Detailed Information on the
Secret Service: Foreign Protectees and Foreign Missions Assessment

Continue to provide program managers with program-level performance reports, including efficiency measures.

Continue to ensure that effectiveness, efficiency and return on investment are emphasized as key components of program evaluations.

Achieving annual and long-term performance goals while demonstrating improved efficiencies.

Providing program managers with program-level performance reports, including efficiency measures.

Revising how program evaluations are conducted to ensure that efficiency is incorporated as a key component of evaluations.

The Budget includes continued support for the Foreign Protectees and Foreign Missions (FP/FM) program.

Reviewing efficiency index to incorporate, where possible, variables (such as threat level) that may impact workload and other efficiency factors.

Continuing to provide program managers with program-level performance reports, including efficiency measures.

Provide program managers with program-level performance reports, including efficiency measures.

Continue to ensure that effectiveness, efficiency and return on investment are emphasized as key components of program evaluations.

Measure: Percentage of Instances Protectees (Foreign Dignitaries) Arrive and Depart Safely

Explanation:The security of protectees is the ultimate priority of the USSS. This measure represents the percentage of travel stops where the protectee safely arrives and departs. The performance target is always 100%. Anything under 100% is unacceptable.

Measure: Travel Stops - Foreign Dignitaries

Explanation:This measure represents the level of travel by protectees of the USSS. A stop is considered a city or other definable subdivision visited by a protectee. As a rule, risk and the level of effort required to provide security increases dramatically when a protectee is traveling. Because the number of stops in a given year is completely driven by protectees, the target given should be interpreted a an estimate.

Measure: Rate of Reported Crimes Against Embassy Personnel and Property - Foreign Missions

Explanation:This measure reports the rate (per 100 embassies) of known crimes directed at embassy personnel and property. ( For security reasons, detailed data classified as law enforcement sensitive.)

Measure: Foreign Protection/Mission Efficiency Index

Explanation:This measure is a weighted index reflecting changes in efficiency compared to the base period.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Foreign Protectees and Foreign Missions (FP/FM) program's purpose is clearly defined in statute as follows: (1) to protect visiting heads of state, heads of government, and their spouses (HS/HG/S), and other distinguished visitors to the United States as directed by the President, and (2) to provide external security to foreign diplomatic embassies and missions in the Washington, DC area (and other limited areas, consistent with statute).

Evidence: Title 18 U.S.C., Sec. 3056(a)(5)(6). Dignitary Protective Division (DPD) functional responsibility statement. Title 3 U.S.C. Section 202 (5)(8)(9)(10), Public Law 91-217 (3/19/70) and legislative history. DPD and FMB program descriptions.

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

Explanation: The FP/FM program meets the U.S. government's need to protect visiting HS/HG/S and foreign embassies/missions. The need for foreign countries to conduct business securely in the United States is based on statute, treaty, diplomacy, and reciprocity.

Evidence: Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3056; Title 3 U.S.C. Sec. 202, Public Law 91-217 and legislative history. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (required host countries to provide protection for United States diplomatic locations and personnel abroad, which necessitates reciprocity in this country). The need for the program is ongoing and relevant: HS/HG/S made a total of 579 visits to the United States in 2003; the total number of stops for which the Secret Service provided them protection was 1,849; the program currently protects 556 Washington-area foreign missions. Profile - Foreign Missions Branch.

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

Explanation: The FP/FM program fulfills a unique role, as the Secret Service is the sole agency with the lead responsibility for the protection of HS/HG/S while in the United States. In this capacity, the FP/FM program exercises the Service's unique authority and capability to centrally coordinate logistics, advanced security surveys, intelligence analysis and dissemination, and other planning activities preceding actual HS/HG/S visits. Further, USSS is the only entity qualified and charged with providing HS/HG/S protection through the strategic placement of human and physical assets (e.g., agents, tactical support, technical security, explosives ordnance detection, WMD detection and countermeasures, specialized training) during visits. While other (Federal, state, and local) law enforcement, as well as foreign security assets, participate at various points in the overall security framework, the USSS FP/FM program occupies a necessary leadership role to coordinate complex security operations that involve multiple jurisdictions and functions. To avoid any duplication of efforts, the program employs a matrix methodology that clearly specifies the supporting role of other law enforcement agencies in the overall security framework. Similarly, the program has the sole statutory authority to provide a dedicated police presence and response to foreign missions/embassies. This population is served by other programs/entities (e.g. Metropolitan Police Department) only for surge capacity in limited circumstances such as demonstration control.

Evidence: Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3056. Title 3 U.S.C. Sec. 202, Public Law 91-217 and legislative history.

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

Explanation: With its 24-hour policing function (e.g., routine patrols, fixed posts, alarm response, demonstration control) and full-time protective details, the FP/FM program's design facilitates the provision of efficient and effective protection to foreign missions, and to HS/HG/S during their visits to the United States. The Secret Service's lead responsibility for foreign protection and foreign missions is statutory; thus, in operation, the FP/FM program is 'direct federal' and the Federal Government could not delegate associated responsibilities to state, local, or private entities through a 'grant' or 'regulatory' program design. In addition to being statutorily impermissible, either of these alternative program design structures would flaw the program's effectiveness and efficiency, because state, local, and private entities do not possess the expertise, resources, and proximity necessary to execute required program services, nor do they possess the access to State Department and intelligence sources necessary for their success. The FP/FM program is also adept at addressing changing field conditions associated with varying threat levels. The FP/FM program has evolved its dignitary protective methodology so that it efficiently and flexibly allocates human (e.g., number of detail staff, drivers) and physical (e.g., motorcade support, limos) assets based on unique security profiles associated with the protectee risk levels ('high,' 'medium,' and 'low'). At foreign missions, the program also operates a threat-based mix of 'fixed posts' and roving patrols based on their relative operational and cost effectiveness. To assist in advance planning and security operations, the program also leverages the resources of (a) existing USSS assets in strategically located field offices and (b) Federal, state, and local law enforcement entities.

Evidence: Brochure, "Secret Service Protection of Foreign Dignitaries." Various internal USSS training and operations manuals.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Consistent with 18 U.S.C. 3056, the program targets and provides protection only to visiting HS/HG/S. The program does not provide protection to other government officials traveling with HS/HG/S, or to any other unintended beneficiaries. Protection is also time-targeted to meet program purposes, never preceding dignitaries' entrance into the United States or extending beyond their exit of the country. Moreover, the USSS uses a risk-based methodology to determine the appropriate level of protection for authorized beneficiaries. Similarly, the program's clear mission, well-defined patrol routes, and proximity to foreign missions ensure that policing activities are targeted to provide a secure environment for the intended beneficiaries (foreign missions).

Evidence: Dignitary Protective Division functional responsibility statement. Various internal USSS training and operations manuals.

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 FP/FM program's long-term outcome goals are (1) to ensure the safety of HS/HG/S while under the protection of the USSS and (2) to ensure the security of foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (and other limited areas, consistent with statute). The program's long-term performance measures are (1) the Percentage of Instances Foreign Dignitary Protectees Arrive and Depart Safely and (2) the Rate of Reported Crimes Against Embassy Personnel and Property (NEW MEASURE).

Evidence: USSS Strategic Plan. Annual Performance Plans and Reports. Congressional budget submission. Future Years Homeland Security Program. Various internal USSS training and operations manuals.

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

Explanation: Given the nature of the protective mission, targets for the FP/FM program's long-term performance measures can only be the complete safety of foreign dignitaries (100% instances of protectees' safe arrival and departure) and the complete security of foreign missions receiving USSS protection (rate of zero reported crimes against embassy personnel and property). Such ambitious targets promote continuous improvement, maximizing the protection of HS/HG/S and of diplomatic personnel and facilities. Anything short of the complete safety of dignitary protectees and the security of foreign missions is an unsatisfactory target.

Evidence: Congressional budget submission. Annual Performance Plans and Reports. Future Years Homeland Security Program.

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: The FP/FM program's long-term goals are (1) to ensure the safety of HS/HG/S while under the protection of the USSS and (2) to ensure the security of foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The FP/FM program's annual performance measures, which demonstrate progress toward achieving these goals, are (1) the Percentage of Instances Foreign Dignitary Protectees Arrive and Depart Safely and (2) the Rate of Reported Crimes Against Embassy Personnel and Property (NEW MEASURE). The FP/FM program's long-term and annual measures are identical. In addition, the Management and Organization Division is currently developing a comprehensive efficiency measure (an index that illustrates the change in unit cost from the base year to the current year), which will be available at the end of FY 2004. Answer 4.3 presents an interim efficiency measure for the program.

Evidence: Congressional budget submission. Annual Performance Plans and Reports. Future Years Homeland Security Program. Various internal USSS reports.

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

Explanation: The USSS collects and maintains historical protective data. The ambitious target for the Percentage of Instances Protectees Arrive and Depart Safely is always 100 percent (see Measures Tab for baseline data). The Service has collected baseline data and established annual targets (see Measures Tab for both) for the new measure, the Rate of Reported Crimes Against Embassy Personnel and Property. The targets reflect a downward trend against the baseline.

Evidence: Congressional budget submission. Annual Performance Plans and Reports.

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: The Secret Service works in partnership with Federal, state, local, and international government partners to ensure the protection of visiting dignitaries and foreign missions. Through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), Letters of Agreement (LOAs), and other general agreements, government partners provide an array of non-reimbursable support services (e.g. fingerprint records, planning, coordination, traffic assistance), the effect of which is to contribute to the physical protection of HS/HG/S and foreign missions. Assistance from external law enforcement organizations allows the FP/FM program to meet its ambitious goals in a more efficient and effective manner.

Evidence: Various internal USSS documents and interagency agreements.

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: ' Independent statisticians and analysts in the Service's Quantitative Studies and Statistical Systems Branch use the Service's Workload Statistical and Reporting System to provide FP/FM managers with routine (at least monthly) reports containing input, output, and outcome indicators. This process ensures that USSS systematically obtains and uses feedback in order to evaluate and improve the FP/FM program's performance. The regularity of the data's dissemination is such that program effectiveness in terms of achieving its measurable outcomes is evaluated on a systematized and routine (vice ad-hoc) basis. ' Historically, other independent evaluations have "filled the gaps," answering questions not easily found in performance data. Such evaluations often focus on maximizing effectiveness through process improvement, organizational changes, or broader management considerations. Examples are: (1) An Analytical Support Branch study that resulted in the merger of the Dignitary Protective and Major Events Divisions. (2) An Interagency (including Treasury, OMB) Working Group Study of optimal Uniformed Division staffing. (3) A 'Blue Teaming' exercise in which Secret Service law enforcement personnel who operate independently of the Dignitary Protective Division sought to identify and propose actions to rectify any deficiencies in FP/FM's security plans for the upcoming G-8 Summit at which 27 HS/HG/S will be in attendance. (4) Interagency pre-event 'Table Top' exercises in which Federal, state, and local law enforcement participants in Secret Service-led security operations for major events with high HS/HG/S attendance (e.g., G-8 meetings, United Nations General Assembly meetings) test USSS operational plans for command and control and other dimensions critical to security outcomes. ' Finally, the program's parent division (Dignitary Protective Division) undergoes a thorough "Inspection" process every two years. Secret Service inspections assess effectiveness of operations; quality of management and supervision; and adherence to policies, regulations, and procedures. Inspectors are senior ranking criminal investigators independent of the program's and the division's chain of command.

Evidence: Various internal USSS statistical and reporting systems, training manuals, operations manuals, after-action reports, and management studies.

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: The USSS organizes its budget into six program areas, of which FP/FM is one. Each program area represents a specific amount within the USSS base budget, linked to the performance measures present in each of the program areas. The Service aligns its FP/FM budget request with the appropriate departmental strategic goal, bureau strategic goal, bureau strategic objective, program performance goal, and program performance measure. [The FY 2005 budget request for FP/FM reflects the Service's estimate of what the program needs in the budget year to accomplish its goal, 100% instances of visiting HS/HG/S arriving and departing safely. With regard to funding, policy, or legislative changes, the FY 2005 budget request indicated that Uniformed Division positions associated with Foreign Missions and funded in the FY 2003 Emergency Supplemental would have to be annualized in the Budget Year in order for the program to maintain the level of services necessary to perform physical protection of foreign diplomatic missions and embassies.] Finally, the Service's budget request reflects the full cost of the FP/FM program, inclusive of indirect or 'overhead' costs (e.g., training, human resources, procurement support, finance and accounting) needed to attain program results. [The Service will update the above bracketed portion upon completion of its FY 2006 budget request.]

Evidence: Congressional budget submission. Explanation of methodology for allocating overhead costs to program budgets. Various internal USSS statistical and reporting systems.

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

Explanation: The Service has adopted both specific, ambitious long-term performance goals and annual performance goals demonstrating progress toward them (see answers 2.1 through 2.3). Though not required to do so by any external entity, the program's parent organization (the Dignitary Protective Division) also published a division-level strategic plan in FY 2003. This plan spans FY 2003 to 2005 and addresses various areas of improvement needed in the FP/FM program, including greater operational efficiency, enhanced fiscal responsibility, and improved communication with protective details and foreign missions. The division's strategic planning process emphasizes the proactive and continuous improvement (as opposed to reactive deficiency correction) that the program's constantly changing protective environment mandates. In light of that environment's demands, the division reviews it planning efforts on an ongoing basis, with a focus on strategic (a) logistical and (b) manpower planning.

Evidence: Various internal USSS planning documents and implementation reports.

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: The USSS systematically collects a wide range of performance information for all its core programs, including the FP/FM program. Automated systems that are integrated into normal business processes collect performance information that includes inputs (ex.-manhours), outputs (ex.-quantity of protectee 'stops'), and outcomes (ex.-number of crimes against embassies). Data dating back decades exist for baselining purposes. Independent statisticians and analysts in the Service's Quantitative Studies and Statistical Systems Branch provide program managers with statistical reports that assist them in managing the performance of protection for HS/HG/S and foreign missions. For instance, input data (manhours, overtime, hours out of district, etc.) are a key factor in program managers' allocation of resources (to ensure that manpower fatigue does not compromise program outcomes). Performance information is also useful in program managers' semi-annual office evaluations. Following every visiting HS/HG/S departure from the United States, the respective detail leader completes and submits a mandatory 'Detail Leader Summary Report' to the Special Agent in Charge (SAIC) of the Dignitary Protective Division. (See evidence section for how these reports drive management actions). Similarly, pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive, USSS prepares 'After Action Reports' for National Special Security Events (NSSEs), including those NSSEs with high HS/HG/S attendance (e.g., G-8, U.N. General Assembly meetings).

Evidence: Various internal USSS training documents, operations manuals, statistical reports, and after-event reports.

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: The Secret Service uses the USSS Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal System to rate the performance of the Special Agent in Charge (SAIC) of the Dignitary Protective Division (FP/FM's parent division), as well as the Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) of Protective Operations and Assistant Director (AD) of Protective Operations to whom the SAIC reports. Under this system, USSS has incorporated program performance into executives' performance evaluation criteria. The system's Job Element I ('Organizational Results'), Job Element IV ('Safeguarding Against Waste, Fraud, and Loss'), Job Element VII ('Provides Support to Achieve Program Performance as Measured by the Secret Service Strategic Plan'), and Job Element VIII ('Improve Overall Secret Service Performance Based on the Measures and Targets Established in Accordance with the Secret Service's Government Performance and Results Act Performance Plan') hold the AD, DAD, and SAIC responsible for the cost, schedule, and performance of the FP/FM program.

Evidence: Secret Service Form 3241, Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal . Position Description for SAIC of Dignitary Protective Division.

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

Explanation: A portion of the FP/FM program's budget falls into those categories that the Service's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and his Budget staff centrally manage; the CFO provides the balance of the program's funding to the Office of Protective Operations (OPO). The CFO's office ensures that all centrally-managed funds are obligated and outlayed in a timely manner (using the Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center as the Service's pay agent, executing rental obligations in accordance with the General Services Administration Schedule, etc.) Each year, the Assistant Director for Protective Operations prepares a prioritized spending plan based on his constituent programs' (including FP/FM) competing requirements for funds. The Service's CFO reviews the spending plan and provides OPO with annual funding to cover expense areas for which the office is responsible. The CFO's Budget staff uses 'status of funds' reports to ensure that OPO's programs enter into timely obligations for purposes consistent with the approved spend plan. OPO budget and finance specialists, in turn, monitor sub-allocations to FP/FM's parent division (Dignitary Protective Division) and other protective divisions/programs for which OPO is financially and operationally responsible.

Evidence: Various internal USSS financial 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: The FP/FM program adopts new procedures to ensure the efficiency of its operations and routinely examines its business practices to ensure cost effectiveness. For example, the program has in some instances found that it can deploy canine assets, sophisticated IT and surveillance systems, etc. that result in savings of comparatively costly manpower assets while enhancing operational effectiveness. Additionally, the program utilizes the Service's Logistics Resource Center (LRC) to contain travel expenses, a primary cost driver in dignitary protective operations. Field personnel traveling for the purposes of protecting HS/HG/S receive assignments on the basis of the LRC's systematic 'city pair' cost analyses, which have reduced travel costs significantly. The Dignitary Protective Division's strategic plan makes the FP/FM program subject to evaluation on the efficiency and cost effectiveness of its operations; these evaluations have resulted in significant process improvements and cost savings. For example, as a result of recent efficiency reviews, the FP/FM program provides administrative support remotely for off-site foreign dignitary events from its Washington, DC headquarters, resulting in savings in manpower and infrastructure build-out costs while maintaining cohesive logistical support. Also, a recent feasibility study led to a consolidation of the Dignitary Protective and Major Events Divisions to, among other things, share critical services such as event credentialing and make more manpower available for HS/HG/S protection. Moreover, the Service's independent Quantitative Studies and Statistical Systems Branch provides program managers in FP/FM with labor unit costs for workload efficiency assessment. Also, the program utilizes strategic sourcing options in areas such as the acquisition of ammunition for the protection of visiting HS/HG/S and foreign missions.

Evidence: LRC major responsibilities and FAQ. Sample LRC analysis of DPD compliance with LRC procedures. Various internal USSS efficiency reports and studies.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Service provides protection to HS/HG/S throughout the entire United States; consequently, advances are necessary across the nation, based upon the itinerary of the visiting diplomat. A cornerstone of the program's approach to HS/HG/S protection is active consultation and coordination with Federal, state, and local law enforcement in the planning and execution of visit security; the Service's overall security plans incorporate the law enforcement authorities of these entities. Using intelligence-based risk assessment, the program expands the level of physical security provided to protectees by making use of available resources from local law enforcement. Similarly, in conducting activities associated with protection of foreign missions, the FP/FM program routinely coordinates with other law enforcement. Collaboration has a practical effect upon the management and allocation of resources, because state and local law enforcement's support to the program is non-reimbursable (e.g. 'outer perimeter' support that local agencies provide for HS/HG/S details, MPD's support for demonstrations, dignitary receptions.)

Evidence: List of (Federal, state, and local) law enforcement entities supporting Secret Service security plan for 2004 G-8 Summit. Various internal USSS training documents and operations manuals.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The USSS issues an annual statement to DHS which "certifies" - through internally-conducted independent and alternative control reviews - that its financial systems and procedures are in compliance with Sec. 2 of the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) and Sec. 4 (financial management systems) of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Action (FFMIA). These actions review management controls to ensure, among other things, that divisions (including FP/FM's parent division [Dignitary Protective Division]), allocate resources effectively, avoid fraud and mismanagement, and prevent improper payments. Also, the ongoing financial statement audit by KPMG will ensure that payments are properly made, financial information is accurate and timely, and financial statements are clean and without material weaknesses. In the area of centrally-managed funds associated with the program, USSS has strong financial controls for recording, processing, and/or reporting. For example, USSS manages personnel compensation within its FTE ceiling through the use of a Position Identification Number system and utilizes an agency-wide gasoline tracking database system. In the area of funds allocated to the program (principally training and equipment funds), the Office of Protective Operations (OPO) monitors FP/FM's financial management; in turn, the office of the Chief Financial Officer monitors OPO's financial management. For instance, a formal system of 'Procurement Requests' and 'Training Requests' ensure that purchases are reviewed by FP/FM's parent division (Dignitary Protective Division) and parent office (Office of Protective Operations), as well as by the office of the Chief Financial Officer. This chain of reviews ensures expenditures support the program's goals and approved spending plans.

Evidence: FY 2003 Statement of Reasonable Assurance of Achievement of Management Control Objectives. 2003 Annual Administrative Control Report (Sec. 2 FMFIA). KPMG Financial Statement Audit. SSF 2041 (Procurement Request Form); SSF 182 (Training Request Form). Various internal USSS training documents and operations manuals. The Secret Service will move to a new - more modernized and efficient - financial management system in October 2004; this system (inclusive of line managers' direct access) will further strengthen all Secret Service programs' financial management practices.

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

Explanation: ' Protective elements undergo a thorough inspection process every two years to assess management performance and to recommend courses of action to address any deficiencies identified (inspectors are senior ranking criminal investigators). The most recent inspection of the FP/FM program's parent division (Dignitary Protective Division) did not identify any management deficiencies ("recommendations"). ' Service-wide, the FMFIA and FFMIA reviews annually ensure that efforts are made to address any management controls systems that exist. (These reviews identified no material weaknesses in FY 2003). Also, through the Office of Inspection and Management and Organization Divisions, a structured process exists to monitor and respond to open IG and GAO audit findings. ' Within the Dignitary Protective Division (DPD), a detailed system exists for identifying, recording, and correcting management deficiencies and other impediments to FP/FM program performance. Upon a foreign protectee's departure from the United States, the respective detail leader submits a mandatory 'Detail Leader Summary Report' to the Special Agent in Charge (SAIC) of DPD; DPD uses these reports to correct management deficiencies (see evidence). Similarly, pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive, USSS prepares 'After Action Reports' for National Special Security Events (NSSEs), including those NSSEs with high HS/HG/S attendance (e.g., G- 8, U.N. General Assembly meetings).

Evidence: FY 2003 Statement of Reasonable Assurance of Achievement of Management Control Objectives. 2003 Annual Administrative Control Report (Sec 2 FMFIA). Management and Organization Division policy/procedure regarding audit follow-up. KPMG Financial Statement Audit. Various internal USSS training documents, operations manuals, statistical reports, and after-event reports.

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

Explanation: The FP/FM program continues to achieve its long-term performance goal for the protection of HS/HG/S; there have been no significant incidents related to HS/HG/S protection/safety. The FP/FM program continues to demonstrate progress in achieving its long-term performance goal for the protection of foreign missions; relative to baseline data, the rate of reported crimes against embassy personnel and property has decreased.

Evidence: Congressional budget submission. Annual Performance Plans and Reports.

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

Explanation: The Percentage of Instances Protectees Arrive and Depart Safely for foreign dignitaries was 100% for FY 2001 through FY 2003. According to baseline data, the Rate of Reported Crimes Against Embassy Employees and Property dropped 30.6 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2003.

Evidence: Congressional budget submission. Annual Performance Plans and Reports.

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

Explanation: Between FY 2001 and FY 2003, foreign dignitary travel stops increased from 1,147 to 1,849, representing a 60 percent increase in protective activity. During this same period, resources devoted to HS/HG/S protection increased at a slower 55 percent rate, reflecting a small improvement in efficiency. Resources devoted to foreign missions security dropped 30 percent between FY 2001 and FY 2003. During this same period, there was a 30.6 percent improvement in the annual performance measure.

Evidence: Various internal USSS statistical reports.

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

Explanation: Given the high profile of the individuals and facilities protected by the program, no comparable private sector programs exist. (Risk exposure is high due to the national and international prominence of the individuals [visiting HS/HG/S] and facilities [foreign missions] involved). Additionally, the sensitive nature of the program's protective operations is such that under no circumstances would the Secret Service share with private security firms the data and methods that would be necessary to facilitate a meaningful comparison. The program has not engaged in comparative analyses with other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies' protective programs or elements. Just as the Secret Service is hesitant to share its data and methods with external entities, other agencies' operational security concerns would limit the availability of the data necessary to carry out a complete and reasonable comparison with similar programs. Lastly, it should be noted that security agencies and firms throughout the nation and the world view the Secret Service as a model for protective services and methods.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: ' Independent statisticians and analysts in the Service's Quantitative Studies and Statistical Systems Branch use the Workload Statistical and Reporting System to provide FP/FM managers with routine (at least monthly) reports containing input, output, and outcome indicators. These data alone demonstrate that the FP/FM program is effective and achieving (FP), or progressing toward achieving (FM), the results detailed in answers 4.1 and 4.2. ' While not needed to demonstrate the FP/FM program's effectiveness in achieving results, other, ad-hoc independent evaluations have impacted upon the program's efficiency (ex. ' Analytical Support Branch study that resulted in the merger of Dignitary Protective and Major Events Division; interagency study of optimal Uniformed Division (UD) Staffing that affected staffing in UD's Foreign Missions Branch). Other independent evaluations (Blue Teaming and Table Top exercises) enhanced subsequent program performance (at major events with large HS/HG/S attendance) by identifying and rectifying potential security weaknesses on a pre-event basis. ' Finally, the program's parent division (Dignitary Protective Division) undergoes a thorough "Inspection" process every two years. Secret Service inspections assess effectiveness of operations (see Evidence section for statement of aggregate results); quality of management and supervision; and adherence to policies, regulations, and procedures. Inspectors are senior ranking criminal investigators independent of the program's and the division's chain of command.

Evidence: Various internal USSS operations manuals, statistical reports, efficiency studies, and management analyses.