Urban Area Security Initiative
FEMA Lacks Measures to Assess How Regional Collaboration Efforts Build Preparedness Capabilities Gao ID: GAO-09-651 July 2, 2009From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allocated about $5 billion for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program to enhance regional preparedness capabilities in the nation's highest risk urban areas (UASI regions). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers this program. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) required FEMA to change the size of the geographical areas used to assess UASI regions' risk. The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008 directed GAO to assess FEMA's efforts to build regional preparedness through the UASI program, and determine how the 9/11 Act change affected UASI regions. This report addresses (1) the extent to which FEMA assesses how UASI regions' collaborative efforts build preparedness capabilities, and (2) how UASI officials described their collaboration efforts and changes resulting from the 9/11 Act. GAO surveyed all 49 UASI regions that received funding prior to the 9/11 Act change, and visited 6 regions selected based on factors such as length of participation. GAO also reviewed FEMA's grant guidance and monitoring systems.
Although FEMA has gathered and summarized data on UASI regions' funding for specific projects and related preparedness priorities and capabilities, it does not have measures to assess how UASI regions' collaborative efforts have built preparedness capabilities. An executive directive, Departmental policy, and agency guidance all require that preparedness priorities and capabilities be measurable so that FEMA can determine current capabilities, gaps, and assess national resource needs. To report on the performance of the UASI program, FEMA has gathered data on UASI regions' funding for projects and the goals and objectives those projects support, including the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration. However, FEMA's assessments do not provide a means to measure the effect UASI regions' projects have on building regional preparedness capabilities--the goal of the UASI program. FEMA acknowledged a lack of specific measures that define how or whether national priorities--including expanding regional collaboration--are achieved. In the absence of measures, FEMA directed states to describe their collaborative activities. However, these state activities do not provide a means to assess how regional collaboration activities help build preparedness capabilities. FEMA has an effort underway to establish a comprehensive assessment system to appraise the nation's preparedness capabilities. FEMA could build upon its current efforts to assess overall preparedness by developing and including measures related to the collaboration efforts of UASI regions and their effect on building regional preparedness. This could provide FEMA with more meaningful information on the return on investment of the $5 billion it has allocated to the UASI program to date. UASI officials described program activities that they said greatly or somewhat helped support regional collaboration, reflecting factors GAO identified that can enhance and sustain collaboration, and also described a variety of actions taken in response to the 9/11 Act change to assess risk. Regarding program activities that support regional collaboration, of the 49 UASI regions GAO surveyed, 46 said they have active mutual aid agreements in part to share resources among jurisdictions, and 44 described training and exercises as activities they use to build regional preparedness capabilities. Some UASI regions reported changes in membership in response to FEMA's change in the size of the geographical areas used to assess UASI regions' risk. For example, of the 49 regions GAO surveyed, 27 reported that additional jurisdictions were included within the geographical area FEMA used to assess risk that were not included in the region's membership. However, 17 of these regions reported that they had assessed and evaluated the need to include these new jurisdictions in their membership and 3 UASI regions said they plans to do this, while 7 UASI regions said they had no plans to do this.
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-09-651, Urban Area Security Initiative: FEMA Lacks Measures to Assess How Regional Collaboration Efforts Build Preparedness Capabilities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-651
entitled 'Urban Area Security Initiative: FEMA Lacks Measures to Assess
How Regional Collaboration Efforts Build Preparedness Capabilities'
which was released on July 2, 2009.
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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2009:
Urban Area Security Initiative:
FEMA Lacks Measures to Assess How Regional Collaboration Efforts Build
Preparedness Capabilities:
GAO-09-651:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-651, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2009, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) allocated about $5 billion for the Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI) grant program to enhance regional
preparedness capabilities in the nation's highest risk urban areas
(UASI regions). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
administers this program. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) required FEMA to change the size of
the geographical areas used to assess UASI regions‘ risk. The
conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2008 directed GAO to assess FEMA‘s efforts to build
regional preparedness through the UASI program, and determine how the
9/11 Act change affected UASI regions. This report addresses (1) the
extent to which FEMA assesses how UASI regions‘ collaborative efforts
build preparedness capabilities, and (2) how UASI officials described
their collaboration efforts and changes resulting from the 9/11 Act.
GAO surveyed all 49 UASI regions that received funding prior to the
9/11 Act change, and visited 6 regions selected based on factors such
as length of participation. GAO also reviewed FEMA‘s grant guidance and
monitoring systems.
What GAO Found:
Although FEMA has gathered and summarized data on UASI regions‘ funding
for specific projects and related preparedness priorities and
capabilities, it does not have measures to assess how UASI regions‘
collaborative efforts have built preparedness capabilities. An
executive directive, Departmental policy, and agency guidance all
require that preparedness priorities and capabilities be measurable so
that FEMA can determine current capabilities, gaps, and assess national
resource needs. To report on the performance of the UASI program, FEMA
has gathered data on UASI regions‘ funding for projects and the goals
and objectives those projects support, including the National Priority
to Expand Regional Collaboration. However, FEMA‘s assessments do not
provide a means to measure the effect UASI regions‘ projects have on
building regional preparedness capabilities”the goal of the UASI
program. FEMA acknowledged a lack of specific measures that define how
or whether national priorities”including expanding regional
collaboration”are achieved. In the absence of measures, FEMA directed
states to describe their collaborative activities. However, these state
activities do not provide a means to assess how regional collaboration
activities help build preparedness capabilities. FEMA has an effort
underway to establish a comprehensive assessment system to appraise the
nation‘s preparedness capabilities. FEMA could build upon its current
efforts to assess overall preparedness by developing and including
measures related to the collaboration efforts of UASI regions and their
effect on building regional preparedness. This could provide FEMA with
more meaningful information on the return on investment of the $5
billion it has allocated to the UASI program to date.
UASI officials described program activities that they said greatly or
somewhat helped support regional collaboration, reflecting factors GAO
identified that can enhance and sustain collaboration, and also
described a variety of actions taken in response to the 9/11 Act change
to assess risk. Regarding program activities that support regional
collaboration, of the 49 UASI regions GAO surveyed, 46 said they have
active mutual aid agreements in part to share resources among
jurisdictions, and 44 described training and exercises as activities
they use to build regional preparedness capabilities. Some UASI regions
reported changes in membership in response to FEMA‘s change in the size
of the geographical areas used to assess UASI regions‘ risk. For
example, of the 49 regions GAO surveyed, 27 reported that additional
jurisdictions were included within the geographical area FEMA used to
assess risk that were not included in the region‘s membership. However,
17 of these regions reported that they had assessed and evaluated the
need to include these new jurisdictions in their membership and 3 UASI
regions said they plans to do this, while 7 UASI regions said they had
no plans to do this.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that FEMA develop performance measures to assess how
regional collaboration efforts funded by UASI grants build
preparedness. FEMA concurred with our recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-651] or key
components. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr. (202)
512-8777, jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
FEMA Gathers Data and Reports on Funding for Regional Collaboration
Efforts, but Does Not Assess How UASI Regions' Collaborative Efforts
Enhance Regional Preparedness:
UASI Officials Described Program Features That Support Regional
Collaboration but Cited Continuing Challenges; Some UASI Regions
Increased their Membership in Response to Changes in the 9/11 Act:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: DHS's Target Capabilities List:
Appendix II: Results of GAO's Telephone Survey of 49 UASI Regions:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: UASI Grant Program: Funds Allocated for Fiscal Years 2003
through 2009:
Table 2: National Preparedness Guidelines' List of National Priorities:
Table 3: Factors That Characterize Effective Regional Coordination of
Federally Supported Efforts:
Table 4: Collaborative Practices Reflected in the UASI Program:
Table 5: DHS's Target Capabilities List:
Figure:
Figure 1: UASI Projects Related to Regional Collaboration: Top Six
Preparedness Capabilities (in dollars for Fiscal Years 2006 through
2008):
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 2, 2009:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rodgers:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The November 2008 Mumbai attacks, where members of a terrorist group
attacked multiple locations, including transportation, commercial, and
religious facilities, illustrated the propensity of terrorists to
strike high-profile urban targets. To prepare for and respond to such
acts of terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides
grants administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
to state, local, tribal jurisdictions, and urban areas to build and
sustain national preparedness capabilities. From its inception in
fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2009, Congress has appropriated
about $5 billion for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) to
support regional preparedness in the nation's highest risk urban
areas.[Footnote 1] The UASI grant program is designed to distribute
federal funding to an urban region composed of multiple local
governments and first responder agencies rather than a single city. The
purpose of the UASI program is to support regional collaboration among
local jurisdictions and emergency response organizations in order to
build and sustain regional preparedness capabilities necessary to
prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.
Reflecting the requirements of the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act),[Footnote 2] FEMA changed the
way it assessed risk for urban areas in allocating grant funds in 2008.
Previously, FEMA measured the relative risk of UASI regions' using a 10
mile radius around the center city's boundaries. The 9/11 Act required
FEMA to use the boundaries of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for
the 100 largest (by population) areas in determining its 2008 UASI
grant allocations.[Footnote 3] Although the 9/11 Act did not specify
the intent of the change to MSAs, we concluded in June 2008 that using
MSAs provided a more standardized and generally accepted approach to
defining an urban area.[Footnote 4]
In the conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2008, Congress directed that GAO assess how DHS is
implementing a regional approach to preparedness through the UASI
program and what changes to this approach resulted from the relevant 9/
11 Act provisions.[Footnote 5] We conducted this review to answer the
following questions:
* To what extent has FEMA assessed how UASI regions' collaborative
efforts build regional preparedness capabilities?
* How did UASI officials describe their regional collaboration efforts
and changes, if any, resulting from the 9/11 Act?
To determine the extent to which FEMA has assessed how UASI regions'
collaborative efforts build regional preparedness capabilities, we
reviewed DHS strategic policies and guidance such as the National
Preparedness Guidelines and the Target Capabilities List, as well as
FEMA's UASI program policies and guidance.[Footnote 6] Specifically, we
reviewed guidance from the Homeland Security Grant Program that
requires grantees to report on project progress and costs and use
metrics and/or narrative discussions to indicate project progress/
success.[Footnote 7] The guidance also describes how grantees are to
structure their UASI programs, membership and management, and processes
for developing, submitting, and implementing proposed grant projects.
We reviewed FEMA's January 2009 Federal Preparedness Report, and the
information FEMA submitted for OMB's 2008 Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) on the UASI program. [Footnote 8] We observed
demonstrations of two systems FEMA uses to monitor and report on the
status and progress of the use of homeland security grants (the Grant
Reporting Tool and Grant Monitoring Tool), and reviewed documents
supporting another system being developed by FEMA to help grant
recipients assess and prioritize grant project proposals (the Cost To
Capability Initiative). In addition, we analyzed project data submitted
by UASI grantees to FEMA. FEMA maintains this information in its Grant
Reporting Tool, which includes information on the kinds of projects
UASI applicants proposed, how these projects were associated with the
National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration, and the types of
preparedness capabilities UASI grant recipients anticipated would be
increased as a result of these projects. We reviewed all those projects
that supported the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration--
446 projects from the total 2,847 UASI grant projects funded under the
program during this time period. We assessed the reliability of these
data by questioning agency officials about the steps they take to
ensure the integrity of the data, including efforts taken during site
monitoring visits. We also compared the results from our analyses to
other information provided by FEMA. From these efforts we believe that
the data used in our analyses were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. Finally, we interviewed FEMA officials
responsible for implementing, measuring, and monitoring the UASI
program. In addition to the National Preparedness Guidelines and UASI
program guidance, we reviewed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, which also
require measures and assessments of national preparedness.
To determine how UASI officials described their regional collaboration
efforts and the changes, if any, resulting from the 9/11 Act, we
surveyed by telephone all 49 UASI regions that were recipients of UASI
grant funding in fiscal years 2008 and in at least 1 fiscal year prior
to 2008. We based our survey questions in part on our prior work
including best practices for collaboration, factors that support
regional collaboration, and challenges to interagency coordination.
[Footnote 9] We conducted pretests by telephone with representatives of
3 UASI regions to refine our questions, develop new questions, clarify
any ambiguous portions of the questionnaire, and identify any
potentially biased questions. We obtained a 100 percent response rate
to our telephone survey. Because our survey included all 49 UASI
regions that received grant funding as described above, there are no
sampling errors. We also selected a nonprobability sample of 6 UASI
regions to visit.[Footnote 10] We selected these UASI regions based on
several factors, including the length of time the region had
participated in the program, its relative risk ranking (Tier 1--those
at highest risk--or Tier 2), the amount of grant funding received, the
change in geographic footprint resulting from the switch to MSAs, and
geographical diversity. While the results of these site visits cannot
be generalized to all UASI regions, we believe that the observations
obtained from these visits provided us with a general understanding of
the differing extents to which UASI program managers felt their
programs were achieving regional collaboration and what steps, if any,
they took in response to FEMA's change in the definition of a UASI
region for its risk allocation methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2008 through June 2009,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
UASI Grant Program Designed to Build Preparedness Capabilities within
Urban Areas and Support Regional Collaboration:
FEMA created the Grant Programs Directorate on April 1, 2007, in
accordance with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (Post-
Katrina Act), to consolidate the management of emergency preparedness
grants, including the UASI grants. The Grant Programs Directorate's
subject-matter experts are to provide on-site programmatic monitoring
and technical assistance to grantees, while analyzing, evaluating, and
ensuring accountability and program effectiveness. Similarly, FEMA
created the National Preparedness Directorate to carry out key elements
of the national preparedness system, in coordination with other
federal, state, local, tribal, nonprofit, and private-sector
organizations.[Footnote 11] The Directorate includes the National
Integration Center and the Office of Preparedness Policy, Planning, and
Analysis. The Office of Preparedness Policy, Planning, and Analysis is
responsible for developing tools and measures for assessing national
preparedness nationwide.
Since its inception in fiscal year 2003, the purpose of the UASI
program has been to provide federal assistance to build and sustain
regional preparedness capabilities necessary to prevent, protect,
respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism in the nation's highest
risk urban areas, such as information gathering, search and rescue, and
citizen evacuation.[Footnote 12] To administer the UASI program, FEMA
estimates the risk relative to selected urban areas, considering
threat, vulnerability, and consequences. On the basis of this analysis,
it ranks the UASI areas and identifies urban areas as eligible to apply
for UASI funding. DHS and FEMA have increased the number of regions
receiving UASI grant funds from the original 7 areas identified for
funding by DHS in 2003 which received $96.5 million, to 62 areas
designated by FEMA that received $798.6 million in funding in 2009, as
shown in table 1.
Table 1: UASI Grant Program: Funds Allocated for Fiscal Years 2003
through 2009:
Amount allocated; ($ in millions):
2003: $96. 5;
2003 Supplemental: $593.3;
2004: $675;
2005: $829.7;
2006: $710;
2007: $747;
2008: $781.6;
2009: $798.6.
# UASI regions;
2003: 7;
2003 Supplemental: 30;
2004: 50;
2005: 43;
2006: 46;
2007: 46;
2008: 60;
2009: 62.
Source: GAO analysis of UASI grant guidance for fiscal years 2003
through 2009.
[End of table]
As required by the 9/11 Act, FEMA changed the definition it used to
identify the UASI regions included in its risk analysis model.
Specifically, FEMA used this risk analysis model to determine its 2008
UASI grant allocations and changed the definition of UASI regions
included in the model from one that includes a 10-mile radius around an
urban area's center city boundary to Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) as defined by the Census Bureau. In July 2008, we reported on
the effect of this change on FEMA's risk analysis model and risk-based
allocation methodology for determining risk and distributing UASI grant
funds and found the methodology reasonable.[Footnote 13] In addition,
although the 9/11 Act did not specify the intent of the change to MSAs,
we concluded that using MSAs provided a more standardized and generally
accepted approach to defining an urban area. FEMA did not require UASI
grantees to change the number of jurisdictions participating in the
governance of the UASI region as a result of this change, but
recommended in grant guidance that UASI regions expand their efforts to
involve regional preparedness partners (for example, contiguous
jurisdictions, port authorities, rail and transit authorities, campus
law enforcement, and state agencies) in their program activities.
UASI regions' members include local government policymakers, officials
from first responder agencies, and officials from quasi-governmental
authorities like ports and transit agencies. All of these officials are
collectively responsible for coordinating development and
implementation of the projects and programs being conducted with UASI
grant funds. Each UASI region is to develop a charter or other form of
standard operating procedures that addresses such issues as membership,
governance structure, voting rights, grant management and
administration responsibilities, and funding allocation method. The
charter must also outline how decisions made in UASI meetings for that
region will be documented and shared with UASI members. FEMA requires
each UASI region to create its own regional working group, which FEMA's
grant guidance refers to as an urban area working group. UASI grant
guidance requires that membership of a region must include
representation from the jurisdictions and response disciplines that
comprise the region as defined by the urban area's working group.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, UASI grant guidance recommended to urban
areas that they consider for UASI working group membership those
counties within which the cities included in the UASI region reside,
contiguous jurisdictions, and jurisdictions within the region's MSA.
Each year FEMA issues UASI grant guidance that describes the priorities
and requirements for the annual grant cycle. FEMA requires each UASI
region to develop and submit a strategic plan that outlines the
region's common goals, objectives, and steps for implementation of
projects and programs to enhance regional preparedness. This strategy,
known as the Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, is intended to
provide each UASI region with direction for enhancing regional
capabilities. UASI regions must use their strategy as the basis for
requesting funds, and FEMA's grant guidance states that there must be a
clear correlation between the goals, objectives, and priorities
identified in the Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy and UASI
program activities. Once FEMA allocates grant funds, UASI regions are
responsible for coordinating development and implementation of
preparedness projects under the grant program. After funds are awarded,
grantees are required to report every 6 months on progress as part of
the regular grant reporting process. Performance data submitted through
grant reporting are to be reviewed and validated through program
monitoring by FEMA.
National Preparedness Guidelines and Preparedness Capabilities:
In December 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-8 (HSPD-8), which called on the Secretary of Homeland
Security to carry out and coordinate preparedness activities with
public, private, and nonprofit organizations involved in such
activities, and directed that DHS establish measurable readiness
priorities and targets.[Footnote 14] In addition, the Post-Katrina Act
requires FEMA to develop specific, flexible, and measurable guidelines
to define risk-based preparedness (i.e., target) capabilities and to
establish preparedness priorities that reflect an appropriate balance
between the relative risks and resources associated with all
hazards.[Footnote 15] DHS published the National Preparedness
Guidelines in September 2007. Specifically, the purposes of the
Guidelines are to:
* organize and synchronize national--including federal, state, local,
tribal, and territorial--efforts to strengthen national preparedness;
* guide national investments in national preparedness;
* incorporate lessons learned from past disasters into national
preparedness priorities;
* facilitate a capability-based and risk-based investment planning
process; and:
* establish readiness metrics to measure progress and a system for
assessing the nation's overall preparedness capability to respond to
major events, especially those involving acts of terrorism.
The Guidelines describe eight national priorities that are intended to
guide preparedness efforts, as presented in table 2.
Table 2: National Preparedness Guidelines' List of National Priorities:
National Priorities:
* Expand Regional Collaboration.
* Implement the National Incident Management Systems and the National
Response Plan.
* Implement the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.
* Strengthen Information Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities.
* Strengthen Interoperable and Operable Communications Capabilities.
* Strengthen Chemical/Biological/Radiological/Nuclear and/or Explosive
(CBRNE) Detection, Response and Decontamination Capabilities.
* Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Capabilities.
* Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities.
Source: Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness
Guidelines, Sept. 2007.
[End of table]
The National Preparedness Guidelines also define 37 specific
preparedness capabilities that communities, the private sector, and all
levels of government should collectively possess in order to respond
effectively to disasters.[Footnote 16] These preparedness capabilities
cover a broad range of activities to prevent, protect against, respond
to, and recover from man-made or natural disasters, and include such
things as information gathering, search and rescue, citizen evacuation,
and structural damages assessment. A complete list of the 37
preparedness capabilities is provided in appendix 1. FEMA requires
grant recipients to demonstrate how their progress in meeting these
priorities is supported by projects to develop specific preparedness
capabilities. According to FEMA, with its focus on enhancing regional
preparedness through the collaborative efforts of multiple
jurisdictions throughout urban areas, the UASI program directly
supports the national priority to expand regional collaboration.
Prior GAO Work on Assessing Preparedness Capabilities:
In March 2008 we testified that, although FEMA has taken some steps to
establish goals, gather information, and measure progress, its
monitoring of homeland security grant expenditures did not provide a
means to measure the achievement of desired program outcomes.[Footnote
17] We further reported that FEMA's efforts did not provide information
on the effectiveness of those funds in improving the nation's
capabilities or reducing risk.
To address these concerns, FEMA is developing two new systems to gather
data on preparedness capabilities. Specifically, as we reported in
December 2008 and April 2009, respectively, FEMA is developing a Cost-
to-Capability (C2C) initiative and a Comprehensive Assessment System.
[Footnote 18] In December 2008, we reported that to help state and
local stakeholders make better investment decisions for preparedness,
FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate is developing the C2C initiative to
help assess a jurisdiction's capabilities. However, according to FEMA
officials, the C2C results--as designed--would not directly measure
preparedness, and grantees' use of the C2C tool will not be mandatory.
In April 2009, we reported that FEMA is developing a comprehensive
assessment system in response to a Post-Katrina Act requirement to
assess the nation's capabilities and overall preparedness for
preventing, responding to, and recovering from natural and man-made
disasters. We reported that FEMA faces methodological and coordination
challenges in developing and completing its proposed Comprehensive
Assessment System and reporting on its results. Among other things, we
recommended that FEMA enhance its project management plan to include
milestone dates, an assessment of risk, and related mitigation
strategies for comprehensively collecting and reporting on disparate
information sources, developing quantifiable metrics for preparedness
capabilities that are to be used to collect and report preparedness
information, and reporting on the results of preparedness assessments
to help inform homeland security resource allocation decisions. FEMA
agreed with our recommendations.
In prior reviews, we examined effective regional coordination in
emergency preparedness efforts and collaboration among federal agencies
to identify common approaches and practices.[Footnote 19] For example,
in September 2004 we reviewed coordination practices in various
metropolitan areas to identify regional programs with lessons learned
that could be applied in the National Capital Region and elsewhere and
identified four factors that enhance regional coordination efforts--a
collaborative regional organization, flexibility in the membership and
geographic area, a strategic plan with measurable goals and objectives,
and funding at a regional level. (see table 3).[Footnote 20]
Table 3: Factors That Characterize Effective Regional Coordination of
Federally Supported Efforts:
Factors: Collaborative regional organization;
Definition: A collaborative regional organization includes
representation from many different jurisdictions and different
disciplines such as fire, police, and emergency medical organizations.
Factors: Flexibility in membership and geographic area;
Definition: When regional civic and political traditions foster
interjurisdictional coordination, allowing localities to choose their
membership and geographic area of the regional organization can enhance
collaborative activities.
Factors: Strategic planning;
Definition: A strategic plan with measurable goals and objectives helps
focus resources and efforts to address problems.
Factors: Regional funding;
Definition: Funding at a regional level provides incentives for
regional organizations' collaborative planning activities.
Source: GAO-04-1009.
[End of table]
In 2005, we examined challenges that federal agencies face in
coordinating their efforts and identified key practices that can
enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by among other things:
* defining and articulating a common outcome(s);
* establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the
outcome;
* identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources;
* achieving mutual agreement(s) on agency roles and responsibilities;
* establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries;
* developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of
collaborative efforts; and:
* reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts through
agency plans and reports.[Footnote 21]
In March 2000, we reported that agencies can encounter a range of
barriers when they attempt to collaborate. These include such
challenges as missions that are not mutually reinforcing or that may
even conflict, agencies' concerns about protecting jurisdiction over
missions and control over resources, and incompatible procedures,
processes, data, and computer systems--making reaching a consensus on
strategies and priorities difficult.[Footnote 22]
In September 2004, we also reported that the short history of regional
collaboration for homeland security is characterized by attempts of
federal, state, and local governments to overcome a fragmented federal
grant system and local jurisdictional barriers to assess needs, fill
gaps, and plan for effective prevention and emergency response.
[Footnote 23] In July 2002, the President issued the National Strategy
for Homeland Security, which emphasized a shared responsibility for
security involving close cooperation among all levels of government. To
enhance emergency preparedness, the strategy called for systems that
avoid duplication and increase collaboration to better align public and
private resources for homeland security. We have consistently called
for the development of a national, rather than purely federal, strategy
that involves partners from all levels, including federal, state, and
local organizations. For example, in testimony given in 2003, we
highlighted multiple barriers to addressing one basic area of
preparedness--interoperable communications systems--including the lack
of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental
planning.[Footnote 24] In another study of bioterrorism preparedness,
we reported that although progress had been made in local planning,
regional planning involving multiple municipalities, counties, or
jurisdictions in neighboring states lagged.[Footnote 25] We found that
the autonomy of local jurisdictions and competing priorities within and
among them can make regional coordination difficult and that efforts
that seek to overcome these challenges to coordinate regionally must
take into account the different operational structures and civic
traditions of states and municipalities.
FEMA Gathers Data and Reports on Funding for Regional Collaboration
Efforts, but Does Not Assess How UASI Regions' Collaborative Efforts
Enhance Regional Preparedness:
FEMA uses two grant administration tools--the Grant Reporting Tool and
the Grant Monitoring Tool--to gather information on projects funded and
progress made by UASI grantees to expand regional collaboration and to
report on UASI program performance. However, FEMA has not assessed how
UASI regions' collaboration efforts have helped build regional
preparedness capabilities.
FEMA Uses Grant Administration Tools to Gather Data and Report On UASI
Program Performance:
FEMA uses two grant administration tools to gather information on
projects funded and progress made by UASI grantees; and the agency used
this information to help produce the first Federal Preparedness Report
in January 2009, which provided an overall assessment of the nation's
preparedness to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from natural
and man-made disasters.[Footnote 26] UASI region officials use FEMA's
Grant Reporting Tool to, among other things, report on project funding
plans and collect and record grant expenditures over the life of grant
projects. FEMA program analysts use another system, the Grant
Monitoring Tool, to record the results of their monitoring visits at
each UASI region once every 2 years. FEMA also used information from
the Grant Monitoring Tool to report on UASI program performance in
OMB's 2008 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Grantees use FEMA's Grant Reporting Tool to report twice a year on
planned and actual grant obligations and progress made on grant
projects. According to annual grant guidance, recipients must account
for all grant funds and the funds must be linked to one or more
projects that support specific goals and objectives in a state's
homeland security strategy and the corresponding urban area's security
strategy. The Grant Reporting Tool is updated by the grantee primarily
with the dollar amounts associated with specific grant projects,
national priorities associated with each project, and the preparedness
capabilities recipients believe will be enhanced by each proposed
project. The Grant Reporting Tool also contains data on the funds
allocated to specific categories of activities--planning, organization,
equipment, training, and exercises. For each project, UASI grantees are
to identify at least one of the national priorities to be addressed by
the project as well as the primary capability to be developed. However,
they can also identify additional national priorities and capabilities
they intend to improve as a result of the proposed project.
We analyzed data from FEMA's Grant Reporting Tool from fiscal year 2006
through fiscal year 2008 to determine the types of preparedness
capabilities that UASI regions associated with their projects that
supported the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration. Of
the 2,847 UASI grant projects funded under the UASI program during this
time period, we reviewed all those projects that supported the National
Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration--a total of 446 such
projects. Of these 446 projects, 303 projects funded a single
preparedness capability. (The remaining 143 projects funded multiple
capabilities.) In terms of funding, of the 37 preparedness
capabilities, these projects primarily sought to develop six: (1)
Planning, (2) Communications, (3) Intelligence and Information Sharing
and Dissemination, (4) Emergency Operations Center Management, (5)
Counter-Terror Investigation and Law Enforcement, and (6) Chemical/
Biological/Radiological/Nuclear and/or Explosive (CBRNE) Detection (See
fig. 1). For example, one UASI project to expand regional collaboration
through the planning capability was intended to "develop/enhance plans,
procedures, and protocols." According to the project description, the
specific activities the UASI region planned to fund included conducting
a business impact threat assessment that will drive the development of
plans to ensure continuity of operations for critical information
technology infrastructure and applications. Another project--to provide
funding to purchase interoperable systems and establish an emergency
operations center--was intended to expand regional collaboration
through the communications preparedness capability.
Figure 1: UASI Projects Related to Regional Collaboration: Top Six
Preparedness Capabilities (in dollars for Fiscal Years 2006 through
2008):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Target capability: Planning;
Dollars: $57.7 million.
Target capability: Communications;
Dollars: $23.2 million.
Target capability: Intelligence and information sharing and
dissemination;
Dollars: $10.5 million.
Target capability: Emergency operations center management;
Dollars: $10.2 million.
Target capability: Counter-terror investigation and law enforcement;
Dollars: $9.9 million.
Target capability: CBRNE detection;
Dollars: $9.7 million.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA Grant Reporting Tool data as of December
2008.
Note: The dollar amounts represent funding allocated to 303 UASI
regions' projects that (1) supported the National Priority to Expand
Regional Collaboration, and (2) identified a single preparedness
capability to be funded. CBRNE stands for Chemical/Biological/
Radiological/Nuclear and/or Explosive.
[End of figure]
According to FEMA officials, the agency used data from the Grant
Reporting Tool to publish the first Federal Preparedness Report in
January 2009. In summarizing the achievement of the UASI grant program,
the report noted that 64 percent of UASI grant recipients reported
progress in implementing their UASI strategies' program goals and
objectives. The report assessed the achievement of the National
Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration in terms of the funding
allocated to this priority--noting that states and urban areas had
allocated nearly $1.1 billion in homeland security grant funds from
fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2007 to projects that were intended to
improve regional collaboration. FEMA also reported that states and UASI
regions have supported regional preparedness through "plans,
initiatives, and other programs."
FEMA uses the Grant Monitoring Tool primarily to record the results of
program analysts' visits to UASI regions. On a 2-year cycle, FEMA
officials visit each UASI region to interview officials and use the
system to document their observations regarding grant activities. The
Grant Monitoring Tool contains a series of questions about UASI
regions' progress in achieving their goals and objectives as well as
national priorities, and FEMA program analysts are to discuss the
priorities with grantees to measure their progress in implementing each
national priority. FEMA uses data from this tool to report on the
overall performance of the UASI program in OMB's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART). In 2008, FEMA measured the UASI program's overall
performance against three long-term measures as reported by UASI
officials:[Footnote 27]
* percent of significant progress made toward implementation of the
National Priorities--70 percent;
* percent of grantees reporting significant progress toward the goals
and objectives identified in their state homeland security strategies--
67 percent; and:
* percent of analyzed capabilities performed acceptably in exercises--
79 percent.
FEMA Does Not Assess How Collaborative Efforts Help Build UASI Regional
Preparedness Capabilities:
While executive, departmental, and agency guidance all direct FEMA to
assess how regional collaboration builds national preparedness
capabilities, FEMA has not yet established measures to do so.
Specifically:
* Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 requires that the national
preparedness policy establish measurable priorities (such as the
national priority to expand regional collaboration) and targets and
include metrics that support the national preparedness goal, including
standards for preparedness assessments and a system for assessing the
nation's overall preparedness.
* DHS's National Preparedness Guidelines, the national preparedness
policy, state that regional collaboration is critical to national
preparedness, identify the need to expand regional collaboration as a
national priority, and establish the need to develop measurable
capability objectives, assess current levels of capabilities, and find
ways to close any gaps.
* FEMA's UASI grant guidance identifies the need to tie together the
established priorities and objectives of the National Preparedness
Guidelines, including the national priority to expand regional
collaboration, with efforts to establish preparedness capabilities,
conduct capability assessments, and make adjustments to better ensure
that the national investment yields measurable improvements in the
nation's preparedness.
Moreover, leading management practices recognize the importance of
establishing performance measures in achieving results.[Footnote 28]
When designed effectively, performance measures help managers (1)
determine how well a program is performing, (2) identify gaps in
performance, and (3) determine where to focus resources to improve
results. However, FEMA has no measures in place to assess the extent to
which the funds appropriated by Congress--approximately $5 billion for
the UASI program since 2003--have achieved the goal to build regional
preparedness through collaboration efforts.
The National Preparedness Guidelines state that, because major events
often have regional impact, it is vital to enhance collaborative
efforts by federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial entities to
communicate and coordinate with one another, the private sector,
nongovernmental organizations, and individual citizens. However, the
Guidelines do not identify any means of assessing regional
collaboration outputs and activities, or the connection between
regional collaboration activities and the achievement of regional
preparedness capabilities. In addition, none of FEMA's other
strategies, guidance, and policies--such as FEMA's Grant Programs
Directorate Strategy for 2009-2011 and FEMA's agencywide strategy for
2008-2013--provide output or outcome measures to assess the effect of
UASI regions' collaborative efforts on preparedness capabilities.
[Footnote 29]
FEMA's Federal Preparedness Report acknowledges this limitation, citing
a lack of specific targets that define how or whether national
priorities--including the National Priority to Expand Regional
Collaboration--are achieved. The report does not identify or
specifically discuss the effects of collaborative efforts or how they
contributed to improvements in regional preparedness capabilities
associated with UASI grant program investments. In gathering data from
states, FEMA directed states to describe their current capability under
the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration, but this was
limited to a general description of factors related to collaboration.
[Footnote 30] While these factors are related to states' and urban
areas' efforts to enhance regional collaboration, they do not provide a
means to assess how regional collaboration activities help build
preparedness capabilities.
In accordance with the Post-Katrina Act, FEMA has an effort underway to
establish a comprehensive assessment system to assess the nation's
capabilities and overall preparedness for preventing, responding to,
and recovering from natural and man-made disasters. As part of this
effort, FEMA is to collect information on state capability levels and
report on federal preparedness to Congress, including the results of
the Comprehensive Assessment System. Moreover, FEMA is currently
working to develop measurable targets related to each of the 37
preparedness capabilities. While we previously reported challenges FEMA
faces in developing and implementing the comprehensive assessment
system, FEMA could build upon its current efforts to assess overall
preparedness by developing and including measures related to the
collaboration efforts of UASI regions and their effect on building
regional preparedness. FEMA officials cited the National Preparedness
Guidelines, which note that the challenge for government officials is
to determine the best way to build capabilities for bolstering
preparedness and achieving the guidelines, and that the "best way" to
do so will vary across the nation. According to the Guidelines, the
results of national preparedness assessments will be used to refine
strategies and update the national priorities, and FEMA officials said
that the agency is considering updating the National Preparedness
Guidelines in 2010. FEMA officials stated that their current efforts to
develop measurable preparedness capabilities will determine progress in
building preparedness, but officials said that there are no program
plans to develop measures to assess how UASI collaborative efforts
build preparedness. We recognize the challenges associated with
establishing a single set of measures related to collaboration
activities for the UASI program, such as deciding how information and
data from different sources will be used to inform any such measures,
and coordinating with numerous federal, state, and local stakeholders
during this process. However, developing measures to assess how UASI
regions' collaborative efforts enhance regional preparedness
capabilities could provide FEMA with more meaningful information on the
national return on investment for the approximately $5 billion in grant
expenditures for regional collaboration through the UASI program to
date.
UASI Officials Described Program Features That Support Regional
Collaboration but Cited Continuing Challenges; Some UASI Regions
Increased their Membership in Response to Changes in the 9/11 Act:
UASI program officials described program features that support regional
collaboration, many of which reflect practices we have identified that
can enhance and sustain collaboration. UASI officials also described a
number of continuing challenges they faced in their efforts to expand
regional collaboration, which mirror collaboration challenges we
identified in earlier work examining coordination among federal
agencies.[Footnote 31] In addition, some UASI regions reported changes
in membership planned or undertaken in response to FEMA's use of
metropolitan statistical areas to assess risk, as called for in the
9/11 Act.
UASI Program Features Demonstrate Practices That Support Regional
Collaboration:
Certain UASI program features reflect practices we have identified that
can enhance and sustain collaboration. For example, the UASI program
requires that each UASI region develop and maintain a strategy and
define its membership and governance structure. The program
requirements also include the need for written charters and mutual aid
agreements between local governments and agencies, as well as biannual
reporting--the types of practices we have reported that agencies
perform to enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts, as
summarized in table 4. Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting the
results of collaborative efforts--one of the leading practices we
identified--could be strengthened if FEMA develops measures to assess
how UASI regions' collaborative efforts enhance regional preparedness
capabilities.
Table 4: Collaborative Practices Reflected in the UASI Program:
Collaborative practice: Defines and articulates a common outcome(s);
UASI program feature:
* Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy.
Collaborative practice: Establishes mutually reinforcing or joint
strategies to achieve the outcome;
UASI program feature:
* Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy.
Collaborative practice: Achieves mutual agreement(s) on agency roles
and responsibilities;
UASI program feature:
* UASI program membership and governance requirements;
* Urban Area Working Group;
* UASI Charter;
* Mutual Aid Agreements.
Collaborative practice: Establishes compatible policies, procedures,
and other means to operate across agency boundaries;
UASI program feature:
* UASI program membership and governance requirements;
* Urban Area Working Group;
* UASI Charter;
* Mutual Aid Agreements.
Collaborative practice: Identifies and addresses needs by leveraging
resources;
UASI program feature:
* UASI program membership and governance requirements;
* Urban Area Working Group;
* UASI Charter;
* Mutual Aid Agreements.
Collaborative practice: Develops mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and
report the results of collaborative efforts;
UASI program feature:
* UASI grant program reporting; this feature could be strengthened if
FEMA develops measures to assess how UASI regions' collaborative
efforts enhance regional preparedness capabilities.
Collaborative practice: Reinforces agency accountability for
collaborative efforts through agency reports;
* UASI grant program reporting; this feature could be strengthened if
FEMA develops measures to assess how UASI regions' collaborative
efforts enhance regional preparedness capabilities.
Source: GAO analysis of UASI Program Requirements and GAO-06-15.
[End of table]
Additionally, in our survey of UASI participants and during our site
visits, UASI officials described various program features that they
said greatly or somewhat helped support regional collaboration, and
their responses generally reflect factors related to organization,
flexibility, planning, and funding that we have found support effective
regional collaboration in preparedness efforts. The results of our
survey can be found in appendix II.
Collaborative regional organization: In September 2004, we reported
that a collaborative regional organization enhances preparedness and
includes representation from many different jurisdictions and
disciplines.[Footnote 32] Moreover, our prior work on key practices to
enhance and sustain collaboration identified the establishment of
mutually reinforcing or joint strategies and the mutual agreement of
roles and responsibilities as important elements. In the UASI program,
mutual aid agreements are one way jurisdictions and agencies within
UASI regions define organizational roles and responsibilities during
those times when one locality needs the resources of nearby localities.
Of the 49 UASI regions we surveyed, 46 said they have active mutual aid
agreements, of which 38 identified that such an agreement either
"greatly helps" or "somewhat helps" measure regional capability-
building. Mutual aid agreements promote collaboration across
governments or agencies when they explicitly identify how certain
regional response efforts are to be accomplished and by whom. In
addition, 39 UASI regions stated that agreements such as charters and
bylaws are a UASI-wide program feature, of which 26 said that this
either "greatly helps" or "somewhat helps" measure regional capability-
building (15 and 11 respectively).
Officials in all six UASI regions we visited said that their UASI
regional organization included representation from many jurisdictions
and disciplines. UASI region officials in our site visits stated that
they rely on subcommittees within their organization to develop
proposed projects for their grant application. These subcommittees, for
example, can be organized based on a particular project (e.g.,
communications, exercises, and training, etc.) or based on a response
discipline (e.g., all fire departments) across the urban area.
According to UASI officials, grant project proposals are then provided
to the voting officials of the UASI region for approval. This
structured approach helps subcommittee officials focus on operational
planning while UASI officials can focus on strategic planning,
according to UASI officials from 2 sites we visited.
Flexibility in membership and geographic area: In our prior work, we
reported that when the membership and geographic area of the regional
organization is flexible it fosters interjurisdictional coordination
and enhances regional preparedness.[Footnote 33] Further, we reported
addressing needs by leveraging resources as a leading practice for
effective collaboration. Officials from three UASI regions we visited
in California--Los Angeles/Long Beach, Anaheim/Santa Ana, and
Riverside--described a long-standing tradition of flexibility in
working among response disciplines, leveraging the expertise of diverse
members such as fire and public health departments across jurisdictions
to prepare and respond to actual events such as frequent wildfires and
periodic earthquakes. Officials from jurisdictions in these three UASI
regions used this expertise to develop and refine California's incident
management system, which became the foundation for the National
Incident Management System (NIMS).[Footnote 34] UASI region officials
in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida said that NIMS, in turn, has been
very useful for expanding regional collaboration as the system
integrates first responders under a commonly understood incident
command structure. Similarly, all 49 UASI regions we surveyed reported
that they use NIMS compliance for first responders to build regional
capabilities.
Training and exercise activities can be developed to provide flexible
opportunities to bring in as many or as few multidisciplinary and
multijurisdictional stakeholders within the region, as needed, to learn
and test organizational preparedness responsibilities. All UASI regions
we visited identified training and exercises as key activities that
help bring together jurisdictions and first responders. In addition, 44
of the 49 UASI regions we surveyed reported that their UASI-wide
training and exercises are an activity they use regionwide that builds
regional capabilities.
Strategic planning: Our prior work found that planning activities can
enhance regional preparedness and collaboration.[Footnote 35] All but
one of the 49 UASI regions we surveyed identified their strategic
planning activities as building their urban areas' regional
capabilities. In addition, officials at all six of the UASI regions we
visited said the annual UASI grant planning process required by FEMA
enhances regional collaboration because the process establishes an
annual, organized effort to identify a region's needs based on its
strategic plans and preparedness capabilities.[Footnote 36] UASI region
officials said that FEMA requires UASI regions to develop and submit
their Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy--along with the UASI
region's grant program proposals--as the basis for requesting funds.
The evaluation of needs and identification of gaps in capabilities are
important steps for UASI regions in their development of a homeland
security strategy and annual grant proposals.
Regional funding: Our 2004 report found that funding regional
organizations provides incentives for collaborative planning activities
to enhance preparedness regionwide.[Footnote 37] A number of UASI
regions have used the grant program as a means to consolidate
administrative functions and procurement activities regionally. For
example, 42 of 49 UASI regions we surveyed said that they use UASI-wide
cost-sharing activities across jurisdictions--such as purchasing larger
quantities of equipment at lower overall costs in order to take
advantage of economies of scale. Also, 33 UASI regions said that they
work with their state to take advantage of economies of scale.
Leveraging federal funds across grant programs is another collaboration
activity that 44 UASI regions reported in our survey. One example where
DHS grant funds--UASI and State Homeland Security Grant funds--are
leveraged to build regional capabilities is in Florida, where the Miami
and Fort Lauderdale UASI programs are both in the same state-designated
region for security planning purposes. According to officials, both
UASI regions work with the state to coordinate the sources of project
funding. Miami or Fort Lauderdale UASI regions pool a part of their
funds each year to make them available for their state-designated
security region's needs, regardless of whether the jurisdiction in need
is the Miami or Fort Lauderdale UASI region. For example, the Fort
Lauderdale UASI region provided a portion of its UASI funding to
support training for a local government within the Miami UASI region
area.
UASI Officials Described Continuing Challenges Including Conflicting
Missions, Jurisdictional Concerns, and Incompatible Systems to Their
Efforts to Collaborate:
In addition to the positive impact of a variety of program features on
regional collaboration described above, UASI officials also described a
number of continuing challenges they faced to expand regional
collaboration reflecting those challenges we previously identified that
federal agencies may encounter when they attempt regional
collaboration.[Footnote 38] These challenges include conflicting
missions, concerns regarding jurisdiction and control over resources,
and incompatible processes or systems that can make reaching a
consensus on strategies and priorities difficult. Specifically:
Conflicting missions: As we reported in 2000, one challenge concerns
missions that are not mutually reinforcing or that may even conflict,
making reaching a consensus on strategies and priorities difficult. As
part of our survey, we posed a series of possible challenges, based in
part on our prior work, which may occur between UASI regions' goals and
objectives and the goals and objectives of FEMA and other related
federal programs. In response, 30 of the 46 surveyed UASI regions
reported that "changing federal homeland security goals and objectives"
presented a regional challenge for their urban area. Of these, 28 UASI
regions cited this as a challenge that "greatly" or "somewhat" impairs
regional collaboration (4 and 24 respectively). In addition, 19 UASI
regions identified "unclear federal homeland security goals and
objectives" as a regional challenge, with 18 of these UASI regions
saying that this "greatly" or "somewhat" impairs regional collaboration
(5 and 13 respectively).
According to the National Preparedness Guidelines, FEMA is committed to
working with its homeland security partners in updating and maintaining
the Guidelines and related documents as part of a unified National
Preparedness System, which should help ensure coordinated strategies,
plans, procedures, policies, training, and capabilities at all levels
of government. For example, in January 2009, FEMA reported the results
of its discussions with state and local emergency management and
homeland security agencies from 20 states (that included 15 UASI
regions), finding the most significant challenges the agencies
identified to be "balancing the varied, and often competing, interests
(i.e. missions, goals and objectives) from the full spectrum of
stakeholders on the design and management of preparedness programs."
[Footnote 39] The report notes that these challenges are common to the
management and coordination of homeland security preparedness
initiatives but that the resulting recommendations will help to
overcome those challenges, noting, for example, that "efforts are
already underway in updating policy, and coordinating preparedness
assistance." Moreover, as FEMA implements the recommendations from our
report on the National Preparedness System to improve development of
policies and plans, national capability assessments, and strategic
planning--all of which contain preparedness goals and objectives--
should help better align local, state, regional, and federal missions.
[Footnote 40]
Jurisdictional concerns: Another significant barrier to collaboration
our prior work identified related to concerns about protecting
jurisdiction over federal missions.[Footnote 41] Our survey found, for
example, that 22 UASI regions identified the lack of written authority
and agreements as a regional challenge. Eighteen of these UASI regions
cited this as a challenge that "greatly" or "somewhat impairs" regional
collaboration (4 and 14 respectively). However, 31 UASI regions said
that "difficulty in reaching consensus in decision making among
jurisdictions" was not a challenge that they face within their region.
Further, 36 UASI regions said that "difficulty in reaching consensus in
decision making among response disciplines (e.g. police, fire, EMS,
etc.)" was not a challenge within their urban area; although 13 of 49
UASI regions said this was a challenge, none of these 13 UASI regions
said this challenge greatly impairs regional collaboration, 10 regions
said this challenge somewhat impairs regional collaboration, while the
remaining 3 cited no impairment. Although our survey found some UASI
regions facing challenges over jurisdiction, fewer UASI regions
reported issues related to control and access to resources within the
region. The Grant Programs Directorate's Cost-to-Capability initiative,
currently under development, is intended to help FEMA and localities
better target their use of federal grant funds and enable comparisons
across jurisdictions in evaluating grant proposals, which should help
UASI regions in their efforts to reach consensus in decision making
among jurisdictions.
Incompatible systems: Another barrier to effective collaboration, which
we reported in 2000, is the lack of consistent data collected and
shared by different agencies, which prevents the federal government
from achieving interagency goals and objectives.[Footnote 42] For a
UASI region, this collaboration barrier can occur as a part of its
efforts to establish or sustain fusion centers.[Footnote 43] As we
reported in 2007, almost all states and several local governments have
established or are in the process of establishing fusion centers to
collaborate and share information across federal, state, and local
governments and agencies and address gaps in information sharing.
[Footnote 44] Our survey found, for example, that intelligence sharing
activities are a part of 41 UASI regions; while the remaining 8 UASI
regions reported that they are in the process of building this
capability. In addition, 34 UASI regions reported no regional
challenges related to sharing intelligence. Of those 14 UASI regions we
surveyed that cited conflicts about intelligence sharing as a regional
challenge, 13 reported that this either greatly or somewhat impaired
regional collaboration (5 and 8 respectively; 1 response was "don't
know"). As we stated in the 2007 report, DHS, recognizing the
importance of fusion centers in information sharing, has efforts under
way to address challenges fusion center officials identified in
establishing and operating their centers. DHS concurred with our
recommendation that the federal government should determine its long-
term fusion center role and whether it expects to provide resources to
centers to help ensure their sustainability, and said it was reviewing
strategies to sustain fusion centers as part of the work plan of the
National Fusion Center Coordination Group. In September 2008, officials
in DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis reported that DHS has
committed to dedicating resources to support and develop the state and
local fusion center network and will continue to deploy personnel and
resources to centers to augment their capabilities. Specifically,
officials reported that DHS continues to provide personnel to certain
fusion centers, has augmented training and technical assistance
efforts, and has provided additional centers with networks and systems
for information sharing. In December 2008, DHS issued additional
guidance for interaction with fusion centers. While these efforts
address DHS's efforts to define its role in fusion centers, the efforts
are ongoing and specific questions regarding the timing and amount of
these resources have yet to be determined.
Similarly, interoperable communications has been both a common need
across all urban areas, and a long-standing barrier. According to FEMA,
interoperable communications is the ability of public safety agencies
(police, fire, EMS) and service agencies (public works, transportation,
hospitals, etc.) to talk within and across agencies and jurisdictions
via radio and associated communications systems. According to FEMA, it
is essential that public safety agencies have the intra-agency
operability they need, and that they build its systems toward
interoperability. Of the 49 UASI regions we surveyed, 27 UASI regions
reported that interoperable communications between first responders
present a regional challenge within their UASI region, with 21 of these
regions reporting that this "greatly" or "somewhat" impairs regional
collaboration (6 and 15 respectively). However, 6 of the 27 UASI
regions said it does not impair regional collaboration. FEMA's Federal
Preparedness Report reported on the extent that urban areas were
achieving interoperable communications. In 2007 DHS assessed which of
these regions were in one of four stages of implementation--"Early"
through "Advanced."[Footnote 45] DHS has several programs designed to
help build national interoperable communications capabilities in
varying stages of implementation.[Footnote 46]
UASI Officials Described Program Activities Such as Exercises and
Training That Helped Them Assess Their Collaborative Efforts:
In response to our survey and at all 6 of the UASI regions we visited,
officials described their views of what constituted effective regional
collaboration and how they assess their collaborative efforts. Many
UASI regions identified program activities and processes that helped
them build regional capabilities and assess their performance as a
region. For example, according to our survey:
* Thirty-seven UASI regions said a needs assessment or analysis of gaps
in preparedness capabilities is a UASI-wide program feature. All 37
UASI regions said that this either "greatly helps" or "somewhat helps"
measure regional capability-building (27 and 10 respectively). In
addition, 35 of these 37 UASI regions also said that this feature
either "greatly helps" or "somewhat helps" them measure regional
performance (24 and 11 respectively).
* Thirty-one UASI regions identified operational planning as an
activity they use to build regional collaboration.
* Sixteen UASI regions said that their regional operations plan greatly
or somewhat helps measure regional performance (8 and 8 respectively).
* Thirty-six UASI regions identified tactical planning as a regional
activity they use to build regional collaboration.[Footnote 47]
* Thirty-nine UASI regions reported that they have a UASI-wide exercise
plan. Thirty-six of these said that this exercise plan either "greatly
helps" or "somewhat helps" measure regional capability-building (24 and
12 respectively), and 37 of these 39 UASI regions said that this
feature either "greatly helps" or "somewhat helps" them measure
regional performance (25 and 12 respectively).
Some UASI Regions Reported Changes in Membership Planned or Undertaken
in Response to FEMA's Use of MSAs to Assess Risk:
A provision within the 9/11 Act required FEMA to perform a risk
assessment for the 100 largest MSAs by population, beginning in fiscal
year 2008. In response, FEMA's fiscal year 2008 grant program guidance
stated that, while UASI officials were not required to expand or
contract existing urban area participation to conform to MSAs, UASI
regions were encouraged to involve regional preparedness partners (for
example, contiguous jurisdictions, mutual aid partners, port
authorities, rail and transit authorities, campus law enforcement, and
state agencies) in their 2008 UASI program activities. Of the 49 UASI
regions we surveyed, 27 said that there were jurisdictions within the
MSA that were not part of their UASI region; the remaining 22 UASI
regions responded that their UASI included all jurisdictions within the
MSA.
In our survey, 27 UASI regions had jurisdictions within the MSA that
were not part of their UASI region, and we asked them to describe the
actions, if any, they planned to take or had taken in response to
FEMA's use of MSAs for its risk calculations. UASI officials' responses
to the grant guidance varied. Of the 27 UASI regions that said there
were jurisdictions within the MSA that weren't part of their UASI
region:
* Twenty-two said that they either had taken or had plans to take some
action(s) in response to FEMA's risk calculation change; 5 UASI regions
said they had not taken and did not plan to take any of the actions
cited (e,g., initiating a dialogue and assessing the need to include
new jurisdictions) to expand their membership.
* Seventeen UASI regions reported that they already assessed and
evaluated the need to include new jurisdictions and 3 UASI regions said
they plan to do this, while 7 UASI regions said they had no plans to
assess and evaluate the need to include new jurisdictions.
* Twelve UASI regions said they have already initiated dialogue to
collaborate with new jurisdictions and 3 UASI regions have reported
that they plan to do this, while 12 UASI regions said they had no plans
to initiate dialog with new jurisdictions.
* Seven UASI regions reported that they have already included new
jurisdictions in advisory committees and 4 UASI regions reported that
they plan to do this, while 16 UASI regions said they have no plans to
include any new jurisdictions in advisory committees.
* Six UASI regions reported that they have plans to increase the number
of jurisdictions in their UASI region urban area working group and 1
UASI region reported that it had already done so, while 20 UASI regions
said they have no plans to do this.
In a follow-up question to these 27 UASI regions, we asked whether
there were specific reasons why some jurisdictions are not included in
their UASI region, e.g., because other jurisdictions were not a
possible provider of prevention, medical surge, resources, or
evacuation capabilities. Overall, 11 of the 27 UASI regions reported at
least one of the possible issues we posed within our survey as a reason
why some jurisdictions were not part of their UASI region.
Specifically, 5 UASI regions reported that excluding a jurisdiction was
due to that outside jurisdiction's lack of capacity to provide, for
example, first responder support or medical surge capabilities, and 4
UASI regions reported excluding a jurisdiction because that
jurisdiction was not a provider of support for recovery efforts or
evacuation efforts. Two UASI regions also cited the lack of mutual aid
agreements as a reason for not including a new jurisdiction. UASI
officials from 14 regions provided additional comments stating that the
reason why additional jurisdictions were not included in the UASI
region was that their UASI region was either part of an existing state-
defined region developed for strategic planning and response purposes,
or their UASI region's composition was based on existing regional
bodies such as councils of governments or regional planning
commissions. Another common reason cited by officials in 10 UASI
regions who provided additional comments was that these other
jurisdictions were remote and not adjacent to the urban area, and
lacking in population or critical infrastructure.
Conclusions:
Natural and man-made disasters often have a regional impact, affecting
multiple jurisdictions; therefore it is vital to ensure that federal,
state, local, tribal, and territorial entities collaborate effectively
in the protection, prevention of, response to, and recovery from a
disaster. The UASI program is intended to enhance regional preparedness
through expanded regional collaboration. However, FEMA currently has no
measures to determine the impact of the UASI regions' collaborative
efforts on regional preparedness. With such measures, FEMA would be
better positioned to determine the national return on investment for
the more than $5 billion awarded in UASI grant funds to date.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the FEMA Administrator develop and implement measures
to assess how regional collaboration efforts funded by UASI grants
build preparedness capabilities.
Agency Comments:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from FEMA. FEMA did not
provide official written comments to include in our report. However, in
e-mails received June 26, 2009, the DHS liaison stated that FEMA
concurred with our recommendation and will work toward addressing it.
DHS also provided technical comments which we incorporated into our
report, as appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the FEMA Administrator, and the Secretary of Homeland
Security. This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8757 or e-mail at jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director Homeland Security & Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: DHS's Target Capabilities List:
As we noted in 2005, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) developed
the National Preparedness Guidelines to comply with HSPD-8.[Footnote
48] The National Preparedness Guidelines are intended to generally
define "how well" all levels of governments and first responders are to
prepare for all-hazards, through a capabilities-based preparedness
planning process based on common tools and processes of preparedness
including the Target Capabilities List. The purpose of this approach is
to provide capabilities suitable for a wide range of threats and
hazards.
According to DHS, the Target Capabilities List is a comprehensive
catalog of capabilities to perform homeland security missions. In July
2005, we reported that the application of this capabilities-based
preparedness process involves three stages: (1) defining target levels
of capability, (2) achieving target levels of capability, and (3)
assessing preparedness.[Footnote 49] As of September 2007, the list
identified 37 capabilities needed to perform critical tasks across all
events--prevention, protection, response, and recovery. The Target
Capabilities List also provides guidance on each specific preparedness
capability and levels of capability that federal, state, local, and
tribal first responders will be expected to develop and maintain.
Table 5: DHS's Target Capabilities List:
Common Mission Area:
1. Communications.
2. Community Preparedness and Participation.
3. Planning.
4. Risk Management.
5. Intelligence/Information Sharing and Dissemination.
Prevent Mission Area:
6. Chemical/Biological/Radiological/Nuclear/Explosive (CBRNE)
Detection.
7. Information Gathering and Recognition of Indicators and Warnings.
8. Intelligence Analysis and Production.
9. Counter-Terror Investigations and Law Enforcement.
Protect Mission Area:
10. Critical Infrastructure Protection.
11. Epidemiological Surveillance and Investigation.
12. Food and Agriculture Safety and Defense.
13. Laboratory Testing.
14. Onsite Incident Management.
15. Emergency Public Safety and Security Response.
16. Responder Safety and Health.
17. Emergency Triage and Pre-Hospital Treatment.
18. Search and Rescue (Land-Based).
19. Volunteer Management and Donations.
20. WMD/Hazardous Materials Response and Decontamination.
Respond Mission Area:
21. Animal Disease Emergency Support.
22. Citizen Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place.
23. Critical Resource Logistics and Distribution.
24. Emergency Operations Center Management.
25. Emergency Public Information and Warning.
26. Environmental Health.
27. Explosive Device Response Operations.
28. Fatality Management.
29. Fire Incident Response Support.
30. Isolation and Quarantine.
31. Mass Care (Sheltering, Feeding, and Related Services).
32. Mass Prophylaxis.
33. Medical Supplies Management and Distribution.
34. Medical Surge.
Recover Mission Area:
35. Economic and Community Recovery.
36. Restoration of Lifelines.
37. Structural Damage Assessment.
Source: Department of Homeland Security - Target Capabilities List, as
of September 2007.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Results of GAO's Telephone Survey of 49 UASI Regions:
In the absence of objective measures to determine the impact of the
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions' collaboration efforts on
regional preparedness, we surveyed UASI regions to solicit officials'
views on the impact of program activities on regional collaboration and
challenges they faced to support regional collaboration. We surveyed by
telephone all 49 UASI regions that were recipients of UASI grant
funding in fiscal years 2008 and in at least one fiscal year prior to
2008. We based our survey questions in part on our prior work including
best practices for collaboration, factors that support regional
collaboration, and challenges to interagency coordination.[Footnote 50]
Our questions were designed to collect information on (1) activities
that are incorporated into the UASI regions' collaboration efforts and
those features that help UASI regions measure their regional capability-
building and performance, (2) whether UASI regions face certain
regional challenges and if so, whether those challenges impair the
efficiency and effectiveness of their regional collaboration and
preparedness efforts, and (3) whether respondents have or plan to make
changes in response to FEMA's change to Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) for risk calculation. We conducted pretests by telephone with
representatives of 3 UASI regions to refine our questions, develop new
questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the questionnaire, and
identify any potentially biased questions. We obtained a 100 percent
response rate to our telephone survey. Because our survey included all
49 UASI regions that received grant funding as described above, there
are no sampling errors. The information below represents responses
provided by UASI regions to our close-ended survey questions.
Q1. Are any of the following activities a part of, or in progress of
being a part of, your UASI area? (Check one box each row.)
a. Intrastate mutual aid agreements;
Yes, a part of: 43;
In progress: 3;
No: 3;
Don't know: 0.
b. Interstate mutual aid agreements;
Yes, a part of: 23;
In progress: 4;
No: 22;
Don't know: 0.
c. International mutual aid agreements;
Yes, a part of: 3;
In progress: 4;
No: 40;
Don't know: 2.
d. Intelligence sharing;
Yes, a part of: 41;
In progress: 8;
No: 0;
Don't know: 0.
e. Leveraging federal funds across grant programs (e.g., Health and
Human Services (HHS), the Department of Transportation (DOT), other DHS
grants, etc.);
Yes, a part of: 44;
In progress: 2;
No: 3;
Don't know: 0.
f. UASI-wide cost-sharing to take advantage of economies of scale with
your state (e.g., purchasing larger quantities of sophisticated
equipment at lower overall costs);
Yes, a part of: 33;
In progress: 1;
No: 15;
Don't know: 0.
g. UASI-wide cost-sharing to take advantage of economies of scale
across jurisdictions (i.e., cities, counties, and special districts
including port or transit authorities);
Yes, a part of: 42;
In progress: 2;
No: 5;
Don't know: 0.
h. Centralization of administrative grant functions;
Yes, a part of: 36;
In progress: 0;
No: 13;
Don't know: 0.
i. Centralization of administrative planning;
Yes, a part of: 41;
In progress: 1;
No: 7;
Don't know: 0.
Q2. Does your UASI area face any of the following regional challenges?
Q3. How much, if at all, does this regional challenge impair the
effectiveness of regional collaboration in your preparedness efforts?
a. Lack of written authority and agreements;
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 22;
No: 27;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 4;
Somewhat impairs: 14;
Does not impair at all: 4;
Don't Know: 0.
b. Conflicts about sharing intelligence;
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 14;
No: 34;
Don't know:1;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 5;
Somewhat impairs: 8;
Does not impair at all: 1;
Don't Know: 0.
c. Interoperable communications between first responders;
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 27;
No: 22;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 6;
Somewhat impairs: 15;
Does not impair at all: 6;
Don't Know: 0.
d. Conflicts about sharing existing resources, (e.g., equipment,
personnel, tactical teams, technology);
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 11;
No: 38;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 2;
Somewhat impairs: 7;
Does not impair at all: 2;
Don't Know: 0.
e. Difficulty in reaching consensus in decision-making among
jurisdictions (e.g., for funding);
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 18;
No: 31;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 4;
Somewhat impairs: 10;
Does not impair at all: 4;
Don't Know: 0.
f. Difficulty in reaching consensus in decision-making among response
disciplines (e.g., police, fire, EMS, etc.);
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 13;
No: 36;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much: impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 0;
Somewhat impairs: 10;
Does not impair at all: 3;
Don't Know: 0.
g. Applicability of federal homeland security requirements;
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 20;
No: 28;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 6;
Somewhat impairs: 12;
Does not impair at all: 2;
Don't Know: 0.
h. Unclear federal homeland security goals and objectives;
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 19;
No: 30;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 5;
Somewhat impairs: 13;
Does not impair at all: 1;
Don't Know: 0.
i. Changing federal homeland security goals and objectives;
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 30;
No: 19;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much: impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 4;
Somewhat impairs: 24;
Does not impair at all: 2;
Don't Know: 0.
j. Conflicting goals and objectives between federal agencies or
programs, (e.g., DHS, HHS, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), etc.);
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 18;
No: 29;
Don't know: 2;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much: impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 4;
Somewhat impairs: 13;
Does not impair at all: 1;
Don't Know: 0.
k. Conflicting goals and objectives between your UASI and your State
Administrative Agent (SAA);
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 23;
No: 26;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Greatly impairs: 12;
Somewhat impairs: 9;
Does not impair at all: 2;
Don't Know: 0.
l. Changing UASI boundaries to Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
from center-city plus 10 miles;
Q2: Is regional challenge for UASI?
Yes: 20;
No: 28;
Q3: How much impairs regional collaboration?
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q2:
Greatly impairs: 2;
Somewhat impairs: 14;
Does not impair at all: 3;
Don't Know: 1.
[End of table]
Q4. Are there are any jurisdictions within your MSA that are not a part
of the UASI area?
Yes: 27;
No: 22; If "No," go to question 8.
Q5. In response to FEMA's change to MSAs for risk calculation, has your
UASI area done, have plans to do, or have no plans to do any of the
following with the jurisdictions in your geographic area? (Check one
box in each row.)
a. Assess/Evaluate need to include new jurisdictions;
Have done this: 17;
Have plans to do this: 3;
Have no plans to do this: 7;
Don't Know: 0.
b. Initiate dialogue with new jurisdictions;
Have done this: 12;
Have plans to do this: 3;
Have no plans to do this: 12;
Don't Know: 0.
c. Solicit input from new jurisdictions;
Have done this: 11;
Have plans to do this: 4;
Have no plans to do this: 12;
Don't Know: 0.
d. Solicit proposals from new jurisdictions;
Have done this: 6;
Have plans to do this: 4;
Have no plans to do this: 17;
Don't Know: 0.
e. Include new jurisdictions in Advisory; Committees;
Have done this: 7;
Have plans to do this: 4;
Have no plans to do this: 16;
Don't Know: 0.
f. Increase the number of jurisdictions in Urban Area Working Group
(UAWG) (e.g, your Executive or Steering committee);
Have done this: 1;
Have plans to do this: 6;
Have no plans to do this: 20;
Don't Know: 0.
Q6. Is each of the statements listed below a reason why there are some
jurisdictions that are not part of your UASI area?
Q7. (For each item in Q6 with a "Yes," ask:) Does your UASI intend to
enter into this kind of relationship with all, some, or none of these
jurisdictions?
a. No mutual aid agreement existing;
Q6: Reason why not part of UASI area?
Yes: 2;
No: 25;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q6:
Q7: Intend to enter relationship?
All: 0;
Some: 0;
None: 2;
Don't know: 0.
b. Not a part of prevention activities (e.g., fusion center/information
sharing; see TCL);
Q6: Reason why not part of UASI area?
Yes: 3;
No: 23;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q6:
Q7: Intend to enter relationship?
All: 0;
Some: 0;
None: 1;
Don't know: 2.
c. Not a provider of emergency response support (see TCL);
Q6: Reason why not part of UASI area?
Yes: 5;
No: 22;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q6:
Q7: Intend to enter relationship?
All: 0;
Some: 1;
None: 3;
Don't know: 1.
d. Not a provider of surge capabilities (e.g., first responders,
medical surge; see TCL);
Q6: Reason why not part of UASI area?
Yes: 5;
No: 21;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q6:
Q7: Intend to enter relationship?
All: 0;
Some: 1;
None: 2;
Don't know: 2.
e. Not a provider of resource capabilities; (see TCL);
Q6: Reason why not part of UASI area?
Yes: 6;
No: 20;
Don't know:1;
If "Yes" to Q6:
Q7: Intend to enter relationship?
All: 0;
Some: 1;
None: 3;
Don't know: 2.
f. Not a part of interoperable communications system;
Q6: Reason why not part of UASI area?
Yes: 4;
No: 23;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q6:
Q7: Intend to enter relationship?
All: 0;
Some: 1;
None: 2;
Don't know: 1.
g. Not a provider of support for recovery or evacuation efforts (see
TCL);
Q6: Reason why not part of UASI area?
Yes: 4;
No: 23;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q6:
Q7: Intend to enter relationship?
All: 0;
Some: 0;
None: 2;
Don't know: 2.
Q8. In addition to your UASI's Homeland Security Strategy, does your
UASI possess the following program features?
Q9. (For each item in Q8 with a "Yes", ask:) How much, if at all, does
this program feature help your UASI measure its regional capability-
building?
Q10. (For each item in Q8 with a "Yes", ask:) How much, if at all, does
each of the following program features help your UASI measure its
performance?
a. Charter and bylaws;
Q8: Has program feature?
Yes: 39;
No: 10;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q8:
Q9: How much helps measure regional capability-building?
Greatly: helps: 15;
Somewhat helps: 11;
Does not help at all: 11;
Don't know: 2;
Q10: How much helps measure regional performance?
Greatly helps: 7;
Somewhat helps: 5;
Does not help at all: 23;
Don't know: 4.
b. Regional Concept of Operations (ConOps);
Q8: Has program feature?
Yes: 23;
No: 26;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q8:
Q9: How much helps measure regional capability-building?
Greatly helps: 15;
Somewhat helps: 8;
Does not help at all: 0;
Don't know: 0;
Q10: How much helps measure regional performance?
Greatly helps: 8;
Somewhat helps: 8;
Does not help at all: 5;
Don't know: 2.
c. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (e.g., tactical operational
procedures);
Q8: Has program feature?
Yes: 28;
No: 21;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q8:
Q9: How much helps measure regional capability-building?
Greatly helps: 14;
Somewhat helps: 9;
Does not help at all: 2;
Don't know: 3;
Q10: How much helps measure regional performance?
Greatly helps: 11;
Somewhat helps: 9;
Does not help at all: 4;
Don't know: 4.
d. Active mutual aid agreements, MOUs, or Intergovernmental Agreements;
Q8: Has program feature?
Yes: 46;
No: 3;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q8:
Q9: How much helps measure regional capability-building?
Greatly helps: 27;
Somewhat helps: 11;
Does not help at all: 7;
Don't know: 1;
Q10: How much helps measure regional performance?
Greatly helps: 19;
Somewhat helps: 12;
Does not help at all: 13;
Don't know: 2.
e. Needs assessment, evaluation, or gap analysis;
Q8: Has program feature?
Yes: 37;
No: 12;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q8:
Q9: How much helps measure regional capability-building?
Greatly helps: 27;
Somewhat helps: 10;
Does not help at all: 0;
Don't know: 0;
Q10: How much helps measure regional performance?
Greatly helps: 24;
Somewhat helps: 11;
Does not help at all: 2;
Don't know: 0.
f. Exercise plan;
Q8: Has program feature?
Yes: 39;
No: 10;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q8:
Q9: How much helps measure regional capability-building?
Greatly helps: 24;
Somewhat helps: 12;
Does not help at all: 2;
Don't know: 1;
Q10: How much helps measure regional performance?
Greatly helps: 25;
Somewhat helps: 12;
Does not help at all: 0;
Don't know: 2.
Q11. Does your UASI area use any of the following activities to build
regional capabilities?
Q12. (For each item in Q11 with a "Yes," ask:) Has your UASI area
defined performance measures for this activity?
a. Strategic planning (e.g., homeland security strategic plan);
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes:48;
No: 0;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 35;
No: 12;
Don't know: 1.
b. Operational planning (e.g., Continuity of Operations (COOP) and
Continuity of Government (COG);
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 31;
No: 17;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 17;
No: 9;
Don't know: 5.
c. UASI-wide tactical planning;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 36;
No: 12;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 18;
No: 11;
Don't know: 7.
d. UASI-wide exercises & training;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 44;
No: 4;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 32;
No: 8;
Don't know: 4.
e. After-action reporting (for exercises and actual events);
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 47;
No: 2;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 37;
No: 8;
Don't know: 2.
f. Corrective action/improvement programs (for exercises and actual
events);
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 45;
No: 4;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 35;
No: 7;
Don't know: 3.
g. Fusion centers for information sharing;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 38;
No: 11;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 18;
No: 12;
Don't know: 8.
h. NIMS compliance for first responders within the UASI;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 49;
No: 0;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 46;
No: 2;
Don't know: 1.
i. Regional tactical interoperable communications plan (TICP) - based
on the SAFECOM continuum;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 47;
No: 1;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 44;
No: 1;
Don't know: 2.
j. Alerts/warning and notification system;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 35;
No: 13;
Don't know: 1;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 21;
No: 10;
Don't know: 4.
k. Command and control (e.g., UASI-wide emergency operations center);
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 29;
No: 20;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 18;
No: 6;
Don't know: 5.
l. Certification or credentialing system for first responders and
volunteers;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 18;
No: 28;
Don't know: 3;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 10;
No: 8;
Don't know: 0.
m. Resource typing;
Q11: Builds regional capabilities?
Yes: 29;
No: 20;
Don't know: 0;
If "Yes" to Q11:
Q12: Has defined performance measures?
Yes: 22;
No: 5;
Don't know: 2.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
William O. Jenkins Jr., (202) 512-8757 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Chris Keisling (Assistant
Director), John Vocino (Analyst-in-Charge), Orlando Copeland, Perry
Lusk, Adam Vogt, Linda Miller, David Alexander, Grant Mallie, and
Tracey King made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] FEMA uses a risk-based methodology that considers threat,
consequences, and vulnerability to identify the urban areas eligible
for grants, and couples this methodology with the Urban Area's
anticipated effectiveness (as assessed through peer review ) to
determine the amount of funds urban areas receive.
[2] Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 101, 121 Stat. 266, 271-293 (2007).
[3] Metropolitan statistical areas are geographic entities defined by
the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use by federal
statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal
statistics. Currently defined metropolitan statistical areas are based
on application of 2000 standards (which appeared in the Federal
Register on December 27, 2000) to 2000 decennial census data. Current
metropolitan statistical area definitions were announced by OMB
effective June 6, 2003.
[4] [4] GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Risk-Based Grant Methodology Is
Reasonable, But Current Version's Measure Of Vulnerability Is Limited,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-852] (Washington, D.C.:
June 27, 2008).
[5] H.R. Rep. No. 110-259, at 289, 294 (2007) (Conf. Rep.).
[6] The National Preparedness Guidelines describe the tasks needed to
prepare for national emergencies, such as a terrorist event or natural
disaster, and establish readiness priorities, targets, and metrics to
align the efforts of federal, state, local, tribal, private-sector, and
nongovernmental entities. The Target Capabilities List provides
guidance on building and maintaining capabilities that support the
National Preparedness Guidelines.
[7] FEMA distributes federal funding to states and urban areas through
its Homeland Security Grant Program for planning, equipment, and
training to enhance the nation's capabilities to prevent, protect
against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism or other
catastrophic events.
[8] The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed to assess
and improve program performance so that the federal government can
achieve better results. A PART review was designed to identify a
program's strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management
decisions aimed at making the program more effective. According to OMB,
the PART looks at all factors that affect and reflect program
performance including program purpose and design; performance
measurement, evaluations, and strategic planning; program management;
and program results.
[9] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005); Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-00-106], (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 29, 2000); and Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination
Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15,
2004).
[10] Nonprobability sampling is a method of sampling where observations
are selected in a manner that is not completely random, usually using
specific characteristics of the population as criteria. Results from
nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a
population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the
population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.
[11] DHS has defined the national preparedness system as a continuous
cycle that involves four main elements: (1) policy and doctrine, (2)
planning and resource allocation, (3) training and exercises, and (4)
an assessment of capabilities and reporting.
[12] The program was originally authorized by the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003. Pub. L. No. 108-
11, 117 Stat. 559, 583 (2003).
[13] [16] GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Risk-Based Grant Methodology Is
Reasonable, But Current Version's Measure Of Vulnerability Is Limited,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-852] (Washington, D.C.:
June 27, 2008).
[14] Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 8--National
Preparedness (Dec.17, 2003).
[15] Pub. L. No. 109-295, § 646, 120 Stat. 1355, 1426 (2006) (codified
at 6 U.S.C. § 746).
[16] Department of Homeland Security, National Preparedness Guidelines
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2007).
[17] GAO Homeland Security: DHS Improved its Risk-Based Grant Programs'
Allocation and Management Methods, But Measuring Programs' Impact on
National Capabilities Remains a Challenge, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-488T], (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11,
2008).
[18] GAO National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to
Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 30, 2009); Homeland Security Grant Program Risk-Based Distribution
Methods: Presentation to Congressional Committees - November 14, 2008
and December 15, 2008, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-168R] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 23,
2008).
[19] For the purposes of this report we will hereafter use the term
"collaboration" to discuss regional coordination efforts.
[20] GAO Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination Can Enhance
Emergency Preparedness, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15,
2004).
[21] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005).
[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106].
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009].
[24] GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable
Communications for First Responders, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-231T] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6,
2003).
[25] GAO, Bioterrorism: Preparedness Varied across State and Local
Jurisdictions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-373]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2003).
[26] FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate provides administrative
oversight on federal grant funding efforts, while FEMA's National
Preparedness Directorate has responsibility for measuring national
preparedness.
[27] The first two measures are gathered through FEMA's Grant Programs
Directorate's monitoring activities; the third measure is gathered
through FEMA's National Preparedness Directorate's capability
activities, according to FEMA officials. FEMA defines "significant
progress" as a 2 percent increase in the average progress toward (1)
all national priorities or (2) all objectives in the grantees strategy
from one fiscal year to the next based on discussions with UASI region
officials. Regarding exercises, "performed acceptably" is based on the
results of exercises reported as acceptable, partially acceptable, or
unacceptable in after-action reports submitted by UASI regions.
[28] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June
1996).
[29] Outputs describe the level of activity that will be provided over
a period of time, including a description of the characteristics (e.g.,
timeliness) established as standards for the activity. Outputs refer to
the internal activities of a program (i.e., the products and services
delivered). Outcomes describe the intended result of carrying out a
program or activity. They define an event or condition that is external
to the program or activity and that is of direct importance to the
intended beneficiaries and/or the public. For a tornado warning system,
outcomes could be the number of lives saved and property damage
averted. While performance measures must distinguish between outcomes
and outputs, there must be a reasonable connection between them, with
outputs supporting (i.e., leading to) outcomes in a logical fashion.
[30] These factors include: (1) governance structures, committees, and
partnerships; (2) regional coordination of expenditures; (3) formalized
mutual aid agreements; and (4) exercises testing mutual aid agreements.
[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106].
[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009].
[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009].
[34] The National Incident Management System establishes standardized
incident management processes, protocols, and procedures that all
federal, state, tribal, and local responders are to use to coordinate
and conduct response actions. NIMS has become the national standard for
incident management.
[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009].
[36] As we noted in June 2008, DHS adopted an effectiveness assessment
for fiscal year 2006 to determine the anticipated effectiveness of the
various risk mitigation investments proposed by urban areas, which
affected the final amount of funds awarded to eligible areas. See
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-852].
[37] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009].
[38] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106].
[39] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Analysis of State and Local
Officials' Views on Federal Preparedness Requirements (Washington,
D.C.: January 2009).
[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369].
[41] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106].
[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106].
[43] According to the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, a
fusion center is generally "a collaborative effort of two or more
agencies that provide resources, expertise, and information to the
center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent,
investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity." Fusion
centers may include a range of federal, state, tribal and local
entities and collect and analyze and disseminate information related to
homeland security, terrorism, and law enforcement.
[44] GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Efforts Are Helping to Alleviate
Some Challenges Encountered by State and Local Information Fusion
Centers, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-35]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2007).
[45] Department of Homeland Security, Tactical Interoperable
Communications Scorecards: Summary Report and Findings (Washington,
D.C.: January 2007).
[46] GAO, Radio Communications: Congressional Action Needed to Ensure
Agencies Collaborate to Develop a Joint Solution, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-133] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12,
2008); Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental
Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable
Communications, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-740]
(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004).
[47] Tactical plans identify individual tasks, actions, and objectives
tailored to specific situations and fact patterns at an operational
level. Tactical planning is meant to support and achieve the objectives
of the operations plan.
[48] [1] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-652].
[49] [2] GAO Homeland Security: DHS' Efforts to Enhance First
Responders' All-Hazards Capabilities Continue to Evolve [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-652] (Washington, D.C.: July 11,
2005).
[50] [1] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005); Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-00-106] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 29, 2000); and Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination
Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1009] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15,
2004).
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
