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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. DHS’s Office of the Chief Security Officer grants security clearances to state, local, and tribal personnel. Table 11 lists the goals and objectives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence Analysis (I&A) Strategy. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.