Information Sharing
DHS Could Better Define How It Plans to Meet Its State and Local Mission and Improve Performance Accountability Gao ID: GAO-11-223 December 16, 2010Information sharing among federal, state, and local officials is crucial for preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), has lead federal responsibility for such information sharing. GAO was asked to assess (1) actions I&A has taken to enhance the usefulness of intelligence products it provides to state and local partners, (2) other services I&A provides to these partners, and (3) to what extent I&A has defined how it intends to share information with these partners. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed relevant statutes, strategies, best practices, and agency documents; contacted a nongeneralizable sample of 10 fusion centers--where states collaborate with federal agencies to improve information sharing--based on geographic location and other factors; and interviewed I&A officials. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in September 2010. Information DHS deemed sensitive has been redacted.
To enhance the usefulness of intelligence products it provides to state and local partners, I&A has initiatives underway to identify these partners' information needs and obtain feedback on the products, but strengthening these efforts could support the development of future products. As of August 2010, I&A had finalized information needs--which are owned and controlled by the states--for 9 of the 50 states. I&A was working with remaining states to identify their needs, but it had not established mutually agreed upon milestones for completing this effort, in accordance with program management principles. Working with states to establish such milestones and addressing any barriers to identifying their needs could better assist states in the timely completion of this process. In addition, I&A has begun issuing a new customer feedback survey to recipients of its products and plans to begin analyzing this feedback to determine the value of the products, but it has not developed plans to report the results of its analyses to state and local partners. Reporting the results to these partners and actions it has taken in response could help I&A demonstrate that the feedback is important and makes a difference, which could encourage state and local partners to provide more feedback and ultimately make I&A's products and services more useful. In addition to intelligence products, I&A provides a number of other services to its state and local partners--primarily through fusion centers--that have generally been well received by the center officials GAO contacted. For example, I&A has deployed more than 60 intelligence officers to fusion centers nationwide to assist state and local partners in areas such as obtaining relevant intelligence products and leveraging DHS capabilities to support their homeland security missions. I&A also facilitates access to information-sharing networks disseminating classified and unclassified information, provides training directly to center personnel, and operates a 24-hour service to respond to state and local requests for information and other support. Historically, I&A has focused its state and local efforts on addressing statutory requirements and responding to I&A leadership priorities, but it has not yet defined how it plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission by identifying and documenting the specific programs and activities that are most important for executing this mission. Best practices show that clearly identifying priorities among programs and activities is important for implementing programs and managing results. Further, I&A's current performance measures do not allow I&A to demonstrate the expected outcomes and effectiveness of programs and activities that support state and local partners, as called for in program management principles. I&A officials said they are planning to develop such measures, but had not established time frames for doing so. Defining and documenting how I&A plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission and establishing time frames for developing additional performance measures could better position I&A to make resource decisions and provide transparency and accountability over its efforts. GAO recommends that I&A establish milestones for identifying the information needs of state and local partners, report to these partners on how I&A used feedback they provided to enhance intelligence products, identify and document priority programs and activities related to its state and local mission, and establish time frames for developing additional related performance measures. DHS agreed with these recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Eileen Larence Team: Government Accountability Office: Homeland Security and Justice Phone: No phone on recordGAO-11-223, Information Sharing: DHS Could Better Define How It Plans to Meet Its State and Local Mission and Improve Performance Accountability
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-223
entitled 'Information Sharing: DHS Could Better Define How It Plans to
Meet Its State and Local Mission and Improve Performance
Accountability' which was released on December 16, 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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives:
December 2010:
Information Sharing:
DHS Could Better Define How It Plans to Meet Its State and Local
Mission and Improve Performance Accountability:
GAO-11-223:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-223, a report to Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Information sharing among federal, state, and local officials is
crucial for preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Office of Intelligence and
Analysis (I&A), has lead federal responsibility for such information
sharing. GAO was asked to assess (1) actions I&A has taken to enhance
the usefulness of intelligence products it provides to state and local
partners, (2) other services I&A provides to these partners, and (3)
to what extent I&A has defined how it intends to share information
with these partners. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed relevant
statutes, strategies, best practices, and agency documents; contacted
a nongeneralizable sample of 10 fusion centers”where states
collaborate with federal agencies to improve information sharing”based
on geographic location and other factors; and interviewed I&A
officials. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO
issued in September 2010. Information DHS deemed sensitive has been
redacted.
What GAO Found:
To enhance the usefulness of intelligence products it provides to
state and local partners, I&A has initiatives underway to identify
these partners‘ information needs and obtain feedback on the products,
but strengthening these efforts could support the development of
future products. As of August 2010, I&A had finalized information
needs”-which are owned and controlled by the states”-for 9 of the 50
states. I&A was working with remaining states to identify their needs,
but it had not established mutually agreed upon milestones for
completing this effort, in accordance with program management
principles. Working with states to establish such milestones and
addressing any barriers to identifying their needs could better assist
states in the timely completion of this process. In addition, I&A has
begun issuing a new customer feedback survey to recipients of its
products and plans to begin analyzing this feedback to determine the
value of the products, but it has not developed plans to report the
results of its analyses to state and local partners. Reporting the
results to these partners and actions it has taken in response could
help I&A demonstrate that the feedback is important and makes a
difference, which could encourage state and local partners to provide
more feedback and ultimately make I&A‘s products and services more
useful.
In addition to intelligence products, I&A provides a number of other
services to its state and local partners”-primarily through fusion
centers-”that have generally been well received by the center
officials GAO contacted. For example, I&A has deployed more than 60
intelligence officers to fusion centers nationwide to assist state and
local partners in areas such as obtaining relevant intelligence
products and leveraging DHS capabilities to support their homeland
security missions. I&A also facilitates access to information-sharing
networks disseminating classified and unclassified information,
provides training directly to center personnel, and operates a 24-hour
service to respond to state and local requests for information and
other support.
Historically, I&A has focused its state and local efforts on
addressing statutory requirements and responding to I&A leadership
priorities, but it has not yet defined how it plans to meet its state
and local information-sharing mission by identifying and documenting
the specific programs and activities that are most important for
executing this mission. Best practices show that clearly identifying
priorities among programs and activities is important for implementing
programs and managing results. Further, I&A‘s current performance
measures do not allow I&A to demonstrate the expected outcomes and
effectiveness of programs and activities that support state and local
partners, as called for in program management principles. I&A
officials said they are planning to develop such measures, but had not
established time frames for doing so. Defining and documenting how I&A
plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission and
establishing time frames for developing additional performance
measures could better position I&A to make resource decisions and
provide transparency and accountability over its efforts.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that I&A establish milestones for identifying the
information needs of state and local partners, report to these
partners on how I&A used feedback they provided to enhance
intelligence products, identify and document priority programs and
activities related to its state and local mission, and establish time
frames for developing additional related performance measures. DHS
agreed with these recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-223] or key
components. For more information, contact Eileen Larence at (202) 512-
8777 or larencee@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
I&A Has Initiatives to Enhance Its Intelligence Products, but
Strengthening These Initiatives Could Help Ensure That Products Are
Useful and Responsive to State and Local Needs:
I&A Has Deployed Personnel to Fusion Centers and Provided Other
Services to State and Local Partners That Generally Have Been Well
Received:
Defining How I&A Intends to Meet Its State and Local Information-
Sharing Mission and Establishing Accountability for Results Could
Better Position I&A for the Future:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Voluntary Feedback Responses for I&A Intelligence Products:
Appendix II: Information on Single Point of Service Request
Categories, Performance Metrics, and Performance to Date:
Appendix III: Additional Initiatives That Support Information Sharing
with State and Local Partners:
Appendix IV: Summary of I&A Strategic Goals and Objectives:
Appendix V: Key Attributes Associated with Results-Oriented Management:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Tables:
Table 1: DHS and I&A Training Courses Provided to Fusion Centers:
Table 2: I&A Performance Measures Related to Information Sharing with
State and Local Partners:
Table 3: Voluntary Feedback Response Categories for I&A Intelligence
Products:
Table 4: Categories of SLSRs:
Table 5: SPS Priorities for Servicing State and Local Customers and
Its External Operations Division:
Table 6: Measures, Goals, Key Performance Indicators, and Metrics for
the SPS:
Table 7: Number of SLSRs Received Quarterly Through the First Quarter
of Fiscal Year 2010:
Table 8: Sources of SLSRs Through the First Quarter of Fiscal Year
2010:
Table 9: Average Days to Completion for SLSRs Through the First
Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010:
Table 10: Number of Open SLSRs Each Quarter, Through the First Quarter
of Fiscal Year 2010:
Table 11: I&A's Strategic Goals and Objectives:
Figure:
Figure 1: Locations of State and Local Fusion Centers and Deployed I&A
Intelligence Officers and Regional Directors, August 2010:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
HSDN: Homeland Secure Data Network:
HSI: Homeland Security Institute:
HSIN: Homeland Security Information Network:
HS SLIC: Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of
Interest:
I&A: Office of Intelligence and Analysis:
ITACG: Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group:
JFC-PMO: Joint Fusion Center Program Management Office:
SLSR: State and Local Support Request:
SPS: Single Point of Service:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 16, 2010:
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson:
Chairman:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Recent planned or attempted acts of terrorism on U.S. soil have
highlighted the need for and importance of federal, state, and local
officials sharing information in order to apprehend the responsible
individuals. The Homeland Security Act of 2002[Footnote 1] and
subsequently enacted laws--including the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004[Footnote 2] and the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (the 9/11
Commission Act)[Footnote 3]--assigned the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) responsibility for, among other things, sharing
terrorism-related information as appropriate with its state and local
partners, and authorized additional measures and funding to support
carrying out this mandate.[Footnote 4] DHS's Office of Intelligence
and Analysis (I&A) is the lead DHS component with responsibilities for
sharing this information with all levels of government and the private
sector. Most states and some major urban areas have established fusion
centers that provide a conduit for I&A to share information within the
state.[Footnote 5]
Our prior work on the importance of including state and local entities
in information sharing has shown that these efforts continue to be a
significant challenge for the federal government. In January 2005, we
designated terrorism-related information sharing a high-risk area
because the government had continued to face formidable challenges in
analyzing and disseminating this information in a timely, accurate,
and useful manner.[Footnote 6] We reported that information is a
crucial tool in fighting terrorism and that its timely dissemination
is critical to maintaining the security of our nation. This area
remained on the high-risk list for our January 2009 update.[Footnote
7] As a result of this designation, we continuously monitor federal
efforts to remove barriers to and better achieve information sharing.
This report is a public version of a sensitive report that we provided
to you in September 2010. DHS deemed some of the information in that
report as sensitive, which must be protected from public disclosures.
Therefore, this report omits certain information associated with (1)
the types of products I&A provides to its state and local partners,
(2) the specific number of products it provided to these partners, and
(3) the amount of feedback I&A received on its products from these
partners. Although the information provided in this report is more
limited in scope, it addresses the same questions as the sensitive
report. Also, the methodology used for both reports is the same. In
the context of how I&A has responded to its statutory mission to share
terrorism-related information with state and local partners, the
sensitive report addressed the following questions:[Footnote 8]
* To what extent has I&A taken actions to enhance the usefulness of
intelligence products that it provides to state and local partners?
* In addition to intelligence products, what other services does I&A
provide to state and local partners to facilitate information sharing,
and what are its partners' views of these services?
* To what extent has I&A defined how it intends to meet its state and
local information-sharing mission?
To determine the extent to which I&A has taken actions to enhance the
usefulness of intelligence products for state and local partners, we
reviewed documentation related to I&A's intelligence products and its
efforts to gather the information needs of state and local partners
and feedback on the products provided.[Footnote 9] These documents
included fact sheets, briefing handouts, and Federal Register notices.
We also reviewed I&A reports to Congress on the dissemination of
intelligence products and related feedback; a 2008 contractor report
on I&A's support to fusion centers, which led to I&A efforts to gather
state and local information needs; and a 2010 I&A-sponsored study on
how intelligence products are disseminated to state and local
agencies.[Footnote 10] In addition, we reviewed statutory provisions
that address I&A's role in disseminating intelligence products and
gathering feedback, and the October 2007 National Strategy for
Information Sharing, which provides criteria on the importance of
gathering state and local information needs, among other things.
Further, we reviewed standards for program management and our previous
reports to identify criteria regarding project management and
stakeholder involvement in federal agency programs and decision
making.[Footnote 11] We compared I&A's efforts against the relevant
legislation and criteria to identify efforts to meet certain
provisions and potential areas for improvement. We also interviewed
senior officials from various I&A divisions to discuss how they
prepared and disseminated intelligence products, what prior and
current efforts they took or are taking to gather state and local
information needs and feedback on products, and how these efforts have
evolved over time.
In addition, we interviewed directors, intelligence analysts, and
other senior officials from 10 fusion centers--including the President
of the National Fusion Center Association--and asked them whether I&A
had discussed their information needs, their views on the usefulness
of I&A's products, related feedback they have provided to I&A, and
other issues. Because we selected a nonprobability sample of fusion
centers to contact, the information we obtained from these locations
may not be generalized to all fusion centers nationwide. However,
because we selected these centers based on their geographic location,
maturity, and whether an I&A officer had been deployed to the center
(5 had officers deployed and 5 did not), the information we gathered
from these locations provided us with a general understanding of
information sharing between I&A and state and local agencies. We also
met with officials from associations that represent state and local
interests--the Major Cities Chiefs Association and International
Association of Chiefs of Police--to discuss their views on I&A efforts
to address state and local needs. These associations do not represent
the views of all state and local entities, but provide additional
context regarding state and local information sharing. Further, we
reviewed pertinent statutory provisions and other documentation
related to the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group
(ITACG) to determine its role in incorporating state and local needs
and perspectives into federal intelligence products, as well as any
issues ITACG officials identified regarding the dissemination of
federal intelligence products.[Footnote 12]
Regarding other services I&A has provided to facilitate information
sharing with state and local partners, we analyzed relevant laws and
strategies to determine criteria and activities that I&A has been
charged with leading. These documents include the October 2007
National Strategy for Information Sharing and the 9/11 Commission Act,
which provides for the establishment of a State, Local, and Regional
Fusion Center Initiative at DHS and contains numerous provisions that
address the federal government's information-sharing responsibilities
to fusion centers. To obtain details on services I&A provides to state
and local partners, we reviewed I&A's quarterly reports to Congress
regarding its support to fusion centers from fiscal year 2009 through
the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. We also reviewed internal
quarterly reports on an I&A initiative to respond to state and local
requests for information and administrative support (i.e., the Single
Point of Service) from May 2008 through the first quarter of fiscal
year 2010.[Footnote 13] In addition, we reviewed third-party reports
containing information on these efforts, such as the 2008 report on
I&A fusion center support, a Congressional Research Service report on
the DHS intelligence enterprise,[Footnote 14] and an I&A-sponsored
evaluation of I&A's various programs.[Footnote 15] We interviewed
senior officials from various I&A components--including the State and
Local Program Office and the Production Management Division--to gain
an understanding of I&A's activities that directly support fusion
centers. We also interviewed senior officials from the 10 fusion
centers and two associations that we contacted to discuss I&A's direct
support to state and local partners at fusion centers and obtain their
views on these services.
To determine the extent to which I&A has defined how it intends to
meet its state and local information-sharing mission, we reviewed
requirements contained in applicable federal guidance, including
guidance to agencies from the Office of Management and Budget for
developing strategic plans, Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA),[Footnote 16] Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government,[Footnote 17] and our recommended practices for
strategic planning.[Footnote 18] We then reviewed I&A's planning
documents to identify where the required elements could be found. In
addition, we reviewed reports and I&A-sponsored studies on its
programs and planning. We also interviewed senior officials
responsible for agencywide planning, including officials from I&A's
Program and Performance Management Division and I&A's chief of staff.
In addition, we interviewed management officials responsible for
planning in I&A component divisions and branches to determine the
processes used to create planning documents and ensure accountability
for achieving program results.
As discussed above, we reviewed reports and studies prepared by I&A
and third-party contractors related to I&A's efforts to support and
facilitate information sharing with state and local partners. We have
included data, findings, and recommendations from these documents in
this report. We found the analyses and data in the internal reports
and third-party studies to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes
in this report. We performed our work on the sensitive version of this
report from February 2009 to September 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:
History and Overview of I&A:
In 2002, DHS established its Directorate of Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection. In 2005, the directorate was divided into
two offices--I&A and the Office of Infrastructure Protection. I&A is
headed by the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, who is
responsible for providing homeland security intelligence and
information to the Secretary of Homeland Security, other federal
officials and agencies, members of Congress, departmental component
agencies, and the department's state, local, tribal, territorial, and
private-sector partners. I&A also provides staff, services, and other
support to the Under Secretary related to efforts to lead, integrate,
and manage intelligence activities across the department.
I&A has undergone several transitions and realignments since its
inception in 2002, which affect all of the office's customers,
including state and local partners. Several of I&A's divisions,
offices, and branches have some role in helping the office meet its
mission to share information with these partners. Most importantly,
I&A's State and Local Program Office was established to manage a
program to accomplish DHS's fusion center mission. Specifically, the
office is responsible for deploying DHS personnel with operational and
intelligence skills to fusion centers to facilitate coordination and
the flow of information between DHS and fusion centers, provide
expertise in intelligence analysis and reporting, coordinate with
local DHS and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) components, and
provide DHS with local situational awareness and access to fusion
center information.[Footnote 19]
In addition to the State and Local Program Office's support to fusion
centers, other entities within I&A are engaged in providing
intelligence products and other products and services to state and
local customers. For example, several analytic divisions--such as
those that address border security and domestic threats--are
responsible for conducting analysis and preparing intelligence reports
on a variety of topics of interest to various stakeholders, including
state and local entities. The Collections Requirement Division gathers
information needs from state and local partners, among other things,
and the Production Management Division is responsible for finalizing
intelligence reports that are prepared by the analytic divisions and
distributing them to I&A's customers, including state and local
partners.[Footnote 20] In addition, I&A's newly formed Customer
Assurance Branch is now responsible for gathering and compiling
feedback on the intelligence products that I&A provides to its
customers, including state and local partners.
Federal Statutes and Strategies Governing Information Sharing with
State and Local Entities:
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, several statutes
have been enacted into law designed to enhance the sharing of
terrorism-related information among federal, state, and local
agencies, and the federal government has developed related strategies
and guidelines to meet its statutory obligations.[Footnote 21] Related
to I&A, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigned the original DHS
intelligence component--the Directorate of Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection--with responsibility to receive, analyze,
and integrate law enforcement and intelligence information in order to
(1) identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats to
the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States, and (3) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities to the homeland. Further, the 9/11
Commission Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security--through the
Under Secretary for I&A--to integrate information and standardize the
format of terrorism-related intelligence products. The act further
directed the Secretary to create a mechanism for state, local, and
tribal law enforcement officers to provide voluntary feedback to DHS
on the quality and utility of the intelligence products developed
under these provisions. DHS is also charged through the 9/11
Commission Act with developing a curriculum for training state, local,
and tribal partners in, among other things, federal laws, practices,
and regulations regarding the development, handling, and review of
intelligence and other information.
As part of DHS's information sharing with state and local entities,
several provisions of the 9/11 Commission Act relate to support
provided directly to fusion centers. Most states and some major urban
areas have established fusion centers to, among other things, address
gaps in terrorism-related information sharing that the federal
government cannot address alone and provide a conduit for information
sharing within the state. Specific to fusion centers, the act provides
for the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis to assign, to
the maximum extent practicable, officers and intelligence analysts
from DHS components--including I&A--to fusion centers. The act also
provides that federal officers and analysts assigned to fusion centers
in general are to assist law enforcement agencies in developing a
comprehensive and accurate threat picture and to create intelligence
and other information products for dissemination to law enforcement
agencies.
In October 2007, the President issued the National Strategy for
Information Sharing, which identifies the federal government's
information-sharing responsibilities to include gathering and
documenting the information that state and local agencies need to
enhance their situational awareness of terrorist threats. The strategy
also calls for authorities at all levels of government to work
together to obtain a common understanding of the information needed to
prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist attacks. Specifically, the
strategy requires that state and local law enforcement agencies have
access to timely, credible, and actionable information and
intelligence about individuals and organizations intending to carry
out attacks within the United States; their organizations and their
financing; potential targets; activities that could have a nexus to
terrorism; and major events or circumstances that might influence
state and local actions. The strategy also recognizes that fusion
centers are vital assets that are critical to sharing information
related to terrorism, and will serve as primary focal points within
the state and local environment for the receipt and sharing of
terrorism-related information. I&A has cited this strategy as a key
document governing its state and local information-sharing efforts.
Thus, in response to the designation of fusion centers as primary
focal points, requirements in the 9/11 Commission Act, and the
difficulty of reaching out to the thousands of state and local law
enforcement entities nationwide, I&A views fusion centers as primary
vehicles for sharing information with state and local partners.
Our Past Work on Terrorism-Related Information Sharing:
In October 2001, we first reported on the importance of sharing
information about terrorist threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, and
lessons learned.[Footnote 22] Since we designated terrorism-related
information sharing a high-risk area in January 2005, we have
continued to monitor federal efforts to remove barriers to effective
information sharing. As part of this monitoring, in October 2007 and
April 2008, we reported on our assessment of the status of fusion
centers and how the federal government is supporting them.[Footnote
23] Our fusion center report and subsequent testimony highlighted
continuing challenges--such as the centers' ability to access
information and obtain funding--that DHS and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) needed to address to support the fusion centers' role in
facilitating information sharing among federal, state, and local
partners. Specifically, the October 2007 report recommended that
federal officials determine and articulate the federal government's
role in helping to ensure fusion center sustainability. In response,
in late 2008, I&A reported that it had dedicated personnel and other
resources, as well as issued guidance, directly supporting fusion
centers. We have ongoing work that is assessing fusion center
sustainability and efforts to protect privacy, and expect to report
the results of this work later this year.
In June 2008, we reported on the federal government's efforts to
implement the Information Sharing Environment, which was established
to facilitate the sharing of terrorism and homeland security
information.[Footnote 24] We recommended that the Program Manager for
the Information Sharing Environment and stakeholders more fully define
the scope and specific results to be achieved and develop performance
measures to track progress. The Program Manager has taken steps to
address these recommendations but has not fully addressed them. We are
continuing to review federal agencies' efforts to implement the
Information Sharing Environment and expect to report the results of
this work later this year. Finally, in December 2009, we reported on
our assessment of DHS and FBI efforts to share information with local
and tribal officials in border communities and recommended that DHS
and FBI more fully identify the information needs of, and establish
partnerships with, local and tribal officials along the borders;
identify promising practices in developing border intelligence
products with fusion centers and obtain feedback on the products; and
define the suspicious activities that local and tribal officials in
border communities are to report and how to report them. [Footnote 25]
DHS agreed with the recommendations and provided a number of actions
they were taking or planned to take to implement these suggested
changes. The FBI did not provide comments.
I&A Has Initiatives to Enhance Its Intelligence Products, but
Strengthening These Initiatives Could Help Ensure That Products Are
Useful and Responsive to State and Local Needs:
I&A has increased the number of intelligence products it disseminates
to its state and local partners and is taking steps to work with
fusion centers to increase their dissemination. I&A also has
initiatives to identify state and local information needs to ensure
that its products provide information of importance to these partners
but it has not worked with states to establish milestones for
identifying these needs, which could better hold I&A accountable for
assisting states in completing this process in a timely manner.
Further, I&A has developed a new customer survey intended to gather
more detailed feedback on its products, but it could enhance the
transparency and accountability of its efforts and provide assurance
that partners' views are informing its products by periodically
reporting to its state and local partners on the steps it has taken to
assess and respond to this feedback.
I&A Has Increased the Number of Intelligence Products It Issues to
State and Local Partners and Is Taking Steps to Ensure Better
Dissemination of These Products:
To address requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
amended, and the 9/11 Commission Act, I&A prepares intelligence
products on a number of topics for its many customers, including its
state and local partners. I&A prepares these intelligence products
based on a number of factors, including departmental priorities, areas
of expertise, and departmental and customer needs. Examples of I&A
products that are targeted to or adapted for state and local partners
are as follows:
* Daily Intelligence Highlights: Provide a compilation of significant
and developing issues that affect homeland security.
* Roll Call Release: Designed to provide information on possible
tactics or techniques that could be used by terrorists or criminals.
I&A prepares these products jointly with the FBI and the ITACG. Topics
covered in prior Roll Call Releases include concealment of explosive
devices and homemade explosives.
* Homeland Security Monitor: Provides multiple articles on a theme or
topic. Examples of Homeland Security Monitors include the Border
Security Monitor and Cyber Security Monitor.
* Homeland Security Reference Aid: Provides information and context on
an issue in various formats, such as primers, handbooks, historical
overviews, organizational charts, group profiles, or standalone
graphics such as annotated maps and charts.
From June 2009 through May 2010, I&A disseminated 16 percent more
analytic intelligence products to its state and local partners through
fusion centers than the previous year, and more than twice the number
released over the previous 2 years. I&A also disseminates analytic
products it develops jointly with the FBI, other federal agencies, and
fusion centers. For example, of the products released from June 2009
through May 2010, approximately one-third were prepared jointly with
the FBI or other federal agencies. In addition, from July 2007 through
July 2010, I&A reported that it prepared several dozen joint products
with fusion centers. These products included threat assessments for
special events, such as the Presidential Inauguration and the Super
Bowl.
I&A also provides intelligence reports to fusion centers, as well as
to federal agencies and members of the intelligence community, in the
form of Homeland Intelligence Reports.[Footnote 26] These reports
provide unanalyzed intelligence--generated by a single, unvalidated
source--derived from operational or law enforcement data that I&A
evaluated because of their homeland security relevance. From June 2009
through May 2010, I&A disseminated thousands of Homeland Intelligence
Reports to its state and local partners through fusion centers. I&A
officials noted that the number of reports disseminated has increased
over time because of the overall increase in the number of submissions
from DHS components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as greater reporting
by state and local partners.
In 2009, I&A commissioned a study in response to concerns voiced by
state and local first responders and first preventers (e.g., law
enforcement, fire departments, emergency management, health services,
critical infrastructure providers, and other relevant stakeholders)
that they were not receiving enough useful information products from
fusion centers. The study examined a number of issues, such as how
fusion centers disseminate products to these partners--what the study
referred to as the "last mile" of dissemination--in order to identify
common challenges and best practices. The March 2010 report contains
recommendations for I&A and fusion centers.[Footnote 27]
Recommendations for I&A include:
* ensuring that the results of the study are made widely available;
* working with fusion centers to discuss how some ideas from the
report (e.g., establishing a policy for product dissemination) could
be implemented;
* ensuring that deployed I&A officers can help fusion centers adopt
best practices and policies;
* expanding the development of products geared towards first
responders and preventers; and:
* incorporating descriptions of why the distributed product is
relevant to the state or local entity.
In response to these recommendations, the Acting Director of I&A's
State and Local Program Office said that I&A intelligence officers at
fusion centers have been directed to work with their fusion centers to
develop better policies and procedures for product dissemination.
I&A Is Taking Steps to Identify State Information Needs, but
Establishing Milestones for Completing Efforts Could Better Hold I&A
Accountable to Assist States and Support Future Product Development:
As of August 2010, I&A had worked with 9 of 50 states to collect and
validate their definition of the kinds of information they need for
their homeland security efforts. I&A was also working with another 32
states to help identify and define their needs. In 2007, I&A began its
initial effort to identify the information needs of its state and
local partners in conjunction with a pilot study that found that I&A
had not identified fusion center needs for product development or
produced intelligence products tailored to those needs.[Footnote 28]
Specifically, the study found that fusion center leaders at pilot
sites did not believe that DHS intelligence products fully met their
mission needs by providing information of operational importance to
state and local law enforcement. The study also found that DHS did not
have an intelligence process that identified fusion center needs to
inform reporting and analysis, produced products tailored to those
requirements, or collected feedback from fusion centers on the value
of these products.
During 2007, I&A identified the information needs from five of the six
fusion centers that it contacted during its pilot study, according to
I&A officials. These information needs included topics such as border
security and threats posed by prison radicalization. I&A reached out
to nine additional fusion centers in 2008, and was able to obtain and
validate information needs from four of them, which submitted their
needs on a voluntary basis. Thus, over the first year and a half of
these efforts, I&A obtained and validated information needs from a
total of nine fusion centers. I&A planned to visit an additional eight
fusion centers in 2009 but only visited one center before efforts were
suspended in March 2009, with no resulting compendium of fusion center
needs. According to a senior I&A official, the process I&A was using
to obtain these needs was time consuming and inefficient. The official
explained that a number of different I&A entities were involved in
gathering these needs, visiting fusion centers one at a time, and
following up with each to validate the needs.
In March 2009, I&A refocused its efforts to identify Standing
Information Needs for each state, which I&A defines as "any subject,
general or specific, for which there is a continuing need for
intelligence, which will establish a foundation for guiding
intelligence collection efforts and reporting activities." Examples
include the need for information on individuals or groups that are
capable of attacking critical infrastructure and key resources, and
emerging cross-border connections between transnational criminal
organizations or gangs. According to an Acting Deputy Director of
I&A's Domestic Threat Analysis Division, Standing Information Needs
are focused on long-term analytic needs, whereas prior efforts to
collect information needs were focused on identifying and providing
products in response to more immediate information needs--a function
now handled through I&A's Single Point of Service initiative, which is
discussed later in this report.
I&A describes its approach to assisting states in identifying their
Standing Information Needs as a two-fold process. First, I&A provides
states with a list of general topics--such as critical infrastructure
protection--that align with DHS's Standing Information Needs for their
use in identifying areas of interest. I&A then poses a series of
questions to state fusion center personnel to help them define more
detailed information needs under those topics in an organized and
complete manner.[Footnote 29] In October 2009, I&A began soliciting
these needs from all state fusion centers with I&A intelligence
officers, except for 3 that had taken part in the pilot phase of the
program. As of August 2010, 9 states had completed efforts to identify
their information needs, 12 states had completed drafts that were
awaiting final state approval, and 20 states were in the process of
drafting their needs. After the states have finalized their Standing
Information Needs, I&A plans to assist them in prioritizing those
needs.
According to the Deputy Director of I&A's Collection and Requirements
Division, I&A has begun providing products to states in response to
Standing Information Needs that the states have submitted. The
official noted that these products are labeled in a manner that makes
a clear link between the state's identified need and the product that
is issued, and that the products are also sent to other stakeholders
that may have similar interests. Thus, I&A reports that it can track
states' needs from the time they are received through each product
provided in response to those needs. According to I&A, this current
effort is completed manually and is labor intensive. I&A is currently
researching tools to automate the Standing Information Needs process
to ensure that products are reaching as many customers as possible by
distributing reports generated as a result of these needs to all
interested parties.
I&A is making progress in gathering and responding to state Standing
Information Needs and has developed internal milestones for completing
the identification of these needs. According to standard program
management principles, time frames or milestones should typically be
incorporated as part of a road map to achieve a specific desired
outcome or result; in this case, development of a nationwide
compendium of state and local information needs.[Footnote 30]
According to I&A, because these needs are state-owned and approved
documents, I&A cannot compel states to meet its internal milestones.
Nevertheless, working closely with states to jointly develop such
milestones is particularly important given the past challenges I&A has
encountered in identifying these needs, and given that it has spent
nearly 3 years in this process and has completed efforts to identify
needs from nine states to date.
According to the Deputy Director of I&A's Collection Requirements
Division, while assisting states in developing their Standing
Information Needs is a significant priority, the biggest challenge the
division faces in addressing this priority is limited resources. I&A
has two to three staff assigned to work with states to gather these
needs and those staff get pulled from this task to deal with other,
higher priority issues. For example, the official noted that in the
spring of 2010, the staff were taken from this work to advise the U.S.
Coast Guard on methods of information gathering and reporting
regarding the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill. While we
recognize that states have the lead in defining their needs, given the
importance that both I&A and its state and local partners place on
having state and local needs drive intelligence and product
development, it is important that these needs be identified as
expeditiously as possible. Working with states to establish milestones
for developing their information needs and identifying and addressing
any barriers to developing those needs and meeting milestones could
better hold I&A accountable for assisting the states in the timely
completion of this process.
I&A Is Analyzing Feedback on Intelligence Products, but Reporting the
Results of the Analysis to State and Local Partners Could Provide
Better Transparency and Accountability to Stakeholders:
Historically, the primary mechanism I&A used to collect feedback on
its intelligence products was to include a reference to an
unclassified e-mail address in each product that recipients could use
to submit comments. Other feedback mechanisms include Web sites used
to disseminate information, teleconferences, and information gathered
by I&A officers located at fusion centers, a practice that officials
at 6 of the 10 fusion centers we contacted preferred versus replying
via e-mail.
The level of feedback I&A has received on its products through this e-
mail address has increased and has largely been positive.
Specifically, from June 2008 through May 2009, I&A's report to
Congress on voluntary customer feedback--required by the 9/11
Commission Act--shows that I&A received 175 feedback responses on
intelligence products from state and local customers, versus 50
responses during the prior reporting period. I&A's analysis of the
responses show that about 67 percent were positive, meaning that
respondents felt they were useful for planning and resource
allocation.[Footnote 31] Appendix I presents more information on how
I&A categorizes the feedback it has received. Officials at 9 of the 10
fusion centers we contacted said that they found I&A's products to be
generally helpful. For example, officials from 2 fusion centers cited
I&A reports on the attempted Christmas Day 2009 airline bombing as
examples of relevant information that was provided to them in a timely
manner. Regarding Homeland Intelligence Reports, I&A said that state
and local partners' feedback has been minimal, and that it is
continuing to encourage them to comment on these reports so that I&A
can adjust these products to meet its partners' needs. One example
cited in I&A's latest customer feedback report to Congress illustrates
the importance of obtaining feedback for supporting I&A efforts to
improve its future products. Specifically, a fusion center expressed
concerns that the perspectives of 3 southwest border state fusion
centers were not included in an assessment that I&A headquarters
produced on border violence. The feedback resulted in teleconferences
and other I&A actions to ensure that state and local perspectives are
included in future assessments of border violence.
According to I&A officials, the amount and detail of feedback received
to date, while positive, has been of limited use in improving product
development. Thus, in 2010 I&A began using a new customer satisfaction
survey to gather more meaningful feedback from state and local
partners on its intelligence products and other areas of support.
[Footnote 32] For example, the survey asks respondents how the product
was used to support their mission, how it could be improved, and their
level of satisfaction with the timeliness and relevance of the product
to the respondents' intelligence needs. I&A plans to use the survey
results to establish who in the state and local community is accessing
its reports, and to make improvements to intelligence products that
increase customer satisfaction. According to the Chief of I&A's newly
formed Customer Assurance Branch--which is responsible for managing
efforts to collect and analyze feedback on I&A's analytic services--
I&A began deploying the survey to all recipients of products marked
"For Official Use Only" in March 2010. As of May 2010, I&A officials
said that they had received several hundred responses to this survey,
approximately half of which were from state, local, tribal, and
territorial partners--more than double the number of responses from
these partners over the previous year of reporting.
The results of these feedback surveys are to be sent directly to the
analysts and divisions preparing intelligence products for
incorporation into ongoing and future work, according to agency
officials. The officials noted that this survey is to be one part of a
larger effort to capture and manage feedback on not only I&A's
intelligence products, but also services that it provides internally
to its analysts and report preparers.
According to I&A, once it has gathered data for one full quarter, it
will begin to examine different ways that it can compile and assess
the information gathered from these surveys. I&A anticipates that its
efforts will include organizing feedback survey responses by the type
of product issued (e.g., Homeland Security Monitor), analytic
division, and product topic (e.g., border security or critical
infrastructure). Organizing feedback in this way could help I&A
determine the value and responsiveness of its particular product types
to state and local customer needs, and in turn help I&A focus its
limited resources. At the time of our review, I&A planned to report
the results of such analyses to Congress through its upcoming 2010
report to Congress on voluntary feedback from state and local
customers.
I&A has also taken initial steps to report the results of its feedback
analysis directly to state and local customers. Specifically, during
the summer of 2010, I&A provided briefings on the value of this
feedback during two stakeholder forums, according to an official from
I&A's Customer Assurance Branch. This official added that I&A plans to
continue using stakeholder forums--such as conferences and meetings of
fusion center directors--to report on I&A's assessment of state and
local feedback and its use in refining I&A products. However, I&A had
not developed plans on when it will provide such reporting, how
frequently, or in what level of detail. Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government require agencies to ensure effective
communication with external stakeholders that may have a significant
impact on an agency achieving its goals--in this case, I&A's state and
local information-sharing partners. In addition, standard program
management principles call for time frames or milestones to be
developed as part of a road map to achieve a specific desired result.
As I&A moves forward with its efforts to collect and analyze feedback
from state and local partners, developing plans for reporting the
results of its feedback analysis--including time frames and level of
detail--to these partners and the actions it has taken in response
could help I&A demonstrate that the feedback is important and makes a
difference. In turn, this could encourage state and local partners to
provide more feedback and ultimately make I&A's products and services
more useful.
I&A Has Deployed Personnel to Fusion Centers and Provided Other
Services to State and Local Partners That Generally Have Been Well
Received:
In addition to intelligence products, I&A provides a number of other
services to its state and local partners to enhance information
sharing, analytic capabilities, and operational support that generally
have been well-received, based on our discussions with officials at 10
fusion centers and published third-party reports on I&A operations.
For example, I&A has deployed intelligence officers--who assist state
and local partners in a number of information-sharing efforts--to more
than half of all fusion centers. I&A also facilitates access to
information-sharing networks, provides training directly to fusion
center personnel, and operates a 24-hour service to respond to state
and local requests for information and other support.
I&A Plans to Deploy Intelligence Officers to All Fusion Centers by the
End of Fiscal Year 2011:
As part of its efforts to support fusion centers, I&A's State and
Local Program Office assigns intelligence officers to fusion centers.
These officers serve as DHS's representative to fusion centers and
assist them in a number of efforts--such as providing connectivity to
classified data systems, training opportunities, and warnings about
threats--and generally educating them on how to better use DHS
capabilities to support their homeland security missions. In addition,
I&A assigns regional directors to fusion centers who, among other
things, are responsible for supervising I&A intelligence officers at
fusion centers within their region and providing operational and
intelligence assistance to the centers, particularly those without
intelligence officers on-site. As of August 2010, I&A had deployed 62
intelligence officers and 6 regional directors to fusion centers. This
represents an increase of 32 officers and the same number of regional
directors since June 2009. I&A plans to have an intelligence officer
deployed to each of its 72 designated fusion centers, as well as
appoint 10 regional directors, by the end of fiscal year 2011.
[Footnote 33] Figure 1 shows the locations where I&A intelligence
officers and regional directors had been deployed as of August 2010.
Figure 1: Locations of State and Local Fusion Centers and Deployed I&A
Intelligence Officers and Regional Directors, August 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
The map depicts the following Regions:
Northeast;
Midwest;
Southeast;
Central;
Western;
National Capital.
Within each region, the following are depicted:
Fusion center with I&A intelligence officer;
Fusion center without I&A intelligence officer;
Fusion center with a regional director.
Sources: GAO analysis of I&A data and Map Resources.
Notes:
There are 2 fusion centers in the Los Angeles, California, area: 1 in
Los Angeles with an I&A intelligence officer and 1 in Anaheim with no
I&A intelligence officer.
Sacramento, California, has 2 fusion centers, 1 with no I&A
intelligence officer deployed and 1 with a deployed I&A intelligence
officer who is currently serving as the Acting Western Regional
Director.
Maynard, Massachusetts has an I&A intelligence officer who is serving
as the Acting Northeast Regional Director.
[End of figure]
Of the 10 fusion centers we contacted, 7 had an I&A intelligence
officer or regional director on site and fusion center officials at
all 7 locations had positive comments about the support the I&A
officials provided. Fusion center officials at the other 3 locations
said that they received support through regional directors in their
area or an I&A officer in a neighboring state. Fusion center officials
at 8 of the 10 centers noted that the presence of I&A officers or
regional directors (on site or in their region) was important for
obtaining intelligence products from DHS. According to one director,
the center was recently assigned an I&A officer who alerted center
officials to products of which they were previously unaware. In
particular, the director noted that the I&A officer was able to access
and share Border Patrol daily reports that were very helpful to local
law enforcement operations. In addition, officials at 9 of the 10
fusion centers we contacted said that the I&A officers were
particularly helpful in providing technical assistance (e.g., guidance
on how the center should operate) or in notifying the centers about
available training.
I&A Has Facilitated Fusion Center Access to Classified and Sensitive
Information:
As of May 2010, I&A had funded and facilitated the installation of the
Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN) at more than half of all fusion
centers, which allows the federal government to share Secret-level
intelligence and information with state, local, and tribal partners.
Additional centers are undergoing facilities certification in order to
be accredited to house HSDN.[Footnote 34] I&A has established a goal
of deploying HSDN to all 72 fusion centers.
In addition, DHS's Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) is
used for sharing sensitive but unclassified information with state and
local partners through a number of "community of interest" portals.
One of the key portals is HSIN-Intel, which houses a section known as
the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of
Interest (HS SLIC)--a virtual community for federal, state, and local
intelligence analysts to interact.[Footnote 35] As of June 2010, HS
SLIC had approximately 1,900 state and local users, an increase from
the approximately 1,082 state and local users in September 2008. In
addition to the HSIN portal, HS SLIC program officials in I&A
facilitate weekly teleconferences, biweekly secure teleconferences,
and quarterly conferences to share information with interested state
and local parties. In an April 2009 report, the Homeland Security
Institute (HSI) credited HS SLIC with fostering "the broader sharing
of homeland security intelligence and information."[Footnote 36] In
addition, all 10 of the fusion centers we contacted were using HS
SLIC, and 6 of the 10 cited it as useful for identifying relevant
information that supports fusion center activities.
I&A Provides Analytic and Other Training to State and Local Officials,
Which Has Also Received Positive Feedback:
In response to a 9/11 Commission Act requirement to develop a
curriculum for training state, local, and tribal partners in the
intelligence cycle and other issues involving the sharing of federal
intelligence, I&A has a number of courses for state and local analysts
and officials. For example, I&A's State and Local Program Office
offers training courses directly to fusion center personnel, as shown
in table 1.
Table 1: DHS and I&A Training Courses Provided to Fusion Centers:
Course: Analytic and Critical Thinking Skills Workshop[A];
Description: This course provides knowledge in critical thinking and
analytic methodologies. I&A, using contractors, delivers this training
directly to fusion centers. Feedback obtained by I&A and provided to
us for three specific course offerings in mid-2009 indicates that the
majority of participants considered the course content to be "good" or
"very good." I&A tracks the number of state, local, and tribal
personnel that have received this training as a performance measure;
Offerings: As of June 2010, I&A delivered this training to 320 state
and local analysts.
Course: Open Source Enterprise Practitioners Training;
Description: I&A created this training on use of open source tools and
techniques based on direct feedback from fusion center participants
during pilot training. I&A categorizes participant feedback on
training offered as of June 2009 as "overall positive," and is working
to develop additional training material;
Offerings: From 2008 through June 2010, I&A has provided this training
to 964 students at 45 fusion centers and has also provided the course
to Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices and U.S. Coast Guard
headquarters.
Course: Privacy and Civil Liberties Training;
Description: DHS--through its Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties and Privacy Office--provides training on privacy, civil
rights, and civil liberties for all DHS intelligence officers before
they are deployed to fusion centers and throughout their careers, and
supports the training of fusion center personnel. DHS employs a "three-
pronged" approach to deliver this training, as follows:
* Providing privacy and civil liberties training to each new I&A
intelligence officer hired for deployment to a fusion center;
* In fiscal year 2010, DHS developed an expanded "toolkit" of civil
rights and civil liberties resources to support training for all
fusion center personnel. Funding for the toolkit is provided by DOJ's
Bureau of Justice Assistance, I&A, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and the Program Manager for the Information Sharing
Environment. In conjunction with this effort, the Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Office have partnered with
Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Global Justice Information
Sharing Initiative to launch a web portal with links to all federal
privacy and civil liberties resources;
* Delivering a Training of Trainers program, which is designed to
allow DHS to train fusion center privacy officers so they can train
staff at their home fusion centers. The program is administered by the
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Institute and the DHS Privacy Office;
Offerings: Provided prior to each officer deployment. In fiscal year
2010, DHS trained officers who have been or will be deployed to 13
locations. DHS also provided follow-up training at the 2010 National
Fusion Center Conference to all of the DHS officers deployed to fusion
centers on privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties issues
associated with Homeland Intelligence Reports. As of December 2009,
DHS had delivered pilot training sessions to a total of 323
participants and to another 227 participants during related workshops.
According to I&A, training participants provided an average rating of
4.11 (on a 1 to 5 scale) for overall usefulness and effectiveness. As
of June 2010, I&A reported that 46 applications for the training were
pending from fusion centers in 36 states and the District of Columbia;
DHS launched this program during the third quarter of fiscal year
2010. The training was held in conjunction with regional fusion center
conferences. During this quarter, DHS trained 60 privacy, civil
rights, and civil liberties officers from 58 fusion centers.
Source: I&A.
[A] According to I&A, the Critical Thinking and Analytic Methods
course replaced the Analytic and Critical Thinking Skills Workshop in
2010 and covers similar subject matter, but I&A provided no further
details.
[End of table]
Course feedback that I&A provided to us is largely positive. Further,
officials from 8 of the 10 fusion centers we contacted reported
receiving training provided or sponsored by I&A and were generally
satisfied with this training. In addition to the courses above, I&A's
Intelligence Training Branch offers courses that are geared towards
DHS intelligence analysts but made available to state and local
analysts. These cover various topics, such as basic overviews of the
intelligence community, critical thinking and analytic methods, and
skills for writing intelligence products and briefings. Participant
feedback scores provided as of late 2009 indicate that the courses are
well-received, and I&A has begun to provide some of this training
directly to state and local analysts at field locations.
Single Point of Service Is Intended to Allow I&A to Provide Products
in Response to Immediate State and Local Needs:
I&A also provides products and support in response to a variety of
state and local information requests through a 24-hour support
mechanism called the Single Point of Service. The service was
established in May 2008 in response to an I&A-sponsored contractor
study that recommended that I&A provide state and local partners with
a 24-hour resource to request support, communicate product
requirements, and share critical information with DHS and its
components.[Footnote 37] Through the Single Point of Service, I&A has
consolidated and standardized its tracking of state and local customer
queries and communication by use of a single term--State and Local
Support Request--which includes requests for information, production,
administrative tasks, analysis, and various support functions. In
addition, I&A has developed a set of goals, key performance
indicators, and measures to track various performance aspects of
service, such as the timeliness of responses and percentage of
responses completed. Additional information on these items, as well as
descriptions of State and Local Support Request categories is
contained in appendix II.
To date, fusion centers that have I&A intelligence officers on site
have used the Single Point of Service the most. Specifically, in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2010, deployed I&A intelligence officers
accounted for 76 percent of all requests submitted. According to I&A
officials, the I&A intelligence officers on site are the focal points
for the fusion center to submit requests to the Single Point of
Service. According to the HSI report, the Single Point of Service
program "greatly increased I&A's response to the information needs of
fusion centers," and that the 11 fusion centers that it spoke with
"credited this program with significantly improving the process for
requesting and receiving a timely response from DHS."[Footnote 38]
Appendix III contains additional information on I&A products and
services and other initiatives designed to support fusion centers and
facilitate information sharing.
Defining How I&A Intends to Meet Its State and Local Information-
Sharing Mission and Establishing Accountability for Results Could
Better Position I&A for the Future:
Part of I&A's mission is to share information with state and local
partners, but I&A has not defined how it intends to meet this mission
or established a framework to hold itself and its divisions
accountable for meeting it. As of September 2010, I&A had developed a
high-level officewide strategy that defines goals and objectives and
had taken initial steps to further define the portion of its mission
related to state and local information sharing. However, I&A had not
yet identified and documented the programs and activities that are
most important for executing this mission or how it will measure its
performance in meeting this mission and be held accountable for
results.
I&A Has Taken Initial Steps to Assess How It Could Better Achieve Its
State and Local Information-Sharing Mission:
I&A has undertaken a variety of initiatives to support its state and
local information-sharing mission and has taken initial steps to
determine how it could better achieve this mission. Historically,
I&A's state and local programs and activities have been in response to
a variety of factors, including its focus on addressing statutory
requirements and efforts to leverage and support fusion centers that
state and local agencies had established. I&A's efforts to implement
this mission have also been affected by administration changes and
changing and evolving I&A leadership priorities. In addition, I&A has
had to balance resources for supporting fusion centers and other state
and local information-sharing programs and activities against other
competing priorities. State and local partners are one of a number of
customer sets the office supports along with the Secretary, other DHS
components such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, other federal
agencies, and the intelligence community--with each competing for
resources. For example, although Congress--through the 9/11 Commission
Act--has stressed the importance of supporting fusion centers, DHS has
not provided consistent funding for I&A to support the centers,
although I&A has made investments on its own. Specifically, until the
fiscal year 2010 budget cycle, DHS did not request funds to support
the deployment of I&A personnel to these centers. Rather, I&A had to
reprogram funds from other areas to support this critical part of its
state and local mission. According to the then-Director of I&A's State
and Local Program Office, the lack of a consistent funding stream to
support these deployments delayed I&A's efforts to provide needed
resources to these centers.
I&A sponsored a study in 2007 to identify how it could enhance DHS's
support to fusion centers, a key part of its efforts to meet its state
and local mission. The results of the study identified several areas
for improvement, including the need to better respond to fusion center
requests for information and provide centers with reporting and
analysis that addresses their mission-critical information
needs.[Footnote 39] One of the initiatives I&A took in response that
provided a more organized and integrated approach to supporting state
and local customers was creating a single point within the office that
these customers could contact for their questions and requests for
support and that would be held accountable for responding to these
needs.
In addition, in 2008, I&A sponsored an agencywide study that was
conducted by the HSI to evaluate I&A programs related to its role in
providing homeland security intelligence and information to various
federal officials and agencies, members of Congress, and the
department's state and local partners, among others. The resulting
April 2009 report noted that I&A is an emerging organization that is
still in the initial stages of its organizational development,
including developing its strategic planning capabilities and strategic
business processes.[Footnote 40] The report also noted that the lack
of a strategic plan hindered I&A's efforts to conduct any type of
officewide program or resource planning that could be appropriately
tied to its mission, goals, and objectives. As a result, HSI found
that various I&A components had developed their own goals, priorities,
processes, and procedures and, in some cases, may be working at cross-
purposes. HSI also found that the lack of I&A efforts to allocate
resources to support strategic goals and objectives prevented managers
from organizing their efforts for long-term effectiveness, which left
them unable to plan for growth or to adapt to emerging issues.
As a first step, HSI recommended that I&A go through a strategic
planning process and develop an overarching strategic plan in order to
provide I&A leadership with a road map for making organizational
changes. Specifically, HSI recommended that I&A develop a strategy
that defines its overall mission, goals, objectives, priorities, and
performance measures. In December 2009, I&A developed a strategy that
contains 4 overall goals that the office as a whole is to meet. For
example, 1 of the goals is to serve as the premier provider of
homeland security information and intelligence, and another goal is to
build partnerships and foster teamwork. The strategy also contains 12
objectives that I&A plans to use to meet these goals. Two of these
objectives focus on its state and local partners. The first is to
strengthen the national network of fusion centers. Specifically,
through a proposed Joint Fusion Center Program Management Office, I&A
was to lead a DHS-wide effort to support fusion centers. The role of
this office was to ensure coordination across all departmental
components with the dual priorities of strengthening fusion centers
and DHS intelligence products.[Footnote 41] According to DHS, the
office was to have five primary responsibilities to make fusion
centers more effective. Specifically, the office was to:
* survey state, local, and tribal law enforcement to get feedback on
what information these "first preventers" need to do their job;
* develop a mechanism to gather, analyze, and share national,
regional, and local threat information up and down the intelligence
network;
* coordinate with fusion centers to continuously ensure they get the
appropriate personnel and resources from DHS;
* provide training and exercises to build relationships between fusion
center personnel and promote a sense of common mission; and:
* train fusion center personnel to respect the civil liberties of
American citizens.
According to I&A officials, in August 2010, I&A did not receive
congressional approval to establish this office. The officials noted
that I&A's State and Local Program Office would assume the roles and
responsibilities that were planned for the Joint Fusion Center Program
Management Office.
The second objective that specifically addresses state and local
partners is "to build, support, and integrate a robust information
sharing capability among and between federal, state, local, tribal,
and private sector partners." According to the Director of I&A's
Program and Performance Management Division, most of the other 10
objectives will affect state and local partners--even though the
objectives do not articulate this or discuss related programs and
activities--and will involve components from across I&A's divisions
and branches. For example, other goals and objectives involve
identifying customer information needs, developing analytic products,
obtaining feedback on products, and measuring performance. The
Director noted that I&A may revise the strategy's goals and objectives
in response to the February 2010 DHS Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review Report to Congress, which outlines a strategic framework to
guide the homeland security activities of DHS components.[Footnote 42]
Appendix IV contains additional information on the goals and
objectives in I&A's strategy.
Defining and Documenting Programs and Activities That Collectively
Support I&A's State and Local Mission Could Help Provide Transparency
and Accountability for Results:
I&A has begun its strategic planning efforts, but has not yet defined
how it plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission
by identifying and documenting the specific programs and activities
that are most important for executing this mission. Congressional
committee members who have been trying to hold I&A accountable for
achieving its state and local mission have been concerned about I&A's
inability to demonstrate the priority and level of investment it is
giving to this mission compared to its other functions, as evidenced
by hearings conducted over the past several years.
I&A recognizes that it needs to take steps to address its state and
local information-sharing mission and define and document priority
programs and activities. For example, in June 2010, I&A conducted
focus groups with representatives of various customer sets--including
its state and local partners--to gain a better understanding of their
needs, according to the Director of I&A's Program and Performance
Management Division. In addition, I&A has defined how it expects the
State and Local Program Office to support fusion centers (through the
roles and responsibilities originally envisioned for the Joint Fusion
Center Program Management Office). However, I&A has not defined and
documented the programs and activities that its other components--such
as the Collections and Requirements Branch and the Production
Management Division--will be held accountable for implementing that
collectively will ensure that I&A meets its state and local mission.
In addition, I&A's current strategy addresses the role of the then-
proposed Joint Fusion Center Program Management Office, but it
generally does not provide information on the state and local programs
and activities that I&A's components will be responsible for
implementing. In its April 2009 report, HSI recommended that I&A
divisions and branches create derivative plans that are linked to the
strategy. Among other things, the derivative plans were to identify
priority programs and activities, assign roles and responsibilities,
and describe performance measures and incentives tied to performance.
I&A leadership would then be responsible for ensuring that the
divisions and branches implement their plans. I&A has decided not to
develop the more specific derivative component plans or a plan or road
map for how it will specifically meet its state and local mission. As
a result, I&A cannot demonstrate to state and local customers,
Congress, and other stakeholders that it has assessed and given
funding priority to those programs and activities that it has
determined are most effective for sharing information with state and
local partners.
According to the Director of I&A's Program and Performance Management
Division, more detailed plans are not needed because the
organizational components know which parts of the strategy--and
related state and local programs and activities--they are responsible
for completing. However, relying on these components to know their
roles and responsibilities without clearly delegating, documenting,
and tracking implementation does not provide a transparent and
reliable system of accountability for ensuring that the state and
local mission is achieved. I&A officials said that the State and Local
Program Office is to guide I&A's efforts to share information with
state and local partners. However, they could not distinguish, for
example, how this office would operate in relation to the other
components or what authority or leverage it would have over these
components' competing programs, activities, and investment decisions
to ensure the state and local mission is achieved.
Our prior work has found that successful organizations clearly
articulate the programs and activities that are needed to achieve
specified missions or results, and the organization's priorities--
including investment priorities--among these programs and
activities.[Footnote 43] Defining and documenting how I&A plans to
meet its state and local information-sharing mission--including
programs, activities, and priorities--could help I&A provide
transparency and accountability to Congress, its state and local
partners, and other stakeholders.
Defining Expected Results and Establishing Measures to Track Progress
Could Help I&A Demonstrate How Well It Is Meeting Its State and Local
Mission:
I&A has not defined what state and local information-sharing results
it expects to achieve from its program investments and the measures it
will use to track the progress it is making in achieving these
results. Currently, I&A has four performance measures related to its
efforts to share information with state and local partners. All four
of these measures provide descriptive information regarding activities
and services that I&A provides to these partners. For example, they
show the percentage of fusion centers that are staffed with I&A
personnel and count the total number of state and local requests for
support, as shown in table 2 below.
Table 2: I&A Performance Measures Related to Information Sharing with
State and Local Partners:
Performance Measure: Percentage of fusion centers staffed with
personnel from I&A.
Performance Measure: Percentage of fusion centers with access to the
Homeland Secure Data Network.
Performance Measure: Percent of Analytics and Critical Thinking Skills
training delivered to state and local personnel.
Performance Measure: Total number of State and Local Support Requests
reported quarterly.
Source: I&A.
[End of table]
However, none of these are measures that could allow I&A to
demonstrate and report on the actual results, effects, or impacts of
programs and activities or the overall progress it is making in
meeting the needs of its partners. For example, the measure on the
percentage of I&A personnel in fusion centers provides useful
information on I&A efforts to deploy analysts to the field, but it
does not provide information related to the effectiveness of the I&A
personnel or the value they provide to their customers, such as the
extent to which these personnel enhance information sharing, analytic
capabilities, and operational support. Developing such measures could
help I&A support program and funding decisions.
Our past work and the experience of leading organizations have
demonstrated that measuring performance allows organizations to track
progress they are making toward intended results--including goals,
objectives, and targets they expect to achieve--and gives managers
critical information on which to base decisions for improving their
programs.[Footnote 44] They also show that adhering to results-
oriented principles provides a means to strengthen program
performance.[Footnote 45] These principles include defining the
results to be achieved and the measures that will be used to track
progress towards these results. Our prior work also indicates that
agencies that are successful in measuring performance strive to
establish goals and measures at all levels of an agency so that
decision makers have as complete information as they need for
measuring and managing an agency's performance.[Footnote 46]
I&A recognizes that it needs to develop more results-oriented measures
to assess the effectiveness of its state and local information-sharing
efforts. I&A intends to add additional performance measures to its
strategic plan later this year, according to the Director of I&A's
Program and Performance Management Division. The official noted,
however, that these new measures will initially provide descriptive
information about I&A's state and local programs and activities. The
official said that I&A would develop measures that allow it to
evaluate the extent to which these programs and activities are
achieving their intended results at a later date, but he could not
provide any details or documentation on next steps or time frames. The
official explained that developing such measures for information
sharing and obtaining related data needed to track performance is a
challenge not only to I&A but to other federal agencies. Standard
program management principles note that time frames or milestones
should typically be incorporated as part of a road map to achieve a
specific desired outcome or result.
We also have recognized and reported that it is difficult to develop
performance measures that show how certain information-sharing efforts
have affected homeland security.[Footnote 47] Nevertheless, we have
recommended that agencies take steps towards establishing such
measures to hold them accountable for the investments they make. We
also recognize that agencies may need to evolve from relatively easier
process measures that, for example, count the number of products
provided to more meaningful measures that weigh customer satisfaction
with the timeliness, usefulness, and accuracy of the information
provided, until the agencies can establish outcome measures that
determine what difference the information made to state or local
homeland security efforts.
I&A may have the opportunity to develop measures that would provide
more meaningful information by using the results of its new customer
satisfaction survey. For example, I&A is gathering feedback on, among
other things, how timely and responsive state and local customers find
the information that I&A provides to them. I&A could possibly use this
feedback to set annual targets for the level of timeliness and
responsiveness that it would like to achieve and use the survey
results to track progress towards these targets over time. I&A could
in turn use this performance data to decide on future improvements.
Since I&A was just beginning to collect and analyze the results of its
customer satisfaction survey, it was too soon to tell if the survey
results could produce the data on which to base performance measures.
Nevertheless, establishing plans and time frames for developing ways
to measure how I&A's information-sharing efforts have affected
homeland security could help I&A, the department, and Congress monitor
and measure the extent to which I&A's state and local information-
sharing efforts are achieving their intended results, make needed
improvements, and inform funding decisions.
Conclusions:
I&A has evolved in the more than 5 years since it was created and has
developed more effective relationships with its state and local
partners, especially through its support to fusion centers. It has
also developed a variety of products and services to support these
partners. I&A has opportunities, however, to build on these
relationships, leverage these efforts, and demonstrate to Congress and
these partners that it is meeting its statutory mission to share
information with these partners to help protect the homeland. For
example, working with states to establish milestones for identifying
each state's information needs and identifying and working to resolve
any barriers to completing this process could help hold I&A
accountable for the timely completion of this process, which is an
important step in supporting the development of future I&A products.
Periodically informing state and local partners of how I&A analyzed
the feedback they provided and what actions I&A took in response to
this feedback and analyses could help strengthen I&A's working
relationships with these partners and encourage them to continue to
provide I&A feedback, which could ultimately make I&A's products and
services more useful. Defining and documenting the specific programs
and activities I&A's components and divisions will be held responsible
for implementing so that I&A collectively can meet its state and local
mission could help to establish clear direction and accountability.
Finally, committing to plans and time frames for developing outcome-
based performance measures that gauge the information-sharing results
and impacts of I&A's state and local efforts and how these efforts
have affected homeland security could help I&A and Congress establish
accountability for funding provided. By taking all of these steps, I&A
could potentially increase the usefulness of its products and
services, the effectiveness of its investments, and the organization's
accountability to Congress, key stakeholders, and the public for
sharing needed homeland security information with state and local
partners.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help I&A strengthen its efforts to share information with state and
local partners, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security
direct the Under Secretary for I&A to take the following four actions:
* Work with states to establish milestones for the timely completion
of efforts to identify state information needs and identify and work
to resolve any barriers to this timely completion.
* Periodically report to state and local information-sharing partners
on the results of I&A's analysis of the product and services feedback
these partners provide and the actions I&A took in response to this
feedback.
* Define and document the programs and activities its divisions and
branches will be expected to implement in order for I&A to
collectively meet its state and local information-sharing mission and
provide accountability and transparency over its efforts.
* Establish plans and time frames for developing performance measures
that gauge the results that I&A's information-sharing efforts have
achieved and how they have enhanced homeland security.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
On August 6, 2010, we provided a draft of the sensitive version of
this report to DHS for review and comment. In its written comments,
DHS stated that the department, particularly I&A, concurred with all
four recommendations and discussed efforts planned or underway to
address them. Specifically, DHS agreed with our first recommendation
related to the need for I&A to work with states to establish
milestones for the timely completion of efforts to identify state
information needs and identify and work to resolve any barriers to
this timely completion. According to DHS, I&A has established internal
milestones for the timely completion of this process. DHS noted,
however, that while I&A advises and assists states with the
development of their information needs, ultimately those outcomes are
owned and controlled by the states themselves and, thus, I&A is unable
to impose its milestones on them. Nevertheless, DHS noted that I&A is
confident that it can work with states to develop mutually-agreed upon
milestones for completing this process and will report progress
towards meeting these milestones on a regular basis. Working with
states to develop such milestones and reporting on progress will
address the intent of our recommendation.
DHS also agreed with our second recommendation that I&A periodically
report to state and local partners on the results of I&A's analysis of
the products and services feedback these partners provide and the
actions I&A took in response to this feedback. DHS noted that I&A
plans to regularly report the results of its partners' products and
services feedback, as well as the actions I&A took in response to that
feedback, to these partners, DHS management, and Congress. In
September 2010, after providing written comments, I&A officials
informed us that they have taken steps to report the results of
feedback analysis to state and local customers. Specifically, during
the summer of 2010, I&A provided briefings on the value of this
feedback during two stakeholder forums, according to an official from
I&A's Customer Assurance Branch. The official added that I&A plans to
continue using stakeholder forums--such as conferences and meetings of
fusion center directors--to report on I&A's assessment of state and
local feedback and its use in refining I&A products. However, I&A had
not developed plans for reporting the results of its feedback analysis
moving forward--including time frames and level of detail--which would
address the intent of this recommendation.
Further, DHS agreed with our third recommendation that I&A define and
document the programs and activities its divisions and branches will
be expected to implement in order for I&A to collectively meet its
state and local information-sharing mission and provide accountability
and transparency over its efforts. DHS noted that I&A was in the
process of developing a new strategic plan that will include strategic-
level measures and implementation plans. DHS added that the plan will
establish organizational strategic objectives that I&A--through its
divisions and branches--will be expected to achieve, to include
information sharing with state and local entities, and will provide
the measures by which its success will be gauged. Developing a plan
that defines and documents how I&A plans to meet its state and local
information-sharing mission--including programs, activities, and
priorities--will meet the intent of this recommendation.
Finally, DHS agreed with our fourth recommendation that I&A establish
plans and time frames for developing performance measures that gauge
the results that I&A's information-sharing efforts have achieved and
how they have enhanced homeland security. DHS noted that I&A is in the
process of developing a new strategic implementation plan that will
include strategic-level measures. DHS added that the plan will provide
a basis for gauging, among other things, the results of I&A's
information sharing efforts. We support I&A's intention to develop
additional performance measures. However, to fully address the intent
of our recommendation, I&A should commit to plans and time frames for
developing outcome-based performance measures that gauge the
information-sharing results and impacts of I&A's state and local
efforts and how these efforts have affected homeland security.
The full text of DHS's written comments is reprinted in appendix VI.
DHS also provided technical comments, which we considered and
incorporated in this report where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested
parties. The report is also available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Other key contributors to this report
were Eric Erdman, Assistant Director; David Alexander; Adam
Couvillion; Elizabeth Curda; Geoffrey Hamilton; Gary Malavenda; and
Linda Miller.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Eileen R. Larence:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Voluntary Feedback Responses for I&A Intelligence Products:
Table 3 presents data on how the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
(I&A) categorized the voluntary feedback responses over the past 2
annual periods for which data were gathered.
Table 3: Voluntary Feedback Response Categories for I&A Intelligence
Products:
Feedback category: Positive[B];
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Number: 29;
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Percent of total: 58;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Number: 118;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Percent of total: 67.
Feedback category: Neutral[C];
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Number: 9;
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Percent of total: 18;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Number: 28;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Percent of total: 16.
Feedback category: Constructive[D];
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Number: 12;
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Percent of total: 24;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Number: 29;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Percent of total: 17.
Feedback category: Total;
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Number: 50;
Responses, June 2007 through May 2008[A]: Percent of total: 100;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Number: 175;
Responses, June 2008 through May 2009: Percent of total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of I&A data.
[A] I&A attributes low response totals in the June 2007 through May
2008 reporting period to the voluntary nature of the feedback and the
"newness" of their requirements to gather feedback under the 9/11
Commission Act.
[B] I&A defines positive feedback as that which generally
characterized intelligence products as useful for local planning and
resource allocations. For the June 2008 through May 2009 data, I&A
stated that "most of these responses were provided through deployed
I&A intelligence officers on behalf of their respective state and
local contacts and partners."
[C] I&A defines neutral feedback as that which generally advised I&A
to further disseminate--or provide guidance on further dissemination
of--specific products, but may not have provided any other specific
feedback.
[D] I&A defines constructive feedback for June 2007 through May 2008
as that which often took the form of requests for additional analytic
content or offered formatting suggestions to improve the presentation
of analytic content. For the latter reporting period, it defines this
feedback as generally taking the form of requests for a downgrade of
the classification of the product in order to facilitate information
sharing with state and local authorities.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Information on Single Point of Service Request
Categories, Performance Metrics, and Performance to Date:
Table 4 below describes the categories of Single Point of Service
(SPS) State and Local Support Requests (SLSRs) received and tracked by
the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A).
Table 4: Categories of SLSRs:
SLSR Category: Administrative;
Description: Includes technical support, information assistance,
contact information, and requests pertaining to procedural tasks.
SLSR Category: Further Dissemination;
Description: Requests to actively increase exposure and visibility for
a specific product within the intelligence community and state and
local communities. These include postings to multimedia web pages and
community forums, requests for internal distribution, dissemination to
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Components or the intelligence
community, foreign disclosure, translation and classification changes.
SLSR Category: Intelligence Production;
Description: Intelligence requests for assessments that require
intensive analytical support, intelligence collaboration, or
intelligence community or DHS Component input. These SLSRs include
detailed trend analysis, production, or any joint intelligence product.
SLSR Category: Homeland Intelligence Report Production;
Description: A separate and recognizable category that denotes
production, nomination, and review of Homeland Intelligence Reports.
SLSR Category: Name Trace;
Description: Requests involve searching one or more databases for
information on a specific person or persons. Name traces include
searches on law enforcement and intelligence databases.
SLSR Category: Watch Intelligence;
Description: Includes intelligence or law enforcement requests for
immediate requirements for products or information of intelligence
value. This category includes intelligence evaluation, information
requests, and fusion.
SLSR Category: Suspicious Activity Report Evaluation;
Description: These SLSRs require distribution, clarification, or
fusion of information pertaining to suspicious or potentially
suspicious activities[A].
SLSR Category: Suspicious Activity Report Analysis;
Description: Requests, spurred by a suspicious activity, that indicate
a need for, or are best supported through, analysis or assessment.
This category reflects requests that require an analytical effort by
DHS, its Components, or other members of the intelligence community.
This category includes Suspicious Activity Report trend analysis,
predictive analysis, or impact assessment.
Source: I&A.
[A] A suspicious activity is any person or group collecting
intelligence or conducting preoperational planning related to
terrorism, criminal, or other illicit activity. These activities
include surveillance, photography of facilities, site breaches or
physical intrusions, cyber attacks, and the examination of security.
[End of table]
I&A has developed a set of priorities for its state and local
customers and External Operations Division--shown in table 5--which it
reports using as the basis for determining performance measures and
quantifying data collected through the SLSR acceptance and response
process.
Table 5: SPS Priorities for Servicing State and Local Customers and
Its External Operations Division:
State and Local Customer Priorities:
* Create an efficient and standardized means of requesting information;
* Gain a full understanding of DHS capabilities and legality of search
requests;
* Improve communication of product timelines and notification if
timelines change;
* Ensure accurate products that meet substantive requirements;
* Offer skills development and analytic-specific training
opportunities;
* Identify and prioritize timely support following critical incidents;
* Identify and utilize proper dissemination channels;
* Consolidate point of access for requests;
External Operations Division Priorities:
* Identify and improve information flow through the SLSR process;
* Increase customer satisfaction with the SLSR process and products.
Source: I&A.
Note: Priorities are not in order of importance and are weighted
equally.
[End of table]
In order to measure its progress towards meeting these priorities, I&A
has developed a set of measures, goals, key performance indicators,
and metrics for the SPS program as shown in table 6.
Table 6: Measures, Goals, Key Performance Indicators, and Metrics for
the SPS:
Measure: Accessibility/Availability;
Goal: To provide State and local customers with a single, efficient
point of entry for information requests, communication, and feedback;
Key Performance Indicator: Increase/Decrease in the number of requests
submitted through the SPS;
Metrics: Quarterly comparisons of SLSR submission.
Measure: Accessibility/Availability;
Goal: To provide State and local customers with a single, efficient
point of entry for information requests, communication, and feedback;
Key Performance Indicator: Geographic Expansion;
Metrics: Submissions by State; Submission by Fusion Center.
Measure: Accessibility/Availability;
Goal: To provide State and local customers with a single, efficient
point of entry for information requests, communication, and feedback;
Key Performance Indicator: Speed of SLSR acceptance/acknowledgment by
the SPS;
Metrics: Acceptance Rate.
Measure: Timeliness;
Goal: To provide timely and optimally useful analysis for State and
local customers;
Key Performance Indicator: Length of time taken to complete a SLSR;
Metrics: Production Timelines.
Measure: Timeliness;
Goal: To provide timely and optimally useful analysis for State and
local customers;
Key Performance Indicator: Number of closed SLSRs are at least 80
percent of the total number submitted;
Metrics: Completion Ratio.
Measure: Pertinence;
Goal: To ensure that the SPS can connect State and local customers
with the DHS or intelligence community element that can provide
customers a complete and relevant product;
Key Performance Indicator: Requests routed to organizations that have
the expertise and resources to address the SLSR;
Metrics: Distribution of SLSRs; Status of Open SLSRs.
Measure: Depth and Precision;
Goal: To respond with sufficient detail and exactness to best inform
the different needs of State and local customers;
Key Performance Indicator: State and local customers seek intelligence
support through the SPS;
Metrics: SLSR requests by category and State; SLSR identification.
Source: I&A.
[End of table]
The results of data gathered for many of these metrics are presented
in tables 7 through 10.
Number of State and Local Support Requests:
I&A has seen an increase in SLSR submissions since the SPS was
initiated in May 2008, which leveled off in the last two quarters of
fiscal year 2009, but saw a subsequent increase in the first quarter
of fiscal year 2010, as shown in table 7.
Table 7: Number of SLSRs Received Quarterly Through the First Quarter
of Fiscal Year 2010:
Number of SLSRS received:
May through July 2008: 516;
Quarter 1, fiscal year 2009: 659;
Quarter 2, fiscal year 2009: 863;
Quarter 3, fiscal year 2009: 697;
Quarter 4, fiscal year 2009: 669;
Quarter 1, fiscal year 2010: 733.
Source: GAO analysis of I&A data.
[End of table]
I&A attributes the surge in Quarter 2 to SPS marketing at the 2009
National Fusion Center Conference. Regarding the Quarter 3 decline,
I&A cited several factors, such as credibility concerns by customers
following the release of a report on "right wing extremism" that drew
criticism from Congress and the media, the extension of production
time frames due to a more rigorous report review process, and/or
natural decline. I&A did not address the subsequent decline in Quarter
4, though it did indicate that the final month of the quarter saw a
rebound in submissions due to an outreach program conducted by SPS
leadership that month. Regarding the first quarter of fiscal year
2010, I&A attributed this increase to a surge in administrative
requests, as it began tracking all administrative-type SLSRs
regardless of their significance. Thus, this growth is at least
partially attributable to enhanced data collection rather than demand-
driven growth.
Sources of State and Local Support Requests:
As shown in table 8, a majority of SLSRs are submitted from states
with embedded I&A intelligence officers at fusion centers, and many of
the requests are coming directly from these officers.
Table 8: Sources of SLSRs Through the First Quarter of Fiscal Year
2010:
Percentage: SLSRs from states with I&A officers at fusion centers;
May-July 2008: 82;
Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2009: 75;
Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2009: 90;
Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2009: Not provided;
Quarter 4, Fiscal Year 2009: 96;
Quarter 1, Fiscal year 2010: 96.
Percentage: SLSRs directly from I&A officers at fusion centers;
May-July 2008: Not provided;
Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2009: Not provided;
Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2009: 68;
Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2009: Not provided;
Quarter 4, Fiscal Year 2009: 70;
Quarter 1, Fiscal year 2010: 76.
Source: DHS I&A.
Note: I&A, in its Single Point of Service quarterly reports, presents
data on the number of states and fusion centers submitting SLSRs each
quarter in graphic form. However, specific data points are not
presented, so quarterly comparisons of states submitting SLSRs are
difficult to present.
[End of table]
In addition, California, Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina--all states
with deployed I&A intelligence officers--have consistently been among
the states with the highest number of SLSRs.
Production Time Lines:
The average number of days to completion steadily increased through
the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009, but saw a decline in the
fourth quarter, and this rate held steady in the first quarter of
fiscal year 2010.
Table 9: Average Days to Completion for SLSRs Through the First
Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010:
May-July 2008: N/A;
Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2009: 4.47;
Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2009: 6.65;
Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2009: 8.42;
Quarter 4, Fiscal Year 2009: 6;
Quarter 1, Fiscal year 2010: 6.
Source: I&A.
[End of table]
Status of Open SLSRs:
As shown in table 10, the number of SLSRs that remained open at the
end of each quarter has steadily increased.[Footnote 48]
Table 10: Number of Open SLSRs Each Quarter, Through the First Quarter
of Fiscal Year 2010:
May-July 2008: 77;
Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2009: 123;
Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2009: 257;
Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2009: 373;
Quarter 4, Fiscal Year 2009: 464;
Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2010: 517.
Source: I&A.
[End of table]
I&A attributes much of this increase, in part, to the increased number
of Homeland Intelligence Report Production SLSRs, which have an
estimated 90-day production time line. In its first quarter fiscal
year 2010 report, I&A reported that it has a number of initiatives in
place to improve SLSR response times, which include the following:
* Developing an I&A policy to define the roles and responsibilities of
the stakeholders.
* Updating the performance measures to better reflect the timeliness
of workflow processes throughout the SLSR life cycle.
* Introducing a standardized request form to ensure customer needs are
clearly articulated before a SLSR is submitted.
* Assigning individuals to closely communicate and work with I&A
branches to reduce the number of open and overdue SLSRs.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Additional Initiatives That Support Information Sharing
with State and Local Partners:
Technical Assistance to Fusion Centers (Workshops, Conferences,
Privacy Policy Development):
In support of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis's (I&A)
objective to strengthen the national network of fusion centers, the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Preparedness
Directorate and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice
Assistance--in coordination with the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, the Office of the Program Manager for the
Information Sharing Environment, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), and representatives from the state and local community--
partnered in 2007 to develop the Fusion Process Technical Assistance
Program. As part of this program, the DHS/DOJ partnership delivers and
facilitates a number of publications, training courses, workshops, and
other initiatives to fusion centers. [Footnote 49] Examples of these
programs include training on fusion process orientation and
development, state and local anti terrorism training workshops, and
regional fusion center workshops. I&A's role in this partnership
involves, among other things, serving as the subject matter expert to
support program development, reviewing and approving materials
developed in support of the program, and having its intelligence
officers at fusion centers serve as primary contacts for coordination
of service deliveries. As of the end of 2009, this program has
delivered 184 programs and services to fusion centers and their staff.
One form of technical assistance comes through direct outreach efforts
with fusion centers. One example is the National Fusion Center
Conference, which takes place annually and provides fusion centers
with opportunities to learn about key issues, such as funding and
sustainment, achieving baseline capabilities, privacy and civil
liberties protection, and many other issues. These agencies in
conjunction also support regional fusion center conferences and other
training programs. In addition, I&A--along with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)--has jointly sponsored regional FEMA
workshops with the intent of fostering understanding between regional
FEMA and fusion center staff regarding their missions, information-
sharing systems, and available intelligence products.
Another key area of technical assistance provided to fusion centers
involves the development of privacy policies. DHS' Offices of Privacy
and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are working in partnership with
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Global Justice Information
Sharing Initiative, and the Office of the Program Manager for the
Information Sharing Environment to assist fusion centers in developing
privacy policies with the intent of safeguarding privacy and civil
liberties without inhibiting information sharing.[Footnote 50] In 2007
and 2009, these entities provided Privacy Policy Technical Assistance
sessions to fusion centers. As of July 2010, 63 fusion centers had
received the Privacy Policy Technical Assistance sessions. In
addition, in response to fusion center input, these entities have
developed a session called "Discussion on Development, Review, and
Dissemination of Fusion Center Products," which focuses on the need
for a privacy policy and implementation and how to avoid difficulty
when developing intelligence products. This partnership has also begun
to collect and review the privacy policies of fusion centers. As of
July 2010, DHS's Office of Privacy had received a total of 63 draft
privacy policies for review, with 11 fusion centers having completely
satisfied the privacy policy review and development process.
Involvement with the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination
Group (ITACG):
I&A also supports information sharing with its state and local
partners through its involvement with the ITACG. ITACG is a group of
state, local, tribal, and federal homeland security, law enforcement,
and intelligence officers at the National Counterterrorism Center that
facilitates the development, production, and dissemination of
federally coordinated terrorism-related intelligence reports through
existing FBI and DHS channels. The state, local, and tribal analysts
in ITACG review these federal reports and provide counsel and subject
matter expertise to these entities developing the reports in order to
better meet the information needs of state, local, and tribal and
private entities. Section 521(a) of the 9/11 Commission Act required
the Director of National Intelligence, through the Program Manager for
the Information Sharing Environment and in coordination with DHS, to
coordinate and oversee the creation of ITACG. I&A supports ITACG by
chairing and providing other membership on the ITACG Advisory Council,
which is tasked with setting policy and developing processes for the
integration, analysis, and dissemination of federally coordinated
information. The Advisory Council's membership is at least 50 percent
state and local. I&A also funds the costs of detailing state, local,
and tribal analysts to ITACG.
Regarding the ITACG state, local, and tribal detailees' contributions
to federal intelligence reports, the Program Manager for the
Information Sharing Environment reports that as of November 2009,
these detailees have participated in the production of 214
intelligence products.[Footnote 51] The ITACG detailees have also
participated in the development of the Roll Call Release, discussed
earlier in this report, in coordination with I&A and FBI. The Program
Manager for the Information Sharing Environment reported that from
December 2008 (when this product line was created) through November
2009, 26 Roll Call Release documents were published. In addition, the
detailees work with the National Counterterrorism Center to develop a
daily, secret-level digest of intelligence that is of interest to
state and local entities.
Guidelines for Fusion Center Baseline Capabilities (in Conjunction
with DOJ):
DHS/I&A contributed to development of the Baseline Capabilities for
State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, published by DOJ's Global
Justice Information Sharing Initiative in September 2008. [Footnote
52] I&A officials have stated that one of their key responsibilities--
particularly for those officers at fusion centers--is to help ensure
that fusion centers are taking appropriate steps to meet these
baseline capabilities. At the 2010 National Fusion Center Conference,
it was announced that I&A and its federal partners had developed an
assessment tool for fusion centers' use in determining how they
measure against the baseline capabilities, and where gaps in meeting
the capabilities exist so that resources can be most effectively
targeted. This document stems from the previously developed Fusion
Center Guidelines, published by the Global Justice Information Sharing
initiative in August 2006.
Facilitating Access to Department of Defense (DOD) Classified
Information Portal:
In August 2009, DHS entered into an agreement with DOD that grants
select fusion center personnel access to DOD's classified information
network, the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network. Under this
arrangement, properly cleared fusion center officials would be able to
access specific terrorism-related information through the Homeland
Security Data Network system. The Secretary of DHS cited this as "an
important step forward in ensuring that first preventers have a
complete and accurate picture of terrorism threats."
Fellows Program:
Section 512 of the 9/11 Commission Act directed DHS to create a
Homeland Security Information Sharing Fellows Program. This program
would detail state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and
intelligence analysts to DHS in order to promote information sharing
between DHS and state, local, and tribal officers and analysts, assist
DHS analysts in preparing and disseminating products that are tailored
to state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, and intelligence
analysts. I&A officials have stated that as of June 2010, there were
two state and local fellows in-house, with a third to join by the end
of the summer. I&A plans to have fellows serve on 90-day rotations,
working with I&A's analytic divisions on product development.
Deployment of Reports Officers:
In addition, I&A has also deployed Reports Officers to a number of
border states (though not necessarily fusion centers), in accordance
with DHS priorities to focus on analysis of border security issues.
Reports Officers serve in key state and local partner locations (as
well as DHS headquarters and select DHS components) to enhance
information sharing and integration of information acquisition and
reporting efforts. As of July 2010, I&A had deployed Reports Officers
to six locations in Southwest Border states, as well as one additional
southern state.
Granting Security Clearances:
DHS's Office of the Chief Security Officer grants security clearances
to state, local, and tribal personnel.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Summary of I&A Strategic Goals and Objectives:
Table 11 lists the goals and objectives from the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence Analysis (I&A) Strategy.
Table 11: I&A's Strategic Goals and Objectives:
Goals:
Goal 1: Serve as the premier provider of homeland security information
and intelligence.
1.1: Provide warning and actionable intelligence analysis and
information.
1.2: Understand and support the needs of customers and stakeholders.
Goal 2: Build partnerships and foster teamwork.
2.1: Strengthen the national network of fusion centers.
2.2: Build, support, and integrate a robust information sharing
capability among and between Federal and state, local, territorial,
tribal, and private sector partners.
2.3: Build and enhance the DHS Intelligence Enterprise.
2.4: Lead and coordinate DHS interaction with the Intelligence
Community.
Goal 3: Enable the mission.
3.1: Promote a culture of professionalism.
3.2: Advance tradecraft proficiency, training, and career development.
3.3: Support and integrate counterintelligence and cyber security.
Goal 4: Maximize performance and accountability.
4.1: Implement and institutionalize transparent business and
management processes.
4.2: Protect privacy and civil rights and civil liberties.
4.3: Ensure continued congressional and public outreach and
understanding.
Source: I&A.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Key Attributes Associated with Results-Oriented Management:
Establishing goals and measuring performance are essential to
successful results-oriented management practices. Measuring
performance allows organizations to track the progress they are making
toward their goals and gives managers critical information on which to
base decisions for improving their programs. Our body of work on
results-oriented management practices has identified key attributes of
success.[Footnote 53] This work indicates that agencies that are
successful in achieving goals strive to establish practices and
performance systems at all levels of the agency that include the key
attributes described in this appendix.
* Addresses important dimensions of program performance and balances
competing priorities. Performance goals and measures that successfully
address important and varied aspects of program performance are key
aspects of a results-orientation. Federal programs are designed and
implemented in dynamic environments where competing program priorities
and stakeholders' needs must be balanced continuously and new needs
must be addressed. As a result, programs are often forced to strike
difficult balances among priorities that reflect competing demands,
such as timeliness, service quality, customer satisfaction, program
cost, and other stakeholder concerns. Sets of performance goals and
measures could provide a balanced perspective of the intended
performance of a program's multiple priorities.
* Use intermediate goals and measures to show progress or contribution
to intended results. Intermediate goals and measures, such as outputs
or intermediate outcomes, can be used to show progress or contribution
to intended results. For instance, when it may take years before an
agency sees the results of its programs, intermediate goals and
measures can provide information on interim results. Also, when
program results could be influenced by external factors, agencies can
use intermediate goals and measures to identify the programs' discrete
contribution to a specific result.
* Show baseline and trend data for past performance. With baseline and
trend data, the more useful performance plans provided a context for
drawing conclusions about whether performance goals are reasonable and
appropriate. Decision makers can use such information to gauge how a
program's anticipated performance level compares with improvements or
declines in past performance.
* Identify projected target levels of performance for multiyear goals.
Where appropriate, an agency can convey what it expects to achieve in
the long term by including multiyear performance goals in its
performance plan. Such information can provide congressional and other
decision makers with an indication of the incremental progress the
agency expects to make in achieving results.
* Aligns goals and measures with agency and departmentwide goals.
Performance goals and measures should align with an agency's long-term
strategic goals and mission as well as with higher-level
departmentwide priorities, with the relationship clearly articulated.
Such linkage is important in ensuring that agency efforts are properly
aligned with goals (and thus contribute to their accomplishment) and
in assessing progress toward achieving these goals. Goals and measures
also should cascade from the corporate level of the agency to the
operational level to provide managers and staff with a road map that
shows how their day-to-day activities contribute to achieving agency
and departmentwide performance goals. In addition, measures used at
the lowest levels of the agency to manage specific programs should
directly relate to unit results and upwards to the corporate level of
the agency.
* Assigns accountability for achieving results. We have previously
reported that the single most important element of successful
management improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment of
top leaders in developing and directing reform efforts. Top leadership
must play a critical role in setting results-oriented goals and
quantifiable measures that are cascaded to lower organizational levels
and used to develop and reinforce accountability for achieving
results, maintain focus on the most pressing issues confronting the
organization, and sustain improvement programs and performance,
especially during times of leadership transition. One way to reinforce
accountability is through the use of employee performance appraisals
that reflect an organization's goals.
* Provides a comprehensive view of agency performance. For each key
business line, performance goals and measures should provide a
comprehensive view of performance, including customers' and
stakeholders' priorities. Goals and measures should address key
performance dimensions such as (1) factors that drive organizational
performance--including financial, customer, and internal business
processes, and workforce learning and growth; and (2) aspects of
customer satisfaction, including timeliness, quality, quantity, and
cost of services provided. Doing so can allow managers and other
stakeholders to assess accomplishments, make decisions, realign
processes, and assign accountability without having an excess of data
that could obscure rather than clarify performance issues.
* Links resource needs to performance. One of the ways that
performance management can be promoted is if this information becomes
relevant for (1) identifying resources (e.g., human capital,
information technology, and funding) needed to achieve performance
goals; (2) measuring cost; and (3) informing budget decisions. When
resource allocation decisions are linked to performance, decision
makers can gain a better understanding of the potential effect of
budget increases and decreases on results.
* Provides contextual information. Performance reporting systems
should include information to help clarify aspects of performance that
are difficult to quantify or to provide explanatory information such
as factors that were within or outside the control of the agency. This
information is critical to identifying and understanding the factors
that contributed to a particular result and can help officials
measure, assess, and evaluate the significance of underlying factors
that may affect reported performance. In addition, this information
can provide context for decision makers to establish funding
priorities and adjust performance targets and assess means and
strategies for accomplishing an organization's goals and objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
August 31, 2010:
Eileen Larence:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Larence:
RE: Draft Report GAO-10-893SU, Information Sharing: DHS Could Better
Define How It Plans to Meet Its State and Local Mission and Improve
Performance Accountability (Job Code 440781).
The Department of Homeland Security (Department/DHS) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report referenced
above. The Department, particularly the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis (I&A), concurs with the four recommendations contained
therein.
Recommendation 1: To help I&A strengthen its efforts to share
information with state and local partners, we recommend that the
Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for I&A to
work with states to establish milestones for the timely completion of
efforts to identify state information needs and identify and work to
resolve any barriers to this timely completion.
Response: Concur. The Office of Intelligence & Analysis has
established internal milestones for the timely completion of
identifying State Standing Information Needs (SIN's). While I&A
advises and assists the States with the development of their
information needs, ultimately those outcomes are owned and controlled
by the States themselves, and thus I&A is unable to impose its
milestones on them. DHS (not I&A) provides grant funding to States,
which consequently limits the ability of I&A to leverage grant funding
as a means to encourage State compliance with I&A milestones.
Nevertheless, I&A is confident that it can work with the States to
develop mutually-acceptable milestones for the completion of SIN's,
and will report progress toward these milestones on a regular basis.
Recommendation 2: To help I&A strengthen its efforts to share
information with state and local partners, we recommend that the
Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for I&A to
periodically report to state and local information sharing partners on
the results of I&A's analysis of the product and services feedback
these partners provide and the actions I&A took in response to this
feedback.
Response: Concur. I&A plans to regularly report the results of its
partners' product and services feedback, as well as the actions I&A
took in response to that feedback, to I&A's partners, DHS management,
and the Congress.
Recommendation 3: To help I&A strengthen its efforts to share
information with state and local partners, we recommend that the
Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for I&A to
define and document the programs and activities its divisions and
branches will be expected to implement in order for I&A to
collectively meet its state and local information sharing mission and
provide accountability and transparency over its efforts.
Response: Concur. I&A is in the process of developing a new strategic
plan, which will include strategic-level measures and implementation
plans. This plan will establish organizational strategic objectives
that I&A, through its divisions and branches will be expected to
achieve, to include information sharing with State and Local entities
as well as our other customers, and will provide the measures by which
our success will be gauged.
Recommendation 4: To help I&A strengthen its efforts to share
information with state and local partners, we recommend that the
Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for I&A
establish plans and time frames for developing performance measures
that gauge the results that I&A's information sharing efforts have
achieved and how they have enhanced homeland security.
Response: Concur. I&A is in the process of developing a new strategic
implementation plan, which will include strategic-level measures. This
plan will provide the basis for gauging, among other things, the
results of I&A's information sharing efforts.
Again, we appreciate this opportunity to review and comment on the
draft report. In addition to this response, technical comments have
been provided under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
[Illegible] for:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).
[2] Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004).
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (2007).
[4] Terrorism-related information includes homeland security,
terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction information.
[5] In general, fusion centers are collaborative efforts of two or
more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and information to
the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect,
prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.
There are 72 designated fusion centers in the United States.
[6] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington D.C.: January
2005).
[7] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington D.C.: January
2009).
[8] Although you initially asked us to include tribal entities as part
of our review, we found that I&A generally shares information with
these entities through its state and local partners. Therefore, we do
not specifically address tribal entities in this report.
[9] In this context, information needs refer to any general or
specific subject for which a state or local agency has a continuing
need for intelligence.
[10] See, for example, I&A, Voluntary Feedback from State, Local,
Tribal, and Private Sector Consumers, 2009 Report to Congress (Sept.
15, 2009); CENTRA Technology Incorporated, Enhancing DHS Information
Support to State and Local Fusion Centers: Results of the Chief
Intelligence Officer's Pilot Project and Next Steps (February 2008);
and MITRE Corporation, Office of Intelligence and Analysis Fusion
Center Dissemination Study (March 2010).
[11] See, for example, Project Management Institute, The Standard for
Program Management © (2006); GAO, Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999); and GAO, Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a
Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in
Developing Quota-Based Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-289] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23,
2006).
[12] ITACG is a group of state, local, tribal, and federal homeland
security, law enforcement, and intelligence officers at the National
Counterterrorism Center--the federal government's primary entity for
integrating and analyzing intelligence on international terrorists--
that review federal reports and provide counsel and subject matter
expertise in order to better meet the information needs of state,
local, tribal, and private entities.
[13] See, for example, I&A, State and Local Fusion Center Program:
Quarterly Report, Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress, First Quarter
(Feb. 26, 2010); and Single Point of Service Performance Management
Report, 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 (January 2010).
[14] Congressional Research Service, The Department of Homeland
Security Intelligence Enterprise: Operational Overview and Oversight
Challenges for Congress (Mar. 19, 2010). The Congressional Research
Service provides legislative research and policy analysis to Congress
on a number of different topics and issues.
[15] Homeland Security Institute, Independent Evaluation of Office of
Intelligence and Analysis Programs (Apr. 25, 2009).
[16] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[17] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[18] See, for example, GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of
Selected Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T] (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004); GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has
Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004); and GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That
Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington D.C:
Oct. 21, 2005).
[19] The FBI serves as the nation's principal counterterrorism
investigative agency, and its mission includes protecting and
defending the United States against terrorist threats. The FBI
conducts counterterrorism investigations, in part, through field
offices located throughout the nation.
[20] The Collection Requirements Division is the focal point for all
DHS intelligence collection requirements, ensuring that the
intelligence and information needs of DHS components and state, local,
tribal, and private sector partners are articulated, clarified,
assigned, and fulfilled in a timely manner. I&A's Production
Management Division serves as the central point for production and
dissemination of I&A's intelligence products.
[21] See, for example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the 9/11
Commission Act; the National Strategy for Homeland Security and the
National Strategy for Information Sharing; and the President's
December 16, 2005, Memorandum to Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, which includes guidelines in support of the development of
an Information Sharing Environment to facilitate the sharing of
terrorism and homeland security information.
[22] GAO, Information Sharing: Practices That Can Benefit Critical
Infrastructure Protection, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-24] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15,
2001).
[23] GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Efforts Are Helping to Alleviate
Some Challenges Encountered by State and Local Information Fusion
Centers, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-35]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2007) and GAO, Homeland Security: Federal
Efforts Are Helping to Address Some Challenges Faced by State and
Local Fusion Centers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-636T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17,
2008).
[24] GAO, Information Sharing Environment: Definition of the Results
to Be Achieved in Improving Terrorism-Related Information Sharing Is
Needed to Guide Implementation and Assess Progress, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-492] (Washington, D.C.: June 25,
2008). Section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, 3664-3670
(2004)), as amended by the 9/11 Commission Act (Pub. L. No. 110-53,
121 Stat. 266, 313-317 (2007)), mandated the President to establish an
Information Sharing Environment that is to provide and facilitate the
means for sharing terrorism and homeland security information among
all appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector
entities through the use of policy guidelines and technologies. The
act also required that the President appoint a program manager to
oversee the development and implementation of the Information Sharing
Environment.
[25] GAO, Information Sharing: Federal Agencies Are Sharing Border and
Terrorism Information with Local and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies,
but Additional Efforts Are Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-41] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18,
2010).
[26] I&A generates Homeland Intelligence Reports and also further
disseminates reports prepared by other DHS components or state and
local analysts.
[27] MITRE Corporation, Office of Intelligence and Analysis Fusion
Center Dissemination Study (March 2010).
[28] CENTRA Technology Incorporated, Enhancing DHS Information Support
to State and Local Fusion Centers: Results of the Chief Intelligence
Officer's Pilot Project and Next Steps (February 2008).
[29] According to I&A, intelligence officers located on site at a
state primary fusion center are responsible for working with fusion
center officials to develop information needs. These primary fusion
centers are designated by each state's governor and are responsible
for passing relevant homeland security information to other fusion
centers in the state, as well as nonparticipating law enforcement
agencies. As intelligence officers are assigned to fusion centers, I&A
begins working with those fusion centers to develop their needs. I&A
also has two to three additional staff dedicated to working with these
fusion centers on needs development.
[30] Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management
© (2006).
[31] See I&A, Voluntary Feedback from State, Local, Tribal, and
Private Sector Consumers, 2009 Report to Congress (Sept. 15, 2009).
The remaining 33 percent of responses were split between "neutral" and
"constructive." I&A defines neutral comments as those that advised I&A
to further disseminate the products, and constructive comments as
those that requested additional analytic content, downgrade of
classification to facilitate greater sharing, or formatting changes.
[32] On September 25, 2009, I&A filed a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register (74 Fed. Reg. 48994 (2009)), announcing its intent to conduct
customer satisfaction surveys for state, local, and tribal officials--
to meet 9/11 Commission Act requirements--and extended the public
comment period by 30 days on December 15, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 66372
(2009)).
[33] Of the 72 designated fusion centers, 50 (one in each state) are
considered the primary designated state fusion centers. The remaining
22 centers are "secondary designated" fusion centers. Secondary fusion
centers are located in cities that receive Urban Area Security
Initiative funding--grants administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to state, local, tribal jurisdictions, and urban
areas to build and sustain national preparedness capabilities--and
agree to work in conjunction with the primary fusion center. All 72
designated fusion centers are owned and operated by the state or urban
areas in which they are located; agree to follow Fusion Center
Guidelines (a DOJ-and DHS-developed set of guidelines for developing
and operating a fusion center) and work to achieve baseline
capabilities (a DOJ-and DHS-developed set of standards to help ensure
that fusion centers will have the necessary structures, processes, and
tools in place to support their missions); receive some level of
federal support; and are comprised of two or more state or local
agencies. Appendix IV contains additional information on the Fusion
Center Guidelines and baseline capabilities.
[34] DHS and the FBI are jointly responsible for ensuring that a
facility meets certification requirements, with final certification
being granted following an inspection from the DHS Office of Security.
[35] Also within HSIN-Intel is the Homeland Security Federal, State,
Local, and Tribal section. This section is similar to HS SLIC but is
geared towards personnel who are not considered intelligence
professionals and it does not contain sensitive information. According
to I&A, there were approximately 1,200 Homeland Security Federal,
State, Local, and Tribal section user accounts as of June 2010.
[36] Homeland Security Institute, Independent Evaluation of Office of
Intelligence and Analysis Programs (Apr. 25, 2009). This study was
requested by I&A in 2008.
[37] CENTRA Technology Incorporated, Enhancing DHS Information Support
to State and Local Fusion Centers: Results of the Chief Intelligence
Officer's Pilot Project and Next Steps (February 2008).
[38] Homeland Security Institute, Independent Evaluation of Office of
Intelligence and Analysis Programs (Apr. 25, 2009).
[39] CENTRA Technology Incorporated, Enhancing DHS Information Support
to State and Local Fusion Centers: Results of the Chief Intelligence
Officer's Pilot Project and Next Steps (February 2008).
[40] Homeland Security Institute, Independent Evaluation of Office of
Intelligence and Analysis Programs (Apr. 25, 2009).
[41] JFC-PMO Planning Team, A Plan for Establishing a Joint Fusion
Center Program Management Office (Feb, 5, 2010).
[42] See DHS, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic
Framework for a Secure Homeland (February 2010). The report offers a
vision for a secure homeland, specifies key mission priorities, and
outlines goals for each of those mission areas.
[43] See, for example, GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has
Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[44] For example, see GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use
of Performance Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2005); GAO, Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or
Explain Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
29, 2000); GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That
Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69] (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 26, 1999); and GAO, Managing for Results: Strengthening
Regulatory Agencies' Performance Management Practices, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-10] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28,
1999).
[45] Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management
© (2006).
[46] Appendix VI contains additional information on the attributes of
results-oriented management.
[47] See, for example, GAO, Aviation Security: A National Strategy and
Other Actions Would Strengthen TSA's Efforts to Secure Commercial
Airport Perimeters and Access Controls, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-399] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30,
2009); and GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-454] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17,
2007).
[48] I&A also reports on the number of open SLSRs by facilitating
entity each quarter; however, these are often grouped in a different
manner each quarter, making comparisons difficult.
[49] I&A also reports that it is working with the Technical Assistance
Program to add standing information need development services--
discussed earlier in this report--to the catalog of capabilities
available to fusion centers.
[50] DOJ's Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative serves as a
Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Attorney General on critical
justice information-sharing initiatives. This initiative is
administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
[51] Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment, Report on the
Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group: Second Report
for the Congress of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National
Intelligence (November 2009).
[52] These baseline capabilities were developed in order to provide
fusion centers with a set of standards to help ensure that they will
have the necessary structures, processes, and tools in place to
support the gathering, processing, analysis, and dissemination of
terrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement information. The
document also provides a common set of capabilities to allow DOJ, DHS,
and other federal agencies to ensure that they are providing the right
types of resources in a consistent and appropriate manner, and assist
in ensuring that fusion centers have the basic foundational elements
for integrating into the national Information Sharing Environment.
[53] See, for example, GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has
Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004); and GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That
Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington D.C:
Oct. 21, 2005).
[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:
