Review of the Immigration Control
Officer Network – Final Report
3.3 Assignment of ICOs
Missions need to be reviewed to determine the ICO allocation and program requirements (such as enforcement) on a location-by-location basis. These expectations should be set based on a proper situational analysis and as part of the annual planning process (discussed in section 3.4). For example, in (section removed), the ICO is not near the major airport of (section removed). To obtain proper authorization from local authorities, a two-day notification is required. Local officials operate their own processes and procedures to determine the authenticity of travel documents. Both the local authorities and airlines have received training from the ICO, which represents the main interdiction activity. Therefore, interdiction activity by the ICO is very constrained and forms a relatively small portion of the officer’s overall ICO activity.
Liaison work in this environment is also very limited, given the situation in (section removed). Intelligence work is the mainstay of the ICO’s activities, although even in this area there are a number of constraints. Therefore, the ICO’s role in (section removed) does not necessarily fit the traditional role of an ICO (that is, interdiction, liaison and intelligence). This situation is not uncommon among ICOs.
The situation in (section removed) indicates that an assessment of the situation in each country is needed to determine the need for, and expectations of, ICOs. Part of the analysis should also indicate what other steps are required to support the ICOs. For example, what work is necessary from HQ to help the ICOs build relationships or deal with particular situations? What role should the mission play, given the situation and expectations of the ICO? This situational analysis should be conducted in support of the planning exercise to combine the broad international strategic analysis of the Enforcement Branch, the overview of the program delivery structure and the particular local knowledge of the program manager. Once the expectations for the mission are set, the following determinations can be made.
- Do workload and technical demands warrant an ICO, or would another type of resource be appropriate?
- What equipment does the mission need to be successful?
- What intervention strategies should be deployed?
- What type of support does the mission need from the Enforcement Branch?
For this planning process to be effective, the Enforcement Branch, in conjunction with each mission, should conduct a strategic analysis of each mission, including analysis of the following:
- resources in each location;
- current relationships in each location;
- broad strategic directions of the Department and each mission;
- threats and risks facing the Department and each mission.
The threat and risk assessment for each location should include the following key components:
- objectives;
- identification of risk areas;
- assessment of risk areas;
- risk response; and
- monitoring and reporting.
The assessment will require the investment of resources by the Enforcement Branch over the next year to complete the review. The actual resource impact would have to be assessed by the Enforcement Branch.
Recommendation 6
The Enforcement Branch, in consultation with IR and the Case Management Branch, should undertake a strategic analysis, including threat and risk assessment, of all missions to determine the allocation and program requirements on a location-by-location basis.
Management Response
Management agrees with this recommendation. The Enforcement Branch, in consultation with the other key branches, will undertake the required analyses and threat and risk assessments.
- Date Modified:
