jurisdiction: US

text: b' Department of Homeland Security\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\n\n\n\n CBP Use of Force Training and Actions \n\n To Address Use of Force Incidents \n\n\n (Redacted)\n\n\n\n\n\nOIG-13-114 (Revised) September 2013\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov\n\n\n\n September 12, 2013\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas S. Winkowski\n Deputy Commissioner\n Performing the duties of the Commissioner of CBP\n U.S. Customs and Border Protection\n\nFROM: Charles K. Edwards\n Deputy Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: CBP Use of Force Training and Actions To Address Use of Force\n Incidents \xe2\x80\x93 Redacted (Revised)\n\nAttached for your action is our revised final report, CBP Use of Force Training and Actions To\nAddress Use of Force Incidents \xe2\x80\x93 Redacted (Revised), OIG-13-114. We incorporated the\nformal comments from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the final report. This revised\nversion is redacted due to deliberative material.\n\nThe report contains three recommendations aimed at improving the U.S. Customs and\nBorder Protection Office of Training and Development and the Office of Internal Affairs.\nYour office concurred with all of the recommendations. Based on information provided in\nyour response to the draft report, we consider the three recommendations resolved. Once\nyour office has fully implemented each recommendation, please submit a formal closeout\nletter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendation. The memorandum\nshould be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions.\n\nPlease email a signed PDF copy of all responses and closeout requests to\nOIGInspectionsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov.\n\nConsistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing copies\nof our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and appropriation\nresponsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post a redacted version\nof the report on our website.\n\nPlease call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Deborah Outten-Mills, Acting\nAssistant Inspector General for Inspections, at (202) 254-4015.\n\nAttachment\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 \n\n\n Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 \n\n\n Results of Review ............................................................................................................... 5 \n\n\n Excessive Use of Force Allegations and Investigations Were Not Identified in\n Case Management Systems ................................................................................... 5\n Recommendation ................................................................................................... 8\n\n Workforce Surge Did Not Affect Use of Force Training ......................................... 8 \n\n\n CBP Has Acted to Address Use of Force Incidents; More Can Be Done .............. 11 \n\n Recommendations ..........................................................................................15, 18 \n\n\n Polygraphs Improve Quality of Workforce .......................................................... 21 \n\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 21 \n\n\n Appendixes\n Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ............................................ 24 \n\n Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ............................... 25 \n\n Appendix C: Major Contributors to This Report ............................................... 28 \n\n Appendix D: Report Distribution ........................................................................ 29 \n\n\n Abbreviations\n CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection\n DHS Department of Homeland Security\n EDS Enterprise Data System\n FY fiscal year\n ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement\n JICMS Joint Intake Case Management System\n OAM Office of Air and Marine\n OBP Office of Border Patrol\n OFO Office of Field Operations\n OIA Office of Internal Affairs\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n OIG Office of Inspector General\n OPR Office of Professional Responsibility\n OTD Office of Training and Development\n PBS Public Broadcasting Service\n PERF Police Executive Research Forum\n UFPD Use of Force Policy Division\n UFRS Use of Force Reporting System\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Executive Summary\n Following April 2012 media reports regarding the death of an undocumented immigrant\n while in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in May 2010, Senator\n Robert Menendez and 15 members of Congress requested that we review the use of\n force within CBP. We reviewed allegations of the use of excessive force by CBP\n employees and determined what reforms CBP has implemented. We also examined\n what effect adding more agents and officers to the workforce has had on training and\n professionalism.\n\n Allegations of employee misconduct that are entered into Department of Homeland\n Security (DHS) case management systems are assigned one of several case allegation\n types; however, there is no primary use of force designation. As a result, we were\n unable to identify the total number of excessive force allegations and investigations\n involving CBP employees.\n\n The August 2006 to December 2009 workforce surge within CBP did not negatively\n affect use of force training within CBP. Use of force training remained consistent and\n funding for use of force training increased at the basic training academies. Pre\xc2\xad\n employment polygraph examinations have improved the quality of the CBP workforce.\n\n CBP has taken several steps to address the number of use of force incidents involving\n CBP employees and to ensure that agents and officers use force only when necessary\n and reasonable. All CBP law enforcement agents and officers are required to follow the\n same use of force policy and standards and complete the same use of force training.\n CBP tracks all use of force incidents and recently completed an internal review of use of\n force issues.\n\n However, more can be done. The CBP Office of Training and Development Use of Force\n Policy Division should incorporate additional assault data into its analysis of use of force\n incidents and formalize and expand its field audit program. CBP should continue to\n expand the use of scenario-based training and assess new technologies to support\n agents and officers.\n\n We are making three recommendations. CBP should work with U.S. Immigration and\n Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement a method to identify excessive force\n allegations in its case management system, develop processes to incorporate\n information regarding assaults on agents that do not result in the use of force into its\n analysis of use of force incidents, and evaluate and act upon field audit results. The DHS\n Office of Inspector General (OIG) will modify its case management system to identify in\n greater detail incidents involving excessive use of force allegations.\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Background\n In April 2012, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) aired a report regarding the death of\n a person while in the custody of CBP in May 2010. This incident and others raised\n concerns regarding use of force training and accountability within DHS and CBP. U.S.\n Senator Robert Menendez and 15 members of Congress requested that we review the\n use of force within CBP.\n\n Use of Force\n\n CBP\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures for use of force describe the amount of force that is\n reasonable and necessary for a law enforcement agent or officer to use when\n compelling an unwilling subject to comply with lawful commands. Reasonable means\n there are objective reasons that justify the level of force used in a given situation, up to\n and including deadly force. Necessary means that some force is required in the\n situation to carry out law enforcement duties. Force would be deemed excessive if it\n were later determined to have been either unnecessary or unreasonably forceful.\n\n The CBP Use of Force Continuum describes the levels of force an agent or officer may\n need to use to gain control over a subject. At the lowest level on the continuum, officer\n presence and spoken commands are sufficient when a subject is cooperative. If a\n subject does not comply with spoken commands or is passively resisting, the agent or\n officer may need to use physical contact techniques, such as strategic positioning or\n pressure point stimulation, to gain compliance. If a subject actively resists an agent\xe2\x80\x99s\n efforts to gain control or assaults or displays a willingness to assault an agent or officer,\n the agent or officer would use escalating, less-lethal force options to compel\n compliance. For example, agents and officers could use oleoresin capsicum (pepper\n spray) or an electronic control device, or taser, against an actively resistant subject and\n could also use a collapsible straight baton (baton) if the subject becomes assaultive. An\n agent or officer is authorized to use the highest level, deadly force, only when the agent\n or officer believes the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical\n injury to the agent or officer or another person, and the subject has the opportunity,\n ability, and intent to do so.\n\n In determining the appropriate level of force, CBP trains its law enforcement officers to\n consider the totality of the circumstances in each situation. This training includes: the\n level of training, mental attitude, strength, age, and size of the officer; size of the\n subject; the subject\xe2\x80\x99s actions; weapons involved; presence of other officers; number of\n subjects present; bystanders; and environmental conditions. Generally, the officer\n should use the lowest level of force necessary to control the situation. Because of\n unique circumstances and individual differences in every potential confrontation,\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n different officers might have different responses to the same situation, all of which may\n be reasonable and necessary.\n\n Rapid Surge of CBP Workforce\n\n In May 2006, the President mandated that CBP add 6,000 new Border Patrol Agents by\n December 2008. CBP increased the number of Border Patrol Agents by more than 50\n percent from August 2006 through December 2009 (see table 1). During the same time\n period, the number of CBP officers also increased.\n\n Table 1: Number of Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers\n\n FY 2006\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n\n Fiscal Year Total OBP Total OFO Total CBP\n 2006 12,349 17,733 30,082\n 2007 14,923 18,272 33,195\n 2008 17,499 19,568 37,067\n 2009 20,119 21,103 41,222\n 2010 20,558 20,455 41,013\n 2011 21,444 20,379 41,823\n 2012 21,394 21,790 43,184\n Source: CBP Office of Border Patrol (OBP) and Office of Field Operations (OFO).\n\n As the number of agents and officers increased, the number of supervisory agents and\n officers also increased proportionately. Within the Office of Border Patrol (OBP),\n supervisory agents accounted for 17 percent of all agents from fiscal year (FY) 2006\xe2\x80\x93FY\n 2007, 18 percent from FY 2008\xe2\x80\x93FY 2009, and 19 percent from FY 2010\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012. Within\n the Office of Field Operations (OFO), supervisory officers accounted for 13 percent of all\n officers from FY 2006\xe2\x80\x93FY 2011 and 14 percent in FY 2012.\n\n Operational Environment\n\n CBP agents and officers operate in a variety of border environments and conditions.\n CBP officers operate at land, air, and sea ports of entry, which are largely controlled\n environments due to designated lanes and processing areas. CBP officers generally\n work in teams or in close proximity to other officers, with backup readily available\n should it be needed. Border Patrol Agents operate between ports of entry along U.S.\n borders. The terrain along U.S. borders varies greatly, ranging from dense forests and\n open plains along the northern border to open deserts, rugged mountains, the Rio\n Grande River, and coastal waters along the southern border. Border Patrol Agents often\n patrol alone; the nearest agent could be 10 to 20 miles away.\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n DHS has completed the construction of more than 600 miles of fencing and has installed\n surveillance technology to detect and inhibit illegal border crossings into the United\n States. This has limited the areas along the southwest border where illegal border\n crossers attempt to enter the United States and has increased the chance they will be\n intercepted by the Border Patrol. Violent assaults against Border Patrol Agents rose to a\n peak in 2010, and have diminished since then.\n\n CBP began tracking assaults on Border Patrol Agents in 2006. Assault information is\n reported in the Assault Module of the CBP e3 system. The e3 system is used to record,\n transmit, and retrieve information for CBP enforcement purposes, such as biographic\n and property information. The system also captures or verifies biometric information of\n apprehended individuals.\n\n From FY 2006 to FY 2012, 99 percent of assaults on Border Patrol Agents occurred along\n the southwest border of the United States (see table 2).\n\n Table 2: Assaults on Border Patrol Agents, FY 2006\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n\n Fiscal Southwest Northern Coastal\n Year Border Border Border Total\n 2006 729 16 7 752\n 2007 979 6 2 987\n 2008 1,085 10 2 1,097\n 2009 1,031 11 6 1,048\n 2010 1,050 10 2 1,062\n 2011 678 2 7 687\n 2012 543 6 0 549\n\n Total 6,095 61 26 6,182\n Source: CBP Office of Border Patrol.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Results of Review\n Information regarding complaints of employee misconduct, and any subsequent\n investigative activity, is tracked and maintained in case management systems. Although\n these systems include a data field that assigns specific types of misconduct, such as\n excessive force, discrimination, abuse of authority, and other categories, to a primary\n allegation type, there is no primary use of force allegation designation. As a result, we\n were unable to determine the total number of excessive force allegations and\n investigations involving CBP employees.\n\n We determined that use of force training before and during the workforce surge\n remained consistent. Funding at the basic training academies increased in proportion to\n the increase in trainees. The implementation of polygraph examinations for all\n prospective law enforcement agents and officers prior to being hired has improved the\n quality of the CBP workforce by detecting unsuitable candidates who might otherwise\n have been selected.\n\n To address use of force incidents involving CBP employees and to ensure that agents\n and officers use force only when necessary and reasonable, CBP has (1) completed an\n internal review of use of force issues; (2) begun tracking all use of force incidents; (3)\n improved consistency in training for agents and officers, and the application of use of\n force standards and policies; (4) initiated a field audit program to evaluate use of force\n training across CBP field locations; and (5) commissioned an independent review of use\n of force by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).\n\n Excessive Use of Force Allegations and Investigations Were Not Identified in\n Case Management Systems\n\n The DHS OIG Hotline and the Joint Intake Center receive complaints about\n employee misconduct that include allegations of excessive force, discrimination,\n off-duty arrests, abuse of authority, and others. We attempted to obtain\n information that would enable us to analyze and summarize excessive force\n investigations involving CBP employees. Allegations entered into DHS case\n management systems are assigned one of several case allegation types;\n however, there is no primary use of force designation. As a result, we were\n unable to identify the total number of excessive use of force allegations and\n investigations involving CBP employees.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Documenting Allegations of Excessive Force\n\n The OIG Hotline and the Joint Intake Center, operated by CBP and ICE, receive\n allegations of misconduct by DHS employees, including allegations that CBP\n employees have used excessive force. Hotline and Center staff enter the details\n into their respective case management system\xe2\x80\x94the Enterprise Data System\n (EDS) or the Joint Intake Case Management System (JICMS).\n\n No matter to which of the two offices the allegation was addressed, the OIG\n Office of Investigations first has the option to investigate or decline to\n investigate an allegation. If OIG declines, the ICE Office of Professional\n Responsibility (OPR) and then the CBP Office of Internal Affairs (OIA),\n respectively, decide whether to investigate. Many allegations are determined to\n be administrative\xe2\x80\x94non-criminal misbehavior\xe2\x80\x94and are referred to management\n for action.\n\n Each allegation is assigned to a primary category; however, neither case\n management system has a primary category that designates an allegation as use\n of force. In JICMS, excessive use of force allegations are assigned to primary\n categories to include detainee/alien (physical abuse), detainee/alien abuse\n (other), detainee/alien abuse (medical issue), and death-detainee/alien/civilian\n (result of agency action). In EDS, primary categories for use of force allegations\n include civil rights/civil liberties or miscellaneous. In addition to a primary\n category, OIG also identifies a secondary type of allegation. While one\n secondary allegation type is \xe2\x80\x9cuse of force,\xe2\x80\x9d and includes some excessive force\n allegations, other excessive force allegations are designated as\n detainee-/prisoner-/suspect-related abuse, criminal misconduct, or non-criminal\n misconduct. In addition, we identified allegations that were placed improperly\n in the secondary use of force allegation type.\n\n To determine the universe of excessive force investigations involving CBP\n employees, we received data sets from OIG and JICMS that included more than\n 21,000 records of possible excessive force allegations. Because excessive force\n allegations are assigned to multiple categories, the narrative in each allegation\n summary must be reviewed to determine whether it was an excessive use of\n force allegation.\n\n Of the more than 21,000 records that we received, we reviewed the allegation\n summary field for the 2,093 records from JICMS data\xe2\x80\x94excessive force and abuse\n allegations and intentional discharge of weapon. This included 1,896 records\n from FYs 2007 through 2012 in the excessive force and abuse data. We\n identified 1,187 of these records as possible allegations related to excessive\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n force (see figure 1). The allegations also included physical abuse (punching,\n kicking, and pushing) during apprehension, and use of an electronic control\n device, baton, or pepper spray.\n\n We identified 205 records as not being excessive force allegations, such as claims\n of improper detention, racial profiling, and initial allegations that were later\n recanted. For 504 records, we were unable to conclude that they were excessive\n use of force allegations based on information in the allegation summary field.\n Types of information in these summary fields included alleged civil rights\n violations and physical abuse.\n\n\n Figure 1: Excessive Force Allegations\n FY 2007\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n\n 11% (205)\n\n\n\n\n 26% (504)\n 63% (1,187)\n\n\n\n\n Total = 1,896\n\n\n Possible Excessive Force Inconclusive Excessive Force Not Excessive Force\n\n\n Source: CBP Office of Internal Affairs, JICMS.\n\n We also reviewed the allegation summary field of 197 records from FY 2009\xe2\x80\x93FY\n 2012 for intentional discharge of weapon data, and identified 136 possible use of\n force incidents involving the discharge of a weapon (see figure 2). We were not\n able to determine whether 39 of these records were use of force incidents and\n concluded that 22 were not use of force incidents.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Figure 2: Intentional Discharge of Weapon\n Use of Force Incidents\n FY 2009\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n 11% (22)\n\n\n\n 20% (39)\n\n\n 69% (136)\n\n\n Total = 197\n\n\n Possible Use of Force Inconclusive Use of Force Not Use of Force\n\n\n Source: CBP Office of Internal Affairs, JICMS.\n\n CBP OIA officials suggested that a new field to indicate whether an allegation\n involves use of force should be added to JICMS. However, JICMS is an ICE\n computer system. CBP officials raised the issue with ICE in April 2013 and told us\n that they are continuing to work with ICE to develop an indicator. We concur\n with the proposed addition of a use of force indicator field to JICMS. Also, we\n have asked the OIG Office of Investigations to modify its case management\n system to identify in greater detail incidents involving use of force allegations.\n The OIG Office of Investigations will do so.\n\n Recommendation\n\n We recommend that U.S. Customs and Border Protection:\n\n Recommendation #1:\n\n Work with ICE to implement a method in JICMS to identify each use of force\n allegation involving an officer or agent.\n\n\n Workforce Surge Did Not Affect Use of Force Training\n\n The August 2006 to December 2009 workforce surge within CBP did not\n negatively affect use of force training within CBP. Use of force training content\n and hours remained consistent, and funding for use of force training increased at\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n the basic academies. Since October 2010, all CBP law enforcement agents and\n officers receive quarterly firearms and less-lethal device training.\n\n Use of Force Training at Basic Academies\n\n Agents and officers receive use of force training as part of their basic academy\n training to become Border Patrol Agents or CBP officers. Use of force training at\n the basic academies includes instruction in firearms proficiency and judgment\n shooting, threat assessment and response, the use of force continuum, use of\n force legal authorities, physical techniques, baton certification, and pepper spray\n certification. Since 2010, CBP officer trainees also complete taser certification\n during basic training.\n\n Use of force training at both basic training academies remained consistent\n throughout the workforce surge. While the number of trainees entering the\n basic academies increased in FY 2007, FY 2008, and FY 2009, the number of\n hours of use of force training these trainees received as part of their overall basic\n training was consistent. Given the larger number of agents and officers trained,\n funding for use of force training at the Border Patrol Academy and the Field\n Operations Academy increased during those years. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the\n number of trainee entrants and graduates, use of force training hours, and\n funding for use of force training for each basic academy for FY 2005\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012.\n\n Table 3: Border Patrol Academy Use of Force Training FY 2005\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n Fiscal OBP Academy OBP Academy Use of Force Use of Force\n Year Trainee Entrants Graduates Training Hours Training Funding\n 2005 926 734 126 $872,113\n 2006 1,889 1,408 126 $2,602,749\n 2007 3,912 3,060 124 $5,154,947\n 2008 4,566 3,323 124 $8,598,955\n 2009 4,861 3,582 124 $11,136,797\n 2010 1,578 1,250 124 $2,467,950\n 2011 1,745 1,394 134 $3,533,881\n 2012 735 629 134 $3,455,965\n Source: CBP OBP and Office of Training and Development (OTD).\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Table 4: Field Operations Academy Use of Force Training FY 2005\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n\n Fiscal OFO Academy OFO Academy Use of Force Use of Force\n Year Trainee Entrants Graduates Training Hours Training Funding\n 2005 1,286 1,188 155 $2,114,632\n 2006 1,368 1,232 156 $2,043,193\n 2007 2,064 1,841 156 $2,974,498\n 2008 2,823 2,563 154 $3,753,624\n 2009 3,090 2,914 154 $4,796,714\n 2010 142 117 208 $792,327\n 2011 546 515 212 $1,646,374\n 2012 1,229 1,156 212 $4,097,704\n Source: CBP OFO and OTD.\n\n Use of Force Training Post-Basic Quarterly Use of Force Training\n\n Since October 2010, all CBP law enforcement agents and officers are required to\n qualify quarterly with their firearms and recertify annually with any less-lethal\n devices they are certified to carry, such as a baton, pepper spray, or taser. To\n achieve these requirements, agents and officers complete at least 16 hours of\n firearms training and 16 hours of less-lethal force training yearly, with 4 hours of\n each quarterly. Quarterly training includes\xe2\x80\x94\n\n 1) Classroom instruction on either the firearm or a less-lethal device as well\n as discussion of use of force policy and the use of force continuum;\n 2) A written exam;\n 3) Demonstration of proficiency with the firearm or less-lethal device; and\n 4) Demonstration of appropriate judgment in training scenarios.\n\n Prior to October 2010, CBP officers qualified only three times per year with their\n firearms. This requirement increased to quarterly with implementation of the\n unified CBP Use of Force Handbook in October 2010. A CBP official said the surge\n only improved training, resulting in more instructors and more training\n opportunities. For example, since 2010, all CBP officers become certified on the\n taser at their basic academy and must therefore recertify annually. Also, even\n though the workforce surge ended in 2009, the number of CBP agents and\n officers remains more than 43,000, so more agents and officers must complete\n quarterly training now and in the future, requiring more firearm and less-lethal\n force instructors.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Instructor Training at CBP Advanced Training Center\n\n Firearm instructors and less-lethal force instructors complete instructor\n certification and recertification training at the CBP Advanced Training Center in\n Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Certified instructors conduct quarterly use of force\n training for agents and officers in their areas of responsibility.\n\n All instructors are trained based on the same standard regardless of whether\n they work for OBP, OFO, or the Office of Air and Marine (OAM). Firearm and\n less-lethal force instructor trainees receive instruction on firearms or less-lethal\n devices in addition to how to run proficiency drills. They also become proficient\n in developing, running, and debriefing training scenarios. Both firearm and less-\n lethal force instructors must recertify every five years.\n\n CBP Has Acted to Address Use of Force Incidents; More Can Be Done\n\n CBP has taken several steps to address the number of use of force incidents. We\n also identified additional measures that CBP can take to address this issue. All\n CBP law enforcement agents and officers are required to follow a unified use of\n force policy, and CBP tracks all use of force incidents. Also, CBP conducted an\n internal review of use of force issues that resulted in several recommendations\n to improve use of force policies, training, equipment, tactics, and operational\n posture. In addition, the CBP Office of Training and Development (OTD) Use of\n Force Policy Division (UFPD) initiated a field audit program to assess the\n consistency of use of force training across CBP; however, formalization and\n expansion would improve the effectiveness of the program. Finally, CBP should\n continue to expand the use of scenario-based training and evaluate new\n technologies to support agents and officers.\n\n All CBP Law Enforcement Agents Required to Follow Unified Use of Force Policy\n\n To establish common CBP requirements regarding use of force, all CBP law\n enforcement components have operated under a unified use of force policy\n since October 2010. Prior to this, each component operated under its separate\n pre-DHS legacy use of force policy. Although the legacy policies had similarities,\n there were differences. For example, OBP agents qualified four times per year\n with their firearms, but OFO officers only qualified three times per year.\n\n UFPD is responsible for developing all CBP use of force policy. To create the\n unified policy, representatives from each CBP component identified the best\n practices of each legacy policy and created a draft unified policy, and in 2007,\n CBP began negotiating with the bargaining units\xe2\x80\x94the National Treasury\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Employees Union and the National Border Patrol Council \xe2\x80\x94the content of the\n proposed unified policy. CBP reached agreement with the unions in 2010; the\n unified policy then went to the CBP Commissioner for signature.\n\n UFPD ensures that each CBP policy, directive, and procedure describing when\n and how CBP employees use force conforms to the CBP Use of Force Policy\n Handbook. UFPD also develops, maintains, and approves all CBP use of force\n training. Under the unified policy, all CBP agents and officers are trained to the\n same standard and receive the same amount of required use of force training\n every year. For example, all CBP officers and agents now receive eight hours of\n use of force training quarterly; training includes four hours of firearms training\n and four hours of less-lethal force training each quarter. In addition, because all\n CBP instructors train to the same standard, use of force instructors from any CBP\n component can conduct use of force training for other CBP components. This\n provides CBP the ability to accommodate workforce surges or fill unexpected\n gaps.\n\n UFPD Tracks All Uses of Force Involving CBP Employees; Additional Data Could\n Better Inform Analysis\n\n To gain insight into use of force trends, training, and equipment needs, UFPD\n began tracking all use of force incidents involving CBP officers and agents in the\n Use of Force Reporting System (UFRS) in January 2010. Prior to 2010, only\n reports of serious use of force incidents were sent to the Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s\n Situation Room. The UFRS tracks detailed information about uses of force\n involving CBP agents and officers; however, it does not track information\n regarding assaults on agents and officers that do not result in the use of force.\n Being able to incorporate information regarding assaults on Federal agents that\n do not result in the use of force directly from other CBP systems, such as the e3\n Assault Module, would provide UFPD with more information on the threats\n agents face along the border and how they respond to those threats.\n\n Incidents involving the use of deadly force or the use of less-lethal devices must\n be reported to a supervisor within 1 hour of the incident and to UFRS within 72\n hours. The involved agent or officer must provide information about the\n incident, including but not limited to the date, time, and location of the incident;\n the firearm(s) or device(s) used; the nature and extent of injuries or deaths; and\n descriptions of subjects involved or witnesses to the incident. A CBP supervisor\n enters incident information into UFRS for deadly force incidents, and the\n involved agent or officer or a CBP supervisor for incidents involving less-lethal\n force. A CBP official said that information in UFRS is not used for discipline\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n purposes. UFRS does not link to JICMS, and UFPD usually has no involvement in\n or knowledge of investigations of excessive force allegations.\n\n UFPD analyzes the information in UFRS to determine whether to make changes\n to use of force policies, training, tactics, or equipment. The data can be viewed\n by CBP component, type of force used, type of weapon used, sector or field\n office, or region (southwest, northern, or coastal). For example, in FY 2011,\n agents and officers reported 1,188 uses of force in UFRS (see figure 3). Of the\n 1,188 uses of force, 1,029 (or 87 percent) were by OBP, 148 (or 12 percent) were\n by OFO, and 11 (or 1 percent) were by OAM. In FY 2012, agents and officers\n reported 936 uses of force in UFRS. Of these, 808 (or 86 percent) were by OBP,\n 96 (or 10 percent) were by OFO, 30 (or 3 percent) were by OAM, and 2 (or 0.2\n percent) were by the Office of International Affairs.\n\n\n Figure 3: Use of Force by CBP Component, FY 2011\n 2011\xe2\x80\x93FY\n \xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n 1400\n 1,188\n 1200\n Number of Uses of Force\n\n\n\n\n 1,029\n 936*\n 1000\n 808\n 800\n\n 600 FY11\n FY12\n 400\n\n 200 148\n 96\n 11 30\n 0\n OAM OFO OBP Total\n CBP Component\n *Includes 2 from INA\n\n Source: CBP OTD UFPD.\n\n Within CBP, 95 percent (1,133 of 1,188) of FY 2011 uses of force and 95 percent\n (885 of 936) of FY 2012 uses of force occurred along the southwest border of the\n United States. For OBP, 98 percent of FY 2011 uses of force and 98 percent of FY\n 2012 uses of force were along the southwest border. For OFO, 83 percent of FY\n 2011 uses of force and 89 percent of FY 2012 uses of force were along the\n southwest border.\n\n When CBP agents and officers used force in FY 2011, they used firearms 7\n percent of the time and less-lethal force options 93 percent of the time. In FY\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n 2012, they used firearms 6 percent of the time and less-lethal force options 94\n percent of the time. Within OBP, agents used firearms 7 percent of the time in\n FY 2011 and 7 percent of the time in FY 2012, less-lethal force devices 84 percent\n and 82 percent of the time, respectively, and other force 9 percent and 12\n percent of the time, respectively. For OFO, officers used firearms 7 percent and\n 2 percent of the time, respectively, in FY 2011 and FY 2012, less-lethal force\n devices 78 percent and 96 percent of the time, and other force 15 percent and 2\n percent of the time. Less-lethal force devices include baton, pepper spray, taser,\n and other devices. Other force includes physical force without a weapon and the\n use of vehicles and canines. Figure 4 compares the types of force used by OBP\n and OFO during FY 2011 and FY 2012.\n\n\n Figure 4: Type of Force by CBP Component, FY 2011\xe2\x80\x93FY 2012\n 1200\n 1029\n 1000\n 867\n Number of Uses of Force\n\n\n\n\n 808\n 800\n 662\n 600\n\n 400\n\n 200 148\n 69 53 115 92 93 93 96\n 11 2 22 2\n 0\n Firearms Less Lethal Devices Other Force Total\n\n OBP FY2011 OBP FY2012 OFO FY2011 OFO FY2012\n\n Source: CBP OTD UFPD.\n\n Analysis of use of force data from UFRS provides UFPD with valuable information\n regarding the effectiveness of use of force policies, training, equipment, and\n tactics. However, including data from assaults on Federal agents that do not\n result in a use of force would provide additional valuable information. For\n example, rock attacks were the most frequent type of assault on agents in FY\n 2011 and the second most frequent type of assault in FY 2012. Of 339 reported\n rock assaults in FY 2011, agents did not respond with force to 188 (or 55\n percent), responded with a firearm to 33 (or 10 percent), and used less-lethal\n force in response to 118 (or 35 percent) of the rocking assaults, respectively. Of\n 185 rocking assaults in FY 2012, agents did not use force to respond to 121 (or 65\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n percent), responded with a firearm to 22 (or 12 percent), and used less-lethal\n force in response to 42 (or 23 percent). Reviewing when force was used to\n respond to assaults as well as when agents did not respond with force could\n inform UFPD policy, guidance, equipment, and tactics regarding use of force in\n response to rocking or other types of assaults.\n\n All uses of force must be reported by the employee or a supervisor in the UFRS,\n and all assaults on Federal agents must be reported in the e3 Assault Module. If\n an agent is assaulted and responds using any type of force, the incident would be\n reported in both systems. However, assaults that do not lead to a use of force\n response would be reported only in the e3 Assault Module. Knowing when\n agents do not respond with force when assaulted and which types of force are\n used in response to different types of assaults, in addition to use of force\n information from UFRS, would provide a clearer operational picture for CBP\n management. In addition, it could identify best practices, especially regarding\n de-escalation of potential use of force situations and provide insight into specific\n types of threats, such as rockings, that place agents in potential use of force\n situations. Also, UFPD would have additional information to improve training,\n tactics, equipment, and policies involving use of force. UFPD should develop a\n process to incorporate information regarding assaults on agents that do not\n result in the use of force into its analysis of use of force incidents.\n\n In addition, when an assault on an agent results in the use of force and must be\n reported in both UFRS and the e3 Assault Module, similar information is\n collected about the assault in both systems. A CBP official suggested creating a\n link between the two systems to facilitate entering the information and ensure\n reports are made in both systems when necessary. Developing a link between\n the systems could remind agents to complete reports in both places when\n appropriate and could ensure that assault information required by both systems\n is entered consistently. Also, it could facilitate the incorporation of non-\n response assault data into use of force incident analysis.\n\n Recommendation\n\n We recommend that U.S. Customs and Border Protection:\n\n Recommendation #2:\n\n Develop a process to incorporate information regarding assaults on agents that\n did not result in agents using force into its analysis of use of force incidents.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n CBP Initiated Internal Review of Use of Force Issues\n\n Following several deadly force incidents, CBP initiated its own internal review of\n use of force issues in November 2012. The review included three parts\xe2\x80\x94field\n reviews of select incidents by the CBP Use of Force Incident Review Team,\n reviews of 67 shooting incidents by the Use of Force Incident Review Committee,\n and an external review of the 67 incidents and CBP use of force policies by the\n Police Executive Research Forum. The review focused on the effectiveness of\n current use of force policies, equipment, tactics, training, and operational\n posture. CBP\xe2\x80\x99s review made recommendations, and PERF\xe2\x80\x99s review made ,\n to\n\n CBP OTD made recommendations including\n\n\n\n CBP OTD also recommended\n\n\n Other recommendations\n include\n\n\n .\n\n PERF\n . Also, PERF\n\n . PERF also made\n recommendations\n .\n In addition, PERF recommended\n\n\n . Currently, the CBP OTD and PERF recommendations\n are under consideration for approval by the Acting CBP Commissioner.\n\n UFPD Initiated Field Audit Program; Needs More Formalization and Expansion\n\n In FY 2012, UFPD implemented a field audit program to assess use of force\n training. The program determines whether training is consistent with CBP policy,\n instructor guidebooks and lesson plans, and the intent of the less-lethal force\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n and firearms training programs, as well as whether safety protocols are followed.\n Each field audit may result in recommendations for corrective action to both the\n Office of Training and Development and the audited field location. While the\n UFPD field audit program is a good first step for UFPD management to assess\n whether use of force training in the field is consistent with use of force policy,\n there is no formal process for recommendation followup, no system to assess\n results and make appropriate timely changes to use of force training, and not\n enough program staff.\n\n When conducting a field audit, three-person teams from UFPD spend three days\n at each location observing quarterly firearms and less-lethal force training and\n identifying strengths, weaknesses, and necessary changes. The audit team\n provides oral feedback to instructors and training coordinators at each location\n to correct issues observed during the audit. Following the field audit, the team\n lead prepares a report including recommendations for corrective actions. UFPD\n sends the report to the audited location and follows up by telephone with the\n inspected office to discuss planned actions for addressing recommendations.\n\n We observed a field audit team conduct a field audit in February 2013. At that\n time, only one agent was dedicated full-time to the UFPD field audit program. A\n senior CBP official said that additional staff would strengthen the field audit\n program.\n\n UFPD identified several major issues during its 2012 field audits. For example,\n some locations were not getting the full number of required training hours, were\n not giving written tests during less-lethal force recertification training, or were\n not using the correct course of fire for firearms qualifications. UFPD advised\n instructors and training coordinators at respective locations to correct specific\n issues. Issues observed at one location are typically corrected only at that\n location because there is no formal process to evaluate audit results.\n\n The UFPD field audit team observed that many agents and officers do not\n understand use of force and the extent to which they may or may not use force.\n The field audit team recommended to OTD\n and suggested that\n\n The\n team also recommended\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n CBP has noted in its formal comments that, of the 32 field training reviews\n conducted to date, this was observed only once, at one location and involved a\n small number of agents on one training day.\n\n Developing a process to identify this type of issue, implement changes into use\n of force training, and disseminate them to the field would improve consistency\n and standardization regarding use of force across CBP. Formalizing and\n expanding the field audit program will require additional staff.\n\n Recommendation\n\n We recommend that U.S. Customs and Border Protection:\n\n Recommendation #3:\n\n Develop a formal process to evaluate use of force training field audit results and\n follow up on field audit recommendations.\n\n CBP Should Continue To Expand Use of Scenario-based Training\n\n Scenario-based training provides agents and officers the opportunity for hands-\n on practice. Training scenarios reinforce classroom instruction regarding use of\n force policy, tactics, and justifications. Within the safety of a training\n environment, they experience realistic situations in which they must decide\n whether to use force and at what level, and then justify their actions. To ensure\n that agents and officers are sufficiently trained to confront threats, CBP should\n continue to expand scenario-based training, including developing scenarios\n around high-risk threats such as vehicular and rock assaults, adding training in\n low-light conditions, and creating new realistic training environments.\n\n Training scenarios allow agents to practice making appropriate use of force\n judgments as they handle the situation. They also learn the importance of and\n practice articulating their response to the situation and justification for the level\n of force used. In addition, instructors emphasize that choosing appropriate\n tactics initially can de-escalate the situation and stop it from becoming a deadly\n force incident. Successfully completing a scenario creates an experience\n memory that could be useful should a similar \xe2\x80\x9creal life\xe2\x80\x9d situation arise.\n\n Less-lethal force and firearms instructors learn how to create, run, and debrief\n training scenarios during instructor certification courses at the CBP Advanced\n Training Center. They are encouraged to create training scenarios that represent\n realistic situations agents could encounter in their specific locations. Possible\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n scenarios could include a single agent while on patrol encountering a large group\n of illegal aliens, responding to a report of people climbing the border fence, or\n responding to a port of entry regarding a car with a license plate matching a\n lookout notice.\n\n CBP is assessing ways to improve use of force training. To provide a new and\n more realistic southwest border training environment, CBP plans to build a mock\n international border fence training area at both the CBP Advanced Training\n Center and the Border Patrol Academy. This would enable CBP to conduct\n scenario-based training in a realistic field environment that many agents\n encounter during their careers. CBP has the materials needed to build the\n border fence training areas; however, due to budget constraints, CBP is\n reassessing when to build the fences.\n\n During its internal review of use of force issues, UFPD determined that CBP basic\n academies do not train new agents and officers on all less-lethal options that will\n be available to them. UFPD also identified high-risk situations, such as vehicular\n and rock assaults, that are not sufficiently trained at the basic academies.\n\n In addition, several officials said the use of scenario-based training should be\n increased during basic training, especially at the Border Patrol Academy. They\n said trainees leave the Border Patrol Academy with the necessary tools and\n tactics, but are not fully prepared for possible real-life situations they might\n encounter. For example, one official said trainees do not have the opportunity\n in a training environment to experience how they might react in an encounter in\n the field and practice working through their stress or fear reaction. CBP officials\n said that by experiencing possible scenarios and reactions in a training\n environment, trainees are better prepared for any situation they encounter in\n the field. We agree with suggestions to increase scenario-based training at the\n basic academies.\n\n CBP Assesses New Technology To Ensure Field Agents Have the Right Tools\n\n CBP continuously assesses new lethal and less-lethal equipment technology,\n tactics, and training to ensure that agents and officers have the skills and tools\n when needed. Currently, UFPD officials are emphasizing less-lethal tools and\n trying to increase safety for both the agents and subjects involved in encounters\n that result in agent\xe2\x80\x99s use of force. In addition, officials are assessing training\n environments and adding simulator equipment to improve the effectiveness and\n consistency of use of force training across CBP.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Given different operational environments along the border, CBP has made\n multiple less-lethal options available to agents. For example, there are several\n different less-lethal devices that will deploy pepper spray or pepper ball\n chemicals to immobilize subjects. These tools are effective from varying\n distances and some deploy straight whereas others are able to arc over objects.\n Devices capable of arcing are more effective in border areas separated by a\n border fence, and devices that do not arc would be effective along areas of the\n border separated by river or where there are no line-of-sight obstacles. CBP is\n assessing other less-lethal options that would allow an agent to deploy a less-\n lethal device effectively from a greater distance.\n\n Finally, CBP is evaluating the use of simulators, which can encompass all of use of\n force training, including training scenarios and firearms targeting and\n marksmanship. Using simulators for some scenario-based training would allow\n an instructor to freeze an ongoing scenario to allow an agent to review or discuss\n policy or the agent\xe2\x80\x99s action at specific decision points in the scenario as well as\n recording and replaying the agent\xe2\x80\x99s actions during the post-scenario debrief. In\n addition, because UFPD identifies use of force trends, incorporating simulators\n into use of force training would allow UFPD to create scenarios at the Advanced\n Training Center and disseminate them for use in the field. While field instructors\n would continue to develop location-specific live scenarios, adding UFPD-created\n training scenarios, especially in simulators, would reinforce standardization and\n consistency across CBP. It would also allow UFPD to create a scenario based on\n recent trends and implement it in the field quickly.\n\n CBP is moving forward to incorporate simulator training as part of use of force\n training. After observing demonstrations of several different simulators on the\n market, UFPD officials selected several for in-depth testing at the Advanced\n Training Center. In the current testing phase, UFPD officials set up each\n simulator at the Advanced Training Center, learn how to run the systems, and\n practice with each to determine its benefits, drawbacks, and how it could\n support CBP training needs. During the testing, UFPD officials are prioritizing\n requirements for the simulator system CBP will acquire. UFPD officials hope to\n acquire one simulator for the CBP Advanced Training Center and incorporate it\n into training classes by the end of FY 2013. Officials expect to spend about six\n months creating scenarios, running students through scenarios, and assessing\n the effectiveness of the simulator before placing simulators in the field. We\n observed instructor-led scenario-based training and demonstrations of two\n simulators. We concluded that the simulator has the potential to enhance the\n quality of CBP agent and officer training.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Polygraphs Improve Quality of Workforce\n\n\n In 2008, CBP Internal Affairs began implementing a requirement that CBP\n conduct polygraph examinations of all prospective CBP law enforcement agents\n and officers by January 2013. When CBP began the polygraph program,\n approximately half of prospective agents or officers failed the examination.\n According to one CBP official, polygraphing 100 percent of prospective law\n enforcement agents and officers identifies and eliminates applicants who should\n not be in law enforcement. Pre-employment polygraphs have improved the\n quality of the workforce. CBP Internal Affairs implemented the mandate well\n before the deadline and has been polygraphing 100 percent of law enforcement\n applicants since mid-2012.\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis\n\n We evaluated the formal comments CBP submitted and have made changes to\n the report where we deemed appropriate. A summary of the CBP response to\n each recommendation, and our analysis, is included below. A copy of the CBP\n response, in its entirety, appears in appendix B. In addition, we received\n technical comments from CBP and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil\n Liberties and incorporated these comments into the report where appropriate.\n CBP concurred with all recommendations in the report.\n\n Recommendation 1: Work with ICE to implement a method in JICMS to identify\n each use of force allegation involving an officer or agent.\n\n Management Response: CBP concurs. The CBP Office of Internal Affairs, in\n collaboration with the CBP Office of Training and Development (OTD)/Use of\n Force Policy Division (UFPD) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement\n (ICE)/Office of Professional Responsibility, are developing a "menu" of categories\n in the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS) to help identify each use\n of force incident or allegation involving an officer or agent.\n\n OIG Analysis: The actions planned by ICE and CBP appear to be consistent with\n the intent of the recommendation. Only when we examine the new JICMS\n structure will we be able to determine if compliance has been achieved. We\n consider recommendation 1 Resolved-Open.\n\n Recommendation 2: Develop a process to incorporate information regarding\n assaults on agents that did not result in agents using force into its analysis of use\n of force incidents.\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Management Response: CBP concurs. The addition of assault data where force\n was not used by the officer/agent will provide a baseline to compare with\n incidents where force was used by the officer/agent. This data will provide a\n broader understanding of how use of force decisions are being made as well as\n the effectiveness of use of force training and policy. OTD/UFPD will work closely\n with other CBP offices to use and cross-reference this information. Initially, CBP\n will coordinate internally to ensure the owners of the different assault data\n collection systems and the Use of Force Reporting System share and analyze\n data. Long term, CBP will link these systems electronically so that this data is\n easily accessible and may be used to provide comprehensive use of force\n analysis to include assaults that did not result in a use of force by a CBP agent or\n officer. CBP will have internal coordination between system owners in place by\n the end of the first quarter, Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) and, barring any delays\n caused by limited resources, will have the systems connected electronically by\n the end of FY14.\n\n OIG Analysis: The actions planned by CBP appear to be consistent with the\n intent of the recommendation. Only when we examine the results of the CBP\n process modifications will we be able to determine if compliance has been\n achieved. We consider recommendation 2 Resolved-Open.\n\n Recommendation 3: Develop a formal process to evaluate use of force training\n field audit results and follow up on field audit recommendations.\n\n Management Response: CBP concurs. OTD/UFPD has conducted field training\n reviews at 32 locations since February 2012. Although a relatively new practice,\n these reviews have been extremely effective in identifying strengths,\n weaknesses, best practices, and providing general oversight of CBP\'s use of force\n training. The program was a proactive step implemented by CBP to improve\n field training, and we agree that further expansion of the program will only\n improve it. CBP is updating Use of Force policy to institutionalize the formal\n process governing use of force training reviews. CBP is developing and\n formalizing a Standard Operating Procedure that provides guidance for\n evaluating field review results and implementing review recommendations. An\n initial draft of the Standard Operating Procedure will be completed by the end of\n the 2nd quarter FY14. In addition, CBP is developing the capability to conduct\n more comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analyses of use of force\n incident reviews with the establishment of the Use of Force Center of Excellence\n (UFCE). Barring any delays caused by limited resources, CBP expects to have the\n UFCE established and this capability operational during FY14.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n OIG Analysis: The actions planned by CBP appear to be consistent with the\n intent of the recommendation. We will we determine if compliance has been\n achieved after reviewing the results of the CBP program changes. We consider\n recommendation 3 Resolved-Open.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix A\n Objectives, Scope, and Methodology\n The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was\n established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment\n to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and\n special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy,\n efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department.\n\n In May 2012, Senator Robert Menendez and 15 members of Congress asked that we\n review incidents involving the use of force by CBP employees. Specifically, our\n objectives were to (1) examine and summarize reports of investigation alleging brutality\n and use of excessive force by CBP employees, (2) determine what reforms DHS has\n implemented to address the number of incidents involving the use of force by CBP\n employees, and (3) determine what effect adding more agents and officers to the\n workforce has had on training and professionalism.\n\n We conducted our fieldwork between September 2012 and April 2013. We reviewed\n current and former use of force policies, directives, and handbooks; use of force training\n curricula, guidebooks, schedules, and funding; and three OIG reports of investigation. In\n addition, we reviewed and analyzed data on excessive force and abuse allegations and\n investigations, intentional discharges of a weapon, staffing numbers of CBP agents and\n officers, use of force incidents within CBP, deadly force incidents within CBP, assaults on\n Border Patrol Agents, and numbers of OBP and OFO basic academy trainees and\n graduates. We also reviewed UFPD field audit reports, CBP use of force self-inspection\n records, and the results of a CBP internal review of use of force issues that included an\n external assessment of significant use of force shooting incidents by the Police Executive\n Research Forum.\n\n We conducted 40 meetings with 85 officials within DHS, CBP, the Department of Justice,\n the Mexican Embassy, and nongovernmental organizations. We visited the CBP\n Advanced Training Center in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, four times to observe less-\n lethal force and firearms use of force training and equipment. We also conducted a site\n visit to San Diego, California. During our site visit, we met with OBP officials and\n observed a UFPD field audit team conducting an audit of OBP and OFO use of force\n training.\n\n We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as\n amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the Council\n of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-13-114\n\x0c g .\n .\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix B\n Management Comments to the Draft Report\n\n J 300 Pennsylvania /\\venue NW\n Washingwn, DC 20229\n\n\n\n U.S. Customs and\n Border Protection\n August 9, 2013\n\n\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles. K . Edwards\n Deputy Inspector General\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n Affairs~J~ .11.\n FROM: Assistant CoJrunissioner, Office ofl nternal\n U.S. Customs and Border Protection yVV \'~"""\'"~ 7f:? \xc2\xb7\n\n SUBJECT: Response to the Office oflnspector General\'s Draft Report "CRP\n Use of Force Train ing and Actions to Address Use ofForce\n incidents "\n\n\n Thank you tor the opportunity to review and provide comment on this draft report entitled, "CBP\n Use of Force Training and Actions to Address u~\xc2\xb7e ofForce incidents" (OJG-12-160-JSP-CBP).\n\n U.S. C ustoms and Dorder Protection (CDP} appreciates the acknowledgement of CDP\'s\n continued commitment to our workforce. As highlighted in the report, CBP\'s workforce surge\n did not affect use of force training but in fact, training remained consistent Also, the\n in: plementation of the polygraph examinations for all prospective law enforcement agents and\n officers has improved the quality of the CBP workforce by detecting unsuitable candidates. The\n report also recognizes the steps taken by CBP to address use of force incidents involving CDP\n employees, for instance: ( I) completing an internal review of use of force issues; (2) beginni ng\n the tracking of all use of force incidents; (3) improving consistency in training fo r agents and\n officers, and the application of use of force standards and policies; and (4) initiating a field audit\n program to evaluate training across CHP field locations.\n\n The report mentions a number of agents and officers were unfamiliar with the use of force policy\n and the extent to which they may usc force. CBP would like to note, of the 32 fi eld training\n reviews conducTed to date, this was observed o nly once, at one location and involved a small\n number of agents on one training day. Jn that instance, field review team personnel took\n immediate action with the field instructors to address the problem and later to !lowed up with a\n wrilten after a<:tion report and verbal disnrssinns wi lh that location\' s training per~n nnd . This\n case illustrates the value and effectiveness of these fi eld reviews.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-13-114\n\x0c g .\n .\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n\n The draft report contains three recommendations directed to CBP, with which we concur.\n Specifically, OIG recommended that:\n\n Rt!commt!ndatinn 1: Work with ICF: to implement a method in .IICMS to identify each use of\n force allegation involving an uffil:er or agent\n\n Response: CDP concurs. The CDP Office oflntemal Affairs, in collaboration with the CDP\n Office of Training and Development (OTD)/Cse offorce Policy Division (Uf PD) and\n Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)!Offiec of Professional Responsibility, are\n developing a "menu" of categories in the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JTCMS) to\n help identity each use of torce incident or allegation involving an ofticer or agent. CBP and ICE\n are looking at a tentative JICMS release date of August 24, 2013.\n\n Recommendation 2: Develop a process to incorporate information regarding assaults on agents\n that did not result in agents using force into its analysis of use of force incidents.\n\n Response: CBP concurs. The addition of assault data where force was not used by the\n officer/agent VI~ II provide a baseline to compare with incidents where force was used by the\n officer/agent. This will provide a broader umlersta mling of how use of forl:e dedsions are being\n made in tl1e field as well as the effecli veness of use of force training and policy. The\n OTD/UFPD w ill work closely with other CDP offices to utilize and cross\xc2\xb7 reference tltis\n information.\n\n Initially, CBP will coordinate internally to ensure the owners of the different assault data\n collection systems and the Use of Force Reporting System share and analyze data. Long term,\n CBP will link these systems electronically so that this data is easily accessible and may be used\n to provide comprehensive use of force analysis to include assaults that did not result in a use of\n force by a CDP agent or officer. CDP will have internal coordination between system owners in\n place by the end of the first quarter, Fiscal Year 2014 (FYI4) and, barring any delays caused by\n limited resources, will have the systems connected electronically by the end of FYI4.\n\n Recommendation 3 : Develop a formal process to evaluate use of force training field audit\n results and follow up on field audit recommendations.\n\n Response: CDP concurs. The OTD/llFPD has conducted field training reviews at 32 locations\n since February 2012. Although a r elatively new practice, these reviews have heen extremely\n effecti ve in identifying strengths, weakm:sses, best practices, and providing general oversight of\n CBP\'s use afforce training. The program was a proactive step implemented by CDP to improve\n field training and we agree that further expansion of the program will only improve it.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-13-114\n\x0c g .\n .\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n\n CBP is updating Use of Force policy to institutionalize the formal process governing use offorce\n training reviews. C:RP is developing and fonnali7.ing a Standard Operating Procedure that\n provides guidance for ~:valuating fi eld revit:w results and impkmenting rt:view\n recommendations. ."l.ll initial draft of the Standard Operating Procedure will be completed by\n the end of the 2nd qurut er FY14. In addition, CBP is developing the capability to conduct more\n robust quantitative and qualitative analysis of usc of force incident reviews with the\n establishment of the Usc of Force Center of Excellence (UFCE). Barring any delays caused by\n limited resources, CBP expects to have the UFCE established 1111d this capability operational\n during FYI4.\n\n Alihough not specified as formal recommendations, we also agree with the OIG\'s\n recommendation that we should continue to expand the use of scenario-based training and\n continue to pursue new technologies to ensure field agents have the right sldlls and tools when\n needed.\n\n C:RP is committed to tht: w ntinual improvement of our ust: uf for~.:c:: programs, and will work\n with our u1ternal components and DHS pattners to implement the reconunendations.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix C\n Major Contributors to This Report\n William McCarron, Chief Inspector\n Douglas Ellice, Chief Inspector\n Jennifer A. Lindsey, Lead Inspector\n Tanya Suggs, Inspector\n Anne Cho, Inspector\n Ryan P. Cassidy, Inspector\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-13-114\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix D\n Report Distribution\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n Secretary\n Deputy Secretary\n Chief of Staff\n Deputy Chief of Staff\n General Counsel\n Executive Secretary\n Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs\n CBP Liaison\n Acting Chief Privacy Officer\n\n Office of Management and Budget\n\n Chief, Homeland Security Branch\n DHS OIG Budget Examiner\n\n Congress\n\n Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-13-114\n\x0cADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES\n\nTo obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your\nrequest to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General\n(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov.\n\nFor additional information, visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on Twitter\nat: @dhsoig.\n\nOIG HOTLINE\n\nTo expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any\nother kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland\nSecurity (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov\nand click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and\nsubmit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission\nthrough our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and\nreviewed by DHS OIG.\n\nShould you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing\nto:\n\n Department of Homeland Security \n\n Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 \n\n Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline \n\n 245 Murray Drive, SW \n\n Washington, DC 20528-0305 \n\n\nYou may also call 1(800) 323-8603 or fax the complaint directly to us at\n(202) 254-4297.\n\nThe OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.\n\x0c'