Homeland Security
Assessment of the National Capital Region Strategic Plan Gao ID: GAO-06-1096T September 28, 2006Among other things, the Office of National Capital Region Coordination is to coordinate efforts within the National Capital Region (NCR) to ensure execution of domestic preparedness activities. In our May 2004 report and June 2004 testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, GAO recommended that the NCR develop a strategic plan to establish and monitor the achievement of regional goals and priorities for emergency preparedness and response. GAO subsequently testified on the status of the NCR's strategic planning efforts before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia in July 2005 and March 2006. The Subcommittee asked GAO to provide comments on the NCR's strategic plan, which the NCR partners approved in September 2006. In this testimony, GAO discusses its assessment of the recently completed NCR homeland security strategic plan and the extent to which the new plan includes desirable strategic plan characteristics and how the substance of the plan might be further strengthened when the plan is reviewed and possibly revised.
A coordinated strategic plan to establish and monitor the achievement of regional goals and priorities is fundamental to implementing a coordinated approach to enhancing emergency preparedness and response capacities in the NCR. In March 2006, GAO observed that the NCR's strategic plan could benefit from addressing all six characteristics GAO considers to be desirable for a regional homeland security strategy. These characteristics were used to evaluate the final plan. These include, for example, goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures; resources, investments, and risk management; and organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination. The NCR approved its strategic plan in September 2006. The NCR homeland security strategic plan includes all six characteristics we consider desirable for a regional homeland security strategy. To illustrate, the plan includes regional priorities and presents the rationale for the goals and related objectives and initiatives. This includes information on how the plan addresses national priorities and targeted capabilities from the National Preparedness Goal, an Emergency Management Accreditation Program assessment of local and regional preparedness and emergency management capabilities against recognized national standards, and the Department of Homeland Security's Nationwide Plan Review of emergency plans. The plan structure is more streamlined, containing an overview, core plan, and detailed appendix with information on factors such as risks, costs, and roles and responsibilities. However, the substance of the information within these six characteristics could be improved to guide decision makers. Two examples: (1) the plan does not reflect a comprehensive risk assessment for the region, which, when completed, may result in changes in some of the priorities in the current plan; and (2) although the NCR plan defines objectives as being key, measurable milestones for reaching each goal, many objectives include language such as "strengthen," "enhance," "increase," "improve," and "expand" rather than more specific performance measures and targets. Several of our observations regarding potential plan substance are the same as those we provided in our March 2006 testimony. The NCR has made considerable progress in developing its first strategic plan. Although GAO has noted some remaining limitations and areas of potential improvement, the NCR strategic plan provides the basic foundation for regional preparedness, including what is needed in case of a catastrophic event. Now, the challenge is ensuring that initiatives to implement the goals and objectives are funded, completed, and appropriately assessed to determine if they have achieved the NCR's strategic goals while continually monitor the plan's implementation to determine what adjustments are needed for continuing improvement.
GAO-06-1096T, Homeland Security: Assessment of the National Capital Region Strategic Plan
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1096T
entitled 'Homeland Security: Assessment of the National Capital Region
Strategic Plan' which was released on September 28, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, September 28, 2006:
Homeland Security:
Assessment of the National Capital Region Strategic Plan:
Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
GAO-06-1096T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1011, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Servicemembers who are assigned, deployed, or travel on temporary duty
to certain foreign areas are eligible for special pays and benefits
including (1) imminent danger pay (IDP) when the Department of Defense
(DOD) determines that members are subject to the threat of physical
harm or imminent danger and (2) combat zone tax relief (CZTR) benefits,
which allow members to exclude earned income from federal taxes. If
travel to IDP- or CZTR-designated areas begins during one month and
concludes during another (known as cross-month travel), members could
receive 2 full months of benefits.
GAO conducted this review under the Comptroller General‘s authority to
initiate such reviews. GAO evaluated DOD‘s (1) process for reviewing
IDP areas and (2) internal controls over servicemembers‘ temporary duty
travel to areas designated for IDP and CZTR benefits. GAO is also
providing information on the reporting of IDP and CZTR data. GAO
analyzed legislation, guidance, travel vouchers, and internal control
standards and interviewed appropriate officials.
What GAO Found:
DOD‘s processes for reviewing existing IDP areas could be improved.
While combatant commanders have taken the initiative periodically to
make recommendations to designate or terminate IDP areas, DOD has not
conducted annual reviews of existing IDP designations in accordance
with its guidance to ensure that conditions in these areas continue to
warrant such designation. Also, DOD has not updated its guidance to
reflect current responsibilities for initiating annual reviews or to
include factors used to determine when conditions in foreign areas pose
the threat of physical harm or imminent danger to servicemembers on
duty in these locations. DOD conducted 6 annual reviews between 1992
and 2006. When conducting reviews, DOD has queried combatant commanders
using a set of factors to determine the nature of threats to
servicemembers. However, DOD has not incorporated these factors into
its guidance. By conducting annual reviews in accordance with its
guidance, DOD could strengthen its oversight of IDP designations to
ensure that conditions in designated areas continue to pose the threat
of physical harm or imminent danger to servicemembers and that these
areas should continue to be designated.
Internal controls over servicemembers‘ temporary duty travel to areas
designated for IDP or CZTR benefits need to be strengthened. While two
DOD components have instituted policies to regulate and monitor cross-
month travel to these areas, there is no similar departmentwide policy
to ensure that travel to areas designated for IDP or CZTR benefits
needs to cross calendar months. Data limitations prevented GAO from
determining the full extent of temporary duty travel to areas
designated for IDP and CZTR benefits, as well as how much of this
travel crosses calendar months. The U.S. Central Command and U.S. Army,
Europe”which collectively account for 62 percent of IDP areas and 86
percent of CZTR benefit areas”have developed policies and controls to
monitor and regulate cross-month travel to areas designated for IDP and
CZTR benefits to preclude, in their view, the appearance of abuse of
these benefits. By establishing internal controls such as a
departmentwide policy and periodic audits to monitor cross-month
travel, DOD could ensure all areas are covered and further strengthen
its management of IDP and CZTR benefits.
DOD tracks IDP costs and servicemembers‘ compensation that qualifies
for CZTR benefits. While DOD reports the cost of IDP to Congress as
part of its budget request, the department does not report
servicemembers‘ compensation that qualifies for CZTR benefits. Combat
zone tax relief benefits could allow servicemembers to exclude a
significant portion of their income from federal taxes. Reporting data
on CZTR benefits to Congress could provide information on the extent of
this benefit and aid Congress in its oversight role.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD strengthen management of IDP and CZTR benefits,
and added a matter for congressional consideration to improve reporting
DOD generally agreed with two recommendations and disagreed with a
third one to monitor cross-month travel.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1011].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sharon Pickup at (202)
512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the National
Capital Region's (NRC) September 2006 homeland security strategic
plan.[Footnote 1] A well-defined, comprehensive homeland security
strategic plan for the NCR is essential for assuring that the region is
prepared for the risks it faces, whether those risks are from nature or
human action. We reported on NCR strategic planning, among other
issues, in May 2004 and September 2004, testified before the House
Committee on Government Reform in June 2004, and testified before your
Committee in July 2005 and March 2006.[Footnote 2] In 2004 and 2005, we
recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
work with the NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan
to establish goals and priorities to enhance first responder capacities
that can be used to guide the use of federal emergency preparedness
funds--a recommendation that the department agreed to implement.
In March 2006, I commented on the status of the NCR strategic planning
and again emphasized that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security should work with the NCR jurisdictions to quickly complete a
coordinated strategic plan. To improve the plan's effectiveness as it
was being developed, we provided six characteristics we considered to
be desirable for a regional homeland security strategy. These
characteristics included (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; (2)
problem definition and risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate
activities, and performance measures; (4) resources, investments, and
risk management; (5) organizational roles, responsibilities, and
coordination; and (6) integration and implementation.
Today, my statement provides our assessment of the recently completed
NCR homeland security strategic plan and the extent to which the new
plan includes the six characteristics and how the substance of the plan
might be further strengthened when the plan is reviewed and possibly
revised. We did our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Summary:
The September 2006 NCR homeland security strategic plan includes the
six characteristics we consider to be desirable for a regional homeland
security strategy. To illustrate, the plan includes regional priorities
and presents the rationale for the goals and related objectives and
initiatives. This includes information on how the plan addresses
national priorities and targeted capabilities from the National
Preparedness Goal,[Footnote 3] an Emergency Management Accreditation
Program (EMAP) [Footnote 4] assessment of local and regional
preparedness and emergency management capabilities against recognized
national standards, and DHS's Nationwide Plan Review of emergency
plans.[Footnote 5] The plan structure is more streamlined, containing
an overview, core plan, and detailed appendix with information on
factors such as risks, costs, and roles and responsibilities.
However, the substance of the information within these six
characteristics could be improved to guide decision makers. Additional
information could be provided regarding the type, nature, scope, or
timing of planned goals, objectives, and initiatives; performance
expectations and measures; designation of priority initiatives to meet
regional risk and needed capabilities; lead organizations for
initiative implementation; resources and investments; and operational
commitment. Two examples: (1) the plan does not reflect a comprehensive
risk assessment for the region, which, when completed, may alter some
of the priorities in the current plan; and (2) although the NCR plan
defines objectives as being key, measurable milestones for reaching
each goal, many objectives include language such as "strengthen,"
"enhance," "increase," "improve," and "expand." Several of our
observations regarding potential plan substance are the same as those
we provided in our March 2006 testimony.
Background:
The Homeland Security Act established the Office of National Capital
Region Coordination within the Department of Homeland
Security.[Footnote 6] The ONCRC is responsible for overseeing and
coordinating federal programs for and relationships with state, local,
and regional authorities in the NCR and for assessing and advocating
for the resources needed by state, local, and regional authorities in
the NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland. One of the ONCRC
mandates is to coordinate with federal, state, local, 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.
In our earlier work, we reported that the ONCRC and the NCR faced
interrelated challenges in managing federal funds in a way that
maximizes the increase in first responder capacities and preparedness
while minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of
expenditures. One of these challenges included a coordinated regionwide
plan for establishing first responder performance goals, needs, and
priorities, and assessing the benefits of expenditures in enhancing
first responder capabilities.
All states and urban areas are to align existing preparedness
strategies within the National Preparedness Goal's eight national
priorities.[Footnote 7] An overarching national priority for the
National Preparedness Goal is the embracing of regional approaches to
building, sustaining, and sharing capabilities at all levels of
government. DHS required states and urban areas, including the NCR, to
assess their preparedness needs by reviewing their existing programs
and capabilities and using those findings to develop a plan and formal
investment justification outlining major statewide, sub-state, or
interstate initiatives for which they will seek federal funding under
the Homeland Security Grant Program. The target capabilities are
intended to serve as a benchmark against which states, regions, and
localities can measure their own capabilities. According to DHS, the
funding initiatives are to focus efforts on how to build and sustain
programs and capabilities within and across state boundaries while
aligning with the National Preparedness Goal and national priorities.
In fiscal year 2006 DHS funding guidance, regional collaboration
included specific implementation benchmarks. These benchmarks included
(1) formalizing mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities and
states to share equipment, personnel, and facilities during
emergencies; (2) conducting exercises of the execution of mutual aid
agreements to identify the challenges and familiarize officials with
resources that are available in the region; and (3) coordinating
homeland security preparedness assistance expenditures and planning
efforts on a regional basis to avoid duplicative or inconsistent
investments.
In earlier work on effective regional coordination for emergency
preparedness, we defined regional coordination as the use of
governmental resources in a complementary way toward goals and
objectives that are mutually agreed upon by various stakeholders in a
region.[Footnote 8] In later work for this Committee on federal agency
collaboration, we defined collaboration in a similar manner, defining
it as any joint activity by two or more organizations intended to
produce more public value than could be produced when the organizations
act alone.[Footnote 9] Successful coordination or collaboration occurs
not only vertically among federal, state, and local governments, but
also across jurisdictions within regions. In the coordination or
collaborative effort, strategic plans can be effective tools to focus
resources and efforts to address problems through features such as
goals and objectives that are measurable and quantifiable. By
specifying goals and objectives, plans can also give planners and
decision makers a structure for allocating funding to those goals and
objectives. A well-defined, comprehensive homeland security strategic
plan for the NCR is essential for assuring that the region is prepared
for the risks it faces.
In advance of our March 2006 testimony, Office of the National Capital
Region Coordination officials provided us with several documents that
they said when taken as a whole constituted the basic elements of NCR's
strategic plan, such as a November 2005 document containing information
on NCR strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives and February and
March 2006 documents related to homeland security grant program
funding. In our testimony, we outlined desirable characteristics for a
strategic plan based on past work.[Footnote 10] The desirable
characteristics, adjusted for a regional strategy, are:
* Purpose, scope, and methodology that address why the strategy was
produced, the scope of its coverage, and the process by which it was
developed.
* Problem definition and risk assessment that address the particular
regional problems and threats the strategy is directed towards.
* Goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures
that address what the strategy is trying to achieve, steps to achieve
those results, as well as the priorities, milestones, and performance
measures to gauge results.
* Resources, investments, and risk management that address what the
strategy will cost, the sources and types of resources and investments
needed, and where resources and investments should be targeted by
balancing risk reductions and costs.
* Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination that address
who will be implementing the strategy, what their roles will be
compared to those of others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate
their efforts.
* Integration and implementation that address how a regional strategy
relates to other strategies' goals, objectives and activities, and to
state and local governments within their region and their plans to
implement the strategy.
The NCR Strategic Plan Contains Desirable Characteristics, but
Additional Information Could be Provided:
The plan's structure contains the six characteristics and related
elements that we identified in earlier work as desirable in a national
strategy that would also be useful for a regional approach to homeland
security strategic planning. Instead of the multiple documents provided
in advance of our March 2006 testimony, the plan is now one document
with three parts--an overview, a core plan, and appendices with more
detailed information. The core plan includes information on purpose,
scope, and methodology; goals and objectives; problem definition and
risk assessment; implementation and sustainment of the strategic plan,
including organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and
alignment with other strategies and planning efforts. The appendix
document provides extensive information on initiatives, including
priorities, rationale, key tasks and programs, estimates of costs and
cost assumptions, types of resources and investments, time frame, the
lead organization responsible for each initiative, and performance
assessment information, including measures, baselines, and targets. The
plan will be reviewed and updated on a 3-year cycle.
However, the substance of the information within several of the six
characteristics could be further strengthened as the plan is reviewed
and revised to enable the NCR jurisdictions set clear priorities and
sustain their collaborative efforts. As I will point out, several of
our observations regarding improvements are the same as those we
provided in our March 2006 testimony.
Plan Purpose, Scope, and Methodology:
The first desirable characteristic is purpose, scope, and methodology-
-addressing why the strategy was produced, the scope of its coverage,
and the process by which it was developed. Elements of this
characteristic include, for example, what major functions, mission
areas, or activities it covers; principles or theories that guided its
development; and the process to produce the strategy.
The plan includes a section on purpose, scope, and methodology. For
example, according to the strategic plan document, the plan is intended
to provide a framework and guidance for programming, budgeting, and
execution of homeland security programs in the NCR over the next 3
years and serve as the basis for planning for the next 5 years. Scope
information discusses regionwide mission areas and initiatives and
notes that the strategic plan is not an operational plan and is not a
replacement for local and state emergency operations plan. Its purpose
is not to be an investment plan and, therefore, does not allocate
funding to any initiatives or change the funding, budgeting, and
resource allocation processes for individual funding sources.
The plan describes its development by the NCR Partners--a group
consisting of the NCR's local, state, regional, and federal entities;
citizen community groups; private-sector organizations; non-profit
organizations; and non-governmental organizations. The plan describes
the consensus-based process guided by the NCR's Homeland Security
Senior Policy Group (SPG).
Problem Definition and Risk Assessment:
The second desirable characteristic is problem definition and risk
assessment--addressing the particular regional problems and threats the
strategy is directed toward. Elements of this characteristic include,
for example, a discussion or definition of problems, their causes, and
operating environment, and risk assessment, including an analysis of
threats and vulnerabilities.
Risk-and Capabilities-Based Approach:
The plan describes the approach used to identify threats,
vulnerabilities, and consequences of the risks facing the region. The
plan focuses attention and resources on initiatives that address the
highest risks for the region. The document states that numerous gap and
shortfall analyses, conducted by the NCR's homeland security senior
leaders and independent analysts, helped define the plan's four goals.
Further, it is stated that each state jurisdiction also completed an
extensive hazard analysis.
Although the plan states that a combined risk-and capabilities-based
approach was used, it also recognizes the need for a more formal, in-
depth risk assessment based on a common framework and includes a major
priority initiative to meet this need.[Footnote 11] The plan states
that over the past few years, several vulnerability assessments have
been completed for the NCR and its member institutions, but our
assessment of the plan indicates that information from past assessments
may not have been fully utilized. According to the plan, one initiative
calls for the development of a NCR risk assessment methodology and a
regionwide threat analysis, leveraging assessments and analyses to date
conducted by the states, local jurisdictions, and federal partners.
Another initiative is to create a high priority list of recommended
critical infrastructure protective actions based on security assessment
findings already completed and shared with the NCR.
It is unfortunate that the strategic plan's goals do not yet reflect
the completion and maintenance of a comprehensive, integrated risk
assessment for the region. We noted in our March 2006 testimony that in
the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the
creation of the ONCRC in 2003, we would have expected that the vast
majority of risk assessment work should have been completed. An ongoing
risk assessment methodology should be in place to identify emerging
risks.
Capability Development:
Until the new risk assessment is completed, the plan states the NCR is
utilizing a compilation of regional gaps in capabilities, some the same
as those identified in the EMAP assessment, considered alongside threat
and impact factors, in developing strategic plan goals, objectives and
prioritization of initiatives. These regional capability gaps included
(1) standardized alert notification procedures; (2) regional mitigation
plan; (3) regionwide strategic communications plan; (4) public
information dissemination during all phases of emergencies; (5)
inclusion of the private sector information in planning; (6) public-
private coordination; (7) analysis of threats, vulnerabilities and
consequences; (8) resource management and prioritization; (9)
understanding of long-term recovery issues; (10) special needs
considerations for response and recovery; (11) mass care; and (12)
infrastructure.
The document states that the plan addresses the EMAP assessment
recommendations and 54 of the 58 EMAP national standards. In addition,
the National Preparedness Goal's 37 capabilities that federal, state,
local, and tribal entities must achieve to perform critical tasks for
homeland security missions served as a target in developing the plan's
initiatives. In the plan, each regional initiative rationale identifies
whether it addresses a national capability from the national target
capabilities list, an EMAP standard, and/or an identified regional gap.
Further, the plan states that it addresses all of the Nationwide Plan
Review's overall emergency and catastrophic planning conclusions for
all states and urban areas. in the nation. Other sources of information
for the strategic planning included the National Capital Region Program
and Capability Enhancement Plan, the Nationwide Plan Review, and the
National Preparedness Goal and related target capabilities.
We are encouraged that the NCR plan emphasizes enhancing capabilities
consistent with currently known regional capability shortfalls and
others based on a variety of information sources. It is clear that a
great deal of work has gone into identifying needed capabilities as
part of the planning approach.
In revising the plan, NCR officials might consider two observations.
First, although the plan recognized the importance of the Nationwide
Plan Review's specific phase 2 findings for the NCR emergency plans and
the status of catastrophic and evacuation planning, it did not reflect
specific NCR findings. As you know, the review was conducted in
response to the shortfalls in preparedness identified during Hurricane
Katrina. A brief scorecard presenting Review NCR findings provided to
us said that, overall, the DHS review found the NCR plan's adequacy,
feasibility, and acceptability not sufficient to meet the requirements
of a catastrophic incident. While the assessment found the NCR's
resource management annex and communications annex sufficient to meet
the requirements of a catastrophic incident, others were only partially
sufficient or not sufficient, including the basic plan, direction and
control annex, warning annex, emergency public information annex,
evacuation annex, mass care annex, and the health and medical annex.
According to NCR officials, the assessment tools of the Review and the
EMAP assessment were flawed because they focus on a single
jurisdiction, not a multi-jurisdictional approach. In addition, the
assessments assume that the entity under review is an operational
jurisdiction which the NCR is not. NCR officials told us they found the
reviews of limited usefulness because of this flaw. The officials said
NCR states have individual state plan reviews that are more valid.
However, they said the NCR addressed findings they thought were
appropriate and useful and did focus on the national findings, which
are included in the NCR strategic plan. If the plan was to include all
sources of capability gaps, to guide problem definition and risk
assessment, NCR officials should consider if it would be useful to
describe the specific Review's findings for the NCR that the officials
did accept, and align plan objectives and specific initiatives to those
accepted findings.
Also, instead of referencing preparedness capabilities from different
sources, it might be more useful for the plan to have one set of
capabilities for action. This would integrate all sources of necessary
capabilities (and their varying definitions) into a common set on which
the region agrees, whether the source of the needed capability is
national goal directives, assessment standards, or individual regional
gap analysis. This integration might also include remarks on the
progress in developing a capability. While all of the capabilities may
be important, it is unclear from the plan those capabilities are fully
or partially developed and those that remain to be developed.
Milestones and the priority designations at the initiative level
provide an indication of progress, but it is difficult for the reader
to understand what is the complete picture of the status of individual
capability implementation.
Goals, Subordinate Objectives, Activities, and Performance Measures:
The third desirable characteristic is goals, subordinate objectives,
activities, and performance measures--addressing what the strategy is
trying to achieve, steps to achieve those results, as well as the
priorities, milestones, and performance measures to gauge results.
Elements of this characteristic include, for example, a hierarchy of
strategic goals and subordinate objectives and priorities, milestones,
and outcome-related performance measures.
The NCR homeland security strategic plan includes the region's four
long-term homeland security strategic goals and related objectives for
the next 3 to 5 years. Specific initiatives are described for each
objective, with cost estimates and performance measures for fiscal
years 2007 through 2009.[Footnote 12] The NCR's strategic plan vision,
mission, goals, and objectives are shown in table 1. According to the
document, each goal has equal standing.
Table 1: NCR Homeland Security Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives:
Vision: Working together towards a safe and secure National Capital
Region;
Mission: Build and sustain an integrated effort to prepare for,
prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from "all-hazards"
threats or events.
Goals: Planning and Decisionmaking: A collaborative culture for
planning, decision-making and implementation across the NCR;
Objectives for each goal: Strengthen the regional approach to homeland
security planning and decision-making;
Establish an NCR-wide process to identify and close gaps using public
and private resources;
Enhance oversight of and accountability for the management of
investments and capabilities.
Goals: Community Engagement: An informed and prepared community of
those who live, work, and visit within the region, engaged in the
safety and security of the NCR;
Objectives for each goal: Increase public preparedness through
education campaigns and emergency messaging before, during, and after
emergencies; Strengthen the partnerships and communications among the
NCR's public, civic, private, and NGO stakeholders.
Goals: Prevention and Protection: An enduring capability to protect the
NCR by preventing or mitigating "all-hazards" threats or events;
Objectives for each goal: Develop and maintain common regional
standards for planning, equipping, training, operating, and exercising;
Strengthen the exchange and analysis of information across disciplines
for improved situational awareness; Employ a performance-and risk-based
approach to critical infrastructure protection across the NCR.
Goals: Response And Recovery: A sustained capacity to respond to and
recover from "all-hazards" events across the NCR;
Objectives for each goal: Develop and implement integrated response and
recovery plans, policies, and standards; Strengthen all components of
an integrated regionwide response and recovery capability; Improve and
expand effective resource sharing systems and standards; Identify and
close gaps in long-term recovery capabilities.
Source: NCR Homeland Security Strategic Plan.
[End of table]
Strategic Goals and Objectives:
The four NCR strategic goals are defined as broadly stated long-term
outcomes that, if reached, collectively enable the NCR jurisdictions to
realize the NCR's vision. The objectives in the strategic plan are
defined as key, measurable milestones along the path toward reaching
each goal. Similar to performance goals under the Government
Performance and Results Act,[Footnote 13] the objectives should be
based on the strategic goals and help to determine the achievement of
strategic goals. For future plan assessments, NCR officials might
consider developing strategic performance expectations where
substantive action is needed and describe the full set of objectives
needed to achieve planned goals.
The plan describes an evolution of the strategic plan beginning with
consensus building for close to a year (August 2004 to June 2005),
initiative development for several months (June 2005 to November 2005),
and program management and implementation for another 7 months (January
2006 to July 2006). However, Goal 1--covering planning and
decisionmaking--has objectives to strengthen regional planning and
decisionmaking, establish a process to identify and close preparedness
gaps, and enhance oversight and accountability. It is unclear why these
efforts over this amount of time have not produced well-established
planning and decision-making processes and responsibilities. NCR
officials should assess if future plans might focus on the remaining
three goals that emphasize preparedness, prevention, protection,
response, and recovery.
Further, the plan states that the 12 objectives presented in the plan
are essential, but not necessarily sufficient to attain these goals.
This raises the question of what is missing and what is the potential
impact of the missing elements on achieving the plan's goals. The plan
states that additional objectives will emerge to take the place of
those already accomplished, but provides no further details of what
might be sufficient now to meet the plan's goal. While any strategic
plan is considered a "living" document, at the point of its initial
issuance or revision, it should strive to be as complete as possible,
particularly when the objectives are considered milestones toward the
accomplishment of each goal.
Steps to Achieve Results:
In addition to the plan's goals and objectives, initiatives to achieve
the objectives complete the core of the NCR strategic plan. The plan
identifies 30 initiatives, with 14 prioritized based on their alignment
with and support of national priorities, DHS target capabilities, and
regional gaps. The 14 priority initiatives, according to the plan, are
to be considered first in line for implementation and funding, with the
other initiatives considered secondary in terms of execution. In our
March 2006 testimony, we noted that any future NCR strategic plan
should include a review of initiatives to determine if the initiatives
will fully meet the results expected of the objectives. The initiatives
appear overall to reflect the objectives' general intent.
However, NCR officials might consider clarifying the plan's distinction
between priority and non-priority initiatives in achieving the
objectives. For example, goal 1 has four of its six initiatives labeled
as priorities. These include initiatives such as developing and
periodically updating the strategic plan and related processes and
establishing regional oversight and accountability. The initiative
under this goal to develop an investment life-cycle planning approach
to ensure infrastructure and resources are available to support multi-
year operational capabilities was seen as a secondary initiative. The
plan does not present a rationale for making this a secondary
initiative when it can be argued that a functioning life-cycle
investment process is essential to identifying and managing the
resources needed to sustain key preparedness and response capabilities,
once established.
Performance Measures:
The NCR strategic plan contains a measure for each goal, measure(s) for
each objective, and an initiative performance assessment consisting of
a measure (performance indicator), current baseline performance, and
performance targets. For example, the measure for goal 1 (planning and
decisionmaking) is support for NCR plans and decisions among NCR
partners and stakeholders, measured by a survey. The first objective's
(strengthen the regional approach to planning and decision making)
measures include (1) stakeholder satisfaction with the strategic plan
as determined by survey and (2) NCR Partners' satisfaction with program
plans as determined by survey. One initiative's (developing and
updating the plan and related processes) measure under this objective
is the time to develop and adopt a strategic plan with the baseline
performance of 2 years and a target to be adopted by September 2006.
The NCR plan defines objectives as being key, measurable milestones
along the path toward reaching each goal. Many objectives include
language such as "strengthen," "enhance," "increase," "improve," and
"expand." These objective statements have their own measures to define
performance. For example, one current objective is "strengthen the
exchange and analysis of information across disciplines for improved
situational awareness." Its measure is "participants' after-the-fact
informed ratings of their situational awareness during test and real
events."
In our March testimony, we only addressed measurement at the initiative
level. With three levels of measurement--goal, objective, and
initiative, the NCR might further refine the measures for full
measurement coverage and yet not duplicate measurement. For example,
the goal 1 measure is virtually the same as the measures for objective
1.1 under the goal. The other two objectives' measures address
implementation of countermeasures and satisfied performance
commitments, which do not appear to be measured by the goal measure.
Further, measurement at the initiative level is very important as these
serve as the means to achieve the objectives and, in turn, the
strategic goals. In our March testimony, we stated that a NCR strategic
plan could more fully measure initiative expectations by improving
performance measures and targets. The performance measures should
readily lend themselves to actual quantitative or qualitative
measurement through a tabulation, a calculation, a recording of
activity or effort, or an assessment of results that is compared to an
intended purpose. In our work on results management practices, we have
found that leading organizations said they used a diversity of
performance comparisons, depending on the goal, to set performance
targets. The comparisons included (1) predefined performance
specifications, (2) future performance levels or changes in levels to
be achieved at a later date, (3) best practice benchmarks from other
organizations, and (4) program implementation milestones.
Our earlier testimony also stated that a strategic plan could be
improved by (1) expanding the use of outcome measures and targets in
the plan to reflect the results of its activities and (2) limiting the
use of other types of measures. The NCR strategic plan uses a variety
of measures and comparisons at the initiative level, and I see this as
a valuable approach for future strategic plans. The current strategic
plan also has emphasized outcome measures. The NCR might consider
reviewing the many output measures that remain, such as "regional
emergency messaging tests per year," "number of registered volunteers,"
and "average hours of training per volunteer" to see if they might
become more outcome-oriented.
While the new NCR strategic plan has markedly improved its initiative
measures over those presented in documents in advance of the final
plan, further attention may be warranted. For example, a few measures
are not clearly defined or will be difficult to measure, such as
"improvement in performance-and risk-based assessment results,"
"utilization rates for collaboration and information-sharing systems,"
and "proportion of desired information exchanges occurring." In
addition, some measures do not assess the initiative. For example, one
initiative is to "design and conduct a risk-based threat analysis to
identify gaps in regional preparedness." The measure is "[Chief
Administrative Officers Committee] rating on the usefulness of threat
analysis in decision-making." This measure is essentially a general
satisfaction survey. Two measures for the initiative for establishing a
regional oversight and accountability function with appropriate tools
and resources for performance accountability are "utilization rates for
collaboration and information-sharing systems" and "Partners' awareness
of NCR activity status." Neither of these two measures directly assess
establishing an oversight and accountability system.
Milestones:
In March, we said that a future NCR strategic plan could also be
strengthened by including more complete time frames for initiative
accomplishment, including specific milestones and having time frames
matching the initiative. The new strategic plan has identified
milestones for all key tasks and programs under each initiative, as
well as overall timeframe within the strategic planning cycle. The
specification of the milestone information helps the reader to better
understand the sequencing of actions.
However, NCR officials may want to review the distribution of the
milestones. The strategic plan's implementation time frame is for the
period fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2009. However, the strategic plan's
initiatives are heavily weighted for completion by the end of fiscal
year 2007.[Footnote 14] Based on the milestone dates provided in the
plan, 18 of the 30 initiatives are planned to be complete by that time
and another 9 by the end of fiscal year 2008. A few initiatives appear
to be close to completion based on completed milestones or those that
will soon be completed. Their inclusion may reflect a desire to record
accomplishments to date. For example, initiative milestones for
objective 1 under goal 1 (planning and decisionmaking) reflect actions
to be taken before September 2006 when the new plan was approved.
Resources, Investments, and Risk Management:
The fourth desirable characteristic is resources, investments, and risk
management--addressing what the strategy will cost, the sources and
types of resources and investments needed, and where resources and
investments should be targeted by balancing risk reductions and costs.
Examples of elements for this characteristic include resources and
investments associated with the strategy, sources of resources, and
risk management principles.
In March, we testified that a future NCR strategic plan could provide
fuller information on the resources and investments associated with
each initiative. More specific cost information by initiative, such as
funded and unfunded grant information, would facilitate decision making
in comparing trade-offs as options are considered.
As mentioned earlier, the NCR strategic plan includes costs for each
initiative. Cost estimates are stated in a rough order of magnitude,
providing an estimate of the scale range of cost to inform the launch
of individual initiative operational planning. The costs of the
initiatives range from over $100 million to nearly $150 million, with
some initiative cost data still in development. Data are also provided
on resource investment and projects for each initiative. The plan
states that funding source identification, investment justification,
and allocation decisions will be made as a part of the implementation
planning process. Funding source analysis and allocation is not part of
the NCR strategic planning effort.
Building and sustaining the needed capabilities in the NCR will require
the effective use of federal, state, and local funds. Identifying
resource and investment information, including types and sources of
resources--at least at a high level--would better define how
initiatives will be funded and when. In the absence of such
information, it is difficult to judge if the 30 initiatives, including
those considered priorities, are likely to be implemented within the
planned time frames. This is particularly important as the plan notes
that due to recent action by the administration in allocating Urban
Area Strategic Initiative fiscal year 2006 funds for the NCR ($46.5
million, rather than the requested $188 million), when and to what
extent the NCR can implement the initiatives remains uncertain. The
UASI funding decision was made several months prior to the approval of
the strategic plan. Therefore, the plan should recognize that if the
plan's initiatives are to be implemented on schedule, especially those
with milestones in the coming year, NCR jurisdictions will need to
contribute more than originally anticipated toward their completion.
Organizational Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination:
The fifth desirable characteristic is organizational roles,
responsibilities, and coordination--addressing who will be implementing
the strategy, what their roles will be compared to others, and
mechanisms for them to coordinate their efforts. Examples of elements
for this characteristic include lead, support, and partner roles and
responsibilities; an accountability and oversight framework; and
specific processes for coordination and collaboration.
Our March testimony noted that any future NCR strategic plan could
expand on organizational roles, responsibilities, coordination, and
integration and implementation plans. Organizational roles,
responsibilities, and coordination for each initiative would clarify
accountability and leadership for completion of the initiative. I also
said the plan might include information on how the plan will be
integrated with the strategic plans of NCR jurisdictions and that of
the ONCRC and plans to implement the regional strategy.
NCR Governance:
The new plan's description of organizational roles, responsibilities,
and coordination provides detailed information concerning NCR
governance. The plan states that at the strategic level, NCR Partners
review assessments of regional capabilities and develop a long-term
homeland security strategy for enhancing prioritized capabilities.
Additional overarching guidance, such as budget and policy documents,
is also issued at this level to facilitate activities at the levels
below. Regional priorities are formulated at the strategic level
through an iterative process of consensus-building among
representatives from the key stakeholders of the NCR, represented by
three key governance groups: the Senior Policy Group (SPG),
representing state-level interests; the Chief Administrative Officers
Committee (CAO), representing local government level interests; and the
Regional Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC), representing broader NCR
stakeholder interests.
The plan states SPG membership consists of senior officials from
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and DHS and the Director
for the ONCRC. The group exercises oversight of the implementation and
funding process and determines priority actions for both increasing
regional preparedness and response capabilities and reducing
vulnerability to terrorist attacks. According to the plan, the SPG
ensures full integration of NCR activities by providing final approval
for programs within the NCR as well all projects within a program. The
SPG oversees directors of the regional working groups in guiding the
execution of their work on approved homeland security initiatives,
programs, and projects. The SPG, it is said, is ultimately accountable
for the impact of the work at the program level of the NCR. The Chief
Administrative Officers are city and county-level administrators who
serve on the CAO Committee on Homeland Security. They work in
partnership with the SPG members on all strategic matters, operating
more as a single unit. The CAO Committee, along with the SPG members,
served as key architects of the strategic plan.
The plan describes the Regional Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC) as
an advisory body established by the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Government (MWCOG) Board of Directors and includes a broad array of
representatives from each of the NCR's stakeholder categories.
According to the plan, the EPC makes policy, procedural, and other
recommendations to the MWCOG Board or through the MWCOG Board to
various regional agencies with emergency preparedness responsibilities
or operational response authority. In addition, the plan notes
representatives of the private sector have a critical advisory role in
the region's strategic planning process. The private sector is
represented on the Regional Emergency Preparedness Council, Regional
Emergency Support Function Committees, and Regional Program Working
Groups.
Lead Organizations:
One element of the characteristic regarding roles, responsibilities,
and coordination we recommended for a strategic plan is specifying who
has lead, support, and partner roles and responsibilities. In the plan,
a lead organization is identified for each initiative. According to the
plan, the initiative leads are responsible for the definition,
development, and enhancement of the initiatives. They are to provide
oversight for the performance of the initiative against the goals and
objectives.
In our view, the lead organizations are extremely important to the
success of the strategic plan. However, the leads for the 30
initiatives are dispersed across multiple organizations, many of which
are emergency support function groups, regional working groups, or the
NCR's Homeland Security Grants and Program Office. It is not clear if
these organizations have the authority, resources, or mechanisms to
carry out all of their roles, responsibilities, and coordination duties
in implementing the plan. For example, the plan describes the regional
working groups as consisting of practitioners, policymakers, and
representatives from both the civic and private sectors who have many
duties, including filling gaps not covered by any of the existing
regional emergency support functions. The Grants and Program Office
manages grant performance, provides staff support for various working
groups, and manages NCR processes relating to implementation and grant
deadlines. These organizations may not be able to establish policies,
procedures, and other means to direct initiative implementation. As the
strategic plan is implemented, it may be useful for the NCR to
carefully assess initiative leadership and make adjustments as
necessary to ensure implementation of the plan.
Integration and Implementation:
The final desirable characteristic is integration and implementation--
addressing how a regional strategy relates to other strategies' goals,
objectives, and activities, and to state and local governments within
their region and their plans to implement the strategy. Examples of
elements include, for example, horizontal and vertical integration;
details on specific federal, state, local or private strategies and
plans; and implementation guidance.
The document states that the strategic plan is but one part of a family
of plans at the strategic, programmatic, budget, and operational levels
existing within the NCR. The plan is intended to align jurisdictional
strategy planning efforts with national efforts and provide a mechanism
for NCR Partner input and guidance into jurisdiction programmatic and
budgetary planning processes. The plan is intended to identify common
goals, objectives, and initiatives implemented over the 3 to 5 years of
the plan. One initiative is designed to align and integrate response
plans across the jurisdictions, with emphasis on continuity of
government, operations, and evacuation.
The plan document states that the plan does not (1) dictate how the NCR
should spend its homeland security funds and (2) address operational
level issues or require operational plans at the regional level.
Although the plan does not directly affect the jurisdictional and
emergency function operational plans (e.g., local hazard mitigation
plans, emergency response) or address operational level issues, the
plan is intended to influence specific capabilities resourced by the
jurisdictions that support operational plans. According to the plan,
detailed operational plans, where necessary, will be updated by
initiative leads as the strategic initiatives are implemented.
The plan also states that the state homeland security investments made
in the jurisdictions comprising the NCR must take into account their
own regional considerations. The plan itself notes that the priorities
for preparedness in the homeland security plans for Virginia, Maryland,
and the District of Columbia reflect unique assessments of the threats
and vulnerabilities across each jurisdiction and have varying strategic
plan priorities. The annual review of the strategic plan is timed to
correspond with the federal, Maryland, Virginia, and District of
Columbia budget cycles, which should, according to the plan, facilitate
the acquisition of funding for initiative projects. As the plan is
implemented, the jurisdictions should, according to the plan, be able
to determine their level of contribution and commitment to the
achievement of the plan's goals and initiatives. The plan describes the
commitment of District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland officials to
a collaborative approach in eight specific areas, which the plan states
are addressed by at least one of the NCR strategic plan goals.[Footnote
15]
For all initiatives, the plan document notes that the Emergency
Preparedness Council will convene a quarterly performance review. In
these sessions, each initiative lead will present the performance
results of their initiative. Initiative leads will present their
results compared with the pre-defined targets; analysis of results,
trends, and root causes; and recommended actions to maximize
performance. The Emergency Preparedness Council will discuss this
information, make decisions, and issue direction to improve project
performance as necessary. While an initiative is in the implementation
stage, the review session is to serve as a project management aid,
reviewing schedule and budget status versus milestones and exercising
implementation management actions. When a plan initiative is completed,
the document states its review will transition to an outcome-oriented
performance discussion.
One of the plan's initiatives is to establish a regional oversight and
accountability function with appropriate tools and resources for
performance transparency. According to the milestones, NCR entities
will report against the measures in January 2007 and performance
reviews will be in March 2007.
As we testified in March, implementation of regional initiatives not
covered by Homeland Security Grant Program funding likely would require
NCR jurisdictions acting individually or in combination with others. If
the plan is intended to align regional with state and local efforts
through identification of common goals, objectives, and initiatives
implemented by the jurisdictions over the 3 to 5 years of the plan, it
is critical that jurisdictional plans reflect the regional goals,
objectives, and initiatives. Although the plan notes that the District
of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland have a commitment to the eight
critical areas previously mentioned, it is not known what the actual
commitment is to all of the goals, objectives, and initiatives in the
NCR plan.
Our work to date has not included an assessment of individual
jurisdictional commitment or planned efforts to implement the NCR
strategic plan goals, objectives, and initiatives to determine if
unfunded initiatives, particularly those considered priority
initiatives, might be addressed by one or more of the NCR
jurisdictions. While the NCR strategic plan might guide or influence
implementation of the initiatives, there is no guarantee state and
local plans and related investments will respond to the initiatives.
Even if the NCR jurisdictions initially commit to the plan's
initiatives, with performance monitored by the Emergency Preparedness
Council, there is no vehicle or central responsible organization with
the authority to ensure implementation. Further work would be required
to determine to what extent, if any, the NCR initiatives are addressed
in other federal funding applications or individual NCR jurisdictional
homeland security initiatives.
A major organizational and functional challenge noted in the plan is
that the NCR is not organized as an operational entity and does not
have the authority to execute operations as an independent body. The
NCR's authority only exists, the plan notes, to the extent the member
jurisdictions are willing to extend decision-making rights to the NCR.
Under the plan, the SPG is to exercise oversight of the implementation
and funding process and determine priority actions and the EPC is to do
quarterly performance reviews.
However, if regional collaboration and building capabilities in line
with the NCR goals are to become a reality, operational commitment is
necessary. As I stated earlier, the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination was created as a means of coordinating emergency
preparedness and response efforts across the region. The ONCRC is to
oversee and coordinate federal programs for and relationships with NCR
state, local, and regional authorities. One ONCRC mandate is to
coordinate with NCR federal, state, local, and regional agencies and
the private sector on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate
planning, information sharing, training, and execution of domestic
preparedness activities among these agencies and entities. A challenge
for the ONCRC is to work with the NCR jurisdictions to provide
effective oversight, accountability, and overall leadership and
management of the various NCR governance entities such as the Senior
Policy Group and Emergency Preparedness Council to continually assess
the strategic plan's implementation and steps needed to keep
implementation on track.
In addition, the Department of Homeland Security beyond the ONCRC has a
role to play. As we noted in our work on regional coordination, the
federal government can encourage regional coordination through its
grant programs.[Footnote 16] As DHS emphasizes regional coordination
and capability building through implementation of the National
Preparedness Goal, it can provide additional oversight to determine if
regional strategic plans have specific and measurable goals and that
resources are aligned to the goals.
Concluding Observations:
As I stated when last before this Committee, there is no more important
element in results-oriented management than the effort of strategic
planning. Strategic planning defines what an organization seeks to
accomplish, identifies strategies it will use to achieve desired
results, and then determines success in reaching results-oriented goals
and achieving objectives.
The NCR has made considerable progress in developing its first
strategic plan. Although we have noted some remaining limitations and
areas of potential improvement, the NCR strategic plan provides the
basic foundation for regional preparedness, including what is in case
of a catastrophic event. Now, the challenge is ensuring that
initiatives to implement the goals and objectives are funded,
completed, and appropriately assessed to determine if they have
achieved the NCR's strategic goals while continually monitor the plan's
implementation to determine what adjustments are needed for continuing
improvement.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may
have.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For questions regarding this testimony, please contact William O.
Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8757, email jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this testimony. Sharon L. Caudle also made
key contributions to this testimony.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The National Capital Region is composed of the District of Columbia
and nearby jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia.
[2] GAO, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the
National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and
Performance Goals, GAO-04-433 (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004);
Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to Better
Manage First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region, GAO-04-
904T (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004); Homeland Security: Effective
Regional Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness, GAO-04-1009
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2004); Homeland Security: Managing First
Responder Grants to Enhance Emergency Preparedness in the National
Capital Region, GAO-05-889T (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005); and
Homeland Security: The Status of Strategic Planning in the National
Capital Region, GAO-06-559T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2006).
[3] According to DHS, the National Preparedness Goal establishes a
vision for preparedness, identifies target capabilities, provides a
description of each capability, and presents guidance on the levels of
capability that federal, state, local, and tribal entities will be
expected to develop and maintain.
[4] The EMAP is a voluntary assessment and accreditation process for
state/territorial, tribal, and local government emergency management
programs. Among other things, EMAP is intended to provide a structure
for identifying areas in need of improvement and a methodology for
strategic planning and justification of resources. EMAP uses national
emergency management standards along with peer assessment teams to
evaluate a program's activities. These standards are based on the
National Fire Protection Association 1600 standard covering functional
areas such as program management and hazard identification and risk
assessment.
[5] The Nationwide Plan Review reviewed and assessed the status of
catastrophic and evacuation planning in all states and 75 of the
nation's largest urban areas. It also reviewed emergency operations
plans for the nation's major cities.
[6] 6 U.S.C. 462.
[7] Those priorities are (1) implement the National Incident Management
System and National Response Plan; (2) expand regional collaboration;
(3) implement the interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan; (4)
strengthen information-sharing and collaboration capabilities; (5)
strengthen interoperable communications capabilities; (6) strengthen
chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear, and explosive detection,
response, and decontamination capabilities; (7) strengthen medical
surge and mass prophylaxis capabilities; and (8) review emergency
operations plans and the status of catastrophic planning.
[8] GAO-04-1009.
[9] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
21, 2005).
[10] GAO. Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics
in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
[11] According to the National Preparedness Goal, a capability provides
the means to accomplish one or more tasks under specific conditions and
to specific performance standards. A capability may be delivered with
any combination of properly planned, organized, equipped, trained, and
exercised personnel that achieves the intended outcome.
[12] One milestone is targeted for completion for December 2010, but
appears to be beyond the scope of the initiative where it appears,
based on the initiative's description.
[13] P.L. 103-62.
[14] We did not verify the accuracy of the milestones included in the
plan document. Some milestone sequencing would indicate some dates are
not accurate.
[15] The eight areas are (1) decisionmaking, (2) information sharing,
(3) infrastructure protection, (4) public health and safety, (5) mutual
aid agreements, (6) joint "virtual" information center, (7) citizen
corps programs, and (8) coordinated training exercises.
[16] GAO-04-1009.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates.":
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. Government Accountability 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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
