Emergency Preparedness
Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Gao ID: GAO-09-1044T September 30, 2009A comprehensive system to alert the American people in times of hazard allows people to take action to save lives. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for the current Emergency Alert System (EAS) and the development of the new Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). In this testimony, based on its report released today, GAO discusses (1) the current status of EAS, (2) the progress made by FEMA in implementing an integrated alert and warning system, and (3) coordination issues involved in implementing an integrated alert and warning system. GAO conducted a survey of states, reviewed FEMA and other documentation, and interviewed industry stakeholders and officials from federal agencies responsible for public alerting.
As the primary national-level public warning system, EAS is an important alert tool but it exhibits longstanding weaknesses that limit its effectiveness. In particular, the reliability of the national-level relay system--which would be critical if the President were to issue a national-level alert--remains questionable due to a lack of redundancy; gaps in coverage; a lack of testing and training; and limitations in how alerts are disseminated to the public. Further, EAS provides little capability to alert specific geographic areas. FEMA has projects under way to address some of these weaknesses. However, to date, little progress has been made and EAS remains largely unchanged since GAO's previous review, completed in March 2007. As a result, EAS does not fulfill the need for a reliable, comprehensive alert system. Initiated in 2004, FEMA's IPAWS program has made little progress. IPAWS is intended to integrate new and existing alert capabilities, including EAS, into a comprehensive "system of systems." However, national-level alert capabilities have remained unchanged and new technologies have not been adopted. IPAWS efforts have been affected by shifting program goals, lack of continuity in planning, staff turnover, and poorly organized program information from which to make management decisions. The vision of IPAWS has changed twice over the course of the program and strategic goals and milestones are not clearly defined, as IPAWS has operated without an implementation plan from early 2007 through June 2009. Consequently, as state and local governments are forging ahead with their own alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has stalled and many of the functional goals of IPAWS, such as geo-targeting of messages and dissemination through redundant pathways to multiple devices, have yet to reach operational capacity. FEMA conducted a series of pilot projects without systematically assessing outcomes or lessons learned and without substantially advancing alert and warning systems. FEMA does not periodically report on IPAWS progress, therefore, program transparency and accountability are lacking. FEMA faces coordination issues in developing and implementing IPAWS. Effective public warning depends on the expertise, efforts, and cooperation of diverse stakeholders, such as state and local emergency managers and the telecommunications industry. However, many stakeholders GAO contacted know little about IPAWS and expressed the need for better coordination with FEMA. A GAO survey indicated that the majority of state emergency management directors had little communication with FEMA regarding IPAWS. FEMA has taken steps to improve its coordination efforts by planning to participate in emergency management conferences and building improved relationships between the IPAWS program and FEMA regional offices. However, despite stating its plans to create a stakeholder subcommittee and state advisory committees, FEMA has established neither group and has no current plans to do so.
GAO-09-1044T, Emergency Preparedness: Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-1044T
entitled 'Emergency Preparedness: Improved Planning and Coordination
Necessary for Development of Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System' which was released on September 30, 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, September 30, 2009:
Emergency Preparedness:
Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary for Development of
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System:
Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director:
Physical Infrastructure:
GAO-09-1044T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-1044T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Why GAO Did This Study:
A comprehensive system to alert the American people in times of hazard
allows people to take action to save lives. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is the agency within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for the current Emergency Alert
System (EAS) and the development of the new Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System (IPAWS). In this testimony, based on its report released
today, GAO discusses (1) the current status of EAS, (2) the progress
made by FEMA in implementing an integrated alert and warning system,
and (3) coordination issues involved in implementing an integrated
alert and warning system. GAO conducted a survey of states, reviewed
FEMA and other documentation, and interviewed industry stakeholders and
officials from federal agencies responsible for public alerting.
What GAO Found:
As the primary national-level public warning system, EAS is an
important alert tool but it exhibits longstanding weaknesses that limit
its effectiveness. In particular, the reliability of the national-level
relay system”which would be critical if the President were to issue a
national-level alert”remains questionable due to a lack of redundancy;
gaps in coverage; a lack of testing and training; and limitations in
how alerts are disseminated to the public. Further, EAS provides little
capability to alert specific geographic areas. FEMA has projects under
way to address some of these weaknesses. However, to date, little
progress has been made and EAS remains largely unchanged since GAO‘s
previous review, completed in March 2007. As a result, EAS does not
fulfill the need for a reliable, comprehensive alert system.
Initiated in 2004, FEMA‘s IPAWS program has made little progress. IPAWS
is intended to integrate new and existing alert capabilities, including
EAS, into a comprehensive ’system of systems.“ However, national-level
alert capabilities have remained unchanged and new technologies have
not been adopted. IPAWS efforts have been affected by shifting program
goals, lack of continuity in planning, staff turnover, and poorly
organized program information from which to make management decisions.
The vision of IPAWS has changed twice over the course of the program
and strategic goals and milestones are not clearly defined, as IPAWS
has operated without an implementation plan from early 2007 through
June 2009. Consequently, as state and local governments are forging
ahead with their own alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has
stalled and many of the functional goals of IPAWS, such as geo-
targeting of messages and dissemination through redundant pathways to
multiple devices, have yet to reach operational capacity. FEMA
conducted a series of pilot projects without systematically assessing
outcomes or lessons learned and without substantially advancing alert
and warning systems. FEMA does not periodically report on IPAWS
progress, therefore, program transparency and accountability are
lacking.
FEMA faces coordination issues in developing and implementing IPAWS.
Effective public warning depends on the expertise, efforts, and
cooperation of diverse stakeholders, such as state and local emergency
managers and the telecommunications industry. However, many
stakeholders GAO contacted know little about IPAWS and expressed the
need for better coordination with FEMA. A GAO survey indicated that the
majority of state emergency management directors had little
communication with FEMA regarding IPAWS. FEMA has taken steps to
improve its coordination efforts by planning to participate in
emergency management conferences and building improved relationships
between the IPAWS program and FEMA regional offices. However, despite
stating its plans to create a stakeholder subcommittee and state
advisory committees, FEMA has established neither group and has no
current plans to do so.
What GAO Recommends:
In the report released today, GAO recommends that FEMA implement
processes for systems development and deployment, report periodically
on progress toward achieving an integrated public alert and warning
system, and implement a plan to verify the dependability of IPAWS and
to train IPAWS participants. In response to our report, DHS agreed with
all of the recommendations and provided explanations of actions aimed
at addressing them. However, FEMA‘s planned actions to address the
recommendations may not be sufficient.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1044T] or key
components. For GAO report, view [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-834]. For survey results, view GAO-
09-880SP. For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-
2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our report being released
today on the status of the nation's emergency public alert and warning
systems.[Footnote 1] This system, the Emergency Alert System (EAS),
provides the President and other authorized officials with limited
capacity to transmit emergency messages to the public. In our previous
work, we have found that EAS relies upon antiquated methods that date
back to 1963, exposing the system to weaknesses, including questionable
reliability and versatility. In 2006, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), by executive order, was given the responsibility for
modernizing public alert and warning systems to ensure the capability
of distributing alerts through varied telecommunications modes and to
tailor alerts to specific geographic areas. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the entity within DHS responsible for the
program, is working on the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS), which is intended to eventually integrate EAS into a larger
warning network. When completed, EAS is expected to be superseded by
the IPAWS "system of systems," to form the country's comprehensive
public alert system. As FEMA develops IPAWS, state and local
governments are implementing warning systems which may be difficult to
integrate with the broader IPAWS system.
My testimony, based on our report released today, focuses on (1) the
current status of EAS, (2) the progress made in FEMA's efforts to
modernize and integrate alert and warning systems, and (3) coordination
issues involved in implementing an integrated public alert and warning
system. To obtain information on public alert and warning systems, we
conducted a Web-based survey of emergency management directors in all
50 states and the District of Columbia. We met with officials from FEMA
and other applicable federal agencies, as well as representatives of
state and local emergency management offices; industry stakeholder
organizations; public and private sector alert and warning experts; and
private sector stakeholders, including broadcasters, the wireless
industry, emergency alert technology companies, emergency management
associations, and consumer advocacy groups. In addition, we conducted
interviews with state participants in FEMA's IPAWS pilot programs. We
examined federal agency documentation including planning, program
status, and financial information; agency orders and rules; testimony
statements; and briefings. We conducted our work for the report in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Background:
EAS, the nation's primary alerting system, provides capacity for the
United States to issue alerts and warnings to the public through
broadcast and other media. FEMA administers EAS at the national level
and is responsible for distributing presidential alerts to National
Primary stations, often referred to as Primary Entry Point (PEP)
stations.[Footnote 2] The PEP stations relay broadcasts of these
national-level alerts across the country to radio and television
stations, which then rebroadcast the message to other broadcast
stations and cable systems. This retransmission of alerts from EAS
participant to EAS participant is commonly referred to as a "daisy
chain" distribution system.
In June 2006, the President issued Executive Order 13407, entitled
Public Alert and Warning System, effecting a policy that the U.S. have
a comprehensive integrated alert and warning system, and detailing the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security in meeting this
requirement.[Footnote 3] The Secretary of Homeland Security was ordered
to "ensure an orderly and effective transition" from current
capabilities to the system described by the executive order, and to
report on the implementation of the system within 90 days of the order,
and on at least a yearly basis, thereafter. The FEMA IPAWS program was
initiated in 2004 and the development and implementation of IPAWS has
become the programmatic mechanism to carry out the executive order.
IPAWS is defined by FEMA as a "system of systems," which is intended to
eventually integrate existing and new alert systems, including EAS.
That is, EAS is expected to be superseded as the nation's primary alert
function by IPAWS, with EAS acting as one of its component parts and as
one of IPAWS's mechanisms to disseminate alerts.
The Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act of 2006 (WARN Act)
[Footnote 4] established an advisory panel called the Commercial Mobile
Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC),[Footnote 5] which proposed
to develop a Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). CMAS was started as
a cellular broadcast text alert initiative, under which FEMA has
accepted the responsibility for disseminating alerts using the IPAWS
system. Another intended partner system is the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Radio (NWR). NWR
broadcasts National Weather Service forecasts and all-hazard warnings.
State and local governments are developing and deploying their own
alert systems which FEMA intends to integrate into the IPAWS system.
Figure 1 displays the conceptual architecture of IPAWS, with EAS, CMAS,
and NWR as mechanisms for disseminating alerts.
Figure 1: IPAWS Conceptual Architecture:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Federal:
State:
Local:
Input to: IPAWS.
IPAWS: Input to:
* Emergency Alert System:
- National Primary;
- State Primary;
- Local Primary.
* NOAA National Weather Radio;
* CMAS;
* Other Commercial Alert and Warning Services.
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
IPAWS will make use of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), which is an
open, non-proprietary digital message standard compatible with multiple
applications and telecommunication methods. CAP has been developed for
use by emergency management officials in sending all types of alert
messages and can be used as a single input to activate multiple warning
systems. FEMA--required by the executive order to adopt alert standards
and protocols--intends to adopt CAP and to publish its IPAWS CAP
Profile standard.
EAS Remains the Nation's Primary Public Alert and Warning System, But
Unaddressed Weaknesses Limit its Effectiveness:
EAS remains the primary national-level public alert system and serves
as a valuable public alert and warning tool. Nonetheless, as we
previously reported, EAS exhibits longstanding weaknesses that continue
to limit its effectiveness.[Footnote 6] While FEMA has projects under
way to address some of these weaknesses with EAS, to date, little
progress has been made and EAS remains largely unchanged since our
previous review, completed in March 2007. We found the reliability of
the national-level relay system--which would be critical if the
President were to issue a national-level alert--remains questionable
due to (1) a lack of redundancy, (2) gaps in coverage, (3) a lack of
testing and training, and (4) limitations in how alerts are
disseminated to the public.
Lack of redundancy. FEMA lacks alternative means of reaching EAS
participants should its primary connection fail. Specifically, FEMA can
distribute national-level alerts to 35 PEP stations (which serve as the
entry points for Presidential alerts) and to 860 public radio stations
across the country via EAS phone lines and satellite connectivity,
respectively. However, FEMA lacks an alternative means of reaching
these participants if those primary connections fail. Furthermore, if a
primary connection to a PEP station failed, all of the other EAS
participants that rely on that station via the daisy chain relay system
would fail to receive alerts.
Gaps in coverage. Gaps in PEP station broadcast coverage could hinder
the successful dissemination of EAS alerts, as some broadcast stations
might have difficulty in monitoring their assigned PEP station because
the station is geographically distant. Some states, such as Maine, are
not covered at all by the PEP system and would have to pick up a
national-level message from an alternate source, such as Public
Radio.[Footnote 7] This might not be a fully reliable option because,
unlike PEP stations, public radio stations do not necessarily have
extra fuel and generators on-site to help ensure continuous operations
following a disaster.
Lack of testing and training. FEMA does not perform ongoing national-
level tests of the daisy chain relay system to ensure that it would
work as intended during a national-level alert. In January 2007, in
response to our ongoing work, FEMA conducted a national-level EAS test
in which three PEP stations failed to receive and effectively
rebroadcast the national-level test message. FEMA has not held another
national-level test since 2007 and has no plans for testing the relay
distribution system. The recent failure of an accidental Presidential
alert suggests that problems remain in the relay system. In this
incident, a national-level (Presidential) alert was inadvertently
initiated in Illinois. While intended as a test, due to equipment
failure, the alert failed to be properly disseminated by all EAS
participants. While FEMA officials say this situation has since been
rectified, no testing has been done to confirm that the equipment used
would work properly in the event of an actual emergency. Another
longstanding weakness of EAS is inadequate training for EAS
participants, both in using EAS equipment and in drafting of EAS
messages. In 2007, we reported that several EAS stakeholders, including
state and local officials, identified inadequate training as a
limitation of EAS and cited a need for additional instruction in
equipment use and message creation. Our current work indicates that
such training is still needed as FEMA has no active training program
and most respondents to our state survey of emergency managers cited
inadequate levels of training. According to FEMA, it is currently
analyzing and assessing EAS operator training needs, but has not yet
implemented any new training initiatives.
Limitations in how alerts are disseminated to the public. EAS's
reliance on broadcast and other media currently exclude other
communications devices, such as cell phones. In addition, it remains
difficult for EAS to reach distinct segments of the population. For
example, alerts are typically provided only in English and alerting
mechanisms provide unequal access for persons with disabilities.
Further, effective public alerting via EAS is also hindered by its
limited ability to target alert messages to specific geographic
locations.
While FEMA Has IPAWS Initiatives Under Way, Progress in Implementing an
Integrated Alert System Has Been Limited:
FEMA began initiatives related to IPAWS in 2004, yet national-level
alert capabilities have remained unchanged and new standards and
technologies have not been adopted. IPAWS has operated without a
consistent strategic vision and has been adversely affected by shifting
program vision, lack of continuity in planning and program direction,
and poorly organized program information from which to make management
decisions. Therefore, as state and local governments are developing
their alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has stalled and many
of its functional goals have yet to reach operational capacity.
Additionally, FEMA's investment in the IPAWS pilot projects--seed
initiatives intended to test alert technologies and form the foundation
of IPAWS--has resulted in few lessons learned and few advances in alert
and warning systems. Furthermore, FEMA does not report on IPAWS
spending or progress in achieving goals, which limits transparency and
accountability for program results.
FEMA Has Begun Some Projects, but Has Yet to Integrate Alert Systems or
Adopt New Technologies and Standards:
Although IPAWS has existed since 2004 with the original objective of
modernizing and integrating public alert and emergency warning systems
across federal, state, and local governments, national-level alert
system capabilities remain unchanged and have yet to be integrated. In
June 2006, Executive Order 13407 specified the responsibilities of DHS
and FEMA with respect to a public alert and warning system,
establishing 10 functions for the Secretary of Homeland Security. Since
the executive order, FEMA has launched or continued, under the IPAWS
program, several projects intended to address the 10 functions
specified in the order. However, the IPAWS projects under way designed
to meet the requirements of the executive order have shown little
progress and some of the projects cited by FEMA have been under
development since the inception of IPAWS and have yet to be completed.
For example, as early as 2005, FEMA planned efforts to provide warning
messages to subscribers via email and to telephones, text message
devices, cell phones, pagers, and Internet desktops. These capabilities
were tested under various IPAWS pilot projects, but the development and
implementation of the methods were discontinued.
FEMA has exceeded numerous timelines that it set for IPAWS initiatives.
Figure 2 demonstrates some of the IPAWS programs that still are not
implemented, including their original timelines for completion.
Figure 2: Examples of Incomplete IPAWS Projects with Exceeded
Timelines:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
EAS Satellite connectivity to PEPs and States:
4th quarter fiscal year 2005.
XM Satellite alert transmission and EAS link:
August 2007.
GTAS initial capability in National Capital region:
September 2007.
DEAS deployment to all states:
December 2007.
PEP expansion to 90 percent coverage:
Fiscal year 2008.
Digital Presidential video, voice, and text messaging capability:
January 2009.
Adoption of the CAP Profile:
First quarter 2009.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA information.
Note: The Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS), Geo-targeted Alerting
System (GTAS), and XM Satellite EAS link are IPAWS projects.
[End of figure]
Shifting Program Vision and Lack of Continuity in Planning Have
Adversely Affected Efforts to Modernize and Integrate Alerts:
FEMA's efforts to create an integrated and modernized alert and warning
system have been affected by (1) shifting program vision, (2)
difficulties in program planning and management, (3) a lack of
collection or organization of program information from which to make
management decisions, and (4) staff turnover.
Shifting program vision. The IPAWS program vision has changed several
times, slowing progress toward an integrated system. Figure 3 shows the
evolution of the IPAWS vision.
Figure 3: FEMA's Shifting Vision for IPAWS:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Late 2004 to early 2007:
Integrated public alert and warning system that provides federal,
state, and local officials with multiple means to provide timely public
alerts.
Goal: Alert all people on all communications devices.
Early 2007 to early 2009:
IPAWS architecture will ensure that the President will be able to send
an alert to the public during any hazardous event.
Goal: Deliver the presidential message to the nation.
Early 2009 onward:
Build and maintain an integrated and comprehensive system that enables
people to receive alerts and warnings through as many means as
possible.
Goal: IPAWS will provide local, state, and federal authorities
integrated services and capabilities to alert and warn their
communities, via multiple communications methods of any hazard
impacting public safety.
Sources: FEMA and GAO.
[End of figure]
Difficulties in program planning and management. From early 2007
through June 2009, the IPAWS effort operated without a designated
implementation plan and no specific processes for systems development
and deployment. The new implementation plan, completed in June 2009,
includes only a vague overview of IPAWS initiatives and does not
adequately satisfy the project management and planning practices
essential for effective program execution. Other planning documentation
that exist indicate a lack of continuous overall strategic vision with
disparate projects not tied together by a cohesive plan.[Footnote 8]
Lack of collection or organization of program information from which to
make management decisions. Throughout the course of our work, FEMA
officials told us that many key IPAWS documents did not exist or were
irretrievable. Moreover, a FEMA consultant[Footnote 9] who is assessing
IPAWS has found that there is no cogent organization system to locate
program information, that information exists in multiple locations
across FEMA office spaces, and that data searches on program
information take an inordinate amount of time and effort. The
consultant also found more robust and realistic documented internal
controls are necessary.
We requested documentation on FEMA and DHS reporting requirements or
performance measures for which the IPAWS program prepared documented
updates of its progress. However, neither FEMA nor DHS regularly report
on IPAWS.[Footnote 10] FEMA was able to provide a performance
information worksheet and spreadsheet, but this documentation provided
only vague program parameters, without progress updates on reaching
specific goals or milestones. The FEMA IPAWS consultant is performing a
full assessment of the IPAWS program with the intention of implementing
internal controls and performance measures. However, the absence of
accurate periodic reporting on IPAWS leaves valuable program
information unavailable. Such information would help increase program
transparency, establish greater program accountability, and assure a
reasonable assessment of return on financial investments. Additionally,
periodic reporting on IPAWS would provide FEMA's private sector
partners and those in government at the federal, state, and local level
with information necessary to help establish an integrated alert and
warning system. Such reporting would also assist the Congress as it
oversees issues related to public alert and warning.
Staff turnover. Progress toward an integrated alert system has also
been slowed by frequent changes in organizational leadership of the
IPAWS program office and other staffing related issues. During our
review, IPAWS was operating under an acting director--its third
director since the program began in 2004--and was searching for a
permanent director. According to FEMA, a new director took charge of
the program on August 3, 2009. Additionally, according to FEMA
officials, high turnover of program staff has made it difficult to
consistently manage IPAWS programs. FEMA's heavy use of contract
employees has also resulted in concerns from stakeholders that IPAWS is
dominated with outside contractors who do not fully understand alert
and warning needs. At the program office itself, there is a
preponderance of contract staff. As of June 2009, the program office
consisted of 27 contractor staff and 5 FEMA IPAWS staff positions were
filled out of 11 noncontract full-time equivalent positions that were
available.
Limited Program Accountability for IPAWS Projects Has Contributed to
Inconclusive Results and Lessons Learned:
To demonstrate the integration and expansion of new alerting
technologies, and to work toward the functionality described in the
executive order, FEMA has implemented a series of IPAWS pilot projects,
but they have ended inconclusively, with few documented lessons
learned. Interviews with FEMA officials and IPAWS documents revealed
inconsistent information on the purpose of the pilot programs and how
they supported broader IPAWS goals. Although we requested reports
documenting the plans, lessons learned, and technological or
operational outcomes, for most pilot projects, such documentation was
never produced.[Footnote 11] Rather, the extent of the documentation
FEMA provided on the pilots includes general briefing slides with broad
program descriptions. As a result of the lack of project assessments,
reporting, and documentation, it is unclear which aspects of the IPAWS
projects, if any, are currently being used or plan to be used in the
future or whether the projects informed actions or decisions with
respect to the IPAWS program. Initial findings from an IPAWS program
assessment, performed by the FEMA consultant, revealed that in most
cases, key project deliverables for which FEMA contracted, could not be
accounted for.
Responses from our survey of state emergency management directors
indicate that most of the 12 states that reported participating in the
pilot projects reacted unfavorably when asked about the outcomes and
lessons learned from the pilots. Lack of coordination, poor management,
incomplete execution, and short project duration were cited, among
other things, as lessons learned or outcomes from the pilots. Some
states cited positive outcomes and were generally more optimistic about
their participation.
FEMA Faces Coordination Issues in Implementing IPAWS:
To effectively develop and implement IPAWS, FEMA depends on the efforts
and expertise of diverse stakeholders, yet stakeholders we surveyed
cited coordination as the primary issue facing the implementation of
IPAWS. Given that the IPAWS vision relies heavily upon disseminating
alerts through state and local warning systems, many respondents to our
state survey seek opportunities to contribute to IPAWS planning and
consider collaboration among all levels of government to be imperative
to the delivery of public alerts and warnings. While there is broad
consensus regarding the need for coordination, FEMA's efforts to date
have been insufficient, according to many stakeholders we contacted.
The majority of our state survey respondents received little to no
information from FEMA and communicated with FEMA to little or no
extent. Further, the majority of respondents had little or no
understanding of IPAWS. In figure 4, we display the survey responses of
state emergency management directors.
Figure 4: Survey Responses of State Emergency Management Directors on
FEMA IPAWS Information, Training, Communication, and Coordination:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey item: Receive information or updates from FEMA on adoption of
the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP);
Great extent: 0%;
Some extent: 34%;
Little extent: 36%;
No extent: 23%.
Survey item: Receive communiqués from FEMA regarding IPAWS program;
Great extent: 2%;
Some extent: 23%;
Little extent: 32%;
No extent: 32%.
Survey item: Exchange communications with FEMA representatives about
IPAWS;
Great extent: 4%;
Some extent: 26%;
Little extent: 26%;
No extent: 34%.
Survey item: Receive invitations to or participate in formal meetings
or working groups with FEMA or DHS.
Great extent: 6
Some extent: 32
Little extent: 21
No extent: 30
Survey item: Solicited for input to FEMA on issues related to emergency
alerts and warnings;
Great extent: 6%;
Some extent: 23%;
Little extent: 30%;
No extent: 32%.
Survey item: Participate in FEMA training, tests, and exercises for
IPAWS;
Great extent: 2%;
Some extent: 13%;
Little extent: 17%;
No extent: 60%.
Survey item: Participate in FEMA public education efforts on integrated
alerts and public warning;
Great extent: 0%;
Some extent: 9%;
Little extent: 19%;
No extent: 55%.
Source: GAO survey of state emergency management directors.
[End of figure]
Some of these views were echoed by federal partners, such as NOAA,
which noted that coordination could be improved, and the DHS Office of
Science and Technology, which cited its relationship with FEMA as a
primary challenge to developing an integrated alert system.
Additionally, local officials we surveyed[Footnote 12] had little to no
communication with FEMA, were generally unaware of the IPAWS program,
and overall, lacked an understanding of the CAP alert standard.
FEMA officials acknowledged that they have, thus far, insufficiently
engaged state-level stakeholders and have recently taken steps to
increase their communication and collaboration efforts. As part of
their Stakeholder Engagement Plan, FEMA plans to continue its
participation in alert and warning and emergency management
conferences; to engage relevant congressional committees; to build
relationships with FEMA Regions, which can pass information to state
and local government officials; and to build relationships with other
organizations and media outlets. As recently as May 2008, FEMA said it
intended to create a stakeholder subcommittee and informed us of plans
to establish state advisory committees. However, FEMA subsequently told
us that neither the stakeholder subcommittee nor state advisory
committees have been implemented and there are no current plans to
establish such groups. FEMA did form three working groups with the
limited scope of reviewing and validating requirements for the CAP
Profile.[Footnote 13]
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Emergency communications are critical in crisis management and for
protecting the public in situations of war, terrorist attack, or
natural disaster; yet, FEMA has made limited progress in implementing a
comprehensive, integrated alert system as is the policy of the federal
government. Management turnover, inadequate planning, and a lack of
stakeholder coordination have delayed implementation of IPAWS and left
the nation dependent on an antiquated, unreliable national alert
system. FEMA's delays also appear to have made IPAWS implementation
more difficult in the absence of federal leadership as states have
forged ahead and invested in their own alert and warning systems. In
order that IPAWS achieve the federal government's public alert and
warning goals, it is essential that FEMA define the specific steps
necessary in realizing a modernized and integrated alert system and
report on the progress toward achieving that end. Additionally,
effectively implementing an integrated alert system will require
collaboration among a broad spectrum of stakeholders.
In our report released today, we recommend that FEMA implement
processes for systems development and deployment, report periodically
on progress toward achieving an integrated public alert and warning
system, and implement a plan to verify the dependability of IPAWS and
to train IPAWS participants. In reviewing a draft of the report, DHS
stated that it agrees with all of our recommendations to improve public
alert and warning and provided explanations of actions aimed at
addressing them. However, FEMA's planned actions to address some of the
recommendations may not be sufficient as they are limited in scope and
require greater specifics. As such, additional actions to improve
program planning and coordination are necessary to achieve a
comprehensive, integrated alert system.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Mark L.
Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Individuals making
key contributions to this testimony included Ryan D'Amore, Colin
Fallon, Simon Galed, Sally Moino, Andrew Stavisky, and Mindi
Weisenbloom.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Improved Planning and Coordination
Necessary for Modernization and Integration of Public Alert and Warning
System, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-834]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009).
[2] The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) manages EAS
participation by media-related communications service providers.
[3] Exec. Order 13407, 71 Fed. Reg. 36975 (June 26, 2006).
[4] The Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act was enacted on October
13, 2006, as title VI of the Security and Accountability for Every Port
Act, Pub. L. No. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884 (2006).
[5] Section 603(c) of the WARN Act required that FCC establish the
CMSAAC to develop and recommend technical standards and protocols for
the voluntary transmission of emergency alerts by Commercial Mobile
Service Providers within one year from the date of enactment of the
WARN Act (i.e., by October 12, 2007).
[6] GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Current Emergency Alert System Has
Limitations, and Development of a New Integrated System Will Be
Challenging, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-411]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2007).
[7] The State of Maine uses the Maine Public Broadcasting microwave
system as its primary EAS backbone. Each station in the Maine EAS
distribution system can receive national-level EAS alerts via National
Public Radio.
[8] FEMA indicated that a strategic plan is under development and that
it has other documentation and processes for system design, that were
in the process of internal coordination when our review was being
completed.
[9] In October 2008, FEMA contracted with a professional services firm
to provide management, assurance, and financial services for IPAWS.
[10] The DHS performance and accountability reports do not include
information on IPAWS.
[11] Sandia National Laboratories was contracted to implement the Web
Alert and Relay Network (WARN) pilot. Sandia produced a final report
for the second phase of the pilot, WARN2, whose results, according to
FEMA officials, were not accepted by the FEMA IPAWS program management
office.
[12] Local officials we contacted were selected based on information
provided by state emergency management directors.
[13] Through DHS, FEMA formed a Federal Working Group, Practitioner
Working Group, and Industry Working Group consisting of federal
partners, emergency managers and broadcast community members, and
broadcast vendors, respectively.
[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:
