Detailed Information on the
Homeland Security Operations and Analysis: Classified Programs Assessment

In FY09, Complete an independent evaluation of the program.

Modify the algorithm for: Percentage of workforce that attends I&A required training courses annually. Currently this metric only includes Intelligence oversight. We will have to baseline the other trainings to establish out year targets.

Create performance metrics to demonstrate information sharing efforts.

In FYI, Develop an efficiency measure of sufficient scope and quality and establish a baseline for the measure.

In FY07, Demonstrate improvement on annual and long-term measures by meeting the FY07 targets.

In FY07, Develop a plan to contract or arrange for recurring independent evaluations of the program.

Measure: Number of intelligence products disseminated.

Explanation:Includes all products less intelligence information reporting (IIRs), HITRAC sector assessments, and intelligence dailies (DISUMs and IAEMB). This output measurement tracks the number of intelligence products disseminated by I&A and differs from intelligence information reporting (IIRs). IIRs are snapshots of relevant, operational data that requires follow-on analysis--the dot. Intelligence products contain analytic conclusions drawn from the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination cycle--connecting the dots. Target was adjusted downward in FY2006 with the consolidation of product lines. Supports: DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Goal 2: Be the premier provider of Homeland Security intelligence analysis and warning. DHS Strategic Objectives: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 National Intelligence Strategy Long Term Program Goals: M1.2, M5.3, E1.1, and E1.2

Measure: Percentage of workforce that attends I&A required training courses annually.

Explanation:Currently limited to Intelligence Oversight training. The number of required training courses will expand with implementation of the I&A Strategic Plan for Training. Supports: DHS Intelligence Enterprise Goal 6: Promote a culture that supports and rewards initiative, creativity, diversity, and professionalism. DHS Strategic Objective: 7.3 National Intelligence Strategy Long Term Program Goals: M1.1 and E4.1

Measure: Percentage of identified relevant DHS data systems/sources I&A can access.

Explanation:I&A is currently working from a current baseline of 88 systems/sources. Supports: DHS Intelligence Enterprise Goal 3: Build and implement an intelligence information systems capability that enables DHS to add value to the national knowledge base. DHS Strategic Objective: 1.1 National Intelligence Strategy Long Term Program Goal: E5.1

Measure: Percentage of identified relevant Intelligence Community data systems/sources I&A can access.

Explanation:Currently working from a baseline of 22 systems/sources.

Measure: Percentage of identified relevant Federal, State, Local, and private sector data systems/sources I&A can access.

Explanation:Currently working from a baseline of 152 systems/sources. Supports: DHS Intelligence Enterprise Goal 3: Build and implement an intelligence information systems capability that enables DHS to add value to the national knowledge base. DHS Strategic Objective: 1.1 National Intelligence Strategy Long Term Program Goal: E5.1

Measure: Number of Homeland Intelligence Reports (HIRs) disseminated.

Explanation:The number of Homeland Intelligence Reports (HIRs) disseminated is a formal mechanism monitoring the creation of HIRs. The HIRs provide emergent intelligence information with Intelligence Community (IC) standards to necessary stakeholders. A higher number of HIRs provides the Intelligence Community as well as Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and private sector partners greater information to protect the public interest. Supports: DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Goal : Ensure all Homeland Security intelligence-related information is gathered, collected, reported, and disseminated to those who need it. DHS Strategic Objectives: 1.1, 1.4 National Intelligence Strategy Long Term Program Goals: M1.2, E1.1, and E1.2

Measure: Average number of business days between intelligence product abstract approval and release.

Explanation:The approach for dissemination of National Intelligence is to reach the widest appropriate audience possible in a timely fashion. Intelligence reporting is only useful when it is provided in a timely and actionable manner. DHS' Intelligence and Analysis wants to ensure our dissemination of finished intelligence reports reaches its intended audience while it is still relevant and actionable. The intention of this measure is to decrease the time documents spend within our editing and vetting process, while maintaining our current quality status.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Led by the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, the mission of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) is twofold: 1. As a headquarters staff element, I&A provides staff, services, and support to the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis in his new role to lead, integrate, and manage intelligence activities across the department??collectively called the DHS Intelligence Enterprise??as the Department's Chief Intelligence Officer (CINT). This is a new mission area for I&A. DHS Management Directive 8110, dated January 30, 2006, established the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis as the Chief Intelligence Officer (CINT) for the Department of Homeland Security and established the authorities of the CINT "to effectively integrate and manage the Department's intelligence programs." According to MD8110, the CINT "will be accountable for designing the DHS Departmental Intelligence system to optimize the intelligence function, setting standards for functional performance, creating department-wide polices and processes, providing automated solutions to yield greater efficiencies, and nurturing the development and success of centers of excellence." 2. As a major intelligence component within the DHS Intelligence Enterprise, and a formally recognized Intelligence Community member, I&A continues its legislative mandate under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by ensuring "DHS intelligence and information sharing activities provide valuable, actionable intelligence and intelligence related information for and among the national leadership, all components of DHS, federal partners, state, local, territorial, tribal, and private sector customers" to secure the homeland, defend our citizenry, and protect our critical infrastructure. Intelligence support is focused in three key mission areas: DHS Unique Analytic Areas: Performing intelligence analysis in infrastructure security and supporting analysis in border security, maritime security, and domestic threats to develop a risk-based approach to preparedness, decision making and operations. DHS Unique Information: Making the untapped information holdings in DHS components and in non-traditional stakeholders (state, local, tribal governments, and the private sector) available as widely as possible (while protecting privacy, civil liberties, and ensuring data integrity). DHS Unique Relationships: Acting as the primary federal government information provider to the state, local, tribal governments and private sector AND acting as their advocate within the federal government??especially within the Intelligence Community.

Evidence: Homeland Security Act of 2002- Section 201(d), Homeland Security Presidential Directives 5, 6,7, 8, 10, 11, & 13, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and the Patriot Act.

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

Explanation: The terrorist threat to the United States remains real; the need for actionable intelligence to counter that threat is still relevant. I&A continues performing intelligence analysis in infrastructure security, border security, maritime security, and domestic threats to support a risk-based approach to preparedness, decision making and operations.

Evidence: Homeland Security Act of 2002- Section 201(d), 9/11 Commission Report, Homeland Security Presidential Directives 5, 6,7, 8, 10, 11, & 13, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and the Patriot Act.

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

Explanation: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes DHS as the primary federal agency for providing intelligence to state local, tribal and private entities to counter the terrorist threat to the homeland . With this clear mandate, I&A is working closely with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and other Intelligence Community mission partners to ensure a responsive Information Sharing Environment that supports state, local, tribal, and the private sector, eliminates redundancies, and identifies clear lanes of the road for mission responsibilities. Within this shared mission space, I&A provides unique services in three key mission areas: ?? DHS Unique Analytic Areas: Performing intelligence analysis in infrastructure security, border security, maritime security, and domestic threats to support a risk-based approach to preparedness, decision making and operations for the Secretary, the President, . and ultimately the American people. ?? DHS Unique Information: Making the untapped information holdings in DHS components and in non-traditional stakeholders (state, local, tribal governments, and the private sector) available as widely as possible (while protecting privacy, civil liberties, and ensuring data integrity). ?? DHS Unique Relationships: Acting as the primary federal government information provider to the state, local, tribal governments and private sector AND acting as a liason within the federal government??especially within the Intelligence Community.

Evidence: Homeland Security Act of 2002- Section 201(d)

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

Explanation: In January 2006, the Secretary formally established the Chief Intelligence Officer (CINT) position as "the DHS official who exercises leadership and authority over Intelligence policy and programs DHS-wide in partnership with heads of Components." This was the culmination of a departmental effort to improve the organizational design, effectiveness, and efficiency of the intelligence program across DHS. Prior to this directive, the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis (ASIA) had very little authority to impact the disparate intelligence offices spread across the Department. By establishing formal, centralized control and clear lines of authority, this fundamental change eliminated a major organizational design flaw that limited the program's effectiveness and efficiency. The strength of the CINT, and his staff, empowered by MD8110 authorities is evident. I&A, using CINT MD8110 authorities, led the effort to develop the first ever DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan. The plan, drafted by representatives from DHS intelligence activities across the Department, including I&A, provides strategic context for intelligence operations and investments for the department. The DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan will be reviewed in Fall 2006 to ensure alignment with the planned revision of the department's strategic plan. Using the new CINT authorities codified in MD 8110, the CINT staff engineered the first post-Second Stage Review audit of intelligence activities and assigned resources across the DHS Intelligence Enterprise, including I&A. This purpose of the audit was to align activities, staffing, and resources against the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan. This first-ever, cross-departmental transparency armed the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer and component intelligence chiefs with the baseline information to advocate on behalf of new initiatives during the FY08-12 program build. For the FY08-12 program build, each intelligence activity within DHS, including I&A, anchored proposed resource allocation plans and new proposals to the CINT's five priorities to ensure resources addressed the program's purpose directly and reached intended beneficiaries. The CINT staff conducted the first-ever program reviews for each intelligence activity within DHS, including I&A, to further ensure resources were aligned to critical mission needs. The program review process included data collection DHS-wide, review and analysis, and formal presentations to the CINT staff by each member of the DHS Intelligence Enterprise, including I&A. The process led to direct recommendations from the CINT to the DHS Chief Financial Officer on resource allocation for intelligence activities across DHS. The process also allowed the CINT to make specific recommendations to the Directors, Commissioners, and Assistant Secretaries in DHS components with intelligence activities, to ensure intelligence activities are aligned and properly resourced to meet the Department's overall mission. Finally, MD8110 has quickly institutionalized the authorities previously assumed to be personality strengths associated with I&A's seasoned leadership. The ongoing unifying and re-shaping of the intelligence culture across DHS will continue through the mechanism created under the directive to include the collaborative HSIC, Program Reviews, policy and standards development and performance evaluations. The key CINT staff role in the ongoing reorganization of Customs and Border Protection intelligence and the CINT's acknowledged role in the search for a new Key Intelligence Official at Immigration and Customs Enforcement are just the most recent examples.

Evidence: DHS MD 8110; Resource Allocation Plans, obligation rate spreadsheets, DHS Spend Plans, Financial Status Reports, Budget Performance Reports, Congressional Budget Submission, FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, Annual Performance Plans and Reports, and DHS Internal Documents.

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

Explanation: The I&A appropriation provides the resources to improve the analysis and sharing of intelligence and threat information. Past budget have include funding initiatives to support critical programs and activities. However, I&A will need to expand its budget and performance integration to all programs. I&A The OA appropriation resourcesappropriation resources the activities of both the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) and the Directorate of Operations. OMB apportions congressionally approved resources from the OA appropriation, through the DHS CFO, directly to I&A and the Directorate of Operations. I&A programs and activities are guided by DHS' Strategic Goals and Objectives; National Intelligence Strategy mission and enterprise objectives; DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Goals; and, the Secretary's and Chief Intelligence Officer's priorities throughout the planning, programming, and budgeting cycle in direct support of DHS' mandated mission. I&A divisions submit their budget requirements as part of the annual DHS Resource Allocation Plan process. To ensure I&A appropriations are spent according to DHS and I&A goals and objectives; all division budget requests are first approved by the appropriate I&A Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis and ultimately by the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. Next, each division is required to submit an Annual Spend Plan that is reviewed to further ensure proposed expenditures are in-line with goals and objectives. Additionally, the I&A Budget Office conducts a "Mid-Year Review" that has, as one of its objectives, "a review of all division spending to ensure dollars are being spent timely and on approved requirements." Finally, funds that are not projected to be obligated and expended efficiently are re-aligned against other I&A division requirements.

Evidence: DHS Strategic Plan, National Intelligence Strategy, DHS Integrated Planning Guidance, DHS Resource Allocation Plan, ODNI IPBS Guidance, DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, I&A FY 2006 Division Spend Plan, and DHS MD 8110.

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: Current performance measures support both DHS Chief Intelligence Officer priorities and desired outcomes in the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan. One of the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer current priorities is to "Improve the quality of analysis across the Department of Homeland Security." Training is central to achieving that desired outcome. Therefore, the percentage of workforce that attends I&A required training is one way to measure progress in this area. Likewise, data access is critical to the desired outcome expressed in Goal 3 in the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, "Build and implement an intelligence information systems capability that enables DHS to add value to the national knowledge base." Therefore, the percentage of identified data systems/sources DHS can access is one way to measure progress towards this desired outcomes to fully access relevant DHS, Intelligence Community, and other identified state, local, and private sector data systems/sources. Finally, I&A recognizes the continued need to develop a limited set of improved outcome-based and efficiency performance measures to supplement current performance measures. Accordingly, I&A is currently considering draft outcome measures centered on customer satisfaction with the timeliness and usefulness of DHS products (outcome). Reliable and consistent data collection remains a factor. Once approved, I&A will collect data for a year as a baseline and set appropriately ambitious targets for improvements . In the future, IA will need to better link its performance goals with the National Intelligence Strategy.

Evidence: DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, National Intelligence Strategy Mission and Enterprise Goals and Objectives, Congressional Testimony, Annual Performance Plans and Reports, FYHSP (2006), and Congressional Budget Submission.

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

Explanation: The program has 7 performance measures with annual targets that are linked to long-term program goals and outcomes (mission and enterprise objectives) in the National Intelligence Strategy, DHS Strategic Plan, and DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Submission, Annual Performance Plans and Reports, and Annual Performance Plans and Reports.

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: Current targets for output measures have increased over last year. By reaching or exceeding those increased targets we can demonstrate increased effectiveness over the previous year . Targets for "Number of intelligence products disseminated" were originally based on a 10% increase each year over the FY04 baseline of 197. The target was adjusted downward for FY06 to reflect the consolidation of the number product lines and the fundamental shift to longer products and in-depth analysis. Within this construct, revised target remains ambitious. "Percentage of workforce that attends I&A required training courses annually" is new measures and will be baselined for FY06. Although "Number of critical infrastructure/key resource (CI/KR) sector assessments completed for the year by I&A's Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center (HITRAC)" is new measures for FY06, no baseline is required because we are already working from a fixed set of 17 critical infrastructure/key resources. Target for FY06 is 10 in-depth assessments. Remaining measures are on track to meet or exceed ambitious targets set for FY06.

Evidence: National Intelligence Strategy, DHS Strategic Plan, DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, Congressional Budget Submission, Annual Performance Plans and Reports, and Annual Performance Plans and Reports.

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

Explanation: Beginning in FY06, we shifted from milestones to measure our progress to a performance-based approach. Baselines were established for Intelligence products disseminated in FY04 and Intelligence Information Reports disseminated in FY05. From those baselines, increased targets were set for successive years. For "percentage of I&A-accessible DHS, IC, and federal, state, local, and private data systems/sources," baselines were established in FY05 with aggressive targets established for FY06.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Submission, Annual Performance Plans and Reports and Five Year Homeland Security 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: IA is the primary Federal agency for providing intelligence to state, local, tribal, and private entities to counter the terrorist threat to the homeland. While other government partners contribute to this mission, IA does not have public or private partners that share its mandate in this area.

Evidence: Current contracts, MOUs, and product vetting SOP.

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: As relatively new program, AO has no independent evaluations that are of sufficient quality, scope, and independence. The program will work to develop independent evaluations that improve the program's performance.

Evidence:

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: I&A Budget requests are mapped to the US National Intelligence Strategy, the ODNI Intelligence Program & Budget Submission priorities, the DHS Integrated Planning Guidance priorities, the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Goals & Objectives and the DHS Chief Intelligence Officer (CINT) pillars. I&A Performance Plan goals and objectives are also mapped to the guidance mentioned. Performance Metrics are established with quantifiable and measurable outputs and outcomes. Resources in the AO program are presented by Program, Project & Activity and Budget Object Code in the I&A budget During the current planning, programming, and budgeting cycle for the FY08 budget build, both the guidance for the Resource Allocation Plan and the Integrated Planning Guidance required specific linkages between budget, resources, and intelligence priorities. Internal processes and worksheets also required linkages between budget, resources, and intelligence goals and objectives. The AO program's acquisitions strategy establishes investments to increase the program's capability. These investments directly support the program's annual and long-term goals and directives. The AO program organizes its budget into program areas in which each program represents a specific amount within the AO program base budget. The AO program then aligns its budget request to DHS Intel Enterprise Objectives, program performance goals, and program performance measures.

Evidence: DHS (Vol V) FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification Book; DHS FY 2006 Congressional Justificatrion Book; I&A FY 2006 Performance Plan; DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan; I&A FY 2006 Resource Allocation Plan , DHS (Vol V) FY 2007 Congressional Budget Justification Book; DHS FY 2007 Congressional Justificatrion Book; I&A FY 2007 Performance Plan; DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan; I&A FY 2007 Resource Allocation Plan , FY08 RAP Guidance, FY08 Integarted Planning Guidance, FY08 budget submission, performance plan, Action Plans, National Intelligence Strategy, DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan.

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

Explanation: MD8110 established the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis as the Chief Intelligence Officer (CINT) for the Department of Homeland Security and established the authorities of the CINT "to effectively integrate and manage the Department's intelligence programs." Changes were institutionalized in DHS Management Directive 8110, dated January 30, 2006. Major FY06 Accomplishments: ?? DHS Management Directive 8110, dated January 30, 2006, established the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis as the Chief Intelligence Officer (CINT) for the Department of Homeland Security and established the authorities of the CINT "to effectively integrate and manage the Department's intelligence programs." According to MD8110, the CINT "will be accountable for designing the DHS Departmental Intelligence system to optimize the intelligence function, setting standards for functional performance, creating department-wide polices and processes, providing automated solutions to yield greater efficiencies, and nurturing the development and success of centers of excellence." ?? Senior Executive Service (SES) leadership team brought on board to lead new I&A organization. ?? Homeland Security Intelligence Council (HSIC) formalized as the principal decision-making forum for intelligence issues of department-wide significance. The HSIC is an advisory body chaired by the CINT and includes key intelligence officials of each DHS component. ?? First ever DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, drafted by representatives from DHS intelligence activities across the Department provides strategic context for intelligence operations and investments for the department. ?? Worked with DHS leadership to ensure the Department's Integrated Planning Guidance for Fiscal 2008 emphasized properly the importance of intelligence. ?? Completed first-ever program reviews for intelligence activities in departmental components for the FY08-12 budget build. Effort led to a major reorganization of Customs and Border Patrol intelligence. ?? Implementing a DHS Intelligence Recruitment Strategic Plan to bring onboard the best and brightest young people from America's colleges, even as I&A continues to hire at more seasoned levels. ?? Taken steps to strengthen measurably the Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center (HITRAC), a linchpin to DHS support to the private sector. ?? Developed a Department-wide roadmap for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); hosted first DHS-ISR conference; and working on ISR playbooks with Department of Defense to support DHS missions. ?? Developed a concept of operations and implementation plan for support to state and local "fusion centers" which is now a department-backed initiative to build and strengthen our relationship with our most important customers; deployed DHS intelligence personnel to New York and Los Angeles with others to follow ?? Developed a tentative strategy for aggressive use of open sources that leverages current activities of the Department, other departments and agencies, the private sector and our state and local partners. ?? Leading the development of an integrated Intelligence Campaign Plan for the Southwest Border Initiative. ?? Improved quality and quantity of our reporting; changed focus and format of key products that make them more relevant and accessible to a wider range of customers??policymakers, operators, and other analysts??at all levels.

Evidence: DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan, Component Action Plans, Intelligence Enterprise Architecture Assessment and Plan, and MD8110.

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: Data inputs for measures related to intelligence products, sector assessments, and Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) is tracked and reported by the I&A Production Management, I&A Library. These monthly updates are shared with I&A senior leadership and division management. Updates related to accessible data sources/systems in tracked by the I&A Knowledge Management/Information Sharing Division. Quarterly reporting has begun on these metrics. Program managers review data quarterly to manage production in support of standing information needs, priority issues, goals, and objectives. In addition, intelligence products are tracked by the standing information needs they address. To facilitate this process, I&A is developing an automated system to reduce the time required to disseminate finished intelligence and track metrics associated with production . As a result of performance tracking, both the quality and quantity of our reporting has steadily improved. In addition, changes made in focus and format of key products make them more relevant and accessible to a wider range of customers??policymakers, operators, and other analysts??at all levels.

Evidence: Intelligence production worksheets, DHS Standing Information Needs, I&A Author's Handbook

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: I&A uses a combination of Firm-Fixed-Price and Time & Material. Firm-Fixed-Price contracts minimize risk to cost overruns. Earn Value Management is utilized to measure the performance of contractors by assigning a quantifiable value to each milestone. I&A has established a Program Executive Office (PEO) to provide consistent life cycle program management and oversight of all IT mission system development efforts supporting I&A.

Evidence: Acquisition Plans and I&A Contracts Internal Control Spread Sheets, support contract performance and cost accountability. HSIN Acquisition Plan, Support Contract, Pantheon, PEO Procedures

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

Explanation: I&A maintains a complex program management plan and resource allocation plan. Acquisitions are scheduled at the beginning of each year and reviewed quarterly to assure program is on target. Each acquisition is allocated against the program management plan prior to the obligation of the funds in order to assure proper use of funds.

Evidence: Analysis & Operations SF 132; DHS Congressional Justification Book; DHS Congressional Budget Justification Book; A&O Quarterly Execution Reports; I&A Execution Reports to ODNI; I&A monthly finance Program Spend Plan accounting reports; I&A Division Spend Plans; obligation rates spreadsheets' FY; Resource Allocation Plans; Financial Status Reports; and Budget Performance Reports.

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: I&A currently has no efficiency measures. I&A uses all generally accepted contracting rules and principles ICW the DHS Office of Procurement Operations to achieve cost effectiveness in program execution. The I&A Performance Plan establishes goals and objectives and provides quantifiable, measurable performance measure outputs. I&A has adopted appropriate procedures to ensure the efficiency of its operations and routinely examines its business practices to ensure cost effectiveness and identify opportunities for savings. These include: (1) strategic source; (2) investments in information technology to improve efficiency and program effectiveness; (3) cross-program and inter-agency coordination on IT issues; and (4) aggressive timing targets for the completion of I&A assessments. Acquisitions use competitive awards or competitively awarded indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts. I&A has enlisted the assistance of a DOD agency to assist in the analysis and planning of IT acquisitions in order to assure best practices are being followed. I&A has established the Information Technology Review Board (ITRB) as an I&A-level IT governance board. The ITRB reviews and approves all IT activities that use I&A budgetary and/or personnel resources. The ITRB helps to track IT requirements based on mission need, eliminates duplicative system implementation and enables collaborative review and approval across the organization.

Evidence: Various DHS contracting rules, principles and policies; I&A Performance Plan; I&A IT Governance Policy; ITRB Charter; ITRB Standard Operating Procedures; various internal AO program documents and operation manuals.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Collaboration and coordination with partners at all levels are central to I&A's success. Departmental partnership and collaboration across the department led to a department-wide roadmap for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), development of ISR playbooks with the Department of Defense to support DHS missions, and the first ever DHS ISR conference. To help weld together the component parts of the DHS intelligence enterprise and bring them closer to both national and local consumers, I&A drafted an information architecture for DHS intelligence with an implementation plan and budget profile to follow. Our strengthening relationship to the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is especially noteworthy. In April 2006, I&A participated, along with other Intelligence Community members, in an NCTC-sponsored joint requirements review for Counterterrorism Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) requirements to complement the previous joint requirements reviews for the other intelligence collection disciplines. In concert with the U.S. Coast Guard, I&A presented unique requirements on behalf of State, Local and Tribal constituents. Those requirements were further coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). I&A worked also closely with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to hone the budget guidance to serve better the unique needs of Homeland Security??to ensure that the departments and agencies provide resources for Intelligence Community members to develop Sensitive-but-Unclassified (SBU) material useable by State, Local and Tribal authorities and the private sector. Meanwhile, bilateral relationships with other Intelligence Community organizations continue to strengthen. For example the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) added four intelligence analysts to its existing special-agent liaison officer team in our Office. This will improve analytic collaboration between FBI and DHS, and provide DHS with new and continuing access to FBI holdings that has improved response times for unique information. I&A has taken several steps to increase collaboration and cooperation between I&A and its Homeland Security partners at the state, local, and tribal level and private sector. The office of the Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis was established to work this issue. Those efforts are already paying dividends with a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and implementation plan for DHS support to state and local "fusion centers" that was recently approved by the Secretary. Meanwhile, we have deployed DHS intelligence personnel first to New York and Los Angeles, and more recently to Baltimore, Boston and Louisiana, to improve our support in these key metropolitan areas. We plan to deploy several more officers to fusion centers before the end of FY 2006. In addition, we have taken maximum advantage of up-to-date information technology to facilitate our outreach by regular teleconference with state Homeland Security Advisors and others; imposing a new technical direction on the Homeland Security Information Network??Secret (HSIN-S) which should be operational this quarter; extending HSIN-S to state and local fusion cells on an interim basis, even as we work toward deployment of a more robust solution, the Department's Homeland Security Data Network (HSDN). Finally, I&A has taken steps to strengthen the Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center (HITRAC), a linchpin in our support and partnership to the private sector. The assessments produced by HITRAC have been received favorably by leaders in the private sector.

Evidence: The shared goal of protecting the United States is shown through MOU's with partner agencies; detailees of those agencies assigned to the AO program; and HSIN processes to support information and collaboration with State and Local Fusion Centers. ISB Memo, ISB Charter

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: AO financial management practices are getting stronger. I&A manages the AO program using strong financial management internal controls. In addition, government and contract personnel responsible for financial management, are all trained in generally accepted financial management procedures. I&A COTR's are all school trained and certified. All financial obligations are strictly monitored before invoices are paid. Accurate, current records are maintained, to document fund execution, at every stage (commitment, obligation invoicing, and expenditure) of the planning, programming, budgeting and execution cycle. The AO program manages financial management practices through internal controls. All personnel responsible for financial management, had current federal financial training to include COTR/COR, and Defense Acquisition training. All financial obligations are strictly monitored before payment of invoices. Accurate current records are maintained to document fund execution at every state (appropriation, commitment, obligation invoicing, and expenditure) for all obligations.

Evidence: The I&A Budget Office organized to separate duties and functions; I&A Budget Office performs periodic review of office organizations and functions; Financial management and accounting systems support provided and operated offsite through MOA. The AO program's budget office has conducted internal execution reviews. IA has not yet been subject to an IG or GAO audit.

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

Explanation: The AO program initiates an inspection process to assess management performance and to recommend courses of action to address any deficiencies identified. In addition, the AO program uses best practices as recommended by the Program Management Institute and the Defense Acquisition University. Each project is monitored for issues and risk according to four measurement criteria (Cost, Schedule, Technical, and Management).

Evidence: Various internal DHS documents, operation manuals, and reports. No description provided on how deficienies were identified or corrected and what changes were made.

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

Explanation: I&A met non-current milestones established for FY03-FY05. And is making progress towards meeting its FY06 performance targets. The AO program has set its long-term performance goals to reflect the establishment of an organizational structure, business processes, and analytic capacity to support the Homeland Security mission. I&A has made the first steps to meet its long-term goals but has yet to demonstrate adequate progress. Next steps would be to sustain current performance and support while improving our abilitiy to meet our customer's needs--better, more efficiently, and more effectively.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Submission, FY 2005 Performance Accountability Report, and Annual Performance Plans and Reports

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

Explanation: I&A has made the first steps to establish and make progress to meet its annual performance goals. Targets were set in 2005 and 2006. For the measure with the 2005 target, the performance was not met. As I&A matures, its performance is improving. It appears I&A may exceed some its 2006 targets.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Submission, FY 2005 Performance Accountability Report, and Annual Performance Plans and Reports.

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

Explanation: I&A has yet to develop an efficiency measure.

Evidence:

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

Explanation: No side-by-side comparison has been done with similar programs. However, anecdotal evidence suggests the AO program compares favorably with others within the Intelligence Community in size, scope, and mission performance.

Evidence:

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

Explanation: The AO program has not undergone an independent review that meets all criteria (quality, scope, and independence). The AO program will work to develop an independent evaluation mechanism that improves the program's performance.

Evidence: