Homeland Security
Management of First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Goals Gao ID: GAO-04-433 May 28, 2004Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the National Capital Region (NCR), comprising jurisdictions including the District of Columbia and surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia, has been recognized as a significant potential target for terrorism. GAO was asked to report on (1) what federal funds have been allocated to NCR jurisdictions for emergency preparedness; (2) what challenges exist within NCR to organizing and implementing efficient and effective regional preparedness programs; (3) what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency preparedness of NCR; and (4) what has been the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in NCR to date.
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, grant programs administered by the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Justice awarded about $340 million to eight NCR jurisdictions to enhance emergency preparedness. Of this total, the Office for National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) targeted all of the $60.5 million Urban Area Security Initiative funds for projects designed to benefit NCR as a whole. However, there was no coordinated regionwide plan for spending the remaining funds (about $279.5 million). Local jurisdictions determined the spending priorities for these funds and reported using them for emergency communications and personal protective equipment and other purchases. NCR faces several challenges in organizing and implementing efficient and effective regional preparedness programs, including the lack of a coordinated strategic plan for enhancing NCR preparedness, performance standards, and a reliable, central source of data on funds available and the purposes for which they were spent. Without these basic elements, it is difficult to assess first responder capacities, identify first responder funding priorities for NCR, and evaluate the effectiveness of the use of federal funds in enhancing first responder capacities and preparedness in a way that maximizes their effectiveness in improving homeland security.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-433, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Goals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-433
entitled 'Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in
the National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning
and Performance Goals' which was released on June 24, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
May 2004:
Homeland Security:
Management of First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region
Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Goals:
GAO-04-433:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-433, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the National Capital
Region (NCR), comprising jurisdictions including the District of
Columbia and surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia, has
been recognized as a significant potential target for terrorism. GAO
was asked to report on (1) what federal funds have been allocated to
NCR jurisdictions for emergency preparedness; (2) what challenges exist
within NCR to organizing and implementing efficient and effective
regional preparedness programs; (3) what gaps, if any, remain in the
emergency preparedness of NCR; and (4) what has been the role of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in NCR to date.
What GAO Found:
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, grant programs administered by the
Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and
Justice awarded about $340 million to eight NCR jurisdictions to
enhance emergency preparedness. Of this total, the Office for National
Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) targeted all of the $60.5 million
Urban Area Security Initiative funds for projects designed to benefit
NCR as a whole. However, there was no coordinated regionwide plan for
spending the remaining funds (about $279.5 million). Local
jurisdictions determined the spending priorities for these funds and
reported using them for emergency communications and personal
protective equipment and other purchases.
NCR faces several challenges in organizing and implementing efficient
and effective regional preparedness programs, including the lack of a
coordinated strategic plan for enhancing NCR preparedness, performance
standards, and a reliable, central source of data on funds available
and the purposes for which they were spent.
Without these basic elements, it is difficult to assess first
responder capacities, identify first responder funding priorities for
NCR, and evaluate the effectiveness of the use of federal funds in
enhancing first responder capacities and preparedness in a way that
maximizes their effectiveness in improving homeland security.
National Capital Region Jurisdictions:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS (1) work with local NCR
jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to establish
capacity enhancement goals and priorities; (2) monitor the plan‘s
implementation; and (3) identify and address gaps in emergency
preparedness and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures by
conducting assessments based on established standards and guidelines.
DHS and the ONCRC Senior Policy Group generally agreed with GAO‘s
recommendations and noted that a new governance structure, adopted in
February 2004, should accomplish essential coordination.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-433.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr.,
at (202) 512-8757 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Multiple Grants Support a Wide Variety of Uses, Including Equipment,
Training and Exercises, Planning, and Bioterrorism Preparedness:
Challenges to Effective Grants Management Include Lack of Standards,
Planning, and Data:
Assessing the Remaining Gaps in NCR is Difficult without Guidance,
Reliable Data, or Analysis:
DHS and ONCRC Appear to Have Had a Limited Role in Promoting Regional
Coordination in NCR:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions' Arrangements to Respond to Public
Safety Emergencies:
Regional Bodies Facilitate Coordination Efforts in Other Areas:
Mutual Aid Agreements Are in Place within NCR:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Characteristics of National Capital Region Jurisdictions:
Table 2: Selected Emergency Preparedness Funding Sources to NCR
Jurisdictions in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:
Table 3: Uses of Selected Homeland Security Grant Programs:
Table 4: Major Items Funded by NCR Jurisdictions from Fiscal Year 2002
DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation:
Table 5: Uses of NCR Urban Area Security Initiative Funds:
Figure:
Figure 1: National Capital Region Jurisdictions:
Abbreviations:
CapWIN: Capital Wireless Integrated Network:
CERT: Citizens Emergency Response Training:
CFDA: Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance:
DHS: U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
EMPG: Emergency Management Performance Grant Program:
FEMA: DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency:
HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
MEMA: Maryland Emergency Management Agency:
NCR: National Capital Region:
NVRC: Northern Virginia Regional Commission:
ODP: DHS's Office for Domestic Preparedness:
ONCRC: DHS's Office of National Capital Region Coordination:
RECP: Regional Emergency Coordination Plan:
RICCS: Regional Incident Communication and Coordination System:
UASI: Urban Area Security Initiative:
VDEM: Virginia Department of Emergency Management:
WashCOG: Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments:
WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 28, 2004:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Washington, D.C.,
area, known as the National Capital Region (NCR), has been recognized
as a high-threat area for terrorism.[Footnote 1] The complexity of the
region, composed of jurisdictions including the nation's capital and
surrounding areas in the states of Maryland and Virginia, and a range
of potential targets, presents significant challenges to coordinating
and developing effective homeland security programs. In recognition of
the region's status as a significant potential target, a substantial
amount of federal funding was provided to NCR in fiscal years 2002 and
2003 to enhance the region's ability to prepare for and respond to
emergencies, including terrorist attacks. Federal funding has also been
provided to other high-threat urban areas around the nation, and at
your request, our work in NCR will be followed by a review of
coordination practices in several other urban regions around the
nation.
In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established to
consolidate the resources of 22 federal agencies for dealing in a
multifaceted and comprehensive manner with domestic preparedness,
including coordinating with other levels of government, planning
programs, and assessing their effectiveness. These responsibilities
include oversight of the grant-making process to promote effective
domestic preparedness programs. Appropriations to DHS and agencies in
the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services for domestic
preparedness programs for state and local governments totaled nearly
$13.9 billion in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. These grants include
funding to NCR, which received special focus with the creation of the
Office for National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) in statute as
part of the new department. ONCRC was established to oversee and
coordinate federal programs for, and relationships with, state, local,
and regional authorities. ONCRC's statutory responsibilities also
include assessing needs, providing information and support, and
facilitating access to federal domestic preparedness grants and related
programs. To assist in accomplishing its mission, ONCRC developed a
governance structure to receive input from state and local authorities
through a Senior Policy Group composed of representatives designated by
the Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the District of
Columbia.
You asked us to examine preparedness efforts in NCR, with an emphasis
on the use of funds, what has been done recently to better position the
area to address potential threats, and what continuing problems exist
in organizing and implementing efficient regional programs. This report
addresses the following questions:
* What federal funds have been allocated to local jurisdictions in the
NCR for emergency preparedness, for what specific purposes, and from
what sources?
* What challenges exist within NCR to organizing and implementing
efficient and effective regional preparedness programs?
* What gaps, if any, remain in the emergency preparedness of NCR?
* What has been DHS's role to date in enhancing the preparedness of NCR
through such actions as coordinating the use of federal emergency
preparedness grants, assessing preparedness, providing guidance,
targeting funds to enhance preparedness, and monitoring the use of
those funds?
To respond to the questions, we met with and obtained documentation on
grant awards and spending plans from officials of DHS, the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, ONCRC Senior Policy Group, state
emergency management agencies, and first responder officials from NCR
jurisdictions. We identified 25 emergency preparedness programs that
provided funding to NCR, and we selected 16 of them for our detailed
review. These 16 grants were selected to cover a range of programs
including the largest funding sources; grants provided for general
purposes, such as equipment and training; and grants provided for
specific purposes, such as fire prevention and bioterrorism. We
collected and analyzed grant data from federal, state, and local
sources. We also reviewed relevant reports, studies, and guidelines on
homeland security and domestic preparedness. We conducted our review
from June 2003 through February 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for more details
on our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NCR received a total of about $340
million from 16 grants administered by the Departments of Homeland
Security, Health and Human Services, and Justice. These grants were
awarded to state and local emergency management, law enforcement, fire
departments, and other emergency response agencies in the National
Capital Region to enhance their ability to prepare for and respond to
emergencies, including terrorist incidents. Within NCR, two funding
sources--the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation (almost $230 million) and the Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI) ($60.5 million)--accounted for 85 percent of
the homeland security grant funds awarded. These two sources were used
for similar purposes. Funds from the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of
Defense Emergency Supplemental went directly to local jurisdictions
that had discretion to use it for their own priorities and needs. NCR
jurisdictions reported they used these funds to purchase a range of
equipment, supplies, training, and technical assistance services. The
major expenditures reported were mostly for communications systems,
including an interoperable radio system, and other types of equipment,
such as equipment for emergency operations centers, bomb squad
materials, bomb squad and command vehicles, and a mass casualty and
disaster unit. ONCRC developed a plan for the use of funds from UASI,
the purpose of which was to enhance security in large urban areas. The
plan for these funds identified activities that would benefit the
region as a whole, including equipment ($26.5 million), planning ($12.4
million), the costs of higher threat alert levels ($10.6 million),
training ($5.2 million), exercises ($4 million), and administrative
costs ($1.8 million).
ONCRC and NCR face at least three interrelated challenges in managing
federal funds in a way that maximizes the increase in first responder
capacities and preparedness while also minimizing inefficiency and
unnecessary duplication of expenditures. First, and most fundamental,
is the lack of preparedness standards that could be used to assess
existing first responder capacities, identify gaps in those capacities,
and measure progress in achieving specific performance goals. Such
standards would include functional standards for equipment, such as
personal protection suits; performance standards, such as the number of
persons per hour that could be decontaminated after a chemical attack;
and perhaps best practice benchmarks. DHS administered the Office for
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) Assessment to NCR jurisdictions in the
summer of 2003. However, the lack of performance standards makes it
difficult to use the results of the assessment to identify the most
critical gaps in capacities. Since the NCR jurisdictions completed
their ODP assessments, DHS has taken steps to address this challenge by
adopting its first set of functional standards for protective equipment
and making reference to establishing a system of national standards in
its recently released strategic plan.
Second, there is no coordinated regionwide plan for establishing first
responder performance goals, needs, and priorities and assessing the
benefits of expenditures to enhance first responder capabilities. Prior
to September 11, there were some efforts to develop regional emergency
response planning and coordination, such as mutual aid agreements among
neighboring jurisdictions. Since that time, the Washington Council of
Governments (WashCOG) has developed one of the first regional emergency
coordination plans and a communications notification system for NCR.
However, no such NCR-wide coordination methods have been developed for
guiding the spending of federal grant dollars and assessing their
effects on enhancing first responder capacities and preparedness.
Individual jurisdictions and their emergency response agencies have
determined how the majority ($279.5 million) of the approximately $340
million in federal grant funds will be spent. The one exception is the
funding for UASI ($60.5 million). ONCRC has focused its initial
coordination efforts on developing a regional plan for the use of UASI
funds for projects to benefit NCR as a whole.
Third, there is no readily available, reliable source of information on
the amount of first responder federal grant funds available to each NCR
jurisdiction, the budget plans and criteria used to determine spending
priorities, and actual expenditures. While the NCR jurisdictions are
required to submit separate reports on each grant to the administering
federal agency, ONCRC has not obtained or consolidated this information
to develop a comprehensive source of information for NCR on grants
received, plans and priorities for spending those funds, and actual
expenditures. Generally, spending decisions were made on a grant-by-
grant basis and were largely in response to first responder and
emergency management officials' requests for specific expenditures.
Without consistently available, reliable data, it is difficult to
verify the results of ODP's assessment and establish a baseline that
could then be used to develop plans to address outstanding needs.
During our review, we also could identify no reliable data on
preparedness gaps in NCR, which of those gaps were most important, and
the status of efforts to close those gaps. This is because the baseline
data needed to assess those gaps had not been fully developed or made
available on a NCR-wide basis, and ONCRC does not have information on
how local jurisdictions have used federal grant monies to enhance their
capacity and preparedness. Consequently, it is difficult for us or
ONCRC to determine what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency response
capacities and preparedness within NCR. Were these data available, the
lack of standards against which to evaluate them would make it
difficult to assess gaps. The ODP assessment did, however, collect
information on regional security risks and needs for the NCR
jurisdictions. ONCRC based spending decisions for UASI funds on the
results of the assessment, with the funds used only for regional needs.
On the other hand, officials in several NCR jurisdictions said that
they have not received any feedback on the results of the assessment
for their individual jurisdictions. It is not clear how the regional
assessment and UASI spending plan links to the use of other grants for
local jurisdictions and the gaps the jurisdictions' spending is
designed to address.
To date, DHS and ONCRC appear to have had a limited role in assessing
and analyzing first responder needs in NCR and developing a coordinated
effort to address those needs through the use of federal grant funds.
Without an NCR baseline on emergency preparedness, a plan for
prioritizing expenditures and assessing their benefits, and reliable
information on funds available and spent on first responder needs in
NCR, it is difficult for ONCRC to fulfill its statutory responsibility
to oversee and coordinate federal programs and domestic preparedness
initiatives for state, local, and regional authorities in NCR. Some
officials within NCR generally believed that additional DHS guidance
also is needed on likely emergency scenarios for which to prepare and
how to prepare for them. In meetings with us, the former Director of
ONCRC acknowledged that the office could consider coordinating
expenditures for federal grants other than the UASI grant. He also said
that consistent records and a central source of information on NCR
emergency responder grants would assist ONCRC in fulfilling its
responsibilities.
Because of the importance of preparing NCR and other high-risk areas to
meet considerable homeland security challenges, we are recommending
that the Secretary of DHS (1) work with NCR jurisdictions to develop a
coordinated strategic plan to establish first responder enhancement
goals and priorities that can be used to guide the use of federal
emergency preparedness funds; (2) monitor the plan's implementation to
ensure funds are used in a way that promotes effective expenditures
that are not unnecessarily duplicative; and (3) identify and address
gaps in emergency preparedness and evaluate the effectiveness of
expenditures in meeting those needs by adapting standards and
preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios for NCR and
conducting assessments based on them.
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of DHS and to NCR's
Senior Policy Group for comment. DHS and the Senior Policy Group
generally agreed with our recommendations, but also stated that NCR
jurisdictions had worked cooperatively together to identify
opportunities for synergies and lay a foundation for meeting the
challenges noted in the report. DHS and the Senior Policy Group also
agreed that there is a need to continue to improve preparedness by
developing more specific and improved preparedness standards, clearer
performance goals, and an improved method for tracking regional
initiatives. DHS noted that a new governance structure, adopted in
February 2004, should accomplish essential regionwide coordination.
Background:
Since September 11, 2001, there has been broad acknowledgment by the
federal government, state and local governments, and a range of
independent research organizations of the need for a coordinated
intergovernmental approach to allocating the nation's resources to
address the threat of terrorism and improve our security. This
coordinated approach includes developing national guidelines and
standards and monitoring and assessing preparedness against those
standards to effectively manage risk. The National Strategy for
Homeland Security (National Strategy), released in 2002 following the
proposal for DHS, emphasized a shared national responsibility for
security involving close cooperation among all levels of government and
acknowledged the complexity of developing a coordinated approach within
our federal system of government and among a broad range of
organizations and institutions involved in homeland security. The
national strategy highlighted the challenge of developing complementary
systems that avoid unintended duplication and increase collaboration
and coordination so that public and private resources are better
aligned for homeland security. The national strategy established a
framework for this approach by identifying critical mission areas with
intergovernmental initiatives in each area. For example, the strategy
identified such initiatives as modifying federal grant requirements and
consolidating funding sources to state and local governments. The
strategy further recognized the importance of assessing the capability
of state and local governments, developing plans, and establishing
standards and performance measures to achieve national preparedness
goals.
Recent reports by independent research organizations have highlighted
the same issues of the need for intergovernmental coordination,
planning, and assessment. For example, the fifth annual report of the
Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction[Footnote 2] (the Gilmore
Commission) also emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive,
collaborative approach to improve the nation's preparedness. The report
states that there is a need for a coordinated system for the
development, delivery, and administration of programs that engage a
broad range of stakeholders. The Gilmore Commission notes that
preparedness for combating terrorism requires measurable demonstrated
capacity by communities, states, and the private sector to respond to
threats with well-planned, well-coordinated, and effective efforts by
all participants. The Gilmore Commission recommends a comprehensive
process for establishing training and exercise standards for responders
that includes state and local response organizations on an ongoing
basis. The National Academy of Public Administration's recent panel
report[Footnote 3] also notes the importance of coordinated and
integrated efforts at all levels of government and in the private
sector to develop a national approach to homeland security. Regarding
assessment, the report recommends establishing national standards in
selected areas and developing impact and outcome measures for those
standards.
The creation of DHS was an initial step toward reorganizing the federal
government to respond to some of the intergovernmental challenges
identified in the national strategy.[Footnote 4] The reorganization
consolidated 22 agencies with responsibility for domestic preparedness
functions to, among other things, enhance the ability of the nation's
police, fire, and other first responders to respond to terrorism and
other emergencies through grants. Many aspects of DHS's success depend
on its maintaining and enhancing working relationships within the
intergovernmental system as the department relies on state and local
governments to accomplish its mission. The Homeland Security Act
contains provisions intended to foster coordination among levels of
government, such as the creation of the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and ONCRC.
The Homeland Security Act established ONCRC within DHS to oversee and
coordinate federal programs for, and relationships with, state, local,
and regional authorities in the National Capital Region.[Footnote 5]
Pursuant to the act, ONCRC's responsibilities include:
* coordinating the activities of DHS relating to NCR, including
cooperating with the Office for State and Local Government
Coordination;
* assessing and advocating for resources needed by state, local, and
regional authorities in NCR to implement efforts to secure the
homeland;
* providing state, local, and regional authorities in NCR with regular
information, research, and technical support to assist the efforts of
state, local, and regional authorities in NCR in securing the homeland;
* developing a process for receiving meaningful input from state,
local, and regional authorities and the private sector in NCR to assist
in the development of the federal government's homeland security plans
and activities;
* coordinating with federal agencies in NCR on terrorism preparedness
to ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and
execution of the federal role in domestic preparedness activities;
* coordinating with federal, state, and regional agencies and the
private sector in NCR on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate
planning, information sharing, training, and execution of domestic
preparedness activities among these agencies and entities; and:
* serving as a liaison between the federal government and state, local,
and regional authorities, and private sector entities in NCR to
facilitate access to federal grants and other programs.
The act also requires ONCRC to submit an annual report to Congress that
includes:
* the identification of resources required to fully implement homeland
security efforts in NCR,
* an assessment of the progress made by NCR in implementing homeland
security efforts in NCR, and:
* recommendations to Congress regarding the additional resources needed
to fully implement homeland security efforts in NCR.
The first ONCRC Director served from March to November 2003, and the
Secretary of DHS appointed a new Director on April 30, 2004. The ONCRC
has a small staff including full-time and contract employees and staff
on detail to the office.
Figure 1: National Capital Region Jurisdictions:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
NCR is a complex multijurisdictional area comprising the District of
Columbia and surrounding counties and cities in the states of Maryland
and Virginia and is home to the federal government, many national
landmarks, and military installations. Coordination within this region
presents the challenge of working with eight NCR jurisdictions that
vary in size, political organization, and experience with managing
emergencies. The largest municipality in the region is the District of
Columbia, with a population of about 572,000. However, the region also
includes large counties, such as Montgomery County, Maryland, with a
total population of about 873,000, incorporating 19 municipalities, and
Fairfax County, Virginia, the most populous jurisdiction (about
984,000), which is composed of nine districts. NCR also includes
smaller jurisdictions, such as Loudoun County and the City of
Alexandria, each with a population below 200,000. The region has
significant experience with emergencies, including natural disasters
such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards, and terrorist incidents
such as the attacks of September 11, and subsequent events, and the
sniper incidents of the fall of 2002. For more details on the
characteristics of the individual jurisdictions, see table 1.
Table 1: Characteristics of National Capital Region Jurisdictions:
Maryland:
Locality: Montgomery County;
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: County has 19 municipalities
and an elected county executive and county council;
Population (2000 Census): 873,341;
Budget: $3.1 billion (FY 2004 Adopted).
Locality: Prince George's County;
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: County has 27 municipalities
and an elected county council and county executive;
Population (2000 Census): 801,515;
Budget: $1.8 billion (FY 2004 Adopted).
District of Columbia:
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: City council, city
administrator, and mayor;
Population (2000 Census): 572,059;
Budget: $1.8 billion (FY 2004 Adopted).
Virginia:
Locality: Alexandria City;
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: Elected mayor and city
council and appointed city manager;
Population (2000 Census): 128,283;
Budget: $479.2 million (FY 2004 Adopted).
Locality: Arlington County;
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: Elected county board and
appointed county manager;
Population (2000 Census): 189,453;
Budget: $805.3 million (FY 2004 Adopted).
Locality: Fairfax County;
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: County has 9 districts;
an elected board of supervisors, and an appointed county executive;
Population (2000 Census): 984,366;
Budget: $2.6 billion (FY 2004 Adopted).
Locality: Loudoun County;
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: County has 8 districts
containing 7 towns, an elected board of supervisors, and an appointed
county administrator;
Population (2000 Census): 169,599;
Budget: $799.2 million (FY 2004 Adopted).
Locality: Prince William County;
Jurisdictional structure/characteristics: County has 4 towns and 2
independent cities, an elected board of supervisors, and an appointed
county executive;
Population (2000 Census): 280,813;
Budget: $1.3 billion (FY 2004 Adopted).
Source: Prepared by GAO from jurisdictions' data.
[End of table]
Multiple Grants Support a Wide Variety of Uses, Including Equipment,
Training and Exercises, Planning, and Bioterrorism Preparedness:
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Congress provided billions of dollars in
grants to state and local governments to enhance the ability of the
nation's first responders to prevent and respond to terrorism events.
We reviewed 16 of the funding sources available for use by first
responders and emergency managers that were targeted for improving
preparedness for terrorism and other emergencies. In fiscal years 2002
and 2003, these grant programs, administered by DHS, Health and Human
Services (HHS), and Justice awarded about $340 million to the District
of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and state and local emergency
management, law enforcement, fire departments, and other emergency
response agencies in NCR.[Footnote 6] Table 2 shows the individual
grant awards to the jurisdictions. The funding sources we reviewed
include a range of grants that can be used for broad purposes, such as
ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Management Performance Grant, as
well as more targeted grants for specific disciplines such as FEMA's
Assistance to Firefighters Grant and HHS's Bioterrorism Preparedness
Grants.
Table 2: Selected Emergency Preparedness Funding Sources to NCR
Jurisdictions in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Assistance to Firefighters (83.554);
District of Columbia: $221;
Montgomery County: $251;
Prince George's County: $147;
Alexandria City: $47;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: $170;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: $469;
Total by funding source: $1,305;
DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Citizen Corps (83.564);
District of Columbia: 35;
Montgomery County: 2;
Prince George's County: 2;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: $5;
Fairfax County: 5;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 49;
DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Community Emergency Response Teams
(83.565);
District of Columbia: 148;
Montgomery County: 14;
Prince George's County: 9;
Alexandria City: 14;
Arlington County: 35;
Fairfax County: 20;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 240;
DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Emergency Management Performance
Grant (83.552);
District of Columbia: 2,195;
Montgomery County: 305;
Prince George's County: 159;
Alexandria City: 10;
Arlington County: 53;
Fairfax County: 0;
Loudoun County: $30;
Prince William County: 47;
Total by funding source: 2,799;
DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Emergency Operations Center
Assessment (83.563);
District of Columbia: 50;
Montgomery County: 0;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: 0;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 50;
DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Interoperable Communications Equipment
Grant (83.566);
District of Columbia: 0;
Montgomery County: 0;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: 0;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 0;
DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: State and Local All-Hazards Emergency
Operations Planning Grant (83.562);
District of Columbia: 198;
Montgomery County: 0;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 29;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: 186;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 57;
Total by funding source: 470;
DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: State Domestic Preparedness Equipment
Support Program (16.007);
District of Columbia: 2,747;
Montgomery County: 467;
Prince George's County: 354;
Alexandria City: 88;
Arlington County: 119;
Fairfax County: 372;
Loudoun County: 109;
Prince William County: 115;
Total by funding source: 4,371;
DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Training Program (16.008);
District of Columbia: 0;
Montgomery County: 0;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: [Empty];
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 0;
DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Exercise Support Program (16.009);
District of Columbia: 0;
Montgomery County: 44;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: [Empty];
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 44;
DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Technical Assistance (16.010);
District of Columbia: 0;
Montgomery County: 0;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: [Empty];
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 0;
DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: State Homeland Security Grant Program
Phases I and II (16.007);
District of Columbia: 17,916;
Montgomery County: 1,214;
Prince George's County: 1,279;
Alexandria City: 516;
Arlington County: 581;
Fairfax County: 2,735;
Loudoun County: 528;
Prince William County: 828;
Total by funding source: 25,597;
DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Urban Area Security Initiative Phases
I and II (16.011)[B];
District of Columbia: 60,491;
Montgomery County: 0;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: 0;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 60,491;
DHS (BJA[C] );
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: DOD Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation (16.580);
District of Columbia: 168,952;
Montgomery County: 8,551;
Prince George's County: 7,855;
Alexandria City: 8,021;
Arlington County: 16,000;
Fairfax County: 12,000;
Loudoun County: 4,300;
Prince William County: 4,300;
Total by funding source: 229,979;
HHS;
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness
(93.003);
District of Columbia: 722;
Montgomery County: 0;
Prince George's County: 0;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: 0;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 722;
HHS;
Grant title with CFDA[A] number: Public Health Preparedness and
Response for Bioterrorism (93.283);
District of Columbia: 12,705;
Montgomery County: 617;
Prince George's County: 530;
Alexandria City: 0;
Arlington County: 0;
Fairfax County: 0;
Loudoun County: 0;
Prince William County: 0;
Total by funding source: 13,852;
Total;
District of Columbia: $266,380;
Montgomery County: $11,465;
Prince George's County: $10,335;
Alexandria City: $8,725;
Arlington County: $16,793;
Fairfax County: $15,488;
Loudoun County: $4,967;
Prince William County: $5,816;
Total by funding source: $339,969.
Source: GAO analysis of NCR data.
[A] Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance.
[B] The District of Columbia is the recipient of the UASI funds for
projects to benefit NCR as a whole.
[C] Bureau of Justice Assistance.
[End of table]
While some of these grants are targeted to different recipients, many
of them can be used to fund similar projects and purposes. For example,
there are multiple grants that can be used to fund equipment, training,
and exercises. We have previously reported the fragmented delivery of
federal assistance can complicate coordination and integration of
services and planning at state and local levels.[Footnote 7] Multiple
fragmented grant programs can create a confusing and administratively
burdensome process for state and local officials seeking to use federal
resources for homeland security needs. In addition, many of these grant
programs have separate administrative requirements such as applications
and different funding and reporting requirements.
In fiscal year 2004, in an effort to reduce the multiplicity of
separate funding sources and to allow greater flexibility in the use of
grants, several ODP State and Local Domestic Preparedness grants, which
were targeted for separate purposes such as equipment, training, and
exercises, were consolidated into a single funding source and renamed
the State Homeland Security Grant Program.[Footnote 8] In addition,
four FEMA grants (Citizen Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams,
Emergency Operations Centers, and State and Local All-Hazards Emergency
Operations Planning) now have a joint application process; the same
program office at FEMA administers these grants. Overall, NCR
jurisdictions used the 16 funding sources we reviewed to address a wide
variety of emergency preparedness activities such as (1) purchasing
equipment and supplies; (2) training first responders; (3) planning,
conducting, and evaluating exercises; (4) planning and administration;
and (5) providing technical assistance. Table 3 shows the eligible uses
for each of the 16 grants.
Table 3: Uses of Selected Homeland Security Grant Programs:
Agency: DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA number: Assistance to Firefighters Grant
(83.554);
Grant objectives: Grants made directly to fire departments to equip and
train fire fighters and emergency medical technicians;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA number: Citizen Corps (83.564);
Grant objectives: Grants to supplement and assist state and local
efforts to expand Citizen Corps;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA number: Community Emergency Response Teams
(83.565);
Grant objectives: Assist state and local efforts to start or expand
community and emergency response teams;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA number: Emergency Management Performance Grant
(83.552);
Grant objectives: Grants to states to develop comprehensive emergency
management plans;
Equipment and/or supplies: No;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA number: Emergency Operations Centers[A]
(83.563);
Grant objectives: Grants to states to develop emergency operations
centers;
Equipment and/or supplies: No;
Training: No;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA number: Interoperable Communications Equipment
(83.566);
Grant objectives: Funding to jurisdictions for demonstration projects
that explore uses of equipment and technologies to increase
interoperability among fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical
services;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: No;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: Yes.
Agency: DHS (FEMA);
Grant title with CFDA number: State and Local All- Hazards Emergency
Operations Planning (83.562);
Grant objectives: Grants to states to encourage the development of all-
hazard emergency plans;
Equipment and/or supplies: No;
Training: No;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA number: State Domestic Preparedness Equipment
Support Program (16.007);
Grant objectives: Grants to states to develop and implement a
statewide domestic preparedness strategy;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: No;
Exercises: Yes;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA number: State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Training Program (16.008);
Grant objectives: Grants to state and local governments to enhance
capacity to respond to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) terrorism;
Equipment and/or supplies: No;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: No;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA number: State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Exercise Support (16.009);
Grant objectives: Grants to state and local governments to plan and
conduct domestic preparedness exercises;
Equipment and/or supplies: No;
Training: No;
Exercises: Yes;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: Yes.
Agency: DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA number: State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Technical Assistance (16.010);
Grant objectives: Grant to state and local governments to develop,
plan, and implement a program for WMD;
Equipment and/or supplies: No;
Training: No;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: Yes.
Agency: DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA number: State Homeland Security Grant Program,
Phases I and II (16.007);
Grant objectives: Grants to states and local governments to purchase
equipment and mitigate costs of enhanced security;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: Yes.
Agency: DHS (ODP);
Grant title with CFDA number: Urban Area Security Initiative, Phases I
and II (16.011);
Grant objectives: Designed to enhance the ability of first responders
and public safety officials to secure urban area's critical
infrastructure and respond to potential acts of terrorism;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: Yes.
Agency: DOJ; (BJA);
Grant title with CFDA number: Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (16.580);
Grant objectives: Direct funding to NCR jurisdictions;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: Yes;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: Yes.
Agency: HHS;
Grant title with CFDA number: Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness
(93.003);
Grant objectives: Cooperative agreement[A] with health departments of
all states, the District of Columbia, the 3 largest municipalities,
and other entities;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Agency: HHS;
Grant title with CFDA number: Public Health Preparedness and Response
for Bioterrorism (93.283);
Grant objectives: Cooperative agreement with health departments of all
states, the District of Columbia, the 3 largest municipalities, and
other entities;
Equipment and/or supplies: Yes;
Training: Yes;
Exercises: No;
Planning and/or administration: Yes;
Technical assistance: No.
Source: GAO analysis of CFDA and Congressional Research Service data.
[A] A cooperative agreement is used as a mechanism to provide financial support when substantial interaction is expected between the executive agency and a state, local government, or other recipient carrying out the funded activity.
[End of table]
Two Largest Funding Sources Supported a Range of Efforts:
Of the $340 million awarded for the 16 funding sources, the two largest
funding sources--which collectively provided about $290.5 million (85
percent) in federal funding to NCR--were the Fiscal Year 2002
Department of Defense (DOD) Emergency Supplemental Appropriation
[Footnote 9] and the Fiscal Year 2003 Urban Area Security Initiative.
Both of these sources fund a range of purposes and activities such as
equipment purchases, including communications systems; training and
exercises; technical assistance; and planning.
The Fiscal Year 2002 DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, which
was provided in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, provided
approximately $230 million to enhance emergency preparedness.
Individual NCR jurisdictions independently decided how to use these
dollars and used them to fund a wide array of purchases to support
first responders and emergency management agencies. Our review of the
budgets for this appropriation submitted by NCR jurisdictions showed
that many of these grant funds were budgeted for communications
equipment and other equipment and supplies. Table 4 provides examples
of major projects funded by each jurisdiction with these funds.
Table 4: Major Items Funded by NCR Jurisdictions from Fiscal Year 2002
DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation:
NCR locality: District of Columbia;
Amount: $168,952;
Grant categories: Communications equipment, personnel/contracts;
Major uses of grant dollars: Wireless interoperability project
($45,494).
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies, personnel/contracts;
Major uses of grant dollars: Increased security at facilities including
public schools and the emergency management agency ($25,536).
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies, contracts;
Major uses of grant dollars: Emergency traffic management, including
upgrading traffic light controllers ($14,000) and video traffic
monitoring system ($4,700).
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies, personnel/contracts;
Major uses of grant dollars: Chemical and biological weapons
preparedness ($10,355).
Maryland:
NCR locality: Montgomery County;
Amount: $8,551;
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: Command vehicle ($350).
NCR locality: Montgomery County;
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: Police command bus ($310).
NCR locality: Montgomery County;
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: Bomb squad vehicle ($300).
NCR locality: Montgomery County;
Grant categories: Communications equipment;
Major uses of grant dollars: Special audio visual display ($410).
NCR locality: Montgomery County;
Grant categories: Communications equipment;
Major uses of grant dollars: Communications console ($202).
NCR locality: Prince George's County;
Amount: $7,855;
Grant categories: Personnel;
Major uses of grant dollars: Unanticipated overtime costs and
emergency response events. Other personnel costs include participation
in disaster preparedness training and exercises ($4,424).
NCR locality: Prince George's County;
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: 9 ambulances ($1,188).
NCR locality: Prince George's County;
Grant categories: Planning and administration;
Major uses of grant dollars: Fire/emergency medical services record
management system to record, track, and analyze data collected based
on specific parameters or requests by management to assist the Fire
Chief in staffing levels, response times, and other resource
allocation issues ($525).
Virginia:
NCR locality: City of Alexandria;
Amount: $8,021;
Grant categories: Communications equipment;
Major uses of grant dollars: Tactical computers ($535).
NCR locality: City of Alexandria;
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: Aerial platform ladder truck ($625).
NCR locality: City of Alexandria;
Major uses of grant dollars: Radio communication digital equipment
encryption capability ($482).
NCR locality: Arlington County[A];
Amount: $16,000;
Grant categories: Communications equipment;
Major uses of grant dollars: Portable and mobile radios, command
vehicles, upgrade records management system.
NCR locality: Fairfax County;
Amount: $12,000;
Grant categories: Communications;
Major uses of grant dollars: Radio expansion project ($5,798).
NCR locality: Fairfax County;
Grant categories: Equipment and supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: Emergency operations center upgrade
($922).
NCR locality: Fairfax County;
Major uses of grant dollars: Mass casualty and disaster unit ($500).
NCR locality: Loudoun County;
Amount: $4,300;
Grant categories: Communications;
Major uses of grant dollars: Trailers ($100).
NCR locality: Loudoun County;
Grant categories: 4,300: Equipment and Supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: 4,300: Ladder truck ($325).
NCR locality: Loudoun County;
Major uses of grant dollars: Bomb squad materials and supplies ($125).
NCR locality: Prince William County;
Amount: $4,300;
Grant categories: Communications equipment;
Major uses of grant dollars: Command bus replacement ($580).
NCR locality: Prince William County;
Grant categories: $229,979: Equipment and supplies;
Major uses of grant dollars: $229,979: Alternate command vehicles
($200).
NCR locality: Prince William County;
Major uses of grant dollars: Personal protection equipment and
training ($1,000).
Grand Total;
Amount: $229,979.
Source: GAO analysis of budgets and expenditures provided by NCR
jurisdictions.
Note: The Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation provided direct funding to NCR jurisdictions through the
Byrne Discretionary grant under the State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs within the Department of Justice's Office of
Justice Programs.
[A] Arlington, Virginia, did not provide supporting budget
documentation for the specific expenditures from this appropriation.
[End of table]
UASI Targets Regionwide Preparedness Needs:
In 2003, DHS announced a new source of funding targeted to large urban
areas under UASI to enhance the ability of metropolitan areas to
prepare for and respond to threats or incidents of terrorism. This
initiative included a total of $60.5 million to NCR,[Footnote 10] which
was one of seven metropolitan areas included in the initial round of
funding.[Footnote 11] The cities were chosen by applying a formula
based on a combination of factors, including population density,
critical infrastructure, and threat/vulnerability assessment. UASI's
strategy for NCR includes plans to fund 21 individual lines of effort
for the region in the areas of planning, training, exercises, and
equipment. In addition, funds are provided for administration and
planning and to reimburse localities for changing levels of homeland
security threat alerts. Table 5 summarizes the planned use of the UASI
funds.
Table 5: Uses of NCR Urban Area Security Initiative Funds:
Planning:
Project: Planning support;
Description: Contract with WashCOG to provide secretariat support to
NCR planning efforts.
Project: Communication protocol;
Description: Contract for the development of communications protocols,
including business rules and training and testing programs.
Project: Nonprofit coordination;
Description: Contract with Nonprofit Roundtable (with Red Cross buy-in)
to coordinate nonprofit organization roles in emergencies including:
who would be providing what;
how support would be delivered;
identify resource requirements, etc.
Project: Regional connectivity study;
Description: Contract for a study of a regional Emergency Operations
Center (EOC), including location, staffing, connectivity, etc.
Project: Critical infrastructure protection oversight;
Description: Contract to manage and coordinate Critical Infrastructure
Protection (CIP) activities in NCR to include completing an analysis
of each Critical Infrastructure (CI) sector.
Project: Private sector assessment;
Description: Support the development of an assessment tool that
private sector within NCR can use to determine their vulnerabilities.
Project: Preparedness for schools;
Description: Contract to provide materials to schools for education on
preparedness.
Project: Citizen education;
Description: Contract for a comprehensive and complete citizen
education campaign for the region designed to reach all citizens and
communicate emergency preparedness information.
Project: Address special needs;
Description: Engage special needs populations to discuss and address
preparedness, response, and recovery issues faced by citizens with
special needs.
Project: Other Planning Priorities;
Description: Support other Senior Policy Group (SPG) planning
priorities.
Subtotal planning;
Cost: $12,388,570.
Training:
Project: Public information officer/media training;
Description: Develop regular training program/dialogue for regional
Public Information Officers (PIOs) and local media to help them protect
themselves and communicate effectively during an emergency.
Project: Local emergency responder training;
Description: Manage local emergency responder training program for
NCR.
Subtotal training;
Cost: $5,150,000.
Exercise:
Project: Full-scale exercise;
Description: Conduct a Topoff-2-like full-scale exercise in NCR with a
series of three to four planning seminars leading up to an exercise
that engages the entire region.
Project: Regional exercises;
Description: Support regional exercises by jurisdiction and by
discipline.
Subtotal exercises;
Cost: $4,000,000.
Equipment:
Project: Responder equipment;
Description: Develop regional quartermaster capability to augment
jurisdictional equipment.
Project: Syndromic surveillance;
Description: Complete NCR node of "ESSENCE II" bio-surveillance
program.
Project: Public health and hospital capacity;
Description: Purchase equipment to support hospital surge capacity for
NCR.
Project: Citizen notification and family reunification;
Description: Provide "Roam Secure/Reverse 911" service and weather
radios as appropriate to ensure communication with NCR citizenry.
Provide family reunification software to area shelters to assist in
uniting families that are separated during incidents.
Project: Communication hardware;
Description: Purchase required communication equipment (including
radio cache) to establish an immediate interoperable communications
capability (voice and data) for NCR.
Project: Air tracking;
Description: Purchase equipment to track emergency response aircraft
to deconflict their flights during periods of emergency.
Project: Prevention;
Description: Support NCR prevention activities.
Subtotal equipment;
Cost: $26,535,093.
Total;
Cost: $48,073,663.
Project: Grant administration;
Description: 3 percent to support the grants administration
requirements;
Cost: $1,814,725.
Project: Reimbursement;
Description: 25 percent set aside from UASI II to reimburse
jurisdictions for costs associated with Homeland Security Advisory
System changes. (Note: This only applies to the $42 million of UASI II
funds);
Cost: $10,602,463.
Total;
Cost: $60,490,851.
Source: ONCRC data.
[End of table]
Challenges to Effective Grants Management Include Lack of Standards,
Planning, and Data:
Effectively managing first responder federal grant funds requires the
ability to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of
public funds. As with other major policy areas, demonstrating the
results of homeland security efforts includes developing and
implementing strategies, establishing baselines, developing and
implementing performance goals and data quality standards, collecting
reliable data, analyzing the data, assessing the results, and taking
action based on the results. This strategic approach to homeland
security includes identifying threats and managing risks, aligning
resources to address them, and assessing progress in preparing for
those threats and risks. Without a NCR baseline on emergency
preparedness, a plan for prioritizing expenditures and assessing their
benefits, and reliable information on funds available and spent on
first responder needs in NCR, it is difficult for ONCRC to fulfill its
statutory responsibility to oversee and coordinate federal programs and
domestic preparedness initiatives for state, local, and regional
authorities in NCR.
Regarding first responders, the purpose of these efforts is to be able
to address three basic, but difficult, questions: "For what types of
threats and emergencies should first responders be prepared?" "What is
required--coordination, equipment, training, etc.--to be prepared for
these threats and emergencies?" "How do first responders know that they
have met their preparedness goals?":
NCR is an example of the difficulties of answering the second and third
questions in particular. ONCRC and its jurisdictions face three
interrelated challenges that limit their ability to jointly manage
federal funds in a way that demonstrates increased first responder
capacities and preparedness while minimizing inefficiency and
unnecessary duplication of expenditures. First and most fundamental are
the lack of preparedness standards and a baseline assessment of
existing NCR-wide first responder capacities that is linked to those
standards.
Performance Goals for First Responders Needed to Assess Spending
Benefits:
As in other areas of the nation generally, NCR does not have a set of
accepted benchmarks (best practices) and performance goals that could
be used to identify desired goals and determine whether first
responders have the ability to respond to threats and emergencies with
well-planned, well-coordinated, and effective efforts that involve
police, fire, emergency medical, public health, and other personnel
from multiple jurisdictions. The Gilmore Commission's most recent
report noted that there is a continuing problem of a lack of clear
guidance from the federal level about the definition and objectives of
preparedness, a process to implement those objectives, and how states
and localities will be evaluated in meeting those objectives. The
report states the need for a coordinated system for the development,
delivery, and administration of programs that engages a broad range of
stakeholders.
Over the past few years, some state and local officials and independent
research organizations have expressed an interest in some type of
performance standards or goals that could be used as guidelines for
measuring the quality and level of first responder preparedness,
including key gaps. However, in discussing "standards" for first
responders, it is useful to distinguish between three different types
of measures that are often lumped together in the discussion of
standards.
Functional standards generally set up to measure such things as
functionality, quantity, weight, and extent and in the context of first
responders generally apply to equipment. Examples include the number of
gallons of water per minute that a fire truck can deliver or the
ability of a biohazard suit to filter out specific pathogens, such as
anthrax.
Benchmarks are products, services, or work processes that are generally
recognized as representing best practices for the purposes of
organizational improvement. An example might be joint training of fire
and police for biohazard response--a means of achieving a specific
performance goal for responding to biohazard threats and incidents.
Performance goals are measurable objectives against which actual
achievement may be compared. An example might be the number of persons
per hour who could be decontaminated after a chemical attack. Realistic
training exercises could then be used to test the ability to meet that
objective.
Homeland security standards should include both functional standards
and performance goals. In February 2004, DHS adopted its first set of
functional standards for protective equipment. The eight standards,
previously developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
are intended to provide minimum requirements for equipment. These
standards include NIOSH standards for three main categories of
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) respiratory
protection equipment and five NFPA standards for protective suits and
clothing to be used in responding to chemical, biological, and
radiological attacks.
Performance and readiness standards are more complicated and difficult
to develop than functional standards. In a large, diverse nation, not
all regions of the nation require exactly the same level of
preparedness because, for example, not all areas of the nation face the
same types and levels of risks and, thus, first responder challenges.
For example, first responder performance goals and needs are likely to
be different in New York City and Hudson, New York. Thus, different
levels of performance goals may be needed for different types and
levels of risk.
Recently, the administration has focused more attention on the
development of homeland security standards, including the more
difficult performance goals or standards. For example, DHS's recently
issued strategic plan[Footnote 12] makes reference to establishing,
implementing, and evaluating capabilities through a system of national
standards. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (December 2003)
requires the development of a national preparedness goal to include
readiness metrics and a system for assessing the nation's overall
preparedness by the fiscal year 2006 budget submission.
Coordinated NCR-wide Plan Needed to Guide First Responder Spending:
The lack of benchmarks and performance goals may contribute to
difficulties in meeting the second challenge in NCR--developing a
coordinated regionwide plan for determining how to spend federal funds
received and assess the benefit of that spending. A strategic plan for
the use of homeland security funds--whether in NCR or elsewhere--should
be based on established priorities, goals, and measures and align
spending plans with those priorities and goals. At the time of our
review, such a strategic plan had yet to be developed. Although ONCRC
had developed a regional spending plan for the UASI grants, this plan
was not part of a broader coordinated plan for spending federal grant
funds and developing first responder capacity and preparedness in NCR.
The former ONCRC Director said that ONCRC and the Senior Policy Group
could have a greater role in overseeing the use of other homeland
security funds in the future.
Consistent Data on Funding and Spending Needed to Establish
Accountability:
There is no established process or means for regularly and reliably
collecting and reporting data on the amount of federal funds available
to first responders in each of NCR's eight jurisdictions, the planned
and actual use of those funds, and the criteria used to determine how
the funds would be spent. Reliable data are needed to establish
accountability, analyze gaps, and assess progress toward meeting
established performance goals. Credible data should also be used to
develop and revise plans and to set goals during the planning process.
Were these data available, the lack of standards against which to
evaluate the data would make it difficult to assess gaps.
It should be noted that the fragmented nature of the multiple federal
grants available to first responders--some awarded to states, some to
localities, some directly to first responder agencies--may make it more
difficult to collect and maintain regionwide data on the grant funds
received and the use of those funds in NCR. Our previous work suggests
that this fragmentation in federal grants may reinforce state and local
fragmentation and can also make it more difficult to coordinate and use
those multiple sources of funds to achieve specific
objectives.[Footnote 13]
DHS Efforts to Assess First Responder Needs Did Not Include Feedback to
NCR Jurisdictions:
NCR jurisdictions completed the Office for Domestic Preparedness State
Homeland Security Assessment (ODP assessment) in the summer of 2003. At
the time of our review, NCR jurisdictions said that they had not
received any feedback from ODP or ONCRC on the review of those
assessments. Preparedness expectations should be established based on
likely threat and risk scenarios and an analysis of the gap between
current and needed capabilities based on national guidelines. In
keeping with the requirement of the Homeland Security Act that DHS
conduct an assessment of threats and state and local response
capabilities, risks, and needs with regard to terrorist incidents, DHS
developed the ODP State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy
Program.[Footnote 14] The ODP assessment was aligned with the six
critical mission areas in the National Strategy for Homeland
Security,[Footnote 15] and generally followed the structure of a risk
management approach. The assessment used the same scenarios for all
jurisdictions nationwide, allowing ODP to compare different
jurisdictions using the same set of facts and assumptions. Of course,
the scenarios used may not be equally applicable to all jurisdictions
nationwide.
The assessment collected data in three major areas: risk, capability,
and needs related to terrorism prevention. The risk assessment portion
includes threat and vulnerability assessments. The capability
assessment includes discipline-specific tasks for weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) events. The needs assessment portion covers five
functional areas of planning, organization, equipment, training, and
exercises. Supporting materials and worksheets on a threat profile,
capability to respond to specific WMD, an equipment inventory, and
training needs are provided to assist local jurisdictions in completing
the assessment.
A feedback loop is a key part of a risk management process. It involves
evaluating the assessment results to inform decision making and
establish priorities; it is not clear how the results of the assessment
were used to complete this process for NCR. ONCRC did not present any
formal analysis of the gap in capabilities identified by the
assessment, and several NCR jurisdictions said they did not receive any
feedback on the results of the assessment for their individual
jurisdictions. The former ONCRC Director said that the results of the
assessment for each of the NCR jurisdictions were combined to establish
priorities and develop the strategy for the use of the UASI funds, but
he did not provide any information on how the individual assessments
were combined or the methodology used to analyze the assessment
results. While the former Director said the results of the assessment
were used to develop the plan for the use of the UASI funds within NCR,
he said that they were not applied beyond that one funding source to
establish priorities for the use of other federal grants.
Some Regional Planning Efforts Exist but Do Not Include Coordination
for Funding:
While the NCR jurisdictions had emergency coordination practices and
procedures, such as mutual aid agreements, in place long before
September 11,2001,[Footnote 16] the terrorist attacks and subsequent
anthrax events in NCR highlighted the need for better coordination and
communication within the region. As a result, WashCOG developed a
regional emergency coordination plan (RECP) to facilitate coordination
and communication for regional incidents or emergencies. While this new
plan and the related procedures represent efforts to improve
coordination, more comprehensive planning would include a coordinated
regional approach for the use of federal homeland security funds.
NCR is one of the first regions in the country to prepare a regional
emergency coordination plan. The plan is intended to provide structure
through which the NCR jurisdictions can collaborate on planning,
communication, information sharing, and coordination activities
before, during, and after a regional emergency. RECP, which is based on
FEMA's Federal Response Plan, identifies 15 specific regional emergency
support functions, including transportation, hazardous materials, and
law enforcement. The Regional Incident Communication and Coordination
System (RICCS), which is included in the WashCOG plan, provides a
system for WashCOG members, the state of Maryland, the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the federal government, public agencies, and others to
collaborate in planning, communicating, sharing information, and
coordinating activities before, during, and after a regional incident
or emergency. RICCS relies on multiple means of communication,
including conference calling, secure Web sites, and wireless
communications. The system has been used on several occasions to notify
local officials of such events as a demonstration in downtown
Washington, D.C., and the October 2002 sniper incidents. For example,
RICCS allowed regional school systems to coordinate with one another
regarding closure policies during the sniper events.
Planning and Budgeting of Federal Grant Funds Is Not Coordinated among
the NCR Jurisdictions:
Our work in NCR found that no regional coordination methods have been
developed for planning for the use of 15 of the 16 funding sources we
reviewed. While the region has experience with working together for
regional emergency preparedness and response, NCR officials told us
that they have not worked together to develop plans and coordinate
expenditures for the use of federal funds. Most NCR jurisdictions did
not have a formal overall plan for the use of these funds within their
individual jurisdictions. In addition, while the grant recipients are
required to report to the administering federal agencies on each
individual grant, DHS and ONCRC have not implemented a process to
collect and analyze the information reported for NCR as a whole. The
one exception to this lack of coordination is UASI, for which ONCRC
developed a regional plan for the use of the funds. Internal control
standards support developing documentation, such as plans, to assist in
controlling management operations and making decisions.[Footnote 17]
Without this type of documentation, it is difficult for ONCRC to
monitor the overall use of funds within NCR and to evaluate their
effectiveness and plan for future use of grant funds. While some NCR
and ONCRC officials said that there was a need for DHS and the NCR
jurisdictions to establish controls over how emergency preparedness
grant funds are used in the region, they did not indicate any plans to
do so.
Within NCR, planning for the use of federal emergency and homeland
security grant funds is generally informal and is done separately by
each of the NCR jurisdictions. Most of the jurisdictions told us that
they have undocumented or informal plans for the uses of the federal
grant monies for emergency preparedness activities. Only two
jurisdictions have formal written plans that indicate how the
jurisdiction would use its federal homeland security grants. NCR states
and local jurisdictions had various budgets for uses of emergency
preparedness grant funds they received from fiscal year 2002 through
fiscal year 2003. However, they did not coordinate with one another in
defining their emergency preparedness needs, in developing their
budgets, or in using the federal grant funds to avoid unnecessary
duplication of equipment and other resources within the region. In
general, budgeting for the use of federal emergency preparedness grants
was done on a grant-by-grant basis within each jurisdiction and is
largely based on requests from first responder and emergency management
officials. Budgets indicate how the individual jurisdictions intend to
spend funds from a specific grant but do not indicate whether those
budgets are based on any strategic plan or set of priorities.
One Maryland county developed an overall plan for the use of federal
homeland security and emergency preparedness grants. The July 1, 2003,
homeland security strategy outlined the priorities for the county in
using federal emergency preparedness grant funds. However, it did not
specify grants or amounts for each of the initiatives. The priorities
for such funding were focused on equipping and training its first
responders; conducting exercises and drills for its government
employees; training other essential and critical government workers, as
well as the citizens and residents of the county; working vigorously to
implement recommendations from its Homeland Security Task Force; and
solidifying the county's relationships with other federal, state, and
regional homeland security entities.
While officials from other NCR jurisdictions do not have a formal plan,
some have established a process for reviewing proposals for the use of
the homeland security grants. For example, one Northern Virginia
jurisdiction recently adopted a planning process in which its Emergency
Management Coordination Committee, composed of the county's senior
management team, solicits budget proposals from first responder and
emergency management agencies for potential grant funds. This committee
then makes funding recommendations based upon a review of these
proposals and their funding priorities for the county. Officials from
other jurisdictions described similar processes for developing budget
proposals, but they have not developed longer-term or comprehensive
strategic plans.
To determine how the NCR jurisdictions used the funds, we reviewed the
use of funds of the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Supplemental
Appropriation, which was the largest source of funding for the period
of our review. Each NCR jurisdiction used those funds to buy emergency
equipment for first responders. However, officials said they did not
coordinate on planning for these expenditures with the other NCR
jurisdictions. For example, five of the eight NCR jurisdictions planned
to either purchase or upgrade their command vehicles. One of the
jurisdictions allocated $310,000 for a police command bus and $350,000
for a fire and rescue command bus; a neighboring jurisdiction allocated
$350,000 for a mobile command unit for its fire department; another
jurisdiction allocated $500,000 for a police command vehicle
replacement; a nearby jurisdiction allocated $149,000 to upgrade its
incident command vehicle; and its neighboring jurisdiction allocated
$200,000 to modify and upgrade its mobile command van. In another
example, four nearby jurisdictions allocated grant funds on hazardous
response vehicles or hazardous materials supplies that reflected costs
of $155,289 for one jurisdiction's rapid hazmat unit, $355,000 for a
neighboring jurisdiction's hazardous materials response vehicle,
$550,000 for a jurisdiction's fire and rescue hazmat unit vehicle, and
$115,246 for a jurisdiction's hazardous materials supplies. While such
purchases might not be duplicative, discussions among neighboring
jurisdictions could have facilitated a plan and determined whether
these purchases were necessary or whether the equipment purchased could
be shared among the jurisdictions, thereby freeing up grant dollars for
other needed, equipment to create greater combined capacity within the
region. Maximizing the use of resources entails avoiding unnecessary
duplication wherever possible. This requires some discussion and
general agreement on priorities, roles, and responsibilities among the
jurisdictions. Some NCR and ONCRC officials said they believed the NCR
jurisdictions could plan better to share resources and work to prevent
redundancy while avoiding gaps in inventory.
Data on Grants to NCR Jurisdictions Were Not Consistently Available:
During our review, NCR jurisdictions and federal grantor agencies could
not consistently provide data on the 16 grants and funding sources
within the scope of our study, such as award amounts, budgets, and
financial records. The individual jurisdictions and ONCRC did not have
systems in place to identify and account for all federal grants that
can be used to enhance domestic preparedness in NCR and elsewhere. The
lack of consistently available budget data for all emergency
preparedness and homeland security grants limits the ability to analyze
and assess the impact of federal funding and to make management
decisions to ensure the effective use of federal grant dollars.
No Central Source Exists for Data on Emergency Preparedness Grants and
Information Varies by Jurisdiction:
There is no central source within each jurisdiction or at the federal
level to identify all of the emergency preparedness grants that have
been allocated to NCR. At the local level, such information is needed
to meet legislative and regulatory reporting requirements for federal
grant expenditures of $300,000 or more.[Footnote 18] In addition, each
grant has specific reporting requirements, such as quarterly financial
status reports, semiannual program progress reports, and related
performance information to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act (P.L. 103-62). Moreover, federal grant financial system
guidelines require that federal agencies implement systems that include
complete, accurate, and prompt generation and maintenance of financial
records and transactions. Those federal system requirements also
require timely and efficient access to complete and accurate
information, without extraneous material, to internal and external
parties that require that information.[Footnote 19] We asked ONCRC, the
Virginia and Maryland emergency management agencies, and the eight NCR
jurisdictions for data on the emergency preparedness grants allocated
in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. ONCRC could not provide a complete list
of grants allocated to the NCR as a whole, and the state emergency
management agencies did not provide complete lists of grants for NCR
jurisdictions within their respective states. For example, the Maryland
Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) provided data on the federal grants
for Montgomery and Prince George's counties that were allocated through
the state. MEMA is not required to oversee grants not allocated through
the state and, therefore, it did not provide grant data on all of the
federal grants provided to the two counties. Similarly, the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) did not provide data on all
of the grants to the jurisdictions in Virginia. We compiled grant data
for the NCR jurisdictions by combining information received from the
NCR jurisdictions and the state emergency management agencies. This
involved contacting several different budget officials at the NCR
jurisdictions and at the state level.
The availability of emergency preparedness grant data at the local
level also varied by NCR jurisdiction, and complete data were not
readily available. After repeated requests for the grant awards,
budgets, and plans over a period of 7 months, NCR jurisdictions or the
State emergency management agencies provided us with the grant amounts
awarded to them during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Some jurisdictions
provided documentation on amounts awarded, but did not provide
supporting budget detail for individual grants to substantiate the
amounts awarded. Regarding budgets, we obtained a range of information
from the NCR jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions provided budget
documentation on all the federal grants that were allocated to them;
others provided budget documentation on some of their grants; and two
did not provide any grant budget documentation. This lack of supporting
documentation indicates a lack of financial controls that should be in
place to provide accurate and timely data on federal grants.
Guidance on financial management practices[Footnote 20] notes that to
effectively evaluate government programs and spending, Congress and
other decision makers must have timely, accurate, and reliable
financial information on program cost and performance. Moreover, the
Comptroller General's standards for internal control state that
"program managers need both operational and financial data to determine
whether they are meeting their agencies' strategic and annual
performance plans and meeting their goals for accountability for
effective and efficient use of resources." These standards stress the
importance of this information to make operating decisions, monitor
performance, and allocate resources and that "pertinent information is
identified, captured, and distributed to the right people in sufficient
detail, in the right form, and at the appropriate time to enable them
to carry out their duties and responsibilities efficiently and
effectively." Having this information could help NCR officials make
informed decisions about the use of grant funds in a timely manner.
Assessing the Remaining Gaps in NCR is Difficult without Guidance,
Reliable Data, or Analysis:
Without national standards, guidance on likely scenarios for which to
be prepared, plans, and reliable data, NCR officials assess their gaps
in preparedness based on their own judgment. The lack of standards and
consistently available data makes it difficult for the NCR officials to
use the results of DHS's ODP assessment to identify the most critical
gaps in capacities and to verify the results of the assessment and
establish a baseline that could then be used to develop plans to
address outstanding needs. Consequently, it is difficult for us or
ONCRC to determine what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency response
capacities and preparedness within the NCR. Each jurisdiction provided
us with information on their perceived gaps and specific needs for
improving emergency preparedness. However, there is no consistent
method for identifying these gaps among jurisdictions within NCR. Some
officials from NCR jurisdictions said that in the absence of a set of
national standards, they use the standards and accreditation guidelines
for disciplines such as police, fire, hazardous materials, and
emergency management in assessing their individual needs. While these
standards may provide some general guidance, some NCR officials said
that they need more specific guidance from DHS, including information
about threats, guidance on how to set priorities, and standards. Some
of the jurisdictions reported that they have conducted their own
assessments of need based on their knowledge of threat and risk.
Officials from other jurisdictions said they have used FEMA's Local
Capability Assessment for Readiness or the hazardous materials
assessment to identify areas for improvement.[Footnote 21]
Several jurisdictions told us that they identify remaining gaps based
on requests from emergency responder agencies. Other jurisdictions said
that they have established emergency management councils or task forces
to review their preparedness needs and begin to develop a more
strategic plan for funding those needs. Officials of most NCR
jurisdictions commonly identified the need for more comprehensive and
redundant communications systems and upgraded emergency operations
centers. Some officials of NCR jurisdictions also expressed an interest
in training exercises for the region as a whole to practice joint
response among the Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions and the District
of Columbia.
DHS and ONCRC Appear to Have Had a Limited Role in Promoting Regional
Coordination in NCR:
DHS and ONCRC appear to have played a limited role in fostering a
coordinated approach to the use of federal domestic preparedness funds
in NCR. According to the former ONCRC Director, ONCRC has focused its
initial coordination efforts on the development of a strategy for the
use of the UASI funds of $60.5 million in NCR. However, ONCRC efforts
to date have not addressed about $279.5 million in other federal
domestic preparedness funding that we reviewed. According to officials
from one NCR jurisdiction, they would like additional support and
guidance from DHS on setting priorities for the use of federal funds.
ONCRC Has Focused on Planning for UASI Funding:
One of ONCRC's primary responsibilities is to oversee and coordinate
federal programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for state,
local, and regional authorities in NCR and to cooperate with and
integrate the efforts of elected officials of NCR. ONCRC established a
governance structure to receive input from state and local authorities
through a Senior Policy Group composed of representatives designated by
the Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of Washington,
D.C. The Senior Policy Group developed the UASI strategy to fund a
range of projects that would enhance regional capabilities to improve
preparedness and reduce the vulnerability of NCR to terrorist attacks.
(See table 5.) According to ONCRC's former Director, the strategy for
UASI was an attempt to force a new paradigm, by developing a regional
plan for the use of the funds, with input from outside organizations in
addition to representatives from the local jurisdictions. The plan for
the $60.5 million allocated funds for projects, including planning,
training, equipment, and exercises to benefit the region as a whole, as
opposed to allocating funds to meet the individual needs of each NCR
jurisdiction separately. The former Director said that funding
allocations to these regional projects were based on a summary of the
results of the assessment that was completed by each NCR jurisdiction.
NCR Jurisdictions Expressed Mixed Views on ONCRC's Effectiveness:
Officials from NCR state and local jurisdictions expressed mixed
opinions on the effectiveness of ONCRC. Officials from a Virginia
jurisdiction expressed a need for more guidance on how to set
priorities and allocate federal domestic preparedness funding. District
of Columbia officials said ONCRC has done a good job of coordination
and has been very supportive, given its small staff and the newness of
the office. Some noted that ONCRC's role is still evolving. For
example, some officials in one jurisdiction said that ONCRC's long-term
mission has not yet been finalized and ONCRC is still in the process of
establishing its role within NCR. The officials believe that ONCRC has
significant potential for leading and coordinating homeland security
efforts in the region. They recommended that ONCRC become a routine
part of regional governance and provide guidance to local governments,
focus resources, and enhance the ability of localities to work together
to implement homeland security strategies. The officials noted that
ONCRC's efforts were motivated primarily by the leadership of the
Director and had not become routine.
We discussed NCR officials' views with the former ONCRC Director. He
acknowledged that ONCRC's initial efforts to coordinate the use of
federal grant funds in NCR concentrated on implementing UASI. He said
that UASI presented an improvement over previous funding allocations in
NCR by allocating funds on a regional basis--rather than jurisdictional
perceptions--that considered the results of an assessment of NCR
preparedness levels and requirements. The Director said that ONCRC
could consider coordinating for other federal programs in addition to
UASI, but he did not indicate any concrete plans to do so.
Conclusions:
The nation's ongoing vulnerability to terrorist attacks after September
11, 2001, is magnified in NCR because it is the location of critical
government infrastructure, national and international institutions,
and significant landmarks. In addition to NCR, there are several other
high-threat urban areas that share similar vulnerabilities, and
improving homeland security is a concern for the entire nation. The
challenges faced in NCRæ a lack of performance standards; baseline
information on preparedness and threat and risk scenarios, plans based
on those tools, and reliable data to report on the status of
initiativesæare fundamental obstacles in achieving desired levels of
preparedness. Furthermore, NCR's complex structure requires working
with individual political jurisdictions with varying experience in
managing homeland security funds and responding to emergencies. This
adds to the challenge of developing and implementing a coordinated plan
for enhancing first responder capacity.
Effective regional and local management of the large amounts of
available homeland security funding is an important element in
improving our national preparedness. However, it is difficult for
regional coordinators and local jurisdictions to avoid duplication and
inefficiency in the procurement of goods and services without a
knowledge of all the grants that can be leveraged to fight the terror
threat; without centralized, standard records to account for the use of
those grants; and without a coordinated regional plan for using those
funds. It is also difficult to target funding in a way that ensures it
is used for goods and services that enhance preparedness and response
without current threat information or scenarios and standards that
reflect performance goals for preparedness and response. The approach
taken in planning for the use of the UASI funds, with its emphasis on
regional allocations, is a step toward improved coordination that could
provide a more rational and effective method for enhancing emergency
preparedness within NCR. In addition, DHS's recently released strategic
plan and the endorsement of standards for equipment represent steps
toward addressing some of the challenges noted in this report. However,
more needs to be done to develop plans, monitor the use of funds, and
assess against goals and standards to evaluate progress toward improved
homeland security.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that emergency preparedness grants and associated funds
are managed in a way that maximizes their effectiveness, we recommend
that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security take the
following three actions in order to fulfill the department's statutory
responsibilities in the NCR:
* work with the NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic
plan to establish goals and priorities for enhancing first responder
capacities that can be used to guide the use of federal emergency
preparedness funds;
* monitor the plan's implementation to ensure that funds are used in a
way that promotes effective expenditures that are not unnecessarily
duplicative; and:
* identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness and evaluate the
effectiveness of expenditures in meeting those needs by adapting
standards and preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios for NCR
and conducting assessments based on them.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
On April 29, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to the Secretary
of DHS and to ONCRC's Senior Policy Group for comment. On May 19, 2004,
we received comments from DHS's GAO/OIG Liaison and the Senior Policy
Group that are reprinted in appendix III and IV, respectively.
DHS and the Senior Policy Group generally agreed with our
recommendations but also stated that NCR jurisdictions had worked
cooperatively together to identify opportunities for synergies and lay
a foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the report. DHS and
the Senior Policy Group also agreed that there is a need to continue to
improve preparedness by developing more specific and improved
preparedness standards, clearer performance goals, and an improved
method for tracking regional initiatives. In addition, DHS identified
the following concerns:
* DHS stated that the report demonstrated a fundamental
misunderstanding regarding homeland security grant programs in NCR and
the oversight role and responsibilities of ONCRC. DHS stated that GAO
fails to distinguish between funds provided to specific jurisdictions
for local priorities and enhancements and funds intended to address
regional needs. We disagree. The responsibilities of ONCRC are outlined
in the Homeland Security Act and on page 8 of this report. These
include activities such as coordinating with federal, state, and
regional agencies and the private sector to ensure adequate planning
and execution of domestic preparedness activities among these agencies
and entities, and assessing and advocating for resources that state,
local, and regional authorities in the NCR need to implement efforts to
secure the homeland. The responsibilities further require an annual
report to Congress that identifies resources required to implement
homeland security efforts in NCR, assesses progress made in
implementing these efforts, and makes recommendations regarding
additional resources needed. In order to fulfill this mandate, ONCRC
needs information on how all grant monies have been used, not just
those designated specifically for regional purposes, information on how
those expenditures have enhanced first responder capacity in the
region, and an ability to coordinate all federal domestic preparedness
funding sources to NCR.
* DHS noted that our report recognizes the importance of a coordinated
regionwide plan for establishing first responder goals, needs, and
priorities and assessing the benefits of all expenditures to enhance
first responder capabilities, and our review found that no such
coordination methods have been developed. DHS stated that this task is
accomplished by the formal NCR Review and Recommendation Process,
adopted on February 4, 2004, which ensures coordination of resources
among all jurisdictions within NCR. DHS provided us information on this
process at our exit conference on April 15, 2004. DHS explained that
the Review and Recommendation Process was developed for the UASI
program, and ONCRC and NCR officials are in the process of extending it
to additional federal programs. While this process could be used to
facilitate the development of a regional plan in the future, the
process has not included a review of how federal grants have already
been used or the development of a coordinated regional plan for
establishing needs and priorities and assessing benefits of all federal
domestic preparedness programs.
Finally, the comments noted a correction to our draft regarding the
establishment of the Senior Policy Group, and we have revised the
report accordingly.
As agreed with your office, unless you release this report earlier, we
will not distribute it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At
that time, we will send copies to relevant congressional committees and
subcommittees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, to members of the
NCR Senior Policy Group, and to other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it
further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Patricia A. Dalton,
Director, (202) 512-6737. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We met with and obtained documentation from officials of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), and the Office for Domestic Preparedness; the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments (WashCOG); the homeland security
advisers and officials from the emergency management agencies for the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; and first responder
officials from the National Capital Region (NCR) jurisdictions,
including the District of Columbia; the city of Alexandria; and the
counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William in
Virginia; and Montgomery and Prince Georges counties in Maryland.
To determine what federal funds have been provided to local
jurisdictions for emergency preparedness, for what specific purposes,
and from what sources, we met with officials from the DHS's Office for
National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC), ONCRC's Senior Policy
Group, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), homeland security
advisers for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, and
first responders from eight jurisdictions within NCR--the District of
Columbia; the city of Alexandria; and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun,
Prince William, Montgomery, and Prince George's counties. We identified
25 emergency preparedness programs that provided funding to NCR, and we
selected 16 for our detailed review. These 16 programs were selected to
cover a range of programs, including the largest funding sources;
grants provided for general purposes such as equipment and training;
and grants provided for specific purposes, such as fire prevention and
bioterrorism. We obtained and reviewed the emergency preparedness grant
data for the period of October 2001 through September 30, 2003,
including grant awards, budgets, and detailed plans for purchases, such
as equipment and supplies, communications, and training and exercises.
To the extent possible, we independently verified the data we received
on funds available and the planned and actual use of those funds by
comparing federal, state, and local data sources. Our review revealed
the lack of consistent data reported by the jurisdictions in the region
and the lack of a central source for such data. For example, NCR state
and local jurisdictions vary in their ability to provide budget
information on the emergency preparedness and homeland security grants
they received. Also, DHS and ONCRC do not have systems in place to
account for all federal homeland security and emergency preparedness
grants covering their respective jurisdictions.
To determine the regional coordination practices and remaining
challenges to implementing regional preparedness programs in NCR, we
met with officials from WashCOG, DHS, Virginia, Maryland, and local NCR
jurisdictions. Oral and documentary evidence obtained from these
officials has provided us with an overall perspective on the status of
coordination for homeland security within the region and remaining
challenges to implementing effective homeland security measures in NCR.
We also talked with officials about regional programs that have been
successfully implemented in NCR.
To determine the gaps that exist in emergency preparedness in NCR, we
obtained oral and documentary information from officials of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; DHS; the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia emergency management agencies;
homeland security advisers; and local first responders. Our discussions
with these officials provide their views of the state of preparedness
in NCR. We also obtained information from these officials regarding
their plans to address those emergency preparedness gaps. In addition,
we reviewed relevant reports, studies, and guidelines to provide
context for assessing preparedness. However, there are no uniform
standards or criteria by which to measure gaps, and self-reported
information from local jurisdictions may not be objective.
To determine DHS's role in enhancing the preparedness of NCR through
coordinating the use of federal emergency preparedness grants,
assessing preparedness, providing guidance, targeting funds to enhance
preparedness, and monitoring the use of those funds, we met with DHS,
as well as with state homeland security advisers, state emergency
management officials, and local first responders. We obtained and
analyzed verbal and documentary evidence on the ODP assessment
completed by the NCR jurisdictions, and how that assessment was used,
as well as other actions DHS had taken to facilitate homeland security
coordination within NCR.
Finally, we contacted the District of Columbia Auditor, the Maryland
Office of Legislative Audits, and the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit
and Review Commission to inform them of our review and determine if the
agencies had related past or ongoing work. None of the agencies had
conducted or planned to conduct reviews of emergency preparedness or
homeland security in the NCR.
We conducted our review from June 2003 to February 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions' Arrangements to Respond to Public
Safety Emergencies:
NCR jurisdictions over the years have implemented various mechanisms to
ensure planned and coordinated interjurisdictional approaches to the
activities of first responders and other public safety professionals.
These efforts involve the activities of regional planning and
coordinating bodies, such as the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (WashCOG), the regional metropolitan planning
organization, and mutual assistance agreements between the first
responders of neighboring NCR jurisdictions.
Regional Bodies Facilitate Coordination Efforts in Other Areas:
Planning and coordinating bodies have existed in NCR for many years.
WashCOG is a regional entity that includes all the jurisdictions within
the region. Other planning and coordinating organizations exist in both
Maryland and Virginia.
WashCOG is a nonprofit association representing local governments in
the District of Columbia, suburban Maryland, and Northern Virginia.
Founded in 1957, WashCOG is supported by financial contributions from
its 19 participating local governments, federal and state grants and
contracts, and donations from foundations and the private sector.
WashCOG's members are the governing officials from local NCR
governments, plus area delegation members from Maryland and Virginia
legislatures, the U. S. Senate, and the House of Representatives.
According to WashCOG, the council provides a focus for action and
develops regional responses to such issues as the environment,
affordable housing, economic development, health and family concerns,
human services, population growth, public safety, and transportation.
The full membership, acting through its board of directors, sets
WashCOG policies. The National Capital Region Preparedness Council is
an advisory body that makes policy recommendations to the board of
directors and makes procedural and other recommendations to various
regional agencies with emergency preparedness responsibilities or
operational response authority. The council also oversees the regional
emergency coordination plan.
Other regional coordinating bodies exist in the National Capital
Region, including the Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC), the
Maryland Terrorism Forum, and the Maryland Emergency Management
Assistance Compact. NVRC is one of the 21 planning district commissions
in Virginia. A 42-member board of commissioners composed of elected
officials and citizen representatives all appointed by 14 member
localities establishes NVRC's programs and policies. The commission is
supported by annual contributions from its member local governments, by
appropriations of the Virginia General Assembly, and by grants from
federal and state governments and private foundations. According to a
NVRC official, the commission established an emergency management
council to coordinate programs, funding issues, and equipment needs.
The emergency management council is composed of local chief
administrative officers, fire chiefs, police chiefs, and public works
managers.
In 1998, the Governor of Maryland established the Maryland Terrorism
Forum to prepare the state to respond to acts of terrorism, especially
those involving weapons of mass destruction. The forum also serves as
the key means of integrating all services within federal, state, and
local entities as well as key private organizations. The forum's
executive committee, composed of agency directors and cabinet members,
provides policy guidance and recommendations to the steering committee;
which addresses policy concerns. According to Maryland Emergency
Management Agency (MEMA) officials, the forum's first focus was on
planning in terms of equipment interoperability; evacuation planning;
and commonality of standards, procedures, and vocabulary. The forum is
in the process of hiring a full-time planner for preparedness
assessment and strategic planning for the region.
Mutual Aid Agreements Are in Place within NCR:
The terrorist attacks in New York City and on the Pentagon on September
11, 2001, security preparations during the World Bank demonstrations,
and the sniper incidents in the summer and fall of 2002 highlighted the
need for enhanced mutual cooperation and aid in responding to
emergencies. Several NCR jurisdiction public safety officials told us
that mutual aid agreements have worked well and are examples of
regional programs that have been successfully implemented in NCR.
Mutual aid agreements provide a structure for assistance and for
sharing resources among jurisdictions in preparing for and responding
to emergencies and disasters. Because individual jurisdictions may not
have all the resources they need to acquire equipment and respond to
all types of emergencies and disasters, these agreements allow for
resources to be regionally distributed and quickly deployed. These
agreements provide opportunities for state and local governments to
share services, personnel, supplies, and equipment. Mutual aid
agreements can be both formal and informal and provide cooperative
planning, training, and exercises in preparation for emergencies and
disasters.
For over 40 years, jurisdictions in the National Capital Region have
been supporting one another through mutual aid agreements. According to
a WashCOG official, the agency has brokered and facilitated most of
these agreements and acts as an informal secretariat for mutual aid
issues. According to WashCOG, there are currently 21 mutual aid
agreements in force among one or more of the 18 member jurisdictions,
covering one or more issues. These can be as broad as a police services
support agreement among 12 jurisdictions and as restricted as a two-
party agreement relating to control over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. In
September 2001, for example, WashCOG member jurisdictions developed
planning guidance for health system response to a bioterrorism event in
NCR. The purpose of this guidance is to strengthen the health care
response systems allowing them to, among other things, improve early
recognition and provide mass care. According to WashCOG, the planning
guidance was developed through the cooperative effort of more than 225
individuals representing key government and private elements with NCR
that would likely be involved should such an event occur.
The Maryland Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a mutual aid
compact established to help Maryland's local jurisdictions support one
another with their resources during emergencies and disasters and
facilitate efficient operational procedures. The compact establishes
partnerships among local jurisdictions so that resources can be
requested and provided in response to emergencies and disasters. In
addition to helping local governments and their emergency response
agencies develop risk management decisions, the compact provides a
framework that will increase accessibility for maximum compensation in
federally declared disasters. The compact, established by legislation
in June 2002, is modeled after the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact with 48 states and two U.S. territories participating in
interstate mutual aid.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528:
Homeland Security:
May 19, 2004:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
RE: Draft report, "Homeland Security: National Capital Region (NCR)
Grant Management Issues Reflect the Need for Coordinated Planning and
Performance Standards, GAO 04-433, Job Code 440221"
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft report. The
Department of Homeland Security largely agrees with GAO on the majority
of the recommendations. In response to an overarching theme in the
draft report, we note that the Department has implemented performance
goals and measures at major program levels as was contained in its
Performance Budget Overview, submitted with the Congressional
Justification to the President's FY 2005 Budget. Thus, it is our view
that the recommendation that this practice be implemented at the NCR
level is well underway towards completion. This letter also identifies
concerns about the manner in which information is being presented in
the draft report.
The draft report demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding regarding
the homeland security grant programs in the NCR. With the exception of
the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program, federal
financial assistance is provided directly to State and local agencies
to enhance specific preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities.
Largely, administration and coordination of these grant programs is the
responsibility of the State. The UASI Grant Program was established to
build an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond to, and
recover from threats or acts of terrorism for selected urban areas.
This program has the unique requirement for State and local agencies to
coordinate the allocation of funds on a regional basis. The GAO fails
to make the distinction between the funds that were given to specific
jurisdictions for local priorities and enhancements and those intended
to address complex and unique regional needs.
The report recognizes the importance of a coordinated, region-wide plan
for establishing first responder goals, needs, and priorities and
assessing the benefits of all expenditures to enhance first responder
capabilities. The report states that no such NCR wide coordination
methods have been developed. However, this complex task is accomplished
by the formal NCR Review and Recommendation Process that ensures
coordination of resources among all jurisdictions within the NCR. This
regional process:
www.dhs.gov:
and accompanying governance structure, adopted on February 4, 2004,
defines the roles of the NCR Senior Policy Group, the Chief
Administrative Officers (CAOs) and the NCR Emergency Preparedness
Council (EPC) that accomplish the essential region-wide coordination.
With respect to funding decisions and priorities, the GAO inaccurately
characterizes the role of the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination (ONCRC) as one of federal control and direction rather
than coordination and cooperation. It is important to note that the
governance structure for the NCR was founded on the principles of full
disclosure of information, joint decision-making, and equality of
parties. The ONCRC works collaboratively with the SPG, CAOs, and EPC to
establish funding decisions and priorities. As such, the ONCR in
cooperation with the Office for Domestic Preparedness sponsored the
first regional risk, capabilities and needs assessment resulting in the
first Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy for the NCR.
We note factual errors regarding the genesis of the NCR SPG. The draft
report states (page 2) that the ONCRC established the SPG. In fact, the
group was established by mutual commitment from the chief executive
officials from the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia,
District of Columbia, and the Department of Homeland Security. In
addition, the draft report references (page 5) ONCRC based spending
decisions. In fact, spending decisions relative to the grant program
are made in a systematic and coordinated way via the NCR Review and
Recommendation Process mentioned above.
For all the progress made in the NCR to increase preparedness, the
Department realizes, and your draft report supports the fact, that we
need to continue on the path of improvement by developing more specific
and improved preparedness standards, clearer performance goals, and
establishing an improved method for tracking regional initiatives. As
noted above, the Department has built a great deal of the foundation
for meeting the challenges noted in the report and will continue to
work toward meeting those challenges.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Anna F. Dixon:
Director, Bankcard Programs and GAO/OIG Liaison:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group:
18 May 2004:
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION SENIOR POLICY GROUP
MD * DC * VA:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Jenkins,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report "Homeland
Security; National Capital Region Grant Management Issues Reflect the
Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Standards." The National
Capital Region Senior Policy Group generally agrees with the GAO on the
majority of the recommendations, however, we would like to address
several issues. In addition, the District of Columbia has provided
comments specific its grant management practices in the enclosure.
The creation of the Senior Policy Group was undertaken in the spring of
2002, well in advance of Administration or Congressional action to
create the Department of Homeland Security/ONCRC. The two Governors and
Mayor recognized the coordination challenge and the critical roles of
the two states and the District towards enhancing cooperation.
Encouraged by both expanding White House commitment to address federal
executive branch coordination issues and concurrent NCR Congressional
delegation efforts to bring a more orderly approach to the plethora of
federal funding requests across the region, the Governors and Mayor
initiated the executive level coordination group. This group later
became known as the Senior Policy Group.
The report identifies that Health and Hurnan Services programs were
among those reviewed. We believe it fails to accurately portray the
performance metrics that HHS established and the tremendous progress
that has been documented by Virginia, Maryland and District agencies
towards health and medical readiness. The HHS programs required
deliberate objectives for preparedness and documented evidence to
support their accomplishment.
Additionally, the National Capital Region experienced significant
federal financial assistance in the aftermath of the September 11th
attacks. The report correctly notes that the FY '02 Defense
Supplemental accounted for nearly $230 million or 68% of the nearly
$340 million in direct aid to the NCR. The total figure does not
include specific allocations to the District and two states that
provide additional support to NCR communities. A recurring theme in the
report is the apparent absence of performance metrics and deliberate
planning process to guide expenditures, It is important that
characterization of the efforts of local communities or federal
agencies be placed into the appropriate context of the environment
during 2002. The United States, including the NCR, during that period
was still very much in a crisis reactive mode. While difficult to
quantify, the combined efforts of local, state/District and federal
authorities to identify and exploit opportunities for synergy among
initiatives has been outstanding. Doing so in the midst of a "crisis
reactive mode" has been impressive and points to the desire for success
across all levels of government.
[See PDF for page 2]
[End of page 2]
Introduction:
Thank you for forwarding the GAO report, GAO-04-433, to this office for
review. The report accurately describes issues associated with grant
administration across the country. It does not, however, adequately
detail the process developed by the District for administering state
and regional grant funds, coordination of programmatic planning and
response issues. A detailed outline of this process is described below
which has and will continue to allow for coordinated grants
administration and strategic planning for enhancing the District's and
NCR's preparedness, performance standards, and a reliable, central
source of data on funds available and the purpose for which they were
spent.
History:
The Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice (DMPSJ), Executive
Office of the Mayor of the Government of the District of Columbia has
been tasked by the Mayor to lead the District's efforts relating to
Homeland Security. In this regard, the Deputy Mayor is responsible for
oversight of all spending related to special appropriations, regional
planning for Homeland Security, inter-and intra-agency planning (with
federal, state and local governments), and the development of a
Homeland Security Strategy for the District. The District of Columbia
has also received significant resources to support equipment, planning,
training, and exercise needs associated with emergency preparedness and
Homeland Security. It is critical that spending associated with these
resources is efficient and effective to ensure that the maximum benefit
is derived.
In order to provide for more effective and cohesive oversight of
Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security activities, the Federal
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now requires that DHS grants
(including Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA; and Office of
Domestic Preparedness, ODP grants) being awarded to states (and
municipalities in the case of the District) be funneled through a
single State Administrative Agent (SAA). The Mayor of the District of
Columbia has appointed the DMPSJ as the Homeland Security point of
contact through which all grant monies must be administered.
Additionally, the District was chosen as the Administrative Agent for
grants awarded to the NCR, made up of twelve jurisdictions within MD,
VA and D.C. This role requires unprecedented cooperative efforts
between the jurisdictions, and the creation of innovative processes for
both managing and dispensing the grant funds.
As the established Administrative Agent for both State and Regional
funds, the DMPSJ has become the defacto administrator of related DHS
grants. The administration of these grants requires specialized
knowledge in the area of Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security
as well as the development of unique legal and procedural parameters.
DMPSJ has provided a structure and operational support methodology for
the coordination and development of policy and strategy regarding
homeland security issues and administration of homeland security
grants.
Structure:
The DMPSJ has established a team that has developed a comprehensive,
management structure for the administration of grant funds that abide
by the guidelines established by DHS. The objective of this team is to
provide comprehensive oversight and management of grant funds at the
District Agency and Regional levels as to improve mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards. The
following represent this team's specific priorities under DMPSJ:
* Improve the Districts's and the Region's administration of grant
funding for disaster response and recovery capabilities by developing
and maintaining an understanding of integrated operational capability
developed in coordination with our Federal partners, volunteer
organizations, universities, and the private sector.
* Assist all levels of District and Regional government, first
responders, volunteer groups, universities, and the public in meeting
the responsibilities of public emergencies and challenges, through
program management and coordination activities.
* Use baseline program evaluation strategies to identify emergency
preparedness areas in need of improvement. This will allow for a
methodology for strategic planning and the justification of resource
allotment.
* Provide critical information to Congress, the public, the media, and
the emergency management community by maintaining strict spending and
activity records and by building partnerships with and among Federal
and Regional entities, District agencies, other responder
organizations, and the private sector.
Operations:
This team's proposed approach to performing the work is highlighted
below, including a variety of solutions to employ.
Grants Administration:
ODP's current methology for evaluating homeland security strategies and
related grant activity includes the categories of Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery which are further divided into Planning,
Training, Exercises and Equipment. However, according to new
literature, DHS is strongly encouraging States to begin using the
established baseline assessments as a basis for developing work plans
and performance evaluations. The team has incorporated both the current
ODP standards into an ongoing strategy development, development of
protocols and staffing plans, and categorizing grant spending. This has
allowed for comprehensive and flexible tracking ability, broader
capabilities applying for future grants, and greater organization in
responding to information requests. However, the team is not limited to
only this framework. Rather, its structure will allow for adaptation to
any new standards that future Federal guidelines may require.
Proposed Grant Process:
The following is an outline of the grant process that the team has
applied and will modify as additional grants are managed and additional
evaluation requirement are requested.
1) In the future, the SAA may have to apply for federal funds.
Currently, these funds are directly awarded to both the District and
the NCR.
2) A Federal grant is awarded and letter is sent to the SAA. At this
point, the SAA will be decided whether a contract or a sub grant is the
more appropriate vehicle for expending funds on each project. If the
sub grant is decided as the best vehicle the team will request budget
authority for funds through city council and establish budget fund
codes (attributes).
3) The team will perform the following tasks during the same time
frame:
a. Complete and obtain the SAA's approval for Sub grant Certification
Form (SCF):
b. Publish Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) on DC Register and any
other venue HSO has chosen with intentions of reaching the most
appropriate applicant pool. It is accepted audit standards require that
a minimum of three venues are needed for the publication of NOFA.
c. Prepare Request for Applications (RFA) in order to make available to
applicants (requirements are set forth in DCMR ch 50 Title 1):
4) The team will put together an independent review panel (3 members
minimum) and will develop criteria by which the panel will rate grant
applications. For State related grant funds, this team will consist of
representatives from the Fire and Police departments and the Emergency
Management Agency. Currently, the Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs)
represent this panel for the NCR and review all grant applications in
order to make a determination on which applications will be funded from
Regional grant funds.
5) The team will hold a meeting w/ the panelists to instruct on the
grant, applications, criteria, etc.
6) The team will sponsor a pre-application conference for all possible
awardees.
7) Applications are submitted to the team for preliminary review/pre-
screening then forwarded to the independent panel for evaluation
against the pre-established criteria.
8) A Independent Panel will review applications and submit their
recommendations for best proposal.
9) The team will review all applications submitted to the panel and
consider the panel's recommendations. The team's recommendations will
be forwarded along with the panel's recommendations to the SAA for
review.
10) Sub grant Competitive Review Forms (SCRFs) will be forwarded to the
City Council for approval if the sub grant is associated with the
District and is over $1 million or will be forwarded to the Senior
Policy Group (SPG), or other designee, if the sub grant is associated
with the Region.
11) The team will create sub grant packages and forward them to the SAA
for signature.
12) The Team will notify unsuccessful applicants before awards are sent
to successful applicants.
13) If the sub grant award is internal to the District, the Project
Manager (PM) for finance will sign a MOU/IDSR (in addition to the sub
grant documents) to authorize transfer of budget authority. The team
will forward the entire package on to sub grantee agencies. Sub
grantees must then follow up to ensure that budget authority has been
transferred appropriately, so they can enter purchase requisitions.
14) If the sub grant award is external to the District, the team will
send the award package to the sub grantee for signature. The PM for
finance will open a blanket purchase order which will be used to
reimburse the sub grantee periodically.
15) The team will host a pre-award conference with new sub grantees to
describe the grant process and educate sub grantees on Federal
standards and requirements.
16) The team will continue to monitor progress, appropriate
expenditure, compliance, etc. (including on-site visits.) Finance staff
will monitor financial compliance and appropriate reimbursement. 17)
The team will send appropriate progress reports to the sponsoring
Federal agency.
18) The team will ensure complete/proper close-out of grants:
19) The team will ensure retention of records for appropriate time
period.
The team has and will continue to manage the grants in accordance with
the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments, also called The Common Rule,
which is included in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR 13.
Homeland Security Policv and Strate2v Coordination for the District:
The team is also responsible for policy and strategy coordination that
assists in the development of support materials for the City's Homeland
Security and emergency preparedness programs and strategies. Activities
include: coordinating the creation of Homeland Security strategies;
meeting logistical support; attending various meetings and providing
meeting notes; attending conference calls; researching and
responding to FIOA requests; coordinating responses to media requests;
developing briefings; and drafting information for reports and
testimony. Products and activities include but are not limited to:
* Drafts of Homeland Security strategies reflecting the input of all
players/parties.
* Supporting documentation and materials; * Draft reports;
* Testimony support materials for City Council and Congressional
hearings;
* Briefings and other written documents;
* Coordinating Emergency Management and Preparedness efforts between
various local, regional and Federal agencies;
* Coordinating tasks and projects with the DC Emergency Management
Agency;
* Research, in response to information requests from key District
agencies responsible for emergency preparedness;
* Preparation and logistic organization in support of the Director and
the Deputy Mayor for various conferences and meetings; and:
* Organization and summarization of meetings of various task forces and
steering committees of which the DMPSJ is a member or chair:
Due to the nature of the work required in the realm of Homeland
Security, emergencies and special events may arise. The Policy and
Strategy Coordination component of the team has and will provide
assistance for quick turn around, short-term projects. These efforts
may require immediate response and coordination with DMPSJ and EOM
staff, such as last minute meeting logistics or compiling information
to meet urgent deadlines.
Conclusion:
The District and the NCR has and will continue to obtain numerous
benefits from the approach presented in this response. Through the
establishment of this structure, the District and the NCR have and will
continue to:
* Identify target opportunities that provide the ability to improve
skills, build resources, and establish meaningful and effective
partnerships, both internally within the District and with neighboring
jurisdictions and Federal and private/public organizations;
* Demonstrate accountability related to grant funding and other legal,
regulatory, and related obligations;
* Heighten the region's ability to track expenditures, resources, and
data, which will aid in reporting against grant (and other types of)
requirements;
* Aid leadership and front-line managers in strategic, policy, and
operational decision-making, through enhanced access to better, more
reliable information;
* Be able to respond to inquiries from and be proactive in presenting
information to Congress, the media, grant providers, partner
organizations, citizens, and other involved and interested parties;
and:
* Most importantly, enhance the overall readiness and capability to
protect citizens, institutions, and property against risks posed by
terrorism, natural disasters and emergencies, and technological
incidents that could disrupt, impede, or threaten the safety and well-
being of the broader metropolitan Washington DC community.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director (202) 512-8757 Patricia A. Dalton,
Director, (202) 512-6737:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those mentioned above, Ernie Hazera and Amelia Shachoy
(Strategic Issues) and Wendy Johnson, Jack Bagnulo, David Brown, R.
Rochelle Burns (Homeland Security and Justice) made key contributions
to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, §882 (2002))
incorporates the following definition of the National Capital Region
from 10 U.S.C. 2674 (f)(2). It is a geographic area that consists of
the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in
Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties and
the City of Alexandria in Virginia; and all cities and other units of
government within the geographic areas of such district, counties, and
city. We focused on the eight largest jurisdictions.
[2] The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, The Fifth Annual
Report to the President and the Congress, Forging America's New
Normalcy: Securing our Homeland, Protecting Our Liberty (Arlington,
VA.: Dec. 15, 2003).
[3] National Academy of Public Administration, Advancing the Management
of Homeland Security: Managing Intergovernmental Relations for Homeland
Security (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).
[4] Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P. L. 107-296 (2002)).
[5] P.L. 107-296 §882.
[6] The $340 million includes the $60.5 million for UASI that is
allocated to NCR for regionwide projects.
[7] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Assistance: Grant
System Continues to Be Highly Fragmented, GAO-03-718T (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 29, 2003).
[8] The grants that were consolidated into the State Homeland Security
Grant Program include the State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Training Program, State and Local Domestic Preparedness Exercise
Support Program, and State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support
Program.
[9] Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks On The United States
Act, 2002, P.L. 107-117 (2002). This appropriation provided funds to
NCR jurisdictions through Byrne Discretionary grants under the State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs within the Office of
Justice Programs at the Department of Justice.
[10] Two appropriations provided funds used for the UASI initiatives.
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, P.L. 108-7 (2003); and Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, P.L. 108-11 (2003).
[11] Other cities included Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, and Seattle. Subsequently, a second round of funding was
announced to include 23 additional metropolitan areas and additional
funding for the original seven regions, including NCR.
[12] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Securing Our Homeland,
Strategic Plan 2004 (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).
[13] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Reforming
Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 2003).
[14] The State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Program is a
refined version of the assessment that was established in fiscal year
1999 for the State and Local Domestic Preparedness Programs. The
assessment was intended to allow state and local jurisdictions to
update their earlier data to consider post-September 11, concerns, as
well as to identify progress on the priorities outlined in their
initial homeland security strategies.
[15] The six critical mission areas are Intelligence and Warning;
Border and Transportation Security, Domestic Counterterrorism,
Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets, Defending Against
Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency Preparedness and Response.
[16] Appendix II of this report describes some of these regional
coordination practices.
[17] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-0021.3.1 (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999).
[18] Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-156 (1996)). Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-133, as revised June 27, 2003. For
fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003, the requirements apply to
federal grant expenditures of $500,000 or more.
[19] Joint Financial Management Improvement Program Federal Financial
Management System Requirements: Grant Financial System Requirements
(JFMIP-SR-00-3, June 2000).
[20] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Creating
Value through World-Class Financial Management, GAO/AIMD-00-134
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2000).
[21] FEMA's Local Capability Assessment for Readiness is a self-
assessment tool that local jurisdictions can use to identify emergency
management program strengths and areas needing improvement. The tool
encourages collaborative discussions among state, local, and state
emergency management agencies and allows emergency managers to evaluate
the status of their partnerships with other jurisdictions.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
