Detailed Information on the
Federal Protective Service Assessment

Develop a series of performance measures and appropriate implementation procedures to collect, analyze, and report on information to determine progress toward the new FPS Strategic goals and objectives.

FPS will award a contract for the development of the Risk Assesssment and Management Program (RAMP).

FPS will establish an Executive Advisory Council.

FPS completed its Financial Corrective Action Plan goals for FY 2007 on time.

Completing and submitting a strategic plan and transformation plan by February 2008.

FPS will develop a performance measure, in conjunction with OMB, to assess the performance of its inspection and assessment functions. FPS will submit an approved measure by October 2007.

Measure: The Federal Facilities Security Index quantifies the overall effectiveness of FPS operations in accomplishing annual performance measurement goals.

Explanation:The index is made up of three components thatl reflect: 1) how effective the FPS is in implementing security threat countermeasures (by comparing actual countermeasure implementation to planned implementation); 2) how well the countermeasures are working (by testing of countermeasures); and 3) how efficient FPS is in responding to incident calls for law enforcement by measuring response time. A security index of one (100%) or greater reflects accomplishment of, or exceeding, performance targets. A security index of less than one reflects failure to meet performance goals to protect government employees and the public from acts of terrorism and other illegal activities, and reduce infrastructure vulnerability from acts of terrorism or other criminal activity.

Measure: Countermeasure Implementation

Explanation:This measure assesses the effectiveness of the FPS regional operations in planning and deploying security threat countermeasures on Federally controlled facilities in which FPS is responsible. The measure compares actual countermeasure deployment dates to scheduled deployment dates.

Measure: Countermeasure Effectiveness

Explanation:This performance measure provides the Federal Protective Service decision makers a means of assessing the effectiveness of existing countermeasures in determining if they are working and doing what they were intended to do. Established testing protocols are used to test FPS responsible countermeasures (equipment and contract guards) at the time of scheduled building security reassessments. The effectiveness is measured by the percentage of countermeasures that are properly working when testested.

Measure: FPS Incident Response Time

Explanation:This FPS efficiency performance measure will track the deployment of FPS law enforcement officers in response to an incident call for service. The goal is to reduce the average law enforcement officer's response time to 36 minutes in FY 2009. The Mega Center will generate a response time report. The response time will be based on time between the receipt of call or notification and the officer arriving onsite. The baseline data for this measure will be gathered in FY 2005. FPS is undertaking a review of this measure.

Measure: Percent of scheduled building security assessments completed on time.

Explanation:This performance measure tracks the percentage of scheduled Building Security Assessments that are completed on time. Successful completion is measured through acceptance of the assessment report by the Building Security Committee Chairperson and within the applicable timeframe (as determined by the security level of the facility).

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is responsible for protecting and securing Federally-owned and -leased buildings, property, and personnel to ensure that public facilities are safe, secure and available as a vital part of everyday American life. Several Federal laws established FPS's mission, including Public Law (PL) 81-152, and PL 107-296, which transferred FPS to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Section 1706 of PL 107-296 states: the Secretary of Homeland Security shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentally, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property (40 USC 1315). This responsibility is delegated to the Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and executed by the Director, FPS. However, FPS is only directly responsible for the security of GSA-owned and operated facilities. The tension between its GSA customers and the broader mission remains a problem for FPS.

Evidence: Public Law 81-152; Public Law 107-296, Section 1706; 40 USC 1315; FPS Draft Transformation Plan; National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP); NIPP Government Facilities Sector

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

Explanation: The program addresses the continued threat against Federally controlled facilities from domestic and foreign terrorists and other criminals.The FPS goals for protecting Federal buildings include: protection of federal facilities and employees through a comprehensive physical security and threat reduction program; adequate enforcement response for Federal buildings to potential crimes and/or threats against federal property, employees, and visitors; providing nationwide communications and dispatching services along with alarm system monitoring capabilities, including managing radio frequency programs; a comprehensive contract guard program for controlling access at federal facilities, including traning, testing, and weapons qualification; investigating of crimes committed on federal properties; recommending appropriate countermeasures to minimize vulnerabilities and prevent attack; evaluation of DHS intelligence and sharing information with regional personnel to prevent criminal activity and terrorism at federal buildings.

Evidence: FPS Transformation Plan; Department of Justice Vulnerability Assessment, 1995; National Infrastructure Protection Plan; National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Government-Sector

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

Explanation: FPS is responsible for building security on GSA-owned and -leased space. Many agencies have their own Federal security agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Court Security (Federal Judiciary) and the U.S. Secret Service (White House Complex), and the Capitol Police (U.S. Capitol). Many private firms provide contract guard services (companies that FPS uses in its own contract guard program). FPS is seeking to reduce this overlap in its new Transformation Plan. FPS will set building security standards, enforcing compliance with those standards, completing Building Security Assessments to identify risks and ways to mitigate those risks.

Evidence: FPS Transformation Plan; Department of Justice Vulnerability Assessment, 1995; National Infrastructure Protection Plan; National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Government-Sector.

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

Explanation: FPS has undergone a program re-design to eliminate the major flaws that limited the program's effectiveness and efficiency. During FY 2007, FPS began realigning its workforce and activities to become a standards-setting and compliance monitoring organization. Currently, FPS is realigning its workforce to focus on security policy and standards, building assessments, and monitoring of agency compliance with security standards. FPS will no longer be a police force. FPS is also looking at how it charges its customers through an Activity Based Costing Study underway that started in FY 2006 and is continuing in FY 2007.

Evidence: FPS Activity-Based Cost Study, 2007; FPS Risk-Based Staffing Allocation Model, February 2007; FPS Draft Transformation Plan

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

Explanation: FPS' design has not been effectively targeted so that its resouces and services meet its mission. Until FY 2007, FPS was not designed to ensure the security of all Federal buildings and relied solely on its old GSA model. FPS also did not adequately meet the needs of its customers and was not able to justify its rates and its services to its customers. During FY 2007, FPS began realigning its workforce to a risk based model placing critical law enforcement assets in locations where there is the greatest risk. FPS has realigned its mission, workforce and resources to strengthen Federal physical security policies, procedures, and standards that apply to Federal buildings, and enhance oversight and inspection capabilties; and will focus the execution of its mission using a risk-based model of security planning. The FY 2007 realignment will focus the law enforcement resources in the areas that are the highest risks to facillities. Using the FPS Staffing Allocation Model and risk-based analysis, FPS focus its resources on federal facilities with the highest risk levels in accordance wih the Department of Justice (DOJ) Security standards established in 1995 following the Oklahoma City bombing and subsequently strengthened by the government-wide policies established by the Interagency Security Committee created by Executive Order 12977. Security assessments will continue on all facilities nationwide.

Evidence: FPS Activity Based Cost Study, 2007; FPS Risk-Based Staffing Allocation Model, February 2007; FPS Draft Transformation Plan

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 Federal Facilities Security Index reflects how effective FPS is in implementing security threat countermeasures, how well the countermeasures are working, and how efficient FPS is in responding to indicident calls for law enforcement response. The index is based on the law enforcement and security services that are provided by FPS. This measure quantifies the overall effectiveness of FPS operations in accomplishing annual performance measure goals. The index reflects how effective FPS is in implementing security threat countermeasures identified in its Building Security Assessments, how well the countermeasures that were previously installed are working in the facility to mitigate the threats, and how efficient FPS in in responding to incident calls for law enforcement responses to the facilities. A reduction of threat levels is an outcome of the identification/implementation of security threat countermeasures combined with an increased law enforcement presence and oversight. The FFSI tracks countermeasures recommended and deployed, and the effectiveness of existing countermeasures to ensure that they are performing the security mission that they were designed to accomplish. A testing protocol and assessment tool was developed and FPS Inspectors test the Countermeasures at the same time as they conduct the periodic Building Security Assessments (Level 4 buildings are assessed every two years and Level 3 buildings are assessed every three years). Tests are conducted on Contract Guards, Closed Circuit Television Systems, Intrusion Detection Systems, Magnetometers, and X-Ray Machines. The FFSI focuses directly on the FPS Building Security and Protection Mission and will support the refined future goals and objectives for the FPS. The FPS efficiency measure was originally designed to capture FPS response time to a law enforcement request received at the MegaCenter. Since FPS is moving away from a reactive mobile patrol and response capacity, this measure will be revised to focus on MegaCenter response and referral times for incident response, regardless of the responding agency.

Evidence: Federal Facilities Security Index; Department of Homeland Security Performance and Accountability Report

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

Explanation: FPS aims to meet the highest rating (an index rating of 1) during each fiscal year. FPS's long-term goal is to achieve a security index of 1. Accomplishing a security index of 1 indicates that FPS has accomplished 90 percent of the countermeasure installations that were planned for that fiscal year, tested existing countermeasure effectiveness with a target success rate indicated annually (to be 96 percent by FY 2009), and reduced the overall response time to a request for law enforcement assistance to 36 minutes by FY 2009.

Evidence: Federal Facilities Security Index The Index provides an overall outcome measure of the success in reducing vulnerability at federal facilities. FPS collects the data from the three output measures and calculates the success percentage. Each output measure success percentage is divided by the targeted fiscal year goal to determine the "Achievement Rate". If the achievement rate equals 1 (one) then the program met its objectives. If the rate is below one (i.e., .004) then the program did not meet its objectives. If the rate is above one (i.e., 1.2) then the program exceeded its objectives. After all three programs have been calculated the sums are added together and divided by three. The final computation will again be less than, equal to, or more than one. This final number gives an overall evaluation of how effective FPS is in implementing security threat countermeasures, how well the countermeasures are working, and how efficient FPS is in responding to incident calls for law enforcement response.

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 Federal Facilities Security Index is made up of three separate annual measures, countermeasure implementation, countermeasure effectiveness, and incident response time. The percentage of accomplishment towards these goals equals the Security Index. The index measures the countermeasure implementation plans and the actual implementation success. Assessing effectiveness involves the collection of two types of data: (1) countermeasure implementation plans and actual implementation success; and (2) field estimates of countermeasure effectiveness. These are combined and averaged into a composite score for the index. Planned security assessments identify countermeasures necessary to reduce potential threats and vulnerabilities to enhance protection at Federal buildings. This data captures the major threats to the Federal workplace and gives decision makers information for prioritizing resource investments. Effectiveness data assesses the extent to which deployed countermeasures are functioning as expected - that is operating and operated in a way to reduce facility security risks. The effectiveness data is collected in the field through self-assessments and quality assurance field audits, and red team activities. These methods use the same success criteria but deploy different protocols for the collection of this data. The effectiveness evaluations are summarized on a quarterly basis. Data are collected by trained evaluators using standardized protocols. Used as an outcome performance measure, the index quantifies the effectiveness in reducing threats and vulnerabilities to criminal and terrorist acts at Federal buildings.

Evidence: Federal Facilities Security Index; Future Year Homeland Security Program.

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

Explanation: Baseline data for the Federal Facilities Security Index was collected and assessed in FY 2005 and fully implemented for internal performance measurement and rating in FY 2006. The index has been included in the DHS Future Year Homeland Security Program system as a reportable performance measure for FPS beginning with the collection of baseline data in FY 2005 and full reporting for FY 2006.

Evidence: The FPS Federal Facilities Security Index is designed to provide an overall outcome measure of the success in reducing vulnerability at federal facilities. FPS collects the data from the three output measures and calculates the success percentage. Each output measure success percentage is divided by the targeted fiscal year goal to determine the "Achievement Rate". If the achievement rate equals one, then the program met its objectives. If the rate is below one (i.e., .004) then the program did not meet its objectives. If the rate is above one (i.e. 1.2) then the program exceeded its objectives. After all three programs have been calculated the sums are added together and divided by three. The final computation will again be less than, equal to, or more than one. This final number will give an overall evaluation of how effective FPS is in implementing security threat countermeasures, how well the countermeasures are working, and how efficient FPS is in responding to incident calls for law enforcement response.

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: FPS has had difficulties in the past in ensuring that its customers understand and participate in its services/assessments. However, FPS has taken steps recently to improve its customer service, to ensure its customers understand the tradeoff between cost and services. FPS also works with other Federal agencies to obtain and share criminal intelligence. In addition, GSA conducts an annual customer satisfaction survey to obtain customer feedback relative to the federal workplace. The security provided by the FPS is assessed and has obtained an 80 percent or greater satisfaction score since transferring to DHS.

Evidence: The FPS goal for effective countermeasure implementation includes working closely with its partners at Federal facilities. FPS has established Building Security Committees for all GSA-owned or -leased facilities. These Committees review the Building Security Assessment completed for buildings and approve recommended countermeasures. FPS also works closely with its Federal law enforcement and intelligence partners both within DHS and externally to ensure that potential threat and changing risk assessments are properly coordinated and shared. This includes the detail of criminal investigators to the NAC, HITRAC and the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in many geographic locations.

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: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General review FPS regularly The General Services Adminsitration has incorporated FPS into its annual customer surveys of its customers and provides customer satisfaction results of FPS performance to FPS. FPS has also completed an Activity-Based Cost Study.

Evidence: September 2006 GAO Report on Mega Centers; 2004 GAO Report--Transformation Strategy Needed to Address Challenges Facing the Federal Protective Service; October 2006 DHS Inpector General--Federal Protective Service Needs to Improve Its Oversight of the Contract Guard Program; FPS Activity Based Cost Study, 2007.

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: The FPS budget reflects the cost of providing security services to other Federal agencies. Budget requests are based on the estimate of what it will cost to provide security services to Federal agencies. Resource allocations are determined through current year revenue streams based on the actual costs to provide services to the agencies. As a reimbursable program, FPS must recover its costs. However, FPS does not tie its budget requests specifically to its long-term performance goals.

Evidence:

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

Explanation: FPS has taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiences. In FY 2006 the Assistant Secretary of ICE conducted a comprehensive review of the role of FPS in ICE and in providing building security. In FY 2007 and in FY 2008, FPS will implement the recommendations from that review. FPS will move into setting security standards, ensuring compliance with those standards (building security as well as contract guard standards), and leading Federal efforts to protect Federal buildings.

Evidence: FPS Activity-Based Cost Study, 2007; FPS Risk-Based Staffing Allocation Model, February 2007; FPS Draft Transformation Plan

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: FPS collects performance information on a monthly and quarterly basis to track performance towards annual and long range goals.

Evidence: Regional Offices update the raw data into various databases regularly, providing headquarters management personnel a quick snapshot of regional progress in the key programmatic areas whenever necessary. Reports can be produced at any time to track current progress.

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: In the past, FPS has not held its regional program managers accountable for ensuring that performance targets are met and that financial management and contract management are implemented in their regions. However, FPS has taken steps to rectify that problem. Now quarterly reviews are done with regional management to realign available resources and projected revenue levels. Regions are responsible for collecting and reviewing security work authorization revenue and balances on a recurring basis to ensure that full collection of funds for contract services provided and that invoices are processed timely and correctly, and billed to the FPS customers.

Evidence: Quarterly reviews are done with regional management to realign available resources and projected revenue levels. Regions are responsible for collecting and reviewing security work authorization revenue and balances on a recurring basis to ensure that full collection of funds for contract services provided and

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

Explanation: FPS has not obligated resources timely and accurately reported these resources. The ICE Chief Financial Officer and the Assistant Secretary led two reviews of FPS to detemined what were the root causes of the financial managment problems at FPS. ICE has implemented a Financial Corrective Action Plan for ICE as a larger organization and a specific one for FPS. Systemic improvements have been instituted to ensure all bills are paid in a timely manner by implementing a consolidated invoice process that will centralize receipt of invoices in a single location where distribution can be tracked and monitored via an electronic invoice tracking system. Building Specific revenue collection estimates are apportioned early in the fiscal year to allow for obligation of the full contract option amounts at the time of option extension or award. A variety of status of funds reports provide obligational information to FPS senior level managers so they can ensure that funding is spent within the areas it was provided, according to an obligational plan, and is collected within the program areas that are expending the funds.

Evidence: ICE Corrective Action Plan FPS Corrective Action Plan

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: FPS has not had strong procedures to measure efficiences. However, FPS has undertaken an activity-based cost study to identify cost and functions.

Evidence: FPS Corrective Action Plan Activity Based Cost Study

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: FPS works closely with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement entities. FPS currently has Criminal Investigators on the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force in several geographic areas, and other law enforcement personnel on detail to the National Infrastructure Protection Program. As the Sector-Specific Agency responsible for the Government Facilities Sector (GFS) under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), FPS coordinates with nationwide security partners . Under the NIPP and GFS-Specific Plan, FPS ensures that risk has been assessed and prioritized for critical government facilities. FPS has identified specific criteria to determine the criticality of GFS assets and their associated elements. As the sector identifies specific assets, systems, networks, or functions that are deemed critical, it will be necessary to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment to determine necessary protective measures and other actions that will reduce the risk to particular assets and the Sector overall. FPS and GFS partners will ensure that comprehensive risk assessments are regularly conducted for critical facilities. FPS also works closely with State and local law enforcement agencies in sharing intelligence information.

Evidence: National Infrastructure Protection Plan; National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Government-Sector.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: FPS has not had strong financial management practices in the past, including the recording of obligations in its financial system, budget execution and accounting problems, and budget formulation. Although FPS has experienced financial management in previous years, FPS has undertaken an extremely thorough review of its financial management practices. During FY 2006, FPS began a major clean up of existing financial data including clean up of the existing General Ledger and obligational balances that transferred to DHS from GSA. This process is on-going in FY 2007. The ICE Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is improving all financial support processes and has developed and implemented an aggressive Financial Action Plan (FAP) to focus management attention and resources on improvements and monitor completion. FPS is an active participant in the FAP, working with the CFO staff and other ICE programs to quarterly validate and verify obligations and undelivered order balances.

Evidence: ICE Financial Action Plan; FPS Corrective Action Plan

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

Explanation: In FY 2007 FPS undertook a major initiative to review and revise the current structure of the FPS.

Evidence: FPS Draft Transformation Plan; FPS Financial Corrective Action Plan

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

Explanation: FPS has shown movement towards the long range goals of reducing threats to Federal facilities, federal personnel, and the public. Based on FY 2005 performance, targets for FY 2006 and out-years have been set and reflect a range of a six to 20 percent increase in effectiveness. Planned countermeasure implementation versus actual implementation was estimated to be met 90 percent of the time. Testing showed countermeasures to be effective 92 percent of the time. Average actual response time was shown to be 46.62 minutes. FPS was unable to meet the previously established performance target for the Federal Facilities Security Index due to startup delays in full implementation of the new measures, testing and reporting protocols in FY 2006.

Evidence: Federal Facilities Security Index; Department of Homeland Security Performance and Accountability Report, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cfo_par2006_fullreport.pdf

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

Explanation: FPS did not achieve all of the annual performance goals established for the security index. However, FPS did achieve its goal for incident response time. Adjustments have been made to new threat countermeasure projects and the testing and reporting protocols are now fully operational.

Evidence: Federal Facilities Security Index; Department of Homeland Security Performance and Accountability Report

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

Explanation: Through the on-going Activity-Based Costing Study, FPS is assigning costs to functions and activities being performed by FPS.

Evidence: Activity-Based Costing Study

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

Explanation: FPS has many counterparts for each of its various roles: law enforcrment, building security, physical security assessments. GAO made multiple recommendations for improving FPS but did not indicate that it was a program without merit.

Evidence: September 2006 GAO Report on Mega Centers; 2004 GAO Report--Transformation Strategy Needed to Address Challenges Facing the Federal Protective Service; October 2006 DHS Inpector General--Federal Protective Service Needs to Improve Its Oversight of the Contract Guard Program.

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

Explanation: GAO identified in 2004 several areas in which FPS could use the transition to DHS to address the challenges it faced. FPS did not do so until FY 2006, but has undertaken many of the steps that GAO suggested. As a part of its new strategy, FPS will implement service improvements, align resources to the locations of highest risk; will realign its mission, workforce and resources and enhance oversight and inspection capabilities; and will use a risk-based model of security planning.In response to the 2006 GAO Report on FPS Mega Centers, FPS has undertaken an assessment of those facilities and how it can better use its dispatch centers. The transformation of FPS will also focus on improved contract guard standards in response to the DHS Inspector General report.

Evidence: September 2006 GAO Report on Mega Centers; 2004 GAO Report--Transformation Strategy Needed to Address Challenges Facing the Federal Protective Service; October 2006 DHS Inpector General--Federal Protective Service Needs to Improve Its Oversight of the Contract Guard Program.