FY-76 KEP

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010019-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 10, 2004
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: November 24, 1975
• Content Type: MF

Approved For lease 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP80M00640 000100010019-0
ICI/IC 75-1075
24 '4ovenber 1975
Er.1ORANDUDI FOR: A / IP$RRD/IC
SUBJECT FY-76 CEP
1. Even though the numbers are still jumping around
(for example, we received a number of redrafted NIO assess-
rnents just late last week), we now know the general
outlines of FY-75 KtP findings. We are continuing to
examine these data to exploit them as fully as possible
in furthering the .SCI's objective of "using the KIQs/ kEP
process so as to relate outcome and performance to
priorities and resource allocations. Concurrently, parts
of the Community arc beginning to formulate FY-76 collection
and production strategies. Thus, it is time to decide
where we want-to go with the FY-76 KEP.
2. Before we can resolve this question, we must decide
how much frustration we are willing to endure, how determined
is the SCI in achieving his announced objective and, perhaps
more to the point, what are our chances for success in
getting George Carver to argue philosophy and practicability
before-the DCI for the purpose of getting clear-cut direction
from the Director on the FY-76 KEP. (Please note, we are not
suggesting yet another attempt to work things out with Carver
and avoid going to the LCI. We don't feel, given the number
of times we've been to the well, that Carver would be any
more receptive now than in the past. he, in effect, seems
to view greater involvement of the collection committees as
a usurpation of :SIC role in :EP (and their ability to keep
it limited?).)
3. Assuming that the Director meant what he said about
the KID;/kEP process, it is essential that order and consist-
ency be introduced into the effort. That means some
fundamental issues must be resolved.
a. Who is in charge of the process--it
cannot continue to be split between ICS and
the : IOs .
EE
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP80MOO636A000100010019-0
25X1
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 CIA-RDP80M00W 000100010019-0
b, Given i AC's consensus (copy attached)
... that the process should provide answers
on where additional effort was required and
conversely, where resources could be reduced
? . ? how much more management cost will the
DCI accept? (the Community seems much more
receptive to increases than does the DCI).
c. that roles should CPAD and P1W play in
process.
t'iatever may be the answers to the
txelp make the Strategies more useful, take a load off the
1F~IOs and materially assist the USIB collection committees
in more effectively carrying out their part of the collection
tasking process.
6. Ti, the final analysis, it all comes do;gin to a
question of improving tie Strategies, and that means taking
foregoing, it is clear that a credible
performance evaluation effort trust have a
definitive point of departure- -either an
unambiguously defined/described baseline of
knowledge, or clear-cut goals/objectives
expressed in terns suitable for tasking' by
responsible program level authorities (see
uSC comments re VY-75 Strategies, copy
attached).
4. You already know our thoughts on. KIQ Strategies
and have seen our proposed.* approach which reflected CPAD's
and PRD's decision not to become involved.
S. `;y understanding is that recently in reviewing
cane to the conclusion that
the CPAD position,
CPAD has a necessary part to play in the process, in essence
doing the job for which CCPC was designed, but has never
undertaken (developing integrated Community collection plans
for specific collection objectives based on considerations
of individual sensor/platform/source capabilities, expected
performance on the basis of past productivity, and optimum
collective usage of total Community collection assets).
L: our view, this is _a long overdue and positive approach--
"-.!cmorandu;m for the =irector, prepared 11 July 197S,
Subject: PY-76 }:IQ Strategy ;report Pcvel.opment
Approved For Release 2004/05/24 r1A, 2Dn0M00636A000100010019-0
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP80M006 0 000100010019-0
on 4eor *e Carver and .is :- rus . The alternatives seem
f relating outcome and perfora:aauzce to priorities and
FY-76 Strategies (cony attached) . 11iis approach will not
allow the process to achieve tine ,CT's a.nno Iced objective
leave v w g~ek..r ... ~@ ,may } d~ Es.,r~ q to p 'y yw
q.
the "J OS IC a or:~. to a spon to f eorge car? ei 's
caveat er exhortation to got on with the develol ent of
frot l c: t ing t?.e a gre satic-ns and analysis we were
>
able to 4o this year. For your information, we ? lieve
n , 2ts to be the lia :iti:ng factor on wA at can cone
ti:xw if we are to address the issue productively.
our propose# lcttors to prog ram tanagers on the FY- /
EP sJ that as it ray, we do not have a rreat deal
7. ?tails t3is is to central question that ultitmatcly.
ust. be face dd,, t ere is a saving, :race In that we do not
gave to joie; the issue iiit iout Lavin once prior indication
of tale s'C T " s .a el .na tioas as evidence:i b the reaction to
an overalll, qualitative increase could res
out of f1S. ,f a collection and production co'.ipoixents
of t;Ic . ! uni t y -gave provided sufficient data that, if
the '.'IC? strategies and then tjaeir evaluations were iu,proved
25
3. Si' ~_:'22.1/4
1. 'S ",- >:SL - O33