COLLECTION GUIDANCE STAFF

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R001600070004-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 2003
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: May 1, 1967
• Content Type: MF

SECRET
Approved For Relpse 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80B01676R0Q .600070004-6
Ref: TCS 5665-67
1 May 1967
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT : Collection Guidance Staff
1. Pursuant to your request, I am attaching some marginal notes
which I had made on the DD/I paper of 24 April regarding the functions
of the Collection Guidance Staff. I also have a general comment on the
draft statement on the Collection Guidance Advisory Group. I don't
know how helpful these will be since I find myself rather discouraged
about this whole subject.
2. After listening to J. J. Hitchcock today, my impression is
much stronger that the Collection Guidance Staff of today `does not
know what it is or what it is supposed to do. Its procedures are ad
hoc and, in short, they are flying by the seat of their pants.
3. In drafting your paper, I have the following suggestions:
a. First, let's decide whether CGS, or whatever we are
going to call it, is a DD/I staff, a CIA staff, or a USIB staff.
I have been thinking in terms of a CIA staff. If it is to be a
USIB staff, then it would seem to me that its memberhip
should be drawn from the USIB membership rather than from
CIA alone.
b. Second, I am impressed by the lack of any senior, re-
sponsible points of contact within or without the Agency that
CGS looks to either from which they receive requirements or
to which they transmit requirements. To expect this staff to
deal with literally hundreds of individual analysts seems ab-
solutely hopeless to me. There must be someone who can
speak for the DD/I, DD/S&T, et al with authority.
c. Third, CGS seems to have taken on a whole host of
incidental chores which at best are peripheral to require-
ments. I think it is infeasible to assemble in a single
Approved PoI ReIea'9e 20 3/ : CIA-R P80B01676R0016000700(t4 GROUP 1
c, I au rsf. maftc
SEC ET tl? Kca
 SEC ET
Approved For Relose 2003/04/22: CIA-RDP80B01676R004600070004-6
Collection Guidance Staff the expertise to do all of the things
which J. J. Hitchcock says his Staff is now trying to do. I
think instead the role of this Staff should be to ensure that
requirements are validated and that collection is evaluated
rather than to attempt to do these things themselves. I be-
lieve it most unwise for CGS to try to develop a Systematic
Analysis Staff.
d. In sum, I think there is a place for such a Staff, but
we should decide what we want it to be and what we want it
to do. The objective to keep foremost in mind, it seems to
me, is the bringing of the collectors and producers as close
together as possible. I believe this Staff could be much
smaller than it is and do a much more effective job. When
its charter is determined, the DD/I should understand that
he is not to saddle it with numerous incidental chores which
are not properly a part of its functions.
L. K. White
Executive Director-Comptroller
Attachment
Marginal comments
ExDir:sbo
Distribution:
0 - Adse w/att
! - ER w / att
1 - ExDir w / att
Approved For Release 2003/04/22 : P80B01676R001600070004-6
Si 4
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80BO1676RM600070004-6
Marginal Comments
Collection Guidance Staff
Paragraph
A. 1. (c) To assist is okay, but this should be a primary
function of the production offices.
A. 1. (d) The principle is okay, but this should be kept fairly
simple. We shouldn't go overboard with registries
inventories, and other records.
I also note that the thrust of this paragraph is to
assist the production components whereas I think
they should assist the collectors as well.
B. 2. (b) I think CGS should not attempt to do systematic
analysis and cost effectiveness studies.
B. 2. (f) It is all right to assist, but this is a primary func-
tion of the producers.
C. 3. (a) Why can't the producers do this?
C. 3. (b) Why can't the SIGINT Committee do this?
C. 3. (c) Is this a USIB staff or a CIA staff?
C. 3. (d) This seems to be a function of the producers of
intelligence.
C. 3. (e) The same.
C. 3. (f) The same.
D. 4. Can this be done better by CGS than by NPIC?
D. 4. (a) I don't understand "referenced reporting. "
Approved For Release 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R001600070004-6
 tiltl
Approved For Re ease 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R 1600070004-6
Paragraph
D. 4. (b) Doesn't this duplicate COMIREX?
D. 4. (c) Can't NPIC do this?
D. 4. (d) Why doesn't the SIGINT Committee do this?
D. 5. I question the propriety of either of these functions
in the Collection Guidance Staff.
Collection Guidance Advisory Group
This paper is beamed at the producers of intelligence and ignores
completely the collectors, which I think is wrong. Again, one of the
primary functions of the Collection Guidance Staff should be to bring
the producers and collectors together, eliminate as much of the writ-
ten communication as possible, etc. I would make this a smaller
group with, say, DD/I and DD/S&T each having one member who is
a producer and one member who is a collector. DD/ P should also
have one member, probably from the FI Staff.
Approved For Release 2003/04/22 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R001600070004-6
'EC ET