United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office General Government Division author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 2000-07-27 monographic deposited born digital 16 p. GA 1.13:T-GGD/OSI-00-177 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177 P0b002ee18037cbb2 f:g700177t DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-23 GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177 T-GGD/OSI-00-177 Public officials Law enforcement personnel Interagency relations Standards and standardization Testimony GGD OSI From fiscal years 1997 through 1999, 42 executive branch positions at 31 executive branch agencies--including all 14 Cabinet secretaries, four deputy or under secretaries, and 24 other high-ranking officials (mainly heads of agencies)--had security protection. Personnel from 27 different agencies protected them: 36 officials by their own agencies or departments and six from other agencies or departments, such as the Secret Service and the Marshals Service. Protective personnel increased 73 percent from fiscal year 1997 through 1999. Funding rose from $19.1 million in 1997 to $28.5 million in 1999, largely due to increased travel. Only the Secret Service and State Department have specific statutory authority to protect executive branch officials. Agencies reported that their officials received different levels and frequency of protection and that protection was needed to respond to possible and actual threats. Most agencies favored establishing a repository of protective intelligence to facilitate sharing of threat information about their officials. Also, agencies reported that their protective personnel received different amounts of protection training and from different sources. Field staff received less training than did the agencies' full-time personnel based in Washington. Most agencies favored establishing a standardized protection training program. Most agencies opposed centralizing security protection under one agency. No single agency or official is responsible for handling issues relating to routine protection of executive branch officials. This fragmentation has serious implications because 14 of the protected officials are in the line of presidential succession. Moreover, the lack of thorough threat assessments documenting the level of protection needed makes it difficult to determine the basis for and reasonableness of protection being given. This testimony summarizes the July 2000 report, GAO/GGD/OSI-00-139. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177/html/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177/pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177.pdf GAO/T-GGD/OSI-00-177 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-T-GGD-OSI-00-177 Testimony GAO/T-GGD/OSI-00-177; Security Protection: Standardization Issues Regarding; Public officials Law enforcement personnel Interagency relations Standards and standardization