Office of Director of National Intelligence to be Downsized
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will be “reduced in its size and budget,” DNI James R. Clapper Jr. told the House Intelligence Committee last week (pdf).
“We, I think, all understand that we’re going to be in for some belt-tightening. And given, you know, the funding that we have been given over the last 10 years since 9/11, that’s probably appropriate,” DNI Clapper said on February 10.
“Shortly after I became DNI, exactly six months ago today, I began a thorough review of the organization. I examined the intelligence reform law, other statutes and executive orders, and the activities that they direct the DNI to execute,” he said.
“Upon review, I decided to reduce or eliminate functions not required by law or executive order that are not core missions of the DNI. I also identified elements that should transfer out of the ODNI to another agency who would serve as the executive agent on my behalf and carry out these services of [common] concern on behalf of the ODNI. In other words, we don’t need to do everything on the DNI staff itself.”
“Based on this efficiencies review, the Office of the DNI is being reduced in size and budget,” DNI Clapper said. The details of the reduction remain to be spelled out.
See, relatedly, these updated Congressional Research Service reports on intelligence (all pdf).
“Director of National Intelligence Statutory Authorities: Status and Proposals,” January 12, 2011.
“Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Acquisition: Issues for Congress,” January 20, 2011.
“Intelligence Authorization Legislation: Status and Challenges,” January 20, 2011.
“Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues,” January 13, 2011.
“The National Intelligence Council: Issues and Options for Congress,” January 10, 2011.
“Intelligence Estimates: How Useful to Congress?”, January 6, 2011.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.