in three additional areas: managerial and supervisory competencies, including strategic problem solving and conflict management; EEO competency, including cooperating with EEO counselors and monitoring the work environment to prevent discrimination; ability to classify, create, and handle classified information, including attending training and reporting unauthorized persons' apparent or suspected attempts to access classified information. Contractors are held to a defined set of standards and evaluated regularly. The contracting officer determines the contractors' performance, including a cost/benefit analysis to ensure that A&M is getting the support for which it is paying. A&M's relationships with program partners are typically dictated by the funding appropriated to the cause and the memoranda or letters of agreement associated with those partnerships. For example, the Long Range Radar Joint Program Office, shared by DoD and A&M currently shares funding equally. In Fiscal Year 2005, however, DoD held 75% of the funding and supported the program accordingly.

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

Explanation: CBP A&M has a structured process for obligating funds in a timely manner and ensuring that funds are spent for the intended purpose. A high-level agency review of funding for new initiatives increases the likelihood that funds are expended for the Congressionally intended purpose. Once spending plans are approved at the agency level, funds for initiatives are allocated. This allocation process is distinct from the initial budget plans CBP A&M receive, which funds on-going operations. Rigorous monitoring of initiative fund expenditures is performed monthly throughout the congressionally prescribed timeframe. Surplus funds identified through this process are promptly reallocated to other uses within the program.

Evidence: A&M funding and expenditures are closely monitored through the Systems Application & Products (SAP) financial management system. Monthly and quarterly expenditure reports are prepared to ensure timely obligations. Funds are controlled through special budget/expenditure codes to ensure they are spent for their intended purpose. Funds are obligated in a timely manner based upon spending plans and operational requirements. Costs and funding for the aviation maintenance, marine maintenance and support contracts are tracked in the SAP. The program target to lapse annually appropriated funds is .5%. In FY 2005, the program never lapsed more than $294,000 of its funds. FY 2004 cannot be used as a valid comparison point for achieving our financial management objectives related to lapsed funding due to the fact that CBP A&M was transitioned to ICE in FY 2004 and to CBP in FY 2005.

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: As part of the DHS Investment Review Process and the OMB 300 process, competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, and appropriate incentives are measured and cost effectiveness is evaluated. Efficiency and effectiveness are measured through long-term and annual performance measures. Contractor performance-based and award fee evaluation processes are in place to encourage and reward the contractor for high quality, cost effective performance in fulfilling the contract requirements. Training efforts are more efficient as a result of combining the two separate training facilities under one chain of command. Work has begun to define the requirements for a nation-wide maintenance and logistics contract in order to more efficiently support changing operational needs and to enable the transition of the air fleet. Expansion and improvement of surveillance along the borders is accomplished by realignment of air wing sites; alignment of air assets to mission; improving mission capabilities by establishing an UAS Program; and realignment and expansion of personnel resources and HQ Directors that review commitments, obligations and expenses to date with an emphasis on available resources for the remainder of the fiscal year. Realignment of resources is directed to meet operational or emerging threats.

Evidence: In the beginning of the Fiscal Year, meetings are held monthly. As the Fiscal Year progresses, meetings take place bi-weekly. As the end of the fiscal year nears, meetings occur weekly. Site visits with maintenance contractor support are conducted by HQ Directors to ensure work in progress is mission critical or that it meets or exceeds criteria established in the SOW. Joint site visits by HQ A&M and Border Patrol representatives are conducted for the UAS program to determine if operational and fiscal efficiencies are being met on this new program.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program coordinates closely with its other primary partner, OBP, and other federal agencies including the Department of State, Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, United States Coast Guard, Department Of Energy, Drug Enforcement Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Administration. A&M also maintains close collaboration with various state and local law enforcement entities. A&M frequently supports the state and local efforts with its assets at the borders and within the interior to enforce our Nation's laws and to further the A&M mission. Collaborations with these entities are constantly changing based on America's overall needs. The Directors of Aviation Operations report to Field Commanders, typically an OBP Sector Chief, coordinate and collaborate on a daily basis the needs of border security. While any of these entities can assume the role as field commander if the mission dictates, the majority of our emphasis is placed with OBP. CBP has seen an increase in the number of apprehensions and seizures as well as the expedited transfer of agents to remote areas in a more efficient and cost effective manner. CBP A&M coordinates closely with other federal, state and local agencies whose activities touch areas of CBP responsibility, including the Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, United States Secret Service, USCG, Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local agencies, such as police departments. We maintain partnerships with the Governments of Canada and Mexico, Central and South America, Peru, Bahamas, Turks, and Caicos law enforcement agencies. A&M works with these countries to protect our borders and their interests from outside of the United States borders. A&M takes a proactive stance against attempts at breaching our borders. These cooperative efforts facilitate the flow of intelligence and exchange of information relating to the CBP priority mission.

Evidence: A mix of legacy and draft memoranda of understanding (MOU) and interagency agreements is being drafted or is under review to make the most use of our available assets to support America and to employ the assets of partner organizations in furtherance of the A&M mission. DHS is not the only agency with the mission to provide air space security. As no single entity owns 100% of the assets, infrastructure or personnel to manage this effort alone, interagency and/or joint program offices are established to share their expertise in a common goal. This has long been regarded as one of cooperation with any and all entities who either fly (DoD), have ownership of the primary and secondary radar feeds necessary to monitor air space (FAA and LRR joint program office), monitor illegal drug smuggling in the transit or arrival zones (JIATF), and performing deepwater seizures with vessels and aircraft (USCG). Agreements established between partner groups lay the groundwork, duties, roles/responsibilities and expectations of the partnership. Without these agreements, chaos would be certain. Additionally, federal appropriations are very specific on the use of funds. When partner organizations require assistance, an agreement establishes the costs to assist and amounts to be reimbursed to A&M. A&M explores joint requirements to leverage partner assets and efforts as strategically appropriate.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: A&M follows the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA), which requires implementation and maintenance of systems requirements to comply with fully integrated systems, applicable federal accounting standards, and standard general ledger at the transaction level.

Evidence: A&M budget personnel perform monthly analyses to review them with senior managers to assess budget plans and level of funding available to meet the objectives of the program. Managers are alerted to situations where spending is not in line with available funds. Surplus funds are reallocated to more effective uses, especially in cases where funds address unmet programmatic needs and allow the program to further its overall objectives. Air and Marine avoids overspending available funds through controls built into the financial system, which identify obligations in excess of funds allocated and do not process such transactions.

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

Explanation: A&M has undergone a total management review and reorganization since December 2005. A new tactical and administrative chain of command has been established with the cooperation of the Border Patrol and ICE. A Funds Control Board has been established to address emerging budget issues and to prepare HQ and field sites for each budget formulation cycle. CBP A&M acquisition processes are being restructured to further ensure that all future acquisitions are tied directly to the Draft Strategic Air Transition Plan and that new aircraft procurements are based on solid operational requirements. New HQ managers and new Directors of Air Operations are appointed based on the operational and administrative needs of the new, combined air force.

Evidence: A&M is under the leadership of a new Assistant Commissioner (AC), who has instituted an open line of communication to the field and has quickly gained the respect of all personnel within the organization. New Directors of Air Operations in the field were recently appointed to further promote A&M's mission nationwide. A&M is increasing its presence along the Northern Border. Several new branches will be opening over the next several years to provide more protection at the United States-Canada border. Tactical alignment ensures the most efficient and most effective use of A&M resources. The new chain of command provides more coverage of support missions that help DHS meet its goals as a parent agency.

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

Explanation: Air and Marine demonstrated progress in achieving its long-term performance goals as described in their Strategic Plan: (page 16) Long term Strategic Goals and Objectives are: (1) Unifying and integrating CBP Air and Marine, and its forces, (2) Maximizing antiterrorism and border security by expanding and improving patrols and surveillance along the borders to detect, deter, and prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons; and (3) Protecting America's air domain and its citizens through support of its traditional missions.

Evidence: Measure 3 provides information regarding the alignment of the air fleet with a plan to streamline the air fleet to maximize all available resources in support of Goal 1. Measures 1 and 2 show the progress and evolution of providing strategic air coverage and extending the physical zone of security beyond our borders in support of Goal 2. Additionally, within resources available to us in the FY 2005/2006 budgets, A&M's accomplishments include the following efforts and milestones towards meeting the long-term performance goals: ?? In support of Goal 1, A&M has established new tactical and administrative chains of command in cooperation with the Border Patrol; made significant advances in mending legacy cultures that had inhibited effective employment of the air forces; obtained OMB approval for the CBP Strategic Air Plan; published uniform Aviation Operations Handbook to guide integrated aviation operations; established a new Operations, Test, and Evaluation (OT&E) regimen to support an end-to-end air acquisition process and assigned the first OT&E team two months ahead of plan; and implemented a uniform pilot job series supported by uniform training and flight safety standards. CBP Air and Marine has 569 Air Interdiction Agents, 6 Pilot Flight Instructors, and 1,198 total personnel. CBP Air and Marine has initiated a procurement for 10 Light Observation Helicopters to replace the Vietnam-era OH-6 helicopters judged to be obsolete and no longer serviceable, with delivery of the first asset planned for June 2006. ?? In support of Goal 2, two of the five planned Northern Border air sites have been activated since 2004, with plans to have all locations operational by the end of FY 2007. Depending on continuing intelligence and threat assessments, additional air locations will be established beyond FY 2007. CBP Air and Marine's P-3 fleet is defining the requirements for Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) in FY 2006 with the objective of awarding a SLEP contract in FY 2007 and possibly inducting the first aircraft before the end of that fiscal year. CBP Air and Marine has acquired 3 new aircraft since FY 2005, delivery of 3 additional aircraft is pending final testing. ?? In support of Goal 3, the first Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) was activated in FY 2005, and a formal UAS Program was established in FY 2006 with two additional platforms to be acquired in FY 2006 and FY 2007. Until it's loss in April 2006, the lone Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) achieved over 700 detections, supported the arrest of over 400 illegal aliens, and directly contributed to the seizure of over 2,300 pounds of illegal drugs.

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

Explanation: A&M's measures provided each field office with valuable insights into their own annual performance. Each office and all program partners work towards achievement of the annual goals and targets set in support of the programmatic goals.

Evidence: As an example, the full integration of the legacy air forces in FY 2006, brought the "no launch" rate goal from 15% to 5% or less and has allowed A&M to maintain this goal for the past two years as shown in measure 6. Measure 15 shows A&M's annual success in stopping smugglers and/or terrorist aircraft to forcibly land "short" of the US border, deterring the successfully entry of drugs or other illegal conveyences or contraband into the U.S. by forcing their aircraft to land short of the border. Additionally the strategic goal of "protecting America's air domain and its citizens through support of its traditional missions," is supported by the annual measures 7-10, which show A&M's support of illicit drug seizures and measures 11-14, which show A&M's success at supporting other Law Enforcement entities. Targets are not set for these goals because they are done as a part of A&M's regular duties and in support of other internal agency activities, such as in the case of the Border Patrol and assists, or in support of other law enforcement entities, such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, along with the state and local law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction along our borders.

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

Explanation: Air and Marine also makes the most of its partnerships with other agencies to guarantee cost effectiveness. A&M's work with the USCG, for instance, allows the USCG to monitor the area offshore of Cuba and Haiti on a regular basis. Rather than A&M monitoring those waters hourly, USCG calls A&M to assist with vessel interdiction approximately once per week. Additionally, A&M Air efficiently employs resources by leasing and taking loans for standing up new branches and units along the Northern Border. Rather than creating brand new facilities from scratch, Air and Marine personnel evaluate existing facilities, including hangars and warehouses, in cities of interest. Upon positive evaluation, A&M works with the owners of those facilities to arrange lease or loan options as a cost-saving effort.

Evidence: To reduce the cost of aircraft maintenance per flight hour and meet measure 5, initial steps were taken to establish a nationwide performance based aviation maintenance contract that will cover all air assets. Incentives will be included to encourage contractors' high performance and to gain efficiencies in maintenance practices and supply chain management. Several internal data collection systems are used to monitor fuel, parts and maintenance costs. Reports are routinely generated and reconciled to determine the costs per flight hour. Additionally, baseline data will be used to gauge the efficiencies of changes to operations and costing of obligations to assist in meeting measure 3. New aircraft procurements are underway for light observation helicopters (LOHs) and multi-role patrol aircraft (MPA). The initial deliveries are planned for the second half of FY 2006. The LOHs will replace Vietnam-era OH-6 helicopters that are difficult to maintain. The MPAs will become a mainstay of the new air fleet and provide enhanced maritime and border surveillance and interdiction capabilities.

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

Explanation: Air and Marine has a very specific and unique mission. For this reason, other agencies at the Federal, state, and local levels often request assistance and support from A&M aircraft and vessels. As the largest civilian law enforcement air force in the world, A&M is uniquely positioned to provide direct air support to multiple agencies and to ensure the success of border protection and law enforcement operations between the ports of entry (POE), within the maritime operating areas, and within the nation's interior. In support of border security operations, A&M provides long-range surveillance, denies the use of border air space to smugglers, and directs ground and marine enforcement units to sites of known or potential illegal activity. A&M is on-call to airlift ICE agents where and when they are needed, to respond to reports of illegal activity from local, state, and other federal law enforcement organizations. A&M operations support the long-term goal of providing air coverage along the entire U.S. border by the end of the decade, and the annual goal of denying the use of border airspace for smuggling and acts of terrorism. Even local governments such as Los Angeles, Calif., Atlanta, Ga., and Miami, Fla. call for support to their air forces form A&M's bigger and more efficient fleet.

Evidence: By partnering with BP/ICE/USCG and other law enforcement agencies, CBP Air and Marine has dramatically improved operational capabilities between the ports of entry and beyond our borders. ?? CBP Air and Marine participation in the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI), a comprehensive plan designed to achieve operational control of the Arizona border, resulted in the seizure of 14,378 pounds of marijuana, 80 pounds of cocaine, 137 vehicles, 218 rescues, and 166 arrests. CBP Air and Marine also assisted in the detention and arrest of 21,670 undocumented aliens in FY2005. ?? Since opening the 2 northern border branches, Plattsburgh and Bellingham, CBP Air and Marine has played an integral role resulting in the seizure of more than 700 pounds of cocaine, 1,800 pounds of marijuana, 8 vehicles, 2 vessels, $70,700 cash and 12 arrests. ?? Through its detection and tracking of suspect targets, AMOC has directly contributed to 9 arrests and the seizure of 1,100 pounds of cocaine, 34,600 pounds of marijuana, 10 aircraft, 21 vehicles, and 10 undocumented aliens. ?? In a cooperative effort with the Government of Mexico to interdict large-scale, airborne narcotics trafficking operations, Operation Halcon has effectively resulted in seizures of approximately 61,000 pounds of marijuana, 2,000 pounds of cocaine, 2 pounds of heroin, 9 aircraft, 3 vessels, 29 vehicles, and 14 arrests. ?? A joint effort between CBP and various governments in South America, the Air Bridge Denial Program, using P-3 aircraft, directly contributed in the seizure of 15,000 pounds of marijuana, 127,800 pounds of cocaine, 52 pounds of heroin, 4 aircraft, 8 vehicles, 30 vessels, 114 undocumented aliens and 121 arrests.

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

Explanation: CBP Air and Marine operations is reviewed in a variety of forms. A series of CBP and DHS-level boards and councils, as well as DHS Program Assessment and Evaluation (PA&E) reviews, ensure that CBP Air and Marine is achieving results consistent with DHS and CBP strategic plans, Administration guidance. GAO and the DHS OIG also reviewed A&M.

Evidence: Independent evaluations conducted by GAO, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), and several independent contractors identified several specific indicators used in evaluating our effectiveness. For example, in the report GAO-05-928T, GAO reviewed the threat assessment for U.S. aviation, violations of restricted airspace and policies in place to manage the response to airspace violations. The DHS OIG audited the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) to determine whether guidelines for rendering assistance to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies were adequate. The OIG report (OIG-04-20) concluded that the guidelines were too general and did not include specific procedures to verify requests for assistance were valid and appropriate. In response to this recommendation, CBP Air and Marine developed and implemented a streamlined method of recording requests, refined data collection procedures and provided training to staff. Overall, evaluations show successes of the program and room for improvement throughout the organization. A&M reviews the recommendations from such evaluations and incorporates new policies and structures as needed to accomplish the recommended results.