This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-518 
entitled 'Border Security: Opportunities Exist to Ensure More 
Effective Use of DHS's Air and Marine Assets' which was released on 
April 30, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

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: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-518, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Within DHS, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) OAM deploys 
the largest law enforcement air force in the world. In support of 
homeland security missions, OAM provides aircraft, vessels, and crew 
at the request of the its customers, primarily Border Patrol, which is 
responsible for enforcing border security, and tracks its ability to 
meet requests. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which OAM (1) 
met its customers’ requests; (2) has taken steps to ensure its mix and 
placement of resources effectively met mission needs and addressed 
threats; and (3) coordinated the use of its assets with the USCG, 
which is to execute its maritime security mission using its assets. 
GAO reviewed DHS policies, interviewed OAM, Border Patrol, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and USCG officials in 
headquarters and in 4 field locations selected on factors, such as 
threats and operating environments. Results from these field visits 
are not generalizable. GAO analyzed OAM support request data for 
fiscal year 2010, and surveyed OAM and USCG officials at 86 
proximately located units to determine the extent of cooperation 
between the two agencies. This report is a public version of a law 
enforcement sensitive report GAO issued in February 2012. Information 
deemed sensitive has been redacted. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO’s analysis of the Office of Air and Marine (OAM) data found that 
OAM met 73 percent of the 38,662 air support requests and 88 percent 
of the 9,913 marine support requests received in fiscal year 2010. The 
level of support differed by location, customers, and type of mission. 
For example, in its northern region OAM met air support requests 77 
percent of the time and in its southeast region, it met these requests 
60 percent of the time. The main reasons for unmet air and marine 
support requests were maintenance and adverse weather, respectively. 
OAM has taken actions, such as developing an aircraft modernization 
plan and purchasing all-weather vessels, to address these issues. 

OAM could benefit from taking additional steps to better ensure that 
its mix and placement of resources meets mission needs and addresses 
threats. GAO’s analysis of OAM’s fiscal year 2010 performance results 
indicate that OAM did not meet its national performance goal to 
fulfill greater than 95 percent of Border Patrol air support requests 
and did not provide higher rates of support in locations designated as 
high priority based on threats. For example, one high-priority Border 
Patrol sector had the fifth highest support rate across all nine 
sectors on the southwest border. OAM could benefit from reassessing 
the mix and placement of its assets and personnel, using performance 
results to inform these decisions. Such a reassessment could help 
provide OAM with reasonable assurance that it is most effectively 
allocating scarce resources and aligning them to fulfill mission needs 
and related threats. Additionally, OAM has not documented its analyses 
to support its asset mix and placement across locations. For example, 
OAM’s fiscal year 2010 deployment plan stated that OAM deployed 
aircraft and maritime vessels to ensure that its forces were 
positioned to best meet field commanders’ needs and respond to 
emerging threats, but OAM did not have documentation that clearly 
linked the deployment decisions in the plan to these goals. Such 
documentation could improve transparency to help demonstrate the 
effectiveness of its decisions in meeting mission needs and addressing 
threats. 

GAO’s analysis of OAM and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) air and marine 
survey responses indicated that they coordinated with their 
proximately located counterparts more frequently for activities 
directly related to carrying out their respective agencies’ missions 
(mission-related activities) than for mission support activities. For 
example, within mission-related activities, 54 percent of the 86 
respondents reported sharing intelligence on a frequent basis and, 
within mission-support activities, about 15 percent reported that they 
frequently coordinated for maintenance requests. Survey respondents, 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) analyses, and GAO site 
visits confirm that opportunities exist to improve certain types of 
coordination, such as colocating proximate OAM and USCG units, which 
currently share some marine and no aviation facilities. In addition, 
DHS does not have an active program office dedicated to the 
coordination of aviation or maritime issues. DHS could benefit from 
assessing actions it could take to improve coordination across a range 
of air and marine activities, including reconstituting departmental 
oversight councils, to better leverage existing resources, eliminate 
unnecessary duplication, and enhance efficiencies.  

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends, among other things, that CBP reassess decisions and 
document its analyses for its asset mix and placement, and that DHS 
enhance oversight to ensure effective coordination of OAM and USCG 
resources, and DHS concurred. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-518]. For more 
information, contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or 
gamblerr@gao.gov. 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

OAM Air and Marine Support Rates Differed by Location, and Some Field 
Officials Reported Resource Constraints: 

OAM Could Benefit from Reassessing Its Mix and Placement of Resources 
to Better Address Mission Needs and Threats: 

Further Action to Coordinate Air and Marine Operations Could Provide 
Benefit: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses: 

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

Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials' Frequency of 
Satisfaction with Type and Number of Assets: 

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

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

Table 2: Distribution of the Percentage of OAM Air Support Requests 
Met by Air Branches and NASOCs across Regions, Fiscal Year 2010: 

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

Table 4: OAM Branches that Serve Border Patrol Sectors: 

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

Figures: 

Figure 1: OAM Branch Offices and NASOCs as of September 2011: 

Figure 2: OAM Air Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010: 

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

Figure 4: OAM Air Support Requests by Mission Type, Fiscal Year 2010: 

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

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

Figure 7: Percent of Total Marine Requests Met, and Reasons for Unmet 
Requests, Fiscal Year 2010: 

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

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

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

Figure 11: Percentage of Additional OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 
Additional Coordination Needed across Mission Support Activities: 

Figure 12: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Overall 
Coordination Effectiveness: 

Figure 13: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 
Coordination Effectiveness in Reducing Duplication of Missions, 
Activities, and Resources: 

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

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

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

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

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

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: 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 
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 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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 3] We 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.[Footnote 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 
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.[Footnote 5] 
Considerations in OAM allocation decisions include historical 
location, congressional direction,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 
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. 

Figure 1: OAM Branch Offices and NASOCs as of September 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive U.S. map] 

Interactive Graphic: Roll Your Mouse Over Each Location For More 
Information: 

Northern Region: 

Bellingham: Air and marine; 
Bellingham Air and marine branch; 
Bellingham Marine unit; 
Port Angeles Marine Unit. 

Buffalo: Air and marine; 
Buffalo Air and Marine unit; 
Buffalo Marine Unit; 
Erie Marine Unit; 
Rochester Marine Unit. 

Great Lakes: Air and marine; 
Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch; 
Port Huron Marine Unit; 
Sault Ste. Marie Marine Unit; 
Trenton Marine Unit. 

Houlton: Air; 
Houlton Air Branch. 

Montana: Air; 
Montana Air Branch. 

NASOC Grand Forks: Air; 
Unmanned aircraft systems. 

North Dakota: Air; 
North Dakota Air Branch. 

Plattsburgh: Air; 
Plattsburgh Air Branch. 

Spokane: Air: 
Spokane Air Branch. 

National Capital Region: Air; 
National Capital Region Air Branch; 
New York Air Unit. 

Southeast Region: 

Caribbean: Air and marine; 
Caribbean Air and Marine Branch; 
Fajardo Marine Unit; 
Mayaguez Marine Unit; 
Ponce Marine Unit; 
St. Thomas Marine Unit. 

Jacksonville: Air and marine; 
Jacksonville Air and Marine Branch; 
Jacksonville Marine Unit; 
Tampa Air Unit; 
Ft. Pierce Marine Unit; 
Panama City Marine Unit; 
Tampa Marine Unit. 

Miami: Air and marine; 
Miami Air and Marine Branch; 
Ft. Lauderdale Marine Unit; 
Ft. Myers Marine Unit; 
Key Largo Marine Unit; 
Key West Marine Unit; 
Marathon Marine Unit; 
Miami Marine Unit; 
West Palm Beach Marine Unit. 

NASOC Cocoa Beach: Air; 
Unmanned aircraft systems. 

NASOC Jacksonville: Air; 
P-3 long range tracker. 

New Orleans: Air and marine; 
New Orleans Air and Marine Branch; 
Gulfport Marine Unit; 
Houma Marine Unit. 

Southwest Region: 

Alpine: Air; 
Alpine Air Branch. 

Del Rio: Air; 
Del Rio Air Branch; 
San Angelo Air Unit; 
Uvalde Air Unit. 

El Centro: Air; 
El Centro Air Branch. 

El Paso: Air; 
El Paso Air Branch; 
Albuquerque Air Unit; 
Deming Air Unit. 

Houston: Air and marine; 
Houston Air and Marine Branch; 
Corpus Christi Marine Unit; 
Galveston Marine Unit. 

Laredo: Air; 
Laredo Air Branch; 
San Antonio Air Unit. 

McAllen: Air and marine; 
McAllen Air and Marine Branch; 
Brownsville Marine Unit. 

NASOC Albuquerque: 
Special operations aircraft. 

NASOC Corpus Christi: 
P-3 long range tracker; 
Unmanned aircraft systems. 

NASOC Sierra Vista: 
Unmanned aircraft systems. 

San Diego: Air and marine; 
San Diego Air and Marine Branch; 
Brown Field Air Unit; 
Riverside Air Unit; 
Sacramento Air Unit; 
San Diego Marine Unit. 

Tucson: Air; 
Tuscon Air Branch; 
Sierra Vista Air Unit. 

Yuma: Air; 
Yuma Air Branch. 

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.” 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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

Air[A]: 

Mission type: Enforcement; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: 59,283; 
2009: 73,472; 
2010: 85,579; 
Total: 218,333. 

Mission type: Non-enforcement; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: 31,383; 
2009: 26,782; 
2010: 20,844; 
Total: 78,008. 

Mission type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: 90,665; 
2009: 100,253; 
2010: 106,423; 
Total: 297,341. 

Marine[B]: 

Mission type: Enforcement; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: 18,956; 
2009: 32,880; 
2010: 48,151; 
Total: 99,987. 

Mission type: Non-enforcement; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: 2,232; 
2009: 5,129; 
2010: 5,319; 
Total: 12,680. 

Mission type: Total; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: 21,188; 
2009: 38,009; 
2010: 53,471; 
Total: 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. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 10] Further, OAM and USCG have 
cooperated on specific projects, such as developing requirements for 
the joint operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which are long-
duration, remotely piloted aircraft used for maritime border security 
and disaster assistance. 

OAM Air and Marine Support Rates Differed by Location, and Some Field 
Officials Reported Resource Constraints: 

The percentage of OAM air and marine support requests met differed by 
location, customer, and mission type, with unmet air support requests 
primarily due to aircraft maintenance and unmet marine requests due to 
adverse weather in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 11] In addition, OAM, 
Border Patrol, and ICE officials reported that OAM resources were 
constrained in some locations. Further, although OAM has taken actions 
to address challenges in providing air and marine support, its efforts 
to increase aircraft availability have not been fully realized. 

Air Support Differences Were Greater among Locations Than among 
Customers or Missions: 

OAM met 73 percent of the 38,662 total air support requests that it 
received in fiscal year 2010, according to our analysis of AMOR data. 
[Footnote 12] 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 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). 

Air Support Differed across Locations: 

OAM air support requests met differed by up to 29 percentage points 
across five different OAM regional areas of responsibility (i.e., 
regions).[Footnote 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.[Footnote 14] 

Figure 2: OAM Air Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Southwest Region: 
Met: 17,200 (73%); 
Not Met: 6,414 (27%). 

Northern Region: 
Met: 5,692 (77%); 
Not Met: 1,741 (23%). 

Southeast Region: 
Met: 3,148 (60%); 
Not Met: 2061 (40%). 

National Air Security Operations: 
Met: 1,718 (89%); 
Not Met: 203 (11%). 

National Capital Region: 
Met: 374 (77%); 
Not Met: 111 (23%). 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

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: 

OAM Region/Center: Southwest; 
Percent of air support requests met: 
40 to 50: 1; 
51 to 60: 1; 
61 to 70: 2; 
71 to 80: 1; 
81 to 90: 2; 
91 to 100: 3; 
Total: 10. 

OAM Region/Center: Northern; 
Percent of air support requests met: 
40 to 50: 0; 
51 to 60: 0; 
61 to 70: 1; 
71 to 80: 5; 
81 to 90: 2; 
91 to 100: 0; 
Total: 8. 

OAM Region/Center: Southeast; 
Percent of air support requests met: 
40 to 50: [Empty]; 
51 to 60: 2; 
61 to 70: 1; 
71 to 80: 1; 
81 to 90: 0; 
91 to 100: 0; 
Total: 4. 

OAM Region/Center: NASOCs; 
Percent of air support requests met: 
40 to 50: 0; 
51 to 60: 0; 
61 to 70: 1; 
71 to 80: 0; 
81 to 90: 3; 
91 to 100: 2; 
Total: 6. 

OAM Region/Center: National Capital; 
Percent of air support requests met: 
40 to 50: 0; 
51 to 60: 0; 
61 to 70: 0; 
71 to 80: 1; 
81 to 90: 0; 
91 to 100: 0; 
Total: 1. 

OAM Region/Center: Total; 
Percent of air support requests met: 
40 to 50: 1; 
51 to 60: 3; 
61 to 70: 5; 
71 to 80: 8; 
81 to 90: 7; 
91 to 100: 5; 
Total: 29. 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

Notes: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. 

[End of table] 

Air Support Differences across Customers and Missions: 

There were smaller differences in OAM's ability to meet requests for 
air 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 16] Finally, our analysis of 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Number of Support Requests: 

Border Patrol: 
Met: 18,672 (76%); 
Not Met: 5,954 (24%). 

OAM self-initiated: 
Met: 10,610 (76%); 
Not Met: 3,345 (24%). 

ICE: 
Met: 1,979 (79%); 
Not Met: 538 (21%). 

All other federal agencies: 
Met: 1614 (90%); 
Not Met: 185 (10%). 

State & local agencies: 
Met: 982 (81%); 
Not Met: 233 (19%). 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

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 
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. 

Figure 4: OAM Air Support Requests by Mission Type, Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Number of Support Requests: 

Illegal aliens: 
Met: 14,872 (76%); 
Not Met: 4,717 (24%). 

Search: 
Met: 3,589 (61%); 
Not Met: 2,332 (39%). 

Radar patrol: 
Met: 3,228 (66%); 
Not Met: 1,657 (34%). 

Miscellaneous enforcement: 
Met: 3,985 (85%); 
Not Met: 711 (15%). 

Surveillance: 
Met: 2,391 (70%); 
Not Met: 1,030 (30%). 

Interdiction: 
Met: 149 (64%); 
Not Met: 85 (36%). 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

Reasons for Unmet Air Requests: 

OAM was unable to meet 27 percent, or 10,530 of the 38,662 air support 
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.[Footnote 17] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: pie chart] 

Met: 73%; 
Not met: 27%: 
* Maintenance: 12%; 
* Adverse weather: 7%; 
* Aircrew unavailable: 5%; 
* Other mission priority: 2%; 
* Aircraft unavailable: 1%; 
* Other reasons: 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

Some Field Officials Reported That OAM Has Air Support Resource 
Constraints: 

OAM survey respondents were generally satisfied with the type and 
number of air assets they had to perform various missions; however, 
some survey respondents and field officials we interviewed identified 
capability gaps, such as the lack of maritime patrol aircraft. In 
addition, 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. 

Survey Respondents and Field Officials Cited Mixed Views on OAM Air 
Assets and Support: 

The majority of officials that responded to our survey questions from 
18 OAM air locations across the southwest, northern, southeast, and 
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 the maritime 
environment and that two branches needed more maritime patrol 
aircraft.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 24] 

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 Officials Cited Air Personnel Shortages: 

Our survey of 18 OAM air locations found that the majority of 
respondents (11 of 18) were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with 
the extent to 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.[Footnote 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 negatively affecting their ability to meet 
air support requests.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 27] According to the 
branch officials, personnel problems were further exacerbated by 
budget constraints. 

OAM Actions to Address Air Support Challenges: 

OAM reported that it had taken actions to increase aircraft 
availability, but 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.[Footnote 
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. 

OAM headquarters officials said they have deployed all-weather 
aircraft to locations where their capabilities will yield the highest 
operational dividends.[Footnote 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 across Locations and Missions, and Data Were 
Unreliable to Assess Differences across Customers: 

OAM met 88 percent of the 9,913 total marine support requests that it 
received in fiscal year 2010, according to our analysis of AMOR 
data.[Footnote 30] Similar to our analysis of air support data, our 
analysis of marine data showed that the percentage of requests OAM 
supported differed by location; specifically, the percentage of marine 
support requests met ranged by 9 percentage points across regions 
(from 84 to 93 percent), 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. 

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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Number of support requests: 

Southeast region: 
Met: 4,148; 
Not Met: 772. 

Northern region: 
Met: 2,426; 
Not Met: 185. 

Southwest region: 
Met: 2,150; 
Not Met: 219. 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

[End of figure] 

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). 

Marine Support across Missions and Customers: 

Our analysis of AMOR data indicated that 94 percent of all support 
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.[Footnote 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 Requests: 

OAM was unable to meet 12 percent, or 1,176 of the 9,913 marine 
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. 

Figure 7: Percent of Total Marine Requests Met, and Reasons for Unmet 
Requests, Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie chart] 

Met: 88%; 
Not met: 12%: 
* Adverse weather: 6%; 
* Vessel crew unavailable: 2%; 
* Other mission priority: 2%; 
* Maintenance: 1%; 
* Aircraft unavailable: 1%; 
* Other reasons: less than 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

Some Field Officials Reported That OAM Has Marine Support Resource 
Constraints: 

According to our survey of 27 OAM marine units, respondents reported 
they were generally satisfied with the type and number of vessels at 
their location. However, OAM Regional Directors and field location 
officials cited limitations, such as the lack of platform class 
vessels to perform 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.[Footnote 32] 

Survey Respondents and Field Officials Cited Mixed Views on OAM Marine 
Assets and Support: 

Our survey of 27 OAM marine locations across the northern, southwest, 
and southeast regions found that respondents were generally satisfied 
with the type and number of OAM marine vessels they had at their 
locations to perform various mission activities.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 36] 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 Officials Cited Marine Personnel 
Shortages: 

Our survey of 27 OAM marine units found that the majority of 
respondents (18 of 27) reported they were either somewhat or very 
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 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.[Footnote 37] 

OAM Actions to Address Marine Support Challenges: 

OAM headquarters officials reported that they have taken actions to 
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.[Footnote 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. 

OAM Could Benefit from Reassessing Its Mix and Placement of Resources 
to Better Address Mission Needs and Threats: 

OAM has not documented its analyses to support its resource mix and 
placement decisions across locations, and challenges in providing 
higher rates of support to high priority sectors indicate that a 
reassessment of its asset mix and placement may provide benefits. OAM 
action to document analyses behind its deployment decisions and 
reassess where its assets are deployed using performance results could 
better ensure transparency and help provide reasonable assurance that 
OAM is most effectively allocating its scarce resources to respond to 
mission 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 Analyses to Support Asset Mix and Placement 
Decisions Could Improve Accountability: 

OAM has not documented significant events, such as its analyses to 
support its asset mix and placement across locations, and as a result, 
lacks a record to help demonstrate that its decisions to allocate 
resources are the most effective ones in fulfilling customer needs and 
addressing threats. To help ensure accountability over an agency's 
resource 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 41] Similarly, OAM did not document analyses 
supporting the current mix and placement of marine assets across 
locations.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 44] 

OAM Reassessment of Resource Mix and Placement Could Better Ensure 
Customer Support in High Priority Locations: 

OAM did not meet its national air support goal and did not provide 
higher rates of support to locations Border Patrol identified as high 
priority, which indicates that a reassessment of OAM's resource mix 
and placement could help ensure that it meets mission needs, addresses 
threats, and mitigates risk. According to DHS's Annual Performance 
Report for fiscal 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 2007 Northern 
Border Resource Deployment Implementation Plan prioritized four 
sectors based on potential terrorist threats.[Footnote 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: 

Border region: Southwest: 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 1; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 1,484; 
Percent met[A]: 98%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 2; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 954; 
Percent met[A]: 95%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 3; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 1,036; 
Percent met[A]: 95%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 4; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 1,098; 
Percent met[A]: 95%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 5; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 4,623; 
Percent met[A]: 87%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 6; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 2,506; 
Percent met[A]: 83%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 7; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 1,322; 
Percent met[A]: 70%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 8; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 3,344; 
Percent met[A]: 58%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 9; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 785; 
Percent met[A]: 54%. 

Total Southwest: 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 17,152; 
Percent met[A]: 80%. 

Border region: Northern: 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 1; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 601; 
Percent met[A]: 96%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 2; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 528; 
Percent met[A]: 92%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 3; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 235; 
Percent met[A]: 88%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 4; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 1,042; 
Percent met[A]: 86%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 5; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 528; 
Percent met[A]: [Empty]. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 6; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 717; 
Percent met[A]: 81%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 7; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 1,123; 
Percent met[A]: 80%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 8; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 491; 
Percent met[A]: 79%. 

Total Northern: 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 5,265; 
Percent met[A]: 85%. 

Border region: Southeast: 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 1; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 18; 
Percent met[A]: 100%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 2; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 80; 
Percent met[A]: 79%. 

Border Patrol sector: Sector 3; 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 18; 
Percent met[A]: 72%. 

Total Southeast: 
Number of Border Patrol requests for air support: 116; 
Percent met[A]: 81%. 

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

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. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 they will begin to 
replace the AMOR system in March 2012.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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 Data Limitations Related to the Accuracy of 
Reported Performance Results: 

OAM officials continue to use performance data from its AMOR system to 
meet requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act 
(GPRA), but have not disclosed limitations affecting the accuracy of 
these data reported to Congress and the public in CBP's Performance 
and Accountability Report.[Footnote 52] OAM inaccurately reported its 
performance 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 
[Footnote 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. 
[Footnote 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 
possible due to the technical problems that have delayed its 
implementation to March 2012.[Footnote 57] 

Further Action to Coordinate Air and Marine Operations Could Provide 
Benefit: 

OAM and USCG officials we surveyed across proximately located air and 
marine units reported varying levels of coordination across missions, 
activities, or resources and that to different extents, the 
coordination that occurred between the agencies was effective and 
resulted in reduced duplication and cost savings. However, OAM and 
USCG officials 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 Units Reported Differences in the Extent of 
Coordination across Mission-related Activities: 

Our survey showed that the extent of coordination between OAM and USCG 
air and marine units varied by mission activity. We surveyed officials 
from 86 OAM and USCG air and marine units that were proximately 
located about the frequency of interagency coordination across five 
mission-related and four mission support activities.[Footnote 58] CBP 
has 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 coordination.[Footnote 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Sharing of intelligence: 
Frequently coordinated: 53.5%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 22.1%; 
Rarely coordinated: 10.5%; 
Not currently used: 11.6%; 
Don't know: 2.3%; 
N = 86. 

Advanced sharing of schedules: 
Frequently coordinated: 43%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 22.1%; 
Rarely coordinated: 7%; 
Not currently used: 27.9%; 
Don't know: 0%; 
N = 86. 

Dividing up responsibilities for emergent missions: 
Frequently coordinated: 24.4%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 32.6%; 
Rarely coordinated: 14%; 
Not currently used: 29.1%; 
Don't know: 0%; 
N = 86. 

Joint prioritization of missions: 
Frequently coordinated: 22.1%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 32.6%; 
Rarely coordinated: 12.8%; 
Not currently used: 32.6%; 
Don't know: 0%; 
N = 86. 

Dividing up mission assignments: 
Frequently coordinated: 19.8%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 32.6%; 
Rarely coordinated: 16.3%; 
Not currently used: 31.4%; 
Don't know: 0%; 
N = 86. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM and USCG units. 

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

[End of figure] 

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 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Logistics: 
Frequently coordinated: 15.3%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 27.1%; 
Rarely coordinated: 12.9%; 
Not currently used: 38.8%; 
Don't know: 5.9%; 
N = 86. 

Maintenance: 
Frequently coordinated: 15.1%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 9.3%; 
Rarely coordinated: 14%; 
Not currently used: 60.5%; 
Don't know: 1.2%; 
N = 86. 

Joint training: 
Frequently coordinated: 12.8%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 45.3%; 
Rarely coordinated: 16.3%; 
Not currently used: 25.6%; 
Don't know: 0%; 
N = 86. 

Requesting assets: 
Frequently coordinated: 0%; 
Occasionally coordinated: 9.3%; 
Rarely coordinated: 24.4%; 
Not currently used: 60.5%; 
Don't know: 5.8%; 
N = 86. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM and USCG units. 

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

[End of figure] 

OAM and USCG Field Units Reported a Need for More Coordination to 
Share Intelligence and Conduct Joint Training: 

OAM and USCG officials responding to our survey said that they needed 
more coordination across one or more mission-related areas as shown in 
figure 10. DHS stressed the importance of coordinating across 
components to optimize mission performance in its strategic plans, 
establishing various departmental level councils, interagency 
operations 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 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Sharing of intelligence: 
Much more or somewhat more: 63.1%; 
About the same: 34.5%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 0%; 
Don't know: 2.4%; 
N = 84. 

Joint prioritization of missions: 
Much more or somewhat more: 43.5%; 
About the same: 52.9%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 2.4%; 
Don't know: 1.2%; 
N = 85. 

Advanced sharing of schedules: 
Much more or somewhat more: 40%; 
About the same: 57.6%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 2.4%; 
Don't know: 0%; 
N = 85. 

Dividing up mission assignments: 
Much more or somewhat more: 32.9%; 
About the same: 61.2%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 1.2%; 
Don't know: 4.7%; 
N = 85. 

Dividing up responsibilities for emergent missions: 
Much more or somewhat more: 31.8%; 
About the same: 62.4%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 1.2%; 
Don't know: 4.7%; 
N = 85. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM and USCG units. 

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

[End of figure] 

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. 

Figure 11: Percentage of Additional OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 
Additional Coordination Needed across Mission Support Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Joint training: 
Much more or somewhat more: 54.8%; 
About the same: 42.9%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 1.2%; 
Don't know: 1.2%; 
N = 84. 

Requesting assets: 
Much more or somewhat more: 19.3%; 
About the same: 48.2%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 3.6%; 
Don't know: 28.9%; 
N = 83. 

Logistics: 
Much more or somewhat more: 15.5%; 
About the same: 69%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 0%; 
Don't know: 14.3%; 
N = 84. 

Maintenance: 
Much more or somewhat more: 10.7%; 
About the same: 61.2%; 
Somewhat less or much less: 1.2%; 
Don't know: 19%; 
N = 84. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM and USCG units. 

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

[End of figure] 

DHS Oversight to Increase Intra-agency Coordination of Mission and 
Support Activities Could Increase Operational Effectiveness, Reduce 
Duplication, and Achieve Cost Savings: 

DHS oversight to increase coordination between OAM and USCG could 
provide benefits as OAM and USCG field units reported that the 
coordination that occurred increased effectiveness and sometimes 
reduced duplication of effort and achieved cost savings. In terms of 
increasing effectiveness, about 64 percent of the respondents said the 
current level of coordination was very or moderately effective, as 
shown in figure 12. Officials provided examples of how coordination 
was 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. 

Figure 12: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Overall 
Coordination Effectiveness: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Survey responses: 
Very effective or moderately effective: 63.8%; 
Somewhat effective or slightly effective: 29%; 
Not at all effective: 5.8%; 
Don't know: 1.4%; 
N = 69. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM and USCG units. 

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

[End of figure] 

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. 

Figure 13: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 
Coordination Effectiveness in Reducing Duplication of Missions, 
Activities, and Resources: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Survey responses: 
Very effective or moderately effective: 34.3%; 
Somewhat effective or slightly effective: 32.9%; 
Not at all effective: 21.4%; 
Don't know: 2.9%; 
N = 70. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM and USCG units. 

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

[End of figure] 

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 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.[Footnote 60] The USCG, CBP, and ICE also 
established a Senior Guidance Team to provide coordination across 
components.[Footnote 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. 

DHS Action to Pursue Opportunities to Colocate OAM and USCG Facilities 
Could Achieve Cost Savings: 

DHS could better position itself to achieve operational efficiencies 
and cost savings by identifying and pursuing additional opportunities 
to 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 colocated, that is, they do not share the same or adjacent 
facilities, and that some marine facilities were shared.[Footnote 62] 
We previously reported that spending constraints outlined in the 
Budget Control Act of 2011[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

Conclusions: 

The limited resources that OAM has to provide support to OBP, ICE, and 
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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that OAM assets and personnel are best positioned to 
effectively meet mission needs and address threats, and improve 
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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOD for their review and 
comment. DOD did not comment on the report, but DHS provided written 
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, 
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.[Footnote 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 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. 

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 [hyperlink, 
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. 

Signed by: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 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 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.[Footnote 70] 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: 

* 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: 

- 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: Northern: 

Border Patrol Sector: Blaine; 
OAM Branch: Bellingham Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Buffalo; 
OAM Branch: Buffalo Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Detroit; 
OAM Branch: Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Grand Forks; 
OAM Branch: North Dakota Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Havre; 
OAM Branch: Montana Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Houlton; 
OAM Branch: Houlton Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Spokane; 
OAM Branch: Spokane Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Swanton; 
OAM Branch: Plattsburgh Air Branch. 

Border Region: Southeast: 

Border Patrol Sector: Miami; 
OAM Branch: Jacksonville Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Miami; 
OAM Branch: Miami Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: New Orleans; 
OAM Branch: New Orleans Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Ramey; 
OAM Branch: Caribbean Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Region: Southwest: 

Border Patrol Sector: Del Rio; 
OAM Branch: Del Rio Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: El Centro; 
OAM Branch: El Centro Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: El Paso; 
OAM Branch: El Paso Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Laredo; 
OAM Branch: Laredo Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Big Bend; 
OAM Branch: Alpine Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Rio Grande Valley; 
OAM Branch: Houston Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Rio Grande Valley; 
OAM Branch: McAllen Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: San Diego; 
OAM Branch: San Diego Air and Marine Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Tucson; 
OAM Branch: Tucson Air Branch. 

Border Patrol Sector: Yuma; 
OAM Branch: 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. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 71] We determined that the 
AMOR data used in the report were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. 

Web-based Self-administered Survey: 

To address objectives 1 and 3, we conducted a web-based, self-
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.[Footnote 72] 

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 
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: 
Bellingham Air and Marine Branch; 
Brown Field Air Unit; 
San Diego Air and Marine Branch; 
Buffalo Air and Marine Unit; 
Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch; 
Plattsburgh Air Unit; 
Caribbean Air and Marine Branch; 
Houlton Air Unit; 
Houston Air and Marine Branch; 
McAllen Air Branch; 
Jacksonville Air and Marine Branch; 
NASOC - Jacksonville; 
Miami Air and Marine Branch; 
NASOC - Corpus Christi; 
National Capital Region Air Branch; 
New Orleans Air and Marine Branch; 
Sacramento Air Unit; 
Tampa Air Unit. 

USCG Air Locations: 
Air Station Port Angeles; 
Sector San Diego; 
Air Station Detroit; 
Air Station Borinquen; 
Air Station Cape Cod; 
Air Station Houston; 
Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron - Jacksonville; 
Air Station Miami; 
Sector Corpus Christi; 
Air Station Atlantic City/National Capital Region Branch; 
Air Station New Orleans; 
Air Station Sacramento; 
Air Station Clearwater. 

OAM Marine Locations: 
Bellingham Marine Unit; 
Brownsville Marine Unit; 
Buffalo Marine Unit; 
Corpus Christi Marine Unit; 
Erie Marine Unit; 
Fort Lauderdale Marine Unit; 
Fort Myers Marine Unit; 
Fort Pierce Marine Unit; 
Galveston Marine Unit; 
Jacksonville Marine Unit; 
Key Largo Marine Unit; 
Marathon Marine Unit; 
Miami Marine Unit; 
Ponce Marine Unit; 
Port Angeles Marine Unit; 
Port Huron Marine Unit; 
Rochester Marine Unit; 
San Diego Marine Unit; 
Sandusky Marine Unit; 
Sault Ste. Marie Marine Unit; 
Saint Thomas Marine Unit; 
Tampa Marine Unit; 
Trenton Marine Unit; 
West Palm Marine Unit. 

USCG Marine Locations: 
Station Bellingham; 
Station South Padre Island; 
Station Buffalo; 
Station Port Aransas; 
Station Erie; 
Station Fort Lauderdale; 
Station Fort Myers Beach; 
Station Fort Pierce; 
Station Galveston; 
Station Mayport; 
Station Islamorada; 
Station Marathon; 
Station Miami Beach; 
Station Ponce De Leon Inlet; 
Station Port Angeles; 
Station Port Huron; 
Station Rochester; 
Station San Diego; 
Station Marblehead; 
Station Sault Ste. Marie; 
Marine Safety Detachment Saint Thomas; 
Station Saint Petersburg; 
Station Belle Isle; 
Station Lake Worth Inlet. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

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. 

[End of section] 

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. 

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] 

National coordinating entity (e.g., DHS Air Council, DHS Boat 
Commodity Council): 

OAM Air; 
Not currently used: 12; 
Used daily: 1; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: [Empty]; 
Used monthly: [Empty]; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 4; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine; 
Not currently used: 22; 
Used daily: [Empty]; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: [Empty]; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 1; 
Don't Know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air; 
Not currently used: 11; 
Used daily: [Empty]; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: [Empty]; 
Used annually: 1; 
Used on ad hoc basis: [Empty]; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine; 
Not currently used: 20; 
Used daily: [Empty]; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: [Empty]; 
Used monthly: [Empty]; 
Used annually: 1; 
Used on ad hoc basis: [Empty]; 
Don't Know: 7; 
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Regional coordinating entity (e.g., JIATF-S): 

OAM Air; 
Not currently used: 9; 
Used daily: 4; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: [Empty]; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 2; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine; 
Not currently used: 19; 
Used daily: 1; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: 3; 
Used annually: 1; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 2; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air; 
Not currently used: 6; 
Used daily: 4; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: [Empty]; 
Used annually: 1; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 1; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine; 
Not currently used: 18; 
Used daily: [Empty]; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: 2; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 2; 
Don't Know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Local coordinating entity (e.g., San Diego Maritime Unified Command, 
or Interagency Operations Center): 

OAM Air; 
Not currently used: 6; 
Used daily: 4; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 4; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine; 
Not currently used: 16; 
Used daily: 5; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 3; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air; 
Not currently used: 4; 
Used daily: 3; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 3; 
Used monthly: 1; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 2; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine; 
Not currently used: 10; 
Used daily: 4; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 3; 
Used monthly: 4; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 5; 
Don't Know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Informal local coordinating group (e.g., one that does not have a 
charter): 

OAM Air; 
Not currently used: 7; 
Used daily: 4; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: 1; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 4; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine; 
Not currently used: 6; 
Used daily: 9; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 8; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 2; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air; 
Not currently used: 6; 
Used daily: 1; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 2; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 1; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine; 
Not currently used: 6; 
Used daily: 4; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 8; 
Used monthly: 4; 
Used annually: 1; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 3; 
Don't Know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Informal contacts between individuals prior to air missions/maritime 
missions: 

OAM Air; 
Not currently used: 5; 
Used daily: 3; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: [Empty]; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 8; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

OAM Marine; 
Not currently used: 2; 
Used daily: 14; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 4; 
Used monthly: 1; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 5; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air; 
Not currently used: 3; 
Used daily: 2; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 1; 
Used monthly: 2; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 5; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine; 
Not currently used: 4; 
Used daily: 5; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 12; 
Used monthly: 1; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 5; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Other entities - describe in box below: 

OAM Air; 
Not currently used: 6; 
Used daily: 2; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: [Empty]; 
Used monthly: [Empty]; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 1; 
Don't Know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

OAM Marine; 
Not currently used: 11; 
Used daily: 2; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 2; 
Used monthly: 3; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 1; 
Don't Know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 20. 

USCG Air; 
Not currently used: 5; 
Used daily: [Empty]; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: [Empty]; 
Used monthly: 1; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: 1; 
Don't Know: [Empty]; 
Number of Respondents: 7. 

USCG Marine; 
Not currently used: 5; 
Used daily: 1; 
Used weekly or bi-weekly: 3; 
Used monthly: 4; 
Used annually: [Empty]; 
Used on ad hoc basis: [Empty]; 
Don't Know: 8; 
Number of Respondents: 21. 

[End of table] 

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] 

Advance sharing of mission schedules: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 7;
Frequently used: 9;
Occasionally used: 1;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 8;
Frequently used: 14;
Occasionally used: 4;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 3;
Frequently used: 5;
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: 2;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: 9;
Occasionally used: 11;
Rarely used: 2;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Joint prioritization of missions: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 9;
Frequently used: 4;
Occasionally used: 4;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: 8;
Occasionally used: 9;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 5;
Rarely used: 2;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 7;
Frequently used: 7;
Occasionally used: 10;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Dividing up mission assignments: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 8;
Frequently used: 4;
Occasionally used: 4;
Rarely used: 2;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 10;
Frequently used: 4;
Occasionally used: 9;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Frequently used: 5;
Not currently used: 1;
Occasionally used: 4;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 4;
Frequently used: 8;
Occasionally used: 11;
Rarely used: 5;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Dividing up responsibilities for unscheduled, emergent or missions 
in-progress: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 8;
Frequently used: 4;
Occasionally used: 4;
Rarely used: 2;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: 7;
Occasionally used: 10;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: 1;
Occasionally used: 5;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 5;
Frequently used: 9;
Occasionally used: 9;
Rarely used: 5;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Sharing of intelligence: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 5;
Frequently used: 9;
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: [Empty];
Frequently used: 22;
Occasionally used: 4;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 2;
Frequently used: 2;
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: 2;
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 3;
Frequently used: 13;
Occasionally used: 9;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Joint air-related/maritime-related training opportunities: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 10;
Frequently used: 1;
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 2;
Frequently used: 5;
Occasionally used: 16;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 4;
Frequently used: 1;
Occasionally used: 5;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: 4;
Occasionally used: 15;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Requesting new assets or changes to assets: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 14;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 2;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: 1;
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 15;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 1;
Rarely used: 8;
Don't Know: 3;
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 7;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: [Empty];
Rarely used: 5;
Don't Know: 1;
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 16;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 5;
Rarely used: 7;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Logistics: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 12;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: 2;
Don't Know: 1;
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: 4;
Occasionally used: 9;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: 4;
Number of Respondents: 26. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 7;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 8;
Frequently used: 9;
Occasionally used: 8;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Maintenance: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 14;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 2;
Rarely used: 2;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 14;
Frequently used: 7;
Occasionally used: 2;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: 1;
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 9;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: 1;
Rarely used: 3;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 15;
Frequently used: 6;
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: 4;
Don't Know: [Empty];
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Other ways - describe in box below: 

OAM Air;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: 1;
Occasionally used: 1;
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: 3;
Number of Respondents: 12. 

OAM Marine;
Not currently used: 8;
Frequently used: 3;
Occasionally used: 3;
Rarely used: [Empty];
Don't Know: 4;
Number of Respondents: 18. 

USCG Air;
Not currently used: 6;
Frequently used: [Empty];
Occasionally used: [Empty];
Rarely used: 1;
Don't Know: 1;
Number of Respondents: 8. 

USCG Marine;
Not currently used: 7;
Frequently used: 4;
Occasionally used: 1;
Rarely used: [Empty];
Don't Know: 5;
Number of Respondents: 17. 

[End of table] 

If Other: 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

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: 

OAM Air: 
Distance to that Unit in Miles: 
Minimum: 1; 
10th Percentile: 1; 
25th Percentile: 2; 
Mean: 70.8; 
Median: 50; 
75th Percentile: 90; 
90th Percentile: 150; 
Maximum: 360; 
Number of Respondents: 14. 

OAM Marine: 
Distance to that Unit in Miles: 
Minimum: 0; 
10th Percentile: 1; 
25th Percentile: 2; 
Mean: 13.7; 
Median: 4; 
75th Percentile: 10; 
90th Percentile: 30; 
Maximum: 120; 
Number of Respondents: 25. 

USCG Air: 
Distance to that Unit in Miles: 
Minimum: 1; 
10th Percentile: 1; 
25th Percentile: 1; 
Mean: 58.0; 
Median: 25; 
75th Percentile: 60; 
90th Percentile: 200; 
Maximum: 260; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Distance to that Unit in Miles: 
Minimum: 1; 
10th Percentile: 1; 
25th Percentile: 1; 
Mean: 12.8; 
Median: 4; 
75th Percentile: 15; 
90th Percentile: 30; 
Maximum: 110; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

[End of table] 

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] 

OAM Air: 
Little or no overlap in operating areas or activities: 6; 
Other reason - describe in box below: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 8. 

OAM Marine: 
Little or no overlap in operating areas or activities: 2; 
Other reason - describe in box below: 6; 
Number of Respondents: 8. 

USCG Air: 
Little or no overlap in operating areas or activities: 2; 
Other reason - describe in box below: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 3. 

USCG Marine: 
Little or no overlap in operating areas or activities: 1; 
Other reason - describe in box below: 6; 
Number of Respondents: 7. 

[End of table] 

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] 

DHS guidance/interagency agreements - Used? 

OAM Air: 
Yes: 4; 
No: 8; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

OAM Marine: 
Yes: 16; 
No: 9; 
Number of Respondents: 25. 

USCG Air: 
Yes: 4; 
No: 7; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Yes: 13; 
No: 9; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

USCG guidance - Used? 

OAM Air: 
Yes: 4; 
No: 8; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

OAM Marine: 
Yes: 17; 
No: 8; 
Number of Respondents: 25. 

USCG Air: 
Yes: 3; 
No: 8; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Yes: 19; 
No: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 21. 

Locally-developed guidance/MOU - Used? 

OAM Air: 
Yes: 7; 
No: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

OAM Marine: 
Yes: 16; 
No: 9; 
Number of Respondents: 25. 

USCG Air: 
Yes: 7; 
No: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Yes: 10; 
No: 12; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Other guidance - Used? 

OAM Air: 
Yes: 3; 
No: 6; 
Number of Respondents: 9. 

OAM Marine: 
Yes: 5; 
No: 12; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

USCG Air: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 6. 

USCG Marine: 
Yes: 2; 
No: 16; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

[End of table] 

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] 

DHS guidance/interagency agreements - If Yes: 

OAM Air: 
Very helpful: 0; 
Moderately helpful: 2; 
Slightly helpful: 2; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 8. 

OAM Marine: 
Very helpful: 9; 
Moderately helpful: 4; 
Slightly helpful: 4; 
Not at all helpful: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 19. 

USCG Air: 
Very helpful: 0; 
Moderately helpful: 2; 
Slightly helpful: 3; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 5. 

USCG Marine: 
Very helpful: 4; 
Moderately helpful: 3; 
Slightly helpful: 4; 
Not at all helpful: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 14. 

USCG guidance - If Yes: 

OAM Air: 
Very helpful: 1; 
Moderately helpful: 2; 
Slightly helpful: 1; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 8. 

OAM Marine: 
Very helpful: 7; 
Moderately helpful: 5; 
Slightly helpful: 7; 
Not at all helpful: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 21. 

USCG Air: 
Very helpful: 1; 
Moderately helpful: 2; 
Slightly helpful: 1; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 4. 

USCG Marine: 
Very helpful: 6; 
Moderately helpful: 5; 
Slightly helpful: 7; 
Not at all helpful: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 21. 

Locally-developed guidance/MOU - If Yes: 

OAM Air: 
Very helpful: 4; 
Moderately helpful: 2; 
Slightly helpful: 1; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 9. 

OAM Marine: 
Very helpful: 11; 
Moderately helpful: 3; 
Slightly helpful: 2; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

USCG Air: 
Very helpful: 2; 
Moderately helpful: 2; 
Slightly helpful: 3; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 7. 

USCG Marine: 
Very helpful: 3; 
Moderately helpful: 6; 
Slightly helpful: 1; 
Not at all helpful: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

Other guidance - If Yes: 

OAM Air: 
Very helpful: 2; 
Moderately helpful: 1; 
Slightly helpful: 0; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 4. 

OAM Marine: 
Very helpful: 3; 
Moderately helpful: 0; 
Slightly helpful: 0; 
Not at all helpful: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 6. 

USCG Air: 
Very helpful: 1; 
Moderately helpful: 0; 
Slightly helpful: 0; 
Not at all helpful: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 1. 

USCG Marine: 
Very helpful: 1; 
Moderately helpful: 0; 
Slightly helpful: 1; 
Not at all helpful: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 5. 

[End of table] 

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] 

National coordinating entity (e.g., DHS Air Council, DHS Boat 
Commodity Council): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 11; 
A great increase: 0; 
A moderate increase: 0; 
A slight increase: 0; 
No increase: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 15; 
A great increase: 1; 
A moderate increase: 4; 
A slight increase: 1; 
No increase: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 9; 
A great increase: 0; 
A moderate increase: 0; 
A slight increase: 1; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 9; 
A great increase: 0; 
A moderate increase: 0; 
A slight increase: 1; 
No increase: 2; 
Don't know: 10; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Regional coordinating entity (e.g., JIATF-S): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 5; 
A great increase: 2; 
A moderate increase: 1; 
A slight increase: 2; 
No increase: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 14; 
A great increase: 1; 
A moderate increase: 4; 
A slight increase: 1; 
No increase: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 5; 
A great increase: 3; 
A moderate increase: 1; 
A slight increase: 2; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 9; 
A great increase: 0; 
A moderate increase: 1; 
A slight increase: 3; 
No increase: 2; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Local coordinating entity (e.g., San Diego Maritime Unified Command, 
or Interagency Operations Center): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 2; 
A great increase: 2; 
A moderate increase: 3; 
A slight increase: 3; 
No increase: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 10; 
A great increase: 4; 
A moderate increase: 2; 
A slight increase: 3; 
No increase: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 3; 
A great increase: 2; 
A moderate increase: 3; 
A slight increase: 2; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 2; 
A great increase: 3; 
A moderate increase: 5; 
A slight increase: 4; 
No increase: 3; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Informal local coordinating group (e.g., one that does not have a 
charter): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 2; 
A great increase: 3; 
A moderate increase: 3; 
A slight increase: 3; 
No increase: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 3; 
A great increase: 6; 
A moderate increase: 7; 
A slight increase: 7; 
No increase: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 4; 
A great increase: 1; 
A moderate increase: 5; 
A slight increase: 1; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 1; 
A great increase: 8; 
A moderate increase: 4; 
A slight increase: 3; 
No increase: 5; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Informal contacts between individuals prior to air missions/maritime 
missions: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 1; 
A great increase: 2; 
A moderate increase: 6; 
A slight increase: 2; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 0; 
A great increase: 9; 
A moderate increase: 8; 
A slight increase: 3; 
No increase: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 4; 
A great increase: 2; 
A moderate increase: 3; 
A slight increase: 2; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 0; 
A great increase: 10; 
A moderate increase: 5; 
A slight increase: 4; 
No increase: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Other entities - describe in box below: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 2; 
A great increase: 1; 
A moderate increase: 0; 
A slight increase: 1; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 7. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 5; 
A great increase: 3; 
A moderate increase: 1; 
A slight increase: 0; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 4; 
A great increase: 0; 
A moderate increase: 0; 
A slight increase: 0; 
No increase: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 5. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 5; 
A great increase: 2; 
A moderate increase: 0; 
A slight increase: 0; 
No increase: 2; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

[End of table] 

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] 

OAM Air: 
Very effective: 2; 
Moderately effective: 4; 
Somewhat effective: 3; 
Slightly effective: 3; 
Not at all effective: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Very effective: 8; 
Moderately effective: 9; 
Somewhat effective: 2; 
Slightly effective: 3; 
Not at all effective: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 23. 

USCG Air: 
Very effective: 1; 
Moderately effective: 5; 
Somewhat effective: 2; 
Slightly effective: 2; 
Not at all effective: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Very effective: 6; 
Moderately effective: 9; 
Somewhat effective: 2; 
Slightly effective: 3; 
Not at all effective: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

[End of table] 

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] 

National coordinating entity (e.g., DHS Air Council, DHS Boat 
Commodity Council): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 8; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 0; 
No reduction: 3; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 15; 
A great reduction: 2; 
A moderate reduction: 1; 
A slight reduction: 1; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 6; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 0; 
No reduction: 1; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 2; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 11; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 0; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 3; 
Don't know: 6; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Regional coordinating entity (e.g., JIATF-S): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 4; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 2; 
No reduction: 3; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 14; 
A great reduction: 1; 
A moderate reduction: 4; 
A slight reduction: 1; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 5; 
A great reduction: 1; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 1; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 10; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 2; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 4; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

Local coordinating entity (e.g., San Diego Maritime Unified Command, 
or Interagency Operations Center): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 2; 
A great reduction: 1; 
A moderate reduction: 1; 
A slight reduction: 3; 
No reduction: 1; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 9; 
A great reduction: 1; 
A moderate reduction: 5; 
A slight reduction: 2; 
No reduction: 3; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 23. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 1; 
A great reduction: 1; 
A moderate reduction: 2; 
A slight reduction: 2; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 3; 
A great reduction: 2; 
A moderate reduction: 2; 
A slight reduction: 4; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 4; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 21. 

Informal local coordinating group (e.g., one that does not have a 
charter): 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 4; 
A great reduction: 2; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 3; 
No reduction: 1; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 3; 
A great reduction: 4; 
A moderate reduction: 5; 
A slight reduction: 5; 
No reduction: 4; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 4; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 2; 
A slight reduction: 2; 
No reduction: 0; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 1; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 6; 
A slight reduction: 6; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 4; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 21. 

Informal contacts between individuals prior to air missions: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 1; 
A great reduction: 2; 
A moderate reduction: 1; 
A slight reduction: 3; 
No reduction: 1; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 0; 
A great reduction: 5; 
A moderate reduction: 6; 
A slight reduction: 5; 
No reduction: 3; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 3; 
A great reduction: 2; 
A moderate reduction: 1; 
A slight reduction: 2; 
No reduction: 0; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 0; 
A great reduction: 4; 
A moderate reduction: 6; 
A slight reduction: 2; 
No reduction: 3; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 4; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 21. 

Other entities - describe in box below: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 2; 
A great reduction: 1; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 1; 
No reduction: 2; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 8. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 6; 
A great reduction: 3; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 1; 
No reduction: 0; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 1; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 14. 

USCG Air: 
Not currently used: 4; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 0; 
A slight reduction: 0; 
No reduction: 0; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 6. 

USCG Marine: 
Not currently used: 5; 
A great reduction: 0; 
A moderate reduction: 1; 
A slight reduction: 0; 
No reduction: 0; 
There was no duplication to reduce: 2; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

[End of table] 

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] 

OAM Air: 
Very effective: 1; 
Moderately effective: 2; 
Somewhat effective: 1; 
Slightly effective: 3; 
Not at all effective: 0; 
No duplication to reduce: 6; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Very effective: 4; 
Moderately effective: 5; 
Somewhat effective: 4; 
Slightly effective: 3; 
Not at all effective: 2; 
No duplication to reduce: 5; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

USCG Air: 
Very effective: 0; 
Moderately effective: 2; 
Somewhat effective: 4; 
Slightly effective: 1; 
Not at all effective: 1; 
No duplication to reduce: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

USCG Marine: 
Very effective: 6; 
Moderately effective: 4; 
Somewhat effective: 3; 
Slightly effective: 4; 
Not at all effective: 3; 
No duplication to reduce: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 22. 

[End of table] 

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] 

Advance sharing of mission schedules: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 1; 
Great savings: 1; 
Moderate savings: 2; 
Slight savings: 4; 
No savings: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 6; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 2; 
Slight savings: 3; 
No savings: 8; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Joint prioritization of missions: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 3; 
Great savings: 2; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 2; 
No savings: 3; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 5; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 2; 
Slight savings: 4; 
No savings: 8; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Dividing up mission assignments: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 3; 
Great savings: 2; 
Moderate savings: 0; 
Slight savings: 1; 
No savings: 5; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 8; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 2; 
Slight savings: 4; 
No savings: 5; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Dividing up responsibilities for unscheduled, emergent or missions in-
progress: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 3; 
Great savings: 2; 
Moderate savings: 2; 
Slight savings: 1; 
No savings: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 5; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 3; 
Slight savings: 5; 
No savings: 6; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Sharing of intelligence: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 2; 
Great savings: 4; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 1; 
No savings: 2; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 1; 
Great savings: 1; 
Moderate savings: 3; 
Slight savings: 4; 
No savings: 10; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Joint air-related training opportunities: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 7; 
Great savings: 1; 
Moderate savings: 0; 
Slight savings: 2; 
No savings: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 3; 
Great savings: 1; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 4; 
No savings: 12; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Requesting new assets or changes to assets: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 8; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 0; 
Slight savings: 1; 
No savings: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 12; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 0; 
Slight savings: 2; 
No savings: 6; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Logistics: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 6; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 0; 
No savings: 3; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 5; 
Great savings: 3; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 5; 
No savings: 4; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 23. 

Maintenance: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 8; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 1; 
No savings: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 9; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 3; 
No savings: 4; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of Respondents: 24. 

Other ways - describe in box below: 

OAM Air: 
Not currently used: 3; 
Great savings: 0; 
Moderate savings: 0; 
Slight savings: 1; 
No savings: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 7. 

OAM Marine: 
Not currently used: 6; 
Great savings: 3; 
Moderate savings: 1; 
Slight savings: 0; 
No savings: 2; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 16. 

[End of table] 

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] 

Advance sharing of mission schedules: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 2; 
About the same: 15; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 3; 
Somewhat more: 4; 
About the same: 18; 
Somewhat less: 1; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 2; 
Somewhat more: 4; 
About the same: 7; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 7; 
Somewhat more: 11; 
About the same: 9; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Joint prioritization of missions: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 0; 
Somewhat more: 3; 
About the same: 15; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 3; 
Somewhat more: 6; 
About the same: 16; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 3; 
Somewhat more: 3; 
About the same: 7; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 7; 
Somewhat more: 12; 
About the same: 7; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Dividing up mission assignments: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 0; 
Somewhat more: 2; 
About the same: 16; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 5; 
About the same: 18; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 2; 
Somewhat more: 2; 
About the same: 8; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 7; 
Somewhat more: 9; 
About the same: 10; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Dividing up responsibilities for unscheduled, emergent or missions in-
progress: 

OAM Air:
Much more: 0; 
Somewhat more: 4; 
About the same: 14; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 2; 
Somewhat more: 5; 
About the same: 17; 
Somewhat less: 1; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 3; 
About the same: 7; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 6; 
Somewhat more: 6; 
About the same: 15; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Sharing of intelligence: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 2; 
Somewhat more: 7; 
About the same: 9; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 4; 
Somewhat more: 8; 
About the same: 14; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 5; 
Somewhat more: 4; 
About the same: 2; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 14; 
Somewhat more: 9; 
About the same: 4; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Joint air-related/maritime-related training opportunities: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 3; 
About the same: 12; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 6; 
Somewhat more: 8; 
About the same: 12; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 2; 
Somewhat more: 3; 
About the same: 8; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 8; 
Somewhat more: 15; 
About the same: 4; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Requesting new assets or changes to assets: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 0; 
Somewhat more: 3; 
About the same: 12; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 2; 
Somewhat more: 2; 
About the same: 11; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 10; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 0; 
About the same: 8; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 4; 
Somewhat more: 4; 
About the same: 9; 
Somewhat less: 1; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Logistics: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 1; 
About the same: 14; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 4; 
About the same: 14; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 8; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 0; 
About the same: 12; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 3; 
Somewhat more: 2; 
About the same: 19; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Maintenance: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 0; 
About the same: 15; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 0; 
Somewhat more: 2; 
About the same: 15; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 1; 
Don't know: 9; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 0; 
Somewhat more: 0; 
About the same: 11; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 3; 
Somewhat more: 3; 
About the same: 17; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Other ways - describe in box below: 

OAM Air: 
Much more: 3; 
Somewhat more: 0; 
About the same: 8; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

OAM Marine: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 0; 
About the same: 5; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 9; 
Number of Respondents: 15. 

USCG Air: 
Much more: 0; 
Somewhat more: 1; 
About the same: 5; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 7. 

USCG Marine: 
Much more: 1; 
Somewhat more: 0; 
About the same: 4; 
Somewhat less: 0; 
Much less: 0; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

[End of table] 

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] 

Radar patrol: air-to-air/Maritime patrol: 

OAM Air:
We do not perform this activity: 6; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 3; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 16; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Radar patrol: air-to-surface (water): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 4; 
Very satisfied: 4; 
Somewhat satisfied: 3; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 7; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

Interdiction/Maritime interdiction: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 3; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 18; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Surveillance (e.g., vehicle, vessel, or land): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 11; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 9; 
Somewhat satisfied: 8; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 6; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Search (e.g. land, person, or vessel): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 3; 
Very satisfied: 7; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

Undercover support: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 4; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 3; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 6; 
Very dissatisfied: 6; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Security support: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 9; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 14; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Warrant execution: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 11; 
Somewhat satisfied: 3; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 6; 
Very satisfied: 8; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 5; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Apprehending illegal aliens: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 9; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 16; 
Somewhat satisfied: 7; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Information gathering: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 9; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 10; 
Somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Enforcement relocation (e.g. air-mobile support, marine-mobile 
support): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 7; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 13; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Controlled delivery: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 10; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 4; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Recon/Photo: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 12; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 7; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 6; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Logistics/Transportation: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 7; 
Somewhat satisfied: 2; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

Humanitarian aid: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 10; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 8; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Other activity - describe in box below: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 2; 
Somewhat satisfied: 0; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 12. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 3; 
Very satisfied: 1; 
Somewhat satisfied: 1; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 11. 

[End of table] 

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] 

Radar patrol: air-to-air/Maritime patrol: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 6; 
Very satisfied: 4; 
Somewhat satisfied: 1; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 4; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 13; 
Somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Radar patrol: air-to-surface (water): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 3; 
Very satisfied: 3; 
Somewhat satisfied: 3; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 7; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

Interdiction/Maritime interdiction: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 4; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 14; 
Somewhat satisfied: 8; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Surveillance (e.g., vehicle, vessel, marina or land): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 7; 
Somewhat satisfied: 7; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 9; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 5; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Search (e.g. land, person, or vessel): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

Undercover support: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 3; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 6; 
Very dissatisfied: 4; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Security support: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 13; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 5; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Warrant execution: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 5; 
Very satisfied: 9; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 6; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Apprehending illegal aliens: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 15; 
Somewhat satisfied: 7; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Information gathering: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 7; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 10; 
Somewhat satisfied: 8; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Enforcement relocation (e.g. air-mobile support, marine-mobile 
support): 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 2; 
Very satisfied: 12; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 6; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Controlled delivery: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 8; 
Somewhat satisfied: 4; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 4; 
Very satisfied: 6; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 4; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Reconnaissance/Photo: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 8; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 17. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 7; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 4; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 26. 

Logistics/Transportation: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 5; 
Somewhat satisfied: 3; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

Humanitarian aid: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 1; 
Very satisfied: 4; 
Somewhat satisfied: 3; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 4; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 3; 
Very satisfied: 8; 
Somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 8; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

Other activity - describe in box below: 

OAM Air: 
We do not perform this activity: 0; 
Very satisfied: 1; 
Somewhat satisfied: 0; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 1; 
Very dissatisfied: 1; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of Respondents: 7. 

OAM Marine: 
We do not perform this activity: 4; 
Very satisfied: 1; 
Somewhat satisfied: 0; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 0; 
Very dissatisfied: 2; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

[End of table] 

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] 

OAM Air: 
Very satisfied: 2; 
Somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 8; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Very satisfied: 8; 
Somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat dissatisfied: 3; 
Very dissatisfied: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

[End of table] 

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? 

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] 

OAM Air: 
Yes: 18; 
Number of Respondents: 18. 

OAM Marine: 
Yes: 27; 
Number of Respondents: 27. 

USCG Air: 
Yes: 13; 
Number of Respondents: 13. 

USCG Marine: 
Yes: 28; 
Number of Respondents: 28. 

Total: 
Yes: 86; 
Number of Respondents: 86. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: OAM Air and Marine Assets by 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Southwest region: 
Air assets: 117; 
Marine assets: 19. 

Northern region: 
Air assets: 51; 
Marine assets: 30. 

Southeast region: 
Air assets: 28; 
Marine assets: 48. 

NASOCs: 
Air assets: 32. 

Source: GAO analysis of OAM data. 

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. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM 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: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

OAM mission activity: Reconnaissance/Photo; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 16; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 0; 
We do not perform this activity: 0. 

OAM mission activity: Surveillance; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 16; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 0; 
We do not perform this activity: 0. 

OAM mission activity: Apprehending illegal aliens; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 15; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 0; 
We do not perform this activity: 1. 

OAM mission activity: Controlled delivery; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 15; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2; 
We do not perform this activity: 0. 

OAM mission activity: Information gathering; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 15; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2; 
We do not perform this activity: 0. 

OAM mission activity: Security support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 14; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 0; 
We do not perform this activity: 2. 

OAM mission activity: Warrant execution; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 14; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 0; 
We do not perform this activity: 2. 

OAM mission activity: Search; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 13; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 1; 
We do not perform this activity: 3. 

OAM mission activity: Enforcement relocation; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 12; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 4; 
We do not perform this activity: 0. 

OAM mission activity: Humanitarian aid; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3; 
We do not perform this activity: 1. 

OAM mission activity: Undercover support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2; 
We do not perform this activity: 4. 

OAM mission activity: Interdiction; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 9; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 6; 
We do not perform this activity: 2. 

OAM mission activity: Logistics/Transportation; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 9; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 6; 
We do not perform this activity: 1. 

OAM mission activity: Radar patrol: air-to-air; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 8; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3; 
We do not perform this activity: 6. 

OAM mission activity: Radar patrol: air-to-surface (water); 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 7; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 7; 
We do not perform this activity: 4. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM units. 

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). 

[End of figure] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

OAM mission activity: Apprehending illegal aliens; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 23; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2. 

OAM mission activity: Interdiction; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 23; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 4. 

OAM mission activity: Radar patrol: Air-to-Air/Maritime patrol; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 22; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

OAM mission activity: Information gathering; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 20; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

OAM mission activity: Security support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 18; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3. 

OAM mission activity: Enforcement relocation; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 17; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3. 

OAM mission activity: Surveillance; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 17; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 9. 

OAM mission activity: Humanitarian aid; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 14; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 8; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2. 

OAM mission activity: Warrant execution; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 13; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 5; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3. 

OAM mission activity: Reconnaissance/Photo; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 12; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 9. 

OAM mission activity: Controlled delivery; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 11; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 6. 

OAM mission activity: Undercover support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 12. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM units. 

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). 

[End of figure] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

OAM mission activity: Surveillance; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 14; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 4. 

OAM mission activity: Recon/Photo; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 13; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3. 

OAM mission activity: Controlled delivery; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 12; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

OAM mission activity: Information gathering; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 12; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 6. 

OAM mission activity: Warrant execution; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 12; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3. 

OAM mission activity: Search; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 11; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 4. 

OAM mission activity: Apprehending illegal aliens; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

OAM mission activity: Enforcement relocation; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 6. 

OAM mission activity: Interdiction; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 10; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 0; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 7. 

OAM mission activity: Security support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 9; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

OAM mission activity: Undercover support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 9; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

OAM mission activity: Logistics/Transportation; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 8; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 6. 

OAM mission activity: Humanitarian aid; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 7; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 6. 

OAM mission activity: Radar patrol: air-to-surface; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 6; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 8. 

OAM mission activity: Radar patrol: air-to-air/Maritime patrol; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 5; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 2; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM units. 

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). 

[End of figure] 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

OAM mission activity: Maritime patrol; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 23; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 3. 

OAM mission activity: Apprehending illegal aliens; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 22; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 1. 

OAM mission activity: Interdiction; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 22; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 1; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 4. 

OAM mission activity: Information gathering; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 18; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 5. 

OAM mission activity: Security support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 17; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 5; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2. 

OAM mission activity: Enforcement relocation; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 16; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 6; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 2. 

OAM mission activity: Humanitarian aid; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 14; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 8; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 1. 

OAM mission activity: Surveillance; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 14; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 9. 

OAM mission activity: Recon/Photo; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 13; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 8. 

OAM mission activity: Warrant execution; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 13; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 6; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 1. 

OAM mission activity: Controlled delivery; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 11; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 4; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 7. 

OAM mission activity: Undercover support; 
Very or somewhat satisfied: 11; 
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 3; 
Somewhat or very dissatisfied: 10. 

Source: GAO survey of OAM units. 

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). 

[End of figure] 

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

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

March 20, 2012: 

Rebecca Gambler: 
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-12-518, "Border Security: Opportunities Exist to 
Ensure More Effective Use of DHS' s Air and Marine Assets" 

Dear Ms. Gambler: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The Department is pleased to note GAO's positive acknowledgment of the 
actions U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has taken to issue 
and update its strategic plan for its Office of Air and Marine (OAM) 
as well as its aircraft deployment plans. The draft report recognizes 
that the plans have addressed strategic goals, mission 
responsibilities, threat information, and cost-effectiveness 
considerations, as well as documented final decisions. It also 
reiterates the close collaboration between OAM and the Office of 
Border Patrol (OBP), which is OAM's primary customer of air and marine 
support, and recognizes many of the factors considered in the planning 
process. In addition, the report recognizes OAM's resource 
constraints, and acknowledges ongoing interagency efforts to address 
that challenge. 

However, additional context regarding CBP's processes and 
documentation are necessary to provide a more balanced assessment of 
the manner in which it allocates scarce resources in support of its 
air and marine asset deployment. First, the historical development of 
OAM is directly relevant to its resource allocation. Second, to 
understand the efficiency of its asset deployment, one must also 
consider the actual allocation of personnel, aircraft, vessels, and 
funding for fuel, which supports its flight and underway hours. 

Historical Development: 

Prior to the establishment of DHS, the assets and personnel that 
comprise OAM were distributed between the U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. 
Customs Service. Under the new Department, these legacy resources were 
consolidated. In 2004, the Air and Marine Operations (AMO) division of 
the recently formed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was 
transferred to CBP. 

CBP further consolidated the air assets of OBP with the former AMO 
division in 2005, establishing the Office of CBP Air. CBP officially 
integrated its marine forces into the Office of CBP Air in 2006, 
creating what is currently the CBP OAM. 

The purpose of these consolidations was to align air and marine law 
enforcement personnel and assets into one agency to realize greater 
operational effectiveness and efficiencies, enabling them to better 
accomplish the new homeland security mission. At the time these forces 
were consolidated, the locations of the facilities and deployment of 
these resources were under the direct control of the legacy 
organizations that are now the customers of OAM, and their asset 
deployment had been established separately over decades to meet their 
operational priorities. 

Today, these legacy organizations are OAM's customers for air and 
marine support. The majority of OAM's current mission is to "organize, 
train, and equip" the air service to support homeland security 
operations that, by and large, are under the tactical control of other 
Federal entities, such as OBP, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, the Joint Interagency Task Force - South, and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. As such, the consolidation did not 
require significant changes in the deployment of personnel and assets; 
only relatively minor, incremental changes were needed to consolidate 
assets and personnel. 

Allocation of Resources: 

This was reflected in a 2007 Report to Congress on the CBP Air 
Strategic Plan. The strategic plan addressed the aviation coverage and 
response capabilities needed to respond to homeland security threats 
and challenges (subsequent strategic plans incorporated the marine 
program). The report included a modernization plan and was accompanied 
by an annex that provided an investment model as well as a 
presentation that identified the current and end state allocation of 
resources by location. As in subsequent plans, the report stated that, 
"as threats and intelligence continue to evolve, CBP will review and 
adjust its plans to properly focus on emerging threats and those of 
the highest risk, ensuring that high mobility forces are focused on 
the areas where their capabilities can pay the highest operational 
dividends." 

To accomplish this objective, CBP utilizes a robust process to 
allocate its personnel, aircraft, marine vessels, and funding for fuel 
that supports its flight and underway hours. Deployment decisions are 
made based on the assessment of a wide range of information. This 
comprehensive and collaborative process includes consideration of 
current operational capability and capacity; threats and challenges; 
actionable intelligence; daily ad hoc operational coordination with 
the Border Patrol; formal discussions of annual Border Patrol 
requirements; asset acquisitions, maintenance, and requirements; 
operational initiatives and priorities; quarterly performance reviews, 
which include applicable data on results; and other evolving factors. 

Through daily coordination, strategic and tactical planning, readiness 
updates, and other reporting, OAM maintains a thorough understanding 
of its resources. Operating within its resource capacity, this process 
enables OAM to provide an agile, efficient, and effective response to 
emerging developments. Asset deployment decisions, such as deployment 
plans for specific aircraft, aircraft types, or the air fleet in 
total, are documented and routed through CBP leadership for 
concurrence. These deployment plans are developed as necessary, and 
funding fuel for flight and underway hours is allocated annually. 

The success of CBP's practices can be seen in the table below, which 
identifies the actual allocation of OAM personnel, aircraft, and 
flight hours for both the southwest and northern borders for FY 2010, 
and illustrates that OAM resources are allocated in direct alignment 
with the CBP priority given to the Southwest Border.  

Table 1: FY 2010 Allocation of OAM Personnel, Aircraft, and Flight 
Hours to Southwest and Northern Borders: 

Percent of OAM Personnel Allocated: 
Southwest Border: 42%; 
Northern Border: 19%. 

Percent of OAM Aircraft Allocated: 
Southwest Border: 53%; 
Northern Border: 23%. 

Percent of Flight Hours Allocated: 
Southwest Border: 67%; 
Northern Border: 19%. 

[End of table] 

In each resource area, OAM dedicated two to three times as many 
resources to the Southwest as the Northern Border, and this resource 
allocation enabled OAM to meet three air support requests on the 
Southwest Border. GAO's table on page 36 shows that met 4,475 requests 
on the Northern Border (85 percent of the 5,265 requests), OAM 
requests on the Southwest Border (80 percent of 17,152 requests); 
three times as many. 

This conclusion is further supported by standard aviation readiness 
and performance indicators daily within OAM to determine if systemic 
problems exist or negative trends need to be addressed. These 
indicators provide a clear picture of aviation readiness and 
operations support drivers to include: non-mission or partially 
mission-capable assets due to supply support; non-mission, or 
partially mission-capable assets due to maintenance; and the impact of 
assets in non-reporting status due to long-term maintenance or 
recapitalization.  

GAO analyzed data from the Air and Marine Operations Report a module 
of the Case Management System within the Treasury Enforcement 
Communications System (TECS), to determine the extent to which OAM had 
met requests for air and marine support at CBP-designated priority 
locations. By looking exclusively at this factor, GAO has identified 
where OAM's current capacity is unable to keep pace with the demand, 
and where, in an unconstrained environment, OAM would likely allocate 
additional resources. However, as reported by GAO, OAM has "scarce" 
resources. Were CBP to reallocate its air and marine resources using 
the number of requests as the only factor, the reallocation of assets 
would leave portions of the U.S. border without an OAM presence and 
incapable of responding to threats that, while less arise.  

In FY 2011, the primary limiting factor for OAM support was funding 
for the fuel for its underway hours. OAM flew 110,000 flight hours in 
FY 2010. While OAM had roughly the same number of aircraft and 
personnel, its budget for fuel decreased. In FY 2011, through internal 
offsets, OAM actually flew 94,968 hours, more than 100 percent of its 
originally allocated flight hours. For FY 2012, OAM has funding to 
support an estimated 81,484 flight hours. Based on budget forecasts, 
OAM expects this downward trend to continue. As a result, OAM expects 
to meet a lower percentage of requests, though this is in no way 
attributable to the allocation of its assets. 

Through its comprehensive and collaborative resource allocation 
process, CBP continues to ensure OAM resources are deployed to the 
highest priority locations as efficiently and effectively as possible. 
As a result of this ongoing process, OAM has addressed many of the 
specific challenges reported by GAO since the completion of its self-
administered questionnaire survey. For example, the deployment of 
Multi-role Enforcement Aircraft that were delivered in
FY 2011 will address the lack of maritime (air to water) patrol and 
interdiction capabilities reported by some survey respondents. During 
FY 2011, OAM also made responsible refinements to its personnel 
deployment in the Southeast Region in recognition of the changing 
environment. OAM reassigned Marine Interdiction Agent positions among 
four units to address changes in the level of illegal smuggling 
activity. 

CBP can also address the calculation and reporting of its Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goal, and the significant steps OAM 
has taken to replace TECS, its performance system. In 2008, OAM 
proactively identified the need to modernize its disparate reporting 
systems and set aside funding for a multi-year effort to develop the 
Tasking, Operations, and Management Information System (TOMIS). 
Currently in development, TOMIS will be a Web-based system that 
incorporates best practices and functionalities of the systems it is 
replacing. Progress on TOMIS was hindered when funds provided by 
Congress in FY 2008 were subsequently reallocated for higher priority 
requirements, leaving OAM to provide limited resources for development 
through internal off-sets. Modules of TOMIS include safety, aviation 
and marine training, targets, management reporting, and case 
management functions. TOMIS addresses the challenges identified by GAO 
and will be used in the future to calculate OAM's performance results. 

In prior years, OAM correctly used TECS, as the system of record, as 
required, to report the information resulting from it. GAO analyzed 
the raw data for six months to come to its determination. To date, CBP 
has been unable to verify or duplicate GAO's results, which were 
provided for FY 2010 only. However, CBP is taking steps to confirm 
actual figures as discussed in our comments to GAO's recommendations. 

While OAM is still required to use TECS, as the system of record, OAM 
does not intend to use the same methodology for future reporting, nor 
would OAM fail to report data limitations. For FY 2011, OAM is 
expanding the GPRA goal from a focus on meeting support requests only 
from OBP, to meeting support requests for homeland security missions. 
While still operating within TECS, this change will enable OAM to pull 
data yielding more accurate results. 

The draft report contained two recommendations directed at CBP, with 
which the Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended: 

Recommendation 1: To help ensure that OAM assets and personnel are 
best positioned to effectively meet mission needs and address threats, 
and improve transparency in allocating scarce resources, GAO 
recommended that the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection: 

Recommendation 1a: Document analyses, including mission requirements 
and threats, that support decisions on the mix and placement of OAM's 
air and marine resources. 

Response: Concur. Consistent with Standards for Internal Control in 
the Federal Government, CBP leadership will continue to document 
decisions based on the related cost and benefit. CBP's existing 
practices are an effective and efficient use of scarce public 
resources, and provide the reasonable assurance required of its 
decisions, which are documented in its strategic and aircraft 
deployment plans. In future iterations of these plans, CBP will 
provide additional documentation of its analyses, including mission 
requirements and threats, which support the allocation of its air and 
marine resources. This additional documentation will increase 
transparency into the process and further demonstrate that OAM's 
decisions are responsive to customer need and threat. CBP is 
finalizing its FY 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan. In the next 
iteration of the Aircraft Deployment Plan, anticipated to begin 
development in the third quarter of FY 2013, CBP will document the 
requirements that support the decisions on the mix and placement of 
OAM's air and marine resources. 

Recommendation 1.b: 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. 

Response: Concur. As previously described, OAM continually assesses 
its allocation of air and marine resources, CBP is currently 
finalizing its FY 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan, which followed 
its comprehensive allocation practices. In the next iteration of the 
Aircraft Deployment Plan, anticipated to begin development in the 
third quarter of FY 2013, CBP will address the mission requirements, 
performance results, and anticipated CBP strategic and technological 
changes in its assessment of the mix and placement of OAM air and 
marine resources. 

Recommendation 1.c: Disclose data limitations relating to the accuracy 
of OAM's reported performance results for support provided. 

Response: Concur. Based on its analysis, GAO identified limitations in 
the data fields TECS was programmed to use to calculate results for 
the specific measure, "Percent of air support launches accomplished to 
support border ground agents to secure the border." CBP is modifying 
this measure beginning with the reporting of FY 2011 results, so that 
the data reliability issues pertaining to the referenced performance 
measure no longer apply. The updated performance measure, "Percent of 
air support launches accomplished to support Homeland Security 
missions," has been reclassified from a strategic measure to a 
management measure, and will be reported to Congress in the annual 
Fiscal Year Homeland Security Plan Report and Budget. 

OAM has coordinated with the Office of Information and Technology 
(OIT), and the two offices have agreed to verify that the new TECS 
report will duplicate — once reviewed and found to be appropriate — 
the methodology used by GAO to accurately report performance results.
Developing and testing the report will take approximately 60 days. 
Following its review, CBP will disclose applicable data limitations 
related to its performance results. 

Recommendation 2: To help DHS to better leverage existing resources, 
eliminate unnecessary duplication and enhance efficiencies, GAO 
recommended that the DHS Deputy Secretary assess the feasibility of 
actions they 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. Areas under 
consideration for increased coordination could include the co-location 
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, advanced 
sharing of mission schedules, joint training, and logistics. 

Response: Concur. Multiple initiatives are already underway to improve 
coordination across air and marine activities. For example, as 
reported on page 48 of this draft report, in June 2011, the DHS Deputy 
Secretary and Under Secretary for Management initiated an aviation 
coordination effort with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and CBP 
aviation officials. This effort is still in progress, and the 
participants have met periodically to discuss opportunities to gain 
efficiencies by exploring joint acquisition, co-location and the 
coordination of OAM and USCG air operations, and DHS aviation 
governance. Additionally, DHS recently completed a cost benefit 
assessment (CBA) that included an analysis of potential efficiencies 
within DHS aviation activities, including, among other activities, 
maintenance, training and certification, and ground handling 
equipment. The CBA team, which includes representatives from USCG and 
CBP, is moving forward with plans to increase cross-component 
collaboration for aviation-related equipment and maintenance. 

As noted by GAO, CBP and USCG also co-chair a component level Boat 
Commodity Council (BCC), which has resulted in successful 
coordination. For example, the work of the BCC led to the transfer of 
used vessels from USCG to CBP over the past 3 years. As of September 
12, 2011, the USCG had transferred custody of 106 vessels, of which 
approximately 65 had been refurbished and placed into service in 
support of CBP's riverine training and operations. In general, the 
vessels' hulls were transferred in good condition, some provided with 
the requisite outboard engines. The transfer of these vessels has 
enabled CBP to offset a portion of its near-term riverine vessel 
investments totaling nearly S22 million (including the amount needed 
to repair and upgrade the vessels and to provide engines). The 
remaining boats will be entered into service as funding permits, and 
as ready pool vessels deploy to meet surge requirements, to replace 
severely damaged vessels, or augment marine sites in response to 
changing threats. 

On January 5, 2012, CBP hosted a formal Executive Air and Marine 
Council meeting. Attendees included CBP's Acting Commissioner and 
Deputy Commissioner; The OBP Chief; and Assistant Commissioners and/or 
representatives of OAM, Office of Field Operations, Office of
Intelligence and Information Liaison, the Joint Operations 
Directorate; USCG; Joint Interagency Task Force — South; U.S. Secret 
Service; Office of National Drug Control Policy; The Interdiction 
Committee; and the DHS Office of the Under Secretary for Management. 
Initiatives discussed among the attendees included helicopter and 
marine vessel acquisitions, the P-3 aircraft Service Life Extension 
Program, opportunities for potential consolidation of facilities, 
potential locations of new support units, and the FY 2012-2013 
Aircraft Deployment Plan. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. General, technical, and sensitivity comments on the 
report were previously provided under separate cover. 

We look forward to working with you on future Homeland Security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Cindy Ayers (Assistant 
Director), Chuck Bausell, Alexander Beata, Richard D. Brown, Frances 
A. Cook, 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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

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

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

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

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

[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. 

[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. 

[10] The Boat Commodity Council was established in May 2004. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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). 

[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. 

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

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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). 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

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

[70] 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. 

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

[72] An 87TH 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. 

[End of section] 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://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, [hyperlink, 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: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

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

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