# [Part 2]{.smallcaps} Performance Section {#part-2-performance-section .AR-Part-Title}

# Measuring and Reporting Our Performance {#measuring-and-reporting-our-performance .AR-2004-Head-1}

This annual performance report is based on the goals, strategies, and
long-range performance targets in our Strategic Plan and the specific
objectives in our FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan. The following pages
detail our performance on all our FY 2005 objectives. Checked boxes
indicate those we fully achieved. Those we did not fully achieve have
open boxes with an explanation below. We also included relevant
performance results and trend information. Our budget is linked to the
report's per­for­mance goals. We received no aid from non-Federal parties
in preparing this report.

We used four mechanisms to measure actual performance: (1) periodic
management reviews, (2) formal audits of operations, (3) expansion and
refinement of our performance measurement system, and (4) systematic
sampling of measurement system effectiveness. In FY 1999 we deployed our
agency-wide Performance Measure­ment and Reporting System (PMRS). This
system allows us to define and consistently measure data critical to the
analysis of our performance objectives. Every year we improve and expand
the system further so that our strategic performance is measured using
more of a balanced scorecard approach for tracking cycle times, quality,
produc­tivity, cost, and customer satisfaction for our products and
services. This report also updates some of our FY 2004 statistics that
were corrected as a result of these improve­ments. These ongoing
refinements indicate that this annual report, our annual plans, and our
Strategic Plan are living documents and an integral part of our
operations.

In our continuous effort to improve our performance measurement program,
we recently completed a two-year project to upgrade PMRS. We are taking
advantage of web infra­structure to collect our performance data from the
more than 70 organizational units that send data to PMRS from all over
the country. We also are using newer, more robust, enterprise-level
databases to store the data and extract reports, instead of the
high-main­te­nance desktop databases previously used. This upgrade enables
us to collect our performance data more consistently and more
efficiently and allows us to store much more data for use in analyzing
trends.

We have also implemented a program management system (PROMT) to help us
control the cost and schedule for the Electronic Records Archives (ERA)
program. We have expanded the use of PROMT throughout NARA to help us
improve our capabilities for managing and tracking performance on other
projects. PROMT integrates several commercial off-the-shelf program
management tools in a Windows-based web environment to help us schedule
and link project activities, assign resources, collect and report costs,
calculate earned value, and analyze impacts and risks to the ERA
program. PROMT incorporates an EIA-748 compliant tool that meets Office
of Manage­ment and Budget (OMB) and Government Accountability Office
(GAO) requirements for calcu­lating earned value.

# FY 2005 Performance by Strategic Goal {#fy-2005-performance-by-strategic-goal .AR-2004-Head-1}

## Strategic Goal 1: Records Management {#strategic-goal-1-records-management .AR-2004-Head-2}

### Essential evidence is created, identified, appropriately scheduled, and managed for as long as needed. {#essential-evidence-is-created-identified-appropriately-scheduled-and-managed-for-as-long-as-needed. .AR-2004-Head-3}

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| ###### Long-Range           | 1.1. By 2008, 95 percent of agencies   |
|                             | view their records management program  |
| ###### Performance Targets  | as a positive tool for asset and risk  |
|                             | management.                            |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 1.2. By 2008, 95 percent of approved   |
|                             | capital asset plans have approved      |
|                             | records schedules by the time those    |
|                             | systems begin creating records.        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 1.3. By 2008, 95 percent of customers  |
|                             | are satisfied with NARA scheduling and |
|                             | appraisal services.                    |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+

**FY 2005 Resources Available to Meet This Goal:** \$17,029,000; 148 FTE

**[[1.1 Records Management Redesign]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Deliver the results promised on 95     |
|                         | * | percent of targeted assistance         |
|                         |  | partnership projects.                  |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | * | Survey Federal agencies to establish   |
|                         | * | baseline percentage of agencies that   |
|                         |  | view their records management programs |
|                         | * | as a positive tool for asset and risk  |
|                         | * | management.                            |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | * | Increase by 10 percent the number of   |
|                         | * | records management training            |
|                         |  | participants who are taking a NARA     |
|                         | * | records management course for the      |
|                         | * | first time.                            |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | [ | > []{.mark}                            |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | * | Conduct a records management study.    |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   | []{.mark}                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We delivered the results promised on   |
|                         |   | 100 percent of targeted assistance     |
|                         |   | partnership projects.                  |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               |  | We increased the number of partnership |
|                         |   | projects established with Federal      |
|                         |   | agencies from 361 to 372.              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *"The class was         |  | We trained 3,366 Federal agency staff  |
| excellent, as were\     |   | in records management and electronic   |
| the instructors."*      |   | records management.                    |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               |  | We conducted a records management      |
|                         |   | study of the headquarters office of    |
|                         |   | the U.S. Air Force.                    |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We completed the first full year of our new records
management training program, redesigned to address new trends in records
management and the ongoing revolution in information technology so that
agency records professionals can play an important role in process
design, IT capital planning, and information and knowledge management in
their agencies. With a Records Management Training Officer now part of
our NARA-wide records management team, we will continue to apply adult
education concepts and explore alternative delivery approaches in our
training efforts.

We provided records management training to 3,366 Federal agency staff
across the country this year, a 19-percent decrease from last year. The
number we train each year fluctuates, depending on availability of staff
to perform training and the number of Federal agency staff available to
attend training. While our overall number of trainees was lower this
year, 1,069 participants, 32 percent of our total, were taking a course
for the first time. The increase in first-time participants is due in
large part to our new, improved classes and our new records management
certification program.

During the first year of our new certification program, 47 individuals
successfully completed training in Federal records management and were
professionally certified. The certification program is designed to raise
awareness and improve effectiveness of Federal records management,
increase the level of professionalism of those managing Federal records,
give Federal records professionals a set of benchmarks to gauge their
professional development, and give NARA the ability to better assess the
effectiveness of its training program. Participants who successfully
pass a series of examinations receive NARA\'s Certificate of Federal
Records Management Training, signed by the Archivist of the United
States.

We completed a study of records management practices at the headquarters
of the U.S. Air Force. This first study, and others to follow, will help
us identify and analyze best practices and develop Government-wide
recommendations and guidance.

Targeted assistance projects are established between NARA and Federal
agencies to solve specific records management problems. We established
11 new projects with Federal agencies this year. Since the program began
in 1999, we have established 372 projects, completed 279 projects, and
assisted 107 Federal agencies and field offices.

An example of the kind of work addressed in our targeted assistance
projects was the Wildland Fire Records Project, an interagency
partnership project with the Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of
Interior Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Interior U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Interior National Park
Service. The project developed records management tools to control and
preserve both paper and electronic wildland fire records during a fire
incident and afterwards. These tools include approved records
disposition schedules that cover multiple agencies, file classification
schemes, briefings, and pilot training. Briefings and training were
presented to more than 500 personnel from the five Federal agencies, as
well as tribal organizations and state and local agencies. These
standards and tools will allow the agencies to support fire opera­tions
more effectively and protect rights and interests of stakeholders. Just
as important, they will allow fire agencies to permanently preserve
records supporting scientific and historical research, implementation of
National Fire Policy, and planning under the National Environmental
Policy Act.

We intended to conduct a survey asking Federal staff how they view the
role of their agency management programs during FY 2005 and are
continuing to investigate cost-effective means for doing so.

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------
  **Performance Data**                  **2000**    **2001**    **2002**    **2003**    **2004**    **2005**

  *Performance target for annual        *---*       *75*        *85*        *90*        *95*        *95*
  percent of targeted assistance                                                                    
  partnership projects delivering the                                                               
  results promised*                                                                                 

  Annual percent of targeted assistance 100         100         100         100         100         100
  partnership projects delivering the                                                               
  results promised                                                                                  

  Annual number of targeted assistance  123         63          77          58          13          11
  partnership projects initiated                                                                    

  Annual number of targeted assistance  37          58          76          67          26          13
  partnership projects completed                                                                    

  Annual number of targeted assistance  37          58          76          67          26          13
  partnership projects completed,                                                                   
  delivering the promised results                                                                   

  Cumulative number of targeted         156         213         290         348         361         372
  assistance partnership projects                                                                   
  initiated with Federal agencies                                                                   

  Cumulative number of targeted         39          97          173         240         266         279
  assistance partnership projects                                                                   
  completed with Federal agencies                                                                   

  *Performance target for percent       []{.mark}   []{.mark}   []{.mark}   []{.mark}   []{.mark}   *10*
  increase in the number of records                                                                 
  management training participants who                                                              
  are taking a NARA records management                                                              
  course for the first time*                                                                        

  Percent of records management         []{.mark}   []{.mark}   []{.mark}   []{.mark}   11          32
  training participants taking a NARA                                                               
  records management course for the                                                                 
  first time.                                                                                       

  Number of Federal agency staff        3,506       2,506       3,746       3,497       4,166       3,366
  receiving NARA training in records                                                                
  management and electronic records                                                                 
  management                                                                                        

  Number of records management training ---         ---         ---         ---         442         1,069
  participants who are taking a NARA                                                                
  records management course for the                                                                 
  first time                                                                                        

  Number of records management training ---         ---         ---         ---         ---         47
  participants certified this year.                                                                 
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* NARA's *Strategic Directions for
Federal Records Management* (2003) established the strategies we are
using to improve records management across the Government and achieve
Goal 1. We have begun to implement these strategies through a unified
NARA program to support Federal records management.

In FY 2006 and beyond, the NARA records management program will make
more effective use of our resources through improved and expanded
communications with stakeholders, records management guidance and
training, and assistance to Federal agencies. We are working to find
ways to minimize routine records scheduling activities and to develop
planning and evalu­ation tools and automated tools to support records
management. We are exploring ways to provide agencies with modern
records center services and to preserve permanent records, focusing on
electronic records. We will also use our authority to inspect agency
records and records management programs, to conduct studies, and to
report to Congress on Federal recordkeeping.

We will develop a cost-effective approach to measure how Federal staff
view their agency records management programs and plan on developing and
issuing the survey in FY 2006.

We will use the results of this survey to help us determine what
additional advocacy activities for Federal records management programs
and training of Federal records managers are required. With our online
training and a professional certification program now under way, we have
seen an increase in Federal agency staff taking training for the first
time. We expect this trend to continue. We also expect a steady increase
in the number of people who seek professional certification.

A status of the initiatives we are undertaking is provided in the
section of this report entitled "Status of NARA Records Management" on
page 92. A report highlighting the progress of individual agencies in
managing and preserving their records, entitled "Federal Records
Management Evaluations," is available on page 96.

**[[1.2 Schedules for Capital Asset Plans]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------
  **FY 2005 Objectives**     ****   In coordination with OMB, develop a
                                     multi-pronged approach to embedding
                                     records management requirements into the
                                     capital planning and acquisition
                                     process.

  []{.mark}                  ****   Conduct needs assessment of Government
                                     and IT industry for the development of
                                     select records management service
                                     components for the Federal Enterprise
                                     Architecture (FEA).

  []{.mark}                  ****   Develop high-level requirements for
                                     candidate records management service
                                     components.

  []{.mark}                  ****   Complete a cooperative records project
                                     for at least one FEA Business Reference
                                     Model (BRM) Subfunction.

  **Results**                ****   We developed a set of high-level
                                     requirements for records management
                                     service components.

                             ****   We are participating in the Office of
                                     Personnel Management's (OPM) electronic
                                     Official Personnel File (e-OPF) project.
  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------

*Discussion* We pursued a number of avenues for institutionalizing
agency incorporation of records management requirements into IT system
planning, including incorporating certain requirements in the Federal
Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) and establishing a Records Management
(RM) Profile in the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). We identified
these approaches under the auspices of the Interagency Committee on
Government Information (ICGI) and through the Electronic Records Policy
Working Group (ERPWG), an interagency group chaired by NARA. We met with
the General Services Administration (GSA) FAR Secretariat and determined
that we need to develop comprehensive programmatic guidance for use as a
reference in any revision to the FAR. To fulfill this requirement, we
are working on a web-based Records Management Handbook that we will
deploy using the online Electronic Records Management (ERM) Toolkit. The
Toolkit, scheduled for a prototype deployment in FY 2006, will be a
NARA-managed Internet portal that will share ERM tools Government-wide.
This year we completed a draft of the RM Profile and have vetted the
draft internally and externally through a number of organizations,
including the Federal Records Council.

We continued supporting the President's e-Government initiatives through
the ERM Initiative, providing practical recordkeeping guidance and tools
to Federal agencies for managing electronic records. NARA is partnering
on this initiative with the Department of Defense, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other agencies.

We are the lead agency for the ERM Initiative project to develop records
management service components. To identify core records management
requirements that could be supported by records management service
components, we held a series of facilitated workshops with records
management and enterprise information architecture stake­holders from 18
Federal agencies, NARA subject matter experts, and industry and academic
experts. These collaborative sessions resulted in a set of records
management activity names, an initial high-level set of functional
requirements, and a prioritized list of component activities. These
requirements serve as a baseline and starting point for the procurement
and development of records management service components.

NARA is using the OMB's FEA Business Reference Model (BRM) to develop
cooperative records management projects for agencies with common lines
of business. Our goal with these projects is to produce common records
schedules, standardized records manage­ment processes, and other common
products. We are participating in OPM's e-OPF project to digitize
Federal employee Official Personnel Files, a project that has
significant records management implications. We have commented on OPM's
Detailed Require­ments Anal­y­sis for NARA/National Personnel Records
Center (NPRC) e-OPF and on the e-OPF Process Guidance. We are working
with OPM's e-OPF policy working group to address recordkeeping
requirements required by NARA and have provided them with general
transfer guidance. We provided OPM with links to the applicable imaging
standards published by the Association for Information and Image
Management (AIIM) and the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) to ensure OPM contractors are scanning records in accordance with
NARA requirements as well as industry-recognized quality conversion
standards. We also began the re-appraisal of the OPF to determine the
appropriate disposition recommendation. As the e-OPF project moves
forward we will continue to develop relevant disposition and technical
guidance.

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* The ERM Initiative will continue
to promote the expansion of Government-wide electronic records
management with additional guidance products. We will work with the
Department of Defense to extend the DoD 5015.2-STD and interoperability
specifications. Future transitional products will be developed under the
auspices of ICGI.

  ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
  **Performance Data**                                        **2004**   **2005**

  Number of Federal Enterprise Architecture Business          153        163
  Reference Model sub-functions                                          

  *Performance target for cumulative number of Federal        ---        *1*
  Enterprise Architecture Business Reference Model                       
  sub-functions covered by cooperative records projects*                 

  Cumulative number of Federal Enterprise Architecture        ---        0
  Business Reference Model sub-functions covered by                      
  cooperative records projects                                           
  ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------

**[[1.3 Scheduling and Appraisal Services]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Process records schedule items within  |
|                         | * | a median time of 200 calendar days or  |
|                         |  | less.                                  |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | * | Prototype automated workflow and       |
|                         | * | col­lab­o­ration tools to support the     |
|                         |  | redesigned scheduling and appraisal    |
|                         | * | process.                               |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Increase by 10 percent the number of   |
|                         | * | Federal agencies that are satisfied    |
|                         |  | with NARA scheduling and appraisal     |
|                         | * | services.                              |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We processed records schedule items    |
|                         |   | within a median time of 372 calendar   |
|                         |   | days.                                  |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We prototyped automated workflow and   |
|                         |   | collaboration tools to support the     |
|                         |   | redesigned scheduling and appraisal    |
|                         |   | process.                               |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   | []{.mark}                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| ####### []{.mark}       |  | We released to Federal Records         |
|                         |   | Officers the results of our first      |
|                         |   | customer satisfaction survey.          |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We continue working steadily on processing records
schedules. Because this measure is affected by the age and item count of
specific records schedules, performance tends to fluctuate and is not
necessarily predictive of the effort involved in completing records
schedules. A factor in our inability to meet this year's goal was the
statistical impact of two schedules with substantial numbers of items
that took significant amounts of time to approve. To some degree, our
prioritization of work on other important rec­ords management initiatives
under way this year, such as the new records manage­ment training
curriculum and national records management projects, impacted our
ability to process records schedules. This demand will likely continue
until some of these initia­tives are self-sustaining.

We worked to conclude a two-year Business Processing Reengineering
effort of our records lifecycle business processes. Many of these
redesigned processes will be built into the Electronic Records Archives
(ERA). Using the new process models, we began to identify and further
define key process business rules that need to be incorporated into the
system to enable automation and support effective workflow. These
business rules will be used to meet ERA build requirements, and work in
support of the ERA Require­ments Management Plan will continue into FY
2006. The achievement of the "to-be" model will take several years and
will require the maturation of NARA's enterprise architecture.

In FY 2005 the two competing ERA vendors, as part of the Systems
Analysis and Design Phase, demonstrated their prototypes of the ERA
system. These successful prototype demonstrations ensure that NARA will
have a conceptual model to use for actual system implementation upon
conclusion of this phase of development.

A 2004 survey we conducted established a baseline measurement of Federal
agencies' level of satisfaction with NARA's scheduling and appraisal
services. Over the long term, repeated surveys will demonstrate
improvement in customer satisfaction with NARA's redesigned scheduling
and appraisal services. We conducted our initial survey in late FY 2004,
then spent much of the past year analyzing and reporting the results of
the survey. In response to the results of the survey, we reaffirmed our
efforts to improve the timeliness of records schedule approvals and the
utility of our scheduling guidance and announced that we will begin
monthly schedules status reports to agencies to keep them informed about
the progress of their records schedules throughout the approval process.

+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ##### Performance Data              | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
|                                     | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
|                                     | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 |
|                                     | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+=====================================+====+====+====+====+====+====+
| *Performance target for median time | -  | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  |
| for records schedule items          | -- | 26 | 24 | 22 | 22 | 20 |
| completed (in calendar days)*       |    | 0* | 0* | 5* | 0* | 0* |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Median time for records schedule    | 2  | 2  | 4  | 1  | 2  | 3  |
| items completed (in calendar days)  | 83 | 37 | 70 | 55 | 53 | 72 |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Average age of schedule items at    | 4  | 4  | 5  | 2  | 3  | 3  |
| completion (in calendar days)       | 61 | 10 | 32 | 74 | 32 | 39 |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Number of schedule items completed  | 5  | 4  | 9  | 4  | 3  | 4  |
|                                     | ,6 | ,7 | ,3 | ,6 | ,1 | ,2 |
|                                     | 64 | 28 | 74 | 86 | 82 | 60 |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Cost per records schedule item      | -  | -  | -  | -  | -  | \  |
| completed                           | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | $2 |
|                                     |    |    |    |    |    | 56 |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Number of records schedule items    | 1  | 6  | 1  | 1  | 5  | 6  |
| completed within 120 calendar days  | ,2 | 59 | ,9 | ,5 | 07 | 81 |
| of submission to NARA               | 29 |    | 99 | 73 |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Percent of records schedule items   | 22 | 14 | 21 | 34 | 16 | 15 |
| completed within 120 calendar days  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| of submission to NARA               |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Percent of Federal agencies that    | -  | -  | -  | -  | 57 | -  |
| are satisfied with NARA scheduling  | -- | -- | -- | -- |    | -- |
| and appraisal services              |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We have set our FY 2006 target for
closing out records schedules at a median time of 180 calendar days or
less. This target reflects that only gradual change is possible now.
However, with the implementation of new processes that we are addressing
through the Lifecycle Business Process Reengineering and the deployment
of the Electronic Records Archives, major improvements will be possible
in the future.

We will repeat our customer survey in FY 2006 to measure the impact of
our efforts to improve agencies' level of satisfaction with our
scheduling and appraisal services.

## Strategic Goal 2: Electronic Records {#strategic-goal-2-electronic-records .AR-2004-Head-2}

### Electronic records are controlled, preserved, and made accessible as long as needed. {#electronic-records-are-controlled-preserved-and-made-accessible-as-long-as-needed. .AR-2004-Head-3}

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| ###### Long-Range           | 2.1. By 2008, NARA's Federal Records   |
|                             | Center Program accepts and services    |
| ###### Performance Targets  | electronic records.                    |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 2.2. By 2008, 80 percent of scheduled  |
|                             | archival electronic records are        |
|                             | accessioned by NARA at the scheduled   |
|                             | time.                                  |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 2.3. By 2008, 80 percent of archival   |
|                             | electronic records are managed at the  |
|                             | appropriate level of service.          |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 2.4. By 2008, the median time from the |
|                             | transfer of archival electronic        |
|                             | records to NARA until they are         |
|                             | available for access is 35 days or     |
|                             | less.                                  |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 2.5. By 2008, the per megabyte cost of |
|                             | managing archival electronic records   |
|                             | through the Electronic Records         |
|                             | Archives decreases each year.          |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+

**FY 2005 Resources Available to Meet This Goal:** \$53,196,000; 86 FTE

**[[2.1 Servicing Electronic Records in NARA Records
Centers]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Enhance remote servicing capability    |
|                         | * | for elec­tronic Official Military       |
|                         |  | Personnel Files for the Army.          |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Establish detailed requirements for    |
|                         | * | the eventual migration of electronic   |
|                         |  | Official Military Person­nel Files to   |
|                         | * | the Electronic Records Archives (ERA)  |
|                         | * | system.                                |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Develop Record Center Program business |
|                         | * | model for electronic records.          |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete pilot program to store backup |
|                         | * | and inactive copies of agency          |
|                         |  | electronic media in selected records   |
|                         | * | center locations.                      |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete a pilot assessment for        |
|                         | * | converting agency records into digital |
|                         |  | formats on electronic record media.    |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Develop concept of operations and      |
|                         | * | functional requirements for a Records  |
|                         |  | Center Program Operations System.      |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Award contract for building a Records  |
|                         | * | Center Program Operations System.      |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We established detailed requirements   |
|                         |   | for the eventual migration of          |
|                         |   | electronic Official Military Personnel |
|                         |   | Files to ERA.                          |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We developed a business model for      |
|                         |   | electronic records for the Federal     |
|                         |   | Records Center Program.                |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We developed a concept of operations   |
|                         |   | and draft functional requirements for  |
|                         |   | a Records Center Program Operations    |
|                         |   | System.                                |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* Since the beginning of FY 2000, NARA's Federal Records
Center Program (FRCP) has been fully reimbursable, which allows us to be
more flexible in responding to agency records needs and requires us to
meet those needs in a cost-effective and efficient way. Our ability to
provide our records center customers with responsive services for
electronic records is closely tied to our Electronic Records Archives
program. Until ERA is ready and can provide online servicing, we will
test the delivery of new offline services for electronic records, and we
have developed a five-year action plan to pilot new services.

In cooperation with the Department of Defense Joint Requirements and
Integration Office (JR&IO), we visited electronic OMPF operational sites
of the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) of the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier
this year JR&IO staff briefed members of our staff on the Defense
Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS). The military
departments and the USCG completed OMPF load surveys, describing system
functions, volumes, and migration time lines. We also obtained test and
sample data from the system owners. As a result of these data
collections and our interactions with the military departments and USCG,
we produced detailed requirements for the eventual migration of
electronic OMPFs.

In late FY 2004 we selected a contractor to conduct an industry market
analysis and help a NARA team develop a competitive strategy for our
FRCP to enter the electronic records services market. We hosted a
customer focus group to validate customer wants and needs. We accepted
the final draft of the business model and have begun the process to
identify and analyze next steps for implementing the business plan's
recommendations. We also evaluated the possibilities and advantages of
the FRCP providing electronic records services to Federal agencies,
including collaboration opportunities between the FRCP and other NARA
lines of business.

We validated design, construction, and environmental requirements for
facilities to receive and store physical media for temporary electronic
records and are incorporating these requirements into our pilot
assessments of the storage of electronic media. The pilot in the Central
Plains Region, Kansas City, MO, began on schedule. We finalized initial
procedures for the transfer and receipt of electronic storage media and
will test these procedures over the course of this pilot. Our pilot at
the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, MD, is behind
schedule in part because of the prior need to develop electronic media
storage requirements and because we needed to ensure the financial
stability of the FRCP before making a commitment of additional
resources. We are now proceeding with the design work and site
assessment for the Suitland location and are on track to implement this
pilot in FY 2006.

We began two separate pilots to establish a basic capability to provide
scanning and digital conversion services for Federal agencies. One, the
Production Scanning pilot, is in a testing phase while the other pilot,
SmartScan, a "scan-on-demand" service, has already moved from testing to
a fee-for-service activity. We have received the preliminary pilot
findings for the SmartScan pilot and we are reviewing and analyzing
these findings.

Our Records Center Program Operations System (RCPOS) will be the major
information resource to manage the FRCP and will help us work more
effectively with our customers. We will use RCPOS to manage our records
center holdings and track customer service transactions on those
holdings. Our development of RCPOS is running slightly behind the
aggressive schedule we set for this system. We have worked through most
of the initial steps for development of RCPOS, but the need to revise
some of the design docu­ments led us to delay finalizing subsequent
documents needed for system design. We were also unable to award the
contract to build RCPOS this fiscal year.

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We will use our business model for
the FRCP for electronic records services to deliver cost-effective,
valuable services to our agency customers. The knowledge and experience
from our pilots will be used to refine our services and prices for next
year.

We will award a contract to a certified document imaging architect
(CDIA) to gather and analyze findings from the two document conversion
pilots. The contractor will incor­porate potential and emerging
conversion requirements for NARA's customers and explore production
scanning as a potential service and conversion component of ERA. We will
use the final pilot findings from both the Production Scan and SmartScan
pilots, in conjunction with the CDIA contract deliverables, to establish
a menu of scanning and digital conversion options and associated fees.

We will complete our requirements and our analysis of alternatives and
award the contract to build RCPOS in early FY 2006.

**[[2.2 Accessioning Electronic Records]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------
  **FY 2005 Objectives**     ****   Establish business rules and priorities
                                     for putting legacy records control
                                     schedules into an ERA repository, and
                                     develop a plan for doing the work.

                                     

                             ****   Pre-accession two transfers of
                                     electronic records.

                                     

                             ****   Continue to identify and schedule
                                     Federal agency systems that generate
                                     electronic records.

                                     

  **Results**                       We analyzed alternative approaches to
                                     put legacy records control schedules
                                     into an ERA repository.

                                     

                                    We identified 245 electronic systems
                                     that generate electronic records that
                                     have not been scheduled.

                                     

                                    We discussed pre-accessioning with six
                                     agencies.
  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------

*Discussion* We used our Resource Allocation methodology and the OMB BRM
to target our assistance to Federal agencies. Last year we completed,
based on the OMB BRM, an analysis of business processes, subfunctions,
and agency activities across the Govern­ment, based on the OMB BRM, that
are the most significant to protect legal rights, docu­ment government
accountability, and preserve records that document the national
exper­i­ence. Using these criteria, we identified 13 business lines and 23
business sub­functions where we perceived the records to be at highest
risk. We used this analysis to target our records management assistance
to helping agencies with those subfunctions schedule their criti­cal
electronic records systems. We identified 245 electronic records systems
this year and have developed schedules for 80 of these systems.

We discussed pre-accessioning electronic records with six agencies this
year While we have approved a schedule that calls for the near-term
physical transfer of electronic records, we have not yet been able to
initiate the transfer with the agency. We expect that more agencies will
consider pre-accessioning once we can point to concrete examples
demonstrating the advantages of this initiative.

We investigated several alternative approaches to putting legacy records
control sched­ules into an ERA repository. Due to the scope and
complexity of the work, we have postponed developing a plan for doing
the work until next year.

+-----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data                  | ## | ## | ## | #   | #   |
|                                         | ## | ## | ## | ### | ### |
|                                         | #  | #  | #  | # 2 | # 2 |
|                                         | 20 | 20 | 20 | 004 | 005 |
|                                         | 01 | 02 | 03 |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Number of electronic records            | \  | -  | -  | 100 | 29, |
| accessioned in one of the new transfer  | -- | -- | -- |     | 840 |
| formats (in logical data records)       |    |    |    |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Size of accessioning backlog (in        | \  | -  | -  | 529 | 369 |
| millions of logical data records)       | -- | -- | -- |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Number of electronic records            | 2  | 7  | 68 | 43  | --- |
| transferred (in thousands of files)\*   | .1 | .8 | .3 | 2.9 |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Number of electronic records            | \  | \  | \  | 53  | 8   |
| transferred (in millions of logical     | -- | -- | -- | 3.6 | 5.3 |
| data records)                           |    |    |    |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| *\* Figures represent the number of     |    |    |    |     |     |
| files transferred to NARA. The number   |    |    |    |     |     |
| of electronic records transferred, in   |    |    |    |     |     |
| logical data records, which is the      |    |    |    |     |     |
| preferred unit of measure, was not      |    |    |    |     |     |
| available until the Accession           |    |    |    |     |     |
| Management Information System upgrade   |    |    |    |     |     |
| was completed in 2004.*                 |    |    |    |     |     |
+-----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We will continue to survey
agencies to identify unscheduled electronic systems and, using our
resource allocation model, will work with agencies to get those systems
under approved records schedules. We do not anticipate that we will be
able to address completely our significant backlog of archival
electronic records until ERA is available. Until then, we will make
workflow improvements and minor enhancements to our system capabilities
in an attempt to keep up.

**[[2.3 Managing Electronic Records]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Establish criteria for levels of       |
|                         | * | service for archival electronic        |
|                         |  | records.                               |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Identify and respond to results of     |
|                         | * | online survey to improve customer      |
|                         |  | usability of Access to Archival        |
|                         | * | Databases (AAD) system.                |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Add State Department cables and        |
|                         | * | digital photo­graphs to AAD.            |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Improve AAD's customer satisfaction    |
|                         | * | score to 65 on customer survey tool.   |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | * | Increase archival electronic holdings  |
|                         | * | that are accessible online by 20       |
|                         |  | percent over prior year.               |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | * | Collect and preserve snapshots of      |
|                         | * | Federal Government web sites at the    |
|                         |  | end of the first Bush Presidential     |
|                         | * | term.                                  |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We established criteria for levels of  |
|                         |   | service for electronic records in our  |
|                         |   | holdings.                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| ####### []{.mark}       |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #                       |  | We added digital photographs to AAD    |
| ###### "The data files  |   | from the Federal Emergency Management  |
| you have put online are |   | Administration (FEMA).                 |
|  absolutely fantastic." |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *"I just found          |  | We increased our archival electronic   |
| information about my    |   | holdings that are accessible online by |
| being a POW in WWII.    |   | 20 percent.                            |
| Thanks."*               |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   | []{.mark}                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               |  | We completed the harvest of Federal    |
|                         |   | Govern­ment web sites at the end of the |
|                         |   | first Bush Presidential term.          |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* In FY 2004 we learned from an online survey of customer
satisfaction and from independent experts that we needed to make
significant revisions to the AAD user interface. We contracted with a
web designer to help us implement many of the recom­mendations that came
out of the reports. We completed a significant amount of the re­design
and testing of the new site, but software issues prevented us from
launching the redesigned AAD in FY 2005. We have resolved the software
issues and will launch the redesigned AAD in the first quarter of FY
2006.

Among the more than 14 million logical data records added to AAD this
year are digital photographs from FEMA. We had planned to add a
collection of State Department cables, but we decided to wait until the
redesigned AAD is rolled out. The redesigned site will offer enhanced
searching capability that will enhance access to these cables.

To document the presence of Federal agencies on the Internet at the time
the Presidential administration ended in January 2005, we took
"snapshots" of Federal Government web sites. We have activated
[*W**ebharvest.gov***](http://www.webharvest.gov/), the new web site for
Federal Agency public web sites "harvested" as they existed prior to
January 20, 2005. Through this site we provide ongoing public access to
these copied web sites and will help future researchers understand how
today's Federal Government used the Internet to provide services and
share information with the public.

We prepared criteria for levels of service for electronic records in our
holdings. These levels of service will ensure that we establish
appropriate preservation and access plans for incoming electronic
records based on the content, expected reference activities, and
technical characteristics of those records. By having varying levels of
service, we will ensure that we provide appropriate service for all
electronic records in a cost-effective manner.

+---------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data                      | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                             | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                             | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+=============================================+=====+=====+=====+=====+
| *Performance target for percent increase in | *-  | *-  | *   | *   |
| number of archival electronic holdings      | --* | --* | 50* | 20* |
| accessible online*                          |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent increase in number of archival      | --- | --- | 51  | 20  |
| electronic holdings accessible online       |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of archival electronic holdings      | 0   | 47  | 71  | 86  |
| accessible online (cumulative logical data  |     |     |     |     |
| records in millions)                        |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of archival electronic holdings      | 3,  | 4,  | 5,  | 8,  |
| (cumulative logical data records in         | 714 | 743 | 629 | 108 |
| millions)                                   |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of electronic records available     | 0   | 1   | 1.4 | 1.1 |
| online                                      |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of online visits to AAD (in          | --- | 489 | 551 | 526 |
| thousands of visits)                        |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We will continue to add electronic
holdings to AAD, and we will use the online customer satisfaction survey
tool to evaluate the effectiveness of the redesigned AAD.

**[[2.4 Processing Electronic Records]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Process transfers of archival          |
|                         | * | electronic records within a median     |
|                         |  | time of 250 calendar days or less.     |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We processed archival electronic       |
|                         |   | records trans­fers within a median time |
|                         |   | of 413 calendar days.                  |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* Our processing time improved from last year due to the
deployment of an upgraded Accession Management Information System, which
supports the overall accessioning process. We further improved our
processing time through the implemen­tation of a device that can provide
unattended evaluation of 20 digital linear tapes (DLTs) at a time. We
also completed a technical study to develop efficient network design for
scaling our current systems and identified the various software products
needed to validate the conformance of new format types acceptable to
NARA. Several small hardware and software procurements will assist us in
extending the use of our existing systems until deployment of ERA.

+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data                | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                       | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                       | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for median time   | *-  | *-  | *-  | *2  | *2  |
| to make archival electronic           | --* | --* | --* | 50* | 50* |
| accessions available for access (in   |     |     |     |     |     |
| calendar days)*                       |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Median time (in calendar days) for    | --- | --- | 450 | 736 | 413 |
| processing electronic records         |     |     |     |     |     |
| accessions from the time of transfer  |     |     |     |     |     |
| to NARA                               |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of electronic records          | 2.1 | 6.8 | 6   | 43  | --- |
| transferred (in thousands of files)\* |     |     | 8.3 | 2.9 |     |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of electronic records          | --- | --- | --- | 534 | 8   |
| transferred (in millions of logical   |     |     |     |     | 5.3 |
| data records)                         |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cost per electronic record            | --- | --- | --- | \$0 | \$0 |
| transferred                           |     |     |     | .01 | .07 |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *\* Figures represent the number of   |     |     |     |     |     |
| files transferred to NARA. The number |     |     |     |     |     |
| of electronic records transferred, in |     |     |     |     |     |
| logical data records, which is the    |     |     |     |     |     |
| preferred unit of measure, was not    |     |     |     |     |     |
| available until the Accession         |     |     |     |     |     |
| Management Information System upgrade |     |     |     |     |     |
| was completed in 2004.*               |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We are working to implement the
recommen­dations of a technical study to extend our network capacity,
improve our Archival Preservation System (APS) software, and improve the
mechanisms for electronic file transfer modes. Despite these steps, we
expect significant challenges to our ability to keep up with the volume
of archival electronic records transferred to NARA in the near future.

**[[2.5 Cost of Electronic Records
Preservation]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Review system requirements with        |
|                         | * | competing vendors.                     |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Conduct System Design Review with      |
|                         | * | competing vendors.                     |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete Systems Design and Analysis   |
|                         | * | phase.                                 |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Select development contractor for the  |
|                         | * | ERA system.                            |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               | * | Complete ERA Domain Model.             |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We conducted System Requirements       |
|                         |   | Reviews and System Design Reviews for  |
|                         |   | the competing vendors.                 |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We have selected Lockheed Martin to    |
|                         |   | develop the ERA system.                |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* Through the Electronic Records Archives (ERA), we are
addressing the challenges that the Federal Government faces in
economically and effectively managing, preserving, and making available
its electronic records at any time, and in any place, for as long as
needed. Throughout FY 2005 we held a design competition to determine who
will build ERA. We met frequently with the two competing vendors to
exchange tech­nical information and provide subject matter expertise. We
responded in a timely fashion to their questions to facilitate their
requirements-gathering and refinement. We produced a final Interface
Requirements Document to assist the vendors with interface require­ments,
identified and analyzed Review Item Discrepancies for each contractor's
System Requirements Specification (SyRS) and System Architecture and
Design Document submissions, and conducted Systems Requirements Reviews
for both contractors. We also analyzed the final SyRS to complete the
requirements review for the Systems Analysis and Design phase of the
design competition.

System Design Reviews for both contractors occurred in May. Our source
selection evaluation teams (cost, technical, and management) prepared
final contractor evaluation reports, and we awarded the development
contract in September. Throughout the down-select process, we ensured
there were comprehensive evaluations, fair competition, and an
evaluation process with adequate rationale and justification.

To further assist us, we formed a high-level committee of recognized
experts and leaders in their fields to advise and make recommendations
to NARA on issues related to the develop­ment, implementation, and use of
the ERA system. This Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records
Archives will provide an ongoing structure for bringing together experts
in computer science and information technology, archival science and
records management, information science, law, history, genealogy, and
education.

We continued our collaborative research efforts into issues related to
the lifecycle man­agement of electronic records that are beyond
state-of-the-art information technology or state-of-the-science
computer, information, or archival sciences. Our research and
explora­tory development activities were aligned with the work of the
Subcommittee on Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development program and the President's Management Council's vision of
Government-wide electronic records management in support of
e-Government. Specific direction to agencies encouraged research to
enable preservation and utility of electronic information archives and
creation of digital archives of core knowledge for research and
learning, as well as being able to produce, collect, store, communicate,
and share high amounts of electronic information. We continued to rely
to a large extent on established R&D management capabilities in partner
agencies.

We substantially completed the ERA Domain Model. This model will help
our con­trac­tors better understand our requirements and ensure that the
elements of ERA (the system architectures, designs, and workflows)
remain consistent over the course of system devel­opment.

Overall, the number of logical data records in NARA custody increased by
44 percent over last year, an increase of more than 2 billion logical
data records. It is important to recognize that all our performance
today represents is the ability to take custody and copy these
electronic records for preservation. The ability to preserve these
records in a persistent format over time and to make these records
readily accessible to the public is being addressed within the scope of
the ERA program.

The cost per megabyte to manage our archival electronic holdings fell
dramatically this year to \$0.72 per megabyte from last year's figure of
\$4.77. This drop is the result of the large increase in the electronic
holdings we have stabilized. The annual cost is divided by the
cumulative total of electronic holdings, and as we have seen a dramatic
increase in the electronic holdings we have stabilized (more than 2.4
billion logical data records in the past year alone) the cost per
megabyte has dropped accordingly.

+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| ##### Performance Data                    | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
|                                           | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
|                                           | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 |
|                                           | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+===========================================+====+====+====+====+====+
| *Performance target of percent of NARA's  | *4 | *6 | *6 | *9 | *8 |
| electronic holdings stabilized in         | 0* | 0* | 5* | 9* | 0* |
| preparation for their transfer to the     |    |    |    |    |    |
| Electronic Records Archives*              |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| Percent of NARA's electronic holdings are | 97 | 98 | 97 | 93 | 99 |
| stabilized in preparation for their       |    |    |    |    | .7 |
| transfer to the Electronic Records        |    |    |    |    |    |
| Archives                                  |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| Number of logical data records in NARA's  | 2  | 3  | 4  | 5  | 8  |
| custody (in millions)                     | ,3 | ,7 | ,7 | ,6 | ,1 |
|                                           | 45 | 14 | 25 | 29 | 08 |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| Number of logical data records stabilized | 2  | 3  | 4  | 5  | 8  |
| (in millions)                             | ,2 | ,6 | ,5 | ,2 | ,0 |
|                                           | 72 | 42 | 94 | 52 | 84 |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| Percent of Presidential logical data      | 99 | 49 | 49 | 62 | 90 |
| records managed and stabilized            |    |    |    |    |    |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| Number of Presidential logical data       | 2  | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| records (in millions)                     | .2 | .3 | .3 | .3 | .3 |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| Number of Presidential logical data       | 2  | 17 | 17 | 22 | 31 |
| records stabilized (in millions)          | .2 | .3 | .3 | .1 | .7 |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+
| Per megabyte cost for stabilizing         | -  | -  | \$ | \$ | \$ |
| archival electronic records               | -- | -- | 4. | 4. | 0. |
|                                           |    |    | 50 | 77 | 72 |
+-------------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* Our challenge in FY 2006 is to
effectively oversee the performance of the contractor working to develop
the ERA system.

## Strategic Goal 3: Access {#strategic-goal-3-access .AR-2004-Head-2}

### Essential evidence is easy to access regardless of where it is or where users are for as long as needed. {#essential-evidence-is-easy-to-access-regardless-of-where-it-is-or-where-users-are-for-as-long-as-needed. .AR-2004-Head-3}

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| **Long-Range**              | 3.1. By 2007, access to records and    |
|                             | services and customer satisfaction     |
| **Performance Targets**     | levels meet or exceed NARA's published |
|                             | standards.                             |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 3.2. By 2007, 70 percent of NARA       |
|                             | services are available online.         |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 3.3. By 2008, 80 percent of NARA       |
|                             | archival holdings are described in an  |
|                             | online catalog.                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 3.4. By 2007, Government-wide holdings |
|                             | of 25-year-old or older records are    |
|                             | declassified, properly exempted, or    |
|                             | appropriately referred under the       |
|                             | provisions of Executive Order 12958,   |
|                             | as amended, through a series of        |
|                             | ISOO-led interagency efforts.          |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 3.5. By 2007, NARA archival holdings   |
|                             | of 25-year-old or older records are    |
|                             | declassified, properly exempted, or    |
|                             | appropriately referred under the       |
|                             | provisions of Executive Order 12958,   |
|                             | as amended.                            |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 3.6. By 2007, 10 percent of records of |
|                             | a two-term President or 15 percent of  |
|                             | records for a one-term President are   |
|                             | open and available for research at the |
|                             | end of the five-year post-Presidential |
|                             | period specified in the Presidential   |
|                             | Records Act.                           |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 3.7. By 2007, 90 percent of all        |
|                             | NHPRC-assisted projects produce        |
|                             | results promised in grant applications |
|                             | approved by the Commission.            |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+

**FY 2005 Resources Available to Meet This Goal:** \$146,139,000; 2,344
FTE

**[[3.1 Customer Service]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------
  **FY 2005 Objectives**             We met or exceeded NARA\'s published
                                     stan­dards for access to records and
                                     services, as noted below:

                             ****   95 percent of written requests are
                                     answered within 10 working days;

                             ****   90 percent of Freedom of Information Act
                                     (FOIA) requests are completed within 20
                                     working days;

                             ****   95 percent of requests for military
                                     service separation records at the
                                     National Personnel Records Center in St.
                                     Louis are answered within 10 working
                                     days;

                             ****   95 percent of items requested in our
                                     research rooms are furnished within one
                                     hour of request or of scheduled pull
                                     time;

                             ****   99 percent of customers with
                                     appointments have records waiting at the
                                     appointed time;

                             ****   95 percent of Federal agency records
                                     reference requests in Federal records
                                     centers are ready when promised to the
                                     customer;

                             ****   99 percent of records center shipments
                                     to Federal agencies are the records they
                                     requested;

                             ****   80 percent of archival fixed-fee
                                     reproduction orders through the Order
                                     Fulfillment and Accounting System (OFAS)
                                     are completed in 35 working days or
                                     less;

                             ****   95 percent of education programs,
                                     workshops, and training courses meet
                                     attendees' expectations.

                                     

                                     

  **Results**                       We answered 96 percent of written
                                     requests within 10 working days.

                                     

  *"You have proven that            We completed 80 percent of all FOIA
  outstanding customer               requests for Federal records within 20
  service is not a lost art          working days.
  at NARA."*                         

  *"Thanks to your                  We answered 88 percent of military
  conscientious employees            service separation records requests
  for their professionalism          within 10 working days.
  in handling inquiries for          
  our veterans*                      

  *and their dependents."*           

  *"The information that            We furnished 98 percent of requested
  your reference archivists          items within one hour of request or of
  have led me to has been            scheduled pull time.
  of*                                

  *key importance in my              
  research."*                        

                                    We furnished records at the appointed
                                     time for 99 percent of customers with
                                     appointments.

  *"Every request I have             
  ever sent has*                     

  *been met expeditiously,          We had ready 97 percent of Federal
  and with more courtesy             agency reference requests when promised
  than one might expect              to the customer.
  these days."*                      
  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *"Each year new issues  |  | Of the records we shipped to Federal   |
| take priority, but your |   | agencies, 99.99 percent were the       |
| staff always rises to\  |   | records agencies requested.            |
| the occasion."*\        |   |                                        |
| *---Member of Congress* |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| ########                |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We completed 98 percent of our         |
|                         |   | archival fixed-fee reproduction orders |
|                         |   | through OFAS in 35 days or less.       |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *"Every speaker, every  |   |                                        |
| tour, every*            |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *handout, every other   |  | Our users rated 99 percent of our      |
| attendee made my        |   | public education programs and          |
| learning experience     |   | workshops as meeting their             |
| very challenging and    |   | expectations.                          |
| satisfying."*           |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* Once again we met or exceeded almost all of our customer
service targets. Our customers received answers to their requests for
military service separation records within 10 days 88 percent of the
time, a significant increase from last year's figure of 75 percent but
below our goal for FY 2005. We continue to improve our performance and
expect to reach our target of 95 percent in FY 2006.

While the timeliness of our responses to Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests improved over last year, we failed to meet our target
for completing 90 percent of FOIA requests for Federal records within 20
working days. A combination of factors has remained consistent over the
past several years in contributing to this. FOIA requests for military
records take considerably longer than the 20-day standard if the
requests are for records that were lost in the 1973 fire at the National
Personnel Records Center and the data must be reconstructed from other
sources, or if the records have been borrowed by another agency. Also,
the extent of time to respond to a FOIA can be lengthy if the records
must be referred to another agency for declassification review before
releasing the information, or if the records requested are particularly
voluminous. Overall, the average age of completed FOIAs declined to 18
working days in FY 2005, a significant improvement from last year.

We keep our target for FOIA response to Federal records high because we
believe we should aspire to the highest level of customer service
whenever possible. And, for the majority of requests, we are able to
meet or exceed our target. Sixty-seven percent of the more than 8,700
FOIAs for Federal records we completed were done in 10 days or less,
half the time required by law.

We continued to make steady progress in a multiyear project to microfilm
the records of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands
(Freedmen's Bureau) from the Reconstruction era, which contain a great
deal of information about the African Amer­i­can family experience across
15 states and the District of Columbia. The information is difficult to
extract, the records are fragile, and have only been available in one
NARA location. To date, we have distributed the microfilm of these
records to our regional archives and microfilm rental program for 12
states (Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland,
Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and South
Carolina) and the District of Columbia, and we are on schedule to
complete the project within the five-year time frame. And, with the help
of a grant from the Peck Stacpoole Foundation and a partnership with
Howard University's Computer Science Department, we have launched an
indexing project to provide online access to Headquarters Marriage
Certificate files, some of the most popular files in this series for
genealogists.

+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data         | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                | 0** | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+================================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
| *Performance target for        | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| written requests answered      | 80* | 80* | 85* | 85* | 90* | 95* |
| within 10 working days*        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of written requests    | 92  | 93  | 93  | 94  | 95  | 96  |
| answered within 10 working     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| days                           |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| Freedom of Infor­mation Act     | 80* | 80* | 85* | 85* | 85* | 90* |
| requests completed within 20   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| working days*                  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of Freedom of          | 27  | 27  | 76  | 61  | 65  | 80  |
| Information Act requests for   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| Federal records completed      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| within 20 working days         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of FOIAs processed      | 8,  | 7,  | 8,  | 4,  | 5,  | 8,  |
|                                | 751 | 634 | 824 | 830 | 224 | 881 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual cost to process FOIAs   | --- | --- | \$1 | \$1 | \$1 | \$1 |
| (in millions)                  |     |     | .54 | .35 | .43 | .74 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual per FOIA cost           | --- | --- | \$  | \$  | \$  | \$  |
|                                |     |     | 175 | 265 | 273 | 196 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *-  | *-  | *-  | *-  | *   | *   |
| requests for mili­tary service  | --* | --* | --* | --* | 70* | 95* |
| separation records at the      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| National Personnel Records     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| Center (NPRC) in St. Louis     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| answered within 10 working     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| days*                          |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of requests for        | --- | 7   | 40  | 37  | 75  | 88  |
| military service separation    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| records at NPRC answered       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| within 10 working days         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of military service     | --- | 297 | 361 | 390 | 372 | 350 |
| separation records (DD-214)    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| requests received (in          |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| thousands)                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Average price per request for  | --- | --- | --- | \   | \   | \   |
| military service separation    |     |     |     | $29 | $29 | $29 |
| records                        |     |     |     | .70 | .70 | .70 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *-  | *   | *   | *   | *-  | *-  |
| requests for all military      | --* | 25* | 30* | 35* | --* | --* |
| service records at NPRC        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| answered within 10 working     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| days*                          |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of requests for all    | 3   | 4   | 28  | 28  | 48  | 52  |
| military service records at    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| NPRC answered within 10        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| working days                   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for items  | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| requested in our research      | 95* | 95* | 95* | 95* | 95* | 95* |
| rooms furnished within one     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| hour of request or scheduled   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| pull time*                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of items requested in  | 89  | 93  | 94  | 96  | 98  | 98  |
| our research rooms furnished   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| within one hour of request or  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| scheduled pull time            |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of researchers visiting | --- | --- | 24  | 20  | 16  | 16  |
| our research rooms (in         |     |     | 8.7 | 4.5 | 8.8 | 5.6 |
| thousands)                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of items furnished in   | 918 | 1,  | 613 | 607 | 696 | 537 |
| our research rooms (in         |     | 056 |     |     |     |     |
| thousands)                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of items furnished on   | 818 | 985 | 578 | 584 | 866 | 527 |
| time in our research rooms (in |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| thousands)                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| customers with appointments    | 99* | 99* | 99* | 99* | 99* | 99* |
| for whom records are waiting   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| at the appointed time*         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of customers with      | 9   | 9   | 9   | 9   | 9   | 9   |
| appoint­ments for whom records  | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.3 | 9.4 |
| are waiting at the appointed   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| time                           |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| Federal agency refer­ence       | 90* | 90* | 90* | 90* | 90* | 95* |
| requests in Federal records    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| centers that are ready when    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| promised to the customer*      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of Federal agency      | 79  | 93  | 92  | 94  | 96  | 97  |
| reference re­quests in Federal  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| records centers that are ready |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| when promised to the customer  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *-  | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| records center shipments to    | --* | 99* | 99* | 99* | 99* | 99* |
| Federal agencies are the       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| records they requested*        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of records center      | --- | 99  | 99  | 99  | 99  | 99  |
| shipments to Federal agencies  |     | .99 | .99 | .99 | .99 | .99 |
| are the records they requested |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *-  | *-  | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| archival fixed-fee             | --* | --* | 50* | 60* | 75* | 80* |
| reproduction orders through    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| OFAS are completed in 35       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| working days or less*          |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of archival fixed-fee  | --- | --- | 88  | 99  | 9   | 9   |
| repro­duction orders through    |     |     |     |     | 9.9 | 7.2 |
| OFAS are comple­ted in 35       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| working days or less           |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Average per order cost to      | --- | --- | --- | \   | \   | \   |
| operate fixed-fee ordering     |     |     |     | $26 | $29 | $27 |
|                                |     |     |     | .34 | .35 | .31 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Average order completion time  | --- | --- | 20  | 14  | 9   | 12  |
| (days)                         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| percent of education programs, | 90* | 90* | 95* | 95* | 95* | 95* |
| workshops, and training        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| courses meeting attendees'     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| expectations*                  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of education programs, | 95  | 97  | 96  | 95  | 99  | 99  |
| workshops, and training        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| courses meeting attendees'     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| expectations                   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of program attendees    | 6,  | 6,  | 8,  | 7,  | 8,  | 9,  |
|                                | 971 | 291 | 447 | 601 | 125 | 248 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* For customer service targets that
we currently meet, we expect to continue that trend and have increased
our targets for several. For those that we have not met, we expect to
see steady improvements in FY 2006.

**[[3.2 Online Services]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Ensure 50 percent of NARA services are |
|                         | * | available online.                      |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Align our online acquisition           |
|                         | * | capabilities with the Integrated       |
|                         |  | Acquisition Environment e-Government   |
|                         | * | Initiative.                            |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We made 50 percent of our services     |
|                         |   | available online.                      |
| *"The \[redesigned      |   |                                        |
| Archives.gov\] site is  |   |                                        |
| beautiful and rich in   |   |                                        |
| content."*              |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *"In the past month     |  | We expanded *Order Online!* to allow   |
| I've ordered six        |   | Internet users to search for and order |
| pension application and |   | copies of microform products.          |
| land entry files and    |   |                                        |
| received them all       |   |                                        |
| within two weeks. I was |   |                                        |
| amazed!"*               |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Disc*ussion We expanded the functional capability of *Order Online!* to
allow customers to perform online searches for microfilm available for
purchase, viewing, or renting and to order microform products. As a sign
that our online ordering capability is meeting the needs of our
customers, more than 50 percent of the fixed-fee orders we receive are
online orders. The application has been available to users 97 percent of
the time, and more than 32,000 users have accessed the site this year.

We continue to collect public feedback about *Archives.gov* and our
other web sites through our American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
online surveys of our sites and major application interfaces such as our
Archival Research Catalog (ARC) and Access to Archival Databases (AAD)
systems. The results of these surveys helped guide the design of our web
site, *Archives.gov,* to make it more helpful to our customers. In FY
2005 we redesigned *Archives.gov* to improve navigation of the site, a
need indicated by our web customer satisfaction survey results. In
recognition of our efforts we won "Best Practices, Best Web Design in
2005," a peer award voted by Federal web managers throughout Government
service.

Also in FY 2005 we launched web features about "The Declaration of
Independence: Our National Treasure" and the Electoral College. Both
features are designed to educate the public about archives and NARA's
services. The Electoral College feature, launched in October 2004,
addressed interest in the 2004 Presidential election, while the
"National Treasure" materials encouraged further interest from visitors
intrigued by the concepts of hidden messages and exploration of records
as presented in the motion picture *National Treasure.* We published
online the 9/11 Commission's recently released "Staff Monograph on the
Four Flights and Civil Aviation Security" as an adjunct to the frozen
public access version of the Commission's web site, which is now a
Federal record managed by NARA. We also provided online digital copies
of documents from our holdings relating to Supreme Court nominee John
Roberts. The timely publication of these documents online ensured the
widest possible public access to these materials.

+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data         | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                | 0** | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Online visits to NARA's web    | 10, | 16, | 19, | 30, | 30, | 21, |
| sites (in thousands)\*         | 096 | 106 | 538 | 943 | 428 | 377 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cost to provide NARA services  | --- | --- | --- | \$0 | \$0 | \$0 |
| online per visit               |     |     |     | .16 | .13 | .17 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for        | *-  | *-  | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| percent of NARA services       | --* | --* | 20* | 30* | 40* | 50* |
| available online*              |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of NARA services       | --- | 24  | 25  | 30  | 40  | 50  |
| available online               |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of NARA services online | --- | 29  | 30  | 36  | 48  | 59  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *\*At the start of the year we |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| upgraded the tool (WebTrends)  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| we use to collect our online   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| visit statistics. The new      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| version of this product does   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| not count agents that index    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| our site constantly (agents    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| from search engines, for       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| instance). As a result, while  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| our overall online visit count |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| is lower this year, we have a  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| total that better reflects the |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| number of actual visits to our |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| sites.*                        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We are working on online services
to be deployed in FY 2006 to ensure that we will meet our target of 60
percent of our online services online. By the end of FY 2006, customers
will be able to submit an online request for copies of documents from
bankruptcy, civil, criminal, and Court of Appeals case files.

**[[3.3 Online Catalog]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Describe 40 percent of NARA            |
|                         | * | traditional holdings in the Archival   |
|                         |  | Research Catalog.                      |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Describe 40 percent of NARA artifact   |
|                         | * | holdings in the Archival Research      |
|                         |  | Catalog.                               |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Describe 10 percent of NARA electronic |
|                         | * | holdings in the Archival Research      |
|                         |  | Catalog.                               |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We described 42 percent of NARA        |
|                         |   | traditional holdings in the Archival   |
|                         |   | Research Catalog (ARC).                |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *"Great service, very   |   |                                        |
| public oriented,*       |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *and of course that     |  | We described 43 percent of NARA        |
| wonderful collection.   |   | artifact holdings in the ARC.          |
| Good work!"*            |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| *"All that information  |  | We described 31 percent of NARA        |
| at my fingertips. I     |   | electronic holdings in ARC.            |
| will be visiting and    |   |                                        |
| exploring this site     |   |                                        |
| often in the*           |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| ####### future."        | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               |  | We have implemented ARC in all         |
|                         |   | archival units nationwide.             |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We continued our agency-wide description work this year and
now have more than 233,000 artifacts, 2.5 billion logical data records,
and over 1.3 million cubic feet of traditional holdings described and
searchable at the series or collection level in ARC via the Internet.
The Carter Library became the first archival unit in our agency to
describe 100 percent of its holdings in ARC.

+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data          | ** | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                 | 20 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                 | 00 | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
|                                 | ** |     |     |     |     |     |
+=================================+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
| Percent of nationwide archival  | 13 | 1   | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| holdings described in an online | .9 | 3.2 |     |     |     |     |
| catalog                         |    |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cubic feet of archival holdings | 2  | 2,  | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (in thousands)                  | ,7 | 915 |     |     |     |     |
|                                 | 68 |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cubic feet of archival holdings | 3  | 386 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| described in an online catalog  | 86 |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for         | *  | *-  | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| traditional holdings in an      | -- | --* | 20* | 25* | 30* | 40* |
| online catalog*                 | -* |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of traditional holdings | -  | --- | 19  | 20  | 33  | 42  |
| in an online catalog            | -- |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of traditional holdings  | -  | --- | 550 | 602 | 1,  | 1,  |
| described in an online catalog  | -- |     |     |     | 033 | 344 |
| (thousands of cubic feet)       |    |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of traditional holdings  | -  | --- | 2,  | 3,  | 3,  | 3,  |
| in NARA (thousands of cubic     | -- |     | 890 | 025 | 157 | 167 |
| feet)                           |    |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for         | *  | *-  | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| artifact holdings in an online  | -- | --* | 20* | 25* | 30* | 40* |
| catalog*                        | -* |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of artifact holdings in | -  | --- | 19  | 17  | 40  | 43  |
| an online catalog               | -- |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of artifact holdings     | -  | --- | 90  | 90  | 215 | 233 |
| described in an online catalog  | -- |     |     |     |     |     |
| (thousands of items)            |    |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of artifact holdings in  | -  | --- | 470 | 528 | 540 | 544 |
| NARA (thousands of items)       | -- |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for         | *  | *-  | *0* | *0* | *5* | *   |
| electronic holdings in an       | -- | --* |     |     |     | 10* |
| online catalog*                 | -* |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of electronic holdings  | -  | --- | 0   | 0   | 10  | 31  |
| in an online catalog            | -- |     | .02 | .02 |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of electronic holdings   | -  | --- | 1   | 1   | 536 | 2,  |
| described in an online catalog  | -- |     |     |     |     | 539 |
| (millions of logical data       |    |     |     |     |     |     |
| records)                        |    |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of electronic holdings   | -  | --- | 3,  | 4,  | 5,  | 8,  |
| in NARA (millions of logical    | -- |     | 714 | 743 | 629 | 108 |
| data records)                   |    |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of ARC users (in         | -  | --- | 713 | 1,  | --- | --- |
| thousands of user hits\*)       | -- |     |     | 884 |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of ARC users (in         | -  | --- | --- | --- | 158 | 286 |
| thousands of visits\*)          | -- |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  *\* Online visits: One person using our web site is counted as one
  "visit." It is a count of the number of visitors to our web site, and
  is similar to counting the number of people who walk through our front
  door. In contrast, it does not count "hits," which refers to the number
  of files used to show the user a web page. A visit in which a user
  accessed a web page comprising 35 files would count as one visit and 35
  hits. Count­ing visits is a more accurate way of showing how much use
  our web site is getting than counting hits.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We anticipate meeting our targets
set for 2006. However, much of the description work occurring now is for
larger series and collections that represent considerably more holdings
and get more of our holdings into ARC quickly. As we move forward to
other smaller records series or collections, representing smaller
numbers of holdings, but more description work, our performance may
diminish simply because the methodology for measuring our performance
does not recognize the size of a series or collection. We must use this
methodology, however, because until archival holdings are processed, we
do not know how many series are contained in the materials.

**[[3.4 Government-wide Declassification]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------
  **FY 2005 Objectives**     ****   Ensure that 25 percent of the FY 2004
                                     baseline of Government-wide holdings of
                                     classified records 25 years old or older
                                     are declassified, properly exempted, or
                                     appropriately referred.

                                     

  **Results**                       We sampled eight agencies with the
                                     largest volume of records to be reviewed
                                     to assess the level of effort expended
                                     in FY 2005.

  []{.mark}                          []{.mark}

  []{.mark}                         We analyzed agency comments and updated
                                     a draft referral standard to assist
                                     agencies in meeting the automatic
                                     declassification deadline.
  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------

*Discussion* In FY 2004 we tasked 75 agencies with developing
declassification plans for how they planned to meet the requirements of
Executive Order 12958, as amended. Of those tasked, 26 agencies did not
need to develop plans because they had no records subject to automatic
declassification. To date, we have confirmed that 22 of the 48 agen­cies
that have responsive records will make or are likely to make the
December 31, 2006, deadline. We are engaged in a cooperative effort with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the nine Unified Combatant
Commands to ensure that they meet the dead­line. We are working with the
White House to ensure that the White House offices that produce Federal
records not covered by the Presidential library system have
declass­i­fication programs. We are also reviewing the updated
declassification plans for eight agencies.

As one solution to meeting the December 31, 2006, deadline for automatic
declassi­fi­ca­tion, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) is
working on standardizing the referral process for records that need to
be addressed by agencies with joint equities. We have encouraged the
development of a framework for a Government-wide declassifica­tion
training program and information sharing of declassification guidance
through the External Referral Working Group (ERWG), an interagency
working group within which the declassification community is well
represented.

+-----------------------------+------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data      | **20 | **20 | **20 | **  | **  | *   |
|                             | 00** | 01** | 02** | 200 | 200 | *20 |
|                             |      |      |      | 3** | 4** | 05\ |
|                             |      |      |      |     |     | *** |
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of pages             | 75.0 | 1    | 44.4 | 4   | 2   | TBD |
| declassified                |      | 00.1 |      | 3.1 | 8.4 |     |
| Govern­ment-wide (in         |      |      |      |     |     |     |
| millions of pages)          |      |      |      |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+
| Per page cost of            | \$   | \$   | \$   | \$1 | \$1 | TBD |
| Government-wide             | 3.08 | 2.32 | 2.55 | .25 | .70 |     |
| declassification            |      |      |      |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+
| Total cost of               | \$2  | \$2  | \$11 | \$5 | \$4 | TBD |
| declassification            | 30.9 | 31.9 | 2.96 | 3.8 | 8.3 |     |
| Govern­ment-wide (in         |      |      |      |     |     |     |
| millions of dollars)        |      |      |      |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+

*\*FY 2005 data will be collected from Federal agencies and reported to
the President in 2006.*

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* Meeting the targets set forth in
E.O. 12958, as amended, will be very challenging. Security concerns
related to the war on terrorism may divert resources away from
declassification efforts Government-wide or lead to the withholding of
additional records. Agencies' cooperation is essential in identifying
the records subject to automatic declassification, impediments to
meeting the new deadline, and solutions to these impediments.

**[[3.5 NARA Declassification]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------
  **FY 2005 Objectives**     ****   Ensure that 50 percent of the FY 2004
                                     baseline of NARA archival holdings of
                                     classified records 25 years old or older
                                     are declassified, properly exempted, or
                                     appropriately referred.

                                     

                             ****   Scan 300,000 pages of Presidential
                                     archival materials eligible for
                                     declassification review as part of the
                                     Remote Archives Capture project.

                                     

  **Results**                       We released 527,210 pages of
                                     declassified Federal records and 77,553
                                     pages of declassified Presi­dential
                                     records.

                                     

                                    We scanned 562,502 pages of Presidential
                                     materials eligible for declassification
                                     review as part of the Remote Archives
                                     Capture project.
  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------

*Discussion* FY 2005 was the first year of operation of the Interagency
Referral Center (IRC), our system designed to support the process of
agency review of referred materials in Federal records that are part of
the National Archives. By handling referrals through the IRC, NARA
retains physical and intellectual control of the records. The IRC gives
access to agency reviewers and allows us to prioritize the order in
which referrals are processed so we can deal with records of high
research interest in a timely manner. The IRC supports a standard method
for recording agency decisions, ensuring that when NARA staff process
the records for release or exemption, the agency determination will be
clearly understood and NARA will avoid inadvertent releases of still
sensitive information.

Our work to coordinate and support IRC activity is now the major task in
our declassifi­cation program. In our first year of operation we indexed
approximately 1.5 million pages for referral. We improved system
performance and are gaining experience in pre­paring unprocessed records
for the IRC. We saw a steady improvement in the amount of material
processed through the IRC over the course of the year and expect
continued improvement in FY 2006.

For classified materials in the Presidential library system for which we
have no delegated declassification authority, we continue to work in
partnership with the Central Intelli­gence Agency (CIA) to prepare and
scan classified materials for distribution to agencies with equities in
the documents.

+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data         | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                | 0** | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+================================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
| Backlog of Federal records     | 52, | 25, | 20, | 18, | 25, | 25, |
| requiring declassification at  | 864 | 029 | 980 | 980 | 581 | 020 |
| start of year (in thousands)   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for annual | *   | *   | *   | *   | --- | *   |
| percent of Federal records     | 50* | 50* | 85* | 90* |     | 50* |
| NARA reviewed that are more    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| than 25 years old for which    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| NARA has declassification      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| authority*                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual percent of Federal      | 15  | 9   | 12  | 7   | 2   | 2   |
| records NARA reviewed that are |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| more than 25 years old for     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| which NARA has                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| declassi­fication authority     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Backlog of Presidential        | 1,  | 1,  | 1,  | 960 | 806 | 668 |
| materials requiring            | 978 | 562 | 240 |     |     |     |
| declassification at start of   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| year (in thousands)            |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for annual | *   | *   | *   | *   | *-  | *   |
| percent of Presidential        | 25* | 25* | 85* | 90* | --* | 50* |
| records NARA reviewed that are |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| more than 25 years old for     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| which NARA has                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| declassification authority*    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual percent of Presidential | 21  | 21  | 23  | 16  | 17  | 67  |
| records NARA reviewed that are |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| more than 25 years old for     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| which NARA has                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| declassi­fication authority     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual number of Federal pages | 8,  | 2,  | 2,  | 1,  | 547 | 605 |
| reviewed                       | 052 | 129 | 490 | 257 |     |     |
|                                |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| (in thousands)                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual number of Federal pages | 3,  | 807 | 402 | 340 | 116 | 35  |
| declassified (in thousands)    | 697 |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual number of Federal pages | 7,  | 1,  | 2,  | 1,  | 994 | 527 |
| released                       | 678 | 788 | 184 | 092 |     |     |
|                                |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| (in thousands)                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual number of Presidential  | 416 | 322 | 280 | 154 | 138 | 449 |
| pages reviewed (in thousands)  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual number of Presidential  | 291 | 219 | 119 | 71  | 94  | 94  |
| pages declassified (in         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| thousands)                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual number of Presidential  | 285 | 207 | 182 | 71  | 94  | 78  |
| pages released (in thousands)  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for annual | *\  | *3  | *3  | *6  | *3  | *3  |
| number of Presidential pages   | --* | 00* | 00* | 00* | 00* | 00* |
| scanned (in thousands)*        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annual number of Presidential  | 160 | 322 | 332 | 470 | 500 | 563 |
| pages scanned (in thousands)   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cost per page declassified     | *\  | *\  | *\  | \   | \   | TBD |
| (Federal and Presidential)     | --* | --* | --* | $23 | $24 |     |
|                                |     |     |     | .44 | .29 |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* Meeting the targets of Executive
Order 12958, as amended, will be a significant challenge.

**[[3.6 Presidential Records]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------
  **FY 2005 Objectives**     ****   Process an additional 2 percent of
                                     Clinton Presidential and Vice
                                     Presidential records for opening on
                                     January 20, 2006.

                                     

  **Results**                       We processed an additional 1 percent of
                                     Clinton Presidential and Vice
                                     Presidential records for opening on
                                     January 20, 2006.
  -------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------

*Discussion* Progress continued to be slow in processing additional
records this year. We spent the first quarter of FY 2005 preparing for
the dedication of the William J. Clinton Library and Museum, as the
archival staff there participated in activities associated with the
dedication and engaged in public outreach following the November
dedication of the library. Our archival staff at Clinton worked until
the opening of the exhibit locating documents and other items for the
exhibit, assisting in the production of the museum orientation film,
reboxing documents for display in the museum exhibit, and installing the
museum exhibits. This work was essential in ensuring that the initial
exhibits in the museum are based on the primary source material housed
in the library. As we assessed our textual collections, we updated our
holdings count to reflect more accurately the holdings in our legal
custody. With the exhibit now open, we have devoted more time to the
review of records and, while we have fallen short of this year's goal,
have made substantial progress in preparing material for release to the
public on January 20, 2006.

+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data               | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                      | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                      | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for cumulative   | *1* | *3* | *3* | *5* | *5* |
| percent of Clinton Presidential and  |     |     |     |     |     |
| Vice Presidential traditional        |     |     |     |     |     |
| records processed for opening        |     |     |     |     |     |
| January 20, 2006*                    |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cumulative percent of Clinton        | 1   | 1   | 1   | 2   | 3   |
| Presidential and Vice Presidential   |     |     |     |     |     |
| traditional records processed for    |     |     |     |     |     |
| opening January 20, 2006             |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cumulative cubic feet of Clinton     | 28, | 28, | 37, | 39, | 34, |
| Presidential and Vice Presidential   | 925 | 925 | 686 | 049 | 818 |
| traditional records                  |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cumulative cubic feet of Clinton     | 291 | 291 | 291 | 752 | 944 |
| Presidential and Vice Presidential   |     |     |     |     |     |
| traditional records processed for    |     |     |     |     |     |
| opening                              |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for cumulative   | *0* | *0* | *0* | *0* | *0* |
| percent of Clinton Presidential and  |     |     |     |     |     |
| Vice Presidential electronic records |     |     |     |     |     |
| processed for opening January 20,    |     |     |     |     |     |
| 2006*                                |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for cumulative   | *0* | *0* | *0* | *0* | *0* |
| percent of Clinton Presidential and  |     |     |     |     |     |
| Vice Presidential artifacts          |     |     |     |     |     |
| processed for opening January 20,    |     |     |     |     |     |
| 2006*                                |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We will continue to devote our
resources to archival processing in FY 2006.

**[[3.7 NHPRC Grants]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------------------------- ----------- ----------------------------------------
  **FY 2005 Objectives**     ****       87 percent of all NHPRC-assisted
                                         projects produce results promised in
                                         grant applications approved by the
                                         Commission.

                                         

  **Results**                           Of the NHPRC-assisted projects
                                         completed, 85 percent produced the
                                         results promised in their grant
                                         applications.

  *"The support that the                 
  NHPRC has*                             

  *provided us has been      []{.mark}   []{.mark}
  invaluable as we*                      

  *begin to create a                    We have made our application packages
  municipal archive here in              available for online applications on the
  Somerville."*                          *Grants.gov* web site.
  -------------------------- ----------- ----------------------------------------

*Discussion* We fell just short of meeting our target for successful
completion of our grant projects. This year we completed 107 projects,
91 of which produced the results promised in their grant applications.
Roughly 40 percent of the projects were publications efforts, and
approximately 60 percent were records projects. Of the 15 projects that
did not pro­duce the promised results, three of the records projects
actually never got under way and, therefore, we expended no grant
funding in those cases. From the work accom­plished this year, more than
9,400 cubic feet of records were reported by grantees to be preserved
and made acces­sible, and six documentary editions were published. We
continued posting NHPRC grant opportunities on the Government-wide
*Grants.gov* web site and made grant application forms available on our
*Archives.gov* web site. We simplified the process for our grantees by
accepting alternate means, such as fax, for the transmission of interim
reports and requests. We have also streamlined our grant guidelines and
have made our application packages available for online applications
using the *Grants.gov* portal. We have also completed a business process
engineering study and pursued sev­eral internal process improvements.

For a more list of NHPRC-funded grants products, visit
*www.archives.gov/nhprc/products/.*

+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| ##### Performance Data           | ** | ** | **  | **  | **  | ** |
|                                  | 20 | 20 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 20 |
|                                  | 00 | 01 | 2** | 3** | 4** | 05 |
|                                  | ** | ** |     |     |     | ** |
+==================================+====+====+=====+=====+=====+====+
| *Performance target for percent  | *8 | *8 | *   | *   | *   | *8 |
| of NHPRC grant-funded projects   | 2* | 4* | 84* | 85* | 86* | 7* |
| produced results promised in     |    |    |     |     |     |    |
| grant applications*              |    |    |     |     |     |    |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| Percent of NHPRC grant-funded    | 94 | 91 | 79  | 86  | 88  | 85 |
| projects that produced results   |    |    |     |     |     |    |
| promised in grant applications   |    |    |     |     |     |    |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| Number of NHPRC-assisted         | 67 | 1  | 104 | 72  | 96  | 1  |
| projects completed               |    | 15 |     |     |     | 07 |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| Number of NHPRC-assisted         | 63 | 1  | 82  | 62  | 84  | 91 |
| projects that produced the       |    | 05 |     |     |     |    |
| results promised                 |    |    |     |     |     |    |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| Number of traditional records    | -  | -  | --- | --- | 1,  | 9  |
| preserved and made accessible    | -- | -- |     |     | 803 | ,4 |
| through our grants projects (in  |    |    |     |     |     | 34 |
| cubic feet)                      |    |    |     |     |     |    |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| Number of electronic records     | -  | -  | --- | --- | 0   | 0  |
| preserved and made accessible    | -- | -- |     |     |     |    |
| through our grants projects (in  |    |    |     |     |     |    |
| logical data records)            |    |    |     |     |     |    |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| Number of documentary editions   | -  | -  | --- | --- | 14  | 6  |
| published through our grants     | -- | -- |     |     |     |    |
| project (in volumes)             |    |    |     |     |     |    |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+
| Percent of NARA's grants         | -  | \  | --- | --- | 100 | 1  |
| announced on *Grants.gov*        | -- | -- |     |     |     | 00 |
+----------------------------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We anticipate meeting our target
for FY 2006. How­ever, it is important to note that the Commission and
its staff are committed to projects that will stretch the archival,
documentary editing, and electronic records com­munities, encouraging
them to take risks. While this will produce many more useful products,
it increases the possibility of projects being rated unsuccessful in
meeting their criteria.

As we work on internal process improvements, we are poised to invest in
a grants man­age­ment system that uses a shared services model. We will
implement the first phase of this system in FY 2006.

##   {#section-16 .AR-2004-Head-2}

## Strategic Goal 4: Space and Preservation {#strategic-goal-4-space-and-preservation .AR-2004-Head-2}

### All records are preserved in an appropriate environment for use as long as needed. {#all-records-are-preserved-in-an-appropriate-environment-for-use-as-long-as-needed. .AR-2004-Head-3}

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| ###### Long-Range           | 4.1. By 2009, 100 percent of NARA's    |
|                             | archival holdings are in appropriate   |
| ###### Performance Targets  | space.                                 |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 4.2. By 2009, 100 percent of NARA      |
|                             | records centers comply with the        |
|                             | October 2009 regulatory storage        |
|                             | standards.                             |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 4.3. By 2007, 50 percent of NARA's     |
|                             | at-risk archival holdings are          |
|                             | appropriately treated or housed so as  |
|                             | to retard further deterioration.       |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+

**FY 2005 Resources Available to Meet This Goal:** \$63,981,000; 151 FTE

**[[4.1 Archival Holdings in Appropriate
Space]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Complete all renovations at the        |
|                         | * | National Archives Building.            |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Open Clinton Presidential Library.     |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete 50-percent concept design of  |
|                         | * | Roosevelt Library renovation.          |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete 50-percent concept design of  |
|                         | * | Kennedy Library renovation and         |
|                         |  | addition.                              |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete construction of the Southeast |
|                         | * | Regional Archives.                     |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Accept final design of Pacific Alaska  |
|                         | * | Regional Archives and Records Center.  |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete facility specifications for   |
|                         | * | new military personnel records center  |
|                         |  | in St. Louis.                          |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete facility specifications and   |
|                         | * | lease agreement for the Southwest      |
|                         |  | Regional Archives.                     |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We substantially completed renovation  |
|                         |   | work in the National Archives          |
|                         |   | Building.                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We received the 15-percent concept     |
|                         |   | drawings for the Roosevelt Library     |
|                         |   | renovation.                            |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We received the 50-percent concept     |
|                         |   | drawings for the Kennedy Library       |
|                         |   | renovation.                            |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We completed site preparation for the  |
|                         |   | Pacific Alaska Regional Archives and   |
|                         |   | Records Center.                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We defined the program requirements    |
|                         |   | for a new National Personnel Records   |
|                         |   | Center facility.                       |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We received a revised concept design   |
|                         |   | for the Southwest Regional Archives.   |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We finished all substantial work in the renovation of the
National Archives Building, our major initiative in this area. We
completed all work in the base renovation contract, with only work to
replace electrical systems in the archival storage areas and some
refinishing on the Rotunda display cases left to complete next year.

We dedicated the Clinton Presidential Library and Museum. All archival
and artifact holdings from the Clinton administration are now housed in
this state-of-the-art facility that meets our storage standards. The
library's exhibit is now open to visitors, and the library has its
research room open with a small amount material available for research.

We also opened a new archival facility for the Southeast Region in
Morrow, GA. This facility consolidates operations that were previously
housed in three separate facilities in Georgia and Alabama. The facility
features ample storage space, meeting our environ­men­tal storage
standards and accessible facilities for our researchers and public
pro­gram attendees. The move to this new facility placed over 90,000
cubic feet of regional archival records under appropriate space and
environmental standards. With the reloca­tion of these records, NARA\'s
regional archives system went from having 9 percent of its hold­ings
under appropriate space and environmental standards to more than 18
percent.

We defined the program requirements for a combined military and civilian
personnel records center and prepared a draft plan and cost estimate for
moving to a new facility. While we did not complete the final design of
the Pacific Alaska Regional Archives and Records Center, we did complete
the site preparation for the facility.

The Roosevelt Library renovation design moved slower than expected but
should not have an adverse impact on the overall renovation. We received
the 50-percent concept drawings for the renovation of the Kennedy
Library and are on schedule for the remainder of this project.

Our cost per cubic foot to store our archival holdings this year was
\$6.48, an increase over last year's per cubic foot cost of \$6.11. As
we work to lower our storage costs while bringing more facilities into
compliance with our archival storage standards, we face a number of
factors that work against that goal, including rising rent costs, higher
utility rates, and the costs associated with maintaining security at our
facilities. We are following a strategy of leasing storage facilities
separate from our public use facilities. We can realize savings by
locating our public use facilities in areas where they reach the
greatest number of possible users while leasing facilities designed for
long-term storage in lower-cost areas.

+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data                           | **20 | **  | **  |
|                                                  | 03** | 200 | 200 |
|                                                  |      | 4** | 5** |
+==================================================+======+=====+=====+
| Percent of archival traditional holdings in      | ---  | 52  | 53  |
| appropriate space                                |      |     |     |
+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+
| Cubic feet of archival traditional holdings (in  | 3    | 3,  | 3,  |
| thousands)                                       | ,025 | 100 | 166 |
+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+
| Percent of artifact holdings in appropriate      | ---  | 42  | 42  |
| space                                            |      |     |     |
+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+
| Number of artifact holdings (in thousands)       | 528  | 540 | 543 |
+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+
| Percent of logical data record holdings in       | ---  | 100 | 100 |
| appropriate space                                |      |     |     |
+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+
| Number of logical data record holdings (in       | 4    | 5,  | 8,  |
| millions)                                        | ,743 | 629 | 108 |
+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+
| Cost of archival storage space per cubic feet of | ---  | \$6 | \$6 |
| traditional holdings stored                      |      | .11 | .48 |
+--------------------------------------------------+------+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We expect to continue to stay
within budget and schedule targets for our facility projects.

**[[4.2 NARA Records Center Holdings in Appropriate
Space]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Close Birmingham, AL, Annex.           |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Close Denver, CO, Annex.               |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Close Fort Worth Building 5 Annex.     |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete lease agreement to construct  |
|                         | * | a records center facility in Fort      |
|                         |  | Worth, TX.                             |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | In coordination with GSA, implement an |
|                         | * | Energy Saving Operating Plan for the   |
|                         |  | Washington National Records Center.    |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **Results**             |  | We developed a facility repair plan to |
|                         |   | bring NARA records centers into        |
|                         |   | compliance with regulatory storage     |
|                         |   | standards by the 2009 deadline.        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #######                 |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* The primary thrust over the next several years must be to
upgrade our records center facilities to meet 2009 regulatory storage
standards or relocate to new facilities that are built to meet those
standards. These standards are in place to ensure that Federal records
are protected whether they are stored by NARA, another Federal agency,
or the private sector. We developed a facility repair plan to bring our
records centers into compliance with regulatory storage standards. This
plan includes the facility assessments that will be conducted to certify
that space meets required storage standards. We implemented the Energy
Saving Operating Plan for the Washington National Records Center by
completing the retrofit of the chiller plant and lighting in the
facility.

+------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| ##### Performance Data             | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
|                                    | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
|                                    | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 |
|                                    | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
+====================================+====+====+====+====+====+====+
| Percent of NARA records center     | -  | -  | -  | -  | 0  | 9  |
| buildings certified as complying   | -- | -- | -- | -- |    |    |
| with the October 2009 regulatory   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
| storage standards                  |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Volume of records center holdings  | 21 | 22 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 |
|                                    | .7 | .6 | .1 | .2 | .1 | .5 |
| (cubic feet in millions)           |    |    |    |    |    |    |
+------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| Storage price per cubic foot for   | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ | \$ |
| records center holdings            | 1. | 1. | 2. | 2. | 2. | 2. |
|                                    | 96 | 96 | 00 | 10 | 16 | 16 |
+------------------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We expect to continue to stay
within budget and schedule targets for our facility projects. We will
continue with certification of NARA records center buildings as we bring
them into compliance with October 2009 regula­tory storage standards.

**[[4.3 Preservation of At-Risk Holdings]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Appropriately treat or house 43        |
|                         | * | percent of NARA's at-risk archival     |
|                         |  | holdings so as to retard further       |
|                         | * | deterioration.                         |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Inventory and rehouse 8 percent of     |
|                         | * | Official Military Personnel Files      |
|                         |  | (OMPFs).                               |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #### Results            |  | We inventoried and rehoused 5 percent  |
|                         |   | of OMPFs.                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We assess our holdings regularly to identify those records
that have a high risk for deterioration, and then we preserve those
records by providing storage that retards deterioration or by treating,
duplicating, or reformatting records to preserve them for as long as
they are needed. In FY 2005 we conducted major surveys to determine the
overall condition of our holdings and entered additional records into
our risk data­bases. We continued our positive trend of the past several
years and exceeded our target this year by treating or housing 47
percent of NARA's at-risk archival holdings.

As a result of an internal review of our at-risk preservation metric, we
found that we need better consistency in what is deemed at-risk so that
we can better track our progress in addressing the records of highest
concern. We also determined that, to get a better picture of our overall
preservation challenges, we need to track those medium and low-risk
records that are getting treatment. We will develop new measures and
targets during FY 2006 that will better indicate where resources should
be applied and how effectively we are working.

While we failed to meet our goal of 8 percent of OMPFs inventoried and
rehoused by the end of the year, we did get all the physical space,
information technology resources, and staff in place for this project.
We were able to complete 5 percent of the OMPFs and anticipate meeting
the future goals for this project.

+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data        | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                               | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                               | 0** | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+===============================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
| *Performance target for       | *-  | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| percent of cumulative backlog | --* | 30* | 32* | 36* | 40* | 43* |
| ever treated*                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of cumulative backlog | 25  | 28  | 32  | 35  | 41  | 47  |
| ever treated                  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Start-of-year backlog volume  | 156 | 197 | 174 | 188 | 180 | 174 |
| of at-risk archival holdings  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| (thousands of cubic feet)     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Volume of at-risk archival    | 35  | 26  | 11  | 17  | 18  | 29  |
| holdings that received        |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| conservation treatment this   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| year (thousands of cubic      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| feet)                         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cumulative volume of at-risk  | --- | 63  | 67  | 74  | 80  | 86  |
| archival holdings in cold     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| storage (thousands of cubic   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| feet)                         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of start-of-year      | 22  | 16  | 7   | 9   | 10  | 17  |
| remaining backlog treated     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| this year                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for       | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | *8* |
| cumulative percent of OMPFs   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| inventoried and rehoused.*    |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cumulative percent of OMPFs   | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | 5   |
| inventoried and rehoused.     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* Due to the volume and overall poor
condition of the first accession of OMPFs, we will count the
preservation of the OMPFs separately from the backlog of at-risk
holdings waiting for treatment.

Significant increases in the cumulative backlog resulting from an
assessment we conducted in FY 2005 may result in our inability to meet
our FY 2006 target.

## Strategic Goal 5: Infrastructure {#strategic-goal-5-infrastructure .AR-2004-Head-2}

### NARA strategically manages and aligns staff, technology, and processes to achieve our mission.  {#nara-strategically-manages-and-aligns-staff-technology-and-processes-to-achieve-our-mission. .AR-2004-Head-3}

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| ###### Long-Range           | 5.1. By 2008, the average time a       |
|                             | leadership position remains unfilled   |
| ###### Performance Targets  | is 30 days or less.                    |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 5.2. By 2007, the percentages of NARA  |
|                             | employees in underrepresented groups   |
|                             | match their respective availability    |
|                             | levels in the Civilian Labor Force.    |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 5.3. By 2007, NARA accepts 100 percent |
|                             | of the validated legal documents       |
|                             | submitted electron­ically for           |
|                             | publication in the *Federal Register*. |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             | 5.4. By 2008, all public network       |
|                             | applications are available 99.9        |
|                             | percent of the time.                   |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|                             |                                        |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+

**FY 2005 Resources Available to Meet This Goal:** \$34,274,000; 123 FTE

**[[5.1 Recruitment and Development]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Expand management trainee program to   |
|                         | * | four additional NARA records centers.  |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Fill leadership positions in an        |
|                         | * | average time of 80 days or less.       |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete pilot course on interviewer   |
|                         | * | skills and techniques.                 |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Revise system for tracking and         |
|                         | * | monitoring the timeliness of           |
|                         |  | recruitment actions.                   |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Revise supervisors' performance plans  |
|                         | * | to establish accountability for timely |
|                         |  | recruiting and selection.              |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Maintain 95 percent of staff           |
|                         | * | development plans linked to strategic  |
|                         |  | outcomes.                              |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Maintain 95 percent of employee        |
|                         | * | performance plans linked to strategic  |
|                         |  | outcomes.                              |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| ####                    |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #### Results            |  | We expanded the management trainee     |
|                         |   | program to four additional NARA        |
|                         |   | records centers.                       |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We filled leadership positions in an   |
|                         |   | average time of 83 days.               |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We completed a pilot course on         |
|                         |   | interviewer skills and techniques and  |
|                         |   | posted the final training products on  |
|                         |   | our web site.                          |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We linked 92 percent of employee       |
|                         |   | performance plans to strategic         |
|                         |   | outcomes.                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   | []{.mark}                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| []{.mark}               |  | We linked 78 percent of staff          |
|                         |   | development plans to strategic         |
|                         |   | outcomes.                              |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We continue to pursue a variety of tactics to help us
prepare our workforce for the challenges ahead. We produced a report on
our recruitment challenges and opportunities and have completed a plan
for implementing changes in our recruiting process. We implemented a
revised system to track and monitor the timeliness of our recruitment
actions. We missed our target of 80 days to fill leadership positions,
but our performance has improved from last year. We issued instructions
to our office heads to include in the critical elements of supervisors'
performance plans the supervisor responsibility to conduct interviews
and make employment selections on a timely basis.

We expanded our program to develop the next generation of records center
managers throughout NARA's Federal Records Center Program to four
additional records centers. The program addresses the critical issues of
retention of high-performing employees, succession planning as managers
leave, and the need to foster a formal management development program in
the records centers. The three-year program for selected interns
provides them with training, increasingly complex work assignments in a
variety of records center positions, a rotation through other NARA
operations, and assignment to special projects. Throughout this program,
the interns work closely with other NARA professionals, who serve as
mentors, as well as with each other on collaborative projects.

In FY 2005 we developed content for an *Interviewer Skills Guide* and
conducted a pilot session of an "Interviewer Skills Workshop" with a
group of NARA managers. These training products, designed for managers
who conduct applicant interviews, prepare managers to conduct effective
interviews and thereby increase the quality of selections.

We have fallen short on our targets, but the vast majority of our staff
had performance plans (92 percent) and staff development plans (78
percent) linked to NARA's Strategic Plan. We performed at or better than
our performance level last year, and we will continue to stress the
importance of these activities as we work to make these linkages a part
of all our employees' performance and development plans. While we did
not meet the targets associated with these actions, the process of
creating staff development plans continues to provide opportunities for
employee development that did not exist before our program began. Many
employees choose to enhance their current assignments through a variety
of job-shadowing, cross-training, and classroom training.

+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data                 | ** | ** | ** | **  | **  |
|                                        | 20 | 20 | 20 | 200 | 200 |
|                                        | 01 | 02 | 03 | 4** | 5** |
|                                        | ** | ** | ** |     |     |
+========================================+====+====+====+=====+=====+
| *Performance target for average time   |    |    |    |     | *   |
| (in calendar days) to fill a           |    |    |    |     | 80* |
| leadership position.*                  |    |    |    |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Average time (in calendar days) to     | *  | *  | *  | 90  | 83  |
| fill a leadership position             | -- | -- | -- |     |     |
|                                        | -* | -* | -* |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for percent of     | *5 | *9 | *9 | *   | *   |
| staff having performance plans that    | 0* | 5* | 5* | 95* | 95* |
| link to strategic outcomes*            |    |    |    |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Percent of staff having performance    | 48 | 80 | 93 | 91  | 92  |
| plans that link to strategic outcomes  |    |    |    |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Number of NARA staff having            | 1  | 2  | 2  | 2,  | 2,  |
| performance plans that link to         | ,4 | ,4 | ,8 | 826 | 843 |
| strategic outcomes                     | 39 | 97 | 84 |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for percent of     | *  | *5 | *9 | *   | *   |
| permanent staff having staff           | -- | 0* | 5* | 95* | 95* |
| development plans that link to         | -* |    |    |     |     |
| strategic outcomes*                    |    |    |    |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Percent of permanent staff having      | -  | 1  | 91 | 52  | 78  |
| staff development plans that link to   | -- |    |    |     |     |
| strategic outcomes                     |    |    |    |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Number of NARA staff having staff      | -  | 7  | 2  | 1,  | 2,  |
| development plans that link to         | -- |    | ,4 | 401 | 073 |
| strategic outcomes                     |    |    | 35 |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
| Number of NARA permanent staff         | 2  | 2  | 2  | 2,  | 2,  |
|                                        | ,7 | ,7 | ,6 | 704 | 671 |
|                                        | 10 | 33 | 82 |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+
|                                        |    |    |    |     |     |
+----------------------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We anticipate that we will meet
our FY 2006 targets and expect to see continued progress toward our
long-range target of filling leadership positions in an average of 30
days.

**[[5.2 Equal Employment Opportunity]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Ensure the percentages of NARA         |
|                         | * | employees in underrepresented groups   |
|                         |  | match 80 percent of their respective   |
|                         | * | availability levels in the Civilian    |
|                         | * | Labor Force.                           |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Increase the percentage of             |
|                         | * | underrepresented groups in pools of    |
|                         |  | applicants from which to select        |
|                         | * | candidates for positions in grades 13  |
|                         | * | and above over the percentage in FY    |
|                         |   | 2004.                                  |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #### Results            |  | We employed people in underrepresented |
|                         |   | groups so that our percentages matched |
|                         |   | at least 80 percent of the national    |
|                         |   | averages in three out of six           |
|                         |   | underrepresented groups.               |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We increased to 95 percent             |
|                         |   | underrepresented groups in pools of    |
|                         |   | applicants from which to select        |
|                         |   | candidates for positions in grades 13  |
|                         |   | and above.                             |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* NARA is committed to achieving a workforce that reflects
the rich diversity of our nation, and we are pleased that we have met or
exceeded our representation goals for women, Blacks, and persons with
targeted disabilities. Representation of Latino-Hispanics, Asian
Americans/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan natives,
however, are below the targets we have set.

In response to this challenge and in the context of a larger effort to
redesign NARA's existing recruitment strategies, we are working to
identify targeted sources of highly qualified Latino-Hispanic applicants
for NARA positions, to establish ongoing channels of communication with
those sources, and to pursue outreach opportunities where possible.

Potential sources include colleges and universities with high
concentrations of Latino-Hispanic students enrolled in history,
archives, and other NARA-related pro­grams and disciplines;
Latino-Hispanic representatives of professional history, archival, or
other relevant organizations or associations; and Latino-Hispanic
executive groups such as the National Association for Hispanic Federal
Executives. We continue to explore partner­ships with organizations that
can help inform the Latino-Hispanic community about\
the mission, work, and career benefits of the National Archives and hope
to see an increase in the number of Latino-Hispanics interested in
Federal careers in history and archives.

We participated again this year in the Interagency Taskforce on Hispanic
Employment meeting sponsored by the Office of Personnel Management to
gain best practice infor­ma­tion from other Federal agencies who have
initiated successful recruitment and hiring programs. Finally, we are
looking to increase the use of our student employment pro­grams as a
mechanism for attracting Hispanic students to temporary positions within
NARA. Student employment work opportunities are an excellent way to
introduce stu­dents to the work of NARA and to encourage students to
pursue future careers in history and archives. For example, this year we
participated for the first time in the Hispanic Associ­ation of Colleges
and Universities National Internship Program by sponsoring an internship
placement for a student from Colorado State University, Pueblo.

+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| **Performance Data**           | **  | **  | **  | **  | ** | **  |
|                                | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 20 | 200 |
|                                | 0** | 1** | 2** | 3** | 04 | 5** |
|                                |     |     |     |     | ** |     |
+================================+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+=====+
| *Performance target for        | *   | *   | *   | *   | *9 | *   |
| percent of applicant pools for | 49* | 64* | 75* | 79* | 0* | 93* |
| positions at grades GS-13 and  |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| above that contain people in   |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| underrepresented groups*       |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| Percent of applicant pools for | 63  | 74  | 78  | 89  | 92 | 95  |
| positions at grades GS-13 and  |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| above that contain people in   |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| underrepresented groups        |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| Number of applicants for       | --- | --- | 1,  | 1,  | 1  | 1,  |
| positions at grades GS-13 and  |     |     | 779 | 177 | ,7 | 570 |
| above                          |     |     |     |     | 83 |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| Number of applicant pools for  | 24  | 53  | 101 | 85  | 1  | 131 |
| positions in grades GS-13 and  |     |     |     |     | 43 |     |
| above                          |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| Number of pools for positions  | 15  | 39  | 79  | 76  | 1  | 124 |
| in grades GS-13 and above that |     |     |     |     | 32 |     |
| had self-identified appli­cants |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| in underrepresented groups     |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| Percent of Civilian Labor      | --- | *   | *   | *   | *7 | *   |
| Force rate used to determine   |     | 50* | 60* | 65* | 0* | 80* |
| if underrepresented groups met |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| employment target              |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| Percent of employees who have  | 19  | 27  | 52  | 72  | 66 | 62  |
| received diversity training    |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
|                                |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| Underrepresented groups of     |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| employees meeting target       |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| (checkmark indicates target    |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| met or exceeded)               |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+
| > ---Women                     |    |    |    |    |   |    |
| >                              |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| > ---Black                     |    |    |    |    |   |    |
| >                              |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| > ---Latino-Hispanic           |    |    |    |    |   |    |
| >                              |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| > ---Asian American/Pacific    |    |    |    |    |   |     |
| > Islander                     |     |     |     |     |    |     |
|                                |    |     |    |    |   |     |
| ---American Indian/Alaskan     |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| Native                         |     |     |     |     |    |     |
|                                |     |     |     |     |    |     |
| ---Targeted disability         |     |     |     |     |    |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* Further examination of our
processes for announc­ing vacancies and hiring will help us determine
where we are falling short in meeting our targets for certain
underrepresented groups.

[5.3 [*Federal Register* Production]{.smallcaps}]{.underline}

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Accept validated legal documents       |
|                         | * | submitted electronically for           |
|                         |  | publication in the *Federal Register*  |
|                         | * | from 12 agencies.                      |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Manage 50 percent of all *Federal      |
|                         | * | Register* documents electronically     |
|                         |  | using eDOCS.                           |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #### Results            |  | We have 15 agencies registered with    |
|                         |   | the ability to submit documents to the |
|                         |   | *Federal Register* electronically.     |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| ####                    | [ | []{.mark}                              |
|                         | ] |                                        |
|                         | { |                                        |
|                         | . |                                        |
|                         | m |                                        |
|                         | a |                                        |
|                         | r |                                        |
|                         | k |                                        |
|                         | } |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #### []{.mark}          |  | We managed 22 percent of all *Federal  |
|                         |   | Register* documents electronically     |
|                         |   | using eDOCS.                           |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We continue to expand the availability of electronic
submission of *Federal Register* documents using the Electronic Editing
and Publishing System (eDOCS). We are now accepting electronic,
digitally signed *Federal Register* document submissions using
Certificate Authorities that are cross-certified by the public key
infrastructure. To date we have registered a total of 15 agencies to be
able to submit documents electronically to the *Federal Register.* We
began a reconfiguration of eDOCS to improve performance. This year we
used eDOCS to manage more than 7,000 documents, approximately 22 percent
of our total workload this year. While we missed the target we set for
FY 2005, we have seen a marked increase in the level of work managed
using eDOCS. The Federal Bridge Certifi­cation Authority (FBCA), an
independent Federal entity, is developing and testing appli­ca­tions to
enable cross-certification of signatures between different Federal
certifying authorities, and we expect these developments will support an
increase in the use of eDOCS in FY 2006.

+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data         | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                | 0** | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+================================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
| *Performance target for        |     |     |     |     |     | *   |
| percent of documents Federal   |     |     |     |     |     | 50* |
| Register manages               |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| electronically using eDOCS.*   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                                |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of documents *Federal  | --- | --- | --- | --- | 9   | 22  |
| Register* manages              |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| electronically using eDOCS     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of documents NARA       | --- | --- | --- | --- | 3,  | 7,  |
| manages electronically using   |     |     |     |     | 032 | 066 |
| eDOCS                          |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of documents published  | 31, | 32, | 33, | 32, | 32, | 32, |
| in the *Federal Register*      | 925 | 036 | 055 | 066 | 417 | 429 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of documents submitted | --- | --- | --- | --- | 9   | 13  |
| for publication electronically |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of documents submitted  | --- | --- | --- | --- | 3,  | 4,  |
| for publication electronically |     |     |     |     | 032 | 142 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of public inspection    | --- | --- | --- | --- | 3,  | 9,  |
| documents available to the     |     |     |     |     | 032 | 173 |
| public electronically          |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of official *Federal    | 155 | 163 | 150 | 160 | 208 | 142 |
| Register* documents retrieved  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| online (in millions)           |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of rulemakings open for | --- | --- | --- | 371 | 240 | 849 |
| comment successfully retrieved |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| at *Regulations.gov* (in       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| thousands)                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+--------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We plan to accept validated legal
documents submitted electronically for publication in the *Federal
Register* from all agencies and manage 75 percent of all *Federal
Register* documents electronically using eDOCS in FY 2006. These goals
are linked to our ability to cross-certify agencies' Certificate
Authorities using the FBCA. We will also continue to improve and enhance
the new system and roll out the e-commerce functionality of eDOCS to
more agencies. We will also continue to participate in the development
of online rulemaking and interagency process integration, including
partnership with the Government Printing Office (GPO).

**[[5.4 Information Technology]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Objectives**  | * | Public network applications are        |
|                         | * | available 97.0 percent of the time.    |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Upgrade physical security of NARA's    |
|                         | * | computer infrastructure at 50 percent  |
|                         |  | of NARA locations.                     |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Implement an enterprise repository for |
|                         | * | NARA's Enterprise Architecture and     |
|                         |  | associated Infor­mation Technology (IT) |
|                         | * | documentation.                         |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete development of an             |
|                         | * | enterprise-wide disaster recovery plan |
|                         |  | and an enterprise-wide continuity of   |
|                         | * | operations plan.                       |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         | * | Complete telecommunications upgrade.   |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         |  |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
|                         | * |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
| #### Results            |  | Our public network applications were   |
|                         |   | available 99 percent of the time.      |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We deployed an initial rollout of the  |
|                         |   | NARA Enterprise Information Technology |
|                         |   | Repository.                            |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |  | We completed continuity of operations  |
|                         |   | plans for our agency leadership and    |
|                         |   | for continued publication of the       |
|                         |   | *Federal Register*.                    |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+
|                         |   |                                        |
+-------------------------+---+----------------------------------------+

*Discussion* We deployed an initial rollout of NARA's Enterprise
Information Technology Repository (NEITR). NEITR is a system that
provides a single, centralized, authoritative source of all information
assets associated with NARA's IT systems. The NEITR reposi­tory will
structure and hold all authoritative IT pro­gram information and publish
that information on NARA's internal web site for staff use.

We continue to install our integrated telephone system in our facilities
nationwide. We completed system design and installation at the new
Southeast Regional Records Center (Ellenwood, GA), the Southeast
Regional Archives (Morrow, GA), and the Pacific Regional Records Center
(Perris, CA). We have completed the detailed station design at our main
building in Washington, DC, and are in the process of installing new
telephones at all stations in the building.

We developed a plan for the physical security upgrade of the computer
infrastructure in our facilities nationwide. The first task in this plan
was to complete a configuration identification study to assess the
present condition of our computer infrastructure. We completed this
study this year. As part of this security upgrade, we have distributed
server racks to 80 percent of our locations and have installed and
key-locked racks at 19 of the 30 locations where server racks are
currently used to make our equipment more secure in those locations.

Regarding disaster recovery and continuity of operations planning, we
focused our efforts on enabling the continued NARA operations at the
headquarters level and the continued publication of the *Federal
Register*. We have identi­fied the critically important functions that
the agency must be able to perform if we are to continue to operate and
have made these functions the basis for our continuity of opera­tions
plan. We have also developed and tested an implementation plan to define
the steps and procedures that we will follow to put our continuity of
operations plan in operation.

+---------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| ##### Performance Data          | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
|                                 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
|                                 | 0** | 1** | 2** | 3** | 4** | 5** |
+=================================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+
| Percent of public network       | 9   | 9   | 9   | 9   | 100 | 9   |
| availability                    | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.9 |     | 9.9 |
+---------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| *Performance target for percent | *-  | *-  | *-  | *-  | *96 | *97 |
| availability of public          | --* | --* | --* | --* | .5* | .0* |
| applications*                   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percent of public network       | --- | --- | --- | --- | 9   | 9   |
| applications availability       |     |     |     |     | 8.7 | 8.9 |
+---------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of total hours that any  | --- | --- | --- | --- | 1,  | 923 |
| public network application was  |     |     |     |     | 047 |     |
| unavailable                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number of network users for     | --- | --- | --- | --- | 4.4 | 6.6 |
| public applications (in         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| millions)                       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Cost per network user for       | --- | --- | --- | --- | \$0 | \$0 |
| public applications             |     |     |     |     | .29 | .24 |
+---------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

*FY 2006 Performance Plan Evaluation* We will continue to improve the
physical security of our computer infrastructure. We will also expand
our continuity of operations planning to more functions and sites in our
agency.

# FY 2005 Program Evaluations {#fy-2005-program-evaluations .AR-2004-Head-1}

## Strategic Goal 1: Records Management {#strategic-goal-1-records-management-1 .AR-2004-Head-2}

Office of Management and Budget, *Independent Verification and
Validation of E-Government Initiatives,* August 24, 2005.

The Office of Management and Budget contracted with Altarum to undertake
an independent verification and validation of e-Government initiatives
to ensure that projects are compliant with Federal standards and in line
with private industry. There are no recommendations associated with this
report.

## Strategic Goal 2: Electronic Records {#strategic-goal-2-electronic-records-1 .AR-2004-Head-2}

Government Accountability Office, GAO-05-802, *Acquisition of ERA is
Progressing,* July 12, 2005.

The objective of this review was to determine (1) the extent to which
NARA has achieved the ERA program's cost, schedule, and performance
objectives and defined the risks to future objectives and (2) the status
of NARA's efforts to address prior GAO recommendations on the ERA
acquisition. The GAO carried forward four of the five prior
recom­menda­tions but made no new recommen­dations.

## Strategic Goal 3: Access {#strategic-goal-3-access-1 .AR-2004-Head-2}

Government Accountability Office, GAO Engagement 350684, *DoD/DOE's
Classification Management Systems,* March 17, 2005.

GAO is examining the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's and DOE's
classi­fication and declassification operations, including actions the
departments have taken to ensure (1) compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and other offi­cial guidance; (2) that individuals
authorized to classify information or man­age the classification systems
have been sufficiently trained to do so; and (3) that classification
actions are consistently applied department-wide. A report has not been
issued.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Audit Memorandum 05-20, *Review of
NHPRC Grants,* July 29, 2005.

The Inspector General conducted a review of NHPRC grants. There are no
recommendations associated with this audit memorandum.

##  {#section-22 .AR-2004-Head-2}

## Strategic Goal 4: Space and Preservation {#strategic-goal-4-space-and-preservation-1 .AR-2004-Head-2}

Office of Inspector General, OIG Audit Memorandum 05-13, *Evaluation of
NARA's Preservation Program,* June 22, 2005.

The Inspector General reviewed NARA's preservation program to determine
whether established controls provide adequate assurance that archival
records needing preservation are identified and serviced in a timely
manner. Nine recommendations were made, and eight remain open.

Office of Administrative Services, *Physical Security and Life Safety
Review*, February 24, 2005.

The office conducted a review of the Northeast Region records center in
Pittsfield, MA. Three recommendations were made and remain open.

Office of Administrative Services, *Physical Security and Life Safety
Review*, April 4, 2005.

The office conducted a review of the Eisenhower Presidential Library and
Museum. One recommendation was made, which was closed in May 2005.

Office of Administrative Services, *Physical Security and Life Safety
Review*, May 30, 2005.

The office conducted a review of the Pacific Region (San Francisco)
archives and records center in San Bruno, CA. Three recommendations were
made, of which two have been closed.

Office of Administrative Services, *Physical Security and Life Safety
Review*, May 31, 2005.

The office conducted a review of the Harry S. Truman Presidential
Library and Museum. One recommendation was made and remains open.

Office of Administrative Services, *Physical Security and Life Safety
Review*, May 31, 2005.

The office conducted a review of the Central Plains Region Bannister
Road facility in Kansas City, MO. One recommendation was made and
remains open.

Office of Administrative Services, *Physical Security and Life Safety
Review*, June 6, 2005.

The office conducted a review of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential
Library and Museum. Three recommendations were made and remain open.

Office of Administrative Services, *Physical Security and Life Safety
Review*, July 26, 2005.

The office conducted a review of the William Jefferson Clinton
Presidential Library. Thirteen recommendations were made and remain
open.

##  {#section-23 .AR-2004-Head-2}

## Strategic Goal 5: Infrastructure {#strategic-goal-5-infrastructure-1 .AR-2004-Head-2}

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-21, *Review of Contractor
Resources Utilized on the Information Technology Support Services
Contract,* September 9, 2005.

The Inspector General evaluated whether the contractor provided the
appropriate resources, to determine if contractor personnel were
qualified for the positions assigned, and to determine if contractor
personnel had the appropriate background investigations required by the
contract. Two recommendations, which remain open, were made in this
report.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Audit Memorandum 05-19, *Review of
Proposed Modification of the Information Technology Support Services
Task Order Security Program Requirements*, July 6, 2005.

The Inspector General reviewed the appropriateness of the proposed
modifications. There are no recommendations associated with this audit
memorandum.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-16, *Prompt Payment Audit*,
July 22, 2005.

> The Inspector General reviewed compliance with the Prompt Payment rule
> and tested transactions to determine proper calculations. Two
> recommendations were made and remain open.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-15, *Audit of the Travel Card
Program*, July 22, 2005.

> The Inspector General reviewed operation of the travel card program to
> ascertain whether it is operating in conformance with applicable laws,
> regulations, and agency policies and procedures. Five recommendations
> were made and remain open.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-14, *Review of the
Information Technology Support Services (ITSS) Contractor's Quality
Assurance and Quality Control Program*, August 12, 2005.

> The Inspector General evaluated the contractor's quality assurance and
> quality control program performed under the ITSS contract task order.
> There are two recommendations, which remain open, associated with this
> report.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-10, *Review of NARA's
Information Technology Investment Management Decide Process Accomplished
for the Novell Software Upgrade Project*, March 30, 2005.

> The Inspector General reviewed this process to determine if NARA's IT
> Investment Management Decide Process was used to plan and approve the
> Novell Netware/GroupWise software upgrade project. Two recommendations
> were made and remain open.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-09, *Audit of NARA's
Intrusion Detection System*, April 1, 2005.

> The Inspector General evaluated the current intrusion detection system
> to deter­mine whether adequate controls are in place to safeguard
> NARA's infor­mation system network and assets. Seven recommendations
> were made, of which five have been closed.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-07, *Audit of the National
Archives Trust Representation Fund*, March 18, 2005.

> The Inspector General review was to ensure that the Representational
> Fund is operating in compliance with pertinent laws and regulations.
> Three recommen­da­tions were made, all of which were closed by May 17,
> 2005.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-06, *Evaluation of NARA's
Processes for Handling Personal Information Collected from the Public*,
March 14, 2005.

> The Inspector General reviewed this process to determine how NARA
> handles personal information it collects on selected information forms
> and to evaluate the adequacy of protections given to this information.
> One recommendation was made and remains open.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-05, *Review of Management of
NARA's Help Desk*, February 23, 2005.

> The Inspector General reviewed help desk services to determine if the
> contractor is providing services that satisfy contractual requirements
> and meet user expectations. One recommendation was made and remains
> open.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-01, *Review of NARA's
Acquisition of Storage Management*, March 9, 2005.

> The Inspector General reviewed NARA's purchase and implementation of
> Legato software to determine if it was accomplished in accordance with
> NARA policy. One recommendation was made and remains open.

## Multi-Goal Evaluations {#multi-goal-evaluations .AR-2004-Head-2}

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-08, *Evaluation of NARA's FY
2004 Management Control Program*, February 10, 2005.

> The Inspector General reviewed NARA's FY 2004 Management Control
> Program. No recommendations were made.

Office of Inspector General, OIG Report 05-02, *Clifton Gunderson LLP
(CG) Audit of the National Archives and Records Administration FY 2004
Financial Statements*, November 29, 2004.

> The Inspector General contracted with Clifton Gunderson (CG) to review
> financial statements as well as internal controls and operations. CG
> made 39 recommendations, of which complete documentation has been
> provided to the auditors for 31 recommendations.

Office of Regional Records Services, *Program Review*, September 1,
2005.

> The office conducted a program review at the Military Personnel
> Records Center and Civilian Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MO.
> Four recommendations were issued.

Office of Presidential Libraries, *Program Review*, April 11--13, 2005.

> The office conducted a program review at the Harry S. Truman Library
> in Independence, MO. A final report was issued on September 8, 2005.

Office of Presidential Libraries, *Program Review*, August 1--4, 2005.

> The office conducted a program review at the William J. Clinton
> Library in Little Rock, AR. A final report was issued on September 8,
> 2005.

For more information about these reports, contact the Policy and
Planning Staff at 301-837-1850 or by e-mail at *vision@nara.gov.*

# Status of NARA Records Management Initiatives {#status-of-nara-records-management-initiatives .AR-2004-Head-1}

In FY 2005,we made substantial progress in further implementing the
strategies docu­mented in NARA's FY 2003 issuance of *Strategic
Directions for Federal Records Management*. The following table provides
a brief description of the strategies and specific examples of how these
strategies have benefited Federal agencies in the past fiscal year.

+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Sp   | **Brief Description**        | **Benefits to agencies**     |
| ecific |                              |                              |
| Stra   |                              |                              |
| tegy** |                              |                              |
+========+==============================+==============================+
| App    | The policy documents the     | -   We published proposed    |
| raisal | strategic framework,         |     guidelines for           |
|        | objectives, and guidelines   |     appraising R&D records   |
|        | used to determine archival   |     of permanent value in    |
|        | value. The policy provides   |     the *Federal Register*.  |
|        | general appraisal guidelines |     Revised guidelines,      |
|        | as well as guidelines for    |     incorporating agency     |
|        | specific categories of       |     comments, will be issued |
|        | records, including personal  |     in FY 2006.              |
|        | data records, observational  |                              |
|        | data from the physical       | -   We developed and         |
|        | sciences, and environmental  |     internally vetted new    |
|        | health and safety records.   |     guidance on the          |
|        |                              |     intrinsic value of       |
|        |                              |     records. The guidelines  |
|        |                              |     will be incorporated in  |
|        |                              |     the appraisal policy in  |
|        |                              |     FY 2006.                 |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| C      | The policy addresses the     | -   We developed procedures  |
| ustody | authority and responsibility |     for processing and       |
|        | of the Archivist for         |     evaluating proposals to  |
|        | physical and legal custody   |     establish new affiliated |
|        | of permanent Federal         |     archives.                |
|        | records.                     |                              |
|        |                              | -   We are in the process of |
|        |                              |     considering new agency   |
|        |                              |     affiliates. Affiliated   |
|        |                              |     archives relationships   |
|        |                              |     allow agencies to        |
|        |                              |     maintain physical        |
|        |                              |     custody of their         |
|        |                              |     holdings while legal     |
|        |                              |     custody is maintained by |
|        |                              |     NARA.                    |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Man    | NARA has simplified the      | -   Regulations implementing |
| datory | process for agencies to      |     this statutory change    |
| Destr  | extend retention periods     |     have been drafted and    |
| uction | beyond the destruction date  |     will be included as part |
|        | specified in the schedule.   |     of our overall effort to |
|        |                              |     revise records           |
|        |                              |     management regulations.  |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Ad     | We are actively engaging     | -   NARA's advocacy program  |
| vocacy | senior Federal agency        |     has resulted in more     |
|        | officials in discussions and |     than 90 meetings,        |
|        | meetings on the importance   |     discussions, and         |
|        | of records management in the |     presentations by NARA    |
|        | Federal government.          |     senior officials to      |
|        |                              |     senior agency            |
|        |                              |     counterparts (i.e.,      |
|        |                              |     Archivist and Deputy     |
|        |                              |     Archivist meeting with   |
|        |                              |     agency leaders, our CIO  |
|        |                              |     meeting with other CIOs, |
|        |                              |     our General Counsel      |
|        |                              |     meeting with other       |
|        |                              |     General Counsels, and    |
|        |                              |     office to office head    |
|        |                              |     meetings) at other       |
|        |                              |     Federal agencies. As a   |
|        |                              |     result, senior agency    |
|        |                              |     officials are now better |
|        |                              |     informed about records   |
|        |                              |     management. In           |
|        |                              |     particular, discussions  |
|        |                              |     have focused on the      |
|        |                              |     immedi­ate and long-term  |
|        |                              |     cost benefit of building |
|        |                              |     record­keeping            |
|        |                              |     requirements into the    |
|        |                              |     develop­ment of IT        |
|        |                              |     systems and their        |
|        |                              |     ability to access        |
|        |                              |     authentic, reliable, and |
|        |                              |     trustworthy records      |
|        |                              |     whenever they are needed |
|        |                              |     for their business use.  |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | ```{=html}                   |
|        |                              | <!-- -->                     |
|        |                              | ```                          |
|        |                              | -   We worked closely with   |
|        |                              |     several Federal agencies |
|        |                              |     to stage COOP exercises  |
|        |                              |     and assist in            |
|        |                              |     COOP-related workshops   |
|        |                              |     to share information on  |
|        |                              |     vital rec­ords and        |
|        |                              |     recovery guidance for    |
|        |                              |     dam­aged records. Through |
|        |                              |     these collab­or­a­tions, we |
|        |                              |     estab­lished important    |
|        |                              |     contacts with FEMA and   |
|        |                              |     GSA officials, resulting |
|        |                              |     in enhanced coordi­nation |
|        |                              |     and infor­mation          |
|        |                              |     exchanges in response to |
|        |                              |     the Hurricane Katrina    |
|        |                              |     disaster.                |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Tr     | NARA has developed a         | -   We have expanded NARA's  |
| aining | national training program in |     web site to include      |
| and    | Federal records management.  |     materials that agencies  |
| C      | The program broadens our     |     can use as the basis for |
| ertifi | venue for offering training  |     their own records        |
| cation | and offers a certificate of  |     manage­ment training      |
|        | completion in Federal        |     program.                 |
|        | records management to        |                              |
|        | recognize participants'      | -   We hired a training      |
|        | achievements in              |     officer to ensure that   |
|        | understanding core records   |     NARA offices nationwide  |
|        | management knowledge areas.  |     follow a uni­form         |
|        |                              |     approach to records      |
|        |                              |     management training and  |
|        |                              |     to also ensure that our  |
|        |                              |     prog­rams include the     |
|        |                              |     most current elec­tronic  |
|        |                              |     records management tools |
|        |                              |     and techniques.          |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | -   We are partnering with   |
|        |                              |     agencies such as OPM to  |
|        |                              |     use tools made available |
|        |                              |     through the e-Government |
|        |                              |     initiatives to leverage  |
|        |                              |     our resources in online  |
|        |                              |     course offerings to      |
|        |                              |     Federal agencies.        |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | -   We continue to conduct   |
|        |                              |     numerous forums on       |
|        |                              |     electronic records and   |
|        |                              |     have developed training  |
|        |                              |     geared to agency IT,     |
|        |                              |     legal, and program       |
|        |                              |     office staffs.           |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | -   We instituted a          |
|        |                              |     certification program    |
|        |                              |     whereby Federal agency   |
|        |                              |     customers attending key  |
|        |                              |     training in specific     |
|        |                              |     knowledge areas can      |
|        |                              |     elect to take an exam.   |
|        |                              |     Upon completing and      |
|        |                              |     passing all exams, the   |
|        |                              |     participant is awarded a |
|        |                              |     certificate of           |
|        |                              |     completion of Federal    |
|        |                              |     Records management       |
|        |                              |     training.                |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| F      | The Electronic Records       | -   Our Federal Records      |
| ederal | Services team is             |     Center Program continues |
| R      | establishing scanning and    |     to progress with our     |
| ecords | electronic media storage     |     e-media storage pilots.  |
| Center | services for agency          |     We have procured and     |
| P      | customers.                   |     installed multimedia     |
| rogram |                              |     storage equipment at one |
| and    |                              |     of our regional          |
| Elec   |                              |     facilities as we         |
| tronic |                              |     con­tinue to work toward  |
| R      |                              |     maximizing media life    |
| ecords |                              |     expectancies.            |
| Se     |                              |                              |
| rvices |                              | -   We conducted production  |
|        |                              |     scan prototypes to       |
|        |                              |     identify requirements    |
|        |                              |     for upcoming pilots      |
|        |                              |     designed to convert      |
|        |                              |     large quantities of      |
|        |                              |     Federal Agency           |
|        |                              |     customers' records from  |
|        |                              |     paper format to          |
|        |                              |     electronic media.        |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | -   Through our "scan on     |
|        |                              |     demand" pilot, we have   |
|        |                              |     provided customers a     |
|        |                              |     cost-effective service   |
|        |                              |     that delivers an         |
|        |                              |     electronic file to them  |
|        |                              |     on the same day as the   |
|        |                              |     request.                 |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Fl     | This proposed approach to    | -   In partnership with the  |
| exible | scheduling, being piloted    |     National Oceanic and     |
| Sche   | among five agencies, allows  |     Atmospheric              |
| duling | agencies to schedule         |     Administration (NOAA) to |
|        | temporary records at any     |     pilot flexible           |
|        | level of aggre­gation that    |     scheduling, we approved  |
|        | meets their business needs.  |     a schedule that supports |
|        |                              |     NOAA's extensive         |
|        |                              |     scientific and business  |
|        |                              |     interest in retaining    |
|        |                              |     data and making it       |
|        |                              |     available to a variety   |
|        |                              |     of customers on a        |
|        |                              |     long-term basis. This    |
|        |                              |     flexible schedule allows |
|        |                              |     NOAA to retain more than |
|        |                              |     150 years of information |
|        |                              |     on hand to serve its     |
|        |                              |     customers.               |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
|        |                              | -   We approved NASA's       |
|        |                              |     flexible schedule, which |
|        |                              |     consolidates more than   |
|        |                              |     180 previ­ously scheduled |
|        |                              |     and unscheduled records  |
|        |                              |     into 12 media neutral    |
|        |                              |     buckets that provide for |
|        |                              |     the disposition of       |
|        |                              |     multiple records         |
|        |                              |     asso­ci­ated with NASA\'s  |
|        |                              |     development and          |
|        |                              |     admin­istration of        |
|        |                              |     mission-related pro­grams |
|        |                              |     and projects. Program    |
|        |                              |     and project staffs have  |
|        |                              |     offered positive         |
|        |                              |     feedback on the new      |
|        |                              |     approach and the user    |
|        |                              |     friendliness and clarity |
|        |                              |     of the schedule.         |
|        |                              |     Official sched­ule        |
|        |                              |     implemen­tation will      |
|        |                              |     begin in FY 2006.        |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| G      | The GRS efforts are designed | -   We issued a              |
| eneral | to identify and develop      |     comprehensive GRS for    |
| R      | additional GRSs for records  |     records belonging to     |
| ecords | that are common across       |     Temporary Commissions,   |
| Sch    | Federal agencies.            |     Boards, Councils, and    |
| edules |                              |     Committees. We also      |
| (GRS)  |                              |     issued a GRS for Chief   |
|        |                              |     Information Officers.    |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | -   We vetted draft GRS's    |
|        |                              |     for records relating to  |
|        |                              |     Aircraft Operations and  |
|        |                              |     Maintenance and the FAIR |
|        |                              |     Act (OMB A-76).          |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | ```{=html}                   |
|        |                              | <!-- -->                     |
|        |                              | ```                          |
|        |                              | -   We continued research    |
|        |                              |     and development of       |
|        |                              |     potential GRS series for |
|        |                              |     Chief Financial          |
|        |                              |     Officers, Employee       |
|        |                              |     Assistance Programs,     |
|        |                              |     Flexiplace, and Public   |
|        |                              |     Key Infrastructure (PKI) |
|        |                              |     records.                 |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Gu     | We are continuing efforts at | -   We revised the           |
| idance | NARA to align our guidance   |     regulatory framework for |
| and    | and regulations with changes |     Federal records          |
| Regul  | resulting from the redesign  |     management and began     |
| ations | of Federal records           |     rewriting the            |
|        | management.                  |     regulations in 36 CFR    |
|        |                              |     XII, subchapter B. The   |
|        |                              |     revision reorganizes the |
|        |                              |     existing regulations and |
|        |                              |     will incorporate new     |
|        |                              |     standards resulting from |
|        |                              |     changes in our           |
|        |                              |     recordkeeping            |
|        |                              |     environment and the      |
|        |                              |     strategies and           |
|        |                              |     initiatives NARA has     |
|        |                              |     undertaken in our        |
|        |                              |     redesign of Federal      |
|        |                              |     records management.      |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Inspe  | Inspections are reviews of   | -   We developed and issued  |
| ctions | agency record­keeping         |     Standard Operating       |
| and    | practices that focus on      |     Procedures to our        |
| S      | serious management problems. |     National Records         |
| tudies | Studies are reviews of       |     Management Program staff |
|        | records management practices |     for conducting studies   |
|        | in the Federal government.   |     and inspections.         |
|        |                              |                              |
|        |                              | -   We documented            |
|        |                              |     recommendations to       |
|        |                              |     Headquarters Air Force   |
|        |                              |     (HAF) on HAF             |
|        |                              |     recordkeeping practices. |
|        |                              |     HAF implemen­ted both     |
|        |                              |     interim and long-range   |
|        |                              |     solutions in response to |
|        |                              |     the recommendations.     |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Re     | The resource allocation      | -   We used the results of   |
| source | methodology provides a way   |     NARA\'s FY 2004          |
| Allo   | for NARA to best use its     |     Government-wide resource |
| cation | scarce resources to provide  |     allocation project to    |
| (Fo    | assistance to agencies with  |     help identify lines of   |
| cusing | records that are at high     |     business, subfunctions,  |
| Reso   | risk of inappropriate        |     and agencies for a major |
| urces) | disposition, records with    |     e-systems scheduling and |
|        | high permanent value, and    |     appraisal project for FY |
|        | records that are rated high  |     2005.                    |
|        | to protect rights of         |                              |
|        | citizens and account­ability  |                              |
|        | of the Federal Government.   |                              |
|        | The benefit of the resource  |                              |
|        | allocation methodology is    |                              |
|        | that NARA is able to         |                              |
|        | concentrate its RM           |                              |
|        | assistance and other         |                              |
|        | resources in high-priority,  |                              |
|        | high-visibility Federal      |                              |
|        | programs or subfunctions     |                              |
|        | that are of concern to       |                              |
|        | NARA\'s public customers.    |                              |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Ta     | We have established          | -   We continued to support  |
| rgeted | partnerships with other      |     the Interagency Wildland |
| Assi   | agencies to solve specific   |     Fire Records Project.    |
| stance | records management problems. |     Through this partnership |
|        |                              |     of five agencies, we     |
|        |                              |     jointly developed        |
|        |                              |     records management tools |
|        |                              |     to improve the way fires |
|        |                              |     are man­aged and to       |
|        |                              |     address the statutory    |
|        |                              |     require­ments of the      |
|        |                              |     National Environ­mental   |
|        |                              |     Policy Act and the       |
|        |                              |     National Fire Policy     |
|        |                              |     Act. We approved records |
|        |                              |     schedules covering       |
|        |                              |     electronic and paper     |
|        |                              |     records and also         |
|        |                              |     developed a legacy       |
|        |                              |     records preser­vation     |
|        |                              |     strategy.                |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Rep    | We will report to Congress   | -   We conducted a benchmark |
| orting | and OMB regarding problems   |     study with Government    |
|        | and recommended practices    |     agencies, university     |
|        | discovered as part of        |     research groups, and     |
|        | targeted assistance projects |     private service          |
|        | or inspections and studies   |     providers on how         |
|        | that we conduct.             |     business process         |
|        |                              |     analysis (BPA) and IT    |
|        |                              |     systems develop­ment can  |
|        |                              |     be used to support       |
|        |                              |     electronic               |
|        |                              |     recordkeeping. In FY     |
|        |                              |     2006 we will train our   |
|        |                              |     staff and other Federal  |
|        |                              |     records mana­gers on      |
|        |                              |     using BPA to support     |
|        |                              |     electronic               |
|        |                              |     recordkeeping.           |
+--------+------------------------------+------------------------------+

# Federal Records Management Evaluations {#federal-records-management-evaluations .AR-2004-Head-1}

Under 44 U.S.C. 2904(c)(8), the Archivist of the United States is
required to report to Congress and OMB annually on the results of
records management activities. NARA fulfills this requirement through
the Performance and Accountability Report. Through this report, we also
highlight the progress of individual agencies in managing and preserving
the documentation necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of
the Government and citizens.

In FY 2005, we began to use our Resource Allocation methodology and the
OMB Busi­ness Reference Model (BRM) to target our assistance to Federal
agencies. In September 2004 we completed an analysis of business
processes, subfunctions, and agency activities across the Government,
based on the OMB BRM, to identify those that are the most significant to
protect legal rights, document government accountability, and preserve
records that document the national experience. Using these criteria, we
identified 13 business lines and 23 business subfunctions where we
perceived the records to be at highest risk.

We used this analysis to target our records management assistance to
help agencies in these subfunctions schedule their critical electronic
records systems. We targeted our efforts to 245 specific electronic
systems and, with agency support, we developed 80 schedules to cover
these systems. In FY 2006 we will work with agencies to increase the
number of critical electronic records schedules by 10 percent.

In addition, we are reporting on nine Federal programs that have shown
signifi­cant progress in preserving and assuring timely maximum access to
the American people of our governmental records. NARA partnered with the
agencies in these activities, often through targeted assistance.

## Office of the Secretary of Defense {#office-of-the-secretary-of-defense .AR-2004-Head-2}

The Directives and Records Division of the Executive Services
Directorate of the Depart­ment of Defense Washington Headquarters
Services recognized the critical need to preserve and protect the
records of the Coalitional Provisional Authority in Iraq. The Division
aggressively pursued the task, going up the chain of command to get the
required authority and resources. Subsequently, with two separate
deployments to Baghdad, Iraq, of 12 people over 56 days, the Directives
and Records Division planned, organized, and conducted the image capture
of 760,424 pages, the collection of 1.5 terabytes of electronic records,
and the shipment of over 300,000 pages to the Washing­ton National
Records Center.

## Department of the Treasury, Office of the CIO  {#department-of-the-treasury-office-of-the-cio .AR-2004-Head-2}

The Department of the Treasury is a large agency, and the Office of the
Chief Information Officer promotes records management through
senior-level support, the issuance of a new agency newsletter, and other
public relations tools, including a successful annual Records and
Information Management Month program, which includes training, managers'
briefings, and exhibits.

## Internal Revenue Service  {#internal-revenue-service .AR-2004-Head-2}

The IRS records management program has coordinated the successful
development of online and web-based training for over 1,000 Information
Resource Coordinators. The IRS shared its web-based training with other
agencies where it is being adapted to their programs. The training was
influential in the development of NARA's own web-based records
management training. The IRS also developed web-based records and
infor­mation management procedural and process guides that are easily
available and used by all employees.

## Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior, National Park Service  {#department-of-agriculture-forest-service-department-of-the-interior-bureau-of-indian-affairs-department-of-the-interior-bureau-of-land-management-department-of-the-interior-u.s.-fish-and-wildlife-service-department-of-the-interior-national-park-service .AR-2004-Head-2}

The Interagency Wildland Fire Records Project was a partnership of five
agencies that developed records management tools to improve the way
fires are managed and to address the statutory requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act and the National Fire Policy Act.
These agencies developed new standards and tools to control and preserve
both paper and electronic wildland fire records both during a fire
incident and afterwards. These standards and tools will allow the
agencies to support fire opera­tions more effectively and protect rights
and interests of stakeholders. Just as important, they will allow fire
agencies to permanently preserve records supporting scientific and
historical research, implementation of National Fire Policy, and
planning under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This partnership reflects the Office of Management and Budget's Business
Reference Model "lines of business" by scheduling records across
multiple agencies.

## Federal Bureau of Investigation  {#federal-bureau-of-investigation .AR-2004-Head-2}

The Records Automation Section of the Records Management Division
developed a program to review systems for certification as electronic
recordkeeping systems. The program requires close cooperation with the
Office of the CIO to identify systems and develop recordkeeping
requirements for the enterprise architecture, as well as with the
Security Division for computer security certification and accreditation.
The electronic recordkeeping system certification program is up and
operating at the FBI. The Electronic Recordkeeping Certification Manual
describes the process in detail and provides all the tools necessary to
complete certification. It does this in a comprehensive way that can be
easily adapted and adopted by other agencies.

# Performance Assessment Rating Tool Summary {#performance-assessment-rating-tool-summary .AR-2004-Head-1}

## Records Services Program {#records-services-program .AR-2004-Head-2}

As part of the FY 2005 budget, OMB evaluated NARA's records services
program using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART was
established to provide a process for rating the performance of programs
across the Federal Government. The chart below sum­marizes OMB's
findings, NARA's responses, and the current status of our progress in
implementing the recommendations as well as FY 2005 results for PART
measures.

  --------------------- ------------------- ------ ------------- -------------- -----------------------
  OMB Recommendation    NARA's Response to                       Status of      
                        OMB's Finding                            Progress       

  1\. Develop targets   NARA developed a                         NARA included  
  for newly created     standard                                 13 new cost    
  unit-cost measures.   methodology for                          metrics in the 
                        collecting unit                          FY 2004        
                        cost measures in FY                      perfor­mance    
                        2004. Data was                           plan and       
                        collected for the                        developed a    
                        first time for many                      methodology    
                        new cost measures                        for collecting 
                        in FY 2004 and FY                        the data for   
                        2005. Targets will                       the first time 
                        be set where                             in FY 2004.    
                        appropriate                              These data are 
                        after-measurement                        reported in    
                        methodologies are                        the            
                        established and                          Performance    
                        tested.                                  section of     
                                                                 this report.   
                                                                 We are         
                                                                 monitoring     
                                                                 trends to      
                                                                 determine      
                                                                 where targets  
                                                                 are            
                                                                 appropriate.   

  2\. Produce audited                                            Completed.     
  financial statements.                                                         

  Selected PART                             Year   Target                       Actual
  Measures                                                                      

  Annual cost of                            2005   No annual                    \$6.48
  archival storage                                 target                       
  space per cubic feet                                                          
  of traditional                                                                
  holdings                                                                      

  By 2005, 95 percent                       2005   95                           88
  of requests for                                                               
  military service                                                              
  separation records                                                            
  are answered within                                                           
  10 working days                                                               

  By 2009, 100 percent                      2005   No annual                    53% traditional
  of NARA's archival                               target                       holdings,\
  holdings are in                                                               100% electronic
  appropriate space                                                             holdings,\
                                                                                42% artifact holdings

  By 2009, 100 percent                      2005   No annual                    9
  of NARA records                                  target                       
  centers comply with                                                           
  the October 2009                                                              
  regulatory storage                                                            
  standards                                                                     
  --------------------- ------------------- ------ ------------- -------------- -----------------------

## Electronic Records Services Program {#electronic-records-services-program .AR-2004-Head-2}

As part of the FY 2006 budget, OMB evaluated NARA's electronic records
services program using the PART. The chart below sum­marizes OMB's
findings, NARA's responses, and the current status of our progress in
implementing the recommendations, as well as FY 2005 results for PART
measures.

+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| # OMB Recommendati   | # NA  |        |         | # Statu           |
| on {#omb-recommendat | RA's  |        |         | s of Progress {#s |
| ion .AR-2004-Head-1} | Respo |        |         | tatus-of-progress |
|                      | nse t |        |         |  .AR-2004-Head-1} |
|                      | o OMB |        |         |                   |
|                      | 's Fi |        |         |                   |
|                      | nding |        |         |                   |
|                      |  {#na |        |         |                   |
|                      | ras-r |        |         |                   |
|                      | espon |        |         |                   |
|                      | se-to |        |         |                   |
|                      | -ombs |        |         |                   |
|                      | -find |        |         |                   |
|                      | ing . |        |         |                   |
|                      | AR-20 |        |         |                   |
|                      | 04-He |        |         |                   |
|                      | ad-1} |        |         |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| # 1                  | # We  |        |         | #                 |
| . Work on resolving  |  plan |        |         | This material wea |
| the basis for its ma |  to c |        |         | kness was resolve |
| terial weakness in I | omple |        |         | d during FY 2005. |
| T security. {#work-o | te al |        |         |  (See enclosure B |
| n-resolving-the-basi | l act |        |         |  in Appen­dix B, F |
| s-for-its-material-w | ions  |        |         | MFIA Report, for  |
| eakness-in-it-securi | to re |        |         | details.) {#this- |
| ty. .AR-2004-Head-1} | solve |        |         | material-weakness |
|                      |  this |        |         | -was-resolved-dur |
|                      |  mate |        |         | ing-fy-2005.-see- |
|                      | rial  |        |         | enclosure-b-in-ap |
|                      | weakn |        |         | pendix-b-fmfia-re |
|                      | ess d |        |         | port-for-details. |
|                      | uring |        |         |  .AR-2004-Head-1} |
|                      |  FY 2 |        |         |                   |
|                      | 005.  |        |         |                   |
|                      | {#we- |        |         |                   |
|                      | plan- |        |         |                   |
|                      | to-co |        |         |                   |
|                      | mplet |        |         |                   |
|                      | e-all |        |         |                   |
|                      | -acti |        |         |                   |
|                      | ons-t |        |         |                   |
|                      | o-res |        |         |                   |
|                      | olve- |        |         |                   |
|                      | this- |        |         |                   |
|                      | mater |        |         |                   |
|                      | ial-w |        |         |                   |
|                      | eakne |        |         |                   |
|                      | ss-du |        |         |                   |
|                      | ring- |        |         |                   |
|                      | fy-20 |        |         |                   |
|                      | 05. . |        |         |                   |
|                      | AR-20 |        |         |                   |
|                      | 04-He |        |         |                   |
|                      | ad-1} |        |         |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| # 2. Implement and   | # W   |        |         | # EV              |
| utilize earned value | e pla |        |         | M is used in day- |
|  management for acqu | n to  |        |         | to-day management |
| isi­tion of the Elect | fully |        |         |  of the ERA progr |
| ronic Records Archiv |  impl |        |         | am.The developmen |
| es. {#implement-and- | ement |        |         | t contractor also |
| utilize-earned-value |  earn |        |         |  is held to EVM s |
| -management-for-acqu | ed va |        |         | tandards and repo |
| isition-of-the-elect | lue m |        |         | rts to NARA on a  |
| ronic-records-archiv | anage |        |         | monthly basis.  { |
| es. .AR-2004-Head-1} | ment  |        |         | #evm-is-used-in-d |
|                      | for E |        |         | ay-to-day-managem |
|                      | RA in |        |         | ent-of-the-era-pr |
|                      |  FY 2 |        |         | ogram.the-develop |
|                      | 004.  |        |         | ment-contractor-a |
|                      |  {#we |        |         | lso-is-held-to-ev |
|                      | -plan |        |         | m-standards-and-r |
|                      | -to-f |        |         | eports-to-nara-on |
|                      | ully- |        |         | -a-monthly-basis. |
|                      | imple |        |         |  .AR-2004-Head-1} |
|                      | ment- |        |         |                   |
|                      | earne |        |         |                   |
|                      | d-val |        |         |                   |
|                      | ue-ma |        |         |                   |
|                      | nagem |        |         |                   |
|                      | ent-f |        |         |                   |
|                      | or-er |        |         |                   |
|                      | a-in- |        |         |                   |
|                      | fy-20 |        |         |                   |
|                      | 04. . |        |         |                   |
|                      | AR-20 |        |         |                   |
|                      | 04-He |        |         |                   |
|                      | ad-1} |        |         |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| # 3                  | # W   |        |         | # See             |
| . Refine its records | e pla |        |         |  progress made in |
|  manage­ment policies | n to  |        |         |  FY 2005 on page  |
|  and strategies and  | conti |        |         | [96]{.mark} of th |
| engage with Federal  | nue i |        |         | is report. {#see- |
| agencies to continue | mplem |        |         | progress-made-in- |
|  methods of improvin | entin |        |         | fy-2005-on-page-9 |
| g records management | g the |        |         | 6-of-this-report. |
|  across the Federal  |  stra |        |         |  .AR-2004-Head-1} |
| Government. {#refine | tegie |        |         |                   |
| -its-records-managem | s ide |        |         |                   |
| ent-policies-and-str | ntifi |        |         |                   |
| ategies-and-engage-w | ed in |        |         |                   |
| ith-federal-agencies |  Stra |        |         |                   |
| -to-continue-methods | tegic |        |         |                   |
| -of-improving-record |  Dire |        |         |                   |
| s-management-across- | ction |        |         |                   |
| the-federal-governme | s for |        |         |                   |
| nt. .AR-2004-Head-1} |  Fede |        |         |                   |
|                      | ral R |        |         |                   |
|                      | ecord |        |         |                   |
|                      | s Man |        |         |                   |
|                      | ageme |        |         |                   |
|                      | nt to |        |         |                   |
|                      |  guid |        |         |                   |
|                      | e, ad |        |         |                   |
|                      | vocat |        |         |                   |
|                      | e, an |        |         |                   |
|                      | d lea |        |         |                   |
|                      | d the |        |         |                   |
|                      |  impr |        |         |                   |
|                      | oveme |        |         |                   |
|                      | nt of |        |         |                   |
|                      |  reco |        |         |                   |
|                      | rds m |        |         |                   |
|                      | anage |        |         |                   |
|                      | ment  |        |         |                   |
|                      | metho |        |         |                   |
|                      | ds ac |        |         |                   |
|                      | ross  |        |         |                   |
|                      | the F |        |         |                   |
|                      | edera |        |         |                   |
|                      | l Gov |        |         |                   |
|                      | ernme |        |         |                   |
|                      | nt. { |        |         |                   |
|                      | #we-p |        |         |                   |
|                      | lan-t |        |         |                   |
|                      | o-con |        |         |                   |
|                      | tinue |        |         |                   |
|                      | -impl |        |         |                   |
|                      | ement |        |         |                   |
|                      | ing-t |        |         |                   |
|                      | he-st |        |         |                   |
|                      | rateg |        |         |                   |
|                      | ies-i |        |         |                   |
|                      | denti |        |         |                   |
|                      | fied- |        |         |                   |
|                      | in-st |        |         |                   |
|                      | rateg |        |         |                   |
|                      | ic-di |        |         |                   |
|                      | recti |        |         |                   |
|                      | ons-f |        |         |                   |
|                      | or-fe |        |         |                   |
|                      | deral |        |         |                   |
|                      | -reco |        |         |                   |
|                      | rds-m |        |         |                   |
|                      | anage |        |         |                   |
|                      | ment- |        |         |                   |
|                      | to-gu |        |         |                   |
|                      | ide-a |        |         |                   |
|                      | dvoca |        |         |                   |
|                      | te-an |        |         |                   |
|                      | d-lea |        |         |                   |
|                      | d-the |        |         |                   |
|                      | -impr |        |         |                   |
|                      | oveme |        |         |                   |
|                      | nt-of |        |         |                   |
|                      | -reco |        |         |                   |
|                      | rds-m |        |         |                   |
|                      | anage |        |         |                   |
|                      | ment- |        |         |                   |
|                      | metho |        |         |                   |
|                      | ds-ac |        |         |                   |
|                      | ross- |        |         |                   |
|                      | the-f |        |         |                   |
|                      | edera |        |         |                   |
|                      | l-gov |        |         |                   |
|                      | ernme |        |         |                   |
|                      | nt. . |        |         |                   |
|                      | AR-20 |        |         |                   |
|                      | 04-He |        |         |                   |
|                      | ad-1} |        |         |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| # Sele               |       | # Year | # Targ  | # Actual {#actual |
| cted PART Measures { |       |  {#yea | et {#ta |  .AR-2004-Head-1} |
| #selected-part-measu |       | r .AR- | rget .A |                   |
| res .AR-2004-Head-1} |       | 2004-H | R-2004- |                   |
|                      |       | ead-1} | Head-1} |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| Percentage of        |       | 2005   | 20%     | TBD               |
| archival electronic  |       |        |         |                   |
| records accessioned  |       |        |         |                   |
| by NARA at the       |       |        |         |                   |
| scheduled time.      |       |        |         |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| The per megabyte     |       | 2005   | Target  | N/A               |
| cost of managing     |       |        | pending |                   |
| archival electronic  |       |        | deve    |                   |
| records through the  |       |        | lopment |                   |
| Electronic Records   |       |        | of ERA  |                   |
| Archives will        |       |        |         |                   |
| decrease each year   |       |        |         |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+
| Milestone measures   |       | 2005   | Annual  | Design reviews    |
| for development of   |       |        | m       | successfully      |
| the Electronic       |       |        | easures | completed and     |
| Records Archives in  |       |        |         | contractor        |
| 2005 include         |       |        |         | (Lockheed Martin) |
| completing design    |       |        |         | selected to       |
| reviews and          |       |        |         | develop ERA.      |
| selecting a final    |       |        |         |                   |
| contractor for the   |       |        |         |                   |
| system.              |       |        |         |                   |
+----------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------------+

# Definitions {#definitions .AR-2004-Head-1}

The following provides definitions for many of the terms and concepts
used in this Performance Section.

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Goal 1**         **Records Management**

  Targeted           Established with an underlying written agreement
  assistance         between NARA and a Federal agency to identify and
  partnership        agree upon a specific project or projects to solve
                     the agency\'s records management problems. The
                     agreement must take the form of a project plan,
                     memorandum of understanding (MOU), or similar
                     written documentation that performs the same
                     function as a project plan. The agreement has
                     mutually agreed-upon criteria for successful
                     completion of the targeted assistance project or
                     projects. An agreement can include several projects,
                     each with its own success criteria.

  Asset and risk     Determining the value of information as a business
  management         asset in terms of its primary and secondary uses in
                     the business process; identifying potential risks to
                     the availability and usefulness of the information;
                     estimating the likelihood of such risks occurring;
                     evaluating the consequences if the risk occurs; and
                     managing the information based on that analysis.

  Records management An application or system software that incorporates
  service components interfaces for interacting with other programs and
  (RMSC)             that is made available to all Federal agencies for
                     use in their enterprise architecture. The RMSC will
                     provide the ability to embed records management
                     functionality in the IT structure of the enterprise.

  Records schedule   A document, having legally binding authority when
                     approved by NARA, that provides mandatory
                     instructions (i.e., disposition authority) for what
                     to do with records no longer needed for current
                     business.

  Schedule item      Records subject to a specific disposition authority
                     that appear on a records schedule.
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Goal 2**         **Electronic Records**

  Accession          Archival materials whose legal custody is
                     transferred to NARA.

  File units         Data files of electronic records, most often in the
                     form of a database.

  Logical data       A set of data processed as a unit by a computer
  record             system or application independently of its physical
                     environment. Examples: a word processing document; a
                     spreadsheet; an e-mail message; each row in each
                     table of a relational database or each row in an
                     independent logical file database.

  Preserved          Electronic file preservation requires that (1) the
                     physical file containing one or more logical data
                     records has been identified and its location,
                     format, and internal structure(s) specified; (2)
                     logical data records within the file are physically
                     readable and retrievable; (3) the media, the
                     physical files written on them, and the logical data
                     records they contain are managed to ensure
                     continuing accessibility; and (4) an audit trail is
                     maintained to document record integrity.

  Online visits      One instance in which a person uses our web site is
                     counted as one "visit." It is a count of the number
                     of times our web site is accessed and is similar to
                     counting the number of people who walk through our
                     front door. In contrast, it does not count "hits,"
                     which refer to the number of files used to show the
                     user a web page. A session in which a user accessed
                     a web page comprising 35 files would count as one
                     visit and 35 hits. Counting visits is a more
                     accurate way of showing use of our web site.

  Megabyte           A measure of computer data storage capacity. A
                     megabyte is 2 to the 20th power, or approximately a
                     million bytes.

  Gigabyte           A measure of computer data storage capacity. A
                     gigabyte is 2 to the 30th power, or approximately a
                     billion bytes (that is, thousand megabytes).

  Terabyte           A measure of computer data storage capacity. A
                     terabyte is 2 to the 40th power, or approximately a
                     trillion bytes (that is, a thousand gigabytes).
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Goal 3**         **Access**

  ARC                Archival Research Catalog, NARA-wide online catalog.

  User hits          The number of files used to show the user a web
                     page. This is not the preferred method for measuring
                     web usage. Counting online visits is more accurate
                     and became available for ARC in 2004.

  Traditional        Books, papers, maps, photographs, motion pictures,
  holdings           sound and video recordings, and other documentary
                     material that are not stored on electronic media.

  Artifact holdings  Three-dimensional objects made, modified, or used by
                     humans.

  Electronic         Records on electronic storage media.
  holdings           

  Inventory          A listing of the volume, scope, and complexity of an
                     organization's records.

  Written requests   Requests for services that arrive in the form of
                     letters, faxes, e-mail messages, and telephone calls
                     that have been transcribed. Excludes Freedom of
                     Information Act requests, personnel information
                     requests at the National Personnel Records Center,
                     Federal agency requests for information, fulfillment
                     of requests for copies of records, requests for
                     museum shop products, subpoenas, and special access
                     requests.

  Federal agency     A request by a Federal agency to a records center
  reference request  for the retrieval of agency records. Excludes
                     personnel information requests at the National
                     Personnel Records Center.

  Classified         A review by ISOO of an Executive branch agency to
  document review    identify incon­sis­tencies in the application of
                     classification and marking requirements of Executive
                     Order 12958. The results of the review along with
                     any appropriate recommendations for improvement are
                     reported to the agency head or agency senior
                     official for the program.

  Program review     An evaluation of selected aspects of an executive
                     branch agency's security classification program to
                     determine whether an agency has met the requirements
                     of Executive Order 12958. The review may include
                     security education and training, self-inspections,
                     declassification, safeguarding, and classification
                     activity. The results of a review, along with any
                     appropriate recommendations for improvement, are
                     reported to the agency senior official or agency
                     head.

  Equity-holding     A Federal agency that may have classified
  agency             information in a document, whether or not it created
                     the document. Without declassification guidelines,
                     only the equity-holding agency can declassify
                     information in the document.
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Goal 4**         **Space and Preservation**

  Appropriate space  Storage area that meets physical and environmental
                     standards for the type of materials stored there.

  At-risk            Records that have a media base near or at the point
                     of deterioration, to such an extent that the image
                     or information in the physical media of the record
                     is being or soon will be lost, or records that are
                     stored on media accessible only through obsolete or
                     near-obsolete technology.
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Goal 5**         **Infrastructure**

  Staff development  An individualized plan to enhance employees'
  plan               knowledge, skills, and abilities and improve
                     performance in their current jobs or of duties
                     outside their current jobs, in response to
                     organizational needs and human resource plans.

  Applicant          Anyone who has applied for a specific position.

  Underrepresented   Groups of people tracked by the U.S. Equal
  groups             Employment Opportunity Commission: Minority groups
                     (Black, Latino-Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and
                     American Indian/Alaskan Native); Women; People with
                     Disabilities.

  NARANET            A collection of local area networks installed in 36
                     NARA facilities that are connected to a wide area
                     network at Archives II, using frame relay
                     telecommunications, and then to the Internet.
                     NARANET includes personal computers with a
                     standardized suite of software. NARANET was designed
                     to be modular and scalable using standard hardware
                     and software components.
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------