oversight

Border Security: Opportunities Exist to Ensure More Effective Use of DHS's Air and Marine Assets

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-03-30.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

             United States Government Accountability Office

GAO          Report to Congressional Requesters




March 2012
             BORDER SECURITY

             Opportunities Exist to
             Ensure More Effective
             Use of DHS’s Air and
             Marine Assets




GAO-12-518
                                            March 2012

                                            BORDER SECURITY
                                            Opportunities Exist to Ensure More Effective Use of
                                            DHS's Air and Marine Assets
Highlights of GAO-12-518, a report to
congressional requesters




Why GAO Did This Study                      What GAO Found
Within DHS, the U.S. Customs and            GAO’s analysis of the Office of Air and Marine (OAM) data found that OAM met
Border Protection’s (CBP) OAM               73 percent of the 38,662 air support requests and 88 percent of the 9,913 marine
deploys the largest law enforcement air     support requests received in fiscal year 2010. The level of support differed by
force in the world. In support of           location, customers, and type of mission. For example, in its northern region
homeland security missions, OAM             OAM met air support requests 77 percent of the time and in its southeast region,
provides aircraft, vessels, and crew at     it met these requests 60 percent of the time. The main reasons for unmet air and
the request of the its customers,           marine support requests were maintenance and adverse weather, respectively.
primarily Border Patrol, which is           OAM has taken actions, such as developing an aircraft modernization plan and
responsible for enforcing border
                                            purchasing all-weather vessels, to address these issues.
security, and tracks its ability to meet
requests. GAO was asked to                  OAM could benefit from taking additional steps to better ensure that its mix and
determine the extent to which OAM (1)       placement of resources meets mission needs and addresses threats. GAO’s
met its customers’ requests; (2) has        analysis of OAM’s fiscal year 2010 performance results indicate that OAM did not
taken steps to ensure its mix and           meet its national performance goal to fulfill greater than 95 percent of Border
placement of resources effectively met      Patrol air support requests and did not provide higher rates of support in
mission needs and addressed threats;        locations designated as high priority based on threats. For example, one high-
and (3) coordinated the use of its          priority Border Patrol sector had the fifth highest support rate across all nine
assets with the USCG, which is to           sectors on the southwest border. OAM could benefit from reassessing the mix
execute its maritime security mission
                                            and placement of its assets and personnel, using performance results to inform
using its assets. GAO reviewed DHS
                                            these decisions. Such a reassessment could help provide OAM with reasonable
policies, interviewed OAM, Border
Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Customs        assurance that it is most effectively allocating scarce resources and aligning
Enforcement, and USCG officials in          them to fulfill mission needs and related threats. Additionally, OAM has not
headquarters and in 4 field locations       documented its analyses to support its asset mix and placement across
selected on factors, such as threats        locations. For example, OAM’s fiscal year 2010 deployment plan stated that
and operating environments. Results         OAM deployed aircraft and maritime vessels to ensure that its forces were
from these field visits are not             positioned to best meet field commanders’ needs and respond to emerging
generalizable. GAO analyzed OAM             threats, but OAM did not have documentation that clearly linked the deployment
support request data for fiscal year        decisions in the plan to these goals. Such documentation could improve
2010, and surveyed OAM and USCG             transparency to help demonstrate the effectiveness of its decisions in meeting
officials at 86 proximately located units   mission needs and addressing threats.
to determine the extent of cooperation
between the two agencies. This report       GAO’s analysis of OAM and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) air and marine survey
is a public version of a law                responses indicated that they coordinated with their proximately located
enforcement sensitive report GAO            counterparts more frequently for activities directly related to carrying out their
issued in February 2012. Information        respective agencies’ missions (mission-related activities) than for mission
deemed sensitive has been redacted.         support activities. For example, within mission-related activities, 54 percent of the
                                            86 respondents reported sharing intelligence on a frequent basis and, within
What GAO Recommends                         mission-support activities, about 15 percent reported that they frequently
GAO recommends, among other                 coordinated for maintenance requests. Survey respondents, the Department of
things, that CBP reassess decisions         Homeland Security (DHS) analyses, and GAO site visits confirm that
and document its analyses for its asset     opportunities exist to improve certain types of coordination, such as colocating
mix and placement, and that DHS             proximate OAM and USCG units, which currently share some marine and no
enhance oversight to ensure effective       aviation facilities. In addition, DHS does not have an active program office
coordination of OAM and USCG                dedicated to the coordination of aviation or maritime issues. DHS could benefit
resources, and DHS concurred.               from assessing actions it could take to improve coordination across a range of air
                                            and marine activities, including reconstituting departmental oversight councils, to
View GAO-12-518. For more information,
contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777   better leverage existing resources, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and
or gamblerr@gao.gov.                        enhance efficiencies.

                                                                                     United States Government Accountability Office
Contents


Letter                                                                                     1
               Background                                                                  5
               OAM Air and Marine Support Rates Differed by Location, and
                 Some Field Officials Reported Resource Constraints                        9
               OAM Could Benefit from Reassessing Its Mix and Placement of
                 Resources to Better Address Mission Needs and Threats                   28
               Further Action to Coordinate Air and Marine Operations Could
                 Provide Benefit                                                         36
               Conclusions                                                               46
               Recommendations for Executive Action                                      47
               Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                        47

Appendix I     Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                        51



Appendix II    GAO Survey Responses                                                      58



Appendix III   OAM Air and Marine Assets by Region and National Air Security
               Operations Centers                                                        75



Appendix IV    Survey Results on OAM Officials’ Frequency of Satisfaction with
               Type and Number of Assets                                                 76



Appendix V     Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security                    80



Appendix VI    GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                                     87



Tables
               Table 1: OAM Air and Marine Hours by Mission Type, Fiscal Years
                        2008 through 2010                                                  8




               Page i                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
          Table 2: Distribution of the Percentage of OAM Air Support
                   Requests Met by Air Branches and NASOCs across
                   Regions, Fiscal Year 2010                                       12
          Table 3: OAM Air Support Rates to Border Patrol across Border
                   Regions, Fiscal Year 2010                                       31
          Table 4: OAM Branches that Serve Border Patrol Sectors                   54
          Table 5: OAM and USCG Units to Which the Survey Was Sent                 56


Figures
          Figure 1: OAM Branch Offices and NASOCs as of September 2011              6
          Figure 2: OAM Air Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010           11
          Figure 3: OAM Air Support Requests by Customer, Fiscal Year 2010         13
          Figure 4: OAM Air Support Requests by Mission Type, Fiscal Year
                   2010                                                            15
          Figure 5: OAM Air Support Requests and Reasons for Unmet
                   Requests, Fiscal Year 2010                                      16
          Figure 6: OAM Marine Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year
                   2010                                                            22
          Figure 7: Percent of Total Marine Requests Met, and Reasons for
                   Unmet Requests, Fiscal Year 2010                                24
          Figure 8: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on
                   Coordinating across Mission-related Activities                  37
          Figure 9: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on
                   Coordinating across Mission Support Activities                  38
          Figure 10: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on
                   Additional Coordination Needed across Mission-related
                   Activities                                                      39
          Figure 11: Percentage of Additional OAM and USCG Survey
                   Respondents on Additional Coordination Needed across
                   Mission Support Activities                                      40
          Figure 12: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on
                   Overall Coordination Effectiveness                              41
          Figure 13: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on
                   Coordination Effectiveness in Reducing Duplication of
                   Missions, Activities, and Resources                             42
          Figure 14: OAM Air and Marine Assets by Region and National Air
                   Security Operations Centers, as of September 2011               75
          Figure 15: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction
                   with Type of Aircraft                                           76
          Figure 16: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction
                   with Type of Marine Vessels                                     77


          Page ii                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Figure 17: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction
         with Number of Aircraft                                                          78
Figure 18: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction
         with Number of Marine Vessels                                                    79




Abbreviations

AMOR                       Air and Marine Operations Reporting system
Border Patrol              Office of Border Patrol
CBP                        U.S. Customs and Border Protection
DHS                        Department of Homeland Security
DOD                        Department of Defense
GPRA                       Government Performance and Results Act
ICE                        U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
JIATF-S                    Joint Interagency Task Force - South
OAM                        Office of Air and Marine
NASOC                      National Air Security Operation Center
UAS                        unmanned aircraft system
USCG                       U.S. Coast Guard


This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.




Page iii                                            GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   March 30, 2012

                                   The Honorable Susan M. Collins
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
                                   United States Senate

                                   The Honorable Peter T. King
                                   Chairman
                                   The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Committee on Homeland Security
                                   House of Representatives

                                   The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the largest law
                                   enforcement air force in the world and uses these resources to prevent,
                                   detect, and interdict acts of terrorism and other unlawful activity of
                                   persons approaching or crossing the United States borders. In 2004, DHS
                                   consolidated most if its air and marine resources in the Office of Air and
                                   Marine (OAM), a subcomponent of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
                                   (CBP), which has primary responsibility for the management, control, and
                                   protection of the nation’s borders. 1 As of September 2011, OAM had
                                   approximately 267 aircraft, 301 marine vessels, and 1,843 personnel in
                                   70 locations primarily on the southwest, northern, and southeast borders.
                                   From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, OAM allocated about $1.3 billion to
                                   modernize its fleet of aged aircraft and marine vessels with a smaller
                                   variety of more flexible and sustainable assets equipped to support
                                   homeland security missions. For fiscal year 2011, DHS allocated $814.5
                                   million for OAM’s overall operations.

                                   OAM carries out its mission to secure the nation’s borders by providing
                                   aviation and marine support to various DHS components and other
                                   federal, state, and local law enforcement agency customers. Within DHS,
                                   OAM focuses its capabilities on border enforcement support to CBP’s
                                   Office of Border Patrol (Border Patrol), which is primarily responsible for
                                   enforcing border security between official ports of entry to the United
                                   States; and investigative support to the U.S. Immigration and Customs



                                   1
                                    U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) resources were not combined into OAM.




                                   Page 1                                         GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Enforcement (ICE), which is the largest DHS investigative entity. OAM
also provides support to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean and
other foreign areas; provides air and marine security at national events;
provides disaster relief support; and supports other federal, state, and
local law enforcement missions. To support its various customers, it is
critical that CBP has the right mix of air and marine assets located in the
right places for maximum effectiveness and use. This effectiveness can
be enhanced by coordination of its operations with other agencies that
operate air and marine assets in the same geographic area. One such
agency is DHS’s U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which, among its statutory
missions, is responsible for executing its maritime security mission on or
over the major waterways, including the Great Lakes and 95,000 miles of
U.S. coastline and territorial seas, using its own air and marine assets.
We previously reported on opportunities to increase coordination of OAM
and USCG assets and DHS implemented our recommendations by,
among other things, providing guidance on relative roles and
responsibilities and how asset use should be coordinated to meet border
security needs. 2

This report responds to your request that we review the extent to which
CBP has assessed that it has the right mix of air and marine assets in the
right locations to meet customer needs, and has coordinated with the
USCG. Specifically, we reviewed the extent that OAM:

(1) met air and marine support requests across locations, customers, and
missions;

(2) has taken steps to ensure that its mix and placement of resources met
its mission needs and addressed threats; and

(3) coordinated the operational use of its air and marine assets and
personnel with the USCG.

This report is a public version of the prior law enforcement sensitive but
unclassified report that we provided to you. DHS has deemed some of the
information in the prior report as law enforcement sensitive, which must
be protected from public disclosure. Therefore, this report omits



2
 GAO, Border Security: Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air and Marine Assets,
GAO-05-543 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 12, 2005).




Page 2                                            GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
information describing the numbers of assets and personnel and the
types of activities at the OAM branch level and below, and the specific
operational locations we visited. Otherwise, this report addresses the
same questions and uses the same overall methodology as the sensitive
report.

In conducting our work, we interviewed DHS headquarters officials,
analyzed DHS data and documentation, conducted site visits to selected
air and marine branch locations, and administered a web-based survey to
selected OAM and USCG air and marine units. We visited 4 of the 23
OAM branch offices. We chose these locations because they comprise a
mix of differences across border locations (northern, southwest, and
southeast), threats (terrorism, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration),
and operating environments for air (desert, forest, urban, rural) and
marine (Great Lakes, coastal, intracoastal waterways). In these locations
we interviewed OAM officials and their customers including officials from
Border Patrol, ICE, and some local law enforcement officials. We also
interviewed USCG officials in all locations except one, because a USCG
unit was not located nearby. We also visited OAM’s principal radar center,
the Air and Marine Operations Center, at Riverside, California. While we
cannot generalize our work from these visits to all air and marine
branches, the information we obtained provides examples of the benefits
and challenges in providing air and marine support to customers for
various missions.

To address the first and second objective, we obtained data on the
number and type of requests OAM received for air and marine assets
from OAM’s Air and Marine Operations Reporting (AMOR) system for
fiscal year 2010, and analyzed the extent that OAM met requests for air
and marine support across locations, customers, and missions. We
assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing OAM officials
responsible for overseeing applicable quality control procedures and
reviewing available system documentation, such as user guides, among
other things. We concluded that these data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report, with one exception. We did not use data
showing marine support by customer because of missing entries and
inconsistent data entry practices, as discussed later in this report. 3 We



3
 The process we used to extract, reconcile, and convert OAM operational data for
analysis took over 6 months to complete.




Page 3                                            GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
discussed differences in the level of OAM support with OAM, Border
Patrol, and ICE officials at headquarters and field locations we visited. We
also assessed OAM’s internal controls related to data management and
compared them against criteria in Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government. 4

To address the second objective, we interviewed DHS, CBP, Border
Patrol, and OAM officials and reviewed documentation available
supporting the mix and placement of assets. We reviewed the extent that
the documentation considered current and future mission needs and
relative threats defined by CBP-designated priority locations. We
analyzed AMOR data for fiscal year 2010 to determine the extent OAM
had provided air and marine support to CBP-designated priority locations,
and was able to meet their performance goal in these locations compared
to others. We also compared data from AMOR to information reported in
CBP’s annual Performance and Accountability Report to determine the
extent that OAM’s performance in providing air support to Border Patrol
was accurately reported.

To address the first and third objective, we developed and administered a
web-based survey to each of 86 proximately located OAM air and marine
branches and units and USCG air and marine stations asking them about
the level of interagency coordination across various mission and mission
support areas, and any results in terms of performance effectiveness,
reduced duplication, and cost savings. Our survey went to senior officers
in 18 OAM air branches or units, 13 USCG air stations, 27 OAM marine
branches or units, and 28 USCG marine stations. Our response rate was
100 percent, although not all respondents answered each question. We
also reviewed past GAO and DHS analyses to identify opportunities for
increased coordination, and interviewed DHS officials and reviewed
documentation to determine the extent to which DHS headquarters
councils were in place to carry out oversight responsibilities outlined in
the council charters to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and
interoperability of air and marine assets.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through February
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing



4
 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).




Page 4                                          GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                   standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
                   obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
                   our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
                   that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
                   and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional details on our
                   scope and methodology are contained in appendix I. The survey text and
                   results are contained in appendix II.



Background
OAM Organization   OAM resources are divided among 70 air and marine locations across
                   three regions (southeast, southwest, and northern); the National Capital
                   area; and National Air Security Operations Centers (NASOC) throughout
                   the continental United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as
                   shown in figure 1. OAM also has mission support facilities including those
                   for maintenance, training, and radar-tracking to detect and direct
                   interdiction of illegal aircraft and maritime vessels. OAM strategic
                   assumptions in deploying its resources include the ability to provide a 24-
                   hour, 7-day a week response to border penetrations anywhere along the
                   U.S. border, with a 1-hour response time for areas designated as high
                   priority. 5 Considerations in OAM allocation decisions include historical
                   location, congressional direction, 6 and differences in geography and
                   relative need for air and marine support to address threats. As of May
                   2011, OAM had placed about half of its air assets on the southwest
                   border region and the remainder on the northern and southeast regions,
                   while marine resources were distributed fairly evenly across the northern,
                   southwest, and southeast regions. 7 OAM has 23 branches and 6
                   NASOCs across these regions, and within the branches, OAM may have
                   one or more air or marine units.



                   5
                       OAM response time for ICE prioritized areas was to be between 1 and 3 hours.
                   6
                    In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, DHS received funding for the establishment of 6 OAM
                   marine units and 5 air branches along the northern border. See H.R. Rep. No. 109-241, at
                   42, 45, 46 (2005) (Conf. Rep.); H.R. Rep. No. 109-699, at 125, 131 (2006) (Conf. Rep.);
                   H.R. Comm. on Appropriations, 110th Cong., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, at
                   13, 22-23 (Comm. Print 2008) (Explanatory Statement); S. Rep. No. 110-84, at 38-39
                   (2007); H.R. Rep. No. 110-181, at 38 (2007).
                   7
                       For more information on the location of OAM air and marine assets, see appendix III.




                   Page 5                                                GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Figure 1: OAM Branch Offices and NASOCs as of September 2011

  INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC

 ROLL YOUR MOUSE OVER EACH LOCATION FOR MORE INFORMATION

        Bellingham
                                                          Northern Region

              Spokane

                                           North Dakota                                                                           Houlton
                              Montana
                                                            NASOC
                                                          Grand Forks                                                     Plattsburgh


                                                                                                                Buffalo
                                                                                                  Great Lakes


                                                                                                          National Capital Region



             El Centro                    NASOC
 San Diego        Yuma                  Albuquerque
                     Tucson
                                        El Paso                    Houston
                 NASOC                                                                New Orleans                   Jacksonville
                                          Alpine
               Sierra Vista                                                                                             NASOC
                                                      Del Rio
                                                                                                                      Jacksonville

                                          Laredo                       NASOC                                                  NASOC
                   Southwest Region                                 Corpus Christi                                         Cocoa Beach
                                                                                                                           Miami
                                                                                     Southeast Region                              Caribbean
                                                            McAllen



                                               Air and marine
                                               Air



                                         Source: GAO analysis of OAM data; Map Resources (map).


                                         Note: The 23 OAM branches and 6 NASOCs depicted are roughly equivalent in geographic location
                                         to Border Patrol’s 20 sectors. There are 35 USCG sectors in the continental United States, Alaska,
                                         Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. ICE has 26 principal investigative field offices nationwide. “Air and
                                         marine” branches operate air assets at the branch location itself while marine assets, and sometimes
                                         additional air assets, are operated from subordinate locations called “marine units” or “air units.”




                                         Page 6	                                                            GAO-12-518       DHS Air and Marine Assets
OAM performs various missions in response to requests for air and
marine support from other DHS components—primarily Border Patrol and
ICE; as well as other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
In addition, OAM is a representative on the Joint Interagency Task Force-
South, located in Key West, Florida, a unified command sponsored by the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that facilitates
transnational cooperative counter-narcotic and counterterrorism efforts
throughout the South America source zone and the Caribbean, eastern
Pacific, Central America, and Mexico transit zone. 8 OAM’s NASOCs
perform specialized missions nationwide and in the Caribbean, eastern
Pacific, and Central America, using unmanned aircraft systems, long-
range patrol aircraft, and other aircraft.

Control of OAM resources to respond to these support requests differs by
location. For the northern and southwest regions, OAM branches and
units are under the tactical control of the local Border Patrol sector chief,
who has authority to approve, deny, and prioritize requests for air and
marine support. In contrast, OAM branch directors have the authority to
control how air and marine resources are used in the southeast region—
where there is less Border Patrol presence, as well as in the National
Capital area and in NASOCs.

The majority of OAM operations is in support of customer or self-initiated
law enforcement missions. 9 These missions include air and marine
patrols to detect illegal activity; search for illegal aliens; surveillance; and
transport of Border Patrol, ICE, and other law enforcement officers and
their equipment. OAM also performs non-enforcement missions including
those to support maintenance, training, public relations, and to provide
humanitarian aid. Over the last 3 years, the proportion of air and marine
mission hours (flight hours or hours a vessel was on duty) for law
enforcement related missions has increased, as shown in table 1.




8
 Other Joint Interagency Task Force-South representatives include USCG, Department of
Defense, Department of Justice, and the National Security Agency, as well as liaison
officers from 11 different countries.
9
 “Self-initiated” indicates that following the mission, the pilot or boat operator entered
“OAM” into the “initiated by” data field in the Air and Marine Reporting system. Self-
initiated missions occur most often in the southeast region where OAM has tactical control
of the mission.




Page 7                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Table 1: OAM Air and Marine Hours by Mission Type, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010

                                                                                       Fiscal year
               Mission type                                     2008                 2009                      2010              Total
   a
Air            Enforcement                                    59,283               73,472                    85,579           218,333
               Non-enforcement                                31,383               26,782                    20,844            78,008
               Total                                          90,665              100,253                  106,423            297,341
       b
Marine         Enforcement                                    18,956               32,880                    48,151            99,987
               Non-enforcement                                  2,232                5,129                    5,319            12,680
               Total                                          21,188               38,009                    53,471           112,667
                                        Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data.

                                        Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
                                        a
                                        Air hours (flight hours) represent time from point of takeoff to touchdown.
                                        b
                                        Marine hours (service hours) represent time from point of departure to arrival.


                                        DHS has taken actions to consolidate or integrate its air and marine
                                        resources across components. In 2004, DHS transferred ICE’s air and
                                        marine assets under CBP and in 2005 added Border Patrol air assets to
                                        CBP. In 2006, CBP officially integrated its marine and air forces, creating
                                        OAM. Further, DHS established departmental councils since 2003 with
                                        broad responsibilities to review the missions and requirements of USCG,
                                        CBP, and ICE to identify opportunities to increase effectiveness and lower
                                        costs, and to propose to DHS’s senior-level management departmental
                                        strategies to realize these opportunities. In March 2004, DHS established
                                        the DHS Aviation Management Council to review and coordinate joint
                                        departmental aviation issues, including oversight of operational policy and
                                        generation of resource requirements. The charter also designated the
                                        Aviation Management Council as a commodity council for strategic
                                        sourcing to enable a DHS-wide approach to acquire aviation goods and
                                        services efficiently and effectively. DHS also chartered a Marine Vessel
                                        Management Council in 2004 to, among other things, identify and
                                        prioritize marine vessel program goals to improve mission effectiveness
                                        DHS-wide. At the component level, CBP and USCG co-chair a Boat
                                        Commodity Council to, among other things, coordinate acquisition,
                                        training, and maintenance issues affecting both OAM and USCG marine-
                                        related resources. 10 Further, OAM and USCG have cooperated on
                                        specific projects, such as developing requirements for the joint operation



                                        10
                                            The Boat Commodity Council was established in May 2004.




                                        Page 8                                                     GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                          of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which are long-duration, remotely
                          piloted aircraft used for maritime border security and disaster assistance.


                          The percentage of OAM air and marine support requests met differed by
OAM Air and Marine        location, customer, and mission type, with unmet air support requests
Support Rates             primarily due to aircraft maintenance and unmet marine requests due to
                          adverse weather in fiscal year 2010. 11 In addition, OAM, Border Patrol,
Differed by Location,     and ICE officials reported that OAM resources were constrained in some
and Some Field            locations. Further, although OAM has taken actions to address
Officials Reported        challenges in providing air and marine support, its efforts to increase
                          aircraft availability have not been fully realized.
Resource Constraints
Air Support Differences   OAM met 73 percent of the 38,662 total air support requests that it
Were Greater among        received in fiscal year 2010, according to our analysis of AMOR data. 12
Locations Than among      OAM tracks its ability to meet air support requests by location, customer,
                          and mission in its AMOR system. Our analysis of these data showed that
Customers or Missions
                          the percentage of air support requests OAM met differed by region or
                          branch location, and to a lesser extent, by customer and mission type.
                          Specifically, the percentage of air support requests met ranged by 29
                          percentage points across regions (from 60 to 89 percent) and ranged by
                          over 50 percentage points across branches (from 43 to 96 percent), while
                          the percentage of requests met across customers ranged by about 14
                          percentage points (from 76 to 90 percent) and the percentage of requests
                          met across mission types ranged by 24 percentage points (from 61 to 85
                          percent).




                          11
                            We were unable to analyze marine support request by customer due to data reliability
                          concerns, as discussed later in this report.
                          12
                            In order to provide meaningful support rates, we excluded from our analysis requests for
                          non-enforcement related activities, such as training or maintenance flights, as well as
                          requests for support that were canceled by the requester. We included all other
                          enforcement related support requests, including those that were not met due to adverse
                          weather.




                          Page 9                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Air Support Differed across   OAM air support requests met differed by up to 29 percentage points
Locations                     across five different OAM regional areas of responsibility (i.e., regions). 13
                              The highest percentage of support requests met was provided to OAM’s
                              NASOCs and the lowest percentage of support requests met was
                              provided to the U.S. southeast region, as shown in figure 2. 14




                              13
                                For purposes of comparison and analysis, we have classified OAM’s NASOCs as a
                              regional area of responsibility (i.e., region). In addition, we classified the National Capital
                              Region Air Branch as a region, even though, according to OAM officials, it is under the
                              immediate direction of OAM headquarters.
                              14
                                NASOCs operate national strategic assets that include the P-3 maritime patrol aircraft,
                              unmanned aircraft systems, and other specialized aircraft, according to OAM officials. P-3
                              aircraft are used primarily in the source zones of South America and the transit zones of
                              the Caribbean, eastern Pacific, Central America, and Mexico. Unmanned aircraft systems
                              are used at the nation’s borders.




                              Page 10                                                GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Figure 2: OAM Air Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010




The percentage of air support requests met across branches and
NASOCs showed greater differences than across regions, particularly
across branches in the southwest region, as shown in table 2.




Page 11                                       GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Table 2: Distribution of the Percentage of OAM Air Support Requests Met by Air Branches and NASOCs across Regions,
Fiscal Year 2010

Number of OAM branches and centers
                                                           Percent of air support requests met
OAM Region/Center                    40 to 50        51 to 60           61 to 70   71 to 80    81 to 90      91 to 100           Total
Southwest                                    1                 1              2          1             2              3             10
Northern                                                                      1          5             2                              8
Southeast                                                     2               1          1                                            4

NASOCs                                                                        1                        3              2               6
National Capital                                                                         1                                            1
Total                                        1                 3              5          8             7              5             29
                                        Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data.

                                        Notes: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.


Air Support Differences across          There were smaller differences in OAM’s ability to meet requests for air
Customers and Missions                  support across customers than across locations. The overall percentage
                                        of air support requests met across customers ranged from a low of 76
                                        percent for Border Patrol and OAM to a high of 90 percent for all other
                                        federal agencies, as shown in figure 3. Border Patrol has control over
                                        OAM mission support priorities in the northern and southwest regions,
                                        and OAM has control over its priorities in the southeast region. 15 To
                                        increase transparency of ICE support requests, OAM, Border Patrol, and
                                        ICE established a process requiring that ICE requests that are denied at
                                        the field level be elevated to management. 16 Finally, our analysis of



                                        15
                                          In a 2008 Air Council meeting, Border Patrol and OAM outlined similar prioritization
                                        schemes for providing air support: anti-terrorism or other exigent missions are first priority,
                                        then DHS missions, and then other law enforcement operations and activities. An
                                        Assistant Chief Patrol Agent for one Border Patrol station along the southwest border said
                                        he prioritizes pre-scheduled flight block requests based on the level of cross-border
                                        activity in the area of responsibility, and Border Patrol officials in another station said they
                                        prioritize ad hoc requests according to situational circumstances, such as officer safety or
                                        proximity of the aircraft to the support location.
                                        16
                                          This process was established following a 2008 CBP Commissioner’s Air Council
                                        meeting, and makes it clear that ICE requests that are denied at the field level for any
                                        reason other than adverse weather, crew, or maintenance issues may be elevated up the
                                        ICE and CBP chains of command, until they are resolved; if they are not resolved before
                                        they reach the CBP Commissioner’s Office, he or she has final say. In its 2010 annual
                                        report for support provided to ICE, OAM reported that only one ICE request was elevated
                                        to the CBP Commissioner for resolution.




                                        Page 12                                                GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
AMOR data showed that there were few concurrent support requests that
resulted in denial of one agency’s request to support another agency. For
example, of the 38,662 requests for air support in fiscal year 2010, 2
percent (915) could not be met due to a competing mission request from
the same or another agency.

Figure 3: OAM Air Support Requests by Customer, Fiscal Year 2010




Note: About 14 percent of unmet air support requests in fiscal year 2010 had more than one agency
as a requestor and we attributed these requests to each of the requesting agencies, thus in some
cases one request was attributed to more than one agency. In addition, about 17 percent of unmet
requests, excluding those canceled by the requestor, could not be attributed to any agency. As a
result, the percentage of support requests not met may be understated. For a detailed discussion on
our methodology, see appendix I.


OAM headquarters officials gave the following possible explanations as to
why state and local, and all other federal agencies had higher support
rates than Border Patrol or OAM.

•    State and local support frequently involved OAM diverting a flight
     already in progress; in such cases, aircraft availability challenges


Page 13                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
    were not an issue. As a result, OAM was able to provide the support
    to the state and local agency resulting in higher support rates.

•   Federal agencies (as in the “all other federal agencies” category in
    figure 3) and state agencies (as in the “state and local agencies”
    category in figure 3) often require types of aircraft that have greater
    availability in general.

•   Standing, daily requests—which were most common to Border
    Patrol—were more likely than ad hoc requests to be canceled as a
    result of adverse weather, maintenance, or aircraft and personnel
    restrictions. As a result, Border Patrol may have more unmet requests
    than other agencies.

The difference in percentage of support requests met across mission
categories ranged from 61 to 85 percent, with higher levels of support for
miscellaneous enforcement activities such as reconnaissance,
photography, or information. The percentage of air support was lower for
mission activities classified as search, interdiction, or radar patrol, as
shown in figure 4. OAM officials told us that there were too many
variables, such as budget and resource constraints, weather, and
conflicting mission priorities, to explain why there were differences in
percentages of support requests met for different mission types.




Page 14                                      GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Figure 4: OAM Air Support Requests by Mission Type, Fiscal Year 2010




Note: According to the AMOR user guide and OAM headquarters officials, mission types include:
Illegal aliens: Support flights that resulted in the search for, or arrest of, illegal aliens.
Search: Flights by any aircraft, radar equipped or not; and performed with or without intelligence of a
target in a specific location.
Radar patrol: Support flights by aircraft equipped with radar, with the purpose of detecting suspect
private aircraft.
Miscellaneous enforcement: Represents several enforcement activities, including beeper/transponder
install/remove, controlled delivery, enforcement relocation, eradication support, information gathering,
logistic/transportation, reconnaissance/photography, security support, undercover, and warrants .
Surveillance: Flights required by specific intelligence of the target being observed—such as what the
target is and where it is located.
Interdiction: The interception, tracking, or apprehension of suspected violators.




Page 15                                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Reasons for Unmet Air   OAM was unable to meet 27 percent, or 10,530 of the 38,662 air support
Requests                requests it received from customers in fiscal year 2010. The primary
                        reason for unmet requests was the unavailability of aircraft in
                        maintenance, but adverse weather and unavailable aircrew were also
                        factors, as shown in figure 5. 17

                        Figure 5: OAM Air Support Requests and Reasons for Unmet Requests, Fiscal Year
                        2010




                        Note: N = 38,662. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. “Other reasons” include
                        when OAM received information that was incomplete or not timely, among other things.




Some Field Officials    OAM survey respondents were generally satisfied with the type and
Reported That OAM Has   number of air assets they had to perform various missions; however,
Air Support Resource    some survey respondents and field officials we interviewed identified
                        capability gaps, such as the lack of maritime patrol aircraft. In addition,
Constraints             survey respondents and field officials reported general dissatisfaction with
                        the number of personnel to perform air operations. Finally, OAM has
                        taken actions to increase aircraft availability—including creating an
                        aircraft modernization plan and conducting an aged-aircraft
                        investigation—but these efforts have not been fully realized.



                        17
                          OAM awarded a new aircraft maintenance contract in 2009 and officials told us the new
                        contractor performed poorly in the beginning of the contract period which increased the
                        number of unmet support requests due to maintenance in fiscal year 2010.




                        Page 16                                                 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Survey Respondents and Field     The majority of officials that responded to our survey questions from 18
Officials Cited Mixed Views on   OAM air locations across the southwest, northern, southeast, and
OAM Air Assets and Support       National Capital regions, and NASOCs generally reported that they were
                                 either satisfied with, or neutral—neither satisfied nor dissatisfied—toward
                                 the type and number of OAM aircraft they had at their locations to perform
                                 various mission activities. 18 For example, 16 of 18 respondents reported
                                 satisfaction with the type of aircraft available for surveillance; and 12 of 18
                                 respondents reported satisfaction with the number of aircraft they have to
                                 perform information gathering. A majority of respondents also expressed
                                 satisfaction or neutrality toward the type and number of aircraft they have
                                 to perform 12 other mission activities. Some respondents, however,
                                 identified capability gaps and resource limitations for certain mission
                                 activities. For example, officials from 7 of the 14 air locations that perform
                                 air-to-water radar patrols reported that they were very dissatisfied with the
                                 type of aircraft available to conduct these missions. 19 Similarly,
                                 respondents from 7 of the 17 air locations that perform interdictions
                                 expressed dissatisfaction with the number of aircraft available to conduct
                                 these missions. One respondent reported that his/her location had no
                                 maritime or air radar interdiction capabilities, despite having a border that
                                 was entirely water. See appendix IV for a summary of survey results by
                                 location for respondents’ satisfaction with the type and number of assets
                                 for various mission activities.

                                 OAM Regional Directors expressed differing levels of satisfaction with the
                                 type and number of air assets in their regions to perform operations. The
                                 Northern Regional Director said the type and number of air assets
                                 generally met mission needs. 20 The Southeast Regional Director said the
                                 southeast region did not have sufficient air assets to meet mission needs;
                                 specifically, they were not consistently meeting requests for air patrol of



                                 18
                                   We surveyed 18 of the 40 operating OAM air locations, including branches, units, and
                                 NASOCs that were proximate to USCG air locations. We surveyed respondents about
                                 their satisfaction with the type and number of OAM aircraft they have to perform 15
                                 different mission activities at their locations. See appendix IV for additional data from this
                                 survey question. See appendix I for our survey scope and methodology.
                                 19
                                   Air-to-water radar patrols are missions in which aircraft patrol maritime environments.
                                 20
                                    The Northern Border Regional Director said, among other things, he would like to see
                                 an additional interceptor aircraft placed in one branch location, but that the runway is too
                                 short—the current runway is 4,000 feet and a Citation needs at least 7,000 feet. OAM
                                 headquarters officials said that the branch is routinely required to get additional support
                                 from neighboring branches.




                                 Page 17                                                GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
the maritime environment and that two branches needed more maritime
patrol aircraft. 21 The Southwest Regional Director said he did not have
information regarding what the southwest region’s needs were in terms of
air assets because the southwest region had not performed an
assessment in 2 years.

OAM, Border Patrol and ICE officials at field locations we visited in the
northern, southeast, and southwest regions expressed various levels of
satisfaction with OAM’s air support and capabilities. For example, Border
Patrol and ICE officials in one northern border location said they were
generally satisfied with OAM’s air support. Similarly, the Acting Special
Agent in Charge for the ICE office in the southeast region said he was
generally satisfied with OAM’s air support; however, a Border Patrol
Assistant Chief for a southeast region sector said OAM had not been
responsive to their air support requests. 22 In one southwest location, OAM
branch officials said the air assets at their location were barely sufficient
to meet support requests for its various missions, and ICE officials said
they would like to see OAM procure better aircraft for their surveillance
needs. In addition, Border Patrol officials in the same southwest location
said that while the sector receives substantial OAM air support, OAM as
an agency is not adequately resourced in budget, facilities, air frames, or
technology to meet operational requirements. 23 Similarly, Border Patrol,
OAM, and ICE field officials in another southwest region location said
OAM lacked the capability to perform effective maritime (air to water)
patrols, and ICE officials in that southwest region location said that
helicopters were often not available on short notice. 24




21
  Data from the AMOR system for fiscal year 2010 confirm that the southeast region had a
low percentage of support requests met (60 percent) relative to other regions.
22
  A Border Patrol Assistant Chief for one southeast sector said that in some instances,
Border Patrol agents may not have asked for air support in fiscal year 2010 because they
thought they might not receive it. He said that agents are currently encouraged to ask for
support whether or not they believe they will receive it.
23
  Specifically, Border Patrol officials in a southwest border sector told us that there were
gaps in OAM’s ability to provide air mission support for intelligence, reconnaissance, and
surveillance.
24
  In a draft Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan, OAM proposed that two
multi-role enforcement aircraft be allocated to a southwest branch. According to OAM
officials, these aircraft are intended to perform marine interdiction, among other activities.




Page 18                                               GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                Lastly, officials from the Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-S)
                                said they were pleased with the support they received from OAM, but
                                they would like higher levels of support. According to OAM officials, OAM
                                provided aircraft support to JIATF-S primarily for long-range patrols in the
                                source zones of South America and the transit zones of the Caribbean,
                                eastern Pacific, Central America, and Mexico. JIATF-S officials said that
                                OAM had specialized aircraft that were instrumental to their operations.
                                While OAM provided more than its committed 7,200 flight hours in fiscal
                                year 2010 to support the anti-drug mission in this area, JIATF-S officials
                                said they would like to receive higher levels of OAM support, particularly
                                as support from Department of Defense and other partners had been
                                decreasing.

Survey Respondents and Field    Our survey of 18 OAM air locations found that the majority of respondents
Officials Cited Air Personnel   (11 of 18) were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the extent to
Shortages                       which they had adequate air personnel to effectively meet mission needs.
                                In addition, field officials we interviewed in the southwest and southeast
                                regions reported shortages in air personnel.

                                Although the Northern Border Regional Director told us most air branches
                                along the northern border were staffed sufficiently to meet mission needs,
                                the Southeast and Southwest Regional Directors cited shortfalls in the
                                level of air personnel. The Southeast Regional Director said air staff were
                                frequently assigned to temporary duty in support of UAS and surge
                                operations in the higher priority southwest region; and the Southwest
                                Regional Director said they did not have adequate personnel to be able to
                                respond 24-hours a day at each of its locations. 25

                                OAM officials at the field locations we visited reported shortages in air
                                personnel. For example, the Director of Air Operations at a northern
                                border branch said that the branch was originally slated to have 60 pilots,
                                but instead had 20 pilots. In addition, officials from two branches in the
                                southwest region told us they lacked personnel due to staff being away
                                for such reasons as temporary duty assignments, military leave, sick
                                leave, and training, among other reasons; they said these shortages were



                                25
                                  In March 2011, the Director of Air Operations from one southwest branch told us they
                                were constantly providing personnel for unmanned aircraft systems, and it was getting to
                                the point where they could not perform some manned missions due to shortages of
                                personnel.




                                Page 19                                            GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                             negatively affecting their ability to meet air support requests. 26 Further,
                             the Deputy Director of Air Operations for one southeast region branch told
                             us that when they received the new DASH-8 maritime patrol aircraft, they
                             did not receive the necessary increases in personnel to operate them,
                             and as a result, the branch could not fully utilize the capabilities of these
                             technologically advanced aircraft. 27 According to the branch officials,
                             personnel problems were further exacerbated by budget constraints.

OAM Actions to Address Air   OAM reported that it had taken actions to increase aircraft availability, but
Support Challenges           the results of these efforts have not yet been fully realized. OAM created
                             an aircraft modernization plan in 2006 to replace aging aircraft, and
                             updated this plan in 2007 with a model of projected investments over the
                             next 10 years. OAM officials told us that due to changes in mission needs
                             and changes in the aviation market, as well as limited funding, they have
                             had to modify the plan and continue to maintain older and less
                             supportable aircraft, which require more maintenance. OAM officials
                             reported that because they have not been able to replace aircraft as
                             postulated, they have not been able to standardize their fleet by reducing
                             aircraft types—which would reduce costs associated with training
                             materials and equipment, parts and spares inventories, and personnel
                             qualifications. 28 Due to the slow pace of aged aircraft replacement and
                             the prospect of a constrained resource environment, OAM conducted an
                             aged aircraft investigation in fiscal year 2010 to determine the operating
                             life limitations of aircraft most at risk. Based on the results of this
                             investigation, OAM plans to either retire aircraft or create sustainment
                             regimens for certain aircraft to lengthen their service lives. Finally, OAM
                             headquarters officials said they still plan to acquire new aircraft and
                             reduce the number of older aircraft to eventually achieve the needed type
                             reductions, consistent with available funding.




                             26
                               In March 2011, southwest region branch officials told us they really had about half of
                             their pilots available on any given day.
                             27
                               The DASH-8 requires two pilots and two sensor operators to operate, while the
                             Citation—which the DASH-8 replaced—requires two pilots and one sensor operator,
                             according to OAM officials.
                             28
                               In its 2006 aircraft modernization plan, OAM planned to reduce the number of aircraft
                             types from 18 to 8, but as of September 2011, OAM had 20 aircraft types (including
                             unmanned aircraft systems).




                             Page 20                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                          OAM headquarters officials said they have deployed all-weather aircraft
                          to locations where their capabilities will yield the highest operational
                          dividends. 29 They also said they would like to acquire additional all-
                          weather aircraft, but current funding structures preclude the acquisition of
                          more all-weather assets beyond what is currently approved. OAM officials
                          said they are exploring additional technology and instrumentation
                          solutions to increase their ability to conduct missions in adverse weather
                          conditions, and that this is an ongoing process.

                          OAM headquarters officials stated that they were also limited in their
                          ability to increase the availability of aircrew due to staff reductions and
                          budgetary constraints. OAM conducted a re-evaluation of its staffing in
                          2009, but it was never approved, as OAM had significant reductions to its
                          work force in fiscal year 2010. Headquarters officials said the effort to
                          redefine their work force is on hold since future funding projections
                          prohibit program growth. OAM officials told us they have not increased
                          staff over the past 2 fiscal years.


Marine Support Differed   OAM met 88 percent of the 9,913 total marine support requests that it
across Locations and      received in fiscal year 2010, according to our analysis of AMOR data. 30
Missions, and Data Were   Similar to our analysis of air support data, our analysis of marine data
                          showed that the percentage of requests OAM supported differed by
Unreliable to Assess
                          location; specifically, the percentage of marine support requests met
Differences across        ranged by 9 percentage points across regions (from 84 to 93 percent),
Customers                 and by as much as 28 percentage points across branches (from 71 to 99
                          percent). AMOR tracks OAM’s ability to meet marine support requests by
                          location, customer, and mission; but data by customer were not reliable
                          for our reporting purposes due to inconsistencies in OAM data entry
                          practices.




                          29
                            OAM headquarters officials told us that “all-weather” is a term of art used by the air
                          community, and it refers to aircraft that have instrumentation that allow them to be flown in
                          adverse weather conditions.
                          30
                            Our analysis of marine requests excluded non-enforcement related activities, such as
                          training or maintenance missions; it also excluded requests that were canceled by the
                          requester.




                          Page 21                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Marine Support across Regions   The percentage of marine support requests met ranged from 84 to 93
                                percent across three OAM regional areas of responsibility. The
                                percentage of support requests met was fairly similar for the northern and
                                southwest regions, exceeding 90 percent; however, support was lower
                                (84 percent) for the southeast region, as shown in figure 6. OAM officials
                                said possible reasons for the differences in support rates could include
                                the fact that OAM has placed higher priority on the northern and
                                southwest regions, and that since 2008 OAM has added assets to these
                                regions in response to congressional direction.

                                Figure 6: OAM Marine Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010




                                Within each region, the percentage of marine support requests met
                                across branches showed disparities, particularly across branches in the
                                southwest region. Marine support requests met ranged by 15 percentage
                                points across branches in the southeast region (from 80 to 95 percent),
                                by about 10 percentage points across branches in the northern region
                                (from 89 to 99 percent), and by about 28 percentage points across
                                branches in the southwest region (from 71 to 99 percent).




                                Page 22                                      GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Marine Support across      Our analysis of AMOR data indicated that 94 percent of all support
Missions and Customers     requests in fiscal year 2010 were for radar patrol missions, while the
                           remaining 6 percent of requests involved interdiction, surveillance, and
                           other miscellaneous enforcement missions. The percentage of support
                           requests met for the remaining 6 percent of requests varied but was 86
                           percent overall, while the support rate for radar patrol missions was 88
                           percent.

                           We were unable to report on the percentage of marine support by
                           customer due to reliability concerns associated with data in AMOR.
                           Specifically, when inputting data into the AMOR system for unmet marine
                           requests, OAM staff left the data field blank that identified the customer
                           making the request in over 90 percent of the cases in fiscal year 2010. 31
                           OAM reported that they are replacing the AMOR system with a web-
                           based system, which officials said will not allow users to leave important
                           fields blank. Officials also said they are strengthening other internal
                           controls—such as training and supervisory review of data entry—to
                           ensure complete and accurate reporting. Such actions, if implemented
                           effectively, should help improve the reliability of marine customer data—
                           as well as other air and marine operations data—maintained in OAM’s
                           system.

Reasons for Unmet Marine   OAM was unable to meet 12 percent, or 1,176 of the 9,913 marine
Requests                   support requests they received in fiscal year 2010. OAM officials said one
                           reason that the percentage of support requests met was higher for marine
                           support than for air support is because the requirements for launching
                           aircraft are more stringent than for launching marine vessels, due to the
                           relative risk of failure. The primary reason for unmet marine requests was
                           adverse weather (6 percent of total requests),with an additional 4 percent
                           due to other mission priorities and crew unavailability, as shown in
                           figure 7.




                           31
                             OAM headquarters and field officials said OAM staff often left the customer support field
                           blank when the mission was self-initiated.




                           Page 23                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                          Figure 7: Percent of Total Marine Requests Met, and Reasons for Unmet Requests,
                          Fiscal Year 2010




                          Note: N = 9,913. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. “Other reasons” include
                          when OAM received information that was insufficient or a suspect failed to show, among other things.




Some Field Officials      According to our survey of 27 OAM marine units, respondents reported
Reported That OAM Has     they were generally satisfied with the type and number of vessels at their
Marine Support Resource   location. However, OAM Regional Directors and field location officials
                          cited limitations, such as the lack of platform class vessels to perform
Constraints               undercover operations and funding for fuel. In addition, survey
                          respondents and field officials cited shortages in personnel. Lastly, OAM
                          has taken actions to increase its ability to meet marine requests, including
                          purchasing “all-weather” vessels and cold-weather marine gear. 32




                          32
                            OAM headquarters officials told us that “all-weather” is a term of art used in the marine
                          community to designate that a vessel has an enclosed cabin.




                          Page 24                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Survey Respondents and Field     Our survey of 27 OAM marine locations across the northern, southwest,
Officials Cited Mixed Views on   and southeast regions found that respondents were generally satisfied
OAM Marine Assets and            with the type and number of OAM marine vessels they had at their
Support                          locations to perform various mission activities. 33 For example, greater
                                 than 21 of 27 respondents reported that they were satisfied with both the
                                 type and number of vessels they had to perform radar patrol and
                                 interdiction missions. Of the remaining 10 activities we asked about, the
                                 majority of respondents expressed satisfaction toward the type and
                                 number of vessels they had to perform in 7 activities. 34 The activity where
                                 respondents expressed the greatest dissatisfaction with the type and
                                 number of vessels they had was undercover support—with 12 of the 24
                                 marine units that perform undercover support expressing dissatisfaction
                                 with the type of vessels, and 10 of the 24 units expressing dissatisfaction
                                 with the number of vessels. 35 See appendix IV for a summary of survey
                                 results by location for satisfaction with the type and number of assets
                                 provided by mission activity.

                                 OAM Regional Directors expressed differing levels of satisfaction with the
                                 type and number of marine vessels in their regions. The OAM Northern
                                 Regional Director said the northern region had the appropriate number
                                 and type of vessels to meet mission needs. Although the Southeast
                                 Regional Director said the southeast region had the appropriate number
                                 of interceptor vessels to meet mission needs, he also said the southeast
                                 region needed two other types of vessels to increase mission capability. 36


                                 33
                                   Of OAM’s 30 marine units, we surveyed 27 that were proximate to USCG marine
                                 locations. We surveyed respondents about their satisfaction with the type and number of
                                 OAM vessels they have to perform 12 mission activities at their locations. See appendix IV
                                 for additional data from this survey question. See appendix I for our survey scope and
                                 methodology.
                                 34
                                   At least half of respondents indicated they were not satisfied or were neutral toward the
                                 type and/or number of vessels they had at their locations to perform three activities,
                                 including reconnaissance/photography, undercover support, and controlled delivery.
                                 35
                                   OAM headquarters officials said they would like to partner with ICE to ensure OAM has
                                 sufficient undercover vessels to meet ICE’s requirements. OAM officials said that in the
                                 past they contacted ICE headquarters and requested funding to maintain two undercover
                                 vessels in the southeast region, but ICE declined. Further, OAM officials said that if
                                 undercover support is a requirement for ICE, then the local ICE office would need to
                                 submit a request through ICE headquarters.
                                 36
                                   The two types of vessels are (1) platform vessels to support undercover operations, and
                                 (2) large, aluminum hull vessels to support offshore rig and commercial fishing
                                 environments, as well as Mississippi River marine traffic.




                                 Page 25                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                               The Southwest Regional Director said that given the region’s distribution
                               of personnel, it had the appropriate number of assets; however, he said
                               the region did not have the appropriate number of qualified marine
                               personnel to meet mission needs.

                               Field officials at locations we visited in the northern, southeast, and
                               southwest regions expressed varied levels of satisfaction with OAM’s
                               marine support and capabilities. For example, while Border Patrol and
                               ICE officials in a northern border location said they were satisfied with the
                               marine support they received from OAM, the Director of Marine
                               Operations for an OAM branch in the northern region said that it was not
                               feasible to provide a sufficient number of vessels and crew to ensure full
                               coverage of the maritime border, and that the greatest need was for
                               marine radar to queue marine assets to perform interdictions. An OAM
                               branch official from the southeast region said that while the number and
                               type of vessels met their needs, for a period of time, they could use their
                               vessels only about half of each month due to budget constraints limiting
                               fuel. Finally, officials at an OAM branch in the southwest region told us
                               one of their chief resource needs was platform vessels to perform
                               undercover operations.

Survey Respondents and Field   Our survey of 27 OAM marine units found that the majority of
Officials Cited Marine         respondents (18 of 27) reported they were either somewhat or very
Personnel Shortages            dissatisfied with the extent to which they had adequate personnel to
                               effectively meet mission needs.

                               The OAM Regional Director for the Northern Region said that marine
                               personnel levels across his region were adequate; however, Regional
                               Directors for the Southeast and Southwest Regions cited shortages in
                               marine personnel. Specifically, the Southeast Regional Director said that
                               one southeast branch did not have an adequate number of marine
                               personnel to address increasing threat, and the Southwest Regional
                               Director said one location in the southwest region did not have an
                               appropriate number of personnel to meet mission needs.

                               OAM officials at field locations reported shortages of personnel. For
                               example, an official at one OAM marine unit in the northern region said
                               that sometimes the lack of marine personnel affects operational readiness
                               and that allowing for training and leave are consistently concerns.
                               Similarly, OAM officials from a southwest branch said that sufficient
                               numbers of personnel were not always available due to training, sick
                               days, annual leave, and reservists being called to active duty; and an ICE
                               official in a southwest border location agreed that OAM needed additional


                               Page 26                                     GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                            marine interdiction agents. Lastly, an OAM survey respondent from a
                            marine unit in the southeast region said that although marine staffing was
                            increased in the past few years for new locations, the pre-existing
                            locations were short on manpower and a realignment of personnel was
                            needed. 37

OAM Actions to Address      OAM headquarters officials reported that they have taken actions to
Marine Support Challenges   address capability gaps due to adverse weather. For example, OAM
                            officials told us that they purchased “all-weather” vessels with enclosed
                            cabins, and that along with additional vessels acquired from USCG, they
                            will have sufficient assets to meet mission needs. Officials said that while
                            enclosed cabins do not enable OAM to launch in rough sea states, they
                            do enable marine agents to operate in cold weather. They said that while
                            larger vessels could reduce the impact of adverse weather on marine
                            operations, these vessels would not be capable of achieving sufficient
                            speeds to conduct interdictions or, if they were capable of maintaining
                            sufficient speeds, would be cost prohibitive. 38 In addition, OAM officials
                            said they purchased marine dry suits and cold weather gear to further
                            address their ability to operate in adverse weather.

                            In regards to personnel, OAM officials told us that with the rapid growth in
                            the marine program during fiscal years 2008 and 2009, OAM will be able
                            to meet its immediate needs for marine agents, but some of those hired
                            were still in the process of being trained and certified.

                            OAM headquarters officials said unmet requests due to other mission
                            priorities are often the result of exigent and unanticipated requests for
                            marine support that are outside of the normal mission-tasking process,
                            and that they continually evaluate the need to re-assign marine assets to
                            meet evolving mission needs.




                            37
                              OAM headquarters officials said the location and initial strength of the new marine units
                            was based on the latest understanding of the threat and/or tactical needs of the CBP Field
                            Commanders, and that OAM has made refinements to its personnel deployment in
                            recognition of the changing environment.
                            38
                              For example, OAM officials said the U.S. Navy’s Mark V vessel can operate in rough
                            seas and conduct high-speed interdictions, however it has an estimated unit cost of $3.7
                            million, while current OAM interceptor vessels have a unit cost of approximately $500,000.




                            Page 27                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                            OAM has not documented its analyses to support its resource mix and
OAM Could Benefit           placement decisions across locations, and challenges in providing higher
from Reassessing Its        rates of support to high priority sectors indicate that a reassessment of its
                            asset mix and placement may provide benefits. OAM action to document
Mix and Placement of        analyses behind its deployment decisions and reassess where its assets
Resources to Better         are deployed using performance results could better ensure transparency
Address Mission             and help provide reasonable assurance that OAM is most effectively
                            allocating its scarce resources to respond to mission needs and threats.
Needs and Threats           OAM could also improve public accountability by disclosing data
                            limitations that hinder the accuracy of OAM’s reported performance
                            results for fiscal year 2011.


OAM Documentation of        OAM has not documented significant events, such as its analyses to
Analyses to Support Asset   support its asset mix and placement across locations, and as a result,
Mix and Placement           lacks a record to help demonstrate that its decisions to allocate resources
                            are the most effective ones in fulfilling customer needs and addressing
Decisions Could Improve     threats. To help ensure accountability over an agency’s resource
Accountability              decisions, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call
                            for agencies to ensure that all significant events be clearly documented
                            and readily available for examination. 39 OAM issued a National Strategic
                            Plan in 2007 that included a 10-year plan for national asset acquisitions,
                            and a strategic plan briefing the same year that outlined strategic end-
                            states for air assets and personnel across OAM branches. 40 While these
                            documents included strategic goals, mission responsibilities, and threat
                            information, we could not identify the underlying analyses used to link
                            these factors to the mix and placement of resources across locations. The
                            2010 update to the strategic plan stated that OAM utilized its forces in
                            areas where they would pay the “highest operational dividends,” but OAM
                            did not have documentation of how operational dividends were
                            determined or analyzed to support deployment decisions. Furthermore,
                            while OAM’s Fiscal Year 2010 Aircraft Deployment Plan stated that OAM
                            deployed aircraft and maritime vessels to ensure its forces were


                            39
                             GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
                            40
                              OAM headquarters officials stated that OAM has essentially adhered to the plan, with
                            changes driven by such factors as emerging threats, technological opportunities,
                            budgetary constraints, and production constraints. The 2007 OAM Strategic Plan briefing
                            is the only plan that contains comprehensive air asset and personnel end-states by
                            branch. The Fiscal Year OAM 2010 Strategic Implementation Plan did not contain updated
                            end-states by branch.




                            Page 28                                          GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
positioned to best meet the needs of CBP field commanders and respond
to the latest intelligence on emerging threats, OAM did not have
documentation that clearly linked the deployment decisions in the plan to
mission needs or threats. 41 Similarly, OAM did not document analyses
supporting the current mix and placement of marine assets across
locations. 42 In addition, DHS’s 2005 aviation management directive
requires operating entities to use their aircraft in the most cost-effective
way to meet requirements. Although OAM officials stated that it factored
cost-effectiveness considerations, such as efforts to move similar types of
aircraft to the same locations to help reduce maintenance and training
costs into its deployment decisions, OAM does not have documentation
of analyses it performed to make these decisions. 43

OAM headquarters officials stated that they made deployment decisions
during formal discussions and ongoing meetings in close collaboration
with Border Patrol, and considered a range of factors such as operational
capability, mission priorities, and threats. OAM officials said that while
they generally documented final decisions affecting the mix and
placement of resources, they did not have the resources to document
assessments and analyses to support these decisions. However, such
documentation of significant events could help OAM improve the
transparency of its resource allocation decisions to help demonstrate the
effectiveness of these resource decisions in fulfilling its mission needs
and addressing threats. 44



41
  OAM did not develop an overall fiscal year 2010 deployment plan for its marine vessels,
similar to the air deployment plan that was issued that year, due to the minimal movement
of assets, according to OAM officials.
42
   For example, while OAM developed a marine vessel expenditure plan for fiscal year
2010, which included threat information, requirements for vessel acquisitions, and planned
end-states for its coastal interceptor vessels, it did not have documentation that clearly
linked deployment decisions to mission needs or threats.
43
  OAM officials stated that having similar types of aircraft in the same locations reduces
the personnel needed for maintenance and the need for pilots to be trained on multiple
aircraft. They stated that when moving aircraft for this purpose, the effectiveness of the
aircraft in meeting mission needs is taken into consideration.
44
  In December 2011, OAM provided documents related to the development of its Fiscal
Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan, which included analyses that linked customer
needs and threat to some deployment decisions on the northern border. While this is an
improvement from the lack of documentation to support the fiscal year 2010 plan, the
documents provided do not clearly show how the distribution of OAM’s assets across all
locations best meets deployment goals and addresses competing needs.




Page 29                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
OAM Reassessment of          OAM did not meet its national air support goal and did not provide higher
Resource Mix and             rates of support to locations Border Patrol identified as high priority, which
Placement Could Better       indicates that a reassessment of OAM’s resource mix and placement
                             could help ensure that it meets mission needs, addresses threats, and
Ensure Customer Support      mitigates risk. According to DHS’s Annual Performance Report for fiscal
in High Priority Locations   years 2008 through 2010, the primary and most important measure for
                             OAM is its capability to launch an aircraft when a request is made for
                             aerial support. In addition, DHS’s May 2010 policy for integrated risk
                             management stated that components should use risk information and
                             analysis to inform decision making, and a key component of risk
                             management is measuring and reassessing effectiveness. 45 OAM
                             assessed its effectiveness through a performance goal to meet greater
                             than 95 percent of Border Patrol requests for air support in fiscal year
                             2010, excluding unmet requests due to adverse weather or other factors
                             OAM considered outside of its control. 46 Our analysis showed that OAM
                             met 82 percent of the 22,877 Border Patrol air support requests in fiscal
                             year 2010.

                             While OAM officials stated that this goal does not apply to specific
                             locations, we used their stated performance measure methodology to
                             determine support rates across Border Patrol sectors and found that they
                             ranged from 54 to 100 percent in fiscal year 2010, and that OAM did not
                             provide higher rates of support to locations Border Patrol identified as
                             high priority (see table 3). This occurred at both the regional and sector
                             levels. For example, while the southwest border was Border Patrol’s
                             highest priority for resources in fiscal year 2010, it did not receive a higher
                             rate of OAM air support (80 percent) than the northern border (85
                             percent). At the sector level, while Border Patrol officials stated that one
                             sector was a high priority based on the relative threat of cross-border
                             smuggling, our analysis showed that the sector had the fifth highest
                             support rate across all nine sectors on the southwest border. Findings
                             were similar on the northern border, where the Border Patrol’s and OAM’s



                             45
                               GAO, Risk Management: Further Refinements Needed to Assess Risks and Prioritize
                             Protective Measures at Ports and Other Critical Infrastructure, GAO-06-91 (Washington
                             D.C.: December 2005) and 2009 DHS National Infrastructure Protection Plan.
                             46
                               The Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as amended, requires DHS
                             and other agencies to establish performance goals to define the level of performance to
                             be achieved by a program activity. See 31 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1). One of the goals
                             established to assess OAM operations in fiscal year 2010 was to meet greater than 95
                             percent of Border Patrol requests for air support.




                             Page 30                                           GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                        2007 Northern Border Resource Deployment Implementation Plan
                                        prioritized four sectors based on potential terrorist threats. 47 Our analysis
                                        found that two high-priority northern border sectors had lower support
                                        rates than three other sectors in the region that were not designated as
                                        high-priority.

Table 3: OAM Air Support Rates to Border Patrol across Border Regions, Fiscal Year 2010

                                                                             Number of Border Patrol
                                                                                                                                    a
Border regions              Border Patrol sector                              requests for air support              Percent met
Southwest                   Sector 1                                                             1,484                         98
                            Sector 2                                                               954                         95
                            Sector 3                                                             1,036                         95
                            Sector 4                                                             1,098                         95
                            Sector 5                                                             4,623                         87
                            Sector 6                                                             2,506                         83
                            Sector 7                                                             1,322                         70
                            Sector 8                                                             3,344                         58
                            Sector 9                                                               785                         54
Total Southwest                                                                                17,152                          80
Northern                    Sector 1                                                               601                         96
                            Sector 2                                                               528                         92
                            Sector 3                                                               235                         88
                            Sector 4                                                             1,042                         86
                            Sector 5                                                               528
                            Sector 6                                                               717                         81
                            Sector 7                                                             1,123                         80
                            Sector 8                                                               491                         79
Total Northern                                                                                   5,265                         85
Southeast                   Sector 1                                                                18                        100
                            Sector 2                                                                80                         79
                            Sector 3                                                                18                         72
Total Southeast                                                                                    116                         81
                                        Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data.




                                        47
                                          Border Patrol’s Director of Planning and a Northern-Coastal Border Associate Chief
                                        stated that the high-priority sectors on the northern border have not changed since 2007.




                                        Page 31                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Note: High-priority Border Patrol sectors are highlighted. NASOCs support in response to Border
Patrol requests was not included in the table because they could not be reported by sector. OAM met
95 percent of the 344 Border Patrol requests for NASOCs air support in fiscal year 2010.
a
 Support rates were calculated using OAM’s stated methodology for computing its fiscal year 2010
performance measure. Support rates for each Border Patrol sector reflect support provided by the
OAM branch or branches within the sector. The geographical boundaries for OAM’s southwest,
northern, and southeast regions were roughly comparable to the Border Patrol’s southwest, northern,
and southeast border regions, respectively.


OAM headquarters officials said that they did not use support rate
performance results to assess whether the mix and placement of
resources is appropriate. OAM officials stated that they managed
operations by allocating assets, personnel, and flight hours across
locations, but these factors do not assess the outcomes of their
operations, specifically the extent to which OAM provided air and marine
support when requested to meet mission needs and address threats. 48

Best practices for performance measurement calls for agencies to use
performance information to assess efficiency, identify performance gaps,
and ensure intended goals are met, and Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government states that agencies should assess performance
over time and establish activities, including data analysis, to monitor
performance measures and indicators. 49 In addition, according to DHS’s
Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, support
rates generated from AMOR system data are intended to be used by
management to immediately identify problems that need corrective action.
OAM officials said that there are significant limitations with the AMOR
reporting functions which preclude them from accurately capturing and
comparing performance results and using them for this purpose, and said




48
   OAM officials stated the number of assets and flight hours, among other things,
allocated to locations should be used to assess operations. However, these factors would
not capture, for example, whether OAM has the right aircraft available to launch at the
time when air support is needed. In addition, while Border Patrol sectors develop annual
flight hour requirements as part of their operational plans, OAM officials stated that OAM
did not use them to deploy resources in fiscal year 2010. We found that the requirements
were reported inconsistently or not at all in that year. Border Patrol and OAM plan to
develop a methodology to more accurately capture flight hour support requirements in
Border Patrol’s northern border operational plans.
49
  GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and
Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996), and
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.




Page 32                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
they will begin to replace the AMOR system in March 2012. 50 OAM
headquarters officials expect that the new information system will be
more reliable, user-friendly, and have more robust reporting capabilities;
however, officials stated that they did not have plans to change how they
will use these capabilities to inform resource mix and placement
decisions.

OAM officials stated that while they deployed a majority of resources to
high-priority sectors, budgetary constraints, other national priorities, and
the need to maintain presence across border locations limited overall
increases in resources or the amount of resources they could redeploy
from lower-priority sectors. For example, in fiscal year 2010, 50 percent of
OAM’s assets and 59 percent of OAM’s flight hours were in the southwest
border, Border Patrol’s highest-priority region. While we recognize OAM’s
resource constraints, the agency does not have documentation of
analyses assessing the impact of these constraints and whether actions
could be taken to improve the mix and placement of resources within
them. Thus, it is unclear the extent to which the current deployment of
OAM assets and personnel, including those assigned to the Southwest
border as cited above, most effectively utilizes its constrained resources
to meet mission needs and address threats.

Looking toward the future, Border Patrol, CBP, and DHS have strategic
and technological initiatives under way that will likely affect customer
requirements for air and marine support and the mix and placement of
resources across locations. Border Patrol officials stated that they are
transitioning to a new risk-based approach and Border Patrol National
Strategy in fiscal year 2012 that would likely affect the type and level of
OAM support across locations. Border Patrol officials said that the new
strategy would likely rely more heavily on intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities to detect illegal activity and increased rapid
mobility capabilities to respond to changing threats along the border.
OAM headquarters officials said that they have received a high-level
briefing of the anticipated changes in June 2011, but have not yet
received information necessary to incorporate these changes into its
current mix and placement of air and marine resources. CBP and DHS


50
  OAM officials told us that phase 1 of the new web-based system was to be implemented
in October 2011, but due to technical problems, it has been delayed to March 2012.
Projections for the implementation of phases 2 and 3 are on hold pending successful
implementation of phase 1.




Page 33                                          GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                           also have ongoing interagency efforts under way to increase air and
                           marine domain awareness across U.S. borders through deployment of
                           technology that may decrease Border Patrol’s use of OAM assets for air
                           and marine domain awareness. Border Patrol officials in one sector, for
                           example, stated that they prefer deployment of technology to detect illegal
                           air and marine activity; OAM officials there said that air patrols are used
                           due to the lack of ground-based radar technology. OAM officials stated
                           that they will consider how technology capabilities affect the mix and
                           placement of air and marine resources once such technology has been
                           deployed.

                           OAM’s fiscal year 2010 aircraft deployment plan stated that OAM
                           deployed aircraft and maritime vessels to ensure its forces were
                           positioned to best meet the needs of CBP Field Commanders and
                           respond to emerging threats; however, our analysis indicates that OAM
                           did not provide higher rates of air support in response to customer need
                           in locations designated as high priority based on threats. In addition, as
                           discussed, OAM did not use performance results to assess the mix and
                           placement of resources. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
                           Government stresses the need for agencies to provide reasonable
                           assurance of the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, including the
                           use of the entity’s resources. 51 As such, to the extent that the benefits
                           outweigh the costs, reassessing the mix and placement of its assets and
                           personnel, and using performance results to inform these decisions could
                           help provide OAM with reasonable assurance that it is most effectively
                           allocating its scarce resources and aligning them to fulfill its mission
                           needs and related threats.


OAM Did Not Disclose       OAM officials continue to use performance data from its AMOR system to
Data Limitations Related   meet requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act
to the Accuracy of         (GPRA), but have not disclosed limitations affecting the accuracy of these
                           data reported to Congress and the public in CBP’s Performance and
Reported Performance       Accountability Report. 52 OAM inaccurately reported its performance
Results

                           51
                            GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
                           52
                             GPRA, as amended, requires federal agencies to establish annual performance plans
                           covering each program activity set forth in their budget and to report annually on actual
                           performance achieved relative to the performance goals established under the plan. See
                           31 U.S.C. §§ 1115(b), 1116.




                           Page 34                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
results from fiscal years 2007 to 2010. OAM headquarters officials stated
that they were not aware that they had calculated their performance
results inaccurately—due to limitations with AMOR reporting functions—
before we brought it to their attention in July 2010. In fiscal year 2010, for
example, OAM reported that it exceeded its performance goal and met
Border Patrol support requests greater than 98 percent of the time, but
the actual rate of support based on our subsequent analysis was 82
percent. 53 After we informed them of the error, OAM officials stated they
plan to use the same methodology for calculating GPRA performance
results in fiscal year 2011 because they plan to continue to generate the
results from the AMOR system. Thus, OAM’s performance results will
continue to be calculated and reported inaccurately. The GPRA
Modernization Act of 2010 requires that agencies identify (1) the level of
accuracy required for the intended use of the data that measures
progress toward performance goals and (2) any limitations to the data at
the required level of accuracy. 54 Disclosure of the data limitations relating
to the accuracy of OAM’s reported performance results for fiscal year
2011 could help improve transparency for achieving program results and
provide more objective information on the relative effectiveness of the
program, as intended by GPRA. 55 This is also important because, if a
performance goal is not met, GPRA, as amended, requires agencies to
explain why the goal was not met and present plans and schedules for
achieving the goal. 56 OAM headquarters officials initially stated that its
new information system will allow OAM to calculate and analyze
performance results starting in fiscal year 2012; however, this may not be




53
  OAM calculated the percent of Border Patrol support requests met using two different
AMOR reports, one of which substantially understated the number of unmet requests. As
a result, OAM reported that it did not meet 369 Border Patrol support requests in fiscal
year 2010; however, our analysis of the underlying data in AMOR found that OAM did not
meet 3,379 of requests. OAM officials acknowledged this error after we brought it to their
attention, and stated that the pre-programmed reports in AMOR do not allow them to
accurately calculate GPRA performance results.
54
  Pub. L. No. 111-352, §§ 3, 4, 124 Stat. 3866, 3869, 3872 (codified at 31 U.S.C. §§
1115(b)(8)(C)-(D), 1116(c)(6)(C)-(D)).
55
     See Pub. L. No. 103-62, § 2(b)(3), (5), 107 Stat. 285, 285 (1993).
56
     31 U.S.C. § 1116(c)(3)(A)-(B).




Page 35                                                GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                             possible due to the technical problems that have delayed its
                             implementation to March 2012. 57

                             OAM and USCG officials we surveyed across proximately located air and
Further Action to            marine units reported varying levels of coordination across missions,
Coordinate Air and           activities, or resources and that to different extents, the coordination that
                             occurred between the agencies was effective and resulted in reduced
Marine Operations            duplication and cost savings. However, OAM and USCG officials
Could Provide Benefit        identified one or more areas where improved coordination was needed,
                             and several officials identified opportunities to colocate facilities that, if
                             implemented, could achieve cost savings. DHS oversight to maximize
                             interagency coordination across locations could better ensure the most
                             efficient use of resources for mission accomplishment.


OAM and USCG Field           Our survey showed that the extent of coordination between OAM and
Units Reported               USCG air and marine units varied by mission activity. We surveyed
Differences in the Extent    officials from 86 OAM and USCG air and marine units that were
                             proximately located about the frequency of interagency coordination
of Coordination across       across five mission-related and four mission support activities. 58 CBP has
Mission-related Activities   cited a multilayered approach to border security which relies on close
                             coordination with partner agencies to reduce reliance on any single point
                             or program that could be compromised and extends the zone of security.
                             Across mission-related activities, 54 percent of responding units reported
                             sharing intelligence on a frequent basis and 43 percent reported sharing
                             schedules, on a frequent basis. For example, personnel from USCG,
                             Department of Defense, and Federal Aviation Administration are assigned
                             to OAM’s Air and Marine Operations Center to facilitate interagency




                             57
                               OAM officials stated that OAM expanded its performance measure for fiscal year 2011
                             to include support to all DHS homeland security missions, including those requested by
                             ICE, instead of only Border Patrol’s.
                             58
                                The survey included one response each from a total of 86 OAM and USCG locations,
                             including 31 air locations (18 OAM branches or units and 13 USCG stations) and 55
                             marine locations (27 OAM branches or units and 28 USCG stations). For purposes of this
                             section, we refer to these OAM and USCG entities as air and marine units. See appendix
                             II for detailed survey responses.




                             Page 36                                           GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                       coordination. 59 Fewer officials reported frequent coordination for other
                                       mission activities, such as prioritizing missions (22 percent) and dividing
                                       up mission assignments (20 percent), as shown in figure 8. OAM and
                                       USCG headquarters officials told us that a number of factors may affect
                                       the opportunities and frequency of interagency coordination including the
                                       extent that there is overlap between agency missions and geographic
                                       areas of responsibility. For detailed survey results, see appendix II.

Figure 8: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Coordinating across Mission-related Activities




                                       Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 3 in app. II for detailed
                                       survey responses.


                                       The level of OAM and USCG coordination across mission support
                                       activities was less than for mission-related activities, according to
                                       surveyed officials. DHS has cited that improved efficiency, effectiveness,
                                       and interoperability in mission support activities could be achieved by
                                       decreasing mission overlap, consolidating CBP and USCG ground


                                       59
                                         OAM cited over 60 examples of a variety of coordination efforts in which OAM field units
                                       participate, including participation on an executive committee to address policy and
                                       procedure matters related to unmanned aircraft system access to the National Airspace
                                       System, supporting local High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area narcotics, money
                                       laundering, and gang investigation groups, meeting weekly with Border Patrol officials to
                                       discuss riverine matters, training USCG personnel at the National Marine Training Center
                                       in St. Augustine, Florida, and coordinating local officials to develop emergency
                                       management plans.




                                       Page 37                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                            facilities which are in close proximity, and reducing fleet diversity. Within
                            mission support activities, about 15 percent of the officials responding to
                            the survey reported that they frequently coordinated for logistics and
                            maintenance, as compared to 13 percent and 0 percent for joint training
                            and requesting assets, respectively, as shown in figure 9. OAM and
                            USCG headquarters officials said that the levels of coordination in these
                            areas may reflect differences between OAM and USCG, such as less
                            coordination of aircraft maintenance because the two agencies do not
                            have any aircraft models in common and little coordination in requesting
                            assets because field officials are not primarily responsible for these
                            duties.

                            Figure 9: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Coordinating
                            across Mission Support Activities




                            Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 3 in app. II for detailed
                            survey responses.




OAM and USCG Field          OAM and USCG officials responding to our survey said that they needed
Units Reported a Need for   more coordination across one or more mission-related areas as shown in
More Coordination to        figure 10. DHS stressed the importance of coordinating across
                            components to optimize mission performance in its strategic plans,
Share Intelligence and      establishing various departmental level councils, interagency operations
Conduct Joint Training      centers, and integrating guidance teams across components to identify
                            areas for increased coordination and provide operational oversight.
                            Specifically, DHS planning guidance for fiscal years 2011 to 2015 states
                            that conducting intelligence activities in an integrated and collaborative
                            manner helps to ensure the provision of timely, accurate, and actionable



                            Page 38                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                      intelligence and information to all DHS components and appropriate
                                      external mission partners. However, 63 percent of survey respondents
                                      reported a need for more intelligence sharing. In addition, between 33
                                      and 44 percent of respondents reported they would like to see more
                                      coordination in other mission areas, such as advanced sharing of
                                      schedules, prioritizing, and dividing mission responsibilities.

Figure 10: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Additional Coordination Needed across Mission-related
Activities




                                      Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 13 in app. II for
                                      detailed survey responses.


                                      Similarly, over half of survey respondents reported a need for more
                                      coordination of joint training, as shown in figure 11. Joint training was
                                      cited to strengthen partnerships and facilitate efficiencies in conducting
                                      joint operations and patrols. Fewer than 20 percent reported a need to
                                      further coordinate maintenance, logistics and asset requests.




                                      Page 39                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                             Figure 11: Percentage of Additional OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on
                             Additional Coordination Needed across Mission Support Activities




                             Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 13 in app. II for
                             detailed survey responses.




DHS Oversight to Increase    DHS oversight to increase coordination between OAM and USCG could
Intra-agency Coordination    provide benefits as OAM and USCG field units reported that the
of Mission and Support       coordination that occurred increased effectiveness and sometimes
                             reduced duplication of effort and achieved cost savings. In terms of
Activities Could Increase    increasing effectiveness, about 64 percent of the respondents said the
Operational Effectiveness,   current level of coordination was very or moderately effective, as shown
Reduce Duplication, and      in figure 12. Officials provided examples of how coordination was
Achieve Cost Savings         effective in leveraging operations during our site visits. For example, OAM
                             and USCG marine officials in one southwest border location stated that
                             sharing mission schedules provides greater patrol coverage of the vast
                             area of responsibility, and in one northern border location, OAM and
                             USCG marine officials stated that they fill in for each other on an ad hoc
                             basis, such as bridge inspections and other infrastructure.




                             Page 40                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Figure 12: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Overall
Coordination Effectiveness




Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 9 in app. II for detailed
survey responses.


Reduced duplication of air and maritime missions, activities, and
resources was another cited benefit of coordination. About 34 percent of
the 70 officials responding to this question reported that coordination was
very or moderately effective at reducing duplication between OAM and
USCG air and marine units, as shown in figure 13. For example, in one
southwest border location, USCG and OAM marine patrols divide up
times and geographic areas to patrol in order to avoid duplication of effort
and to reduce unnecessary consumption of resources, including fuel and
personnel. However, about 21 percent of these respondents said that
there was no duplication to reduce. For example, in one southwest border
location OAM conducts air missions over land in support of ICE and other
law enforcement entities that are not within USCG geographic area of
coverage.




Page 41                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Figure 13: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Coordination
Effectiveness in Reducing Duplication of Missions, Activities, and Resources




Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 11 in app. II for
detailed survey responses.


Of the 37 OAM officials we surveyed about cost savings resulting from
coordination, about one-third reported that some cost savings resulted
from coordination in three mission-related activities–intelligence sharing,
dividing up responsibilities for missions, and advance sharing of mission
schedules. In regard to mission support activities, about one-fourth of the
approximately 37 OAM officials reported cost savings from two
activities—joint training and logistics. USCG and OAM officials at
headquarters and some field locations stated that because the two
agencies use different aircraft, opportunities for cost savings due to
coordination of mission support activities were reduced.

DHS conducted analyses in 2009 that identified options to strengthen
oversight of OAM and USCG coordination to improve operational
effectiveness, identify duplication, and achieve cost savings by
establishing DHS headquarters-level councils and program offices,
among other things. However, DHS does not have program offices
dedicated to coordinating aviation or maritime issues. At the departmental
level, the DHS Aviation Management Council, chartered in 2004 to
provide oversight over air asset coordination, last met in 2008, when a
decision was made not to focus department-level managerial resources
on aviation. The Marine Vessel Management Council, which was
chartered in 2004 to provide marine vessel coordination, has never met,
according to officials from DHS Office of Program Analysis and
Evaluation. Both the air and marine management councils were to
provide oversight over joint management issues, such as identifying and


Page 42                                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
resolving overlaps in operational and tactical capabilities of assets,
developing common acquisition platforms for fleet and communication
equipment, and identifying and prioritizing integrated program goals and
objectives to improve mission effectiveness. Other councils, operating at
the component level without departmental representation, have faced
challenges in providing necessary oversight. For example, a DHS
program review conducted in 2009 considered alternatives, including use
of an Aviation Commodity Council as a mechanism to improve
standardization and interoperability for air-related training and use of the
Boat Commodity Council to identify areas where marine training could be
centralized or consolidated. 60 The USCG, CBP, and ICE also established
a Senior Guidance Team to provide coordination across components. 61 In
June 2011, the DHS Under Secretary for Management recommended
that the Aviation Management Council be revived to improve efficiency
and effectiveness of aviation resource management across all DHS
components. A DHS Program Analysis and Evaluation official stated in
December 2011 that the DHS Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for
Management were meeting with USCG and CBP aviation officials to
address opportunities to improve operational collaboration, asset
utilization and distribution, and propose options for joint investment,
savings, and cost reduction. In addition, an official from the DHS Office of
the Chief Administrative Officer told us that he expected that the Aviation
Management Council governance structure would be designed by March
2012. DHS action to enhance overall coordination oversight by the
reconstitution of department-level councils, by strengthening component-
level councils, or by other means, could better ensure that the agency is
maximizing opportunities identified by its field units to improve operational
effectiveness, reduce duplication, and achieve cost savings.




60
  A 2009 analysis by DHS Program Analysis and Evaluation also identified benefits to
departmental oversight of air and marine assets, such as reducing fleet diversity through
unified aviation acquisitions and decreasing overhead costs when CBP and USCG
operating areas and missions overlap.
61
  Among other things, the Senior Guidance Team was to provide oversight for the July
2011 Maritime Operations Coordination Plan, a concept of operations plan for maritime
operational coordination, planning, information sharing, intelligence integration, and
response activities.




Page 43                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
DHS Action to Pursue        DHS could better position itself to achieve operational efficiencies and
Opportunities to Colocate   cost savings by identifying and pursuing additional opportunities to
OAM and USCG Facilities     colocate OAM and USCG air and marine units. OAM and USCG officials
                            told us that as of December 2011, none of their aviation facilities were
Could Achieve Cost          colocated, that is, they do not share the same or adjacent facilities, and
Savings                     that some marine facilities were shared. 62 We previously reported that
                            spending constraints outlined in the Budget Control Act of 2011 63 and
                            focus on performance envisioned by the GPRA Modernization Act of
                            2010 point to the need for agencies to find ways to eliminate ineffective
                            and wasteful practices and become more efficient with fewer resources. 64
                            With regard to colocating air units, CBP and USCG provided a study to
                            the DHS Deputy Secretary in October 2009 that recommended 2 of 6
                            previously identified sites—Borinquen, Puerto Rico and Sacramento,
                            California—as potentially viable for colocating aviation assets through
                            fiscal year 2015. 65 Subsequently, a March 2010 cost-benefit analysis
                            estimated that in Borinquen, Puerto Rico alone, the department could
                            save over $23 million by colocating such assets. 66 A DHS Office of
                            Program Analysis and Evaluation official stated that action was not taken
                            in time to take advantage of an opportunity to lease a hangar facility
                            adjacent to the USCG facility, which would have allowed the shared use
                            of facilities, such as repair shops and fuel storage, as well as shared
                            services and assets, such as security, janitorial, and ground support
                            equipment.

                            With regard to Sacramento, California and the remaining four air sites that
                            previous DHS studies identified for potential colocation, cost-benefit



                            62
                                 OAM and USCG share some joint maintenance facilities for marine vessels.
                            63
                              On August 2, 2011, the President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, Pub. L. No.
                            112-25, 125 Stat. 240, which raised the federal government’s debt limit and established
                            discretionary spending caps for the next 10 years, among other things.
                            64
                              GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives Should
                            Be Shared Governmentwide, GAO-11-908, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011).
                            65
                              The other four locations were San Diego, California; Detroit, Michigan; and Jacksonville
                            and Miami, Florida.
                            66
                              Estimate is net present value. Present value is the worth of the future stream of costs in
                            terms of money paid immediately. This estimate illustrates the potential for cost savings
                            from colocation of facilities. These cost savings would occur because colocation would
                            avoid the need for extensive modifications and improvements over a span of 20 years at
                            the current OAM facility.




                            Page 44                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
analyses have not been completed due to various challenges, such as
agency resistance to colocation and lack of resources to conduct
necessary analyses, according to an Assistant Director from the DHS
Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation. 67

Regarding the colocation of marine units, OAM and USCG field officials
responding to our survey pointed out three additional locations where an
assessment for colocating marine facilities in Texas and Florida may
identify potential cost savings. 68 In Texas, one respondent said that
USCG has 18 land acres in one Texas location and is in the process of
demolishing and rebuilding the marine station. This respondent stated
that colocating the OAM marine unit with the USCG at the Texas location
would save money that is used to lease commercial space and boat
moorage at the present OAM location. There were similar opportunities
suggested for cost savings at two locations in Florida. One respondent
stated that colocating OAM marine units with USCG in one Florida
location would reduce OAM costs for leased space at local marinas, and
colocating OAM and USCG marine units at another Florida location would
also provide OAM the use of secured docks and ramps. None of these
opportunities to colocate marine units had yet been pursued by CBP or
USCG as of December 2011. USCG headquarters officials said that they
did not closely track initiatives at the local level and had no further
information on these colocation suggestions by their field units. Similarly,
OAM headquarters officials in the Facilities Management Division said
they had been provided no information and therefore had no plans to
pursue the colocation opportunities suggested by field units. Further,
OAM officials stated that as part of its standard practice, OAM’s Facilities
Management Division coordinates with USCG when searching for
potential unit location sites. DHS action to identify and pursue
opportunities for colocating its marine units could result in operational
efficiencies and cost savings, as envisioned by the DHS strategic plan
and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.




67
 USCG officials stated in October 2011 that they were considering moving the
Sacramento, CA facility to a military base in southern California to increase security and
move closer to the coastline.
68
  We did not assess the cost effectiveness of these proposed changes because it was
beyond the scope of our work and we report them to note that some potential
opportunities for savings were identified by survey respondents.




Page 45                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
              The limited resources that OAM has to provide support to OBP, ICE, and
Conclusions   other customers highlights the importance of effectively assessing the
              extent to which the mix and placement of OAM resources best meets
              competing needs and addresses threats across locations and
              documenting analyses to support those decisions. While OAM has
              developed strategic and deployment plans, it did not document analyses
              that clearly linked such factors as threats and mission needs to its
              resources deployment decisions. Further, while OAM has taken actions
              that could increase its ability to meet support requests, our analysis
              indicates potential issues with the mix and placement of resources, such
              as challenges in meeting its support goal and lower support rates in
              locations identified as high priority based on threats. As such,
              documenting analyses to support decisions regarding the mix and
              placement of OAM assets and personnel could help improve
              transparency of OAM’s resource decisions. Moreover, to the extent that
              the benefits outweigh the costs, taking action to ensure reassessment of
              the mix and placement of its assets could help provide OAM with
              reasonable assurance that it is most effectively allocating its scarce
              resources and aligning them to fulfill its mission needs and related
              threats. Furthermore, while OAM has established a performance measure
              to assess support provided to its customers, OAM did not disclose data
              limitations relating to the accuracy of its reported performance results for
              support provided. Such disclosure could help improve transparency for
              achieving program results and provide more objective informative on the
              relative effectiveness of the program.

              With regard to coordination, survey respondents reported that
              coordination that occurred between OAM and USCG, such as intelligence
              sharing, was effective and resulted in reduced duplication and cost
              savings. However, our survey and interviews also highlighted activities
              where additional coordination could help leverage existing resources,
              eliminate unnecessary duplication and enhance operational efficiencies,
              including an assessment of whether proximate OAM and USCG units
              should be colocated. Thus, DHS could benefit from assessing actions it
              could take to improve coordination across a range of air and marine
              activities, including reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management Council
              and Marine Vessel Management Council.




              Page 46                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                      To help ensure that OAM assets and personnel are best positioned to
Recommendations for   effectively meet mission needs and address threats, and improve
Executive Action      transparency in allocating scarce resources, we recommend that the
                      Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection take the following
                      three actions:

                      •   document analyses, including mission requirements and threats, that
                          support decisions on the mix and placement of OAM’s air and marine
                          resources;
                      •   to the extent that benefits outweigh the costs, reassess the mix and
                          placement of OAM’s air and marine resources to include mission
                          requirements, performance results, and anticipated CBP strategic and
                          technological changes; and
                      •   disclose data limitations relating to the accuracy of OAM’s reported
                          performance results for support provided.

                      To help DHS to better leverage existing resources, eliminate unnecessary
                      duplication and enhance efficiencies, we further recommend that the DHS
                      Deputy Secretary assess the feasibility of actions that could be taken to
                      improve coordination across a range of air and marine activities, including
                      reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management Council and Marine Vessel
                      Management Council. Areas under consideration for increased
                      coordination could include the colocation of proximate OAM and USCG
                      units and the five activities identified by officials as resulting in cost
                      savings, including sharing intelligence, dividing up responsibilities for
                      missions, advance sharing of mission schedules, joint training, and
                      logistics.


                      We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOD for their review and
Agency Comments       comment. DOD did not comment on the report, but DHS provided written
and Our Evaluation    comments which are reprinted in Appendix V. In commenting on the draft
                      report, DHS concurred with the recommendations and described actions
                      underway or planned to address them. While DHS did not take issue with
                      the recommendations, DHS provided details in its response that merit
                      additional discussion in two areas.

                      In its letter, DHS states that additional context regarding CBP’s processes
                      and documentation was necessary to provide a more balanced
                      assessment of the manner in which OAM allocates scarce resources in
                      support of its air and marine asset deployment and describes the
                      historical development of OAM as well as its processes for allocating
                      resources. We believe that the report presents appropriate context,



                      Page 47                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
balanced and fair analyses of the allocation of OAM personnel and flight
hours using OAM’s data, and measures OAM’s performance results using
its primary and most important performance measure for fiscal year
2010—OAM’s capability to launch an aircraft when a request is made for
support. In addition, in commenting on the draft report, DHS also states
CBP was unable to verify or duplicate GAO’s analysis of fiscal year 2010
data from TECS, but was taking steps to confirm actual figures. 69 As the
report states, we worked closely with OAM system officials to extract the
underlying data from the AMOR system and discussed our preliminary
analyses with OAM officials along with the methodology we used in
calculating OAM’s performance results. OAM officials stated that they
could not duplicate our analyses due to limitations with AMOR’s reporting
capabilities. DHS states that OAM has coordinated with the Office of
Information and Technology to develop and test a TECS report following
a methodology that will accurately report performance results within 60
days.

In regard to the recommendation that CBP document analyses, including
mission requirements and threats, that support decision on the mix and
placement of OAM’s air and marine assets, DHS concurred. DHS stated
that CBP is finalizing its Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan
and that in the next iteration of this plan, which CBP plans to initiate in the
third quarter of fiscal year 2013; CBP will provide additional
documentation of its analysis supporting decision of the mix and
placement of air and marine resources, including mission requirements
and threats. Such actions should increase transparency and demonstrate
that resource deployment decisions are responsive to customer need and
threat.

DHS also concurred with the recommendation to reassess the mix and
placement of OAM’s air and marine resources to include mission
requirements, performance results, and anticipated CBP strategic and
technological changes to the extent that the benefits outweigh the costs
stating that it planned to complete such actions as part of the next
iteration of the Aircraft Deployment Plan. Further, DHS states that based
on budgetary forecasts, OAM expects that its budget will continue to
decrease and that as a result, OAM will meet a lower percentage of



69
  The Air and Marine Operations Reporting system (AMOR) is a module housed in TECS,
a legacy DHS system.




Page 48                                        GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
requests for air support in coming years. We acknowledge these
concerns and believe that a reassessment of the right mix and placement
of resources is particularly important in a constrained budgetary
environment and should provide reasonable assurance that it is most
effectively allocating its scarce resources and aligning them to fulfill its
mission needs and related threats.

Regarding the recommendation to disclose data limitations relating to the
accuracy of OAM’s reported performance results for support provided,
DHS concurred. It also reported that CBP is modifying its performance
measure beginning with the reporting of fiscal year 2011 results and plans
to disclose applicable data limitations related to performance results.
Such actions should improve transparency for achieving program results
and provide more objective information on the relative effectiveness of the
program.

In regard to the recommendation that DHS assess the feasibility of
actions it could take to improve coordination across a range of air and
marine activities, including reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management
Council and Marine Vessel Management Council, DHS concurred and
described multiple initiatives it had underway to improve coordination
across air and marine activities. Such activities included DHS meetings
between CBP and USCG aviation officials to explore options for joint
acquisitions, colocation, air operations, and aviation governance; and a
cost-benefit assessment analyzing potential efficiencies with DHS
aviation activities including maintenance, training, and ground handling
equipment. DHS also identified coordination efforts of its component-level
Boat Commodity Council to transfer used vessels from USCG to CBP.
DHS discussed attendance at a January 2012 interagency meeting
hosted by CBP that discussed helicopter and marine vessel acquisitions,
the P-3 aircraft Service Life Extension Program, potential opportunities for
consolidation of facilities and locations of new support units and the Fiscal
Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan. While these are positive initial
steps and could help improve coordination, we continue to believe that it
will be important for DHS to assess the feasibility of actions to further
improve coordination of air and marine activities on a more permanent
basis, such as reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management Council and
Marine Vessel Management Council, among other possible actions.

DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated as
appropriate.




Page 49                                     GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and interested
congressional committees as appropriate. The report will also be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix VI.




Rebecca Gambler
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues




Page 50                                     GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
                        Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
                        Methodology



Methodology

Objectives              This report addresses the extent that the U.S. Customs and Border
                        Protection (CBP) has the right mix of air and marine assets in the right
                        locations to meet customer needs, and effectively coordinated with the
                        U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Specifically, we reviewed the extent that the
                        Office of Air and Marine (OAM):

                        (1) met air and marine support requests across locations, customers, and
                        missions,

                        (2) has taken steps to ensure that its mix and placement of resources met
                        its mission needs and addressed threats, and

                        (3) coordinated the operational use of its air and marine assets and
                        personnel with the USCG.


Scope and Methodology   For all three objectives, we collected and analyzed relevant operational
                        documents; annual reports; cooperation agreements and memoranda
                        among federal agencies; budget information; and other relevant
                        information issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
                        DHS’s Program Analysis and Evaluation office, CBP’s Office of Border
                        Patrol and OAM, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
                        USCG, and the Department of Defense (DOD). We also collected
                        relevant information, data and documentation, such as cooperative
                        agreements between local agencies, at each of the site visits. We also
                        interviewed officials from DHS’s Program Analysis and Evaluation office,
                        Division of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, as well as
                        headquarters officials from CBP, OAM, Border Patrol, ICE, and USCG. In
                        addition, we met with DOD officials responsible for programs intended to
                        enhance maritime and air domain awareness and obtained relevant
                        reports and documents on these efforts. We also reviewed past GAO
                        reports and DHS studies discussing opportunities for increased
                        coordination and discussed ongoing DHS efforts to increase oversight
                        over air and marine assets with officials from DHS’s Chief Administrative
                        Officer. We also conducted a site visit to OAM’s Air and Marine
                        operations Center at Riverside, California where we interviewed officials
                        and were provided a briefing on the Air and Marine Operations Center
                        operations, including a tour of the center.

                        We conducted site visits to 4 of the 23 OAM branch offices, including air
                        and marine units associated with those branches. At the site visits, we
                        conducted semi-structured interviews with personnel from OAM
                        operational air and marine units, USCG, ICE, and the Border Patrol, as


                        Page 51                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                   Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
                   Methodology




                   well as some local law enforcement officials (OAM marine and the USCG
                   are not present at one location we visited). We selected these 4 locations
                   because they illustrated OAM operations at both the northern and
                   southern U.S. borders, a mix of threats (terrorism, drug smuggling, and
                   illegal immigration), operating environments for air (desert, forest, urban
                   and rural), as well as marine operations along the coasts, on the Great
                   Lakes, and, in the case of a southeast location, interactions with the Joint
                   Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-S) at Key West, Florida. All 4 also
                   provide support for ICE and Border Patrol operations in the interior of the
                   country. In addition, the 4 sites provided coverage in terms of the three
                   geographic regions into which OAM units are divided administratively
                   (southwest, southeast, northern). Three of the 4 sites include both OAM
                   and USCG entities with air and/or marine assets in close geographic
                   proximity, and the agencies use an array of air and marine assets under
                   varying operational conditions. We also interviewed officials from JIATF-S
                   to obtain information on that location’s coordinated operations covering
                   parts of the Gulf of Mexico, the straits of Florida, the Caribbean and the
                   Central and South America transit zone for illegal smuggling of persons
                   and contraband.

AMOR System Data   To address objectives 1 and 2, we obtained performance data for fiscal
                   year 2010 covering the time period of October 1, 2007, through
                   September 30, 2010, from OAM’s system of record—the Air and Marine
                   Operations Reporting System (AMOR)—which is a module in ICE’s Case
                   Management System, which is in turn part of TECS, a legacy DHS
                   system. This performance data primarily included the number of air and
                   marine support requests that were met and not met, and the reasons why
                   the requests were not met.

                   Due to the lack of (1) documentation as to the number and identity of the
                   AMOR tables, (2) the keys required to join them, (3) the business rules
                   required to use the data correctly, and (4) AMOR subject matter experts,
                   we were unable to obtain copies of the AMOR data files. 1 Instead, we
                   obtained copies of the temporary data extract files produced when
                   individual reports are requested and produced by the AMOR system for
                   the following reports:



                   1
                    Tables are the basic structures within databases that are used to store data; table keys
                   are required to uniquely identify each record in a table, and to link similar records from
                   different tables.




                   Page 52                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology




•   Enforcement Support Report 02: Support Requests by Agency
•   Miscellaneous Report 01: No Launch Activities by Branch
•   Flight Hours Report 06: Flight Hours by Type of Aircraft
•   Flight Hours Report 09: Flight Hours by Mission
•   Service Hours Report 03: Service Hours by Type of Vessel

We found that data on unmet air and marine support requests prior to
fiscal year 2010 may not have been entered consistently and only used
data from fiscal year 2010 in our analysis. For example, at two of the four
locations we visited, we found that a number of unmet air support
requests were not entered properly prior to fiscal year 2010. We also
found that many of the data entries for unmet support requests identifying
which agency an activity (e.g., flight) supported were left blank for fiscal
year 2010, including 16 percent in support of requests for air enforcement
activities and 93 percent in support of requests for marine enforcement
activities. In interviews with OAM officials, they said these blank entries
represented unmet support requests most likely in support of OAM.
Based on these limitations, we did not report unmet support requests by
customer for marine activities.

We used the 2010 Air data from Enforcement Support Report 02 and
Miscellaneous Report 01 to replicate OAM’s performance measure
calculation by branch. First, we determined which Miscellaneous Report
01 no launches were in support of Border Patrol (BPL) as follows:

•   Include only no launches where BPL is listed in any of the five in
    support of codes
•   Exclude the following no launch categories:
    •     39: Canceled by requester
    •     01: Target Legal
    •     03: Lost Target- prior to launch
    •     07: Visual sighting
    •     08: Locate only
    •     11: Insufficient/Inadequate
    •     16: Weather
    •     17: Information not timely
    •     27: Target return to foreign
    •     40: Request did not meet GSA requirements
    •     41: Suspect no show
    •     42: Geographic limitation/Distance too
    •     44: No launch/Ground
    •     45: No launch/NAV violation
    •     46: No country clearance


Page 53                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology




      •     56: Static display—not operated for display
      •     57: Certificate of Authorization Restrictions

We then determined the number of BPL launches from Enforcement
Report 02 and calculated the OAM performance measure for BPL support
as follows:

•     Total requests = launches + no launches
•     Percentage of support requests met = launches / total requests

Finally, we mapped the Border Patrol sectors to the OAM branches as
follows:

Table 4: OAM Branches that Serve Border Patrol Sectors

 Border Region                    Border Patrol Sector       OAM Branch
 Northern                         Blaine                     Bellingham Air and Marine Branch
                                  Buffalo                    Buffalo Air and Marine Branch
                                  Detroit                    Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch
                                  Grand Forks                North Dakota Air Branch
                                  Havre                      Montana Air Branch
                                  Houlton                    Houlton Air Branch
                                  Spokane                    Spokane Air Branch
                                  Swanton                    Plattsburgh Air Branch
 Southeast                        Miami                      Jacksonville Air and Marine Branch
                                                             Miami Air and Marine Branch
                                  New Orleans                New Orleans Air and Marine Branch
                                  Ramey                      Caribbean Air and Marine Branch
 Southwest                        Del Rio                    Del Rio Air Branch
                                  El Centro                  El Centro Air Branch
                                  El Paso                    El Paso Air Branch
                                  Laredo                     Laredo Air Branch
                                  Big Bend                   Alpine Air Branch
                                  Rio Grande Valley          Houston Air and Marine Branch
                                                             McAllen Air and Marine Branch
                                  San Diego                  San Diego Air and Marine Branch
                                  Tucson                     Tucson Air Branch
                                  Yuma                       Yuma Air Branch
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol and OAM information.

Note: In fiscal year 2010, the Border Patrol requested and received air support from OAM NASOCs
and did not request air support from the National Capital Region Air Branch.



Page 54                                                        GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                              Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
                              Methodology




                              As part of our data reliability assessment, we performed electronic data
                              testing for the data elements in the report extract files that we used;
                              reviewed available system and user documentation, including user guides
                              and data dictionaries; compared totals for the same time periods between
                              similar variables from different reports; and reviewed our preliminary
                              analyses with knowledgeable OAM officials, including the TECS Systems
                              Control Officer. 2 We determined that the AMOR data used in the report
                              were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

Web-based Self-administered   To address objectives 1 and 3, we conducted a web-based, self-
Survey                        administered questionnaire survey about coordination and related issues
                              with all OAM air, OAM marine, USCG air and USCG marine units
                              nationwide and in the Caribbean identified as being likely to coordinate
                              with each other by OAM and USCG headquarters. We asked OAM and
                              USCG headquarters points of contact to identify the USCG units that
                              were most likely to be coordinating their operations in some regard with
                              proximately located OAM air and marine units. A total of 86 OAM and
                              USCG units were identified by the headquarters’ points of contact and
                              senior officers from these units were asked to respond. 3

                              The survey questions, although nearly identical, were tailored specifically
                              to each type of unit—OAM air, OAM marine, USCG air and USCG
                              marine. OAM air and OAM marine were asked about the sufficiency of
                              their assets to perform certain types of missions; this was not included in
                              the USCG questionnaires, as it was considered outside the scope of the
                              engagement. The survey questions and summary results are included in
                              appendix II. The questionnaire was pre-tested with two OAM air units and
                              two OAM marine units. In addition, draft versions were reviewed by
                              cognizant OAM and USCG headquarters’ personnel, and by a survey
                              methodologist at GAO. We made adjustments to question wording and
                              order based on pre-test results and review comments we received.

                              The survey was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire
                              posted on the web. We contacted intended recipients via e-mail before



                              2
                               The process we used to extract, reconcile, and convert OAM operational data for
                              analysis took over 6 months to complete.
                              3      th
                               An 87 unit, an OAM marine unit in San Juan, Puerto Rico, was closed by OAM in the
                              spring of 2011, and did not answer the survey. Since the unit closed, we did not include it
                              in the count of eligible units.




                              Page 55                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                      Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
                                      Methodology




                                      the survey to establish that the correct respondent had been identified,
                                      and later with passwords and links to the questionnaire. We made follow-
                                      up contacts with nonrespondents by e-mail and phone throughout the
                                      field period. Headquarters (USCG and OAM) points of contact were also
                                      sent email reminders to those not yet responding. The survey data were
                                      collected from May 4 through May 24, 2011. We received completed
                                      questionnaires from all the recipients, for a 100 percent unit-level
                                      response rate, although not all units answered each question in the
                                      survey. Table 5 below shows the proximately located OAM and USCG air
                                      and marine units to which the survey was sent.

Table 5: OAM and USCG Units to Which the Survey Was Sent

OAM Air Locations                                            USCG Air Location
Bellingham Air and Marine Branch                             Air Station Port Angeles
Brown Field Air Unit                                         Sector San Diego
San Diego Air and Marine Branch
Buffalo Air and Marine Unit                                  Air Station Detroit
Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch
Plattsburgh Air Unit
Caribbean Air and Marine Branch                              Air Station Borinquen
Houlton Air Unit                                             Air Station Cape Cod
Houston Air and Marine Branch                                Air Station Houston
McAllen Air Branch
Jacksonville Air and Marine Branch                           Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron – Jacksonville
NASOC – Jacksonville
Miami Air and Marine Branch                                  Air Station Miami
NASOC – Corpus Christi                                       Sector Corpus Christi
National Capital Region Air Branch                           Air Station Atlantic City / National Capital Region Branch
New Orleans Air and Marine Branch                            Air Station New Orleans
Sacramento Air Unit                                          Air Station Sacramento
Tampa Air Unit                                               Air Station Clearwater


OAM Marine Location                                          USCG Marine Location
Bellingham Marine Unit                                       Station Bellingham
Brownsville Marine Unit                                      Station South Padre Island
Buffalo Marine Unit                                          Station Buffalo
Corpus Christi Marine Unit                                   Station Port Aransas
Erie Marine Unit                                             Station Erie




                                      Page 56                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                               Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
                               Methodology




Fort Lauderdale Marine Unit                           Station Fort Lauderdale
Fort Myers Marine Unit                                Station Fort Myers Beach
Fort Pierce Marine Unit                               Station Fort Pierce
Galveston Marine Unit                                 Station Galveston
Jacksonville Marine Unit                              Station Mayport
Key Largo Marine Unit                                 Station Islamorada
Marathon Marine Unit                                  Station Marathon
Miami Marine Unit                                     Station Miami Beach
Ponce Marine Unit                                     Station Ponce De Leon Inlet
Port Angeles Marine Unit                              Station Port Angeles
Port Huron Marine Unit                                Station Port Huron
Rochester Marine Unit                                 Station Rochester
San Diego Marine Unit                                 Station San Diego
Sandusky Marine Unit                                  Station Marblehead
Sault Ste. Marie Marine Unit                          Station Sault Ste. Marie
Saint Thomas Marine Unit                              Marine Safety Detachment Saint Thomas
Tampa Marine Unit                                     Station Saint Petersburg
Trenton Marine Unit                                   Station Belle Isle
West Palm Marine Unit                                 Station Lake Worth Inlet
                               Source: GAO.



                               We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through February
                               2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
                               standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
                               obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
                               our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
                               that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
                               and conclusions based on our audit objectives.




                               Page 57                                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses
             Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




             The questions we asked in our survey of OAM and USCG air and marine
             units are shown below. Our survey was comprised of closed-ended and
             open-ended questions. In this appendix, we include all the survey
             questions and aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended
             questions; we do not provide responses to the open-ended questions for
             ease of reporting. The tables of aggregated response totals to each
             question are broken down by branch and type of unit. Not all eligible
             respondents answered each question. Questions 16, 17, and 18 were
             included only in the OAM surveys. For a more detailed discussion of our
             survey methodology see appendix I.



              Survey of Coordination of Air Operations and Assets at OAM/USCG
                         Locations U.S. Government Accountability Office


             The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is reviewing the assets
             and operations of CBP's Office of Air and Marine (OAM). As part of this
             effort, GAO is reviewing the coordination between OAM and the U.S.
             Coast Guard (USCG).

             This questionnaire gathers information on coordination-related issues
             regarding air missions (including air patrols, interdiction of contraband or
             other illegal activities, surveillance, etc.), air-related training, determining
             air asset requirements, and the extent to which you have the appropriate
             resources for mission activities.

             If you would like to see or print the questionnaire before completing it
             online, click here to open. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view
             this. If you do not have this program, click here to download this software.

             If you have a question about this questionnaire or the GAO review, please
             call or email either:

             [names and contact information redacted]

             About You and Your Location
             Question 1: Who is the person primarily responsible for completing this questionnaire
             whom we can contact in case we need to clarify a response? Enter text or numbers
             in each of the spaces below.




             Page 58                                          GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                    Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                    Name:                       [Open-ended answers not displayed]
                                                    Title/Rank:                 [Open-ended answers not displayed]


                                                    Organization                [Open-ended answers not displayed]
                                                    (e.g., Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch)


                                                    Location (City, State):     [Open-ended answers not displayed]
                                                    Phone:                      [Open-ended answers not displayed]
                                                    Email:                      [Open-ended answers not displayed]


                                                    Coordination of Air/Maritime Mission Activities


                                                    Question 2: We realize that different OAM locations may have varying needs for
                                                    coordination with the USCG unit there or nearby, and may not need to coordinate if
                                                    operating areas and activities do not overlap. The next two questions ask whether
                                                    your unit participates in any formal or informal entities intended to enhance or
                                                    promote coordination, and in what specific ways, if any, it coordinates with the USCG.

                                                    At your location, do OAM and USCG currently use any of the following entities to
                                                    coordinate in advance of air/maritime missions, and if so, about how frequently is
                                                    each entity used to coordinate?

                                                    (Coordination prior to air/maritime missions might include sharing schedules or
                                                    intelligence, among other things.) Click the one button in each row that best
                                                    describes your use or nonuse of that entity for mission coordination. [Table II.1
                                                    Answers to Survey Question 2]

                                                               Not                Used                         Used on
                                                        currently     Used    weekly or     Used       Used     ad hoc   Don't   Number of
                                                              used    daily   bi-weekly   monthly   annually     basis   Know Respondents
National coordinating entity (e.g.,   OAM Air                   12       1                                           4      1            18
DHS Air Council, DHS Boat             OAM Marine                22                             2                     1      2            27
Commodity Council)                    USCG Air                  11                   1                    1                              13
                                      USCG Marine               20                                        1                 7            28
Regional coordinating entity (e.g., OAM Air                       9      4                     2                     2      1            18
JIATF-S)                              OAM Marine                19       1           1         3          1          2                   27
                                      USCG Air                    6      4           1                    1          1                   13
                                      USCG Marine               18                   1         2          2          2      3            28




                                                    Page 59                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                     Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                                Not                   Used                             Used on
                                                         currently        Used    weekly or      Used          Used     ad hoc      Don't   Number of
                                                               used       daily   bi-weekly    monthly      annually        basis   Know Respondents
Local coordinating entity (e.g.,       OAM Air                    6          4            1         2                          4       1           18
San Diego Maritime Unified             OAM Marine                16          5            1         2                          3                   27
Command, or Interagency                USCG Air                   4          3            3         1                          2                   13
Operations Center)                     USCG Marine               10          4            3         4                          5       2           28
Informal local coordinating group      OAM Air                    7          4            1         1                          4       1           18
(e.g., one that does not have a        OAM Marine                 6          9            8         2                          2                   27
charter)                               USCG Air                   6          1            2         2                          1       1           13
                                       USCG Marine                6          4            8         4             1            3       2           28
Informal contacts between              OAM Air                    5          3            1                                    8                   17
individuals prior to air missions /    OAM Marine                 2         14            4         1                          5       1           27
maritime missions                      USCG Air                   3          2            1         2                          5                   13
                                       USCG Marine                4          5            12        1                          5       1           28
Other entities - describe in box       OAM Air                    6          2                                                 1       3           12
below:                                 OAM Marine                11          2            2         3                          1       1           20
                                       USCG Air                   5                                 1                          1                    7
                                       USCG Marine                5          1            3         4                                  8           21




                                                     IF OTHER:
                                                     [Open-ended answers not displayed]


                                                     Question 3: At your location, do OAM and USCG currently coordinate air/maritime
                                                     missions, activities, or resources in any of the following ways? And if so, about how
                                                     often do you think that form of coordination is used? [Table II.2 Answers to Survey
                                                     Question 3]

                                                        Not currently        Frequently    Occasionally                                     Number of
                                                                 used             Used            used       Rarely used       Don't know Respondents
Advance sharing of mission            OAM Air                         7               9                 1               1                          18
schedules                             OAM Marine                      8              14                 4               1                          27
                                      USCG Air                        3               5                 3               2                          13
                                      USCG Marine                     6               9             11                  2                          28
Joint prioritization of missions      OAM Air                         9               4                 4               1                          18
                                      OAM Marine                      6               8                 9               4                          27
                                      USCG Air                        6                                 5               2                          13
                                      USCG Marine                     7               7             10                  4                          28




                                                     Page 60                                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                 Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                    Not currently   Frequently   Occasionally                               Number of
                                                            used         Used           used    Rarely used   Don't know Respondents
Dividing up mission                OAM Air                     8            4              4             2                          18
assignments                        OAM Marine                 10            4              9             4                          27
                                   USCG Air                    5            1              4             3                          13
                                   USCG Marine                 4            8             11             5                          28
Dividing up responsibilities for   OAM Air                     8            4              4             2                          18
unscheduled, emergent or           OAM Marine                  6            7             10             4                          27
missions in-progress               USCG Air                    6            1              5             1                          13
                                   USCG Marine                 5            9              9             5                          28
Sharing of intelligence            OAM Air                     5            9              3             1                          18
                                   OAM Marine                              22              4             1                          27
                                   USCG Air                    2            2              3             4             2            13
                                   USCG Marine                 3           13              9             3                          28
Joint air-related / maritime-      OAM Air                    10            1              3             4                          18
related training opportunities     OAM Marine                  2            5             16             4                          27
                                   USCG Air                    4            1              5             3                          13
                                   USCG Marine                 6            4             15             3                          28
Requesting new assets or           OAM Air                    14                           2             1             1            18
changes to assets                  OAM Marine                 15                           1             8             3            27
                                   USCG Air                    7                                         5             1            13
                                   USCG Marine                16                           5             7                          28
Logistics                          OAM Air                    12                           3             2             1            18
                                   OAM Marine                  6            4              9             3             4            26
                                   USCG Air                    7                           3             3                          13
                                   USCG Marine                 8            9              8             3                          28
Maintenance                        OAM Air                    14                           2             2                          18
                                   OAM Marine                 14            7              2             3             1            27
                                   USCG Air                    9                           1             3                          13
                                   USCG Marine                15            6              3             4                          28
Other ways - describe in box       OAM Air                     6            1              1             1             3            12
below:                             OAM Marine                  8            3              3                           4            18
                                   USCG Air                    6                                         1             1             8
                                   USCG Marine                 7            4              1                           5            17


                                                 IF OTHER:
                                                 [Open-ended answers not displayed]




                                                 Page 61                                           GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                 Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                 Question 4: IF ANY AIR/MARITIME MISSION COORDINATION TAKES PLACE:
                                 What is the one USCG/OAM unit with which your unit has the most coordination?
                                 Please enter approximate distance between your unit and the coordinating unit as a
                                 whole number of miles.

                                 [Table II.3 Answers to Survey Question 4]


                                 Unit name:         [Open-ended answers not displayed]
                                 Unit location:     [Open-ended answers not displayed]
                                 Distance to that unit in miles:     ___ miles


                                                                                                                           Number of
                                           Distance to that Unit in Miles                                                Respondents
                             10th          25th                                    75th           90th
              Minimum   Percentile   Percentile      Mean          Median    Percentile      Percentile   Maximum
OAM Air             1           1             2       70.8             50              90          150         360                14
OAM Marine          0           1             2       13.7              4              10           30         120                25
USCG Air            1           1             1       58.0             25              60          200         260                11
USCG Marine         1           1             1       12.8              4              15           30         110                18



                                 Question 5: IF NO AIR/MARITIME MISSION COORDINATION IN QUESTIONS 2
                                 AND 3 ABOVE:

                                 What is the reason(s) why there is no coordination between OAM and USCG on
                                 air/maritime missions, activities, and resources at this location? [Table II.4 Answers to
                                 Survey Question 5]


                                                                       Little or no
                                                                        overlap in
                                                                        operating       Other reason
                                                                            areas or    - describe in       Number of
                                                                         activities         box below:    Respondents
                                                  OAM Air                         6                  2               8
                                                  OAM Marine                      2                  6               8
                                                  USCG Air                        2                  1               3
                                                  USCG Marine                     1                  6               7




                                 Page 62                                                      GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




IF OTHER:
[Open-ended answers not displayed]
IF NO AIR/MARITIME MISSION COORDINATION IN QUESTIONS 2 AND 3: Click
the link below to skip to question 13, the next applicable question. (If you do
coordinate, continue with next page.)

Click here to skip to Question 13

Guidance for Coordination


Question 6A: Are any of the following types of written guidance (including policies,
agreements, MOUs) used to govern, guide or carry out any coordination prior to
air/maritime missions between OAM and USCG at or near your location? Please click
yes or no for each type. [Table II.5 Answers to Survey Question 6]


                                                                     Number of
                                                        Yes No     Respondents
          DHS guidance / interagency     OAM Air          4   8             12
          agreements - Used?             OAM Marine      16   9             25
                                         USCG Air         4   7             11
                                         USCG Marine     13   9             22
          USCG guidance - Used?          OAM Air          4   8             12
                                         OAM Marine      17   8             25
                                         USCG Air         3   8             11
                                         USCG Marine     19   2             21
          Locally-developed guidance /   OAM Air          7   5             12
          MOU - Used?                    OAM Marine      16   9             25
                                         USCG Air         7   4             11
                                         USCG Marine     10   12            22
          Other guidance - Used?         OAM Air          3   6              9
                                         OAM Marine       5   12            17
                                         USCG Air         1   5              6
                                         USCG Marine      2   16            18


Question 6B: If yes, how helpful are they to furthering coordination on air/maritime
missions?

For those used, please additionally click one "helpfulness" button. [Table II.6 Answers
to Survey Question 6]



Page 63                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                             Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                                      Moderately    Slightly    Not at all      Don't     Number of
                                                       Very helpful      helpful     helpful      helpful       know    Respondents
DHS guidance / interagency     OAM Air                                        2           2                        4              8
agreements - IF YES:           OAM Marine                        9            4           4             1          1              19
                               USCG Air                                       2           3                                       5
                               USCG Marine                       4            3           4             2          1              14
USCG guidance - IF YES:        OAM Air                           1            2           1                        4              8
                               OAM Marine                        7            5           7             1          1              21
                               USCG Air                          1            2           1                                       4
                               USCG Marine                       6            5           7             3                         21
Locally-developed guidance /   OAM Air                           4            2           1                        2              9
MOU - IF YES:                  OAM Marine                       11            3           2                        1              17
                               USCG Air                          2            2           3                                       7
                               USCG Marine                       3            6           1             2                         12
Other guidance - IF YES:       OAM Air                           2            1                                    1              4
                               OAM Marine                        3                                      1          2              6
                               USCG Air                          1                                                                1
                               USCG Marine                       1                        1             1          2              5



                                             IF OTHER:
                                             [Open-ended answers not displayed]


                                             Question 7: IF YES TO ANY GUIDANCE:
                                             If an electronic copy of the guidance is available, please upload that file(s) by
                                             browsing to its location on your computer, using the box below. Please only upload
                                             files under 2Mb in size.


                                             [No results to report because this asked for copies of guidance]


                                             Opinions on Coordination
                                             Question 8: How much of an increase in effectiveness, if any, has resulted from using
                                             any of the following entities to coordinate between OAM and USCG at or near your
                                             location prior to air/maritime missions? Click the one button in each row that best
                                             describes the increase in effectiveness from coordinating through that entity. If that
                                             entity is not used, click "Not currently used." [Table II. 7 Answers to Survey
                                             Question 8]




                                             Page 64                                           GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                  Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                                   Not                     A
                                                              currently    A great moderate     A slight        No    Don't     Number of
                                                                  used    increase   increase   increase   increase   know    Respondents
National coordinating entity (e.g.,    OAM Air                      11                                           2                      13
DHS Air Council, DHS Boat              OAM Marine                   15           1         4          1          2        1             24
Commodity Council)                     USCG Air                      9                                1                   1             11
                                       USCG Marine                   9                                1          2      10              22
Regional coordinating entity (e.g.,    OAM Air                       5           2         1          2          2        1             13
JIATF-S)                               OAM Marine                   14           1         4          1          3        1             24
                                       USCG Air                      5           3         1          2                                 11
                                       USCG Marine                   9                     1          3          2        7             22
Local coordinating entity (e.g., San   OAM Air                       2           2         3          3          1        2             13
Diego Maritime Unified Command,        OAM Marine                   10           4         2          3          4        1             24
or Interagency Operations Center)      USCG Air                      3           2         3          2                   1             11
                                       USCG Marine                   2           3         5          4          3        5             22
Informal local coordinating group      OAM Air                       2           3         3          3          1        1             13
(e.g., one that does not have a        OAM Marine                    3           6         7          7          1                      24
charter)                               USCG Air                      4           1         5          1                                 11
                                       USCG Marine                   1           8         4          3          5        1             22
Informal contacts between              OAM Air                       1           2         6          2                   2             13
individuals prior to air missions /    OAM Marine                                9         8          3          3        1             24
maritime missions                      USCG Air                      4           2         3          2                                 11
                                       USCG Marine                             10          5          4          3                      22
Other entities - describe in box       OAM Air                       2           1                    1                   3                 7
below:                                 OAM Marine                    5           3         1                              2             11
                                       USCG Air                      4                                                    1                 5
                                       USCG Marine                   5           2                               2        3             12



                                                  IF OTHER:

                                                  [Open-ended answers not displayed]


                                                  Question 9: Overall, how effective is the current level of air-related/maritime-related
                                                  coordination between OAM and USCG at your location? [Table II.8 Answers to
                                                  Survey Question 9]




                                                  Page 65                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                               Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                              Very        Moderately Somewhat           Slightly Not at all      Don't         Number of
                                                          effective         effective    effective     effective     effective   know        Respondents
                                 OAM Air                         2                 4            3                3                  1                 13
                                 OAM Marine                      8                 9            2                3          1                         23
                                 USCG Air                        1                 5            2                2          1                         11
                                 USCG Marine                     6                 9            2                3          2                         22



                                               Question 10: How much reduction in duplication of air/maritime missions, activities
                                               and resources, if any, has resulted from using any of the following entities to
                                               coordinate between OAM and USCG? Click the one button in each row that best
                                               describes the reduction in duplication from coordinating through that entity. If that
                                               entity is not used, click "Not currently used." [Table II.9 Answers to Survey
                                               Question 10]

                                                                                                                     There was
                                                   Not                             A                                        no
                                              currently       A great      moderate      A slight          No duplication         Don't        Number of
                                                  used     reduction      reduction     reduction    reduction       to reduce    know       Respondents
National coordinating entity   OAM Air               8                                                       3               2                        13
(e.g., DHS Air Council, DHS    OAM Marine           15                2            1           1             2               1           2            24
Boat Commodity Council)        USCG Air              6                                                       1               2           2            11
                               USCG
                               Marine               11                                                       2               3           6            22
Regional coordinating entity   OAM Air               4                                         2             3               3           1            13
(e.g., JIATF-S)                OAM Marine           14                1            4           1             2               1           1            24
                               USCG Air              5                1                        1             2               1           1            11
                               USCG
                               Marine               10                                         2             2               4           4            22
Local coordinating entity      OAM Air               2                1            1           3             1               4           1            13
(e.g., San Diego Maritime      OAM Marine            9                1            5           2             3               2           1            23
Unified Command, or            USCG Air              1                1            2           2             2               2           1            11
Interagency Operations         USCG
Center)                        Marine                3                2            2           4             2               4           4            21
Informal local coordinating    OAM Air               4                2                        3             1               3                        13
group (e.g., one that does not OAM Marine            3                4            5           5             4               3                        24
have a charter)                USCG Air              4                             2           2                             2           1            11
                               USCG
                               Marine                1                             6           6             2               4           2            21
Informal contacts between      OAM Air               1                2            1           3             1               4           1            13




                                               Page 66                                                       GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                 Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                                                                                             There was
                                                    Not                                  A                                             no
                                               currently          A great         moderate       A slight            No duplication              Don't        Number of
                                                   used        reduction          reduction     reduction   reduction         to reduce          know       Respondents
individuals prior to air       OAM Marine                                 5                 6          5               3                4               1            24
missions                       USCG Air                   3               2                 1          2                                2               1            11
                               USCG
                               Marine                                     4                 6          2               3                4               2            21
Other entities - describe in   OAM Air                    2               1                            1               2                1               1             8
box below:                     OAM Marine                 6               3                            1                                1               3            14
                               USCG Air                   4                                                                             1               1             6
                               USCG
                               Marine                     5                                 1                                           2               4            12

                                                 IF OTHER:
                                                 [Open-ended answers not displayed]

                                                 Question 11: Overall, how effective is the current level of coordination between OAM
                                                 and USCG at your location at reducing duplication of air/maritime missions, activities,
                                                 and resources? [Table II.10 Answers to Survey Question 11]

                                                                                                                                 No
                                   Very     Moderately          Somewhat               Slightly        Not at all      duplication                           Number of
                               effective      effective           effective           effective        effective           to reduce    Don't know Respondents
OAM Air                                 1            2                        1                 3                                 6                                 13
OAM Marine                              4            5                        4                 3              2                  5                 1               24
USCG Air                                             2                        4                 1              1                  3                                 11
USCG Marine                             6            4                        3                 4              3                  1                 1               22



                                                 Question 12: How much cost savings for your unit, if any, has resulted from
                                                 coordination prior to air/maritime missions between OAM and USCG in any of the
                                                 following ways? Click the one button in each row that best describes the amount of
                                                 cost savings resulting from that type of coordination. If that type of coordination is not
                                                 used, click "Not currently used." [Table II.11 Answers to Survey Question 12]

                                                                   Not
                                                              currently             Great       Moderate            Slight                      Don't         Number of
                                                                  used            savings        savings      savings No savings                know        Respondents
Advance sharing of mission          OAM Air                          1                  1              2                4                   4      1                 13
schedules                           OAM Marine                       6                                 2                3                   8      5                 24




                                                 Page 67                                                                GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                  Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                              Not
                                                         currently         Great   Moderate      Slight                  Don't     Number of
                                                             used        savings     savings   savings No savings        know    Respondents
Joint prioritization of missions     OAM Air                       3          2           1           2             3       2             13
                                     OAM Marine                    5                      2           4             8       5             24
Dividing up mission assignments      OAM Air                       3          2                       1             5       2             13
                                     OAM Marine                    8                      2           4             5       5             24
Dividing up responsibilities for     OAM Air                       3          2           2           1             4       1             13
unscheduled, emergent or             OAM Marine
missions in-progress                                               5                      3           5             6       5             24
Sharing of intelligence              OAM Air                       2          4           1           1             2       3             13
                                     OAM Marine                    1          1           3           4             10      5             24
Joint air-related training           OAM Air                       7          1                       2             3                     13
opportunities                        OAM Marine                    3          1           1           4             12      3             24
Requesting new assets or             OAM Air                       8                                  1             3       1             13
changes to assets                    OAM Marine                12                                     2             6       4             24
Logistics                            OAM Air                       6                      1                         3       2             12
                                     OAM Marine                    5          3           1           5             4       5             23
Maintenance                          OAM Air                       8                      1           1             3                     13
                                     OAM Marine                    9                      1           3             4       7             24
Other ways - describe in box         OAM Air                       3                                  1             2       1              7
below:                               OAM Marine                    6          3           1                         2       4             16



                                                  IF OTHER:

                                                  [Open-ended answers not displayed]


                                                  Question 13: In your opinion, should there be more, less, or about the same amount
                                                  or frequency of coordination on air/maritime missions, activities, or resources
                                                  between OAM and USCG at or near your location in each of the following ways? If
                                                  there is currently no coordination in a particular way, and that is the appropriate level,
                                                  click "About the same" for that row. [Table II.12 Answers to Survey Question 13]

                                                            Much       Somewhat    About the Somewhat      Much          Don't     Number of
                                                            more           more       same        less       less        know    Respondents
Advance sharing of mission         OAM Air                     1              2          15                                               18
schedules                          OAM Marine                  3              4          18          1         1                          27
                                   USCG Air                    2              4           7                                               13
                                   USCG Marine                 7             11           9                                               27




                                                  Page 68                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                 Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                                           Much   Somewhat    About the Somewhat    Much      Don't      Number of
                                                           more       more           same   less     less     know     Respondents
Joint prioritization of missions   OAM Air                               3             15                                       18
                                   OAM Marine                 3          6             16               1         1             27
                                   USCG Air                   3          3              7                                       13
                                   USCG Marine                7         12              7               1                       27
Dividing up mission                OAM Air                               2             16                                       18
assignments                        OAM Marine                 1          5             18               1         2             27
                                   USCG Air                   2          2              8                         1             13
                                   USCG Marine                7          9             10                         1             27
Dividing up responsibilities for   OAM Air                               4             14                                       18
unscheduled, emergent or           OAM Marine                 2          5             17      1                  2             27
missions in-progress               USCG Air                   1          3              7                         2             13
                                   USCG Marine                6          6             15                                       27
Sharing of intelligence            OAM Air                    2          7              9                                       18
                                   OAM Marine                 4          8             14                                       26
                                   USCG Air                   5          4              2                         2             13
                                   USCG Marine               14          9              4                                       27
Joint air-related/maritime-        OAM Air                    1          3             12                         1             17
related training opportunities     OAM Marine                 6          8             12               1                       27
                                   USCG Air                   2          3              8                                       13
                                   USCG Marine                8         15              4                                       27
Requesting new assets or           OAM Air                               3             12                         3             18
changes to assets                  OAM Marine                 2          2             11               1        10             26
                                   USCG Air                   1                         8                         4             13
                                   USCG Marine                4          4              9      1        1         7             26
Logistics                          OAM Air                    1          1             14                         2             18
                                   OAM Marine                 1          4             14                         8             27
                                   USCG Air                   1                        12                                       13
                                   USCG Marine                3          2             19                         2             26
Maintenance                        OAM Air                    1                        15                         2             18
                                   OAM Marine                            2             15               1         9             27
                                   USCG Air                                            11                         2             13
                                   USCG Marine                3          3             17                         3             26
Other ways - describe in box       OAM Air                    3                         8                         2             13
below:                             OAM Marine                 1                         5                         9             15
                                   USCG Air                              1              5                         1              7
                                   USCG Marine                1                         4                         7             12




                                                 Page 69                                       GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




IF OTHER:
[Open-ended answers not displayed]

Challenges and Opportunities
Question 14: What are the challenges, if any, to effectively and efficiently
coordinating air/maritime missions, activities, or resources between OAM and USCG
at or near your location?


[Open-ended answers not displayed]


Question 15: And what are the opportunities and resources, if any, for effectively and
efficiently coordinating air/maritime missions, activities, or resources between OAM
and USCG at or near your location?


[Open-ended answers not displayed]


Resources for Mission Activities


[Questions in this section were only administered to OAM Air and Marine units.]


Question 16: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which
you have the appropriate type(s) of aircraft/vessels (i.e. with the necessary
capabilities) to perform the following mission activities? For example, if interdicting air
targets/suspect vessels is a mission need at your location, how satisfied are you that
you have aircraft/vessels with the capability to undertake and effectively perform
interdictions (e.g., a C-550 Citation II Interceptor aircraft / 39' Midnight Express, or a
38' or a 33' SAFE Boat)? If your unit accomplished some missions using
aircraft/vessels that were not the most appropriate or best suited to perform the
requested activity effectively, please consider those instances as well as missions
that your unit could not undertake at all for lack of an aircraft/vessel type. Also, if an
activity is not relevant to your location, and the need for that activity does not arise,
click "We do not perform this activity." [Table II.13 Answers to Survey Question 16]




Page 70                                             GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                          Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                         We do
                                            not                               Neither
                                        perform                              satisfied
                                           this      Very    Somewhat             nor     Somewhat             Very    Don't     Number of
                                        activity satisfied    satisfied   dissatisfied   dissatisfied   dissatisfied   know    Respondents
Radar patrol: air-to-air   OAM Air           6          5            3              1                             3                    18
/ Maritime patrol          OAM Marine                  16            6                             3              2                    27
Radar patrol: air-to-
surface (water)            OAM Air           4          4            3                                            7                    18
Interdiction / Maritime    OAM Air           2          6            3              1              3              3                    18
interdiction               OAM Marine                  18            5                             1              3                    27
Surveillance (e.g.,        OAM Air                     11            5              2                                                  18
vehicle, vessel, or
land)                      OAM Marine                   9            8              1              3              6                    27
Search (e.g. land,
person, or vessel)         OAM Air           3          7            6              1              1                                   18
Undercover support         OAM Air           4          6            4              2                             2                    18
                           OAM Marine        3          5            5              2              6              6                    27
Security support           OAM Air           2          9            5              2                                                  18
                           OAM Marine        2         14            4              3              1              2       1            27
Warrant execution          OAM Air           2         11            3              2                                                  18
                           OAM Marine        6          8            5              5                             3                    27
Apprehending illegal       OAM Air           1          9            6              2                                                  18
aliens                     OAM Marine                  16            7              2              2                                   27
Information gathering      OAM Air                      6            9              1              1              1                    18
                           OAM Marine                  10           10              2              4              1                    27
Enforcement                OAM Air                      5            7              2              2              2                    18
relocation (e.g. air-
mobile support,
marine-mobile
support)                   OAM Marine        2         13            4              4              2              1       1            27
Controlled delivery        OAM Air                     10            5              1              1              1                    18
                           OAM Marine        4          5            6              4              3              3       2            27
Recon/Photo                OAM Air                     12            4              1                                                  17
                           OAM Marine        1          7            5              4              6              3                    26
Logistics/
Transportation             OAM Air           1          7            2              2              3              3                    18
Humanitarian aid           OAM Air           1          5            5              3              3                                   17
                           OAM Marine        2         10            4              8              1              1                    26
Other activity -           OAM Air                      2                           4              1              3       2            12
describe in box below:     OAM Marine        3          1            1              1                             3       2            11




                                          Page 71                                                GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                            Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                            IF OTHER:
                                            [Open-ended answers not displayed ]]


                                            Question 17: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which
                                            you have the appropriate number of mission capable aircraft/vessels to effectively
                                            perform the following mission activities?
                                            This would include instances, for example, where you had one Blackhawk but
                                            needed two to effectively complete insertion requests. [Table II.14 Answers to Survey
                                            Question 17]


                                           We do
                                              not                             Neither
                                          perform                            satisfied
                                             this      Very    Somewhat           nor     Somewhat             Very    Don't     Number of
                                          activity satisfied    satisfied dissatisfied   dissatisfied   dissatisfied   know    Respondents
Radar patrol: air-to-air /   OAM Air            6         4            1            2              1              4                     18
Maritime patrol              OAM Marine                  13           10            1              2              1                     27
Radar patrol: air-to-
surface (water)              OAM Air            3         3            3            1              1              7                     18
Interdiction / Maritime      OAM Air            1         4            6                           4              3                     18
interdiction                 OAM Marine                  14            8            1              3              1                     27
Surveillance (e.g.,          OAM Air                      7            7                           3              1                     18
vehicle, vessel, marina or
land)                        OAM Marine         1         9            5            3              4              5                     27
Search (e.g. land, person,
or vessel)                   OAM Air            2         5            6            1              3              1                     18
Undercover support           OAM Air            2         5            4            2              4              1                     18
                             OAM Marine         3         6            5            3              6              4                     27
Security support             OAM Air            1         5            4            2              3              2                     17
                             OAM Marine         2        13            4            5                             2       1             27
Warrant execution            OAM Air            2         6            6            1              2              1                     18
                             OAM Marine         5         9            4            6                             1       2             27
Apprehending illegal         OAM Air            1         6            4            2              3              2                     18
aliens                       OAM Marine                  15            7            4                             1                     27
Information gathering        OAM Air                      5            7                           4              2                     18
                             OAM Marine                  10            8            3              4              1                     26
Enforcement relocation       OAM Air                      6            4            2              3              3                     18
(e.g. air-mobile support,
marine-mobile support)       OAM Marine         2        12            4            6                             2       1             27




                                            Page 72                                               GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
                                                Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




                                               We do
                                                  not                                Neither
                                             perform                               satisfied
                                                 this      Very    Somewhat              nor       Somewhat                 Very    Don't       Number of
                                              activity satisfied    satisfied dissatisfied        dissatisfied       dissatisfied   know      Respondents
Controlled delivery           OAM Air                         8            4                  1             3                  2                       18
                              OAM Marine            4         6            5                  4             3                  4                       26
Reconnaissance/Photo          OAM Air                         8            5                  1             2                  1                       17
                              OAM Marine            1         7            6                  4             4                  4                       26
Logistics/Transportation      OAM Air               1         5            3                  3             3                  3                       18
Humanitarian aid              OAM Air               1         4            3                  4             4                  2                       18
                              OAM Marine            3         8            6                  8                                1          1            27
Other activity - describe     OAM Air                         1                               1             1                  1          3             7
in box below:                 OAM Marine            4         1                               1                                2          5            13



                                                IF OTHER:
                                                [Open-ended answers not displayed]

                                                Question 18: Overall, considering the number, availability, and qualifications of
                                                personnel at your location, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to
                                                which you have adequate personnel to effectively meet mission needs? [Table II.15
                                                Answers to Survey Question 18]


                                                               Neither
                                           Somewhat       satisfied nor         Somewhat                   Very                                 Number of
                      Very satisfied        satisfied      dissatisfied        dissatisfied        dissatisfied            Don't know         Respondents
OAM Air                           2                5                                     8                       3                                     18
OAM Marine                        8               10                 2                   3                       3                    1                27



                                                Comments


                                                Question 19: Do you have any additional explanations of your answers or comments
                                                on any of the issues in this questionnaire?
                                                [Open-ended answers not displayed]

                                                Submit your Questionnaire
                                                Question 20: Are you done with this questionnaire?




                                                Page 73                                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses




Clicking "Yes" below tells GAO that your answers are final. We will not use your
answers unless the "Yes" button is checked when you last exit the questionnaire.
[Table II.16 Answers to Survey Question 20]

                                                      Number of
                                            Yes     Respondents
                     OAM Air                 18               18
                     OAM Marine              27               27
                     USCG Air                13               13
                     USCG Marine             28               28
                     Total                   86               86




Page 74                                           GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix III: OAM Air and Marine Assets by
              Appendix III: OAM Air and Marine Assets by
              Region and National Air Security Operations
              Centers


Region and National Air Security Operations
Centers
              Figure 14 displays the number of air and marine assets assigned to
              OAM’s regions, which include its 23 branches and 6 National Air Security
              Operations Centers (NASOCs).

              Figure 14: OAM Air and Marine Assets by Region and National Air Security
              Operations Centers, as of September 2011




              Note: Air assets include airplanes and helicopters. Marine assets include coastal enforcement,
              interceptor, and platform vessels. According to OAM officials, OAM also acquires, outfits, and
              maintains riverine vessels that are operated by Border Patrol agents; the majority of which are
              located at Border Patrol stations. In September 2011, OAM reported 113 such vessels. Additionally,
              in September 2011, OAM reported aircraft and marine vessels in other locations, such as 13 aircraft
              and 16 vessels at training centers and 8 aircraft and 56 vessels at maintenance facilities. Further
              OAM reported 19 “special operations” vessels assigned for Border Patrol use in rapid response to
              uncommon law enforcement situations requiring special tactics and techniques, search and rescue,
              and medical response capabilities.




              Page 75                                                   GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM
               Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’
               Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and
               Number of Assets


Officials’ Frequency of Satisfaction with Type
and Number of Assets
               In this appendix, survey responses from questions 16 and 17 are
               presented. Only Office of Air and Marine (OAM) air and marine units were
               surveyed about their satisfaction with aircraft and marine vessels (USCG
               was not) respectively. Not all eligible respondents answered all parts of
               each question. Respondents who did not report performing a specific type
               of mission or who answered “don’t know” to a question about that type of
               mission were not included in the response counts. For a more detailed
               discussion of our survey methodology see appendix I and for complete
               survey responses, see appendix II.

               Figure 15: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Type of
               Aircraft




               Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the
               appropriate type(s) of aircraft (i.e., with the necessary capabilities) to perform the following mission
               activities? (See question 16 in appendix II).




               Page 76                                                      GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’
Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and
Number of Assets




Figure 16: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Type of
Marine Vessels




Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the
appropriate type(s) of vessels (i.e., with the necessary capabilities) to perform the following mission
activities? (See question 16 in appendix II).




Page 77                                                     GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’
Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and
Number of Assets




Figure 17: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Number of
Aircraft




Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the
appropriate number of mission capable aircraft to effectively perform the following mission activities?
(See question 17 in appendix II).




Page 78                                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’
Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and
Number of Assets




Figure 18: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Number of
Marine Vessels




Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the
appropriate number of mission capable vessels to effectively perform the following mission activities?
(See question 17 in appendix II).




Page 79                                                    GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
             Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
             Department of Homeland Security



Department of Homeland Security




             Page 80                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security




Page 81                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security




Page 82                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security




Page 83                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security




Page 84                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security




Page 85                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security




Page 86                              GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments

                  Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov.
GAO Contacts
                  In addition to the contact named above, Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director),
Staff             Chuck Bausell, Alexander Beata, Richard D. Brown, Frances A. Cook,
Acknowledgments   Jeff R. Jensen, Nancy Kawahara, Stanley Kostyla, Linda S. Miller, Carl M.
                  Ramirez, Richard M. Stana, Clarence Tull, Jonathan Tumin, and Johanna
                  Wong, made significant contributions to this report.




(441060)
                  Page 87                                  GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
GAO’s Mission         The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
                      investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
                      constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
                      accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
                      examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
                      policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
                      to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
                      GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
                      accountability, integrity, and reliability.

                      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO Reports and       GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
                      correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony             go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
                      production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
                      publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
                      white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
                      http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                      Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                      TDD (202) 512-2537.
                      Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
                      MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in   Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
                      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.