Detailed Information on the
Coast Guard: Drug Interdiction Assessment

Work with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to better link the program's performance with the overall interagency goal of reducing drug use in the U.S.

Develop and implement new performance measure targets that clearly reflect an effective contribution to the overall interagency goal.

Develop and implement a new annual performance measure to reflect cost, schedule and quality performance for the program's key acquisition project, Deepwater.

Measure: Cocaine Removal Rate

Explanation:Percent of Cocaine removed (seized by the Coast Guard, and jettisoned, scuttled, or destroyed as a result of Coast Guard law enforcement action) in relationship to the Non-Commercial Maritime Flow of cocaine.

Measure: Non-Commercial Maritime Conveyance Rate for Cocaine

Explanation:Reduce the percent of cocaine flow toward the U.S. by Non-Commercial Maritime conveyance (documented in Defense Intelligence Agency's annual Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement report). While baselined in 2007, a downward trend is desired to reflect success of efforts within the areas that the Coast Guard influences.

Measure: Metric Tons of Cocaine Removed

Explanation:Metric tons of cocaine seized by the Coast Guard, and cocaine jettisoned, scuttled, or destroyed as a result of Coast Guard law enforcement action. Before cocaine removal rate outcome measure was shifted in 2004 to show cocaine removed vice cocaine seized, targets and actuals were as follows: 2001 - Target N/A, Actual 62.8; 2002 - Target N/A, Actual 53.4; 2003 - Target N/A, Actual 62.1.

Measure: Cocaine Removal Rate Divided by the Operating Expenses of the Drug Interdiction Program

Explanation:"Removal Rate" is the percentage of cocaine shipped through maritime routes that was intended to enter the U.S., but did not because of the efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Cocaine Removal Rate reflects the amount of cocaine lost to the smuggler through seizures (documented in the DEA administered Federal-wide Drug Seizure System), jettison, burning, and other non-recoverable events (vetted through the Inter Agency Consolidated Counter-Drug Database) divided by the non-commercial maritime cocaine flow through the transit zone (documented in Defense Intelligence Agency's annual Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement report). Operating expenses of the Drug Interdiction Program are the actual OE expenditures, as calculated through the Coast Guard's Mission Cost model, of the Drug Interdiction program. This measure shows the rate of cocaine removed per 100 million dollars of program operating expenditures.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Coast Guard's Drug Interdiction Program is stated in the National Drug Control Strategy. The purpose of the Drug Interdiction Program is to decrease drug use in the United States by reducing the flow of illegal drugs entering the U.S. via non-commercial maritime shipping sources.

Evidence: The National Drug Control Strategy states "By targeting the economic vulnerabilities of the illegal drug trade, market disruption seeks to create inefficiencies in drug production and distribution, resulting in decreased drug abuse in the United States." (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs07/) Statements of authority are found in MLEM: Codified in Titles 14, 21, and 46 of the U.S. Code (pg. 2-3 through 2-16), 21 USC 1710 defines CG as a Federal Drug Control Agency. Planning guidance is contained in the (NICCP) National Interdiction Command Control Plan and the 2007 Mission Planning Guidance.

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

Explanation: The Coast Guard interdicts all illegal drugs wherever it has jurisdiction. ONDCP states that the cost to society of illegal drug usage was $160 Billion in 2000. However, cocaine is the predominate illegal drug shipped via maritime means. Every year, 400-800 metric tons of cocaine, or approximately 90% of the cocaine en route the United States, enters the six million square mile maritime transit zone between the drug-producing countries of South America and the United States. The Drug Interdiction Program works to stem this cocaine flow.

Evidence: Office of National Drug Control Policy Fact sheet provides statistics on drug flow to the U.S. through maritime conveyance (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html)

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

Explanation: The Coast Guard is the lead U.S. agency for maritime drug interdiction. Almost all Coast Guard counter-drug operations occur in the deep Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific, much closer to illegal drug sources. For these interdictions, the Coast Guard is specifically called upon by the Joint Interagency Task Force South to use its unique mix of authorities, capabilities, and competencies to interdict illegal drugs far from U.S. shores. On seas within 24 miles of shore (the contiguous zone), the Coast Guard shares drug interdiction authority with Customs and Border Protection. Five coordinating organizations are charged with minimizing agency overlap in specific areas of responsibility.

Evidence: Presidential Decision Directive-14 establishes CG as lead maritime agency for drug interdiction. Roles of the five coordinating organizations are outlined in GAO report GAO-02-13, page 7 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0213.pdf).

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

Explanation: Coast Guard authorities, competencies, capabilities, and partnerships are unique to stopping maritime drug trafficking, especially in the transit zone. The program design is based on effective and efficient methods identified in the National Drug Control Strategy, including a focus on cocaine interdiction and cooperative relationships with partner nations across the transit zone.

Evidence: National Drug Control Strategy February 2007, Office of National Drug Control Policy. CNA Report (http://cna.org/documents/2797001700.pdf); MLEM: Chapter 5 (pages 5-3 through 5-26); Steel Web: (pages 3 & 6).

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

Explanation: The Coast Guard's Drug Interdiction Program aligns to the National Drug Control Strategy, specifically to the goal of disrupting the economic foundation of the drug trade, as promulgated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). As charged by ONDCP, the Coast Guard focuses its drug interdiction efforts in the maritime transit zone where the Coast Guard's unique combination of authorities, competencies, capabilities, and partnerships are optimally brought to bear on the drug trafficking problem.

Evidence: Unique Coast Guard authorities found in MLEM: Chapters 1, 2, & 5 (Pages 1-1 through 2-30, pages 5-3 through 5-26); MLEM: Posse Comitatus Act, Chapter 5 (page 5-3), also states that limited DOD assets maybe used for USCG to conduct maritime drug interdiction, GAO-06-200 demonstrates CG authorities and Navy's D&M responsibilities, as well as linkage to ONDCP. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06200.pdf); Linkage of Coast Guard to ONDCP transit zone efforts is found in Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement (IACM)-CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE.

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 program has two low-level outcome measures. Long-term performance measures for the Coast Guard's Drug Interdiction Program are focused on the flow of cocaine, the illegal drug which makes up the vast majority of the drugs entering the United States either directly or indirectly via non-commercial maritime shipping sources. In 2004, the Coast Guard transitioned from using the cocaine seizure rate (cocaine that the Coast Guard seized) to the cocaine removal rate (a Consolidated Counter-Drug Database-approved amount of cocaine that the Coast Guard caused to be lost to the smuggler). At the outcome level, the Coast Guard measures the Cocaine Removal Rate and the Percent of Non-commercial Maritime Conveyance. The Cocaine Removal Rate shows the amount of cocaine lost to the smuggler through seizures, jettison, burning and other non-recoverable events divided by the non-commercial maritime cocaine flow through the transit zone. The Office of National Drug Control Policy asserts that a disruption in the supply will decrease profitability for smugglers, thus the removal rate measure is assumed to reflect the Coast Guard's efforts in disrupting the market. The Percent of Non-commercial Maritime Conveyance measure shows how Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) change their smuggling methods in response to the Coast Guard's interdiction successes.

Evidence: Drug Interdiction program performance metrics are found in the Coast Guard's strategic plan, Steel Web, Appendix D; existence of metrics GAO Report (GAO-06-200) page 5 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06200.pdf); ?? Performance Target Setting Policy for the CG?? Ref CG-5 Memo "09-13 RAP Performance Target Setting Kickoff". See footnote on page 16 of GAO Report GAO-04-432 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04432.pdf) Documents CG's superb efforts in performance target setting.

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

Explanation: Although proposed targets reflect continuous improvement in program performance, they fall well below the targets recently set by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).

Evidence: The current five-year targets for these measures are communicated in the Future Years Homeland Security Program. ONDCP interagency guidance for 2008 concludes that current removal rates have not demonstrated reductions in the estimated flow of cocaine into the U.S.

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 Drug Interdiction Program uses the following annual measures to manage the Program and to accomplish long-term outcome goals: (1) Cocaine Removal Rate, (2) Cocaine Removed, and (3) Percent of Non-commercial Maritime Conveyance. The Coast Guard tracks cocaine removal in the transit zone and measures that rate against the Office on National Drug Control Policy's Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement. An increased Cocaine Removal rate directly disrupts the supply-side of the cocaine market. Similarly, the Coast Guard annually tracks the volume of cocaine removed, a measure of cocaine seized plus cocaine permanently disrupted (jettisoned, scuttled, burned, etc). The Non-Commercial Maritime Flow Distribution measure shows how Coast Guard interdiction efforts compel smugglers to change their drug smuggling routes. Because the program relies on capable surface and air assets, an annual measure is under development to assess the success of the Coast Guard's asset recapitalization program (Deepwater).

Evidence: Drug Interdiction Annual Measures and Targets, Steel Web, Appendix D.

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

Explanation: Although proposed targets reflect continuous improvement in program performance, they fall well below the targets recently set by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).

Evidence: The current five-year targets for these measures are communicated in the Future Years Homeland Security Program. ONDCP interagency guidance for 2008 concludes that current removal rates have not demonstrated reductions in the estimated flow of cocaine into the U.S.

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: The program works with several other agencies through coordinating organizations to contribute to the overall drug interdiction goal monitored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). However, the program accomplishes its mission with intramural resources and does not issue grants or use contractors for any direct interdiction activity.

Evidence: Policies expressing commitment to common goal: National Drug Control Strategy: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs07/, National Interdiction and Control Plan (NICCP), ONDCP, Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement (IACM)-CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE

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 evaluations are conducted for all Coast Guard major mission areas. The evaluation for the Drug Interdiction program is underway. The evaluation appears to meet PART criteria for scope and quality in the context of the program's current low-level outcome performance measures. To maintain a YES score for this question in future PART assessments, the program will need to address program effectiveness in the context of impacts on illegal drug markets in the U.S.

Evidence: The Center for Navel Analyses (CNA) memo (23 April 2007, "Interim Findings of CNA Drug Interdiction Program Evaluation") describes the scope, methodology and initial findings of the assessment.

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: Because performance measure targets to achieve outcomes are still not well defined, integration of program performance and resources does not make clear the impact of funding, policy, or legislative decisions on societal outcomes (i.e., what level of funding will result in reduction of cocaine supplies in the U.S.) The Coast Guard uses a performance-based, full-cost budgeting system to tie funding directly to performance goals and targets throughout the budget build process, including resource proposal development, prioritization, and justification. The Coast Guard ties portions of each year's budget request to specific mission programs, such as Drug Interdiction, through the Coast Guard's Mission Cost Model. The Mission Cost Model is an estimate of the percentage of the Coast Guard's budget that is projected to be used, in the proposed budget year, on specific resource needs of the mission programs, based on past years' operational asset hours per mission program.

Evidence: The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has stated that current cocaine interdiction rates can not yet be correlated to changes in product availability. ONDCP is working with the USCG program and other partner agencies to develop new interdiction targets that will demonstrate impact on drug supplies in the U.S. Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional-Stage Budget Submission, Strategic Context, shows the key budget theme of "Improve Operational Capability." Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2008 Budget in Brief and Performance Report show current performance goals linked to budget requests.

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

Explanation: The Drug Interdiction Program is transitioning from the Law Enforcement Planning and Assessment System (LEPAS) to the Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP) to identify and correct strategic planning deficiencies. The LEPAS has been adopted Coast Guard-wide and has been improved to ensure the most effective methods of identifying resource planning needs, program deficiencies, and effective communication practices. Like the SOPP, LEPAS facilitated vertical and horizontal communication and ensured that operational commanders were doing what the Drug Interdiction's Campaign Plan, Steel Web, directed them to do.

Evidence: Examples of how deficiencies were addressed: Page 15 of GAO Report (GAO-06-200) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06200.pdf describes how CG, CPB and Allied nations increased aircraft support to offset diminishing Defense Department aircraft availability; Page 21-22 of GAO report GAO-06-200 speaks to declining readiness rates of legacy CG cutters and inoperable surface search radars on CG aircraft, as well as CG efforts in response. Additionally, the Deepwater program will replace legacy assets with more capable and more reliable assets http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06200.pdf, http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater. Contract examples include MSI Contract Award & scope of work. Metric validation/promulgation shown through strategic plan, Steel Web, internal Decision Memo outlining performance, Page 18 of GAO Report GAO-04-432 illustrates how CG changed its CD performance measure for the better http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04432.pdf. Appendix IV of GAO Report GAO-04-432 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04432.pdf explains CG initiatives to increase efficiency. The Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP) Guide shows how the Coast Guard works to iteratively and collaboratively build its annual Operational Planning Guidance (OPG). The OPG for Fiscal Year 2008 will be finalized approximately 1 June 2007.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: Recapitalization of surface and air assets supporting the drug interdiction program is underway through the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System acquisition (Deepwater). An alternatives analysis was completed September 2002 and a System of systems approach was selected over other alternatives including traditional acquisition to replace assets individually.

Evidence: Exhibit 300 business case (2008) for USCG Integrated Deepwater Systems (IDS) documents the application of an alternatives analysis. For the award of Deepwater Phase 1 (conducted from 1998 thru 2001), competing industry teams conducted independent analysis of alternatives to develop their Integrated Deepwater System concepts (U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis, CDRL A028 - IDS Implementation Plan, June 14, 2002, USCG Contract No.: DTCG23-98-C-ADW002).

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 program meets quarterly with its interagency partners to review all interdiction cases and vet the information for input into the Consolidated Counter Drug Database (CCDB). The purpose of the CCDB Conference is to review, de-conflict, and validate data inputs on counterdrug performance indicators, trafficking trends, and cocaine flow for each fiscal quarter. These data, along with operational intelligence and tactical performance information collected from field staff, provide feedback to program managers who use the information to modify interdiction strategies and re-allocate resources. The program also collects a great deal of information from its partners that is used to manage operations. The Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF South) provides the Coast Guard with drug trafficking information and requests the Coast Guard interdict certain vessels. The Coast Guard receives interdiction guidance and uses this information to apportion cutter hours. The Coast Guard does not collect performance information from its partners, but instead reports Coast Guard performance to them or is evaluated by partner entities.

Evidence: The CCDB, Consolidated Counterdrug Database, is a comprehensive database that captures the details surrounding each drug related event submitted by U.S. and foreign counterdrug agencies. As evidenced by example trip reports and conference schedules, a representative from the Coast Guard RPL-3 Division participates in the quarterly CCDB Conference to ensure accurate accounting of Coast Guard assets used and drugs seized per fiscal quarter. JIATF-S metrics (SIPRNET secret) and CCBD (SIPRNET secret) metrics provide daily, weekly, and monthly pieces of critical information evaluated and analyzed by the program.

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: The program has a clearly defined chain of command. The Chief, Drug & Migrant Interdiction Division in the US Coast Guard Office of Law Enforcement is the key manager held accountable for providing to operational commanders the resource guidance that will meet the requirements of interagency and international partners.

Evidence: Officer Evaluation Report for Chief, Drug & Migrant Interdiction Division includes performance and resource allocation criteria in the description of primary duties.

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

Explanation: The program obligates substantially all (over 98%) of its operating funds (Operating Expense Appropriation) each year. Virtually all capital acquisition funds (Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement Appropriation) are obligated prior to expiring. The Coast Guard maintains an internal control system to ensure timely obligation of funds. First, the Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management enforces the provisions of Commandant Instruction M7100.3 (series), Financial Resources Management Manual, which specifies quarterly spending rates and funding carry over limits. Second, obligation rates are tracked and reported bi-weekly by the Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management. Third, specific budget authority is allocated to the respective Area and District budget offices. Each Area and District is staffed to actively manage the funds in their respective locations. Lastly, several daily reports are offered to all financial report users to monitor obligation rates. The Coast Guard uses its Finance and Procurement Desktop (FPD) to process all of its simplified acquisitions (<$100k). FPD is directly interfaced with the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and requires a validated record in FPDS-NG prior to creating an obligation in FPD. The Coast Guard's formal contracting offices (>$100k) use the Contract Information Management System (CIMS) which is also interfaced with FPDS-NG, but does not require the validated record prior to obligation. The Coast Guard's FPDS-NG Program Manager requires each formal contracting office to certify its data in FPDS-NG on a quarterly basis. The certification exercise insures that all of the Coast Guard's awards have been entered into FPDS-NG. The Coast Guard complies with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) - 4.602, Federal Procurement Data System, which requires reporting to FPDS-NG.

Evidence: Page 5-33 of the Financial Resources Management Manual (FRMM) specifies quarterly spending rates and funding carry over limits. An ALCGFINANCE message in the Coast Guard Messaging System describes the FY 2007 Quarter 2 spend down enforcement policy. The Budget Execution Report for February 2007 shows obligations and expenditure rates. The Coast Guard annually certifies its data accuracy as reported in FPDS-NG.

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: The Drug Interdiction Program works to maximize efficiency by empowering front-line managers to act at the tactical level, allowing planners to adjust and improvise at the operational level, and permitting program managers to define, monitor, and support operations at the strategic level. The program also uses an iterative planning, assessment, and policy protocol to achieve efficient and cost-effective program execution. This learning-cycle identifies needs and best practices through intelligence, after-action reports, and monthly performance and assessment reports (MPARs). The Maritime Law Enforcement Manual (MLEM) requires field units to notify the duty officer in real-time of all Drug Interdiction cases. Policy and planning needs are identified as a result of this duty-standing. Calls from the field (primarily D7, D11, and JIATFS) translate into improvements to the MLEM and best practices. Upon identification, assessment, and analysis, the planning process translates the desired drug interdiction improvements into resource requirements for mission execution. The program has a high-level efficiency measure with baseline and targets in place (cocaine removal rate divided by the operating expenses of the Drug Interdiction Program).

Evidence: The program provided example after-action reports, which include operational lessons learned. The Drug Interdiction program's long-term efficiency ratio is described in documents provided to OMB and summarized in the PART Performance Measures section.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Drug Interdiction works with a wide range of related programs in a variety of settings to accomplish the counter-drug mission. The Department of State and the Department of Justice each add training, legal, and unique authorities, all of which have ultimately led to increased intelligence through prosecutorial efforts. To facilitate establishing jurisdictional authorities within the international environment, twenty-six bilateral agreements have been formed through this interagency effort. The Joint Inter-Agency Task Force (JIATF) South partnership enhances tactical situational awareness through intelligence dissemination, scheduling, and analysis within the Eastern Pacific and Central Caribbean. The Drug Enforcement Agency provides tactical mission oversight within the Northern Caribbean. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provides assets for detection and monitoring.

Evidence: Examples of Collaboration are evident through establishment of the NICCP, Steel Web, JIATF-South SIPRNET website and JIATF-South collaboration. Interagency and DHS cooperation exhibited through Maritime Operational Threat Response (MOTR) process, NSPD-41/HSPD-13, and Steel Web doctrine. Relationships and planning process collaboration can be found in the FY-07 Mission Planning Guidance, CBP MOU, USCG-US Navy Airborne Use of Force MOU. All can be found through CG intranet sources - MOA, MOU, and Bilateral Agreements. Prosecutorial efforts & PANEX partnership showcases linkage to better intelligence (PowerPoint).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General assigned 10 Material Weaknesses for Coast Guard financial reporting during the Fiscal Year 2006 Chief Financial Officer Audit. These findings contributed to the Department of Homeland Security's receiving a disclaimer opinion on their Fiscal Year 2006 financial statements. In each of the 10 Material Weakness areas, Coast Guard financial policy and procedure is deficient and in many instances they are non-compliant with generally accepted government accounting principles. Further, the uncertainty of underlying financial data does not provide reasonable assurance that the Coast Guard financial statements are complete or accurate at any time. Strong financial management and complete financial reporting are top priorities for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has made progress in addressing the 10 material weaknesses, most notably in the following ways: 1) By establishing the Senior Assessment Team to provide oversight for Internal Controls over Financial Reporting and implementation of OMB A-123, Appendix A; and 2) By compiling and publishing a comprehensive Corrective Action Plan which includes corrective action steps for each of the 10 areas of material weakness. Additionally, Coast Guard Headquarters created a new Office of Financial Transformation and Compliance to include two new divisions: The Internal Control Division and the Audit Remediation Division. These divisions will serve to improve financial reporting internal controls, remediate audit findings, and aggressively pursue corrective actions.

Evidence: Section 3, pages 174-236, of the Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report includes (1) the Independent Auditor's Report for the Department of Homeland Security, which shows that the Coast Guard is part of all ten of DHS' material weaknesses, and (2) the Notice of Findings and Recommendations. The Coast Guard Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan shows how the Coast Guard mediates its material weaknesses and reportable conditions.

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

Explanation: The Law Enforcement Assessment and Planning System (LEAPS) has been adopted Coast Guard-wide and improved to ensure the most effective methods of identifying resource planning needs, program deficiencies, and effective communication practices. LEPAS facilitated vertical and horizontal communication and ensured that operational commanders were doing what the Drug Interdiction's Campaign Plan, Steel Web, needed them to do. To improve financial management, Coast Guard Headquarters created a new Office of Financial Transformation and Compliance to include two new divisions: The Internal Control Division and the Audit Remediation Division. These divisions will serve to improve financial reporting internal controls, remediate audit findings, and aggressively pursue corrective actions.

Evidence: Examples of Processes addressing deficiencies: Law Enforcement Planning and Assessment System merging with new Standard Operational Planning Process, Steel Web, Monthly Performance and Assessment Report (MPAR). Example of analysis of resource gap on performance shown through 123 Study & impacts on performance Power-point. The Coast Guard Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan for financial management shows how the Coast Guard is remediating its material weaknesses and reportable conditions.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: Deepwater, the Agency's recapitalization program for air and surface assets used by the SAR Program, is managed through a performance-based contract using a Lead System Integrator, ICGS. Schedule, cost and performance data, as defined in the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), are monitored and assessed using an earned value management system (EVMS). However, recent reviews by GAO and the DHS IG have expressed concerns with USCG oversight and management of ICGS. The Agency is currently implementing their recommendations.

Evidence: Deepwater - APB was approved by DHS on 15 May 2007. Quarterly Acquisition Reports to the Congress document EVMS assessment of program management and include the status of milestones, financial summaries and current contract challenges. Deepwater implementation plans regularly are reported to Congress. GAO's latest report on Deepwater program management (March 8, 2007) shows that some, but not all, of the areas of concern identified by GAO have been addressed.

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

Explanation: Performance measure results show that the program meets or exceeds its current targets for increasing the cocaine removal rate and decreasing flow of cocaine in the maritime environment. The score reflects PART assessment findings that more ambitious targets must be developed.

Evidence: Performance results are reported in the 2008 Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief.

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

Explanation: The Coast Guard met or exceeded its annual cocaine removal rate goals in 2004 and 2005 and anticipates meeting its 2006 cocaine removal rate goal. Results of the Non-Commercial Flow Distribution in past years show that the drug flow in the maritime environment is deceasing. The score reflects PART assessment findings that more ambitious targets must be developed.

Evidence: Performance results and targets are reported for key Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) measures in the 2008 Coast Guard Budget-in-Brief, Key GPRA measures and targets are reported in the DHS Future Years Homeland Security Plan (FYHSP), internal LE Decision Memo outlining Targets.

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

Explanation: The program cannot yet report actual results for its efficiency measure because of the Inter-Agency Cocaine Movement Report's information cycle. The program provided qualitative examples of cost and time savings resulting from after-action reports and monthly performance and assessment reports.

Evidence: Performance measure section of the PART includes Law Enforcement Missions efficiency measure and targets, but results are not yet available. The program estimates that cocaine seizures have increased 76% since 2000, while cutter patrol hours have fallen by 18% over the same period. An example process improvement is the agreement with Ecuador to use pre-approved fax forms to gain permission to board suspect ships more quickly.

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

Explanation: The program has not provided evidence that it compares favorably to other law enforcement programs or other programs involved in reducing drug abuse in the US. While the Coast Guard's Drug Interdiction program is unique in many respects, the program should explore the value of evaluating certain components common to other programs (e.g., enforcement data collection and reporting, collection and use of intelligence information).

Evidence: The program has not provided evidence that comparative analysis with other law enforcement programs is too inherently difficult and costly to perform.

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

Explanation: An independent evaluation was not completed in time for inclusion in PART assessment. A brief report of interim findings provided during the PART evaluation period suggest that in spite of constant or increasing mission demand and flat or falling resource levels, the program has greatly improved its outcomes, meeting or exceeding its performance targets.

Evidence: Interim findings are presented in the Center for Naval Analyses memo (23 April 2007) "Interim Findings of CNA Drug Interdiction Program Evaluation."

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: There has been some success with delivery of air assets that support the USCG SAR program. Most notably the HH65 Re-Engine program which has delivered 84 of 95 aircraft within the budgeted cost and established schedule. Phase I and Phase II of the C4ISR Upgrades to Legacy cutters were completed on schedule and within budget, significantly improving the operational capabilities on 39 legacy cutters. Contracts for surface assets under the Deepwater program are experiencing significant cost overruns and schedule delays that adversely impact mitigation of the gap in requisite patrol boat hours.

Evidence: GAO/IG reports and USCG congressional testimony.