Program Code | 10004105 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Program Title | U.S. Mint: Protection Program | ||||||||||
Department Name | Department of the Treasury | ||||||||||
Agency/Bureau Name | Internal Revenue Service | ||||||||||
Program Type(s) |
Direct Federal Program |
||||||||||
Assessment Year | 2005 | ||||||||||
Assessment Rating | Effective | ||||||||||
Assessment Section Scores |
|
||||||||||
Program Funding Level (in millions) |
|
Year Began | Improvement Plan | Status | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
2006 |
Assessing and implementing ways in which the cost of protection per square foot can be minimized. |
Action taken, but not completed | The United States Mint Police have initiated projects to automate entry and exit procedures at Mint facilities. This is expected to reduce the staffing levels that are currently needed at all facilities. Automating the entry and exit procedures involve planned capital investments through FY 2010. Other controllable costs such as overtime and rent are also being looked at for reduction opportunities. |
2006 |
Continuing to improve employee confidence in the Mint protection program. |
Action taken, but not completed | The United States Mint Police addresses possible threats by ensuring good security at all sites, coordination with other agencies, and proper policies and procedures. Employee outreach initiatives regarding disaster planning started in FY 2008. Also, as Protection policies and procedures are reviewed and updated increased communication is being made to all employees. Protection hopes to see improved employee confidence in survey results in FY 2008 and FY 2009. |
Year Began | Improvement Plan | Status | Comments |
---|
Term | Type | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Long-term | Outcome |
Measure: Total LossesExplanation:The dollar amount of losses incurred due to the realization of threats against the United States Mint.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual | Efficiency |
Measure: Protection cost per square footExplanation:Protection cost per square foot is the Office of Protection's total operating costs divided by the area of usable space in square feet that the United States Mint Police protects. Usable space is defined as 90% of total square footage.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Long-term | Outcome |
Measure: Employee Confidence in ProtectionExplanation:Employee confidence is assessed via the Pulse-Check Survey, a 14-question survey designed to assess the attitudes of Mint employees concerning their work environment. It is administered each quarter to 25% of the Mint's permanent workforce. Result is the percent who respond favorably ("strongly agree" or "agree") to the statement "The Mint Takes Adequate Security Precautions to Protect Employees"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual | Outcome |
Measure: Financial LossesExplanation:Losses that have been reported, investigated, and verified as unrecoverable, from the following: Strategic reserves (Theft of Treasury Reserves); Coining products (Theft from the production facilities); Sales of products to the public (Theft by fraud); Other losses (Other theft)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual | Outcome |
Measure: Intrusion LossesExplanation:The cost to repair and/or recover from intentional intrusions or damage to United States Mint facilities and systems, either physically or electronically
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual | Outcome |
Measure: Productivity LossesExplanation:Any additional costs due to intentional damage or destruction of United States Mint production capacity that requires procurement of alternative production capability
|
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design | |||
---|---|---|---|
Number | Question | Answer | Score |
1.1 |
Is the program purpose clear? Explanation: The program purpose is clearly stated in federal legislation which is supported by the Mint's mission and budget statements. Protection's purpose is to protect the Nation's coinage. Evidence: Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations; Strategic Plan, page 3. Public Law 104-208, sec. 517 |
YES | 20% |
1.2 |
Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need? Explanation: The United States Mint Police/ Protection Office addresses the need to protect over $100 billion in Treasury and other Government stored assets nationwide. The Mint police also safeguard thousands of Mint employees against potential threats. Evidence: Homeland Security's December 2004 National Response Plan Emergency Support Function #13 Public Safety and Security; U.S.C. Title 40, section 1315, Law Enforcement Authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property |
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: The Mint protection program is duplicative of other Federal efforts aimed at protecting money such as the Bureau of Engraving (BEP) and the Federal Reserve Police forces. Evidence: Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police, The Federal Reserve Bank Police, GAO-03-696 pg.15 July 2003 Coin and Currency Production: Issues Concerning Who Should Provide Security. Mint Directive 10 D-1, 8 |
NO | 0% |
1.4 |
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency? Explanation: The results from peer reviews conducted every five years by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) have shown the effectiveness of the Protection program as well as identifying certain areas of improvement. Directives and policies ensure adherence to standards for program effectiveness on a regular basis. Evidence: Peer Reviews, Threat Assessments (Sandia National Laboratories; SPAWAR, and Science Applications International Corporation) and the Capital Budget |
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: 90% of Protection resources are for the personnel compensation and related benefits of the United States Mint's Police staff. The remaining 10% is used for supporting the protection function (such as services, training, and supplies). Evidence: Peer Reviews, Threat Assessments (Sandia National Laboratories; SPAWAR, and Science Applications International Corporation) and the Capital Budget |
YES | 20% |
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design | Score | 80% |
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: Protection has two long-term performance measures: Total Losses and Employee Confidence in Protection. Evidence: FY 2004 Annual Report pg.13 & 14; 2006 Congressional Budget Submission; PULSE-Check survey results; Data sheet on Pulse Check performance measure |
YES | 12% |
2.2 |
Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures? Explanation: Protection's ambitious target for Total Losses is zero by the year 2010. The ambitious target for the Employee Confidence measure is 90% by 2009. The Employee Confidence target is ambitious because it is much higher than an industry norm benchmark of 68%, and would require continual improvement on the recent years' performance. Evidence: FY 2004 Annual Report pg.13 & 14; FY 2006 Congressional Budget Submission, www.shop.org/learn/stats_ebizz_security.asp ; www.crime-research.org/library/analit11.html; PULSE-Check survey results; Data sheet on Employee Confidence performance measure |
YES | 12% |
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 United States Mint Police monitor its financial losses, cost of Intrusion, and productivity losses on a quarterly basis. These indicators are linked to the U.S. Mint Police's long-term performance measure of total losses. Evidence: Protection Strategic Business Unit Benchmark Study, August 2002; 2006 Congressional Budget Submission |
YES | 12% |
2.4 |
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures? Explanation: Protection's target for its annual combined measures (Financial Losses, Cost of Intrusion, and Productivity Losses) is $250,000. However, $2.3 million would be the applicable private sector industry standard for internet sales (the Mint's riskiest activity). Protection's long-term ambitious target is zero. Evidence: FY 2004 Annual Report pg.13 & 14; Intranet Printouts; FY 2006 Congressional Budget Submission |
YES | 12% |
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: Protection is a participant in the Counter-Terrorism Program. Duties entail networking with other law enforcement agencies (United States Secret Service, FBI, ATFE, U.S. Park Police, Federal Protective Services, U.S. Marshals, Metro Transit Police, Smithsonian Police, Metropolitan Police, other MD/VA/DC Police, and Fire/Rescue agencies) to assist in achieving its goal for total losses in addition to assessing the threat levels. Evidence: Protection Counter-Terrorism Program Information/Intelligence Gathering; Presidential Decision Directive 39, 62, 63. |
YES | 12% |
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: Every five years a peer review/assessment is conducted by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The design and program implementation from the recommendations given by the SNL is conducted by SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare, one of the Navy's three major acquisition commands). Once implementation is completed, a re-assessment for validation is done by SNL. In addition, independent studies are done as needed by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Evidence: Peer Reviews, Threat Assessments (Sandia National Laboratories; SPAWAR, and Science Applications International Corporation) and the Capital Budget |
YES | 12% |
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: The United States Mint submits performance-based budgets. All protection funding presented in the budget submission is for the protection activity and is tied to the following goal: " Protect assets entrusted to the United States Mint and ensure a secure environment is provided to design, sell, and deliver quality products". The Total Losses measure is directly tied to this goal. Evidence: Protection Financial Status Reports; Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)-PDD 63; 2006 Congressional Budget Submission pg.6,pg.12; PMA Status from Mint Intranet |
YES | 12% |
2.8 |
Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies? Explanation: The Director of Protection meets with the United States Mint Police field chiefs and Plant Managers on a weekly basis. Annual reviews are also conducted by the senior staff members to evaluate the program's effectiveness. In addition, the Protection program is evaluated by Sandia National Laboratories; recommendations are then addressed by SPAWAR, and a re-assessment is later conducted by SNL. The Mint has successfully implemented 12 out of 13 reccomendations made by Sandia in their 2000 assessment. Evidence: 11 Key Performance Measures; Internet Financial Summary Report; Peer Reviews, Threat Assessments (Sandia National Laboratories; SPAWAR, and Science Applications International Corporation) and the Capital Budget |
YES | 12% |
Section 2 - Strategic Planning | Score | 100% |
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 Protection Office monitors its annual total losses (Financial losses, Cost of Intrusion, and Productivity losses) on a quarterly basis. All reports are submitted to the Director for Protection/Chief for review. The Pulse-Check Survey is performed quarterly. In addition, the Mint executive team reviews all the performance measures monthly. Evidence: Measures in annual report, strategic plan and on the Mint's intranet; 2006 Congressional Budget Submission; FY 2004 Annual Report pg.13 & 14; PULSE-Check survey results |
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: The Mint Police collaborates with FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) for training purposes, IRS for background investigations, SPAWAR and Sandia National Laboratories for program evaluation, design, and implementation for performance enhancement. These entities are observed and evaluated by the Protection office. United States Mint senior managers have specific individual performance goals as part of their annual appraisal and these goals align with the Mint strategic goals. Evidence: Mint performance based contracts; SES appraisal forms showing accountability for performance |
YES | 14% |
3.3 |
Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose? Explanation: Protection formulates its budget based on the need for that fiscal year. Funding is spent based on a forecasted spending rate. Financial status reports are generated monthly and evaluated with the annual financial plan. Protection spends 90% of its resources on salaries and 10% on equipment. Evidence: Protection Financial Status 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: Protection utilizes a measure of Protection Cost Per Square Foot to track efficiency and cost effectiveness. Protection also carefully monitors Overtime and FTE usage. Evidence: FY 2004 Annual Report pg.13 & 14; FY 2006 Congressional Budget Submission |
YES | 14% |
3.5 |
Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs? Explanation: The United Sates Mint Police coordinates effectively with state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies (Bureau of Engraving and Printing, United States Secret Service, FBI, ATFE, U.S. Park Police, Federal Protective Services, U.S. Marshals, Metro Transit Police, Smithsonian Police, Metropolitan Police, other MD/VA/DC Police, and Fire/Rescue agencies) to analyze data relating to terrorism, criminal activity, demonstrations and threats against persons or property under the charge and control of the Mint. Evidence: Protection Counter-Terrorism Program Information/Intelligence Gathering; Presidential Decision Directive 39, 62, 63; Memorandum of Agreement |
YES | 14% |
3.6 |
Does the program use strong financial management practices? Explanation: The program uses strong financial management techniques as evidenced by the Mint's 11 consecutive clean audit opinions from external auditors. The Mint has established an internal function to help keep the agency on track in addressing OIG and GAO audit recommendations Evidence: Mint Director congratulatory email to Mint staff (clean audit opinions); UKW audit letters; . A monthly status is provided to the executive team. The Mint has provided examples of specific corrective actions in their evidence. |
YES | 14% |
3.7 |
Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies? Explanation: SAIC and SNL evaluate Protection's Policy and Procedures, Compensation Packages, Manpower Staffing, and Customer Service to determine whether managerial deficiencies exist. Their recommendations have been acknowledged and addressed by Protection. For instance, Protection now measures confidence in their efforts through quarterly "Pulse-Check" surveys of employees. Evidence: Peer Reviews, Threat Assessments (Sandia National Laboratories; SPAWAR, and Science Applications International Corporation) and the Capital Budget |
YES | 14% |
Section 3 - Program Management | Score | 100% |
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: Total Losses was established in 2004 and has an ambitious target of zero. FY 2002 Losses were $32,362, and FY 2003 Losses were $437,037. FY 2004 Losses were $3,109, demonstrating improvement over the prior two years. Currently through three quarters of FY 2005, Total Losses are at $0 (zero). The Employee Confidence in Protection has a long term target of 90% in FY 2009. The FY 2003 result was 85%. FY 2004 result was 84%. Through the first and second quarters of FY 2005, the results have been 87% and 83% respectively. Evidence: Department of Treasury/ United States Mint Fiscal Year 2006 Congressional Budget Submission Mint-5; FMS Gold Reports at www.fms.treas.gov; www.crime-research.org/library/analit11.html; Peer Reviews and the Capital Budget; Pulse-Check Survey Results Report; Data sheet on Pulse Check performance measure. |
YES | 20% |
4.2 |
Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals? Explanation: Protection has three annual performance goals with ambitious targets, and is achieving performance goals. Protection's Financial Losses targets will decrease steadily over the next five years to $0 in 2010. Evidence: FY 2004 Annual Report pg.13 & 14; FY 2006 Congressional Budget Submission |
LARGE EXTENT | 13% |
4.3 |
Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year? Explanation: The cost per square foot in FY 04 was $32.51 and the target was $33.02 Protection plans to continue to increase efficiency in the future. Evidence: FY'03 & FY'04 End of the Year Financial Status Reports |
YES | 20% |
4.4 |
Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals? Explanation: The Mint's total losses in 2004 was $3109, substantially lower than comparable industrial (private sector) losses. The U.S. Mint Protective Services are seen as a leader among International Mints. In 2002, The Mint Police reviewed the Central Bank of Latvia's protective function. Protection has also provided advice to foreign Mints on movement of valuable materials to deep storage of assets. Evidence: FY 2004 Annual Report pg.13 & 14; www.crime-research.org/library/analit11.html; GAO-03-696 July 2003 Coin and Currency Production: Issues Concerning Who Should Provide Security. |
YES | 20% |
4.5 |
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results? Explanation: The results from previous peer reviews/evaluations from SNL and SAIC have shown the effectiveness of Protection and associated achievements. Evidence: Peer Reviews, Threat Assessments (Sandia National Laboratories; SPAWAR, and Science Applications International Cooperation) and the Capital Budget; Red Team Exercises |
YES | 20% |
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability | Score | 93% |