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.