Officials struggle to define border security
Despite not having a clearly defined conception of what security along the border should look like, the government has spent billions of dollars each year causing some to begin wondering what metrics can be used to define success for these various programs; as Congress battles to find cost savings and cut ineffective programs, it will become increasingly critical to have clear assessments of the efficacy of large expenditures like border security programs; Border Patrol is expected to begin trials with new metrics in October of this year and GAO indicates that these new metrics will help Border Patrol become more cost effective
While law enforcement officers and lawmakers agree that it is the government’s responsibility to secure the border, officials cannot settle on a common definition or goal for what a secure border would look like.
Government officials have repeatedly used the phrase establishing “operational control” when describing their goal or vision for the border, yet this term has no clearly agreed upon definition.
Testifying before Congress in February, Michael Fisher, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol, said, “Border security means public safety and the sense in the community that the border is being reasonably and effectively managed.”
Meanwhile Congress defined operational control as the prevention of “all unlawful entries” into the United States in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. But according to Rich Stana, the director of homeland security issues at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this conception of border security is unrealistic and expensive to implement.
“You would be talking about something akin to the inner German border during the Cold War, where very few, if any, could penetrate it without fear of losing one’s life,” Stana said.
Yet, despite not having a clearly defined conception of what security along the border should look like, the government has spent billions of dollars each year causing some to begin wondering what metrics can be used to define success for these various programs.
Doris Meissner, the former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said, “It’s certainly legitimate to ask, ‘What’s the return on investment here?’ “
Stana echoed these thoughts, stating, “One of the key elements in improving border security is having a reliable measure of how you assess that.”
As Congress battles to find cost savings and cut ineffective programs, it will become increasingly critical to have clear assessments of the efficacy of large expenditures like border security programs.
Meissner said that Congress needs to know what has worked and what has not before they spend any more money on the border.
“It’s been an article of faith that we need border enforcement and we need more of it, and certainly that’s valid. But I don’t think we’ve gotten to the point before where one could actually say, ‘Well, how much is enough?’” she said.
To that end, Border Patrol has begun to replace debatable terms with more concrete measures to accurately gauge the state of border security.
“It’s not necessarily coming up with new metrics as it is about understanding how those metrics apply in today’s border environment,” he added.
Currently Border Patrol is using the number of apprehensions as a metric to show progress, but this has proven to be a misleading figure as it does not take into account if the same person has been apprehended multiple times.
“Is it the same individual trying five times or is it five individuals?” Stana questioned.
“You have the number of apprehensions but you don’t know how many people might have been there to apprehend. You have to have the numerator and the denominator to judge performance,” he explained.
Border Patrol is expected to begin trials with new metrics in October of this year and GAO indicates that these new metrics will help Border Patrol become more cost effective.
Tom Barry, a senior analyst at the Center for International Policy, welcomed the news, but urged the agency to go further.
“If there is difficulty getting to performance measures, it may be rooted in the fact that we’re not clearly articulating exactly what it is we want to do,” he said.
As the agency moves forward, Meissner recommends that it seek input from outside organizations, analysts, and academics on how best to establish performance measures.
She says that doing so will make the measures more effective and offer the agency more credibility with legislators and the public.
“If it’s viewed as purely an inside, opaque exercise, it won’t have the same kind of influence,” she said.
