Detailed Information on the
Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials Assessment

The Diplomatic Security [DS] PART Action Officer/PFMO Program Examiner submitted approved/cleared recommendations to the Director for Domestic Operations. DS/PFMO is now working with DS Legal and other regional police departments to update the out dated cooperative agreements. DS/PFMO is working with DS Legal and the DS Grants Office to pursue an interagency agreement, if determined necessary, with USSS.

The Diplomatic Security (DS) Cooperative Agreement between DS and the City of New York Police Department (NYPD) has been updated and cleared through the Department. Formal signing ceremonies with NY City area Police Departments will be scheduled after the first of the year.

The Diplomatic Security [DS] PART Action Officer/PFMO Program Examiner visited PFMO in New York June 5, 2007. PFMO has authorized the PART Action Officer's request to examine and task map key processes of the federal reimbursement operations to capture current operations and develop a list of recommendations for potential area that could be improved. NYPD acknowledged the proposed concept. All agreed time would be required to obtain NYPD high level concurrence and opportunities for rebuttal in connection with the recommendations to be developed. This will be done during the Fieldwork Phase of the Management Review. NYPD discussed their concerns regarding the use of the findings of the Management Review to increase funding levels. NYPD was pleased to have an opportunity to vent some of their frustrations regarding their efforts to increase funding for the program, and they hope the results of this review will contribute to their efforts.

The Diplomatic Security [DS] PART Action Officer/PFMO Program Examiner visited PFMO in New York September 18, 2007. PFMO has authorized the PART Action Officer's request to examine and task map key processes of the federal reimbursement operations to capture current operations and a list of recommendations has been developed but is currently in the "draft" stage.

Measure: Number of security deployment/protective advances requested and completed in support of foreign dignitary visits/agendas for the UNGA in New York.

Explanation:The number of foreign dignitary protective advances for the United Nation's General Assembly (UNGA) is expected to increase from four protective advances to thirteen per visit due to increased bilateral and multilateral meetings/events. A protective advance may focus on routes to and from: residences, foreign missions, bilateral/multilateral meetings, UN speeches, restaurants, and other sites. This is a vital component of the security protection service and allows foreign dignitaries to conduct their business in a safe and inclusive manner.

Measure: Percentage of protective details that successfully guard foreign dignitaries attending the UNGA meeting in New York, from point of arrival to point of departure.

Explanation:Depending upon threat level, details must meet foreign dignitaries at the airport and provide them with secure travel to hotels, the UN building, other sites outside of the protected area, and throughout their visit, from airport arrival to airport departure in the U.S.

Measure: Percentage of protective intelligence developed by Federal law enforcement and security services on each visiting Foreign Dignitary that is compiled and transmitted at least a week prior to the dignitaries visit to NYPD's protection operation and execution units.

Explanation:Depending upon threat level, Diplomatic Security (DS) compiles vital information on each Foreign Dignitary in order to enhance protection of dignitaries during their visits. DS personnel gather this information and provide it to NYPD in a timely manner (approximately one week prior to the arrival of the foreign dignitary). This information sharing helps DS and NYPD make joint decisions regarding the most appropriate protection and travel details.

Measure: Percentage of reimbursement claims deemed non-qualifying by PFMO field office per contract/assessment agreement with New York City Police Department.

Explanation:Total dollars validated subtracted from the total dollars requested in the invoice equals the invalid submission percentage. Through increased cooperation and effective communication the number of invalid submissions is expected to be reduced to less than five percent.

Measure: Number of deaths of foreign dignitaries under protection provided by this program.

Explanation:No loss of life to visiting dignitaries is a valid measure of the Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials (PFMO's) success, as a loss would be detrimental to the United States' ability to effectively conduct foreign affairs.

Measure: Percentage reduction of invoices submitted for payment after the 60 grace period.

Explanation:This 60 day period is expected to be reduced to 30 days once NYPD's computer based reconciliation system is in place. The measurement represents the number of invoices submitted late - past the 60 days currently allowed for submission after the end of a protective detail.

Measure: Percentage of events covered with no breaches in security (e.g., United Nations General Assembly, Organization of American States, G-8 Summit, motorcade support)

Explanation:Ongoing event security management between DS and local law enforcement requires quick responses and reactions. Assessment of performance after events informs future plans and payments through assessment of potential areas where security breaches may take place, level of security protection details assigned, and critical intelligence that is available and applicable to the foreign dignitary visit.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials (PMFO) ensures the physical protection of visiting dignitaries to the U.S. PFMO is the only U.S. government program that reimburses law enforcement for Extraordinary Protection services to foreign dignitaries and diplomats in the United States. Extraordinary Protection services are required to address intelligence threat assessments made by the PFMO field office; specially trained law enforcement personnel provide protective countermeasures. The desire of the protectee to obtain maximum public exposure is weighed against risks involved in protecting them from calculated violence. Providing protection to individuals ensures a commensurate or reciprocal level of protection provided to U.S. officials in other countries.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: This program is incorporated in the DS Annual Performance Plan in the Assistant Secretary's Statement as well as a Program/Initiative with a long term outcome goal as well as annual goals and measures. Legislative evidence is: Executive Order Number 12478 dated May 23, 1984 Authority was transferred from the Secretary of Treasury[United States Secret Service (USSS)] to the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Act of December 31, 1975, Public Law 94-196 (89Stat. 1109), codified as section 202(8) [section 202(8) of this title] and 208(a) Section 214 allows the Secretary of State to provide "Extraordinary protective services" through compensation of state or local authority. Intelligence threat reports are evidence of the type of threat. Also described in Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 12FAM. Protective responsibilities begin with the Diplomatic Security (DS) acceptance of a dignitary protection request (see 12 FAH-2 H-113).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program administered by the PFMO office coordinates the Extraordinary Protective services necessary to ensure the safety of visiting officials while in the United States. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) uses the PFMO program to fulfill the USG obligation under the Vienna Convention to ensure extraordinary protection for foreign missions and officials in the United States as obligated by Diplomatic Reciprocity. The presence of foreign officials in the United States requires an increased level of security protection, particularly in the heightened security environment following 9/11. Activities such as the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the G-8 summit require extraordinary levels of protection for numerous foreign dignitaries. It is cost-prohibitive to have DS provide protection for these services.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Legislative evidence is: Executive Order Number 12478 dated May 23, 1984 Authority was transferred from the Secretary of Treasury U.S. Secret Service to the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Act of December 31, 1975, Public Law 94-196 (89Stat. 1109), codified as section 202(8) [section 202(8) of this title] and 208(a) Section 214 allows the Secretary of State to provide "Extraordinary protective services" through compensation of state or local authority. Additional evidence of types PFMO Extraordinary Protection services are available in PFMO Cooperative Agreements and contracts. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security also uses the PFMO program to fulfill its obligation under the Vienna Convention to ensure extraordinary protection for foreign missions and officials in the United States as obligated by Diplomatic Reciprocity. Articles 22 and 29 of the Vienna Convention.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Bureau of Diplomatic Security uses the PFMO program to fulfill its obligation under the Vienna Convention to ensure extraordinary protection for foreign missions and officials in the United States as obligated by Diplomatic Reciprocity. There is no other agency mandated to perform this function or mandated by congress to reimburse for Extraordinary Protection services. The State Department is responsible for the protection of "both resident and visiting foreign officials, other than heads of state or government" while in the United States, and is the only entity with the authority and financial resources to reimburse local, state, federal or private law enforcement or security organizations for the extraordinary security services. No other federal agency has this authority. While the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is responsible for the protection of visiting foreign "heads of state and government" while in the United States, it does not have the authority to reimburse

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Articles 22 and 29 of the Vienna Convention. Mandated by Executive Order 12478 authorizing the Secretary of State and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to provide Extraordinary Protection services by use of intelligence threat assessments, controlled information, and coordination with local law enforcement thru PFMO. While engaged in the extraordinary protection of "resident or visiting foreign officials," only the U.S. Department of State has the authority and financial resources to reimburse local, state, federal or private law enforcement or security organizations for the extraordinary security services they provide for the protection of resident or visiting foreign officials, their families, facilities and means of secure transportation while in the United States. No other federal agency has this authority.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The current design of the program - reimbursing other service providers rather than providing protection directly - is the most efficient and cost-effective approach. Limitations in authorizing legislation may prevent fund allocation to the highest priority programs. Specifically, (1) not more than 20 percent may be obligated for protective services within any single state during the year; and (2) not less than 15 percent shall be retained as a reserve for protective services provided directly by the Secretary or for expenditures in local jurisdictions not otherwise covered by an agreement for protective services under this section. Limitations on funds available for obligation by State is a flaw due to the rising cost of living in states such as California and New York because major special events take place in these locations. This impedes PFMO's ability to fully reimburse local authorities for services rendered, possibly jeapardizing their ability to provide full protection.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Section 214 of the Foreign Missions Act 22 U.S.Code 4314. Letters from Mayor's office requesting payments for local law enforcement services. The PFMO program was funded at a level considered commensurate with extraordinary security cost in the 1970's. The level of funding for this program has become woefully inadequate since then. A determination was made in the 1980's that it would be more cost effective to reimburse local, state and private security services rather than to continue to incur U.S. Treasury -U.S. Secret Service Uniform Division high deployment cost. PFMO saves the Federal government millions of dollars per year in ground transportation, logistical cost and travel by air without the utilization of the Uniformed Division of the U.S. Secret Service.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The PFMO program supports the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's immediate and long-term needs to meet the Vienna Convention's Diplomatic Reciprocityrequirements. By maintaining compliance with the Diplomatic Reciprocity we ensure that U.S. dignitaries are also provided protection services when traveling abroad. Resources are used for protective motorcade escorts, bomb sniffing working dogs, advance teams for threat analysis and coordination. The beneficiaries of the PFMO program are high threat visiting foreign dignitaries, international organization personnel, Funding reimburses local law enforcement and private security for specific protective services, which are provided on the basis of ongoing threat assessments to ensure that the optimal level of protection is provided to visiting foreign government officials, resident foreign diplomats and consulars.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Articles 22 and 29 of the Vienna Convention. Multilateral and bilateral agreements and provision of international law relating to the protection of: visiting foreign government officials, resident foreign diplomatic, consular, or international organization personnel, in the United States. Each Field Office Agent will maintain constant liaison with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in addition to the foreign missions/consulates in their region to assess intelligence threat information. PFMO program reimburses State and local law enforcement by cooperative agreements and contracts.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The long-term performance measures included in this review are based on key program priorities and include increasing consultation with Extraordinary Protection service providers, the DS Planning Office and the DS Chief Financial Office. The measures focus DS Block/Formula Grant program partners on aspects of performance that are critical to the success of protecting visiting foreign dignitaries. The measures also serve to strengthening PFMO's budget management and reimbursable payment process. In coordination with the DS Office of Planning PFMO will provide information to ensure the planning office is fully aware of upcoming events and notify DS Planning analyst and CFO of urgent funding requirements.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: The DS Office of Planning will highlight major events such as UNGA 60th anniversary and the Organization of American States (OAS) meeting in Ft. Lauderdale Florida in the DS Bureau Performance Plan [BPP] goal paper.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: PFMO has set long term targets for the primary long-term performance measure of protecting visiting dignitaries and reimbursing police forces for support within 30 days after protection detail ends. PFMO's coordination with DS Office of Planning by e-mail, onsite/offsite visits or by memo will facilitate funds and assets to be reserved for protection details and to ensure the timely and accurate reimbursement of state and local agencies for their support in protecting foreign missions in the U.S. The outcome goal and projected targets of "0 Deaths" is ambitious as well as challenging in a post 9/11 world.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: 1. Evidence will be revised/updated cooperative agreements. 2. PFMO will maintain copies of disbursements and other invoice/pay data. Rejection letters. 3. PFMO field office MOUs/ MOAs with local law enforcement.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Protection of foreign dignitaries visiting the United States requires alignment of critical resources, equipment and specially skilled officers available to provide extraordinary protection. A key performance measure, "Percent of events covered are staffed with the right specialist" is tracked after an event to pinpoint vulnerabilities and/or weaknesses in an increasingly dangerous threat climate. Another key measure, "Number of deaths of foreign dignitaries under protection provided by this program," is tracked per event and is critical as failure to protect would severely impair the U.S. Government's diplomacy efforts. The program also tracks the number of security breaches per event, a good indicator of whether the level of protection is sufficient.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: These measures are incorporated into the FY-2007 Bureau Performance Plan. Specifically, they are listed under Program/Initiative: Protection of Foreign Mission Officials.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Measures have been established, including baselines and annual targets for each of the critical aspects of he program that track progress toward mission accomplishment. Given the continued high threat concerns caused by the events of 9/11, security protection and requisite performance targets are very ambitious: no deaths, no security breaches, 100% of events covered adequately.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: The DS Annual Bureau Performance Plan - including references in the DS Assistant Secretary's Statement - cites PFMO's role in securing the safety of visiting dignitaries during such events as U.N. General Assembly, G-8, and General Assembly of the Organization of the American States. In addition, the Plan details long term outcome measures to track outcome goals that drive actions towards the mission of the program.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Field Offices make formal requests for extraordinary security coverage on a regular basis negotiating with local and state law enforcement entities via telephone, fax, e-mail or meetings to establish right teams, at the right time in the right place to protect visiting dignitaries. Similar mechanisms for coordination are utilized when dealing with private security firms, often in conjunction with DS Protective Liaison Headquarters elements. All partners are briefed regularly on annual and long term goals of the program, and cautioned on the reality of the limited financial resources available for fulfillment of these goals. Assigned DS and USSS Special Agents and/or Agents-in-Charge in the field, working closely with regional Federal Reimbursement Program (PFMO) DS counterparts, conduct real time operational verification of requested and deployed law enforcement and/or private security personnel and equipment.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: The partners commit to PFMO goals by providing justifiable claims for reimbursement adhering to PFMO criteria and formats when submitting claims for reimbursement. DS control criteria ensure that all claims for reimbursement are carefully reviewed and non-qualifying claims are disallowed. Written justifications of disallowances are furnished all partners.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: No inspections or reviews by the Office of the Inspector General have been conducted within the past 10 years. Likewise, no other independent evaluations have been undertaken. However, Diplomatic Security - through the Program Manager - determines the level and measure of protective security provided by the PFMO to any resident foreign official or diplomatic or consular mission is based on thorough threat assessments. The assessment is continuously updated for each mission in the United States to ensure the appropriate level of protection is provided. PFMO coordinates with field offices to establish protection details and resources. The field offices assess the activities of the protectice service providers to ensure the level of protection and requisite billing are appropriate. These reviews do not constitute independent evaluations.

Evidence: The Department's 2004 financial statements , which include DS activities, received an unqualified opinion - the best possible result of the audit process. The statements are audited by the Inspector General (IG), or an independent auditor (Leonard G. Birnbaum & Co. LLP) at the direction of the IG. DS was listed neither with a citation under "Reportable Condition," nor "Non-compliance with Laws and Regulations" statements listed in the Department's FY 2004 Performance & Accountability Report.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Funding levels are recommended to the A/S after intensive scrutiny by the Budget & Planning WG which also utilizes prior year's objectives & accomplishments before recommending a programs budget. The Program Planning System utilized by DS, is a centrally managed, Bureau-wide method of prioritizing Bureau activities, responsibilities & objectives. Monthly Resource Board meetings involving A/S & senior managers ensure critical priorities are on track before recommending continued funding. DS budget requests are directly aligned with the operations of the Bureau toward the accomplishment of critical security programs both domestically & abroad. The Department of State's Annual Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) provides PFMO's Congressionally-mandated funding request which includes a summary of protection services to be funded. This authority and related goals were transferred to DoS Oct. 1, 1984

Evidence: FY-07 Diplomatic Security Bureau Performance Plan/PART paper on PFMO. Congressional Budget Justification. Executive Order No. 12478 (May 23, 1984). U.S. CODE: Title 22, 4314.Extraordinary protective services; U.S. CODE: Title3, 208.Reimbursement of State and local governments Bureau Performance Plans FY 2004 - 2005; Congressional Presentation documents 2004 - 2005;BIB 04 & 05 - FY04 appropriation & FY05 funding request includes clear & precise language for funds to continue the comprehensive security upgrade program including perimeter security enhancements, increased cadre of security professionals, improve security to keep vulnerabilities low, maintain defensive countermeasures & seek funds that will strengthen security programs & allow them to keep pace with evolving capabilities of those who seek to inflict injury or death on our employees & citizens & destroy US property. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Bureau of Diplomatic Security has established an Office of Planning that will coordinate with PFMO planners, the DS Chief Financial Office [CFO] and the PFMO Field Offices. The planning office is analyzing the PFMO business practices and reviewing historical data to understand what areas need to be improved. This coordination is expected to result in better strategic planning for PFMO to obtain resources for Extraordinary Protection for foreign mission and officials.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: In coordination with the DS Chief Financial Office[CFO] the DS planners are reviewing Budget data call submissions and having onsite/offsite meetings with PFMO staff. DS planners will visit major events and study security operations and review PFMO cooperative agreements to develop advance planning schedules to ensure resources are available to provide continous Extraordinary Protection as needed. This will require feedback reports from the field offices and examination of intelligence threat assessments and ongoing dialog with PFMO staff.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: PFMO regularly collects timely and credible performance information from the intel support and the field. Personnel and equipment deployments are reviewed to include costs for regular and overtime deployments. During the actual deployment of police personnel and equipment unscheduled visits to the sites of deployment are made. Either command post logs or short form reports by assigned DSS or USSS Special Agents may be requested to authenticate the deployments. From time to time police time sheets for individual officers can be requested to authenticate final police bill (invoice) submissions for reimbursement. From the law enforcement protection standpoint the program has been very successful in having the right people in the right place and on time. The administration of the PFMO program requires better advance coordination to facilitate reimbursing law enforcement/commerical security for extraordinary protection services.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Onsite visits and surveys to the region where threat assessments and PFMO analysis determine a Extraordinary protection detail is required. 1. Weekly Tasking Request Order Report Summary. 2. Disallowance Summary Report. 3. Invoices. 4. Cooperative Agreements 5. MOU/MOAs 6. Intelligence Threat Assessment

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Personnel and equipment deployments are reviewed to include costs for regular and overtime deployments. During the actual deployment of police personnel and equipment unscheduled visits to the sites of deployment are made. Either command post logs or short form reports by assigned DSS or USSS Special Agents may be requested to authenticate the deployments. From time to time police time sheets for individual officers can be requested to authenticate final police bill (invoice) submissions for reimbursement. If invoices are submitted for disallowable items, then the items are declined and payment refused. DS program managers are identified by the Department and and held responsible for overall PFMO results and performance standards.

Evidence: DS/P/PL, Program Manager is the approval authority for payment of all compensation funds. The field officer or DS/P/PL, Program Manager must review and verify claims submissions depending where protection services were provided. If protection services occurred in the field, a cover memorandum from the Special Agent-in-Charge or designee (e.g., Protection Liaison Agent or PL Special Projects Coordinator (PSC)), verifying the bill to be a true representation of the hours worked must accompany all claims and the services provided. If protection services have taken place in Washington, D.C., the same approval procedures apply. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose described in the financial plan. Funds are only for protection services associated with a protection detail or special event. Funds are not used for leases or overhead cost.

Evidence: Cooperative agreements and invoices verfied. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: DS Financial Plan.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has an efficiency measure which tracks the efficiency of the reimbursement process: percent reduction in reimbursements submitted more thatn 60 days after extraordinary protection ends. The goal is to reduce the late reimbursements by 85% by 2008. Additionally, the Program Manager tracks the authorized requests for compensation cost for extraordinary protective services. There must be a contractual agreement between the Bureau and the protective service providers before any funds are allocated for service The acquisition instruments are cooperative agreements or federal grants for state and local governments, interagency agreements for federal agencies, and contracts for the private sector. The implementing document for each of the agreements is a written tasking order that specifies resources required, is time limited (not to exceed 90 days), and authorizes a specific funding amount for the operation. To be valid, the Program Manager in DS/P/PL must approve this tasking.

Evidence: To measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness the Program Manager tracks the authorized requests for compensation cost for extraordinary protective services. authoermust have a contractual agreement between the Bureau and the law enforcement authority, private security providers, providing the protective service before any funds are allocated, for service(s) rendered. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: PFMO is a block grant program that reimburses others. PFMO does not use competitive sourcing. Competitive sourcing/cost comparisons are done at Headquarters Diplomatic Security for other DS programs.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program does collaborate and coordinate effectively with others in the intelligence community, Homeland Security, Foreign Missions and State and Federal Law enforcement entities. Prior to requests for extraordinary security deployments the USSS coordinates directly with local and state law enforcement organizations. When the PFMO program was first established clear delineations of authority to negotiate extraordinary security deployments in connection with the visits of heads of state and government were kept under the exclusive domain of the USSS. Other deployments remained under the domain of the Department of State. Meetings occur when USSS and DOS conduct joint protective operations. These occur during the United Nations General Assembly held annually in New York, and during the increased number of international summit meetings attended by heads of state and government annually throughout the United States. Protective intelligence sharing occurs and is factored

Evidence: Protective intelligence sharing occurs and is factored when DSS makes a final determination as to whether or not a valid extraordinary security concern existed that warranted the federal reimbursement of a local or state organization asked to participate. Reviews of requests for the reimbursement of deployments, made on behalf of the USSS by local and state law enforcement authorities, are done after the fact, given the frequency and number of such requests annually. It is also noted that local and state agencies sometimes deploy personnel and equipment resources as they deem appropriate under exigent circumstances requiring urgency. However, in every instance, given PFMO specifications, the Department of State (PFMO) review team has the final collaborative BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: PFMO shares real-time threat assessments to support operational and policy decision making; reviews trend analyses and case studies of acts of terrorism, political violence, and crime; monitors Terrorist Tactics and Security Practices; coordinates TERREP reporting within the Department; contributes to the DS Daily (classified), a daily review of worldwide threats Utilizes the Overseas Security Advisory Council's Electronic Database; provides consultations and briefings upon request from senior Department officials; and briefs U.S. law enforcement as necessary.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program uses strong financial management practices by submitting financial plans to the DS Chief Financial Officers [CFO], tracking expeditures and protection detail cost. The Program Manager authorizes requests for compensation cost for extraordinary protective services. The Program Manager must have a contractual agreement between the Bureau and the law enforcement authority, private security providers, providing the protective service before any funds are allocated, for service(s) rendered. The implementing document for each of the agreements is a written tasking order that specifies resources required, is time limited (not to exceed 90 days), and authorizes a specific funding amount for the operation. To be valid, the Program Manager in DS/P/PL must approve this tasking order.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: The acquisition instruments are cooperative agreements or federal grants for state and local governments, interagency agreements for federal agencies, and contracts for the private sector.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: To improve DS/PFMO's accountability to the American taxpayer, the Acting Assistant Secretary has made the commitment to improve DS financial performance and budget integration with its strategic and performance planning. DS is committed to the President's Management Agenda, specifically in the area of performance-based contracting whereby requirements and scopes of work are specified in terms of results or outcomes as opposed to how the work is performed. The long- term strategies to address management issues are in the FY-07 Bureau Performance Plan. Strategies and tactics explain how DS staff will pursue success in support of DS goal one: Protection of personnel and facilities.

Evidence: DS Bureau Performance Plan, PFMO PART section. The long-term, annual goals, and performance targets for PFMO have been included in the formal DS annual plan. Outcome and efficiency measures for its efficient and effective management are also in place. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers:

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Tasking Request Orders which are forms incorporating reports of extraordinary security notifications, provide excellent content for determining the extent of local and state law enforcement deployments, and is also utilized to track grantee activities and estimate future claims for reimbursement. This oversight practice can be coupled with field observations by DOS and USSS personnel of actual deployments made to fulfill requirements.

Evidence: The prompt response by the law enforcement support services, intelligence coordination and information sharing between the United States Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security and foreign missions is recognized in the Secretary of State's annual report to Congress. Due to the law enforcement sensitive nature of the security protection provided, the exact numbers of personnel and methods used cannot be disclosed.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The prompt response by the law enforcement support services, intelligence coordination and information sharing between the United States Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security and foreign missions is recognized in the Secretary of State's annual report to Congress. Due to the law enforcement sensitive nature of the security protection provided, the exact numbers of personnel and methods used cannot be disclosed.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: The Assistant Secretary's Statement contains refererence to the protection that is provided at the UNGA.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program has consistently achieved its long-term outcome performance goal of "0 Deaths" to visiting foreign dignitaries since this responsibility was transferred to DS in 1984. This goal, as well as the long-term goal of "percent reduction of outstanding invoices," has been formally introduced into the DS annual Performance Plan. Performance Targets have been established for both. Tracking DS performance in these important areas has and will significantly contribute to, DS and DS/PFMO's achievement of goal one: Protection of Personnel and Facilities.

Evidence: Executive Order 12478, October 1, 1984. Visiting dignitaries protected. Compensation for protection services provided (Tasking Request Order/Department of State Payment) BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: The program will focus on identifying the baseline and appropriate targets to measure the effectiveness of the resources provided to state and local law enforcement agencies providing extraordinary protection services. The program will also continue to maximize interagency cooperation among federal, state, and local entities to take advantage of each agency's specific expertise and resources to encourage a cost savings

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The annual performance goal "protection of foreign visiting dignitaries" is achieved. This success is based largely on the enhanced coordination with program partners. The program has continually provided reimbursements to protective service providers in a timely manner within existing resources. To date, there have been no security incidents involving those receiving protection through this program. This indicates that the program is executing its responsibilities and fulfilling its mission. As data is collected on the annual measures, the program will be able to further demonstrate its progress in meeting its annual goals.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: The PFMO program now holds a place in the DS annual Performance Plan and, as such, performance targets will be tracked to ensure progress.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Many of the security cost are outside the control of the program, and following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, these costs have increased dramatically. Counterthreat measures require Biochemical/HAZMAT protection and special equipment. PFMO continues to work with staff in the field to control costs and create efficiencies where possible. The field offices work directly with the Diplomatic Security Office of Policy & Planning to identify resource requirements, establish time estimates and planning tools for cost effectiveness and improve efficiences to achieve annual goals. The Bureau is promoting the maximization interagency cooperation among federal, state, and local entities to take advantage of each agency's intelligence sharing, threat data and specific expertise and resources to encourage a cost savings. The congressional act that created PFMO is a cost savings to the Federal government simply by not deploying U.S. Secret Service.

Evidence: "Extraordinary Security Notification" form. Quarterly Tasking Request Orders. State Department Vendor Express Program Vendor Information Form. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Continous requirement for adequate funds.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Although there are no other U.S. government programs mandated by congress with similar purpose or goal authorzied to reimburse State and Federal law enforcement for Extraordinary Protection Services the coodination, administration and of protection efforts are completed with successful outcomes and no deaths.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, successful protective/security details with no incidents.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The last OIG inspection and GAO report was completed more than ten years ago. Otherwise there have been no independent evaluations.

Evidence: