ANALYSIS OF RETURNS ON NIE QUESTIONNAIRES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 6, 2005
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: May 25, 1960
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Rd1 ase 2005/04/13: CIA,RQP79R00971AM0400020004-7
MW 1960
1.
a list of the va .anr
ted frw the
ti on that tee
the list a"
nt ivisi,
of Rem on Q-166 nal-re
2. Yet will note that part of the Ust will require the reduction
of the replies to a net ==bar of re ents. TWU mw be difficult
to do sime the t ,a r. a itself does not provide f the ellmi-
natiou of + licates.. Hwever such a distisation would be desirable
in wwawfting the susima to the awe admiral questions. The dup -
cation is Wits acceptable in Us anvows that qOr to specific
Since 1, offer already oarefuly listed the respcesdents, Perbaps
tns wmonntabit.
bed blank copies of the quasstion-
I have assipod a n rteal. designator to
The IBM pr wish to change these
, Ipropose that
e other kxl-
advise us farther an the feasibility of pro-
for matbine proc .. I will appreciate
for the I ,office, etc.
'` have for changes o r' additions to the list.
6. In the
t ~.
agency
tten caments were 5ttted or pwhape
itself. I suggest we ass tale these
I sl proceed with an anal rais of the
25X1
25X1
Attachment
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 CIA-RDP79R009 lA000400020004-7
PfP~ 3 raT ?_ .
 Approved For Refease 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79R00971A6e0400020004-7
FOR OFF CiAL USE ONLY.
Attachment
2 1960
tion to be extracted
NIE Qesticaxnatres
a. of replies
a6
(2) BY agency for each
(3) Total for each NIB
(b) Total for all ms's
II.
bets At !m4u !M Item
ftbw of items checked under each question.
b. In each case ohm percentage of those answering the
question who chocked each item,
c. If feasible, list written r ;Ltes tamer 1 (f )j 2 (b),0
5 (f) and the ber of months givin in 10 (b).
try Indivoual getiaatea
~wwrww~r.W.MwiwAw
of
fellows questions for to i
6,,7,8,and 9
b. In each case sham perm of those answering
question who o kreach item,
Approved For Releasj:ff IF FJj?8R00971A000400020004-7
 . Approved For Release 20fO4/ 4"l~' & P(MtOO971A"0400020004-7
Ie~itial Raear~cax~entes
puVom of this section in to c
p~.
sLio' .re.
It erase be
the data given under *Pcsitics
It
be.
is des ndd that we present a net
~~
.
,,//rr
M this iif~iLs j
i~ if does not require an unacceptable effort.
a.
Total mwbw of iridir3~dttal.
Mts.
b.
Nabor of reap es (elimt
ting duplicates) to each
item under questions 1, 2,
4, 5 and 10.
c.
Percentages for each item,
abr.
tion to the gener*l division of respondent
re:ected in %ueestio is s taro, if possible, from
determi rw by ieapecti o bar sigui.f'icent
e t
the levels of
from which the replies have been
V.
received.
amd
:e idual i
a to 1(a),by ito,
sticne 2, 3, !s, 6,
is to I (b), I (c), and I (e).
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Reled-6E2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79ROO971AOOd*96020004-7
NIE Number
Copy Number
Position of the User:
My professional responsibilities are mainly in the field of (Check one)
(a) policy planning and coordination
(b) operations
(c) intelligence
(d) keeping my superior informed
(e) research
(f)
,, My substantive responsibilities are (Check one)
(a) general in scope
(b) primarily concerned with matters involving
(indicate country, regional or
functional specialization)
I normally see, or am briefed on (Check one)
r
(a) all NIEs
(b) all NIEs bearing on my special responsibilities
(c) only NIEs specifically requested by me or brought to my attention
4~',As a rule, I (Check one)
(a) rely primarily on briefings to keep myself informed on the content of NIEs
(b) read NIE Conclusions only
(c) read the entire NIE myself
(d) read NIEs primarily in order to brief a superior
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
I first learned of the present NIE (Check one)
(a) on receiving it
(b) through USIB Committee papers
(c) through reference to NIE files, the NIE index, or other reference service
(d) through reference to it by a professional colleague
(e) through participation in its preparation
(f) through other means (specify)
I am using this estimate (Check one)
(a) in connection with actions on its subject now before my office
(b) for purposes of briefing a superior
(c) for background information
The value of this estimate for my purposes is (Check one)
(a) major
(b) moderate
(c) little
(d) none
I expect that I will cite, quote, or summarize this estimate (Check one)
(a) in papers prepared in my office
(b) in coordination of other papers and other discussions
(c) seldom, if ever
I expect that I will probably (Check one)
(a) not refer to this estimate again
(b) refer to it frequently in the future
(c) refer to it once or twice in the future
I regard estimates as useful and dependable (Check one)
(a) only at the time they are issued
(b) only for the first months or so after issuance
(c) until superseded
(d) there is no general rule; it depends on the particular estimate
This copy will be retained ins personal files. (Circle one)
office
central
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 : CIA-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/13: CIAZ ID0971A00400020004-7
CONFIDENTIAL
An analysis of the returns from the 636 individual respondents
reveals that 320 of them, or 50%, are engaged in intelligence, 123
or 19%, have responsibilities in policy planning and coordination,
and 48, or 8%, are in operations. Only 44, or 7%, listed them-
selves in the area of research.
A substantial majority of the readers (60%) consider themselves
specialists-- area or functional -- and some 40% have substantial
responsibilities which are general in scope. This division is also
reflected in the fact that the largest number (47%) see or are
briefed on only those NIE's which bear on their special responsi-
bilities. The number who read all ME's (39%) is almost identical
with the number who list themselves as generalists. About 14%
see only those NIE's whi^b they specifilly request or which are
brought to their attention.
The NIE reading practises of this group of respondents rather
definitely shows that a majority (59%) read the entire NIE them-
selves. However, a very substantial number (34%) read only the
conclusions. As might be expected the percentage that relies pri-
marily on briefings of NIE's is very small -- only 3%. It is a
conincidence that the same percentage read NIE's primarily to
brief their superiors.
66N7IDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2005RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
 Approved For Retease 2005/04/13 CIA O971AOOO4OOO2OOO4-7
CONFIDENTIAL
Very few (only 1%) regard estimates as useful and dependable
only at the time they are issued. A Su~rS~ number (23%) regard
them so until they are superseded. The great majority, however,
some 70%, do not apply any general rule as to the continuing validity
of our estimate, making their decision depend on the particular
estimate. A small number (5%) consider the estimates valid for a
specified number of months.
A closer examination of the returns reveals, as might be expected,
that those who consider themselves "policy planners" are most fre-
quently also generalists who read all NIE's. About half of them
read the entire paper, the other half, only the conclusions. The
intelligence respondents tend very strongly toward specialization
and are inclined to read entire NIE's in their own areas. The
operatives and research respondents are also very largely specialists
who read entire NIE's in their own areas of interest.
A number of the questions were concerned with reactions to
the specific estimate in hand. For the analysis of their replies,
we turn to the gross number of responses (1037). The 1956 report
stated that NIE'I were more generally used for background pu*poses.
This pattern is confirmed in the present study which shows that
83% of the respondents were using them in.this way. The percentage
for operatives and research users tended to be even higher (92% and
95%) and for intelligence officers (79%) somewhat lower than the
average.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2005/04/1 ,,. .C 4-P79ROO971AOOO4OOO2OOO4-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/.
Although the large percentages using NIE's for background
purposes are probably to be expected, it is significant that 13% of
the policy planners and intelligence officers indicated that the esti-
mates in question (a total of 90 instances) were being used in con-
nection with actions do the subject that were then before thiez ffioes.
The highest score in this respect was achieved by NIE l1-8-59* with
28 respondents (21%) giving this reply. This estimate was also sated
of major importance for their purpose by 53% of the respondents.
NIE 11-6-59 and NTE 70-59 followed rather far behind NIE 11-8-59,
but with significant scores. In each of these categories these
estimates received identical percentages of 14% and 33% respectively.
See Tab -- for list of NIE's by subject.
Approved For Release 2005/0Q (,1,yc-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
ONFIDENTIAhI
 Approved For ReI se 200,./ ~GFA-RDP79RO0971A0'400020004-7
ITIAlt
The NIE readers were asked to indicate the value of each of
the estimates for their purposes. Although these replies un-
fortunately cannot be correlated with the special area interests of
the respondents, it is significant, nevertheless, that 28% rated them
as of major importance and 50% of moderate importance for their purposes.
Only 18% said they were of little importance. There were scattered
other opinions. The policy planners as a group rated these NIE's
rather higher than the average, citing 30% as of major importance
and 53% as of moderate importance for their purposes. Almost half
ti
of the repondents indicated that they expected to cite, quote, or
summarize the estimate in question in papers prepared in their
offices or in the coordination of other papers and discussions.
Almost an equal number rated that they would seldom, if ever, have
occasion to use the estimate in this way. In response to a somewhat
question 26% indicated that they would probably not refer
to the estimate again, 25% that they would refer to it frequently in
the future and 48% that they would refer to it once or twice in the
future.
In order to determine whether readers retained NIE'a for their
,personal use or sent then to a central file, they were queried on
this- subject with the following results. Only 2% retain them in
their personal files. The great majority (57%) keep them in their
office files and a substantial number (36%) return them to the
central files.
CONFiDENTIAtI
Approved For Release 2005/04/13 CIA-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
 ~;t1~N'ID-OTIAI
Approved For Release 2005/04/13-- IA-RDP79R00971AOV0400020004-7
Composition of the Sample
Approximately 10% of the initial basic distribution of NIE's is
allocated to non-USIB agencies or individuals. The division of replies
between this group and the USIB recipients was very close to the pro-
portion of N-'e received by each group. Among the USIB agenoiea
themselves, however, all of the agencies withe the exception of
ACSI.turned in either the same or a smaller percentage--af-"replies then.
their percentage allotment of NIE'a. ACSI, however, the largest con-
sumer after CIA, although recieving only about 17% of the NIE's pro-
vided 36% of the responses.
Approved For Release 2005/04M;Fd R R00971A000400020004-7
 Approved For Release 2005/04/1 RDP79R00971AO 0400020004-7
CoX71DEIQTIAI,,
II. Analysis of Returns for Questionnaires
The number of completed questionnaires (1037) received from
636 individual respondents probably represents a very small per-
centage of the average number of NIE readers. If only one response
had been received for each of the seven NIE's distributed in the
initial basic dissemination, the total would have been 2604 or 21
times the number actually received. Or put another way, we received
an average of 148 replies for each NIE, which is about 40% of the
number of NIE's initially distributed. If it is assumed that each
NTE is seen by a number of different people, and if the large supple-
mentary distribution of some of these NIE's is added, it is apparent
that the returns may in fact represent considerably less then 10% of
the NIE readership. Even such a response is probably larger than
could have been expected if addressed to the general publiftor to
some outside organization. In view of the simplicity of the question-
naire, the various reminders given,, and the ample time allowed, it
cannot be considered an adequate response from the employee group
addressed.
A larger response would obviously have been desirable; however,
the size of the sample by itself need not preclude some assessment of
the answers given to the various lines of inquiry. Although some
generalizations can be made regarding the composition of the sample,
the levels and kinds of responsibilities of the respondents cannot be
established with any precision. In other words, this inquiry was not
CONFIDENTIATl
Approved For Release 2005/044.2,;, QIA-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7
 'CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For ReT'ease 2005/04/13 : CIARfP79F00971A000400020004-7
conducted as a scientific poll of the NIE readership, allocating the
blanks to different groups in accordance with some predetermined
pattern, It was an across-the-board inquiry open to all NIE readers
without distinction. The results should be read with this qualifica-
tion in mind.
CONFIAENTIAL'
Approved For Release 20054,Q4/13-RDP79R00971A000400020004-7