OTR COMMENTS ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL S SURVEY OF THE CT PROGRAM, APRIL 1967

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 12, 2002
• Sequence Number: 25
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Filr ase 2002/11SF$1 4- DP78-06207A4W20010002 8 ~
OTR Comments on the Inspector General's Survey
of the CT Program, April 1967
I. General
A. We were particularly pleased with the constructive tenor of the IG
Survey and its conclusion that the CT Program is a success. We agree
with the principle thrust of the Survey to reduce the training period for the
Clandestine Services CTs, however we consider the time periods proposed
by the IG Team as somewhat arbitrary and not responsive to the needed
content and desired end product. We do not believe that the training cycles
for non-CS CTs are too long.
B. In terms of the end product and needed content, we have carefully
reviewed the present 13 week orientation package common to all CTs and
plan to reduce it to 12 weeks. The orientation package will consist of two
weeks of Intelligence Orientation, 4 weeks of Operations Familiarization,
3 weeks of Communism, and 3 weeks of Intelligence Techniques. In close
concert with the DDP, we have reviewed a new syllabus for operations: train-
ing. We plan to reduce the present 14-weeks Operations Course to 13 weeks
and follow on with an 8-weeks Phase 2 block which will include special oper-
ations concepts and appropriate familiarization with paramilitary tools nec-
essary to deal effectively with counterinsurgency.
C. We concur completely or in principle with 29 of the 33 specific
recommendations. We had already implemented several of the recommen-
dations before publication of the Survey. Attached is an index of the
Approved For Release 2002/11/01 : CIA- Ri7*gfi2 t7MP0200100025-8
L IC f i F T downgrading and
dscisssificstlon
 Approved Forlj ease 20029tA t g~-RDP78-062070200100025-3I
recommendations arranged by category of concurrence.
II. IG Recommendations
A. We completely concur with recommendations: 1, 3, 4, 5
, 8, 9,
10,
11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
B. We concur in principle with the following recommendatio
ns: 2,
6,
19, 22, 26, 27, and 28.
#2 -- (Improvement of CT Counseling) -- The objecti
ve is so
und
but the recommended means are questionable.
#2 a -- Only one CT Program officer is involved three times a
year in the placement of DDI CTs. We believe that we would risk a
qualitative :Loss in return for a small time saving if he dealt directly
with the DDI Administrative Staff.
#2 b - - We encourage substantative counseling by instructors at
25X1A 0 However, we believe administrative and career counseling can
be best handled by CT Program officers spending more time
Program officers are now scheduled.two days a week
0
#2 c - One of the objectives of the initial training period is to
provide information for the individual and the organization on which to
base a meaningful career direction decision. To speed up the proces-
sing is to run the. risk of falling into the "quota system" trap.
#2 d -- We agree that it would be generally desirable to have ex-
perienced ex-CTs to serve as program officers. They would not nec-
essarily be better counselors; however, by virtue of having been
Approved For Release 2002/11/1-f~,P78-06207A000200100025-8
U
2
25X1A
25X1A
 Approved Forilease 2002/1 //'-,: fllRDP78-06207,4p0200l00 =:8
cfi E to
through the Program in past years. Interest in and aptitude for the
work are the determining factors; a "simpatico" manner may mean
much more than technical competence. We believe the major cause of
the weakness in the counseling function is the direct reflection of the
fact that there are too few Program Officers in relationship to the
many CTs.
#6 -- (CT Class Profile Data for Field Recruiters) -- Will be
happy to provide summaries about the composition of classes but do
not favor disseminating biographic data outside the Headquarters area.
#19 -- (Review IPC Objectives with the DDI and DDS&T) We con-
cur but do not agree with the arbitrary time span proposed.
#22 a -- (DDP Review the Needs of the CS for PM Training) --
This review has been accomplished.
#22 b (1) -- (Make SOC Course Content Responsive to the Current
PM Needs of the CS) -- We have been in contact with
25X1A
least a weekly basis for the past six months in an effort to make the
course wholly responsive to CS needs. Recent proposals for revising
the course are currently being staffed through the Office of the DD/P.
We have just, received from the DDP a complete syllabus for a pro-
posed eight weeks of special operations training -- the fruit of our
past six months' dialogue. There is a wide variety of views among the
Divisions of the CS on this question and it appears that these divergent
views have been reconciled into a DDP position.
Approved For Release 2002/ NT 4 E ,-RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
 Approved For Rase 2002/11/3 f FfOP78-06207A, 200100025-8
#22 b (2) -- The disadvantages of combining (inter-meshing) the
SOC and the OC into one course far outweigh possible advantages. By
scheduling two discrete blocks of instruction we can use our manpower
resources more
greater flexibility of scheduling both CT and non-CT student input into
Special Operations training.
#26 -- (Revise Language Policy for CTs) -- We concur with the
objective of this recommendation. There is no question in anyone's
mind that the CT would be better prepared linguistically if he obtained
the training just before going to assignment in the country where the
language is spoken. Our only concern with this recommendation is
with the phrase "understanding that the CTs would be required to gain
language proficiency prior to overseas assignment. " We believe in
addition to "'understanding.,' strict enforcement machinery from the level
of the component Deputy Director will be required.
#27 -- (Reduce Training Periods for CTs) -- We certainly concur
with the objective of reducing the training period of CS CTs. However,
we do not feel any particular concern about reducing the training period
of non-CS CTs. Our principal reservation with this recommendation is
the arbitrary time periods proposed. We believe the content needed
and the end product desired should be the greatest concern.
#28 -- (CT Training Coordinator) -- A CT Training Coordinator was
TA-
Approved For Release 2002/1 ;/W' TA-RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
 Approved For F4ease 2002/1 Jf , f RDP78-06207AW200100025-8
appointed on 5 April 1967. He will be carrying out most of the respon-
sibilities indicated in the IG's Report.
C. We do not concur with the following recommendations: 7, 13, 17,
and 29.
#7 -- (Caution Recruiters against Discussing Promotion Policy of
CTs except for First Promotion) -- This merely avoids the problem.
We must develop a constructive feasible promotion policy which, of
course, will depend on the starting salaries for CTs and the length of
their .training.
#13 -- (Include wives of CT Applicants in the Selection Process) --
We already find out a good deal about wives through interviewing and
investigative procedures. While this objective is desirable, we believe
further steps would be not only difficult but are probably unnecessary
because we are unaware of any serious problem in this area.
#17 -- (Design a Six Weeks' Course to Be Held at Hqs to Familiar-
ize CTs with the Functions of the Agency) -- This proposed six weeks'
course when added to the present four weeks of Communism would mean
a ten weeks basic course for all CTs. It further would mean an emascu-
lated two weeks OFC which would not meet the requirements of non-CS
CTs and would require our increasing our Ops instructor resources at
Hqs. This proposal also either ignores or deprecates the important
objectives of the present ITC and OFC to provide information for the
individual and organization on which to base a meaningful career
Approved For Release 2002/~ fjI f -RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
 Approved For Base 2002/1 MIT: IA4R'OP78-06207A 200100025-8
direction decision. It further proposes an arbitrary time period, the
basis of which escapes us. We have rigorously reviewed the present
13-week orientation package and believe we can make a few substantive
improvements as well as reduce its period to 12 weeks. We would in-
clude a little more DDS orientation in the IOC, retain the four weeks
and reduce Communism one week.
#29 -- (DDI.Special Assistant to the DTR) -- We are not convinced
of the utility of this recommendation. The DDI has qualified representa-
tives in our Intelligence School. We look forward to the time when the
DDI will be able to assign an officer either to head up the Intelligence
School or to take over the number two job for specified tours of duty.
This recommendation would unnecessarily undercut the Chief of the
Intelligence School, and~would:create duplication and use up a needed
position.
III. IG Observations
We would like to comment on several observations in the survey in order
to clarify the record or to agree with suggestions contained therein.
A. Predetermined Period of Training:'for CS CTs (Page 4, para 2;
page 54, para 4) ?-- We sharply disagree with the IG suggestion that courses
were added to the Clandestine Services Career Training cycle in order to fill
a predetermined period of two years. It is true that DDP took the decision
in early 1965 to lengthen and intensify the span of training for Clandestine
Services CTs with the objective of producing more professional officers.
Approved For Release 2002/"1 ET-RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
 X-; `,
Approved For Rase 2002/11/Pa-F4DP78-06207A0200100025-8 t .:,,
Various blocks of instruction were added on the basis of what was believed
to be their intrinsic merit and their contribution to the production of well-
rounded and better trained intelligence officers; for example, China Opera-
tions and Soviet Bloc Operations, and the two weeks of formal desk training.
The Managerial Grid was an effort at sensitivity training and was aimed
also at making the young officer not a manager but a more effective member
of a rather large government organization. We have already canceled the
Grid from the training of DDI and CS CTs. Language training of from three
to four months. to reach elementary skill or up to six months for intermediate
skill is substantively necessary. The IG comment on a haphazard sequence
of courses ignores practical problems of scheduling, management of faculty
resources, and the need to bring the CT back to headquarters at periodic in-
tervals for family or other reasons. Courses were not added merely to fill
a predetermined period of time. Course content for Clandestine Services
trainees, including the SOC, has been reviewed with the Clandestine Services
frequently and laboriously. The course for DDS CTs was established in com-
plete conjunction with the DDS Training Committee for CTs. Our Intelligence
School has been :in frequent consultation with DDI officers and
DDI representative, at the initiative of OTR was invited to spend several
months reviewing Intelligence School programs.
25X1
25X1
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/11/01 : CIA-RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2002/11/01 : CIA-RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
 25X1A Approved For Rase 2002/11/0 M 78-06207A 4200100025-8
C. Costs - Pages 9-1,0, :. 86
1. While we don't completely agree with the methodology, we agree
it costs a lot to train a CT. Our FY 67 estimate developed below is
$17-18, 000 per CT which compares favorably with the Connecticut General
Life Insurance figure of $26, 000 per new trainee.
Approved For Release 200Spitie f ETA-RDP78-06207A000200100025-8
 Approved For Rase 2002/11/0t ; AJ"RI Pt8-06207 0200100025-8
25X1A
2. We would also like to note that the direct additional cost of lang-
uage training is minimal and the budgetary issue is essentially internal
bookkeeping -- a question of who budgets for CT salaries while they are in
language training.
D. Attrition - Pages 99-102
1. We question the comparability of some of the statistics cited and
wonder if there may not be mixture of apples and oranges. For example,
what five year period is covered in the Chase Bank figure, a recent group,
an early group;' Are females included? Should we not compare this figure
with a comparable five year CT figure rather than with the 1961 CT class
Approved For Release 2002/11/01 : CIA-RDP7~8-06207A000200100025-8
12 ~-~ ,lJ ErL
 Approved For Rp ase 2002/11/01 SE_ 1 J 1P78-06207200100025-8k~
which may be atypical? In any event, we welcome data which helps us assess
our efforts.
2. Our data do not support the statement on Page 101, para 1,
"Most attrition occurs while the CT is still a trainee."
E. Support, Services Training (Pages 62, 66) We plan to increase the
Support Services coverage in the IOC and to increase the emphasis on Head-
quarters duties in the Support Services Course.
F. Reduction of Training Cycle for CS Women CTs - Pages 93-94. We
have not yet reviewed this subject with the DDP. It should be noted however,
that much of the present training is specifically job-related and will be taken
after the transfer to the CS.
G. Headquarters Desk Training and Attachment - Pages 81, 82 para 2.
We plan to give the Headquarters Desk Course just before attachment to a
DDP desk. The purpose of the trial desk attachment is to ensure proper place-
ment. The period of attachment should be only that time necessary to accom-
plish the purpose. In most cases this period will be much shorter than six
H. Validation of CT Requirements - Page 18. Oniarch 1967 we asked
the Director of Personnel to validate the FY 68 CT requirement as well as a
forecast for 1969-73.
Approved For Release 2002/11/0113Cl
07A000200100025-8
tMPRff
 INDEX OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Concur with 22 Recommendations
SECRET
Approved For'tlease 2002/11/01 : CIA-RDP78-06207~~Yiib0200100025-8
Page Recommendations Page Recommendation
12
20
21
22
28
30
31
#1
#3
#4
#5
#8
#9
#10
34 #11 (accomplished)
34 # 12 (accomplished)
47 #14
48 #15
51 #16
64 #18
^. #20
Concur in principle with 7 Recommendations
Page
16
23
66
Recommendation Page
#2 76
#6 86
#19 87
90
Do not Concur with 4 Recommendations
Page
25
41
Recommendation Page
#7 62
#13 92
Page Recommendation
70 #21 (accomplished)
78 #23 (accomplished)
80 #24 (accomplished)
83 #25
93 #30 (accomplished)
97 #31
105 #32
108 #33
#22
#26
#27
#28 (accomplished)
Recommendation
#17
#29
Approved For Release 20 / ~# RDP78-06207A000200100025-8