Information Sharing: DHS Could Better Define How It Plans to Meet Its State and Local Mission and Improve Performance Accountability
Published: 2010-12-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Information sharing among federal, state, and local officials is crucial for preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), has lead federal responsibility for such information sharing. GAO was asked to assess (1) actions I&A has taken to enhance the usefulness of intelligence products it provides to state and local partners, (2) other services I&A provides to these partners, and (3) to what extent I&A has defined how it intends to share information with these partners. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed relevant statutes, strategies, best practices, and agency documents; contacted a nongeneralizable sample of 10 fusion centerswhere states collaborate with federal agencies to improve information sharingbased on geographic location and other factors; and interviewed I&A officials. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in September 2010. Information DHS deemed sensitive has been redacted.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: To enhance the usefulness of intelligence products it provides to state and local partners, I&A has initiatives underway to identify these partners' information needs and obtain feedback on the products, but strengthening these efforts could support the development of future products. As of August 2010, I&A had finalized information needs--which are owned and controlled by the states--for 9 of the 50 states. I&A was working with remaining states to identify their needs, but it had not established mutually agreed upon milestones for completing this effort, in accordance with program management principles. Working with states to establish such milestones and addressing any barriers to identifying their needs could better assist states in the timely completion of this process. In addition, I&A has begun issuing a new customer feedback survey to recipients of its products and plans to begin analyzing this feedback to determine the value of the products, but it has not developed plans to report the results of its analyses to state and local partners. Reporting the results to these partners and actions it has taken in response could help I&A demonstrate that the feedback is important and makes a difference, which could encourage state and local partners to provide more feedback and ultimately make I&As products and services more useful.
In addition to intelligence products, I&A provides a number of other services to its state and local partners--primarily through fusion centers--that have generally been well received by the center officials GAO contacted. For example, I&A has deployed more than 60 intelligence officers to fusion centers nationwide to assist state and local partners in areas such as obtaining relevant intelligence products and leveraging DHS capabilities to support their homeland security missions. I&A also facilitates access to information-sharing networks disseminating classified and unclassified information, provides training directly to center personnel, and operates a 24-hour service to respond to state and local requests for information and other support.
Historically, I&A has focused its state and local efforts on addressing statutory requirements and responding to I&A leadership priorities, but it has not yet defined how it plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission by identifying and documenting the specific programs and activities that are most important for executing this mission. Best practices show that clearly identifying priorities among programs and activities is important for implementing programs and managing results. Further, I&A's current performance measures do not allow I&A to demonstrate the expected outcomes and effectiveness of programs and activities that support state and local partners, as called for in program management principles. I&A officials said they are planning to develop such measures, but had not established time frames for doing so. Defining and documenting how I&A plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission and establishing time frames for developing additional performance measures could better position I&A to make resource decisions and provide transparency and accountability over its efforts. GAO recommends that I&A establish milestones for identifying the information needs of state and local partners, report to these partners on how I&A used feedback they provided to enhance intelligence products, identify and document priority programs and activities related to its state and local mission, and establish time frames for developing additional related performance measures. DHS agreed with these recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that I&A establish milestones for identifying the information needs of state and local partners, report to these partners on how I&A used feedback they provided to enhance intelligence products, identify and document priority programs and activities related to its state and local mission, and establish time frames for developing additional related performance measures. DHS agreed with these recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Recent planned or attempted acts of terrorism on U.S. soil have  highlighted the need for and importance of federal, state, and local  officials sharing information in order to apprehend the responsible  individuals. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and subsequently enacted  laws—including the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of  2004 and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission  Act of 2007 (the 9/11 Commission Act)—assigned the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS) responsibility for, among other things, sharing  terrorism-related information as appropriate with its state and local  partners, and authorized additional measures and funding to support  carrying out this mandate. DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)  is the lead DHS component with responsibilities for sharing this  information with all levels of government and the private sector. Most  states and some major urban areas have established fusion centers that  provide a conduit for I&A to share information within the state.
Our prior work on the importance of including state and local entities in  information sharing has shown that these efforts continue to be a  significant challenge for the federal government. In January 2005, we  designated terrorism-related information sharing a high-risk area because  the government had continued to face formidable challenges in analyzing  and disseminating this information in a timely, accurate, and useful  manner. We reported that information is a crucial tool in fighting  terrorism and that its timely dissemination is critical to maintaining the  security of our nation. This area remained on the high-risk list for our  January 2009 update. As a result of this designation, we continuously  monitor federal efforts to remove barriers to and better achieve  information sharing.
This report is a public version of a sensitive report that we provided to you  in September 2010. DHS deemed some of the information in that report as  sensitive, which must be protected from public disclosures. Therefore, this  report omits certain information associated with (1) the types of products  I&A provides to its state and local partners, (2) the specific number of  products it provided to these partners, and (3) the amount of feedback  I&A received on its products from these partners. Although the  information provided in this report is more limited in scope, it addresses  the same questions as the sensitive report.  Also, the methodology used for  both reports is the same. In the context of how I&A has responded to its  statutory mission to share terrorism-related information with state and  local partners, the sensitive report addressed the following questions:    To what extent has I&A taken actions to enhance the usefulness of  intelligence products that it provides to state and local partners?
In addition to intelligence products, what other services does I&A  provide to state and local partners to facilitate information sharing,  and what are its partners’ views of these services?
To what extent has I&A defined how it intends to meet its state and  local information-sharing mission?
To determine the extent to which I&A has taken actions to enhance the  usefulness of intelligence products for state and local partners, we  reviewed documentation related to I&A’s intelligence products and its  efforts to gather the information needs of state and local partners and  feedback on the products provided. These documents included fact  sheets, briefing handouts, and Federal Register notices. We also reviewed  I&A reports to Congress on the dissemination of intelligence products and  related feedback; a 2008 contractor report on I&A’s support to fusion  centers, which led to I&A efforts to gather state and local information  needs; and a 2010 I&A-sponsored study on how intelligence products are  disseminated to state and local agencies. In addition, we reviewed  statutory provisions that address I&A’s role in disseminating intelligence  products and gathering feedback, and the October 2007 National Strategy  for Information Sharing, which provides criteria on the importance of  gathering state and local information needs, among other things. Further,  we reviewed standards for program management and our previous reports  to identify criteria regarding project management and stakeholder  involvement in federal agency programs and decision making. We  compared I&A’s efforts against the relevant legislation and criteria to  identify efforts to meet certain provisions and potential areas for  improvement. We also interviewed senior officials from various I&A  divisions to discuss how they prepared and disseminated intelligence  products, what prior and current efforts they took or are taking to gather  state and local information needs and feedback on products, and how  these efforts have evolved over time.
In addition, we interviewed directors, intelligence analysts, and other  senior officials from 10 fusion centers—including the President of the  National Fusion Center Association—and asked them whether I&A had  discussed their information needs, their views on the usefulness of I&A’s  products, related feedback they have provided to I&A, and other issues.
Because we selected a nonprobability sample of fusion centers to contact,  the information we obtained from these locations may not be generalized  to all fusion centers nationwide. However, because we selected these  centers based on their geographic location, maturity, and whether an I&A  officer had been deployed to the center (5 had officers deployed and 5 did  not), the information we gathered from these locations provided us with a  general understanding of information sharing between I&A and state and  local agencies. We also met with officials from associations that represent  state and local interests—the Major Cities Chiefs Association and  International Association of Chiefs of Police—to discuss their views on  I&A efforts to address state and local needs. These associations do not  represent the views of all state and local entities, but provide additional  context regarding state and local information sharing. Further, we  reviewed pertinent statutory provisions and other documentation related  to the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG) to  determine its role in incorporating state and local needs and perspectives  into federal intelligence products, as well as any issues ITACG officials  identified regarding the dissemination of federal intelligence products.
Regarding other services I&A has provided to facilitate information  sharing with state and local partners, we analyzed relevant laws and  strategies to determine criteria and activities that I&A has been charged  with leading. These documents include the October 2007 National  Strategy for Information Sharing and the 9/11 Commission Act, which  provides for the establishment of a State, Local, and Regional Fusion  Center Initiative at DHS and contains numerous provisions that address  the federal government’s information-sharing responsibilities to fusion  centers. To obtain details on services I&A provides to state and local  partners, we reviewed I&A’s quarterly reports to Congress regarding its  support to fusion centers from fiscal year 2009 through the first quarter of  fiscal year 2010. We also reviewed internal quarterly reports on an I&A  initiative to respond to state and local requests for information and  administrative support (i.e., the Single Point of Service) from May 2008  through the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. In addition, we reviewed  third-party reports containing information on these efforts, such as the  2008 report on I&A fusion center support, a Congressional Research  Service report on the DHS intelligence enterprise, and an I&A-sponsored  evaluation of I&A’s various programs. We interviewed senior officials  from various I&A components—including the State and Local Program  Office and the Production Management Division—to gain an  understanding of I&A’s activities that directly support fusion centers. We  also interviewed senior officials from the 10 fusion centers and two  associations that we contacted to discuss I&A’s direct support to state and  local partners at fusion centers and obtain their views on these services.
To determine the extent to which I&A has defined how it intends to meet  its state and local information-sharing mission, we reviewed requirements  contained in applicable federal guidance, including guidance to agencies  from the Office of Management and Budget for developing strategic plans,  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government, and our recommended  practices for strategic planning. We then reviewed I&A’s planning  documents to identify where the required elements could be found. In  addition, we reviewed reports and I&A-sponsored studies on its programs  and planning. We also interviewed senior officials responsible for  agencywide planning, including officials from I&A’s Program and  Performance Management Division and I&A’s chief of staff. In addition, we  interviewed management officials responsible for planning in I&A  component divisions and branches to determine the processes used to  create planning documents and ensure accountability for achieving  program results.
As discussed above, we reviewed reports and studies prepared by I&A and  third-party contractors related to I&A’s efforts to support and facilitate  information sharing with state and local partners. We have included data,  findings, and recommendations from these documents in this report. We  found the analyses and data in the internal reports and third-party studies  to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes in this report. We performed  our work on the sensitive version of this report from February 2009 to  September 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: History and Overview of I&A
paragraphs: In 2002, DHS established its Directorate of Information Analysis and  Infrastructure Protection. In 2005, the directorate was divided into two  offices—I&A and the Office of Infrastructure Protection. I&A is headed by  the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, who is responsible for  providing homeland security intelligence and information to the Secretary  of Homeland Security, other federal officials and agencies, members of  Congress, departmental component agencies, and the department’s state,  local, tribal, territorial, and private-sector partners. I&A also provides staff,  services, and other support to the Under Secretary related to efforts to  lead, integrate, and manage intelligence activities across the department.
I&A has undergone several transitions and realignments since its inception  in 2002, which affect all of the office’s customers, including state and local  partners. Several of I&A’s divisions, offices, and branches have some role  in helping the office meet its mission to share information with these  partners. Most importantly, I&A’s State and Local Program Office was  established to manage a program to accomplish DHS’s fusion center  mission. Specifically, the office is responsible for deploying DHS  personnel with operational and intelligence skills to fusion centers to  facilitate coordination and the flow of information between DHS and  fusion centers, provide expertise in intelligence analysis and reporting,  coordinate with local DHS and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  components, and provide DHS with local situational awareness and access  to fusion center information.
In addition to the State and Local Program Office’s support to fusion  centers, other entities within I&A are engaged in providing intelligence  products and other products and services to state and local customers. For  example, several analytic divisions—such as those that address border  security and domestic threats—are responsible for conducting analysis  and preparing intelligence reports on a variety of topics of interest to  various stakeholders, including state and local entities. The Collections  Requirement Division gathers information needs from state and local  partners, among other things, and the Production Management Division is  responsible for finalizing intelligence reports that are prepared by the  analytic divisions and distributing them to I&A’s customers, including state  and local partners. In addition, I&A’s newly formed Customer Assurance  Branch is now responsible for gathering and compiling feedback on the  intelligence products that I&A provides to its customers, including state  and local partners.
section_title: Federal Statutes and Strategies Governing Information Sharing with State and Local Entities
paragraphs: Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, several statutes have  been enacted into law designed to enhance the sharing of terrorism- related information among federal, state, and local agencies, and the  federal government has developed related strategies and guidelines to  meet its statutory obligations. Related to I&A, the Homeland Security Act  of 2002 assigned the original DHS intelligence component—the  Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection—with  responsibility to receive, analyze, and integrate law enforcement and  intelligence information in order to (1) identify and assess the nature and  scope of terrorist threats to the homeland, (2) detect and identify threats  of terrorism against the United States, and (3) understand such threats in  light of actual and potential vulnerabilities to the homeland. Further, the  9/11 Commission Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security—through  the Under Secretary for I&A—to integrate information and standardize the  format of terrorism-related intelligence products. The act further directed  the Secretary to create a mechanism for state, local, and tribal law  enforcement officers to provide voluntary feedback to DHS on the quality  and utility of the intelligence products developed under these provisions.  DHS is also charged through the 9/11 Commission Act with developing a  curriculum for training state, local, and tribal partners in, among other  things, federal laws, practices, and regulations regarding the development,  handling, and review of intelligence and other information.
As part of DHS’s information sharing with state and local entities, several  provisions of the 9/11 Commission Act relate to support provided directly  to fusion centers. Most states and some major urban areas have  established fusion centers to, among other things, address gaps in  terrorism-related information sharing that the federal government cannot  address alone and provide a conduit for information sharing within the  state. Specific to fusion centers, the act provides for the Under Secretary  for Intelligence and Analysis to assign, to the maximum extent practicable,  officers and intelligence analysts from DHS components—including I&A— to fusion centers. The act also provides that federal officers and analysts  assigned to fusion centers in general are to assist law enforcement  agencies in developing a comprehensive and accurate threat picture and to  create intelligence and other information products for dissemination to  law enforcement agencies.
In October 2007, the President issued the National Strategy for  Information Sharing, which identifies the federal government’s  information-sharing responsibilities to include gathering and documenting  the information that state and local agencies need to enhance their  situational awareness of terrorist threats. The strategy also calls for  authorities at all levels of government to work together to obtain a  common understanding of the information needed to prevent, deter, and  respond to terrorist attacks. Specifically, the strategy requires that state  and local law enforcement agencies have access to timely, credible, and  actionable information and intelligence about individuals and  organizations intending to carry out attacks within the United States; their  organizations and their financing; potential targets; activities that could  have a nexus to terrorism; and major events or circumstances that might  influence state and local actions. The strategy also recognizes that fusion  centers are vital assets that are critical to sharing information related to  terrorism, and will serve as primary focal points within the state and local  environment for the receipt and sharing of terrorism-related information.  I&A has cited this strategy as a key document governing its state and local  information-sharing efforts. Thus, in response to the designation of fusion  centers as primary focal points, requirements in the 9/11 Commission Act,  and the difficulty of reaching out to the thousands of state and local law  enforcement entities nationwide, I&A views fusion centers as primary  vehicles for sharing information with state and local partners.
section_title: Our Past Work on Terrorism-Related Information Sharing
paragraphs: In October 2001, we first reported on the importance of sharing  information about terrorist threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, and lessons  learned. Since we designated terrorism-related information sharing a  high-risk area in January 2005, we have continued to monitor federal  efforts to remove barriers to effective information sharing. As part of this  monitoring, in October 2007 and April 2008, we reported on our  assessment of the status of fusion centers and how the federal government  is supporting them. Our fusion center report and subsequent testimony  highlighted continuing challenges—such as the centers’ ability to access  information and obtain funding—that DHS and the Department of Justice  (DOJ) needed to address to support the fusion centers’ role in facilitating  information sharing among federal, state, and local partners. Specifically,  the October 2007 report recommended that federal officials determine and  articulate the federal government’s role in helping to ensure fusion center  sustainability. In response, in late 2008, I&A reported that it had dedicated  personnel and other resources, as well as issued guidance, directly  supporting fusion centers. We have ongoing work that is assessing fusion  center sustainability and efforts to protect privacy, and expect to report  the results of this work later this year.
In June 2008, we reported on the federal government’s efforts to  implement the Information Sharing Environment, which was established  to facilitate the sharing of terrorism and homeland security information.  We recommended that the Program Manager for the Information Sharing  Environment and stakeholders more fully define the scope and specific  results to be achieved and develop performance measures to track  progress. The Program Manager has taken steps to address these  recommendations but has not fully addressed them. We are continuing to  review federal agencies’ efforts to implement the Information Sharing  Environment and expect to report the results of this work later this year.  Finally, in December 2009, we reported on our assessment of DHS and FBI  efforts to share information with local and tribal officials in border  communities and recommended that DHS and FBI more fully identify the  information needs of, and establish partnerships with, local and tribal  officials along the borders; identify promising practices in developing  border intelligence products with fusion centers and obtain feedback on  the products; and define the suspicious activities that local and tribal  officials in border communities are to report and how to report them.   DHS agreed with the recommendations and provided a number of actions  they were taking or planned to take to implement these suggested  changes. The FBI did not provide comments.
section_title: I&A Has Initiatives to Enhance Its Intelligence Products, but Strengthening These Initiatives Could Help Ensure That Products Are Useful and Responsive to State and Local Needs
paragraphs: I&A has increased the number of intelligence products it disseminates to  its state and local partners and is taking steps to work with fusion centers  to increase their dissemination. I&A also has initiatives to identify state  and local information needs to ensure that its products provide  information of importance to these partners but it has not worked with  states to establish milestones for identifying these needs, which could  better hold I&A accountable for assisting states in completing this process  in a timely manner. Further, I&A has developed a new customer survey  intended to gather more detailed feedback on its products, but it could  enhance the transparency and accountability of its efforts and provide  assurance that partners’ views are informing its products by periodically  reporting to its state and local partners on the steps it has taken to assess  and respond to this feedback.
subsections: section_title: I&A Has Increased the Number of Intelligence Products It Issues to State and Local Partners and Is Taking Steps to Ensure Better Dissemination of These Products
paragraphs: To address requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as  amended, and the 9/11 Commission Act, I&A prepares intelligence  products on a number of topics for its many customers, including its state  and local partners. I&A prepares these intelligence products based on a  number of factors, including departmental priorities, areas of expertise,  and departmental and customer needs. Examples of I&A products that are  targeted to or adapted for state and local partners are as follows:    Daily Intelligence Highlights: Provide a compilation of significant and  developing issues that affect homeland security.
Roll Call Release: Designed to provide information on possible tactics  or techniques that could be used by terrorists or criminals. I&A  prepares these products jointly with the FBI and the ITACG. Topics  covered in prior Roll Call Releases include concealment of explosive  devices and homemade explosives.
Homeland Security Monitor: Provides multiple articles on a theme or  topic. Examples of Homeland Security Monitors include the Border  Security Monitor and Cyber Security Monitor.
Homeland Security Reference Aid: Provides information and context  on an issue in various formats, such as primers, handbooks, historical  overviews, organizational charts, group profiles, or standalone  graphics such as annotated maps and charts.
From June 2009 through May 2010, I&A disseminated 16 percent more  analytic intelligence products to its state and local partners through fusion  centers than the previous year, and more than twice the number released  over the previous 2 years. I&A also disseminates analytic products it  develops jointly with the FBI, other federal agencies, and fusion centers.  For example, of the products released from June 2009 through May 2010,  approximately one-third were prepared jointly with the FBI or other  federal agencies. In addition, from July 2007 through July 2010, I&A  reported that it prepared several dozen joint products with fusion centers.   These products included threat assessments for special events, such as the  Presidential Inauguration and the Super Bowl.
I&A also provides intelligence reports to fusion centers, as well as to  federal agencies and members of the intelligence community, in the form  of Homeland Intelligence Reports. These reports provide unanalyzed  intelligence—generated by a single, unvalidated source—derived from  operational or law enforcement data that I&A evaluated because of their  homeland security relevance. From June 2009 through May 2010, I&A  disseminated thousands of Homeland Intelligence Reports to its state and  local partners through fusion centers. I&A officials noted that the number  of reports disseminated has increased over time because of the overall  increase in the number of submissions from DHS components, such as  U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement, as well as greater reporting by state and local partners.
In 2009, I&A commissioned a study in response to concerns voiced by  state and local first responders and first preventers (e.g., law enforcement,  fire departments, emergency management, health services, critical  infrastructure providers, and other relevant stakeholders) that they were  not receiving enough useful information products from fusion centers. The  study examined a number of issues, such as how fusion centers  disseminate products to these partners—what the study referred to as the  “last mile” of dissemination—in order to identify common challenges and  best practices. The March 2010 report contains recommendations for I&A  and fusion centers. Recommendations for I&A include  ensuring that the results of the study are made widely available;    working with fusion centers to discuss how some ideas from the report  (e.g., establishing a policy for product dissemination) could be  implemented;  ensuring that deployed I&A officers can help fusion centers adopt best  practices and policies;  expanding the development of products geared towards first  responders and preventers; and  incorporating descriptions of why the distributed product is relevant to  the state or local entity.
In response to these recommendations, the Acting Director of I&A’s State  and Local Program Office said that I&A intelligence officers at fusion  centers have been directed to work with their fusion centers to develop  better policies and procedures for product dissemination.
section_title: I&A Is Taking Steps to Identify State Information Needs, but Establishing Milestones for Completing Efforts Could Better Hold I&A Accountable to Assist States and Support Future Product Development
paragraphs: As of August 2010, I&A had worked with 9 of 50 states to collect and  validate their definition of the kinds of information they need for their  homeland security efforts. I&A was also working with another 32 states to  help identify and define their needs. In 2007, I&A began its initial effort to  identify the information needs of its state and local partners in conjunction  with a pilot study that found that I&A had not identified fusion center  needs for product development or produced intelligence products tailored  to those needs. Specifically, the study found that fusion center leaders at  pilot sites did not believe that DHS intelligence products fully met their  mission needs by providing information of operational importance to state  and local law enforcement. The study also found that DHS did not have an  intelligence process that identified fusion center needs to inform reporting  and analysis, produced products tailored to those requirements, or  collected feedback from fusion centers on the value of these products.
During 2007, I&A identified the information needs from five of the six  fusion centers that it contacted during its pilot study, according to I&A  officials. These information needs included topics such as border security  and threats posed by prison radicalization. I&A reached out to nine  additional fusion centers in 2008, and was able to obtain and validate  information needs from four of them, which submitted their needs on a  voluntary basis. Thus, over the first year and a half of these efforts, I&A  obtained and validated information needs from a total of nine fusion  centers. I&A planned to visit an additional eight fusion centers in 2009 but  only visited one center before efforts were suspended in March 2009, with  no resulting compendium of fusion center needs. According to a senior  I&A official, the process I&A was using to obtain these needs was time  consuming and inefficient. The official explained that a number of  different I&A entities were involved in gathering these needs, visiting  fusion centers one at a time, and following up with each to validate the  needs.
In March 2009, I&A refocused its efforts to identify Standing Information  Needs for each state, which I&A defines as “any subject, general or  specific, for which there is a continuing need for intelligence, which will  establish a foundation for guiding intelligence collection efforts and  reporting activities.” Examples include the need for information on  individuals or groups that are capable of attacking critical infrastructure  and key resources, and emerging cross-border connections between  transnational criminal organizations or gangs. According to an Acting  Deputy Director of I&A’s Domestic Threat Analysis Division, Standing  Information Needs are focused on long-term analytic needs, whereas prior  efforts to collect information needs were focused on identifying and  providing products in response to more immediate information needs—a  function now handled through I&A’s Single Point of Service initiative,  which is discussed later in this report.
I&A describes its approach to assisting states in identifying their Standing  Information Needs as a two-fold process. First, I&A provides states with a  list of general topics—such as critical infrastructure protection—that align  with DHS’s Standing Information Needs for their use in identifying areas of  interest. I&A then poses a series of questions to state fusion center  personnel to help them define more detailed information needs under  those topics in an organized and complete manner. In October 2009, I&A  began soliciting these needs from all state fusion centers with I&A  intelligence officers, except for 3 that had taken part in the pilot phase of  the program. As of August 2010, 9 states had completed efforts to identify  their information needs, 12 states had completed drafts that were awaiting  final state approval, and 20 states were in the process of drafting their  needs. After the states have finalized their Standing Information Needs,  I&A plans to assist them in prioritizing those needs.
According to the Deputy Director of I&A’s Collection and Requirements  Division, I&A has begun providing products to states in response to  Standing Information Needs that the states have submitted. The official  noted that these products are labeled in a manner that makes a clear link  between the state’s identified need and the product that is issued, and that  the products are also sent to other stakeholders that may have similar  interests. Thus, I&A reports that it can track states’ needs from the time  they are received through each product provided in response to those  needs. According to I&A, this current effort is completed manually and is  labor intensive. I&A is currently researching tools to automate the  Standing Information Needs process to ensure that products are reaching  as many customers as possible by distributing reports generated as a  result of these needs to all interested parties.
I&A is making progress in gathering and responding to state Standing  Information Needs and has developed internal milestones for completing  the identification of these needs. According to standard program  management principles, time frames or milestones should typically be  incorporated as part of a road map to achieve a specific desired outcome  or result; in this case, development of a nationwide compendium of state  and local information needs. According to I&A, because these needs are  state-owned and approved documents, I&A cannot compel states to meet  its internal milestones. Nevertheless, working closely with states to jointly  develop such milestones is particularly important given the past  challenges I&A has encountered in identifying these needs, and given that  it has spent nearly 3 years in this process and has completed efforts to  identify needs from nine states to date.
According to the Deputy Director of I&A’s Collection Requirements  Division, while assisting states in developing their Standing Information  Needs is a significant priority, the biggest challenge the division faces in  addressing this priority is limited resources. I&A has two to three staff  assigned to work with states to gather these needs and those staff get  pulled from this task to deal with other, higher priority issues. For  example, the official noted that in the spring of 2010, the staff were taken  from this work to advise the U.S. Coast Guard on methods of information  gathering and reporting regarding the British Petroleum Deepwater  Horizon oil spill. While we recognize that states have the lead in defining  their needs, given the importance that both I&A and its state and local  partners place on having state and local needs drive intelligence and  product development, it is important that these needs be identified as  expeditiously as possible. Working with states to establish milestones for  developing their information needs and identifying and addressing any  barriers to developing those needs and meeting milestones could better  hold I&A accountable for assisting the states in the timely completion of  this process.
section_title: I&A Is Analyzing Feedback on Intelligence Products, but Reporting the Results of the Analysis to State and Local Partners Could Provide Better Transparency and Accountability to Stakeholders
paragraphs: Historically, the primary mechanism I&A used to collect feedback on its  intelligence products was to include a reference to an unclassified e-mail  address in each product that recipients could use to submit comments.  Other feedback mechanisms include Web sites used to disseminate  information, teleconferences, and information gathered by I&A officers  located at fusion centers, a practice that officials at 6 of the 10 fusion  centers we contacted preferred versus replying via e-mail.
The level of feedback I&A has received on its products through this e-mail  address has increased and has largely been positive. Specifically, from  June 2008 through May 2009, I&A’s report to Congress on voluntary  customer feedback—required by the 9/11 Commission Act—shows that  I&A received 175 feedback responses on intelligence products from state  and local customers, versus 50 responses during the prior reporting  period. I&A’s analysis of the responses show that about 67 percent were  positive, meaning that respondents felt they were useful for planning and  resource allocation. Appendix I presents more information on how I&A  categorizes the feedback it has received. Officials at 9 of the 10 fusion  centers we contacted said that they found I&A’s products to be generally  helpful. For example, officials from 2 fusion centers cited I&A reports on  the attempted Christmas Day 2009 airline bombing as examples of relevant  information that was provided to them in a timely manner. Regarding  Homeland Intelligence Reports, I&A said that state and local partners’  feedback has been minimal, and that it is continuing to encourage them to  comment on these reports so that I&A can adjust these products to meet  its partners’ needs. One example cited in I&A’s latest customer feedback  report to Congress illustrates the importance of obtaining feedback for  supporting I&A efforts to improve its future products. Specifically, a fusion  center expressed concerns that the perspectives of 3 southwest border  state fusion centers were not included in an assessment that I&A  headquarters produced on border violence. The feedback resulted in  teleconferences and other I&A actions to ensure that state and local  perspectives are included in future assessments of border violence.
According to I&A officials, the amount and detail of feedback received to  date, while positive, has been of limited use in improving product  development. Thus, in 2010 I&A began using a new customer satisfaction  survey to gather more meaningful feedback from state and local partners  on its intelligence products and other areas of support. For example, the  survey asks respondents how the product was used to support their  mission, how it could be improved, and their level of satisfaction with the  timeliness and relevance of the product to the respondents’ intelligence  needs. I&A plans to use the survey results to establish who in the state and  local community is accessing its reports, and to make improvements to  intelligence products that increase customer satisfaction. According to the  Chief of I&A’s newly formed Customer Assurance Branch—which is  responsible for managing efforts to collect and analyze feedback on I&A’s  analytic services—I&A began deploying the survey to all recipients of  products marked “For Official Use Only” in March 2010. As of May 2010,  I&A officials said that they had received several hundred responses to this  survey, approximately half of which were from state, local, tribal, and  territorial partners—more than double the number of responses from  these partners over the previous year of reporting.
The results of these feedback surveys are to be sent directly to the  analysts and divisions preparing intelligence products for incorporation  into ongoing and future work, according to agency officials. The officials  noted that this survey is to be one part of a larger effort to capture and  manage feedback on not only I&A’s intelligence products, but also services  that it provides internally to its analysts and report preparers.
According to I&A, once it has gathered data for one full quarter, it will  begin to examine different ways that it can compile and assess the  information gathered from these surveys. I&A anticipates that its efforts  will include organizing feedback survey responses by the type of product  issued (e.g., Homeland Security Monitor), analytic division, and product  topic (e.g., border security or critical infrastructure). Organizing feedback  in this way could help I&A determine the value and responsiveness of its  particular product types to state and local customer needs, and in turn  help I&A focus its limited resources. At the time of our review, I&A  planned to report the results of such analyses to Congress through its  upcoming 2010 report to Congress on voluntary feedback from state and  local customers.
I&A has also taken initial steps to report the results of its feedback  analysis directly to state and local customers. Specifically, during the  summer of 2010, I&A provided briefings on the value of this feedback  during two stakeholder forums, according to an official from I&A’s  Customer Assurance Branch. This official added that I&A plans to  continue using stakeholder forums—such as conferences and meetings of  fusion center directors—to report on I&A’s assessment of state and local  feedback and its use in refining I&A products. However, I&A had not  developed plans on when it will provide such reporting, how frequently, or  in what level of detail. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government require agencies to ensure effective communication with  external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on an agency  achieving its goals—in this case, I&A’s state and local information-sharing  partners. In addition, standard program management principles call for  time frames or milestones to be developed as part of a road map to  achieve a specific desired result. As I&A moves forward with its efforts to  collect and analyze feedback from state and local partners, developing  plans for reporting the results of its feedback analysis—including time  frames and level of detail—to these partners and the actions it has taken in  response could help I&A demonstrate that the feedback is important and  makes a difference. In turn, this could encourage state and local partners  to provide more feedback and ultimately make I&A’s products and  services more useful.
section_title: I&A Has Deployed Personnel to Fusion Centers and Provided Other Services to State and Local Partners That Generally Have Been Well Received
paragraphs: In addition to intelligence products, I&A provides a number of other  services to its state and local partners to enhance information sharing,  analytic capabilities, and operational support that generally have been  well-received, based on our discussions with officials at 10 fusion centers  and published third-party reports on I&A operations. For example, I&A  has deployed intelligence officers—who assist state and local partners in a  number of information-sharing efforts—to more than half of all fusion  centers. I&A also facilitates access to information-sharing networks,  provides training directly to fusion center personnel, and operates a 24- hour service to respond to state and local requests for information and  other support.
subsections: section_title: I&A Plans to Deploy Intelligence Officers to All Fusion Centers by the End of Fiscal Year 2011
paragraphs: As part of its efforts to support fusion centers, I&A’s State and Local  Program Office assigns intelligence officers to fusion centers. These  officers serve as DHS’s representative to fusion centers and assist them in  a number of efforts—such as providing connectivity to classified data  systems, training opportunities, and warnings about threats—and  generally educating them on how to better use DHS capabilities to support  their homeland security missions. In addition, I&A assigns regional  directors to fusion centers who, among other things, are responsible for  supervising I&A intelligence officers at fusion centers within their region  and providing operational and intelligence assistance to the centers,  particularly those without intelligence officers on-site.  As of August 2010,  I&A had deployed 62 intelligence officers and 6 regional directors to fusion  centers. This represents an increase of 32 officers and the same number of  regional directors since June 2009. I&A plans to have an intelligence  officer deployed to each of its 72 designated fusion centers, as well as  appoint 10 regional directors, by the end of fiscal year 2011. Figure 1  shows the locations where I&A intelligence officers and regional directors  had been deployed as of August 2010.
Of the 10 fusion centers we contacted, 7 had an I&A intelligence officer or  regional director on site and fusion center officials at all 7 locations had  positive comments about the support the I&A officials provided. Fusion  center officials at the other 3 locations said that they received support  through regional directors in their area or an I&A officer in a neighboring  state. Fusion center officials at 8 of the 10 centers noted that the presence  of I&A officers or regional directors (on site or in their region) was  important for obtaining intelligence products from DHS. According to one  director, the center was recently assigned an I&A officer who alerted  center officials to products of which they were previously unaware. In  particular, the director noted that the I&A officer was able to access and  share Border Patrol daily reports that were very helpful to local law  enforcement operations. In addition, officials at 9 of the 10 fusion centers  we contacted said that the I&A officers were particularly helpful in  providing technical assistance (e.g., guidance on how the center should  operate) or in notifying the centers about available training.
section_title: I&A Has Facilitated Fusion Center Access to Classified and Sensitive Information
paragraphs: As of May 2010, I&A had funded and facilitated the installation of the  Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN) at more than half of all fusion  centers, which allows the federal government to share Secret-level  intelligence and information with state, local, and tribal partners.  Additional centers are undergoing facilities certification in order to be  accredited to house HSDN.  I&A has established a goal of deploying  HSDN to all 72 fusion centers.
In addition, DHS’s Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) is used  for sharing sensitive but unclassified information with state and local  partners through a number of “community of interest” portals. One of the  key portals is HSIN-Intel, which houses a section known as the Homeland  Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC)—a  virtual community for federal, state, and local intelligence analysts to  interact. As of June 2010, HS SLIC had approximately 1,900 state and  local users, an increase from the approximately 1,082 state and local users  in September 2008. In addition to the HSIN portal, HS SLIC program  officials in I&A facilitate weekly teleconferences, biweekly secure  teleconferences, and quarterly conferences to share information with  interested state and local parties. In an April 2009 report, the Homeland  Security Institute (HSI) credited HS SLIC with fostering “the broader  sharing of homeland security intelligence and information.” In addition,  all 10 of the fusion centers we contacted were using HS SLIC, and 6 of the  10 cited it as useful for identifying relevant information that supports  fusion center activities.
section_title: I&A Provides Analytic and Other Training to State and Local Officials, Which Has Also Received Positive Feedback
paragraphs: In response to a 9/11 Commission Act requirement to develop a curriculum  for training state, local, and tribal partners in the intelligence cycle and  other issues involving the sharing of federal intelligence, I&A has a  number of courses for state and local analysts and officials. For example,  I&A’s State and Local Program Office offers training courses directly to  fusion center personnel, as shown in table 1.
Course feedback that I&A provided to us is largely positive. Further,  officials from 8 of the 10 fusion centers we contacted reported receiving  training provided or sponsored by I&A and were generally satisfied with  this training. In addition to the courses above, I&A’s Intelligence Training  Branch offers courses that are geared towards DHS intelligence analysts  but made available to state and local analysts. These cover various topics,  such as basic overviews of the intelligence community, critical thinking  and analytic methods, and skills for writing intelligence products and  briefings. Participant feedback scores provided as of late 2009 indicate  that the courses are well-received, and I&A has begun to provide some of  this training directly to state and local analysts at field locations.
section_title: Single Point of Service Is Intended to Allow I&A to Provide Products in Response to Immediate State and Local Needs
paragraphs: I&A also provides products and support in response to a variety of state  and local information requests through a 24-hour support mechanism  called the Single Point of Service. The service was established in May 2008  in response to an I&A-sponsored contractor study that recommended that  I&A provide state and local partners with a 24-hour resource to request  support, communicate product requirements, and share critical  information with DHS and its components. Through the Single Point of  Service, I&A has consolidated and standardized its tracking of state and  local customer queries and communication by use of a single term—State  and Local Support Request—which includes requests for information,  production, administrative tasks, analysis, and various support functions.  In addition, I&A has developed a set of goals, key performance indicators,  and measures to track various performance aspects of service, such as the  timeliness of responses and percentage of responses completed.  Additional information on these items, as well as descriptions of State and  Local Support Request categories is contained in appendix II.
To date, fusion centers that have I&A intelligence officers on site have  used the Single Point of Service the most. Specifically, in the first quarter  of fiscal year 2010, deployed I&A intelligence officers accounted for 76  percent of all requests submitted. According to I&A officials, the I&A  intelligence officers on site are the focal points for the fusion center to  submit requests to the Single Point of Service. According to the HSI report,  the Single Point of Service program “greatly increased I&A’s response to  the information needs of fusion centers,” and that the 11 fusion centers  that it spoke with “credited this program with significantly improving the  process for requesting and receiving a timely response from DHS.”
Appendix III contains additional information on I&A products and services  and other initiatives designed to support fusion centers and facilitate  information sharing.
section_title: Defining How I&A Intends to Meet Its State and Local Information-Sharing Mission and Establishing Accountability for Results Could Better Position I&A for the Future
paragraphs: Part of I&A’s mission is to share information with state and local partners,  but I&A has not defined how it intends to meet this mission or established  a framework to hold itself and its divisions accountable for meeting it. As  of September 2010, I&A had developed a high-level officewide strategy  that defines goals and objectives and had taken initial steps to further  define the portion of its mission related to state and local information  sharing. However, I&A had not yet identified and documented the  programs and activities that are most important for executing this mission  or how it will measure its performance in meeting this mission and be held  accountable for results.
subsections: section_title: I&A Has Taken Initial Steps to Assess How It Could Better Achieve Its State and Local Information-Sharing Mission
paragraphs: I&A has undertaken a variety of initiatives to support its state and local  information-sharing mission and has taken initial steps to determine how  it could better achieve this mission. Historically, I&A’s state and local  programs and activities have been in response to a variety of factors,  including its focus on addressing statutory requirements and efforts to  leverage and support fusion centers that state and local agencies had  established. I&A’s efforts to implement this mission have also been  affected by administration changes and changing and evolving I&A  leadership priorities. In addition, I&A has had to balance resources for  supporting fusion centers and other state and local information-sharing  programs and activities against other competing priorities. State and local  partners are one of a number of customer sets the office supports along  with the Secretary, other DHS components such as U.S. Customs and  Border Protection, other federal agencies, and the intelligence  community—with each competing for resources. For example, although  Congress—through the 9/11 Commission Act—has stressed the  importance of supporting fusion centers, DHS has not provided consistent  funding for I&A to support the centers, although I&A has made  investments on its own. Specifically, until the fiscal year 2010 budget  cycle, DHS did not request funds to support the deployment of I&A  personnel to these centers. Rather, I&A had to reprogram funds from other  areas to support this critical part of its state and local mission. According  to the then-Director of I&A’s State and Local Program Office, the lack of a  consistent funding stream to support these deployments delayed I&A’s  efforts to provide needed resources to these centers.
I&A sponsored a study in 2007 to identify how it could enhance DHS’s  support to fusion centers, a key part of its efforts to meet its state and  local mission. The results of the study identified several areas for  improvement, including the need to better respond to fusion center  requests for information and provide centers with reporting and analysis  that addresses their mission-critical information needs. One of the  initiatives I&A took in response that provided a more organized and  integrated approach to supporting state and local customers was creating  a single point within the office that these customers could contact for their  questions and requests for support and that would be held accountable for  responding to these needs.
In addition, in 2008, I&A sponsored an agencywide study that was  conducted by the HSI to evaluate I&A programs related to its role in  providing homeland security intelligence and information to various  federal officials and agencies, members of Congress, and the department’s  state and local partners, among others. The resulting April 2009 report  noted that I&A is an emerging organization that is still in the initial stages  of its organizational development, including developing its strategic  planning capabilities and strategic business processes.  The report also  noted that the lack of a strategic plan hindered I&A’s efforts to conduct  any type of officewide program or resource planning that could be  appropriately tied to its mission, goals, and objectives. As a result, HSI  found that various I&A components had developed their own goals,  priorities, processes, and procedures and, in some cases, may be working  at cross-purposes. HSI also found that the lack of I&A efforts to allocate  resources to support strategic goals and objectives prevented managers  from organizing their efforts for long-term effectiveness, which left them  unable to plan for growth or to adapt to emerging issues.
As a first step, HSI recommended that I&A go through a strategic planning  process and develop an overarching strategic plan in order to provide I&A  leadership with a road map for making organizational changes.  Specifically, HSI recommended that I&A develop a strategy that defines its  overall mission, goals, objectives, priorities, and performance measures. In  December 2009, I&A developed a strategy that contains 4 overall goals that  the office as a whole is to meet. For example, 1 of the goals is to serve as  the premier provider of homeland security information and intelligence,  and another goal is to build partnerships and foster teamwork. The  strategy also contains 12 objectives that I&A plans to use to meet these  goals. Two of these objectives focus on its state and local partners. The  first is to strengthen the national network of fusion centers. Specifically,  through a proposed Joint Fusion Center Program Management Office, I&A  was to lead a DHS-wide effort to support fusion centers. The role of this  office was to ensure coordination across all departmental components  with the dual priorities of strengthening fusion centers and DHS  intelligence products. According to DHS, the office was to have five  primary responsibilities to make fusion centers more effective.  Specifically, the office was to  survey state, local, and tribal law enforcement to get feedback on what  information these “first preventers” need to do their job;    develop a mechanism to gather, analyze, and share national, regional,  and local threat information up and down the intelligence network;  coordinate with fusion centers to continuously ensure they get the  appropriate personnel and resources from DHS;    provide training and exercises to build relationships between fusion  center personnel and promote a sense of common mission; and  train fusion center personnel to respect the civil liberties of American  citizens.
According to I&A officials, in August 2010, I&A did not receive  congressional approval to establish this office. The officials noted that  I&A’s State and Local Program Office would assume the roles and  responsibilities that were planned for the Joint Fusion Center Program  Management Office.
The second objective that specifically addresses state and local partners is  “to build, support, and integrate a robust information sharing capability  among and between federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector  partners.” According to the Director of I&A’s Program and Performance  Management Division, most of the other 10 objectives will affect state and  local partners—even though the objectives do not articulate this or  discuss related programs and activities—and will involve components  from across I&A’s divisions and branches. For example, other goals and  objectives involve identifying customer information needs, developing  analytic products, obtaining feedback on products, and measuring  performance. The Director noted that I&A may revise the strategy’s goals  and objectives in response to the February 2010 DHS Quadrennial  Homeland Security Review Report to Congress, which outlines a strategic  framework to guide the homeland security activities of DHS components.  Appendix IV contains additional information on the goals and objectives in  I&A’s strategy.
section_title: Defining and Documenting Programs and Activities That Collectively Support I&A’s State and Local Mission Could Help Provide Transparency and Accountability for Results
paragraphs: I&A has begun its strategic planning efforts, but has not yet defined how it  plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission by identifying  and documenting the specific programs and activities that are most  important for executing this mission. Congressional committee members  who have been trying to hold I&A accountable for achieving its state and  local mission have been concerned about I&A’s inability to demonstrate  the priority and level of investment it is giving to this mission compared to  its other functions, as evidenced by hearings conducted over the past  several years.
I&A recognizes that it needs to take steps to address its state and local  information-sharing mission and define and document priority programs  and activities. For example, in June 2010, I&A conducted focus groups  with representatives of various customer sets—including its state and  local partners—to gain a better understanding of their needs, according to  the Director of I&A’s Program and Performance Management Division. In  addition, I&A has defined how it expects the State and Local Program  Office to support fusion centers (through the roles and responsibilities  originally envisioned for the Joint Fusion Center Program Management  Office). However, I&A has not defined and documented the programs and  activities that its other components—such as the Collections and  Requirements Branch and the Production Management Division—will be  held accountable for implementing that collectively will ensure that I&A  meets its state and local mission.
In addition, I&A’s current strategy addresses the role of the then-proposed  Joint Fusion Center Program Management Office, but it generally does not  provide information on the state and local programs and activities that  I&A’s components will be responsible for implementing. In its April 2009  report, HSI recommended that I&A divisions and branches create  derivative plans that are linked to the strategy. Among other things, the  derivative plans were to identify priority programs and activities, assign  roles and responsibilities, and describe performance measures and  incentives tied to performance. I&A leadership would then be responsible  for ensuring that the divisions and branches implement their plans. I&A  has decided not to develop the more specific derivative component plans  or a plan or road map for how it will specifically meet its state and local  mission. As a result, I&A cannot demonstrate to state and local customers,  Congress, and other stakeholders that it has assessed and given funding  priority to those programs and activities that it has determined are most  effective for sharing information with state and local partners.
According to the Director of I&A’s Program and Performance Management  Division, more detailed plans are not needed because the organizational  components know which parts of the strategy—and related state and local  programs and activities—they are responsible for completing. However,  relying on these components to know their roles and responsibilities  without clearly delegating, documenting, and tracking implementation  does not provide a transparent and reliable system of accountability for  ensuring that the state and local mission is achieved. I&A officials said that  the State and Local Program Office is to guide I&A’s efforts to share  information with state and local partners. However, they could not  distinguish, for example, how this office would operate in relation to the  other components or what authority or leverage it would have over these  components’ competing programs, activities, and investment decisions to  ensure the state and local mission is achieved.
Our prior work has found that successful organizations clearly articulate  the programs and activities that are needed to achieve specified missions  or results, and the organization’s priorities—including investment  priorities—among these programs and activities. Defining and  documenting how I&A plans to meet its state and local information- sharing mission—including programs, activities, and priorities—could  help I&A provide transparency and accountability to Congress, its state  and local partners, and other stakeholders.
section_title: Defining Expected Results and Establishing Measures to Track Progress Could Help I&A Demonstrate How Well It Is Meeting Its State and Local Mission
paragraphs: I&A has not defined what state and local information-sharing results it  expects to achieve from its program investments and the measures it will  use to track the progress it is making in achieving these results. Currently,  I&A has four performance measures related to its efforts to share  information with state and local partners. All four of these measures  provide descriptive information regarding activities and services that I&A  provides to these partners. For example, they show the percentage of  fusion centers that are staffed with I&A personnel and count the total  number of state and local requests for support, as shown in table 2 below.
However, none of these are measures that could allow I&A to demonstrate  and report on the actual results, effects, or impacts of programs and  activities or the overall progress it is making in meeting the needs of its  partners. For example, the measure on the percentage of I&A personnel in  fusion centers provides useful information on I&A efforts to deploy  analysts to the field, but it does not provide information related to the  effectiveness of the I&A personnel or the value they provide to their  customers, such as the extent to which these personnel enhance  information sharing, analytic capabilities, and operational support.  Developing such measures could help I&A support program and funding  decisions.
Our past work and the experience of leading organizations have  demonstrated that measuring performance allows organizations to track  progress they are making toward intended results—including goals,  objectives, and targets they expect to achieve—and gives managers critical  information on which to base decisions for improving their programs.  They also show that adhering to results-oriented principles provides a  means to strengthen program performance. These principles include  defining the results to be achieved and the measures that will be used to  track progress towards these results. Our prior work also indicates that  agencies that are successful in measuring performance strive to establish  goals and measures at all levels of an agency so that decision makers have  as complete information as they need for measuring and managing an  agency’s performance.
I&A recognizes that it needs to develop more results-oriented measures to  assess the effectiveness of its state and local information-sharing efforts.  I&A intends to add additional performance measures to its strategic plan  later this year, according to the Director of I&A’s Program and  Performance Management Division. The official noted, however, that these  new measures will initially provide descriptive information about I&A’s  state and local programs and activities. The official said that I&A would  develop measures that allow it to evaluate the extent to which these  programs and activities are achieving their intended results at a later date,  but he could not provide any details or documentation on next steps or  time frames. The official explained that developing such measures for  information sharing and obtaining related data needed to track  performance is a challenge not only to I&A but to other federal agencies.  Standard program management principles note that time frames or  milestones should typically be incorporated as part of a road map to  achieve a specific desired outcome or result.
We also have recognized and reported that it is difficult to develop  performance measures that show how certain information-sharing efforts  have affected homeland security. Nevertheless, we have recommended  that agencies take steps towards establishing such measures to hold them  accountable for the investments they make. We also recognize that  agencies may need to evolve from relatively easier process measures that,  for example, count the number of products provided to more meaningful  measures that weigh customer satisfaction with the timeliness, usefulness,  and accuracy of the information provided, until the agencies can establish  outcome measures that determine what difference the information made  to state or local homeland security efforts.
I&A may have the opportunity to develop measures that would provide  more meaningful information by using the results of its new customer  satisfaction survey. For example, I&A is gathering feedback on, among  other things, how timely and responsive state and local customers find the  information that I&A provides to them. I&A could possibly use this  feedback to set annual targets for the level of timeliness and  responsiveness that it would like to achieve and use the survey results to  track progress towards these targets over time. I&A could in turn use this  performance data to decide on future improvements. Since I&A was just  beginning to collect and analyze the results of its customer satisfaction  survey, it was too soon to tell if the survey results could produce the data  on which to base performance measures. Nevertheless, establishing plans  and time frames for developing ways to measure how I&A’s information- sharing efforts have affected homeland security could help I&A, the  department, and Congress monitor and measure the extent to which I&A’s  state and local information-sharing efforts are achieving their intended  results, make needed improvements, and inform funding decisions.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: I&A has evolved in the more than 5 years since it was created and has  developed more effective relationships with its state and local partners,  especially through its support to fusion centers. It has also developed a  variety of products and services to support these partners. I&A has  opportunities, however, to build on these relationships, leverage these  efforts, and demonstrate to Congress and these partners that it is meeting  its statutory mission to share information with these partners to help  protect the homeland. For example, working with states to establish  milestones for identifying each state’s information needs and identifying  and working to resolve any barriers to completing this process could help  hold I&A accountable for the timely completion of this process, which is  an important step in supporting the development of future I&A products.  Periodically informing state and local partners of how I&A analyzed the  feedback they provided and what actions I&A took in response to this  feedback and analyses could help strengthen I&A’s working relationships  with these partners and encourage them to continue to provide I&A  feedback, which could ultimately make I&A’s products and services more  useful. Defining and documenting the specific programs and activities  I&A’s components and divisions will be held responsible for implementing  so that I&A collectively can meet its state and local mission could help to  establish clear direction and accountability. Finally, committing to plans  and time frames for developing outcome-based performance measures  that gauge the information-sharing results and impacts of I&A’s state and  local efforts and how these efforts have affected homeland security could  help I&A and Congress establish accountability for funding provided. By  taking all of these steps, I&A could potentially increase the usefulness of  its products and services, the effectiveness of its investments, and the  organization’s accountability to Congress, key stakeholders, and the public  for sharing needed homeland security information with state and local  partners.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help I&A strengthen its efforts to share information with state and local  partners, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct  the Under Secretary for I&A to take the following four actions:    Work with states to establish milestones for the timely completion of  efforts to identify state information needs and identify and work to  resolve any barriers to this timely completion.
Periodically report to state and local information-sharing partners on  the results of I&A’s analysis of the product and services feedback these  partners provide and the actions I&A took in response to this  feedback.
Define and document the programs and activities its divisions and  branches will be expected to implement in order for I&A to collectively  meet its state and local information-sharing mission and provide  accountability and transparency over its efforts.
Establish plans and time frames for developing performance measures  that gauge the results that I&A’s information-sharing efforts have  achieved and how they have enhanced homeland security.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: On August 6, 2010, we provided a draft of the sensitive version of this  report to DHS for review and comment.  In its written comments, DHS  stated that the department, particularly I&A, concurred with all four  recommendations and discussed efforts planned or underway to address  them.  Specifically, DHS agreed with our first recommendation related to  the need for I&A to work with states to establish milestones for the timely  completion of efforts to identify state information needs and identify and  work to resolve any barriers to this timely completion. According to DHS,  I&A has established internal milestones for the timely completion of this  process. DHS noted, however, that while I&A advises and assists states  with the development of their information needs, ultimately those  outcomes are owned and controlled by the states themselves and, thus,  I&A is unable to impose its milestones on them.  Nevertheless, DHS noted  that I&A is confident that it can work with states to develop mutually- agreed upon milestones for completing this process and will report  progress towards meeting these milestones on a regular basis.  Working  with states to develop such milestones and reporting on progress will  address the intent of our recommendation.
DHS also agreed with our second recommendation that I&A periodically  report to state and local partners on the results of I&A’s analysis of the  products and services feedback these partners provide and the actions  I&A took in response to this feedback. DHS noted that I&A plans to  regularly report the results of its partners’ products and services feedback,  as well as the actions I&A took in response to that feedback, to these  partners, DHS management, and Congress.  In September 2010, after  providing written comments, I&A officials informed us that they have  taken steps to report the results of feedback analysis to state and local  customers.  Specifically, during the summer of 2010, I&A provided  briefings on the value of this feedback during two stakeholder forums,  according to an official from I&A’s Customer Assurance Branch.  The  official added that I&A plans to continue using stakeholder forums—such  as conferences and meetings of fusion center directors—to report on  I&A’s assessment of state and local feedback and its use in refining I&A  products.  However, I&A had not developed plans for reporting the results  of its feedback analysis moving forward—including time frames and level  of detail—which would address the intent of this recommendation.
Further, DHS agreed with our third recommendation that I&A define and  document the programs and activities its divisions and branches will be  expected to implement in order for I&A to collectively meet its state and  local information-sharing mission and provide accountability and  transparency over its efforts. DHS noted that I&A was in the process of  developing a new strategic plan that will include strategic-level measures  and implementation plans.  DHS added that the plan will establish  organizational strategic objectives that I&A—through its divisions and  branches—will be expected to achieve, to include information sharing  with state and local entities, and will provide the measures by which its  success will be gauged.  Developing a plan that defines and documents  how I&A plans to meet its state and local information-sharing mission— including programs, activities, and priorities—will meet the intent of this  recommendation.
Finally, DHS agreed with our fourth recommendation that I&A establish  plans and time frames for developing performance measures that gauge  the results that I&A’s information-sharing efforts have achieved and how  they have enhanced homeland security. DHS noted that I&A is in the  process of developing a new strategic implementation plan that will  include strategic-level measures.  DHS added that the plan will provide a  basis for gauging, among other things, the results of I&A’s information  sharing efforts.  We support I&A’s intention to develop additional  performance measures. However, to fully address the intent of our  recommendation, I&A should commit to plans and time frames for  developing outcome-based performance measures that gauge the  information-sharing results and impacts of I&A’s state and local efforts  and how these efforts have affected homeland security.
The full text of DHS's written comments is reprinted in appendix VI.  DHS  also provided technical comments, which we considered and incorporated  in this report where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland  Security, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested  parties. The report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report.  Other key contributors to this report were Eric Erdman,  Assistant Director; David Alexander; Adam Couvillion; Elizabeth Curda;  Geoffrey Hamilton; Gary Malavenda; and Linda Miller.
section_title: Appendix I: Voluntary Feedback Responses for I&A Intelligence Products
paragraphs: Table 3 presents data on how the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)  categorized the voluntary feedback responses over the past 2 annual  periods for which data were gathered.
section_title: Appendix II: Information on Single Point of Service Request Categories, Performance Metrics, and Performance to Date
paragraphs: Table 4 below describes the categories of Single Point of Service (SPS)  State and Local Support Requests (SLSRs) received and tracked by the  Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A).
I&A has developed a set of priorities for its state and local customers and  External Operations Division—shown in table 5—which it reports using as  the basis for determining performance measures and quantifying data  collected through the SLSR acceptance and response process.
In order to measure its progress towards meeting these priorities, I&A has  developed a set of measures, goals, key performance indicators, and  metrics for the SPS program as shown in table 6.
The results of data gathered for many of these metrics are presented in  tables 7 through 10.
subsections: section_title: Number of State and Local Support Requests
paragraphs: I&A has seen an increase in SLSR submissions since the SPS was initiated  in May 2008, which leveled off in the last two quarters of fiscal year 2009,  but saw a subsequent increase in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, as  shown in table 7.
I&A attributes the surge in Quarter 2 to SPS marketing at the 2009 National  Fusion Center Conference. Regarding the Quarter 3 decline, I&A cited  several factors, such as credibility concerns by customers following the  release of a report on “right wing extremism” that drew criticism from  Congress and the media, the extension of production time frames due to a  more rigorous report review process, and/or natural decline. I&A did not  address the subsequent decline in Quarter 4, though it did indicate that the  final month of the quarter saw a rebound in submissions due to an  outreach program conducted by SPS leadership that month. Regarding the  first quarter of fiscal year 2010, I&A attributed this increase to a surge in  administrative requests, as it began tracking all administrative-type SLSRs  regardless of their significance. Thus, this growth is at least partially  attributable to enhanced data collection rather than demand-driven  growth.
section_title: Sources of State and Local Support Requests
paragraphs: As shown in table 8, a majority of SLSRs are submitted from states with  embedded I&A intelligence officers at fusion centers, and many of the  requests are coming directly from these officers.
In addition, California, Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina—all states with  deployed I&A intelligence officers—have consistently been among the  states with the highest number of SLSRs.
section_title: Production Time Lines
paragraphs: The average number of days to completion steadily increased through the  first three quarters of fiscal year 2009, but saw a decline in the fourth  quarter, and this rate held steady in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010.
section_title: Status of Open SLSRs
paragraphs: As shown in table 10, the number of SLSRs that remained open at the end  of each quarter has steadily increased.
I&A attributes much of this increase, in part, to the increased number of  Homeland Intelligence Report Production SLSRs, which have an estimated  90-day production time line. In its first quarter fiscal year 2010 report, I&A  reported that it has a number of initiatives in place to improve SLSR  response times, which include the following:    Developing an I&A policy to define the roles and responsibilities of the  stakeholders.
Updating the performance measures to better reflect the timeliness of  workflow processes throughout the SLSR life cycle.
Introducing a standardized request form to ensure customer needs are  clearly articulated before a SLSR is submitted.
Assigning individuals to closely communicate and work with I&A  branches to reduce the number of open and overdue SLSRs.
section_title: Appendix III: Additional Initiatives That Support Information Sharing with State and Local Partners
subsections: section_title: Technical Assistance to Fusion Centers (Workshops, Conferences, Privacy Policy Development)
paragraphs: In support of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s (I&A) objective to  strengthen the national network of fusion centers, the Department of  Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Preparedness Directorate and the  Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance—in  coordination with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the  Office of the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment,  the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and representatives from the  state and local community—partnered in 2007 to develop the Fusion  Process Technical Assistance Program. As part of this program, the  DHS/DOJ partnership delivers and facilitates a number of publications,  training courses, workshops, and other initiatives to fusion centers.   Examples of these programs include training on fusion process orientation  and development, state and local anti terrorism training workshops, and  regional fusion center workshops. I&A’s role in this partnership involves,  among other things, serving as the subject matter expert to support  program development, reviewing and approving materials developed in  support of the program, and having its intelligence officers at fusion  centers serve as primary contacts for coordination of service deliveries. As  of the end of 2009, this program has delivered 184 programs and services  to fusion centers and their staff.
One form of technical assistance comes through direct outreach efforts  with fusion centers. One example is the National Fusion Center  Conference, which takes place annually and provides fusion centers with  opportunities to learn about key issues, such as funding and sustainment,  achieving baseline capabilities, privacy and civil liberties protection, and  many other issues. These agencies in conjunction also support regional  fusion center conferences and other training programs. In addition, I&A— along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—has  jointly sponsored regional FEMA workshops with the intent of fostering  understanding between regional FEMA and fusion center staff regarding  their missions, information-sharing systems, and available intelligence  products.
Another key area of technical assistance provided to fusion centers  involves the development of privacy policies. DHS’ Offices of Privacy and  Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are working in partnership with the Bureau  of Justice Assistance, the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative,  and the Office of the Program Manager for the Information Sharing  Environment to assist fusion centers in developing privacy policies with  the intent of safeguarding privacy and civil liberties without inhibiting  information sharing. In 2007 and 2009, these entities provided Privacy  Policy Technical Assistance sessions to fusion centers. As of July 2010, 63  fusion centers had received the Privacy Policy Technical Assistance  sessions. In addition, in response to fusion center input, these entities have  developed a session called “Discussion on Development, Review, and  Dissemination of Fusion Center Products,” which focuses on the need for  a privacy policy and implementation and how to avoid difficulty when  developing intelligence products. This partnership has also begun to  collect and review the privacy policies of fusion centers. As of July 2010,  DHS’s Office of Privacy had received a total of 63 draft privacy policies for  review, with 11 fusion centers having completely satisfied the privacy  policy review and development process.
section_title: Involvement with the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG)
paragraphs: I&A also supports information sharing with its state and local partners  through its involvement with the ITACG. ITACG is a group of state, local,  tribal, and federal homeland security, law enforcement, and intelligence  officers at the National Counterterrorism Center that facilitates the  development, production, and dissemination of federally coordinated  terrorism-related intelligence reports through existing FBI and DHS  channels. The state, local, and tribal analysts in ITACG review these  federal reports and provide counsel and subject matter expertise to these  entities developing the reports in order to better meet the information  needs of state, local, and tribal and private entities. Section 521(a) of the  9/11 Commission Act required the Director of National Intelligence,  through the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment  and in coordination with DHS, to coordinate and oversee the creation of  ITACG. I&A supports ITACG by chairing and providing other membership  on the ITACG Advisory Council, which is tasked with setting policy and  developing processes for the integration, analysis, and dissemination of  federally coordinated information. The Advisory Council’s membership is  at least 50 percent state and local. I&A also funds the costs of detailing  state, local, and tribal analysts to ITACG.
Regarding the ITACG state, local, and tribal detailees’ contributions to  federal intelligence reports, the Program Manager for the Information  Sharing Environment reports that as of November 2009, these detailees  have participated in the production of 214 intelligence products. The  ITACG detailees have also participated in the development of the Roll Call  Release, discussed earlier in this report, in coordination with I&A and FBI.  The Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment reported  that from December 2008 (when this product line was created) through  November 2009, 26 Roll Call Release documents were published. In  addition, the detailees work with the National Counterterrorism Center to  develop a daily, secret-level digest of intelligence that is of interest to state  and local entities.
section_title: Guidelines for Fusion Center Baseline Capabilities (in Conjunction with DOJ)
paragraphs: DHS/I&A contributed to development of the Baseline Capabilities for State  and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, published by DOJ’s Global Justice  Information Sharing Initiative in September 2008.  I&A officials have  stated that one of their key responsibilities—particularly for those officers  at fusion centers—is to help ensure that fusion centers are taking  appropriate steps to meet these baseline capabilities. At the 2010 National  Fusion Center Conference, it was announced that I&A and its federal  partners had developed an assessment tool for fusion centers’ use in  determining how they measure against the baseline capabilities, and  where gaps in meeting the capabilities exist so that resources can be most  effectively targeted. This document stems from the previously developed  Fusion Center Guidelines, published by the Global Justice Information  Sharing initiative in August 2006.
section_title: Facilitating Access to Department of Defense (DOD) Classified Information Portal
paragraphs: In August 2009, DHS entered into an agreement with DOD that grants  select fusion center personnel access to DOD’s classified information  network, the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network. Under this  arrangement, properly cleared fusion center officials would be able to  access specific terrorism-related information through the Homeland  Security Data Network system. The Secretary of DHS cited this as “an  important step forward in ensuring that first preventers have a complete  and accurate picture of terrorism threats.”
section_title: Fellows Program
paragraphs: Section 512 of the 9/11 Commission Act directed DHS to create a  Homeland Security Information Sharing Fellows Program. This program  would detail state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and  intelligence analysts to DHS in order to promote information sharing  between DHS and state, local, and tribal officers and analysts, assist DHS  analysts in preparing and disseminating products that are tailored to state,  local, and tribal law enforcement officers, and intelligence analysts. I&A  officials have stated that as of June 2010, there were two state and local  fellows in-house, with a third to join by the end of the summer. I&A plans  to have fellows serve on 90-day rotations, working with I&A’s analytic  divisions on product development.
section_title: Deployment of Reports Officers
paragraphs: In addition, I&A has also deployed Reports Officers to a number of border  states (though not necessarily fusion centers), in accordance with DHS  priorities to focus on analysis of border security issues. Reports Officers  serve in key state and local partner locations (as well as DHS headquarters  and select DHS components) to enhance information sharing and  integration of information acquisition and reporting efforts. As of July  2010, I&A had deployed Reports Officers to six locations in Southwest  Border states, as well as one additional southern state.
section_title: Granting Security Clearances
paragraphs: DHS’s Office of the Chief Security Officer grants security clearances to  state, local, and tribal personnel.
section_title: Appendix IV: Summary of I&A Strategic Goals and Objectives
paragraphs: Table 11 lists the goals and objectives from the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence Analysis (I&A) Strategy.
section_title: Appendix V: Key Attributes Associated with Results-Oriented Management
paragraphs: Establishing goals and measuring performance are essential to successful  results-oriented management practices. Measuring performance allows  organizations to track the progress they are making toward their goals and  gives managers critical information on which to base decisions for  improving their programs. Our body of work on results-oriented  management practices has identified key attributes of success. This work  indicates that agencies that are successful in achieving goals strive to  establish practices and performance systems at all levels of the agency  that include the key attributes described in this appendix.
Addresses important dimensions of program performance and  balances competing priorities. Performance goals and measures that  successfully address important and varied aspects of program  performance are key aspects of a results-orientation. Federal programs  are designed and implemented in dynamic environments where  competing program priorities and stakeholders’ needs must be  balanced continuously and new needs must be addressed. As a result,  programs are often forced to strike difficult balances among priorities  that reflect competing demands, such as timeliness, service quality,  customer satisfaction, program cost, and other stakeholder concerns.  Sets of performance goals and measures could provide a balanced  perspective of the intended performance of a program’s multiple  priorities.
Use intermediate goals and measures to show progress or  contribution to intended results. Intermediate goals and measures,  such as outputs or intermediate outcomes, can be used to show  progress or contribution to intended results. For instance, when it may  take years before an agency sees the results of its programs,  intermediate goals and measures can provide information on interim  results. Also, when program results could be influenced by external  factors, agencies can use intermediate goals and measures to identify  the programs’ discrete contribution to a specific result.
Show baseline and trend data for past performance. With baseline  and trend data, the more useful performance plans provided a context  for drawing conclusions about whether performance goals are  reasonable and appropriate. Decision makers can use such information  to gauge how a program’s anticipated performance level compares  with improvements or declines in past performance.
Identify projected target levels of performance for multiyear goals.  Where appropriate, an agency can convey what it expects to achieve in  the long term by including multiyear performance goals in its  performance plan. Such information can provide congressional and  other decision makers with an indication of the incremental progress  the agency expects to make in achieving results.
Aligns goals and measures with agency and departmentwide goals.
Performance goals and measures should align with an agency’s long- term strategic goals and mission as well as with higher-level  departmentwide priorities, with the relationship clearly articulated.  Such linkage is important in ensuring that agency efforts are properly  aligned with goals (and thus contribute to their accomplishment) and  in assessing progress toward achieving these goals. Goals and  measures also should cascade from the corporate level of the agency  to the operational level to provide managers and staff with a road map  that shows how their day-to-day activities contribute to achieving  agency and departmentwide performance goals. In addition, measures  used at the lowest levels of the agency to manage specific programs  should directly relate to unit results and upwards to the corporate level  of the agency.
Assigns accountability for achieving results. We have previously  reported that the single most important element of successful  management improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment  of top leaders in developing and directing reform efforts. Top  leadership must play a critical role in setting results-oriented goals and  quantifiable measures that are cascaded to lower organizational levels  and used to develop and reinforce accountability for achieving results,  maintain focus on the most pressing issues confronting the  organization, and sustain improvement programs and performance,  especially during times of leadership transition. One way to reinforce  accountability is through the use of employee performance appraisals  that reflect an organization’s goals.
Provides a comprehensive view of agency performance. For each key  business line, performance goals and measures should provide a  comprehensive view of performance, including customers’ and  stakeholders’ priorities. Goals and measures should address key  performance dimensions such as (1) factors that drive organizational  performance—including financial, customer, and internal business  processes, and workforce learning and growth; and (2) aspects of  customer satisfaction, including timeliness, quality, quantity, and cost  of services provided. Doing so can allow managers and other  stakeholders to assess accomplishments, make decisions, realign  processes, and assign accountability without having an excess of data  that could obscure rather than clarify performance issues.
Links resource needs to performance. One of the ways that  performance management can be promoted is if this information  becomes relevant for (1) identifying resources (e.g., human capital,  information technology, and funding) needed to achieve performance  goals; (2) measuring cost; and (3) informing budget decisions. When  resource allocation decisions are linked to performance, decision  makers can gain a better understanding of the potential effect of  budget increases and decreases on results.
Provides contextual information. Performance reporting systems should  include information to help clarify aspects of performance that are  difficult to quantify or to provide explanatory information such as factors  that were within or outside the control of the agency. This information is  critical to identifying and understanding the factors that contributed to a  particular result and can help officials measure, assess, and evaluate the  significance of underlying factors that may affect reported performance. In  addition, this information can provide context for decision makers to  establish funding priorities and adjust performance targets and assess  means and strategies for accomplishing an organization’s goals and  objectives.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security