ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
FBI Counterintelligence Program Assessment

Program Code 10003808
Program Title FBI Counterintelligence Program
Department Name Department of Justice
Agency/Bureau Name Federal Bureau of Investigation
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2005
Assessment Rating Moderately Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 86%
Program Management 86%
Program Results/Accountability 50%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $904
FY2008 $1,002
FY2009 $1,065

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2005

Improving performance on annual measures.

Action taken, but not completed FBI will work with OMB to establish specific milestones for this Improvement Action during the FY 2010 budget process.
2005

Strengthening the links between budget requests and performance levels.

Action taken, but not completed FBI's Resource Planning Office (RPO) will continue to work with Counterintelligence Division and Finance Division to strengthen the links between budget requests and performance results. RPO is working on strategic planning initiatives that will be incorporated into the FY 2010 budget process.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2005

Completing program reviews on the remaining field offices.

Completed All 56 field offices have undergone at least one review as of March 31, 2007. Follow-up reviews will be done on a one-year cycle.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Output

Measure: Percentage of field offices with adequate coverage of known or suspected intelligence officers


Explanation:Program performance is measured by percentage of field offices with adequate coverage of Foreign Intelligence Service officers, known or suspected, that may be engaged in collection, penetration, and recruitment operations . [Note: Percentages are based on the sample of field offices that have undergone the new CI program review process at least once, as of the date reported.]

Year Target Actual
2003 Baseline Classified
2011 Classified
Long-term Output

Measure: Percentage of offices that have sufficiently identified Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) activities


Explanation:Includes percentage of field offices that have identified overt and covert FIS objectives, operations, officers, and assets of priority countries in their territories. [Note: Percentages are based on the sample of field offices that have undergone the new CI program review process at least once, as of the date reported.]

Year Target Actual
2003 Baseline Classified
2011 Classified
Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of field offices that have satisfactorily demonstrated knowledge of and liaison with vulnerable entities within their domain.


Explanation:Target facilities are those engaged in research, manufacture, or distribution of CBRNE and other sensitive technologies. Examples are contractors holding Top Secret security clearances and National Laboratories. [Note: Percentages are based on the sample of field offices that have undergone the new CI program review process at least once, as of the date reported.]

Year Target Actual
2003 Baseline Classified
2004 Classified Classified
2005 Classified Classified
2006 Classified Classified
2007 Classified Classified
2008 Classified
2009 Classified
Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of field offices that have identified and documented priority threat country operations


Explanation:Each field office conducts an all source threat assessment documenting foreign threat presence targeting US interests including visitors, students, foreign officials, and emigres. Measure reflects operational activities directed at assessment of the identified threat. [Note: Percentages are based on the sample of field offices that have undergone the new CI program review process at least once, as of the date reported.]

Year Target Actual
2003 Baseline Classified
2004 Classified Classified
2005 Classified Classified
2006 Classified Classified
2007 Classified Classified
2008 Classified
2009 Classified
Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of field offices satisfactorily engaged in strategic partnerships with other US Intelligence Community entities


Explanation:Partnerships include Field Office CI Working Groups (CIWGs), Joint CI Task Forces, and other liaison relationships, as necessary with relevent USG agencies to address mutual CI issues/operations. [Note: Percentages are based on the sample of field offices that have undergone the new CI program review process at least once, as of the date reported.]

Year Target Actual
2003 Baseline Classified
2004 Classified Classified
2005 Classified Classified
2006 Classified Classified
2007 Classified Classified
2008 Classified
2009 Classified
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Cost savings through the Interactive Multimedia Instruction and Simulation (IMIS) Program (in thousands of dollars).


Explanation:Cost savings based upon number of students completing online course, as opposed to traveling to attend platform instruction.

Year Target Actual
2003 Baseline $272
2004 $635 $706
2005 $1,146 $1,210
2006 $1,952 $2,746
2007 $2,842 $4,388
2008 $3,043
2009 $3,252

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The FBI's Counterintelligence (CI) Program's purpose is to protect the US against foreign intelligence operations and espionage. Protection of US national security is the FBI's top priority and counterintelligence is a critical component of the FBI's overall strategy, second only to counterterrorism

Evidence: FBI National CI Strategy 2002 and Counterintelligence Division (CD) Program Plan 2003 outline the program's Strategic Focus, Strategic Goals/Impact, Program Objectives/Outcomes, Program Strategies and Enabling Strategies. CI Program's Strategic Plan, depicted via a five-tiered pyramid, is widely distributed internally, is taught in a variety of CI training courses, and is described on the FBI's public website. As well, the 2005 Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) "National CI Strategy" provides overall strategic guidance to the US Intelligence Community (USIC).

YES 20%
1.2

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

Explanation: The CI Program's strategic goals address four major threats to US national security: proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives information, technology and materials; foreign intelligence penetration of the US Intelligence Community; foreign intelligence penetration of other US government agenices and contractors; and foreign intelligence compromise of critical national assets.

Evidence: FBI Threat Matrix (CLASSIFIED) identifies the foreign intelligence threat within the US posed by countries of CI concern within the US and allows the FBI to rank these threats. Assessments consider the threat from specific countries and drive field office investigative activities in five issue areas. The countries are on the Attorney General's National Security List and will be addressed by ONCIX in its 2005 National Threat Identification and Prioritization Assessment. The FBI Threat Matrix is broken down into the National Foreign Intelligence Threat Matrix; Country Band Rankings; a discussion of the three ranking bands; Country Numerical Rankings; an overview of the near-term CI outlook; and brief CI profiles of the countries assessed this year.

YES 20%
1.3

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

Explanation: As lead CI agency within US borders, and the primary investigative component of the Department of Justice, the FBI has statutory authority to coordinate all domestic CI efforts. Pursuant to Executive Order 12333, the FBI has primary authority to conduct CI investigations within US borders. The FBI maintains strong operational and executive-level working relationships with the 15 Intelligence Community agencies, to include: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Dept. of Defense (DoD) entities, and Dept. of Energy (DoE), to deconflict and coordinate counterintelligence activities. Joint investigations with the Intelligence Community and other agencies leverage federal resources and avoid duplication. The FBI Assistant Director, Counterintelligence Division, established and personally manages a National CI Working Group.

Evidence: EO 12333 vests primary responsibility for domestic CI activities with the FBI and primary responsibility for overseas activities with the CIA. Part 1.14 provides that the FBI shall, within the U.S., coordinate the counterintelligence activities of other agencies within the Intelligence Community. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with principal Intelligence Community partners, including but not limited to CIA, DoD, DoE, & Dept. of State (DoS), assure CI coordination.

YES 20%
1.4

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

Explanation: The CI program is carried out by the FBI's field offices, with guidance and oversight by FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ). Through a combination of national initiatives and local threat priorities, the CI Program is able to address the most serious CI threats posed to the US and its interests. There is no evidence that another approach would be more efficient/effective in achieving the intended purpose. Direct federal funding towards counterintelligence efforts is the most appropriate program structure, since the highly classified and inherently governmental nature of its activities requires federal employee Special Agents and analysts to be directly involved. This type of funding structure also allows the FBI to most effectively and efficiently allocate its resources towards target areas.

Evidence: The current structure and management of the CI Program allows the shifting of resources within the program at the field level in response to priority investigative and operational requirements. The semi-annual assessment of field office CI programs ensures the field program reflects national threat priorities and implements its goals and objectives.

YES 20%
1.5

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: CI program managers at FBIHQ engage in strategic planning efforts designed to focus CI program resources where they will be most effective. At the highest level, CD creates a strategic plan to guide the overall direction of the program. Tactical direction is provided through the establishment of program plans, which narrow program direction down to country threat levels. CD also prepares analytical tools in the form of threat matrices to guide attention to specific targets.

Evidence: The Threat Matrix identifies specific priority targets and the Time Utilization Record Keeping (TURK) data reflects how CI program resources are allocated toward those targets in individual field offices. Additionally, HQ collects data on a regular basis of new investigations/operations in line with the threat priorities, intelligence base development and statistical accomplishments to include arrests/convictions.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The FBI's CI program has two long-term performance measures: 1) the percentage of field offices that have sufficiently identified foreign intelligence service activities; and 2) the percentage of field offices that have adequate coverage of known or suspected intelligence officers. Field office adequacy in each area is determined by a comprehensive review. Outcome measures are not available for the CI program, since it is not possible to quantify foreign intelligence threats that FBI has not addressed and is not aware of. Progress by the CI program is best measured by interventions that undermine the ability of foreign intelligence services to engage in activity counter to the interests of the US. The FBI's CI program rigorously tracks these interventions through its output measures.

Evidence: CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS: CI Program Review documents

YES 14%
2.2

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

Explanation: The CI program has set aggressive goals for long-term improvement in the percentage of field offices sufficiently addressing the foreign intelligence threat in their territories through 2011. CI's future planning materials include specific benchmarks to measure improved performance.

Evidence: CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS: CI Program Review documents

YES 14%
2.3

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The FBI's CI program has three annual performance measures: the percentage of field offices that have adequately 1) engaged in strategic partnerships; 2) developed knowledge of vulnerabilities in their areas to foreign intelligence service intrusion; and3) identifyed priority threat country operations in their areas. Field office adequacy in each area is determined by a comprehensive review. Outcome measures are not available for the CI program, since it is not possible to quantify foreign intelligence threats that FBI has not addressed and is not aware of. Progress by the CI program is best measured by interventions that undermine the ability of foreign intelligence services to engage in activity counter to the interests of the US. The FBI's CI program rigorously tracks these interventions through its output measures.

Evidence: CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENT 2003 Annual Field Office Review (EG: New Orleans Division); Performance Standards associated with Field Office Program Reviews; and the annual CI Capability Survey.

YES 14%
2.4

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

Explanation: Targets have been set forth in the three categories listed in 2.3. The CI program has established specific performance baselines and targets within each of the three categories.

Evidence: CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENT Attached spreadsheet identifying the annual performance benchmarks.

YES 14%
2.5

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947 and subsequent legislation and Executive Orders (12333), the FBI is the lead agency for counterintelligence, making the FBI's goals and performance evaluation distinct from all other agencies. While other government partners contribute towards this mission, the FBI does not have public or private partners that share its mandate in this area.

Evidence:  

NA  %
2.6

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent one-week on-site Field Office Reviews by a private contractor, the Center for Strategic Management (CSM), determine the effectiveness of field office (FO) CI programs. These Field Office Reviews are performed based upon five program strategy elements and an overall site rating. The contractor's evaluation team includes former FBI and CIA CI executives. In addition, the CI program is subject to review by the Organizational Program Evaluation and Analysis Unit (OPEAU), Inspection Division, FBIHQ, which has established a 5-year schedule to evaluate FBI programs.

Evidence: Classified examples include the New Orleans Field Office Program Review, the 2005 Executive Summary of the FCI Capabilities Survey, Field Office Review Chart (as of 06/30/2005, 26 of 56 have been conducted). Follow ups to Field Office Reviews are conducted by CI program managers within six to nine months following each review. OPEAU conducts evaluations of FBI programs; counterintelligence is to be reviewed in 2006.

YES 14%
2.7

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: FBI budget requests do not clearly demonstrate links between budget enhancements and desired performance levels in outcome measures. The nature of the CI program does not lend itself easily to this type of tracking, given the inherent difficulty in proving that results of CI program activity can be predictably attributed to any specific expenditure. Nonetheless, the CI program does document the resource needs that will increase its ability to conduct investigations and utilize specific interventions that ultimately prevent terrorist activity.

Evidence: FBI budget submissions.

NO 0%
2.8

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

Explanation: The Counterintelligence Division strengthened its strategic planning by developing and implementing a National CI Strategy and requiring field offices to adhere to that strategy. It also established a Strategic Planning Group to ensure implementation of the National CI Strategy and institute an ongoing evaluation process and field office mentoring program. In addition, the 2004 OPEAU restructuring of the FBI's program evaluation process expanded objective review of FBI strategic planning and policies.

Evidence: National CI Strategy 2002; Annual Field Office Review 2003; Program Plans; Field Office Reviews by CSM; Capabilities Assessment Survey; CI Resource Module; OPEAU schedule.

YES 14%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 86%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The CI Program uses a variety of quantitative and non- quantitative performance information to adjust program priorities as well as resources and to design new training programs. FBIHQ CI Executives provide field CI supervisors with specific guidance and feedback on CI Program Strategy and Implementation. The Field Office Reviews provide compehensive performance information, including input from other US government entities. As a result, field divisions are provided specific "roadmaps" to improve program performance.

Evidence: The CI program collects credible performance information via Time Utilization Record Keeping, Statistical Accomplishment Reports (FD-542), Field Office Reviews, (e.g., New Orleans assessment) and other self-evaluations (Capabilities Assessment Survey, Semi-Annual Performance Reviews). As well, FBIHQ has provided specific direction to field executives regarding the conduct of their CI Programs and the implementation of the National Strategy.

YES 14%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: On June 30, 2004, the Attorney General transmitted decisions on the SES Performance-based Pay System to OPM and OMB with the Human Capital report, including a generic work plan for all Departmental SES members, with accompanying Performance "contract" that must explicitly relate to the Department's, the President's or the AG's defined goals. Consistent with the DOJ guidance, FBI Field Office SACs and HQ CI Program Executives are held accountable for performance results via a series of cascading program objectives established in accordance with the Pay for Performance System. HQ executives plans document scoring by their supervisors; SACs have evaluations documented by HQ divisions. Annual FBIHQ reviews of Field Executive Performance tie directly to the National CI Strategy.

Evidence: FBI SAC/HQ executive scoring criteria and 12/2004 Evaluations; DOJ Performance and Accountability Report (p. IV-5); President's Management Agenda (Human Capital and Performance and Budget Integration) Scorecard (December 31, 2004); DOJ's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan.

YES 14%
3.3

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

Explanation: To track personnel expenditures, FBI's Finance Division (FD) uses a compensation and benefits model with current payroll information and projected number of new hires and separations to calculate the expected funding needed for compensation and benefit requirements for the remainder of the fiscal year. The FBI monitors the discretionary spending of its divisions by utilizing a spending plan process developed by FD. Each quarter every FBIHQ Division is required to submit a packet that contains FBI Division's available funding and their detailed plans for spending any remaining funding they may have. Upon receiving the spending plans from each Division and Office, FD reviews these plans to insure the inclusion of all available funding and detailed plans for spending remaining funds. Following FD's review, feedback is given to each division and office along with questions. In 2004, ~1% of CTD's allotted discretionary funds were unobligated."

Evidence: Quarterly CD spend plans & monthly CD budget performance reports.

YES 14%
3.4

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: FBI uses enterprise-wide efficiency processes through competitive sourcing and IT project management. FBI prepares an annual FAIR Act inventory list of positions for potential private sector competition. FBI's last competition was finished in FY 2004, and there are competitions currently scheduled for 2006-2008. FBI's Information Technology Investment Management (ITIM) process oversees all FBI IT investments within the enterprise architecture, assesses performance, and baselines a funding priority list based upon the IT strategic plan. Specifically, CI measures costs savings through the Interactive Multimedia Instruction and Simulation (IMIS) Program. IMIS was created in 1996 by the Counterintelligence Training Center (CITC), CD, to provide computer-based training courses for employees working National Security Program matters. These courses allow students to complete program-specific training at their own pace, without leaving the office. Courses are offered on a stand-alone basis and via the FBI Intranet.

Evidence: An original "Evaluation of Pilot Distance Learning Course" study determined that a savings of $1,170 was realized for each employee that completed an online training course as opposed to coming to Quantico for an in-service. This savings averages $700,000 per year and includes instructor and per diem costs.

YES 14%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The CI program coordinates with the CIA by co-managing certain investigations and exchanging executive leadership personnel. The CI program also coordinates via MOUs and detailees. The FBI established the National CI Working Group (NCIWG), intended to engage in ongoing interagency planning discussions at the headquarters executive level. Additionally, the FBI has mandated Regional CI Working Groups along with field office working groups that partner with CIA, DIA, DoD-Counterintelligence, DoE, DoS, DHS, National Security Agency (NSA), and military commands, among others.

Evidence: MOUs with CIA, DIA, DoD-CI, DoE, DoS, DHS, NSA, and military commands, among others.

YES 14%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Although the FBI has received unqualified audit opinions, there are material weaknesses identified in the FBI's financial audit. These material weaknesses do not specifically apply to CD. The FBI has increased the scope of its review of its financial controls considerably in the past few years, instituting biweekly meetings with independent auditors to address any material weaknesses or reportable conditions. For the funds that the program oversees, a series of internal checks and audits are established to ensure strong financial management.

Evidence: FBI Financial Statements

NO 0%
3.7

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

Explanation: The CI program has developed a National CI Strategy with three enabling strategies: workforce expertise, resource management, and intelligence. Starting in 2002, CD started work with the Center for Strategic Management to institute Field Office Reviews across all FBI Field Offices. CI's participation in DOJ's Pay-for-Performance system and the FBI's increased attention given to improvement of its financial controls mark areas where the program continues to address necessary changes in its management.

Evidence: Enabling strategies and corresponding performance expectations were designed to specifically address CI program management deficiencies.

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 86%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

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

Explanation: The CI program did not meet its FY 2005 targets toward the long-term goals of sufficiently identifing FIS activities and providing adequate coverage of known or suspected FIS officers. Performance on one measure declined from FY 2004.

Evidence: Field Office On-Site Program Reviews; Semi-Annual Program Reviews; Field Office Performance Results; and an annual FCI Capability Survey demonstrate current progress.

NO 0%
4.2

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

Explanation: The CI Program has achieved some progress towards its annual targets across three program strategies: engaging in strategic partnerships, knowledge of vulnerabilities to FIS intrusion, and identifying priority threat country operations. In FY 2005, the program exceeded targets for two of the measures and showed significant improvement on the third.

Evidence: Field Office On-Site Program Reviews, Semi-Annual Program Reviews, and an annual FCI Capability Survey demonstrate current progress.

LARGE EXTENT 17%
4.3

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

Explanation: In 1996, CD created its first "virtual training" course, "The Introduction to Counterintelligence." Its success caused further investment in virtual training courses, to include "Introduction to FISA" and a number of courses that now fall under the purview of the Counterterrorism Division. Additionally, recently completed courses consist of "Asset Development and Validation;" "Counterintelligence Interviews;" and "Espionage Investigations" courses. CD calculates that these courses have resulted in a net savings of over $5 million since the inception of this program, with year-to-year increases in savings to the CI program.

Evidence: Original cost savings calcluation is contained in the June 1997 study "Evaluation of Pilot Distance Learning Course" study. Current training information is included in Counterintelligence Training Center Annual Reports.

YES 25%
4.4

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

Explanation: Pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947 and subsequent legislation and Executive Orders (12333), the FBI is the lead agency for Counterintelligence, making the FBI's goals and performance evaluation distinct from all other agencies. While other government partners contribute towards this mission, the FBI does not have public or private partnerships that share its mandate in this area.

Evidence:  

NA  %
4.5

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

Explanation: Field Office Reviews reflect evidence that increased performance is being attained at the field office level, as measured by specific benchmarks. Since 2002, the FBI has been engaged in transformational change of the CI program, ensuring that each FO has a CI program in place. While CI program reviews may show areas where scores should be higher, these are, for the most part, in FOs that have only recently staffed up CI squads. Recent program reviews, notably those in 2004, were all of FOs where new squads were placed.

Evidence: Field Office On-Site Program Reviews; Semi-Annual Program Reviews and an annual FCI Capability Survey demonstrate current progress.

SMALL EXTENT 8%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 50%


Last updated: 09062008.2005SPR