This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-714 
entitled 'Department Of Homeland Security: DHS Needs to 
Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and Capabilities and 
Identify Shortfalls' which was released on July 29, 2010. 

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. 

Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Department Of Homeland Security: 

DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and 
Capabilities and Identify Shortfalls: 

GAO-10-714: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GA0-10-714, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of 
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 
U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a variety of 
responsibilities that utilize foreign language capabilities, including 
investigating transnational criminal activity and staffing ports of 
entry into the United States. GAO was asked to study foreign language 
capabilities at DHS. GAO's analysis focused on actions taken by DHS in 
three of its largest components—the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE). Specifically, this report addresses the extent to which DHS has 
(1) assessed its foreign language needs and existing capabilities and 
identified any potential shortfalls and (2) developed foreign language 
programs and activities to address potential foreign language 
shortfalls GAO analyzed DHS documentation on foreign language 
capabilities, interviewed DHS officials, and assessed workforce 
planning in three components that were selected to ensure broad 
representation of law enforcement and intelligence operations. While 
the results are not projectable, they provide valuable insights. 

What GAO Found: 

DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign Language Needs and 
Capabilities and Identify Shortfalls What GAO Found DHS has taken 
limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and existing 
capabilities and to identify potential shortfalls. GAO and the Office 
of Personnel Management have developed strategic workforce guidance 
that recommends, among other things, that agencies (1) assess 
workforce needs, such as foreign language needs; (2) assess current 
competency skills; and (3) compare workforce needs against available 
skills. However, DHS has done little at the department level, and 
individual components' approaches to addressing foreign language needs 
and capabilities and assessing potential shortfalls have not been 
comprehensive. Specifically: 

* DHS has no systematic method for assessing its foreign language 
needs and does not address foreign language needs in its Human Capital 
Strategic Plan. DHS components' efforts to assess foreign language 
needs vary. For example, the Coast Guard has conducted multiple 
assessments, CBP's assessments have primarily focused on Spanish 
language needs, and ICE has not conducted any assessments. By 
conducting a comprehensive assessment, DHS would be better positioned 
to capture information on all of its needs and could use this 
information to inform future strategic planning. 

* DHS has no systematic method for assessing its existing foreign 
language capabilities and has not conducted a comprehensive 
capabilities assessment. DHS components have developed various lists 
of foreign language capable staff that are available in some offices, 
primarily those that include a foreign language award program for 
qualified employees. Conducting an assessment of all of its 
capabilities would better position DHS to manage its resources. 

* DHS and its components have not taken actions to identify potential 
foreign language shortfalls. DHS officials stated that shortfalls can 
affect mission goals and officer safety. By using the results of needs 
and capabilities assessments to identify foreign language shortfalls, 
DHS would be better positioned to develop actions to mitigate 
shortfalls, execute its various missions that involve foreign language 
speakers, and enhance the safety of its officers and agents. 

DHS and its components have established a variety of foreign language 
programs and activities but have not assessed the extent to which they 
address potential shortfalls. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have 
established foreign language programs and activities, which include 
foreign language training and award payments. These programs and 
activities vary, as does DHS's ability to use them to address 
shortfalls. For example, foreign language training programs generally 
do not include languages other than Spanish, and DHS officials were 
generally unaware of the foreign language programs in DHS's 
components. Given this variation and decentralization, conducting a 
comprehensive assessment of the extent to which its programs and 
activities address shortfalls could strengthen DHS's ability to manage 
its foreign language programs and activities and to adjust them, if 
necessary. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DHS comprehensively assess its foreign language 
needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls, assess the 
extent to which existing foreign language programs are addressing 
foreign language shortfalls, and ensure that these assessments are 
incorporated into future strategic planning. DHS generally concurs 
with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-10-714] or key 
components. For more information, contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-
9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Needs and 
Capabilities and Identify Potential Shortfalls: 

DHS Has Developed a Variety of Foreign Language Programs, but the 
Extent to Which They Address Foreign Language Shortfalls Is Not Known: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance: 

Appendix III: Federal Interagency Language Roundtable Proficiency 
Scale: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: DHS Select Component Responsibilities for Which There Is 
Potential for Use of Foreign Language Capabilities: 

Table 2: DHS Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Assessments and 
Needs: 

Table 3: DHS Components' and Offices' Knowledge of Foreign Language 
Capabilities: 

Table 4: Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Programs and 
Activities: 

Table 5: DHS Components' and Offices' with Foreign Language Award 
Programs: 

Table 6: Federal Foreign Language Proficiency Levels: 

Abbreviations: 

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

CSRS: Civil Service Retirement System: 

CTR: Counter-Terrorist Response: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DLPT: Defense Language Proficiency Test: 

DRO: Office of Detention and Removal Operations: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

FERS: Federal Employees' Retirement System: 

FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

ILR: Interagency Language Roundtable: 

OCHCO: Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PAU/TAG: passenger analysis unit and tactical group: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 22, 2010: 

The Honorable Daniel K Akaka: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George V. Voinovich: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

In the wake of a changing security environment, federal agencies' 
needs for personnel with foreign language proficiencies have grown 
significantly. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist 
attacks, the United States established the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), which has a variety of missions, including protecting 
against terrorism, securing and managing the nation's borders, and 
enforcing immigration and custom laws, among others. DHS's components 
are located on our coastlines and land borders and throughout the 
country and abroad. In carrying out their daily responsibilities, many 
of the men and women at DHS frequently interact with individuals who 
do not speak English, or rely on information that needs to be 
translated from another language to English. DHS staff encounter a 
wide array of languages and dialects, under sometimes difficult and 
unpredictable circumstances, including arrests, surveillance, and 
interviewing individuals. Foreign language skills are vital for DHS 
personnel to effectively communicate and overcome language barriers 
encountered during critical operations, and are a key element to the 
success of the department's homeland security responsibilities. 

Since 2002, we have issued a series of reports[Footnote 1] on two key 
aspects of foreign language capabilities across the federal 
government.[Footnote 2] Our work has examined (1) the use of foreign 
language skills as well as (2) the nature and impact of foreign 
language shortages at federal agencies, particularly those that play a 
central role in national security. We have reported that lack of 
foreign language capability at some agencies, including the 
Departments of Defense and State as well as the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), have resulted in backlogs in translation of 
intelligence documents and other information, adversely affected 
agency operations, and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, 
intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts. We and the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have developed strategic 
workforce planning guidance that has formed the basis for our prior 
reviews on foreign language capabilities at other departments. We 
recommended that these agencies adopt a strategic, results-oriented 
approach to manage foreign language capabilities, including setting a 
strategic direction, assessing agency gaps in foreign language skills, 
and taking actions to help ensure that foreign language capabilities 
are available when needed, among other things.[Footnote 3] Most 
recently, in September 2009, we reported that Department of State 
documents did not contain measurable goals, objectives, resource 
requirements, and milestones for reducing its foreign language gaps, 
and recommended that a more comprehensive strategic approach be 
established to more effectively guide and assess progress in meeting 
foreign language requirements.[Footnote 4] 

In response to your request, this report discusses foreign language 
capabilities at DHS. For this review, our analysis focused on actions 
taken by DHS to assess its foreign language capabilities and address 
shortfalls in three of its largest components—the U.S. Coast Guard, 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE). We also focused on some offices in those components 
that use foreign language capabilities to carry out law enforcement 
and intelligence activities. Specifically, this report addresses the 
extent to which DHS has (1) assessed its foreign language needs and 
existing capabilities and identified any potential shortfalls and (2) 
developed foreign language programs and activities to address any 
foreign language shortfalls For this work, we obtained all available 
foreign language-related assessments conducted by three DHS components 
and seven offices within those components.[Footnote 5] The earliest 
assessment was conducted in 1999, and the most recent assessment was 
conducted in 2009. We selected the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE to review 
because they comprise a broad representation of program areas whose 
missions include law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities. We 
then selected locations based on geographic regions, border locations, 
and language use. The locations we visited were San Antonio and 
Laredo, Texas; Artesia, New Mexico; New York City and Buffalo, New 
York; Miami, Florida; and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Although the results 
are not projectable, they provided us with valuable insights about the 
exposure to and use of foreign languages across DHS, primarily 
Spanish. We examined documentation on foreign language needs and 
capabilities, including DHS's strategic plans for fiscal years 2004 
through 2008 and 2008 through 2013, human capital plans for fiscal 
years 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013, and DHS's Work Force 
Planning Guide and Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report. 
[Footnote 6] Further, we interviewed knowledgeable DHS officials in 
DHS's Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) and conducted 
over 430 interviews with component officials for all the locations we 
visited to obtain information on existing capabilities and potential 
foreign language capability shortfalls.[Footnote 7] We compared DHS 
activities to criteria in our and OPM's strategic workforce planning 
guidance.[Footnote 8] We also visited CBP's Border Patrol Academy at 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to observe the Spanish 
Language Program, interviewed officers in training and program 
officials about their training program, and examined documentation on 
foreign language training development for all existing programs at 
select component offices. Appendix I contains additional details on 
our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through June 
2010 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. 

Background: 

DHS Use of Foreign Language Capabilities: 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and brought together the 
workforces of 22 distinct agencies governed by multiple legacy rules, 
regulations, and laws for hundreds of occupations.[Footnote 9] The 
department's 216,000 employees include a mix of civilian and military 
personnel in fields ranging from law enforcement, science, 
professional, technology, administration, clerical professions, 
trades, and crafts. DHS has a vital role in preventing terrorist 
attacks, reducing our vulnerability to terrorism, and minimizing the 
damage and facilitating the recovery from attacks that do occur. The 
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism calls on all government 
agencies to review their foreign language programs. Further, the 
National Strategy for Homeland Security articulates activities to 
enhance government capabilities, including prioritizing the 
recruitment and retention of those having relevant language skills at 
all levels of government.[Footnote 10] The 9/11 Commission, a 
statutory bipartisan commission created in 2002, concluded in 2004 
that significant changes were needed in the organization of 
government, to include acquiring personnel with language skills and 
developing a stronger language program.[Footnote 11] 

DHS has a variety of law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities 
that utilize foreign language capabilities. For example, DHS 
undertakes immigration enforcement actions involving thousands of non-
English-speaking foreign nationals and conducts criminal 
investigations that cross national borders, among other things. 
Conducting investigations and dismantling criminal organizations that 
transport persons and goods across the borders illegally are 
operations where foreign language capabilities help DHS to identify 
and effectively analyze terrorist intent. DHS also reports that 
foreign language capabilities enhance its ability to more effectively 
communicate with persons who do not speak English to collect and 
translate intelligence information related to suspected illegal 
activity. 

At the component level, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE are among DHS's 
largest components with law enforcement and intelligence 
responsibilities that have a potential use of foreign language 
capabilities. Table 1 briefly describes the law enforcement and 
intelligence roles and responsibilities of these components. 

Table 1: DHS Select Component Responsibilities for Which There Is 
Potential for Use of Foreign Language Capabilities: 

DHS components: U.S. Coast Guard; 
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where 
there is potential for foreign language use: Enforces immigration laws 
at sea by interdicting, communicating with, and boarding vessels to 
intercept undocumented persons; denying these persons illegal entry to 
the United States via maritime routes; and disrupting and deterring 
illegal activity while encountering persons of various nationalities. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

DHS components: U.S. Border Patrol; 
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where 
there is potential for foreign language use: Conducts operations to 
prevent terrorists, terrorist weapons, inadmissible aliens, smugglers, 
and narcotics and other contraband from entering the United States 
between ports of entry while approaching individuals and groups to 
interview, gathering information, and examining documents and records 
of individuals with varying backgrounds. 

DHS components: Office of Air and Marine; 
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where 
there is potential for foreign language use: Operates air and marine 
forces to detect and interdict drugs and weapons, and prevents acts of 
terrorism and the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and 
other contraband along or across the borders and within the United 
States, Canada, the Bahamas, Mexico, and the Caribbean while 
encountering a variety of foreign languages in use in the operating 
area. 

DHS components: Office of Field Operations; 
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where 
there is potential for foreign language use: Conducts operations to 
prevent terrorists, terrorist weapons, inadmissible aliens, smugglers, 
and narcotics and other contraband from entering the United States. 
Conducts operations to facilitate legitimate trade and travel at the 
nation's air, land, and sea ports of entry while using judgment and 
applying behavioral and cultural analysis, questioning individuals, 
and examining documents. Encounters and overcomes language and 
cultural obstacles to make determinations and to further compliance 
with U.S. laws. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

DHS components: Office of Detention and Removal Operations: 
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where 
there is potential for foreign language use: Performs enforcement 
functions for individuals who are subject to removal or criminal 
proceedings by reviewing documentation and interviewing persons at 
various stages of deportation, encountering a variety of foreign 
languages. Also analyzes records and develops and uses informants to 
develop leads on where individuals of varying backgrounds may be found 
to obtain and execute warrants of arrest. 

DHS components: Office of Investigations: 
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where 
there is potential for foreign language use: Identifies and recruits 
sources of information to develop investigations, conduct interviews, 
and communicate with criminal targets in proactive investigations that 
may involve persons who speak foreign languages. 

DHS components: Office of Intelligence; 
Law enforcement and intelligence roles and responsibilities where 
there is potential for foreign language use: Collects intelligence 
information through various sources, which may require foreign 
language capabilities, and conducts interviews of persons of interest 
and develops reports on intelligence information to support homeland 
security activities. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documentation. 

[End of table] 

OCHCO is responsible for departmentwide human capital policy and 
development, planning, and implementation. In this role, OCHCO works 
with the components to ensure the best approach for the department's 
human capital initiatives. Specifically, OCHCO establishes DHS-wide 
policies and processes and works with components to ensure that the 
policies and processes are followed to ensure mission success. 
Additionally, OCHCO provides strategic human capital direction to and 
certification of departmental programs and initiatives, such as DHS's 
foreign language capabilities. 

DHS Components Have a Variety of Missions: 

The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency, the only military agency 
within DHS, and serves as the lead agency for maritime homeland 
security, enforcing immigration laws at sea. In support of DHS's 
mission to control U.S. borders, the Coast Guard's Ports, Waterways, 
and Coastal Security mission goal is to manage terror-related risk in 
the maritime domain. Additionally, its responsibilities include (1) 
interdicting undocumented persons attempting to illegally enter the 
United States via the maritime sector and (2) boarding vessels to 
conduct inspections and screenings of crew and passengers in its 
attempt to reduce the number of illegal passenger vessels entering the 
United States, among other things. For example, Coast Guard Maritime 
Safety and Security Teams conduct patrols and monitor migration flow 
from countries neighboring the Caribbean Basin, including Colombia, 
Venezuela, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. In fiscal year 2009, the 
Coast Guard increased its presence in the vicinity of Haiti to deter 
mass migration and interdicted nearly 3,700 undocumented persons 
attempting to illegally enter the United States. Additionally, during 
fiscal year 2009, the Coast Guard reported screening over 248,000 
commercial vessels and 62 million crew and passengers for terrorist 
and criminal associations prior to arrival in U.S. ports, identifying 
400 individuals with terrorism associations. The Coast Guard conducts 
approximately 10,000 law enforcement boardings while interdicting 
drugs each year in the southern Caribbean, which is where the Coast 
Guard is likely to encounter non-English speakers. 

CBP is the federal agency in charge of securing U.S. borders and three 
of its offices—the Offices of U.S. Border Patrol, Air and Marine, and 
Field Operations—share a mission of keeping terrorists and their 
weapons from entering the United States while carrying out its other 
responsibilities, including interdicting illegal contraband and 
persons seeking to enter at and between U.S. ports of entry while 
facilitating the movement of legitimate travelers and trade.[Footnote 
12] CBP regularly engages with foreign nationals in carrying out its 
missions and is DHS's only component authorized to make final 
admissibility determinations regarding arrivals of cargo and 
passengers. Annually, CBP reports that it has direct contact with 
approximately 1 million people crossing borders through ports of entry 
each day. It is through these contacts that CBP has a potential 
likelihood of encountering non-English speakers. As a result, foreign 
language skills are needed to assist CBP federal law enforcement 
officers in enforcing a wide range of U.S. laws. In 2009, CBP 
encountered over 224,000 undocumented immigrants and persons not 
admissible at the ports of entry. CBP employs over 45,000 employees, 
including border patrol agents stationed at 142 stations with 35 
permanent checkpoints, Air and Marine agents and officers, and CBP 
officers and agriculture specialists stationed at over 326 ports of 
entry located at airports, seaports, and land borders along more than 
5,000 miles of land border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with 
Mexico, and 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline. Border patrol agents work 
between the ports of entry to interdict people and contraband 
illegally entering the United States. CBP's Office of Air and Marine 
manages boats and aircraft to support all operations to interdict 
drugs and terrorists before they enter the United States. CBP officers 
work at foreign and domestic ports of entry to prevent cross-border 
smuggling of contraband, such as controlled substances, weapons of 
mass destruction, and illegal goods. 

ICE is the largest investigative arm of DHS, with more than 20,000 
employees worldwide. ICE has immigration and custom authorities to 
prevent terrorism and criminal activity by targeting people, money, 
and materials that support terrorist and criminal organizations. ICE 
and three of its offices—the Offices of Detention and Removal 
Operations, Investigations, and Intelligence—identifying, 
apprehending, and investigating threats arising from the movement of 
people and goods into and out of the United States. In fiscal year 
2009, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations completed 387,790 
removals, 18,569 more than in fiscal year 2008. ICE's Office of 
Investigations investigates a broad range of domestic and 
international activities arising from illicit movement of people that 
violates immigration laws and threatens national security. For 
example, investigations where there is a potential use of foreign 
language capabilities include those for human trafficking and drug 
smuggling, illegal arms trafficking, and financial crimes. In 2009, 
ICE initiated 6,444 investigations along U.S. borders. ICE's Office of 
Intelligence is responsible for collecting operational and tactical 
intelligence that directly supports law enforcement and homeland 
security missions. 

Guidance on Strategic Workforce Planning: 

Strategic workforce planning helps ensure that an organization has the 
staff with the necessary skills and competencies to accomplish 
strategic goals. We and OPM have developed guidance for managing human 
capital and developing strategic workforce planning 
strategies.[Footnote 13] Since 2001, we have reported strategic human 
capital management as an area with a high risk of vulnerability to 
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In January 2009, we reported 
that while progress has been made in the last few years to address 
human capital challenges, ample opportunities exist for agencies to 
improve in several areas.[Footnote 14] For example, we reported that 
making sure that strategic human capital planning is integrated with 
broader organizational strategic planning is critical to ensuring that 
agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to address their 
current and emerging human capital challenges.[Footnote 15] 

Our and OPM's workforce planning guidance recommends, among other 
things, that agencies (1) assess their workforce needs, such as their 
foreign language needs; (2) assess current competency skills, such as 
foreign language capabilities; and (3) compare workforce needs against 
available skills to identify any shortfalls, such as those related to 
foreign language capabilities. 

DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Needs and 
Capabilities and Identify Potential Shortfalls: 

DHS has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and 
capabilities and to identify potential shortfalls. DHS efforts could 
be strengthened if it conducts a comprehensive assessment of its 
foreign language needs and capabilities and uses the results of this 
assessment to identify any potential shortfalls. By doing so, DHS 
could better position itself to manage its foreign language workforce 
needs to help fulfill its organizational missions. 

DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Its Foreign Language Needs: 

DHS has not comprehensively assessed its foreign language needs 
because, according to DHS senior officials, there is no legislative 
directive for the department to assess its needs for foreign 
languages. As a result, DHS lacks a complete understanding of the 
extent of its foreign language needs. According to DHS officials, the 
department relies on the individual components to address their 
foreign language needs. However, while some DHS components have 
conducted various foreign language assessments, these assessments are 
not comprehensive and do not fully address DHS's foreign language 
needs for select offices or programs consistent with strategic 
workforce planning. Specifically, the components' foreign language 
assessments assess primarily Spanish language needs rather than 
comprehensively addressing other potential foreign language needs 
their workforces are most likely to encounter in fulfilling their 
missions. 

While DHS's Human Capital Strategic Plan discusses efforts to better 
position the department to have the right people in the right jobs at 
the right time, DHS has not linked these efforts to addressing its 
workforce's foreign language needs. DHS's strategic plan acknowledges 
the department's multifaceted workforce and the complexity of DHS 
operations, and envisions "a department-wide approach that enables its 
workforce to achieve its mission," but it does not discuss how its 
planned efforts will help ensure that the workforce's foreign language 
needs are met.[Footnote 16] Further, the DHS Quadrennial Homeland 
Security Review, which was completed in February 2010, does not 
address foreign language capabilities and needs.[Footnote 17] The 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 called 
for each quadrennial review to be a comprehensive examination of the 
homeland security strategy of the nation, including recommendations 
regarding the long-term strategy and priorities of the assets, 
capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of the department. 
[Footnote 18] As we previously reported, strategic human capital 
planning that is integrated with broader organizational strategic 
planning is critical to ensuring that agencies have the talent and 
stall mix they need to address their human capital challenges.
[Footnote 19] While the department states that there is no legislative 
directive for it to assess its foreign language capabilities and 
relies on the individual components, considering foreign language 
capabilities when setting its strategic future direction would help 
DHS to more effectively guide its efforts and those of its components 
in determining the foreign language needs necessary to achieve mission 
goals and address its needs and any potential shortfalls. 

The extent to which components have conducted language assessments of 
their foreign language needs varies. These assessments were limited 
primarily to Spanish as well as the needs of the workforce in certain 
offices, locations, and positions rather than comprehensive 
assessments addressing multiple languages and needs of the workforce 
as a whole. Table 2 shows the various assessments that were conducted 
at the component level and in certain offices. 

Table 2: DHS Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Assessments and 
Needs: 

DHS component: U.S. Coast Guard; 
Office: Foreign Language Program Office; 
Language assessments: 1999 Foreign Language Needs Assessment; 
2008 Foreign Language Speakers Needs Assessment; 2009 Foreign Language 
Speakers Interpreter and Linguist Performance Analysis[A]; 
Foreign language needs: Spanish, Haitian-Creole, Russian, Vietnamese, 
Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, French, Indonesian, 
Portuguese, and Tagalog 

DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Office: U.S. Border Patrol; 
Language assessments: None; 
Foreign language needs: Spanish[B]. 

DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Office: Office of Air and Marine; 
Language assessments: 2009 Marine Interdiction Agent (MIA) Critical 
Analysis to Support Spanish Language Need[C]; 
Foreign language needs: Spanish. 

DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Office: Office of Field Operations; 
Language assessments: 2004 Spanish Language Proficiency Determination 
for Customs and Border Protection Officer[D]; 
Foreign language needs: Spanish. 

DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Office: Office of Detention and Removal Operations; 
Language assessments: None; 
Foreign language needs: Spanish[E]. 

DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Office: Office of Investigations; 
Language assessments: None; 
Foreign language needs: None specified. 

DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Office: Office of Intelligence; 
Language assessments: None; 
Foreign language needs: None specified. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS components' documentation. 

[A] U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Law Enforcement, Foreign Language 
Needs Assessment, Final Report (Washington, D.C., 1999); Foreign 
Language Speakers, Needs Assessment (Petaluma, Calif., 2008); and 
Foreign Language Speakers Interpreter and Linguists, New Performance 
and Planning Front End Analysis (Petaluma, Calif., 2008). 

[B] The agency administrative provision governing the requirements and 
procedures that are applicable to the training, evaluation, and 
examination of border patrol agent trainees, including their Spanish 
language skills, is Section 2301.02 of the Administrative Manual and 
went into effect on May 20, 1983. 

[C] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Marine Interdiction Agent 
(MIA) Critical Task Analysis to Support Spanish Task-Based Language 
Training, Final High Level Recommendations Report (Alexandria, Va., 
2009). 

[D] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Spanish Language Proficiency 
Determination for Customs and Border Protection Officer, Report and 
Recommendations (Washington, D.C., 2004). 

[E] The Office of Detention and Removal Operations prior to its 
transfer to DHS had identified and established Spanish foreign 
language requirements, but after the transfer in March 2003 those 
requirements were rescinded and then reinstated in 2007. 

[End of table] 

Coast Guard. Since 1999, the Coast Guard has conducted three 
assessments that identified the need for certain foreign language 
capabilities, which have resulted in the Coast Guard establishing 
requirements for certain foreign languages award program. 
Additionally, according to the Coast Guard's Foreign Language Program 
Manager, by obtaining information from Coast Guard leadership and 
operational units, the Coast Guard determines what languages are 
encountered most in the field. Additionally, the official stated that 
annual reviews are conducted to determine how best to allocate the 
Coast Guard's foreign language linguist and interpreter positions. A 
"linguist" is expected to use his or her foreign language skills on an 
almost daily basis in support of a specific function within his or her 
unit, while interpreting is a collateral duty that can be filled by 
any qualified personnel. According to Coast Guard officials, they face 
difficulty in meeting their foreign language needs because of the 
difficulties experienced by personnel in obtaining qualifying 
proficiency scores on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT). 
[Footnote 20] To meet foreign language program requirements, DLPT 
testing results are used to make allocation decisions for foreign 
language speakers. For example, according to the Foreign Language 
Program Manager, at one of its offices near Brownsville, Texas, the 
Coast Guard has native Spanish-speaking personnel who successfully use 
Spanish during operations but are not testing high enough on the DLPT 
and thus are not considered during allocation decisions for foreign 
language needs. 

CBP. CBP has conducted two assessments since 2004 that have primarily 
focused on Spanish language needs. CBP's needs assessments are based 
on a task-based analysis. For example, CBP assessed critical tasks 
necessary to carry out certain operations, such as its officers 
requesting and analyzing biographical information from persons 
entering the United States and addressing suspects attempting to 
smuggle people, weapons, drugs, or other contraband across borders. 
These encounters may require foreign language skills, primarily 
Spanish for offices such as the U.S. Border Patrol, the Office of Air 
and Marine, and the Office of Field Operations. However, CBP's foreign 
language assessment for its Office of Field Operations included only 
those CBP officers located along the southwest border, in Miami, and 
in Puerto Rico, and this assessment did not include its foreign 
language needs in other field offices around the country. CBP's U.S. 
Border Patrol conducted similar assessments, which focused on 
assessing its foreign language training program, while the Office of 
Air and Marine's foreign language assessment determined the extent of 
its Spanish language needs and, as a result, established its Spanish 
language training program. 

ICE. According to ICE officials, rather than conducting foreign 
language needs assessments, ICE primarily identifies its needs based 
on daily activities. That is, ICE relies on its agents' knowledge of 
foreign languages they have encountered most frequently during their 
daily law enforcement and intelligence operations. However, ICE has 
not collected data on what those daily needs are. Without such data, 
ICE is not in a position to comprehensively assess its language needs. 
According to ICE officials, in 2007, ICE reinstated the Spanish 
language requirements that were in place prior to the formation of DHS 
for its Office of Detention and Removal Operations. Further, for its 
Offices of Investigations and Intelligence, it utilizes foreign 
language interpreter services by contract for foreign languages 
necessary, including Spanish.[Footnote 21] 

The components' efforts to assess their foreign language needs are 
varied and not comprehensive. Specifically, the assessments have been 
limited to certain languages, locations, programs, and offices. As a 
result, component officials we spoke with identified foreign language 
needs that are not captured in these assessments, such as the 
following: 

* In the five CBP and ICE offices we visited near the Mexican border, 
we were told that they have encountered foreign language needs for 
variations of Spanish language skills, such as Castilian, border, and 
slang Spanish (that is, Spanish dialects in certain geographic regions 
that use words and phrases that are not part of the official 
language). According to ICE officials, in 2009, its Office of 
Detention and Removal Operations experienced a need for Mandarin 
Chinese language skills because of an influx of encounters with 
Chinese speakers near the Mexican border. However, CBP and ICE have 
not assessed their needs for Chinese speakers. 

* In the three CBP and ICE offices we visited near the Canadian 
border, we were told that their encounters primarily involve Spanish, 
Arabic, and Quebecois French speakers. However, CBP and ICE have not 
assessed their needs for Arabic and Quebecois French speakers. 

* In the seven Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE offices we visited in the 
Caribbean region, we were told that they primarily encounter Puerto 
Rican and slang Spanish, Haitian-Creole, and Patois. Although the 
Coast Guard has assessed its need for some of these languages, CBP and 
ICE have not assessed their needs in these languages. 

( Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE offices in New York report that their 
primary language needs include Colombian Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, 
Urdu, and Fulani. Although the Coast Guard has assessed its need for 
these languages, CBP and ICE have not assessed their needs for Arabic, 
Chinese, Urdu, and Fulani. 

According to DHS officials, foreign language skills are an integral 
part of the department's operations. Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE 
officials in the seven components generally agreed that a 
comprehensive approach to conducting a foreign language needs 
assessment would be beneficial. By conducting a comprehensive 
assessment, DHS would be in a better position to address its foreign 
language needs. In addition, this assessment would enable the Coast 
Guard, CBP, and ICE to comprehensively assess their component-level 
foreign language needs. 

DHS Has Taken Limited Actions to Assess Foreign Language Capabilities: 

DHS, including the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, has not comprehensively 
assessed its existing foreign language capabilities. However, 
components have various lists of staff with foreign language 
capabilities, as shown in table 3. 

Table 3: DHS Components' and Offices' Knowledge of Foreign Language 
Capabilities: 

DHS component: U.S. Coast Guard 
Office: Foreign Language Program Office; 
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Personnel 
voluntarily identified as foreign language speakers, in certain 
languages and proficiency levels, and meet foreign language award 
program requirements. 

DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Office: U.S. Border Patrol; 
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: All officers and 
agents that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish language skills 
through the Border Patrol Academy. 

DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Office: Office of Air and Marine; 
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Officers and 
agents that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish language skills 
through the Border Patrol Academy. 

DHS component: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Office: Office of Field Operations; 
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Officers and 
agriculture specialists that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish 
language skills through the Office of Field Operation's academy. 
Officers and agriculture specialists voluntarily identified as foreign 
language speakers, in certain languages and proficiency levels, and 
meet foreign language award program requirements.[A] 

DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Office: Office of Detention and Removal Operations; 
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Some officers and 
agents that demonstrated a certain level of Spanish language skills 
through ICE's academy. 

DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Office: Office of Investigations; 
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: Agents 
voluntarily identified as foreign language speakers, in certain 
languages and proficiency levels, and meet foreign language award 
program requirements. 

DHS component: Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Office: Office of Intelligence; 
Existing knowledge of foreign language capabilities: None documented. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS components' documentation. 

[A] In general, under 19 U.S.C. 267a, cash awards for foreign language 
proficiency may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, be paid to customs officers (as referred to in section 267 
(e)(1) of this title) to the same extent and in the manner as would be 
allowable under subchapter III of chapter 45 of title 5 with respect 
to law enforcement officers (as defined by section 4521 of such title). 

[End of table] 

Although DHS and its components maintain these lists that identify 
some of their staff with foreign language capabilities, these lists 
generally capture capabilities for personnel in certain components or 
offices, primarily those that include a foreign language award program 
for qualified employees. These include the Coast Guard, CBP's Office 
of Field Operations, and ICE's Office of Investigations. 

Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, through its foreign language award 
program for foreign language skills, has developed a list that 
identifies personnel with certain proficiencies in one or more 
authorized foreign languages and meets program requirements. For 
example, the list identifies a Coast Guard member with a certain 
proficiency level in Spanish at the Miami Sector office. However, 
these lists contain the personnel voluntarily identified as speaking 
an authorized foreign language and have successfully met the program's 
requirements and receiving award payments. While this list identifies 
some personnel who speak at least one of the 12 authorized languages, 
it does not account for personnel who successfully carry out an 
operation utilizing their foreign language skills but are unable to 
meet the proficiency requirements per the DLPT. According to the 
Foreign Language Program Manager, a challenge exists in assigning 
foreign language speakers while aligning their foreign language 
proficiencies per the DLPT to the operational needs in the field. As a 
result, personnel who speak a foreign language are being utilized but 
are not considered part of Coast Guard's foreign language capabilities 
and are unable to receive foreign language award payments. In May 
2010, the Coast Guard made some changes to its foreign language 
program and expanded compensation requirements to include other 
proficiency levels and award payments, which could improve its ability 
to identify foreign language resources that were unaccounted for prior 
to this change to meet its foreign language needs.[Footnote 22] 

CBP. CBP, through its foreign language award program in its Office of 
Field Operations, has developed a list that identifies CBP officers 
and agriculture specialists with a certain proficiency level in a 
foreign language. Additionally, it identifies those officers and 
agriculture specialists who (1) have received Spanish instruction 
through its academy, and (2) speak Spanish in certain field office 
locations. 

ICE. ICE, through its foreign language award program in its Office of 
Investigations, has developed a list that identifies certain agents 
with a certain proficiency level in a foreign language. For example, 
the list includes an agent with a certain proficiency level in 
Jamaican Patois at the New York field office. Further, although it's 
Offices of Detention and Removal Operations and Intelligence do not 
have foreign language award programs, they have developed lists in 
their individual offices of employees with foreign language 
capabilities. For example, one list identifies an intelligence 
research specialist at the Office of Intelligence in Miami who speaks 
Haitian-Creole, but does not include his proficiency level. 

Across all three components, while certain offices have developed 
lists of staff with foreign language capabilities, component officials 
told us that their knowledge of foreign language capabilities is 
generally obtained in an ad hoc manner. For example, at each of the 
seven locations we visited, Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials told 
us that they generally do not use the lists described above to obtain 
knowledge of their colleagues' foreign language capabilities, but 
rather have knowledge of their colleagues' foreign language 
capabilities through their current or past interactions. For example, 
according to ICE intelligence analysts, existing foreign language 
capabilities in ICE's Office of Intelligence are not systematically 
identified in the lists, but the specialists are aware of colleagues 
who have proficiencies in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Haitian-
Creole. Component officials stated that the inability to identify all 
existing capabilities may result in intelligence information 
potentially not being collected, properly translated, or analyzed in 
its proper context for additional foreign languages and thus affect 
the timeliness and accuracy of information. Moreover, they said that 
this information may be vital in tactical and operational intelligence 
to direct law enforcement operations and develop investigative leads. 

Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE staff at each of the seven locations we 
visited generally agreed that more detailed information on existing 
capabilities could help them to better manage their resources. These 
officials told us that while Spanish language proficiency may be 
identified as an existing capability, it may not always be available 
and generally the levels of proficiencies vary. For example, according 
to one ICE immigration enforcement agent in the Office of Detention 
and Removal Operation's fugitive operation program, he speaks Spanish 
but is not proficient. He told us that there have been cases in which 
he needed assistance from an agent who was proficient in Spanish to 
converse with Spanish speakers. As the agent was not proficient in 
Spanish, he said he did not apprehend certain individuals because he 
was unable to verify their immigration status because he could not 
communicate with them. 

Although DHS has some knowledge of its existing capabilities in 
certain components and offices, conducting an assessment of foreign 
language capabilities consistent with strategic workforce planning—
that is, collecting data in a systematic manner that includes all of 
DHS's existing foreign language capabilities—would better position DHS 
to manage its resources. 

DHS Has Not Taken Actions to Identify Foreign Language Shortfalls: 

DHS, including the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE, has not taken actions to 
identify potential foreign language shortfalls. Moreover, DHS's Human 
Capital Strategic Plan does not include details on assessing potential 
shortfalls, as called for by best strategic workforce planning 
practices. DHS officials in OCHCO told us that in response to our 
review, they had canvassed the components to assess DHS's foreign 
language shortfalls and that the components' response was that they 
address shortfalls through contracts with foreign language interpreter 
and translation services. This canvassing was not based on a 
comprehensive assessment of needs and capabilities, which calls into 
question the extent to which it could comprehensively identify 
shortfalls. According to OCHCO officials, OCHCO plans to conduct a 
review and realignment of the DHS Human Capital Strategic Plan, and 
officials said that the plan will include more specific direction to 
the components on workforce planning guidance. 

We also found that the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have not taken 
actions to identify foreign language shortfalls. According to 
component officials, they face foreign language capability shortfalls 
that affect their ability to meet their missions. At the Coast Guard, 
CBP, and ICE locations we visited, 238 of over 430 staff we 
interviewed identified ways that foreign language shortfalls can 
increase the potential for miscommunication, affect the ability to 
develop criminal cases and support criminal charges, increase the risk 
of loss or delay of intelligence, and can have a negative impact on 
officer safety. For example, according to the Border Patrol Academy's 
Spanish Language Program officials, as part of the Spanish language 
training, a video is shown of an actual incident in which a Texas law 
enforcement officer begins interviewing four Spanish-speaking 
individuals during a routine traffic stop. The video was recorded by 
the law enforcement officer's dashboard video camera. In the video, 
the four suspects exit the car and begin conversing in Spanish among 
each other while the officer appears to have difficulty understanding 
what the individuals are saying. Seconds later, the four individuals 
attacked the officer, took his gun, and shot the officer to death. 

As another example, an ICE special agent told us that in the course of 
conducting a drug bust in 1991, he had been accidentally shot by a 
fellow agent because of, among other things, foreign language 
miscommunications. According to the agent and other sources familiar 
with the incident, he was working as the principal undercover agent in 
a drug sting operation in Newark, New Jersey. At the time of the 
incident, prior to the formation of DHS, he was working as a U.S. 
Customs Service agent. The undercover operation involved meeting and 
communicating in Spanish with two Colombian drug dealers as part of a 
cocaine bust. According to the agent, there were up to 18 other 
federal agents involved in the operation, at least two of whom were 
fluent in Spanish. Further, agents were videotaping and monitoring the 
conversation between the federal agent and the drug dealers from a 
nearby command post. However, the agent told us that none of the law 
enforcement officers in the command post who were covertly monitoring 
his dialogue with the drug dealers spoke or understood Spanish. The 
agent stated that as a result, law enforcement officers were signaled 
to rush in prematurely to make the arrests. In the chaos that ensued, 
the agent was accidentally shot by a fellow agent and paralyzed from 
the chest down. According to the agent, as well as other agents 
familiar with the incident, had there been Spanish-speaking officers 
in the command post to interpret the audio transmissions from the 
agent, the accidental shooting may have been avoided. By conducting an 
assessment of needs and capabilities, and using the results of these 
assessments to identify shortfalls, DHS can be better positioned to 
take action to mitigate these shortfalls, which will help to ensure 
the safety of its officers and agents as they fulfill the department's 
mission. 

DHS Has Developed a Variety of Foreign Language Programs, but the 
Extent to Which They Address Foreign Language Shortfalls Is Not Known: 

DHS has established a variety of foreign language programs; however, 
officials stated that they have not addressed the extent to which 
these programs address existing shortfalls. According to DHS officials 
in OCHCO, DHS's foreign language programs are managed at the component 
level and are based on component operational capabilities and mission 
requirements. The components have established programs and activities, 
which consist of foreign language training, proficiency testing, 
foreign language award programs, contract services, and interagency 
agreements.[Footnote 23] Table 4 summarizes the extent to which 
foreign language programs and activities have been established in 
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE select offices. 

Table 4: Components' and Offices' Foreign Language Programs and 
Activities: 

Programs and activities: 1. Language training[A] 
Description: Foreign language training (other than Spanish); 
U.S. Coast Guard: Partial; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Partial; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No. 

Programs and activities: 1. Language training[A]; 
Description: Academy Spanish language training; 
U.S. Coast Guard: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No. 

Programs and activities: 1. Language training[A]; 
Description: Post-academy self-guided, Web-based software; 
U.S. Coast Guard: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Partial; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes. 

Programs and activities: 2. Proficiency testing; 
Description: Oral proficiency interview; 
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No. 

Programs and activities: 2. Proficiency testing; 
Description: Automated over the phone; 
U.S. Coast Guard: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No. 

Programs and activities: 2. Proficiency testing; 
Description: Defense Language Proficiency Test 5[C]; 
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No. 

Programs and activities: 3. Contract services; 
Description: Language services by contract; 
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes. 

Programs and activities: 4. Interagency agreements; 
Description: Memorandums of understanding and other similar agreements 
between components and other agencies; 
U.S. Coast Guard: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes. 

Programs and activities: 4. Interagency agreements; 
Description: Agreements between components and other agencies to 
leverage language resources as needed; 
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: Yes. 

Programs and activities: 5. Foreign language award programs[D]; 
Description: A monetary award paid as an incentive for law enforcement 
officers with foreign language skills[E]; 
U.S. Coast Guard: Yes; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OBP: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OAM: No; 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: OFO: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: DRO: No; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: OI: Yes; 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FIG: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and component documentation. 

Legend: 
OBP = Office of Border Protection; 
OFO = Office of Field Operations; 
DRO = Office of Detention and Removal Operations; 
OI = Office of Investigations; 
FIG = Office of Intelligence; 
Yes = office manages the specified foreign language program or 
activity; 
No = office does not manage the specified foreign language program or 
activity; 
Partial = foreign language program or activity is temporarily managed, 
but not permanently established. 

[A] Spanish training program proficiency is based on an evaluation on 
the ability to carry out certain tasks in Spanish and a passing score 
of 56 out of 80. 

[B] Select components use different versions of a six-level scale to 
describe proficiency in language, also known as the Interagency 
Language Roundtable (ILR) Scale. The scale starts at zero—no knowledge 
of the given language—and goes up to five—proficiency equivalent to 
that of an educated native speaker of the language. App. III contains 
additional details on the ILR Scale. 

[C] The Defense Language Institute produced this test, which is used 
to assess the general language proficiency of native English speakers 
in a specific foreign language, in the skills of reading and 
listening, and includes an oral proficiency interview. 

[D] The foreign language award program provides, in general, a 
discretionary monetary award for the use of foreign language skills 
that is in addition to basic pay and does not increase an employee's 
base salary. Payment of the award is subject to the availability of 
funds. 

[E] In general, under the foreign language award program provisions 
for law enforcement officers, the term "law enforcement officer' 
includes those personnel whose duties have been determined to be 
primarily the "investigation, apprehension, and detention of 
individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal 
laws of the U.S." 

[End of table] 

According to DHS officials in OCHCO, decisions on whether to establish 
programs and activities to develop foreign language capabilities are 
left to the discretion of individual components and are based on 
component operational capabilities and mission requirements. As shown 
in table 4, foreign language programs and activities varied across DHS 
and within select DHS components. For example, four of the seven 
component offices we reviewed maintain Spanish language training 
programs, and some of these offices require that officers complete 
Spanish language training before they are assigned to their duty 
stations. The five types of foreign language programs and activities 
used within and among the components are language training, 
proficiency testing, foreign language award programs, contract 
services, and interagency agreements. 

* Spanish language training. Before officers can be assigned to their 
duty stations, some components require that they complete a Spanish 
language training program. Specifically, U.S. Border Patrol requires 
the completion of an 8-week task-based Spanish language training 
program. The Office of Field Operations has a 6-week basic Spanish 
training program requirement, and the Office of Air and Marine 
requires 6 weeks of task-based Spanish language training. The Office 
of Detention and Removal Operations has a requirement for a 6-week 
basic Spanish training program. These programs are designed to provide 
officers with a basic Spanish language competency. U.S. Border Patrol 
and Office of Air and Marine agents and officers are required to 
attend Spanish language training only if they do not pass a Spanish 
language proficiency exam.[Footnote 24] 

* Foreign language proficiency tests. Several proficiency tests are 
used by different components, and the type of test that is used 
depends on the foreign language for which proficiency is being 
assessed.[Footnote 25] The Coast Guard's proficiency test is produced 
by the Defense Language Institute and consists of a set of tests that 
include an oral interview to assess language proficiency in the skills 
of reading and listening. ICE's proficiency test consists of an oral 
interview for all foreign languages assessed, while CBP uses a 
combination of both oral and automated telephone tests for assessing 
proficiency in similar foreign languages, such as the Spanish language. 

* Contract services. Contract services consist of contracts held by 
individual components and offices for interpreter and translation 
services. The use of language contract services depends on the unique 
requirements of the operation in individual offices. For example, the 
U.S. Border Patrol provides funding for translation services and the 
Coast Guard contracts annually for Haitian-Creole interpreter 
services. Select components utilize over-the-phone language contract 
services, while other components also utilize in-person translation 
and transcription contract services. Additionally, DHS's U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services operates and manages the Language 
Services Section, comprising both intermittent and full-time language 
specialists who may provide assistance to some offices in CBP and ICE 
in certain cases. 

* Interagency agreements. Interagency agreements consist of individual 
component offices establishing professional relationships with other 
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies as a result of 
carrying out joint operations. Additionally, these agreements vary by 
component, office, and location, and may often depend on the extent to 
which other agencies in those areas work closely with DHS. The 
interagency cooperation we observed during our site visits largely 
occurs on an ad hoc basis. For example, component officials in Miami 
told us that local, state, and federal government officials provide 
translation assistance as needed without any written agreement between 
agencies. 

* Foreign language award programs. The foreign language award program 
consists of certain DHS personnel voluntarily identified as being 
proficient in an authorized foreign language and meeting program 
requirements, including certain proficiency levels and minimum usage 
requirements. As shown in table 5, the usage requirement and award 
payment vary by component. Specifically, the Coast Guard does not have 
a usage requirement, while CBP and ICE offices require that certain 
DHS staff use the language 10 percent of the time, or 208 hours each 
year. The usage requirement for special interest languages is only 
twice per 6-month increment. Further, Coast Guard interpreters receive 
up to $200 each month and linguists receive up to $300 each month, 
while CBP and ICE employees can receive up to 5 percent of basic pay 
as an award payment. 

Table: 5: DHS Components' and Offices' with Foreign Language Award 
Programs: 

Component and office: U.S. Coast Guard; 
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills: 
Coast Guard personnel; 
Usage requirement to receive award payments: Not applicable; 
Authorized foreign languages: Spanish, Haitian-Creole, Russian, 
Vietnamese, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, French, 
Indonesian, Portuguese, and Tagaloga; 
Award: Up to $200 a month for an interpreter; Up to $300 a month for a 
linguist; 
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $600,000[B]. 

Component and office: U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Office of 
Field Operations; 
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills: 
Only CBP officers and agriculture specialists[C]; 
Usage requirement to receive award payments: Two uses biannually; 
Authorized foreign languages: Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Punjabi, Turkish, 
Uzbek, Tajik, Turkoman, Uighur, Somali, Amharic, Tigrinya, Bahasa, 
Tagalog, Kurdish, Russian, and Chechen[D]; 
Award: Up to 5 percent of basic pay; 
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $15,262,833. 

Component and office: U.S. Customs and Border Protection - Office of 
Field Operations; 
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills: 
Only CBP officers and agriculture specialists[C]; 
Usage requirement to receive award payments: 10 percent = 208 hours 
annually; 
Authorized foreign languages: All foreign languages; 
Award: Up to 5 percent of basic pay; 
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $15,262,833. 

Component and office: Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Office of 
Investigations; 
Staff eligible to receive award payments for foreign language skills: 
All law enforcement officers; 
Usage requirement to receive award payments: 10 percent = 208 hours 
annually; 
Authorized foreign languages: All foreign languages; 
Award: Up to 5 percent of basic pay; 
Total expenditures for FY 2009: $1,834,316. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and component documentation. 

[A] The Coast Guard annually determines what languages are encountered 
most in the field by obtaining information from Coast Guard leadership 
and operational units. 

[B] The Coast Guard's active duty pay account is funded for foreign 
language proficiency pay as a yearly recurring rate for this amount. 

[C] In general, under 19 U.S.C. § 267a, cash awards for foreign 
language proficiency may be paid to certain specified customs officers 
to the same extent and in the same manner as are allowable with 
respect to law enforcement officers under 5 U.S.C. 4521 et seq. In 
addition, according to CBP, the current state of its foreign language 
award program is a result of a negotiated agreement between CBP and 
the National Treasury Employee's Union. 

[D[ The Office of Field Operation's languages of special interest are 
not part of its 2004 assessment but were identified as part of the 
antiterrorism mission. 

[End of table] 

Components have established some language award programs as an 
incentive for certain DHS employees to develop foreign language 
capabilities to address components' language needs. According to ICE 
officials, statutory language providing authorization for their 
foreign language award program is limited to those employees who meet 
a statutory definition of the term law enforcement officer.[Footnote 
26] For example, with respect to the law enforcement officer 
definition, intelligence research specialists in ICE have not been 
determined to meet such definition and be eligible to receive award 
payments for their use of foreign language skills. In addition, 
component requirements may also affect eligibility for foreign 
language awards. For example, according to CBP, although U.S. Border 
Patrol agents are law enforcement officers, Spanish language skills 
are a requirement for employment of that position, therefore agents do 
no receive award payments for their use of Spanish or other foreign 
language skills. Additionally, CBP told us that it is not opposed to 
assessing its options regarding foreign language needs. 

While DHS components have a variety of foreign language programs and 
activities, DHS has not assessed the extent to which these programs 
and activities address potential shortfalls at the department or 
component levels. OPM's strategic workforce planning guidance 
recommends that agencies assess potential shortfalls in human capital 
resources, such as foreign language capability, by comparing needs 
against available stalls. OCHO officials told us that DHS has not 
performed a department-level assessment of the extent to which the 
programs address potential shortfalls because DHS has delegated 
responsibility for foreign language programs to the components. 
However, we found that the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE also have not 
assessed the extent to which their programs address potential 
shortfalls. 

Although foreign language programs and activities at select components 
contribute to the development of DHS's foreign language capabilities, 
DHS's ability to use them to address potential foreign language 
shortfalls varies. For example, the foreign language training programs 
generally do not include languages other than Spanish, nor do they 
include various Spanish dialects.[Footnote 27] According to several 
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials we spoke with, their foreign 
language programs and activities were established to develop specific 
foreign language capabilities, primarily in Spanish. Officers we 
interviewed noted that these programs and activities generally do not 
account for variations of the Spanish language spoken in certain 
regions of the country, which can potentially have fatal consequences, 
particularly during undercover operations. Further, according to 
agents we interviewed in Puerto Rico, both the agents and criminals 
understand that the Spanish phrase "tumbarlo"[Footnote 28] in the 
Caribbean region means "kill him," while agents from the southern 
border understand this phrase to mean "arrest him." As another example 
of the vital role of foreign language proficiency in certain 
operations, we were told that foreign language capabilities in one 
operation enabled an agent to infiltrate a prolific drug trafficking 
organization. While working in a long-term drug smuggling 
investigation, the agent came under suspicion by members of the 
trafficking organization. However, the agent was able to utilize 
Spanish language skills and dialect to avoid being discovered as a 
U.S. federal agent and escape execution by his captors. 

Further, in certain cases, according to component officials, the 
programs and activities are not well suited for some operational 
needs. CBP and ICE officials noted that although their foreign 
language training programs and activities are used for the Spanish 
language, they maintain a language service contract for an over-the-
phone, 24-hour translation service in over 150 languages. However, 
according to component officials we spoke with in the Coast Guard, 
CBP, and ICE, this resource is limited depending on the unique 
requirements of operations within and among components. Specifically, 
the component officials said that this resource is limited because of 
(1) the time it can take to obtain an interpreter over the phone, (2) 
difficulty in relying on over-the-phone interpretation while 
conducting operations at sea, and (3) the inability to use an 
interpreter who is over the phone for an on-the-spot discussion and 
resolution of an issue or problem encountered in the field. For 
example, officials stated that during an operation in which they 
entered a house suspected of harboring individuals trafficked into the 
United States, an officer intercepted a phone call from one of the 
individuals who was involved in this illegal activity who spoke 
Russian. In other operations, according to intelligence analysts we 
spoke with, it is difficult or impossible to develop detainees' trust 
during phone interviews to obtain intelligence.[Footnote 29] For 
example, according to all of the agents we interviewed, potential 
informants are difficult or impossible to recruit when the discussion 
is occurring through a third-party interpreter on the phone. Because 
the components have not assessed the programs and activities, they 
have not addressed this limitation. 

Furthermore, these programs and activities are managed by individual 
components or offices within components. According to several Coast 
Guard, CBP, and ICE officials, they manage their foreign language 
programs and activities as they did prior to the formation of DHS. At 
the department level and within the components, many of the officials 
we spoke with were generally unaware of the foreign language programs 
or activities maintained by other DHS components. In addition, many of 
the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE officials at all seven locations we 
visited stated that they relied on colleagues from current or past 
interactions to interpret or identify other foreign language 
resources. Given this decentralization, conducting an assessment of 
the extent to which its program and activities address shortfalls 
could strengthen DHS's ability to manage its foreign language programs 
and activities and to adjust them, if necessary, to address shortfalls. 

Conclusions: 

Since its formation in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, 
terrorist attacks, DHS and three of its largest components—the Coast 
Guard, CBP, and ICE—have performed vital roles in carrying out a range 
of law enforcement and intelligence activities to help protect the 
United States against potential terrorist actions and other threats. 
To achieve its mission, it is important that DHS and its components 
manage their human capital resources in a way that ensures that 
fundamental capabilities, such as foreign language capabilities, are 
available when needed. Foreign language capabilities are especially 
important for DHS, as its employees frequently encounter foreign 
languages while carrying out their daily responsibilities. While DHS 
has taken limited actions to assess its foreign language needs and 
capabilities, it has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the 
department's and its components' foreign language needs and 
capabilities nor has it fully identified potential shortfalls. 
Further, although the Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE have a variety of 
foreign language programs and activities in place, they have not 
assessed the extent to which the programs and activities they have 
established address foreign language shortfalls. As a result, DHS 
lacks reasonable assurance that it's varied and decentralized foreign 
language programs and activities are meeting its needs. 

We have recommended that other federal agencies, including the 
Departments of Defense and State and the FBI, take actions to help 
ensure that their foreign language capabilities are available when 
needed. Similar opportunities exist for DHS to help ensure that 
foreign language capabilities are available to effectively communicate 
and overcome language barriers encountered during critical operations, 
such as interdicting the transport of contraband and other illegal 
activities. Comprehensively assessing its foreign language needs and 
capabilities and identifying any potential shortfalls and the extent 
to which its programs and activities are addressing these shortfalls 
would better position DHS to ensure that foreign language capabilities 
are available when needed. Further, considering the important role 
foreign language plays in DHS's missions, incorporating the results of 
foreign language assessments into the department's future strategic 
and workforce planning documents would help DHS ensure that it 
addresses its current and future foreign language needs. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that DHS can identify its foreign language capabilities 
needed and pursue strategies that will help its workforce effectively 
communicate to achieve agency goals, we recommend that the Secretary 
of Homeland Security (1) comprehensively assess DHS's foreign language 
needs and capabilities and identify potential shortfalls, (2) assess 
the extent to which existing foreign language programs and activities 
address foreign language shortfalls, and (3) ensure that the results 
of these foreign language assessments are incorporated into the 
department's future strategic and workforce planning documents. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of our report to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security for review and comment on June 9, 2010. On June 14, 2010, DHS 
provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV. In 
commenting on our report, DHS stated that it concurred with our 
recommendations and identified actions planned or under way to 
implement them. 

Regarding our first recommendation that DHS comprehensively assess its 
foreign language needs and capabilities and identify potential 
shortfalls, DHS concurred and stated that OCHCO will work with the 
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to establish the DHS Joint 
Task Force consisting of those components and offices that have 
language needs in order to identify requirements and assess the 
necessary skills. 

DHS also concurred with our second recommendation to assess the extent 
to which existing foreign language programs and activities address 
foreign language shortfalls, and stated that the DHS Joint Task Force 
will work to recommend a system for the department to track, monitor, 
record, and report language capabilities. DHS also stated that with 
respect to the foreign language skills required by DHS personnel 
stationed abroad, this task force will include the Office of 
International Affairs. 

DHS also agreed with our third recommendation to ensure that the 
results of these foreign language assessments are incorporated into 
the department's future strategic and workforce planning documents and 
stated that OCHCO will ensure that DHS-wide language policies and 
processes are incorporated into the DHS Human Capital Strategic Plan. 

DHS also provided written technical comments, which we considered and 
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 to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security and interested congressional 
committees. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO 
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9627 or at maurerd@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 to this report are 
listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

David C. Maurer: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address our first and second objectives, we reviewed operations in 
three Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components and seven 
offices. We selected the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
because they constitute a broad representation of program areas whose 
missions include law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities. We 
selected the Coast Guard's Foreign Language Program Office; CBP's 
Office of U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Air and Marine, and Office of 
Field Operations; and ICE's Office of Detention and Removal 
Operations, Office of Investigations, and Office of Intelligence to 
ensure that we had a mix of different program sizes and a broad 
representation of program areas whose missions include law enforcement 
and intelligence responsibilities and are most likely to involve 
foreign nationals, foreign language documents, or both. We then 
selected a nonprobability sample of seven site visit locations—San 
Antonio and Laredo, Texas; Artesia, New Mexico; New York and Buffalo, 
New York; Miami, Florida; and San Juan, Puerto Rico—to identify and 
observe foreign language use at select DHS components. We selected 
these locations based on geographic regions, border locations, and 
language use. Although the results are not projectable, they provided 
us with valuable insights. During our site visits, we spoke to over 
430 DHS staff in law enforcement and intelligence units, and observed 
the use of foreign language skills where foreign language capabilities 
are deemed vital to meeting mission requirements, including the 
following: 

* We interviewed Coast Guard officials at the Command, Sector, 
District, and Stations and Intelligence and Enforcement 
representatives of the Coast Guard in New York, Miami, and San Juan. 
During an operational boat ride tour at Station Miami Beach, we 
observed an encounter involving Spanish-speaking individuals. 

* We spoke with officials in ICE's Detention, Fugitive, Intelligence 
and Criminal Alien Operations units. We also observed interviewing and 
processing at five detention facilities and processing centers. 

* We interviewed ICE intelligence research specialists who were sent 
to the southern border and Mexico City in support of operations, 
including Armas Cruzadas,[Footnote 30] in 2009, and obtained 
information on arrests, seizures, and significant events. We also 
interviewed an intelligence research specialists who provided foreign 
language support in Spanish for ICE's 2009 gang surge operation and an 
analyst who was sent to Haiti to conduct law enforcement training in 
the Haitian-Creole language, and obtained copies of reports needing 
translations. 

* We spoke with ICE officials in the Drug Smuggling, Human Trafficking 
and Smuggling,[Footnote 31] Worksite Enforcement, and Immigration and 
Customs Fraud units. We interviewed four Title DI wiretap 
transcription monitor linguists in San Antonio and observed a targeted 
area of responsibility for surveillance composed of Spanish-speaking 
populations that select DHS components encounter while carrying out 
operations in New York City. 

* We observed "Operation-Cooperation" at the Lincoln Juarez Bridge 
Number 2 at the Service Port of Entry in Laredo. The operation 
consisted of CBP border patrol agents and customs officers conducting 
outbound vehicle inspections to confiscate illegal weapons and cash. 
We also observed interviews and inspections, fingerprinting, and the 
permit/visa issuance process. 

* We observed passenger processing[Footnote 32] and interviews 
conducted by a passenger analysis unit and tactical group (PAU/TAG) 
[Footnote 33] and passenger Enforcement Roving and Counter-Terrorist 
Response (CTR) teams[Footnote 35] at the Miami and San Juan 
international airports. 

* We observed the Border Patrol Laredo Sector's initial processing of 
illegal immigrants at the Laredo North Station by 14 Border Patrol 
interns (refereed to as interns by the U.S. Border Patrol while 
receiving post-academy training in the field). 

* In addition, we interviewed members of the Border Patrol's 
International Liaison Unit, Border Intelligence Center, and Joint 
Terrorism Task Force in Laredo, Buffalo, Miami, and San Juan. 

* We also interviewed officials in the Swanton Sector located on the 
northern border and reviewed documents on its Quebecois French 
training initiatives. 

During our site visit to Artesia, New Mexico we observed the Spanish 
Language Program at U.S. Border Patrol's Law Enforcement Academy at 
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. While conducting this 
site visit, we interviewed officers in training and program officials 
and examined documentation, such as training manuals, lessons, and 
videos on foreign language training development. 

We also examined documentation on foreign language needs and 
capabilities, including DHS's strategic plans for fiscal years 2004 
through 2008 and 2008 through 2013, human capital plans for fiscal 
years 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013, and Quadrennial 
Homeland Security Review Report and Work Force Planning Guidance to 
determine whether DHS's plans provide details on how to address actual 
workforce needs, such as foreign language capabilities. Further, we 
interviewed knowledgeable officials in DHS's Office of the Chief Human 
Capital Officer and conducted over 430 interviews with component 
officials (component officials consist of Coast Guard members; Border 
Patrol agents; Air and Marine agents and officers; CBP officers and 
agriculture specialists; and ICE officers, special agents, and 
intelligence research specialists) for all the locations we visited to 
determine the extent to which they have assessed their foreign 
language needs and existing capabilities and identified any potential 
shortfalls We also interviewed these component officials and other DHS 
staff to determine the extent to which they have foreign language 
programs in place to develop operational foreign language 
capabilities. We compared DHS activities to our and the Office of 
Personnel Management's (OPM) workforce planning criteria We also 
examined and analyzed relevant studies and observed the use of foreign 
language proficiencies in a number of law enforcement operations. 
Finally, we considered our prior work on human capital strategic 
workforce planning related to foreign language needs and capabilities 
for the Departments of Defense and State and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 through June 
2010 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: Human Capital Management and Workforce Planning Guidance: 

We and OPM have developed guidance for managing human capital and 
developing workforce planning strategies. 

Strategic workforce planning helps ensure that an organization has 
staff with the necessary skills and competencies to accomplish its 
strategic goals. Since 2001, we have reported strategic human capital 
management as an area with a high risk of vulnerability to fraud, 
waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In January 2009, we reported that 
while progress has been made in the last few years to address human 
capital challenges, ample opportunities exist for agencies to improve 
in several areas.[Footnote 35] For example, we reported that making 
sure that strategic human capital planning is integrated with broader 
organizational strategic planning is critical to ensuring that 
agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to address their 
current and emerging human capital challenges.[Footnote 36] 

We have also issued various policy statements and guidance reinforcing 
the importance of sound human capital management and workforce 
planning. Our 2004 human capital guidance states that the success of 
the workforce planning process that an agency uses can be judged by 
its results—how well it helps the agency attain its mission and 
strategic goals—not by the type of process used.[Footnote 37] Our 2002 
strategic human capital guidance also highlights eight critical 
success factors in strategic human capital management, including 
making data-driven human capital decisions and targeted investments in 
people.[Footnote 38] To make data-driven human capital decisions, the 
guidance states that staffing decisions, including needs assessments 
and deployment decisions, should be based on valid and reliable data. 
Furthermore, the guidance states that to make targeted investments in 
people, organizations should clearly document the methodology 
underlying their human capital approaches. We have identified these 
factors, among others, as critical to managing human capital 
approaches that facilitate sustained workforce contributions. 

Our 2004 guidance on strategic workforce planning outlines key 
principles for effective workforce planning. These principles include 
(1) involving management, employees, and other stakeholders in the 
workforce planning process; (2) determining critical skills and 
competencies needed to achieve results; (3) developing workforce 
strategies to address shortfalls and the deployment of staff; (4) 
building the capabilities needed to address administrative and other 
requirements important in supporting workforce strategies; and (5) 
evaluating and monitoring human capital goals.[Footnote 39] 

OPM has also issued strategic workforce planning guidance to help 
agencies manage their human capital resources more strategically. 
[Footnote 40] The guidance recommends that agencies: 

* analyze their workforce needs, 
* conduct competency assessments and analysis, and, 
* compare workforce needs against available skills. 

Along with OPM, we have encouraged agencies to consider all available 
flexibilities under current authorities in pursuing solutions to 
longstanding human capital problems. In addition, our guidance 
outlines strategies for deploying staff in the face of finite 
resources.[Footnote 41] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Federal Interagency Language Roundtable Proficiency 
Scale: 

Federal agencies use the foreign language proficiency scale 
established by the federal Interagency Language Roundtable to rank an 
individual's language skills. The scale has six levels from 0 to 5—
with 5 being the most proficient—for assessing an individual's ability 
to speak, read, listen, and write in another language. Proficiency 
requirements vary by agency and position but tend to congregate at the 
second and third levels of the scale. (See table 6.) 

Table 6: Federal Foreign Language Proficiency Levels: 

Proficiency level: 0 - None; 
Language capability requirements: No practical capability in the 
language. 

Proficiency level: 1 - Elementary; 
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to satisfy 
basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements. 

Proficiency level: 2 - Limited working; 
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to meet 
routine social demands and limited job requirements. Can deal with 
concrete topics in past, present, and future tense. 

Proficiency level: 3 - General professional; 
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language with 
sufficient ability to participate in most discussions on practical, 
social, and professional topics. Can conceptualize and hypothesize. 

Proficiency level: 4 - Advanced professional; 
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language fluently 
and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. 
Has range of language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation, 
and counseling. 

Proficiency level: 5 - Functionally native; 
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language at a 
functional level equivalent to a highly articulate, well-educated 
native speaker. 

Source: Interagency Language Roundtable documents. 

Note: When proficiency substantially exceeds one base skill level yet 
does not fully meet the criteria for the next base level, a plus sign 
(+) designation may be added. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Homeland Security: 

June 14, 2010: 

David C. Maurer: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Maurer: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity 
to review and comment on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report, GA0-10-714: "DHS Needs to Comprehensively Assess Its Foreign 
Language Needs and Capabilities and Address Shortfalls ". DHS 
generally concurs with the report's recommendations. 

As GAO notes, Department components have been responsible for 
determining their foreign language requirements and for identifying 
and implementing methods for satisfying them. The Office of Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) coordinates the Department's efforts 
in the area of Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Given the importance 
of language skills to the accomplishment of the agency's mission, the 
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) has considered GAO's 
recommendations and will take the following actions in the immediate 
future: 

* OCHCO will ensure that DHS-wide language policies and processes are 
incorporated into our Human Capital Strategic Plan; 

* OCHCO will work with CRCL to establish a DHS Joint Language Task 
Force consisting of those components and offices which have language 
needs in order to identify requirements and assess the necessary 
skills; recommend a system so that the Department can track, monitor, 
record, and report language capabilities; and identify the functional 
office responsible for managing DHS-wide language capabilities. This 
work will include the Office of International Affairs with respect to 
the foreign language skills required by DHS personnel stationed abroad. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report and we look forward working with you on future homeland 
security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jerald E Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, William W. Crocker III, 
Assistant Director; Yvette Gutierrez-Thomas, Analyst-In-Charge; 
Stephen L. Caldwell; Wendy Dye; Rachel Beers; Virginia Chanley; 
Geoffrey R. Hamilton; Lara Kaskie; Adam Vogt; Robert Lowthian; Candice 
Wright; Mona Nichols Blake; and Minty Abraham made key contributions 
to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited 
English Proficient Persons. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-91]. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 
2010. 

Iraq: Iraqi Refugees and Special Immigrant Visa Holders Face 
Challenges Resettling in the United States and Obtaining U.S. 
Government Employment. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-274]. Washington, D.C.: March 9, 
2010. 

State Department: Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-290T]. Washington, 
D.C.: December 9, 2009. 

State Department: Diplomatic Security's Recent Growth Warrants 
Strategic Review. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-156]. 
Washington, D.C.: November 12, 2009. 

Department of State: Persistent Staffing and Foreign Language Gaps 
Compromise Diplomatic Readiness. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1046T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
24, 2009. 

Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent 
Foreign Language Shortfalls. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955]. Washington, D.C.: September 
17, 2009. 

Department of State: Additional Steps Needed to Address Continuing 
Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-874]. Washington, D.C.: September 
17, 2009. 

Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and 
Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and Regional 
Proficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009. 

Defense Management: Preliminary Observations on DOD's Plans for 
Developing Language and Cultural Awareness Capabilities. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-176R]. Washington, D.C.: November 
25, 2008. 

State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist 
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1154T]. Washington, D.C.: August 1, 
2007. 

U.S. Public Diplomacy: Strategic Planning Efforts Have Improved, but 
Agencies Face Significant Implementation Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-795T]. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 
2007. 

Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist 
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-894]. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 
2006. 

Overseas Staffing: Rightsizing Approaches Slowly Taking Hold but More 
Action Needed to Coordinate and Carry Out Efforts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-737]. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 
2006. 

U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim 
Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant 
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-535]. 
Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006. 

Border Security: Strengthened Visa Process Would Benefit from 
Improvements in Staffing and Information Sharing. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-859]. Washington, D.C.: September 
13, 2005. 

State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being 
Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-139]. Washington, D.C.: November 
19, 2003. 

Foreign Affairs: Effective Stewardship of Resources Essential to 
Efficient Operations at State Department, USAID. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-1009T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
4, 2003. 

State Department: Staffing Shortfalls and Ineffective Assignment 
System Compromise Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-626]. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 
2002. 

Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help Address Staffing and 
Proficiency Shortfalls. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-514T]. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 
2002. 

Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing 
and Proficiency Shortfalls. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-375]. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 
2002. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See Related GAO Products at the end of this report. 

[2] In this report, we refer to foreign language capabilities as the 
capabilities that include a range of language skills, proficiencies, 
and resources to conduct operations related to homeland security 
involving foreign language (e.g., language-proficient staff, language 
services obtained through contracts, and inter- and intra-agreements 
between DHS and other federal agencies). 

[3] GAO, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct 
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-375] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 
2002). 

[4] GAO, Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address 
Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 
2009). 

[5] In this report, we refer to select component offices as the Coast 
Guard's Foreign Language Program Office; CBP's Office of U.S. Border 
Patrol, Office of Air and Marine, and Office of Field Operations; and 
ICE's Office of Detention and Removal Operations, Office of 
Investigations, and Office of Intelligence. 

[6] Department of Homeland Security, Quadrennial Homeland Security 
Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland 
(Washington, D.C., February 2010). 

[7] We interviewed the following component officials: Coast Guard 
personnel; Border Patrol agents; Air and Marine officers; CBP officers 
and agriculture specialists; and ICE officers, special agents, and 
intelligence research specialists. 

[8] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003), and Office of Personnel Management, 
Migration Planning Guidance Documents: Workforce Planning Best 
Practices (Washington, D.C., May 2008). 

[9] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 
(2002). 

[10] National Strategy for Combating Terrorism Report (Washington, 
D.C., February 2003), and National Strategy for Homeland Security 
(Washington, D.C., October 2007). 

[11] The 9/11 Commission was established in the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-306, 116 Stat. 
2383 (2002). The commission was mandated to provide recommendations 
for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of 
terrorism, among other things. On July 22, 2004, the commission 
released its public report. 

[12] U.S. ports of entry include land border crossings along the 
Canadian and Mexican borders, seaports, and U.S. airports for 
international flight arrivals. 

[14] For a more complete discussion of human capital management and 
workforce planning guidance, see appendix II. 

[14] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2009). 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-04-39]. 

[16] Department of Homeland Security, Human Capital Strategic Plan 
Fiscal Years 20092013 (Washington, D.C., October 2008). 

[17] Department of Homeland Security, Quadrennial Homeland Security 
Review Report. 

[18] Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 544 (2007). 

[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GA0-04-39]. 

[20] The DLPT is a battery of foreign language tests produced by the 
Defense Language Institute to assess language proficiency in a 
specific foreign language in the skills of reading and listening, and 
also includes an interview to determine oral proficiency. 

[21] Services obtained by contract include interpretation, 
translation, and transcription. For example, ICE's Office of 
Investigations conducts wiretapping (intercepting of communications 
content) under Title III that may include conversations in a foreign 
language that can be interpreted or translated through contact 
services to support criminal investigations. ICE Title III 
investigations include the investigation of possible crimes related to 
narcotics, human trafficking and smuggling, technology transfer, 
financial investigations, and gangs. 

[22] A foreign language award program incentivizes some employees by 
providing a discretionary monetary award that is in addition to basic 
pay based on the use of certain foreign language skills and 
proficiencies. 

[23] Services obtained by contract include face-to-face and over-the-
phone interpretation, document translation, and video/audio media 
transcribing and translating. Select components' language services 
requests include immigration cases involving deportation, employment 
authorizations, investigation, and processing deferred inspections and 
complicated bank transactions involving foreign countries and 
represented by specific banking or financial terminology native to a 
country. 

[24] U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Air and Marine agents and 
officers are administered a telephonic recognition Spanish proficiency 
test that is delivered over the telephone by a computerized testing 
system. 

[25] The proficiency tests used by select components include (1) the 
DLPT 5, administered by the Defense Language Institute's Foreign 
Language Center for foreign language proficiency pay certification; 
(2) the Language Testing International test; (3) the FBI's test; (4) 
the Foreign Language Institute's test, which are used to conduct oral 
proficiency interviews; and (5) ordinate versant, which is an 
automated telephonic language proficiency test that measures broad-
based language proficiency. 

[26] Statutory language (5 U.S.C. § 4521 et seq.) authorizing agencies 
to pay an incentive award to law enforcement officers who possess and 
make substantial use of one or more foreign languages in the 
performance of official duties define "law enforcement officer" to 
mean, in general, (1) those qualifying as law enforcement officers 
under Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or Federal Employees' 
Retirement System (FERS) laws and regulations and (2) members of 
certain other specified groups, such as a member of the United States 
Secret Service Uniformed Division, a member of the United States Park 
Police, and a special agent in the Diplomatic Security Service. In 
general, CSRS and FERS law enforcement officer definitional criteria 
include those personnel whose duties have been determined to be 
primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals 
suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the 
United States. 

[27] U.S. Border Patrol's Spanish Training Program includes specific 
scenario activities (ranging from 10 to 50 minutes long) on how other 
cultures differ from the Mexican culture, including words and phrases 
not part of the formal Spanish language. 

[28] The English translation for "tumbarlo" is "overthrow the..." 

[29] Intelligence research specialists report that as part of 
"operation last call," they often conduct or participate in interviews 
designed to obtain intelligence information or investigative leads, 
primarily with respect to individuals of interest who are in ICE 
custody. 

[30] Armas Cruzadas is a DHS operation intended to identify, disrupt, 
and dismantle trans-border weapons smuggling networks. 

[31] ICE defines human trafficking (exploitation-based) as the 
recruitment, harboring, and transportation of a person through the use 
of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to 
involuntary servitude, among other things. ICE defines human smuggling 
(transportation-based) as the importation of people into the United 
States involving deliberate evasion of immigration laws, including 
transporting and harboring illegal persons. 

[32] Passenger processing is the core process that includes all 
aspects of the processing of inbound and outbound air, sea, and land 
passengers; this process includes, but is not limited to, the initial 
processing and any secondary inspections. 

[33] PAU/TAGs are units charged with using automated systems to target 
high-risk passengers, conducting threat analysis, or utilizing after-
action reports to identify threats. 

[34] A CTR team is made up of CBP officers assigned to special teams, 
drawing from personnel with prior counterterrorism, antiterrorism, or 
intelligence-related training or experience. Such a unit is charged 
with the interdiction of high-risk passengers attempting to facilitate 
entry of contraband or who are associated with terrorist activities. 

[35] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2009). 

[36] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]. 

[37] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]. 

[38] See GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002). 

[39] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]. 

[40] Office of Personnel Management, Key Components of a Strategic 
Human Capital Plan (Washington, D.C., September 2005), and Migration 
Planning Guidance Documents: Workforce Planning Best Practices 
(Washington, D.C., May 2008). 

[41] GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency 
Leaders, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OCG-00-14G], 
Version 1 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000). 

[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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, 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 Web site, 
[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. 

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

Contact: 

Web site: [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: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548: