Quadrennial Homeland Security Review
2010 Reports Addressed Many Required Elements, but Budget Planning Not Yet Completed Gao ID: GAO-11-153R December 16, 2010The United States continues to face a myriad of broad and evolving threats, such as the October 2010 attempted attack on the nation's air cargo system, that underscore the high priority the federal government places on homeland security and efforts to coordinate security roles, responsibilities, and activities across a wide variety of stakeholders, including state, local, tribal, private sector, nongovernmental, and international partners. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Commission Act) required that beginning in 2009 and every 4 years thereafter the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conduct a quadrennial review that provides a comprehensive examination of the homeland security strategy of the United States. According to the act, the review is to delineate the national homeland security strategy, outline and prioritize critical homeland security missions, and assess the organizational alignment of DHS to the homeland security strategy and mission areas, among other things. The act required that DHS conduct the quadrennial review in consultation with stakeholders, such as heads of federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; private sector representatives; and academics and other policy experts. The act also specified that DHS was to issue a report on the results of the review, including reporting on nine specific elements such as the homeland security strategy and prioritized list of homeland security missions, by December 31, 2009. In February 2010, DHS issued its first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) report, outlining a strategic framework for homeland security to guide the activities of homeland security partners, including federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies; the private sector; and nongovernmental organizations. The report identified five homeland security missions--preventing terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders; enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding and securing cyberspace; and ensuring resilience to disasters--and goals and objectives to be achieved within each mission. The QHSR report also identified threats and challenges confronting U.S. homeland security, strategic objectives for strengthening the homeland security enterprise, and federal agencies' roles and responsibilities for homeland security. In addition to the QHSR report, in July 2010 DHS issued a report on the results of its Bottom- Up Review (BUR), a departmentwide assessment to align DHS's programmatic activities, such as investigating drug smuggling and inspecting cargo at ports of entry, and its organizational structure to the missions and goals identified in the QHSR. The BUR report described DHS's current activities within each of the five QHSR missions and two broad DHS functional areas that complement the homeland security missions--department management and accountability. The BUR report also identified priority initiatives to strengthen its activities. Congress asked us to review DHS's process for conducting its quadrennial review and DHS's reported results. This report addresses the extent to which the QHSR and BUR reports addressed the reporting elements specified for the QHSR in the 9/11 Commission Act.
We found that the QHSR and BUR reports provided examples of DHS's business lines, but did not include an assessment of the alignment of DHS's management systems, budget and accounting systems, human resource systems, and procurement systems to QHSR mission areas. In addition, neither the QHSR nor the BUR report included an explanation of why the department did not consider it to be appropriate or feasible to assess the alignment of DHS's management systems, budget and accounting systems, human resource systems, and procurement systems to the QHSR mission areas, such as a statement or conclusion that these business lines equally apply to all QHSR missions. Such a statement could have helped to explain how DHS viewed its business lines as supporting all of the QHSR mission goals and objectives. Therefore, we continue to believe that reporting element 5 was "Addressed in part" by DHS.
GAO-11-153R, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: 2010 Reports Addressed Many Required Elements, but Budget Planning Not Yet Completed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-153R
entitled 'Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: 2010 Reports Addressed
Many Required Elements, but Budget Planning Not Yet Completed' which
was released on December 16, 2010.
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.
GAO-11-153R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 16, 2010:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Colombia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Subject: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: 2010 Reports Addressed
Many Required Elements, but Budget Planning Not Yet Completed:
The United States continues to face a myriad of broad and evolving
threats, such as the October 2010 attempted attack on the nation's air
cargo system, that underscore the high priority the federal government
places on homeland security and efforts to coordinate security roles,
responsibilities, and activities across a wide variety of
stakeholders, including state, local, tribal, private sector,
nongovernmental, and international partners. The Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Commission
Act) required that beginning in 2009 and every 4 years thereafter the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conduct a quadrennial review
that provides a comprehensive examination of the homeland security
strategy of the United States.[Footnote 1] According to the act, the
review is to delineate the national homeland security strategy,
outline and prioritize critical homeland security missions, and assess
the organizational alignment of DHS to the homeland security strategy
and mission areas, among other things.The act required that DHS
conduct the quadrennial review in consultation with stakeholders, such
as heads of federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments;
private sector representatives; and academics and other policy
experts. The act also specified that DHS was to issue a report on the
results of the review, including reporting on nine specific elements
such as the homeland security strategy and prioritized list of
homeland security missions, by December 31, 2009.[Footnote 2]
In February 2010, DHS issued its first Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review (QHSR) report, outlining a strategic framework for homeland
security to guide the activities of homeland security partners,
including federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies; the
private sector; and nongovernmental organizations.[Footnote 3] The
report identified five homeland security missions--preventing
terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders;
enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding and
securing cyberspace; and ensuring resilience to disasters--and goals
and objectives to be achieved within each mission. The QHSR report
also identified threats and challenges confronting U.S. homeland
security, strategic objectives for strengthening the homeland security
enterprise, and federal agencies' roles and responsibilities for
homeland security.[Footnote 4] In addition to the QHSR report, in July
2010 DHS issued a report on the results of its Bottom-Up Review (BUR),
a departmentwide assessment to align DHS's programmatic activities,
such as investigating drug smuggling and inspecting cargo at ports of
entry, and its organizational structure to the missions and goals
identified in the QHSR.[Footnote 5] The BUR report described DHS's
current activities within each of the five QHSR missions and two broad
DHS functional areas that complement the homeland security missions--
department management and accountability. The BUR report also
identified priority initiatives to strengthen its activities.
You asked us to review DHS's process for conducting its quadrennial
review and DHS's reported results. This report addresses the extent to
which the QHSR and BUR reports addressed the reporting elements
specified for the QHSR in the 9/11 Commission Act. Enclosure I
provides additional information on the process DHS used to conduct the
quadrennial review.
To assess the extent to which the 2010 QHSR and BUR reports addressed
reporting elements listed in the 9/11 Commission Act, we determined
the extent to which each element was addressed in the QHSR or BUR
reports. Three GAO analysts independently compared the QHSR and BUR
reports to each of the nine reporting elements to determine whether
each element was addressed, addressed in part, or not addressed. In
cases when the analysts disagreed, they reviewed and discussed their
independent assessments to reach concurrence. We considered an element
addressed if all portions of it were explicitly included in either the
QHSR or BUR reports, addressed in part if one or more but not all
portions of the element were included, and not addressed if neither
the QHSR nor the BUR reports explicitly addressed any part of the
element. In addition, we interviewed DHS officials involved in the
quadrennial review to discuss their implementation of the 9/11
Commission Act requirements and the review's analytic approach and
findings. To determine the process DHS followed in conducting the
quadrennial review, including the QHSR and BUR, we reviewed documents
provided by DHS that outlined the quadrennial review process, such as
DHS's time frames for the review, planning and guidance documents that
specified how DHS would conduct its analyses, briefing slides provided
to Congress, and correspondence between DHS officials and stakeholders
consulted as a part of the quadrennial review. To describe the actions
DHS took to consult with the stakeholders listed in the 9/11
Commission Act while conducting the QHSR, we obtained and evaluated
DHS documentary evidence of outreach to stakeholders, such as letters
to stakeholders requesting input on the QHSR report and documents
provided to DHS by stakeholders in response to DHS's request. We also
interviewed DHS officials and officials from the seven federal
agencies listed as stakeholders in the 9/11 Commission Act to
determine how DHS consulted with these stakeholders throughout the
QHSR development phases.[Footnote 6] For the purposes of this report,
we did not evaluate the effectiveness of DHS's quadrennial review
process or validate the results of the quadrennial review analyses; we
are conducting additional work in response to a request from the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and its
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia subcommittee evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of the quadrennial review and will report on the results of
that work in 2011.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through December
2010 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.
DHS Fully or Partially Addressed Many Reporting Elements in the QHSR
and BUR Reports, but Did Not Provide Required Budget Planning
Descriptions:
Of the nine 9/11 Commission Act reporting elements for the QHSR, DHS
addressed three and partially addressed six through the QHSR and BUR
reports, as shown in table 2. Elements DHS addressed included a
description of homeland security threats and an explanation of
underlying assumptions for the QHSR report. Elements addressed in part
included a prioritized list of homeland security missions, an
assessment of the alignment of DHS with the QHSR missions, and
discussions of cooperation between the federal government and state,
local, and tribal governments. DHS did not include, in either the QHSR
or the BUR report, budget plans for executing the QHSR missions.
However, DHS officials anticipate including a budget plan for
implementing the QHSR missions in DHS's fiscal year 2012 budget
request and in its fiscal year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland
Security Program (FYHSP) documents. In addition, DHS issued the QHSR
and the BUR reports after December 31, 2009, the date specified in the
9/11 Commission Act for DHS to report on the results of the
quadrennial review. According to DHS officials, DHS released the QHSR
report after this date because final agreement was needed among
federal agencies on material in the report and DHS targeted releasing
the QHSR report on the same date as the Department of Defense's
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
Table 1: GAO Assessment of Reporting Elements in DHS's 2010 QHSR and
BUR Reports:
Required elements and comments: (1) Each report shall include "the
results of the quadrennial homeland security review;"
Comments: The 9/11 Commission Act lists six tasks that DHS is to
include in conducting the quadrennial review. The QHSR and BUR reports
included at least partial descriptions of the results of five of these
tasks, such as a description of the homeland security strategy and the
homeland security mission areas of the nation. However, the QHSR and
BUR did not include descriptions of the results of one review task--
identifying the budget plan required to execute the mission areas. DHS
plans to include the results of this task in its fiscal year 2012
budget request and Fiscal Years 2012-2016 FYHSP;
Our assessment: Addressed in part.
Required elements and comments: (2) Each report shall include "a
description of the threats to the assumed or defined national homeland
security interests of the Nation that were examined for the purposes
of that review;"
Comments: The QHSR report identified six threats and hazards as well
as five global challenges and long-term trends considered by DHS to be
threats to U.S. interests from a homeland security perspective;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Required elements and comments: (3) Each report shall include "the
national homeland security strategy, including a prioritized list of
the critical homeland security missions of the Nation;"
Comments: The QHSR report identified five homeland security missions,
but did not prioritize among these missions. The QHSR's five mission
areas are:
(1) preventing terrorism and enhancing security;
(2) securing and managing our borders;
(3) enforcing and administering our immigration laws;
(4) safeguarding and securing cyberspace, and;
(5) ensuring resilience to disasters;
Within each of the five missions, the QHSR identified goals and
objectives. For example, within the preventing terrorism and enhancing
security mission, the QHSR identified a goal of preventing terrorist
attacks and an objective of stopping the spread of violent extremism;
Our assessment: Addressed in part.
Required elements and comments: (4) Each report shall include "a
description of the interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal
response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of
the homeland security program and policies of the Nation associated
with the national homeland security strategy, required to execute
successfully the full range of missions called for in the applicable
national homeland security strategy referred to in subsection (b)(1)
and the homeland security mission areas outlined under subsection
(b)(2);"
Comments: The QHSR and/or BUR reports discussed interagency
cooperation, infrastructure, and other elements of the homeland
security program required to execute the five QHSR mission areas.
However, neither the QHSR nor the BUR provided a description of a
budget plan and did not fully describe the preparedness of federal
response assets required to execute the five QHSR mission areas. With
regard to interagency cooperation, the BUR report described
initiatives that will require interagency cooperation to execute the
five QHSR mission areas. With regard to the preparedness of federal
response assets, the BUR report provided examples of DHS response
assets, but did not discuss other federal assets for homeland
security. Within the discussion of the QHSR missions and goals in the
BUR report, DHS provided examples of infrastructure that could assist
with achieving these goals. The QHSR and BUR reports included other
elements of the homeland security program, such as how DHS plans to
mature and strengthen the homeland security enterprise. Both the QHSR
and the BUR reports indicated that a DHS budget plan for implementing
the QHSR missions will be included in DHS's Fiscal year 2012 budget
request and in its Fiscal year 2012-2016 FYHSP documents;
Our assessment: Addressed in part.
Required elements and comments: (5) Each report shall include "an
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with the
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined
under subsection (b)(2), including the Department's organizational
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human
resources systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical
infrastructure;"
Comments: The BUR report assessed alignment of DHS's organizational
structure with the QHSR mission strategies by listing how the various
DHS component activities align with the five QHSR missions. Although
the BUR report included examples of DHS's management systems, budget
and accounting systems, human resources systems, procurement systems,
and physical and technical infrastructure in its description of DHS's
roles, authorities, or planned initiatives, it did not include an
assessment the alignment of each of these sub-elements with QHSR
mission areas;
Our assessment: Addressed in part.
Required elements and comments: (6) Each report shall include "a
discussion of the status of cooperation among Federal agencies in the
effort to promote national homeland security;"
Comments: The BUR report provided descriptions of cooperation between
DHS and other federal agencies, but, along with the QHSR report, did
not discuss cooperation among other federal agencies in efforts to
promote national homeland security. For example, the BUR report stated
that DHS works closely with other federal departments and agencies,
such as the Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Defense, in
securing U.S. air, land, and sea borders. The QHSR report described
homeland security roles and responsibilities for federal agencies with
brief descriptions of coordination leadership roles for several, but
not all, federal agencies. The descriptions indicated leadership roles
in coordination efforts, but did not provide the status of cooperation
among federal agencies to promote homeland security;
Our assessment: Addressed in part.
Required elements and comments: (7) Each report shall include "a
discussion of the status of cooperation between the Federal Government
and State, local, and tribal governments in preventing terrorist
attacks and preparing for emergency response to threats to national
homeland security;"
Comments: The BUR report provides descriptions of cooperation between
DHS and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments but neither
the QHSR nor the BUR report discussed cooperation between other
federal agencies and these entities. The BUR report provided an
overview of DHS's role within each mission area, including a
discussion of how such cooperation occurs. For example, it stated that
DHS responsibilities for preventing terrorist attacks include
assisting state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to obtain
the information and capabilities to address threats through federal
grant programs. According to the BUR report, these grant programs help
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments build and sustain
capabilities necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, as well as
address other threats, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all
hazards;
Our assessment: Addressed in part.
Required elements and comments: (8) Each report shall include "an
explanation of any underlying assumptions used in conducting the
review;"
Comments: The QHSR report stated that three broad assumptions shaped
the development of DHS's homeland security strategy: (1) rapid
technological change; (2) multiple simultaneous crises that will
likely challenge the nation and its resources; and (3) the need for
United States to guard against complacency as memories of 9/11 recede.
The QHSR also listed nine specific assumptions concerning the current
security environment, such as violent extremist groups that will
continue to use terrorism to attack U.S. targets and climate change
that will increase the severity and frequency of weather-related
hazards;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Required elements and comments: (9) Each report shall include "any
other matter the Secretary considers appropriate;"
Comments: The 9/11 Commission Act required DHS to report on the
national homeland security strategy, including the critical missions
of the nation. DHS also reported on the goals and objectives that
would support each of the mission areas. In addition, the QHSR report
described objectives for maturing and strengthening the homeland
security enterprise based on common themes across the QHSR mission
areas, such as ensuring a shared awareness and understanding of risks
and threats and building capable communities. In addition to
endeavoring to fulfill the 9/11 Commission Act requirement of aligning
DHS's organization with the QHSR missions, the BUR report described
initiatives and enhancements aimed at increasing mission performance
and improving department management;
Our assessment: Addressed.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS information and the 9/11 Commission Act.
[End of table]
Enclosure 1 describes DHS's process for conducting the quadrennial
review. Enclosure II includes our detailed evaluation of each of the
nine reporting elements required by the 9/11 Commission Act for
inclusion in the quadrennial review report documents.[Footnote 7] The
required quadrennial review elements are reprinted in enclosure III.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on our report from the Departments of
Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
Justice, State, and Treasury and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence. On December 8, 2010, DHS provided written
comments, which are summarized below and reprinted in enclosure IV.
The Department of Defense provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. The other six agencies did not provide
comments.
In commenting on our draft report, DHS noted that it believes that we
conducted a fair and accurate assessment of DHS's efforts to execute
the first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and agreed with our
assessment for eight of the nine reporting elements we evaluated. DHS
disagreed with our assessment of reporting element 5 as "Addressed in
part," stating that it believes that this reporting element should
have been assessed as "Addressed." Reporting element 5 states that
each quadrennial review shall include an assessment of the
organizational alignment of the department with the applicable
national homeland security strategy referred to in subsection (b)(1)
and the homeland security mission areas outlined under subsection
(b)(2), including the department's organizational structure,
management systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources
systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical
infrastructure.
DHS disagreed with our conclusion that reporting element 5 requires
the department to assess the alignment of each of its business lines
to the QHSR mission areas. According to DHS, business lines such as
those listed in the above requirement cut across all mission areas and
support all QHSR mission goals and objectives and the conclusions
described in the BUR report also apply equally to all missions. DHS
stated that it believes that alignment of the department's business
lines to specific missions is neither desired nor feasible.
We found that the QHSR and BUR reports provided examples of DHS's
business lines, but did not include an assessment of the alignment of
DHS's management systems, budget and accounting systems, human
resource systems, and procurement systems to QHSR mission areas. In
addition, neither the QHSR nor the BUR report included an explanation
of why the department did not consider it to be appropriate or
feasible to assess the alignment of DHS's management systems, budget
and accounting systems, human resource systems, and procurement
systems to the QHSR mission areas, such as a statement or conclusion
that these business lines equally apply to all QHSR missions. Such a
statement could have helped to explain how DHS viewed its business
lines as supporting all of the QHSR mission goals and objectives.
Therefore, we continue to believe that reporting element 5 was
"Addressed in part" by DHS.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of
Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
State, and the Treasury; the Attorney General; the Director of
National Intelligence; and selected congressional committees. This
report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have any
questions, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@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 were Rebecca Gambler, Assistant Director; Ben Atwater,
Analyst-in-Charge; Labony Chakraborty; Michele Fejfar; Tracey King;
Amy Martin; Jean Orland; and Janay Sam.
Signed by:
David C. Maurer:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
Enclosures - 4:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: DHS Conducted the Quadrennial Review in Three Related
Phases and Obtained Input from Key Stakeholders:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approached the 9/11
Commission Act requirement for a quadrennial homeland security review
in three phases (see figure 1). In the first phase, DHS defined the
nation's homeland security interests, identified the critical homeland
security missions, and developed a strategic approach to those
missions by laying out the principal goals, objectives, and strategic
outcomes for the mission areas.[Footnote 8] DHS reported on the
results of this effort in the February 2010 Quadrennial Homeland
Security Review (QHSR) report in which the department identified five
homeland security missions and associated goals and objectives. In the
second phase--the Bottom-Up Review (BUR)--DHS identified its component
agencies' activities; aligned those activities to the QHSR missions
and goals; and made recommendations for improving the department's
organizational alignment and business processes. DHS reported on the
results of this second phase in the July 2010 BUR report. In the third
phase, which is currently underway, DHS is developing its budget plan
necessary to execute the QHSR missions. DHS plans to present this
budget plan in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request and the
accompanying Fiscal Years 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security
Program (FYHSP).[Footnote 9] DHS officials stated that together, these
three phases and their resulting reports, when completed, will address
the 9/11 Commission Act requirement for the quadrennial homeland
security review.[Footnote 10]
Figure 1: DHS's Three-Phased Approach to Meeting 9/11 Commission Act
Requirements:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
DHS approached the 9/11 Commission Act requirement for a quadrennial
homeland security review in three phases:
Phase 1: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report;
Key activities:
* Defined national homeland security interests;
* Identified QHSR missions, goals, and objectives.
Phase 2: Bottom-Up Review Report;
Key activities:
* Created an inventory of DHS component activities categorized
according to QHSR mission areas;
* Identified initiatives to increase mission performance, improve
departmental management, and increase accountability of DHS resources.
Phase 3: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request and Fiscal Year 2012-2016
Future Years Homeland Security Program;
Key activities (in progress):
* DHS plans to describe its budget plan to implement QHSR missions and
goals.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS information; Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
DHS initiated the QHSR in August 2007. Led by the DHS Office of
Policy, the department initially formed an internal DHS working group
and conducted outreach with the Department of Defense (DOD) and
congressional committees to develop the department's analytical
approach for conducting the review. Specifically, DHS reviewed DOD's
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process as a possible model for the
QHSR, but determined that DHS did not have the analytic infrastructure
to perform force structure planning and risk analysis as DOD had.
[Footnote 11] Instead DHS developed a homeland security strategy based
on missions, and aligned component activities to the missions and
intends to develop a budget plan based on the QHSR missions. However,
DHS is building the analytic infrastructure necessary to conduct force
structure planning and risk analysis for the next QHSR, according to
DHS officials. For example, one BUR report initiative describes the
need for DHS to enhance its strategic planning processes, resource
allocation processes, risk analyses, modeling capabilities,
statistical analyses, and data collection, in order to effectively
project capability and capacity requirements for DHS missions and
functions.
In July 2009 DHS issued its QHSR terms of reference, outlining the
framework for conducting the quadrennial review and identifying
threats and assumptions to be used in conducting the review.[Footnote
12] Through the terms of reference, DHS also identified the initial
four homeland security mission areas to be studied--counterterrorism
and domestic security management; securing our borders; smart and
tough enforcement of immigration laws; and preparing for, responding
to, and recovering from disasters--as well as three other separate,
nonmission study areas to be part of the review--DHS strategic
management, homeland security national risk assessments, and homeland
security planning and capabilities. The fifth QHSR mission area on
safeguarding and securing cyberspace was added after DHS issued the
terms of reference. DHS established seven study groups corresponding
to these areas, which were composed of officials from across DHS
offices and components. According to the QHSR report, more than 200
participants comprised the study groups from DHS's 4 directorates and
7 components, as well as 31 offices and entities within DHS. The DHS
study group participants were supported by 35 subject matter experts
and research analysts. The study groups were each led by a DHS
official and facilitated by an independent subject matter expert from
the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute. These study
groups conducted their analysis over a 5-month period with work
products being shared with other stakeholder groups, such as outlines
of mission areas and assumptions, in order to develop goals and
objectives for each mission area. At the end of the study group
period, DHS senior leadership, including the Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security, the General Counsel, and office and component
heads, met multiple times to review and discuss the study group
recommendations. According to DHS officials, the DHS senior leadership
meetings focused on key points of the study groups' work, including
results of consultations with other federal departments and external
stakeholders. The DHS Office of Policy consolidated the study groups'
recommendations into a draft QHSR report and obtained and incorporated
feedback on the draft report from other federal agencies and
stakeholder groups, including the stakeholders listed in the 9/11
Commission Act. Agreement on the QHSR report's final content was
reached between the Secretary for Homeland Security and senior White
House officials. DHS issued the final QHSR report in February 2010, on
the same date as DOD's Quadrennial Defense Review.
Throughout the QHSR, DHS solicited input from various stakeholder
groups, including federal agencies, DHS offices and components, and
other governmental and nongovernmental entities. DHS obtained input
from these groups through a variety of mechanisms, such as multiagency
working groups, solicitation of homeland security research papers, and
a Web-based forum, as shown in table 1.
Table 2: Mechanisms Used by DHS for Obtaining Input on the QHSR from
Various Stakeholder Groups:
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Study Groups;
Lead agency/office: DHS Office of Policy;
each study group was chaired by a DHS official and facilitated by a
subject matter expert from the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis
Institute;
Stakeholder participants: DHS directorates, components, offices,
subject matter experts, and research analysts;
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided analysis over a 5-
month period with work products that defined the nature and purpose of
the homeland security missions to collaboratively share with other
stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Steering Committee;
Lead agency/office: DHS - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
(Strategic Plans);
Stakeholder participants: DHS study group chairs and independent
facilitators, Director of DHS's Office of Program Analysis and
Evaluation, and representatives from DHS's Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, Science and Technology Directorate, Office of International
Affairs, Office of General Counsel, and Office of Intelligence and
Analysis;
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided day-to-day management
and oversight of the QHSR report process. According to the QHSR
report, they met weekly to review and integrate study group materials
into the QHSR report. The committee also held monthly meetings during
which each study group presented its progress towards developing
recommendations and issues that required leadership consideration and
decision.
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Senior Leadership Meetings;
Lead agency/office: DHS;
Stakeholder participants: DHS senior leadership, such as the Deputy
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of directorates and
components;
Nature of collaboration and activities: Reviewed and provided
concurrence on study group recommendations for the QHSR mission goals,
and objectives.
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: National Security Staff Sub-
Interagency Policy Committees (Sub-IPC);
Lead agency/office: National Security Staff and DHS officials led each
of six Sub-IPCs;
Stakeholder participants: 26 federal departments and agencies and 6
entities within the Executive Office of the President.[A] Departments
and agencies participated in Sub-IPCs based on whether they had roles
or activities related to the Sub-IPCs' mission areas;
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided a forum for study
groups to gather interagency input as the study groups developed
proposals for QHSR mission goals, objectives, and other report content.
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Strategy Coordination Group;
Lead agency/office: DHS - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
(Strategic Plans);
Stakeholder participants: Representatives of DHS, other federal
agencies and White House staff;
Nature of collaboration and activities: In addition to the Sub-IPCs,
interagency input was provided by the Strategy Coordination Group to
allow strategy and policy planners from across federal agencies an
opportunity to share their feedback and perspectives on the review.
According to the QHSR report, monthly meetings allowed federal
officials responsible for similar strategic reviews to share lessons
learned and best practices regarding their respective reviews and
planning processes.
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Solicitation of Stakeholder
Position Papers;
Lead agency/office: DHS;
Stakeholder participants: Various homeland security stakeholder
organizations representing state, local, tribal, territorial,
nongovernmental, private-sector, and professional interests;
Nature of collaboration and activities: Solicited position papers from
118 stakeholder groups, such as the All Hazards Consortium and the
Airports Council International North America. DHS study groups used
the 43 documents submitted by the stakeholders groups to help frame
and inform study group discussions.
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Web-based Discussion Forum;
Lead agency/office: DHS with the National Academy of Public
Administration;
Stakeholder participants: Open to anyone, including the general
public, who wanted to provide input on the QHSR content. DHS engaged
in deliberate outreach to organizations with interests in homeland
security such as business and academia;
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided a series of three Web-
based discussions to obtain direct input and perspectives from
participants to comment on study group materials. According to DHS,
this forum resulted in over 3,000 comments on study group material.
The study groups used this information to inform the QHSR analyses and
posted updated materials on each successive dialog to show
participants how their comments informed study group work.
Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Executive Committee;
Lead agency/office: DHS;
Stakeholder participants: 10 stakeholder associations, such as the
National Governors Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors;
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided monthly
teleconferences with associations throughout the review to keep the
associations apprised of the review progress.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS information.
[A] The 26 federal departments and agencies and 6 entities within the
Executive Office of the President were: Department of Homeland
Security, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of
Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy,
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, Department of the Treasury, National
Counterterrorism Center, United States Postal Service, General
Services Administration, Office of Management and Budget, National
Security Staff, Office of Global Maritime Situational Awareness,
Department of Labor, Domestic Policy Council, United States Trade
Representative, Council of Economic Advisors, National Economic
Council, Department of Education, United States Department of
Agriculture, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Office of Personnel Management, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, United States
Geological Survey, United States Army Corps of Engineers, National
Guard Bureau, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
[End of table]
DHS initiated the BUR in November 2009. Each DHS directorate,
component, and office created an inventory of its activities and
categorized them according to the QHSR missions. For example, the
Transportation Security Administration identified one of its
activities as inspecting domestic air cargo, which it categorized
under the preventing terrorism and enhancing security QHSR mission
area. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement identified one of its
activities as investigating human smuggling and trafficking, which it
categorized under the securing and managing our borders QHSR mission
area. The BUR resulted in a catalog of about 1,300 DHS activities
organized under each of the five QHSR mission areas or the DHS
functional areas of department management and accountability. Under
the department management functional area, DHS identified one of its
activities as the efficiency review to identify and implement
initiatives to reduce costs or streamline operations. Under the
accountability functional area, DHS identified one of its activities
as strengthening data and performance management. DHS identified over
300 potential initiatives for increasing mission performance and
accountability and improving department management, derived 43
priority initiatives from this list, and highlighted them in the July
2010 BUR report.[Footnote 13] For example, under the enforcing and
administering our immigration laws mission area, DHS identified as
priority initiatives improving DHS's immigration services processes
and dismantling human smuggling organizations. Under the ensuring
resilience to disasters mission area, DHS identified as priority
initiatives enhancing catastrophic disaster preparedness and improving
DHS's ability to lead in emergency management.
DHS is developing its fiscal year 2012 budget request and the Fiscal
Years 2012-2016 FYHSP. According to DHS officials, all the BUR
initiatives will not be accomplished in fiscal year 2012. DHS plans to
begin working on the highest-priority initiatives in the near term. We
have ongoing work reviewing how DHS is implementing the QHSR and BUR
and, as part of that work we will report in 2011 on how the fiscal
year 2012 budget request and 2012-2016 FYHSP align with the QHSR and
BUR.
Enclosure II: Detailed Assessments of Required Elements:
Reporting Element: Results of the Review:
Reporting Element 1:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(A) each report shall include ’the
results of the quadrennial homeland security review.“
Our Assessment: Addressed in Part:
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in
part.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and Bottom-Up Review
(BUR) reports included descriptions of the results of some but not all
of the tasks that the 9/11 Commission Act specified for the quadrennial
review. Specifically, the act required that, in conducting the review,
DHS include six tasks, such as outlining and prioritizing the full
range of critical homeland security mission areas of the nation. The
act required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to report on
this and other tasks as part of the QHSR report. As shown in table 1,
the QHSR and BUR reports discussed some, but not all, of the six task
areas specified by the 9/11 Commission Act for the quadrennial review.
Table 1: GAO‘s Assessment of Extent to Which the QHSR and BUR Reports
Addressed the 9/11 Commission Act Quadrennial Review Tasks:
QHSR task: Delineate and update, as appropriate, the national homeland
security strategy, consistent with appropriate national and department
strategies, strategic plans, and Homeland Security Presidential
Directives, including the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the
National Response Plan, and the Department Security Strategic Plan;
Our assessment: The QHSR report delineates a national homeland
security strategy, through its description of five homeland security
mission areas and identification of corresponding goals, objectives,
and strategic outcomes. In addition, the BUR report stated that the
QHSR was consistent with, and expands upon, the May 2010 White House
National Security Strategy. DHS officials collaborated with White
House staff as the National Security Strategy was developed to ensure
that the QHSR and National Security Strategy were consistent,
according to DHS officials. However, the QHSR and BUR reports did not
identify how the QHSR homeland security strategy is consistent with
other national and DHS strategies, such as the National Strategy for
Homeland Security, issued by the White House in October 2007, or DHS‘s
current strategic plan. Regarding consistency with the National
Strategy for Homeland Security, according to DHS officials, no effort
was made by DHS officials to evaluate the consistency of the QHSR
report with the National Strategy for Homeland Security, and DHS did
not comment on the effect of the QHSR report on the strategy.
Regarding consistency with DHS‘s fiscal year 2008-2013 strategic plan,
DHS considers the QHSR and BUR reports to supersede the current
strategic plan and therefore consistency between the two strategies
was not evaluated, according to DHS officials. However, DHS officials
stated that DHS is currently considering whether publication of the
QHSR report is sufficient to supersede the current strategic plan or
whether additional action, including releasing a new strategic
plan, is required.
QHSR task: Outline and prioritize the full range of the critical
homeland security mission areas of the nation;
Our assessment: In the QHSR report, DHS outlined five homeland
security mission areas, but did not prioritize among those areas. For
additional details on our assessment, see the section of this
enclosure on Reporting Element 3.
QHSR task: Describe the interagency cooperation, preparedness of
federal response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other
elements of the homeland security program and policies of the nation
associated with the national homeland security strategy, required to
execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the
national homeland security strategy;
Our assessment: The QHSR and BUR reports discussed interagency
cooperation, infrastructure, and other elements required to execute
the QHSR missions, but did not provide a description of a budget plan
or fully describe the preparedness of federal response assets. DHS
proposes to include a budget plan in its fiscal year 2012 budget
request and Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security
Program. For additional details on our assessment, see the section of
this enclosure on Reporting Element 4.
QHSR task: Identify the budget plan required to provide sufficient
resources to successfully execute the full range of missions called
for in the national homeland security strategy;
Our assessment: The QHSR and BUR reports did not identify a budget
plan for providing resources to execute the missions called for in the
national homeland security. DHS plans to include the budget plan in
its fiscal year 2012 budget request and Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future
Years Homeland Security Program. For additional details on our
assessment, see the section of this enclosure on Reporting Element 4.
QHSR task: Include an assessment of the organizational alignment of
the department with the national homeland security strategy;
Our assessment: The BUR report included an assessment of the
organizational alignment of DHS with the QHSR strategy missions and
goals. For additional details on our assessment, see the section of
this enclosure on Reporting Element 5.
QHSR task: Review and assess the effectiveness of the mechanisms of
the department for executing the process of turning the requirements
developed in the quadrennial homeland security review into an
acquisition strategy and expenditure plan within the department;
Our assessment: The BUR report stated that DHS conducted a review and
assessment of the effectiveness of mechanisms for executing the QHSR
report requirements into an acquisition strategy and expenditure plan.
As a result of this assessment, the BUR report included three
initiatives for improving the effectiveness of these mechanisms”
increasing analytic capability and capacity, improving performance
measurement and accountability, and strengthening acquisition
oversight.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS information.
[End of table]
[End of Reporting Element: Results of the Review]
Reporting Element: Description of Threats:
Reporting Element 2:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(B), each report shall include "a
description of the threats to the assumed or defined national homeland
security interests of the Nation that were examined for the purposes
of that review."
Our Assessment: Addressed:
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed because the 2010 Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review (QHSR) report prefaced its mission
descriptions by listing six threats as well as five global challenges
considered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be threats
to U.S. interests from a homeland security perspective. According to
the QHSR report, these threats and challenges were the backdrop
against which DHS planned to pursue its homeland security efforts. The
threats defined in the QHSR report were:
(1) High-consequence weapons of mass destruction, in particular,
improvised nuclear devices and high-consequence biological weapons,
which would have the greatest potential effects if used against the
United States.
(2) Al-Qaeda and global violent extremism which directly threaten the
United States and its allies.
(3) High-consequence and/or wide-scale cyber attacks, intrusions,
disruptions, and exploitations, which, when used by hostile state or
nonstate actors, could massively disable or impair critical
international financial, commercial, physical, and other
infrastructure.
(4) Pandemics, major accidents, and natural hazards, which can result
in massive loss of life and livelihood equal to or greater than many
deliberate malicious attacks.
(5) Illicit trafficking and related transnational crime, which can
undermine effective governance and security, corrupt strategically
vital markets, slow economic growth, and destabilize weaker states.
(6) Smaller scale terrorism, which may include violent extremists and
other state or nonstate actors conducting small-scale explosive and
cyber attacks and intrusions against population centers, important
symbolic targets, or critical infrastructure.
The five global challenges affecting homeland security defined in the
QHSR report were:
(1) Economic and financial instability that can undermine confidence
in the international order, fuel global political turbulence, and
induce social and political instability in weak states abroad.
(2) Dependence on fossil fuels and the threat of global climate change
that can open the United States to disruptions and manipulations in
energy supplies and to changes in natural environment on an
unprecedented scale. Climate change is expected to increase the
severity and frequency of weather-related hazards, which could, in
turn, result in social and political destabilization, international
conflict, or mass migrations.
(3) Nations unwilling to abide by international norms that can
threaten U.S. security interests directly or indirectly by sponsoring
terrorism, encouraging weapons of mass destruction proliferation,
serving as a source of cyber disruptions, committing human rights
atrocities, or providing safe haven to transnational criminal networks.
(4) Sophisticated and broadly available technology which empowers
adversaries. According to the QHSR report, intelligence and
counterintelligence practices must be adapted to defeat hostile
operations and the use of intelligence tradecraft by small groups and
individuals planning destructive attacks against the United States.
(5) Other drivers of illicit, dangerous, or uncontrolled movement of
people and goods, including fragile and failing states, regional
instability, competition for resources, demographic shifts,
environmental degradation, genocide, and other gross violations of
human rights. These same drivers can also foster terrorism and violent
extremist ideology, breed transnational crime, and facilitate the
proliferation of high-consequence weaponry.
According to DHS officials, the threats and global challenges listed
in the QHSR report were developed through discussions with federal
national security officials and through reviews of intelligence
community materials.
In addition, the QHSR report includes an objective within its
strategies for maturing and strengthening the homeland security
enterprise on the importance of continuing to study and understand
homeland security threats and vulnerabilities, given the changing
spectrum of threats, vulnerabilities, and disaster scenarios faced by
the United States. Specifically, the objective is for the both the
public and the private sectors to pursue a rigorous scientific
understanding of current and future threats to homeland security and
the possible means to their prevention and mitigation.
[End of Reporting Element: Description of Threats]
Reporting Element: Homeland Security Strategy, Including Prioritized
Missions:
Reporting Element 3:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(C), each report shall include "the
national homeland security strategy, including a prioritized list of
the critical homeland security missions of the Nation."
Our Assessment: Addressed in Part:
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in
part.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this item was addressed in part because the 2010
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) report included the
national homeland security strategy and a list of five homeland
security missions, but did not prioritize these missions. According to
DHS officials, the five missions listed in the QHSR report have equal
priority”no one mission is given greater priority than another.
[Footnote 1] Still, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
officials, in selecting the five missions from the many potential
homeland security mission areas upon which DHS could focus its
efforts, the QHSR report indicates that the five mission areas are
DHS's highest priority homeland security concerns.
The QHSR's five mission areas are listed in figure 1.
Figure 1: QHSR Missions and Goals:
[Refer to PDF for image: list]
Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security;
Goal 1.1: Prevent Terrorist Attacks;
Goal 1.2: Prevent the Unauthorized Acquisition or Use of Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Materials and Capabilities;
Goal 1.3: Manage Risks to Critical Infrastructure, Key Leadership, and
Events.
Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders;
Goal 2.1: Effectively Control U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders;
Goal 2.2: Safeguard Lawful Trade and Travel;
Goal 2.3: Disrupt and Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations.
Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws;
Goal 3.1: Strengthen and Effectively Administer the Immigration System;
Goal 3.2: Prevent Unlawful Immigration.
Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace;
Goal 4.1: Create a Safe, Secure, and Resilient Cyber Environment;
Goal 4.2: Promote Cybersecurity Knowledge and Innovation.
Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters;
Goal 5.1: Mitigate Hazards;
Goal 5.2: Enhance Preparedness;
Goal 5.3: Ensure Effective Emergency Response;
Goal 5.4: Rapidly Recover.
Source: DHSe QHSR Report.
[End of figure]
The QHSR report acknowledged that defining homeland security missions
and setting prioritized goals, objectives, and strategic outcome
statements for each mission could help chart a course for action over
the next 4 years. As shown in figure 1, within each of these mission
areas, DHS specified goals for achieving the mission areas. For
example, within the preventing terrorism and enhancing security
mission area, the QHSR report listed preventing terrorist attacks as
the first goal. Within the goal of preventing terrorist attacks, the
QHSR report listed the following objectives: understand the threat,
deter and disrupt operations, protect against terrorist capabilities,
stop the spread of violent extremism, and engage communities.
In addition to listing goals and objectives within each mission area,
the QHSR report listed strategic outcome statements associated with
each objective. According to DHS, strategic outcome statements are not
intended to comprehensively describe the associated objective. Rather,
they reflect critical outcomes that are essential to achieving the
objective. For example, regarding the preventing terrorism and
enhancing security objectives described above, the QHSR report listed
five key strategic outcomes: acts of terrorism against transportation
systems are thwarted prior to successful execution; the manufacture,
storage, or transfer of dangerous materials are protected by physical,
personnel, and cybersecurity measures commensurate with the risks; any
release of high-consequence biological weapons is detected in time to
protect populations at risk from the release; critical infrastructure
sectors adopt and sector partners meet accepted standards that
measurably reduce the risk of disrupting public health and safety,
critical government services, and essential economic activities; and
governmental executive leadership is protected from hostile acts by
terrorists and other malicious actors.
Footnote:
[1] According to DHS officials, both the QHSR and BUR reports noted
that preventing a terrorist attack in the United States is and remains
the cornerstone of homeland security.
[End of Reporting Element: Homeland Security Strategy, Including
Prioritized Missions]
Reporting Element: Interagency Cooperation, Preparedness of Federal
Response Assets, Infrastructure, Budget Plan, and Other Elements:
Reporting Element 4:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(D), each report shall include "a
description of the interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal
response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of
the homeland security program and policies of the Nation associated
with the national homeland security strategy, required to execute
successfully the full range of missions called for in the applicable
national homeland security strategy referred to in subsection (b)(1)
and the homeland security mission areas outlined under subsection
(b)(2)."
Our Assessment: Addressed in Part.
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in
part.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and Bottom-Up Review (BUR)
reports discussed interagency cooperation, infrastructure, and other
elements of the homeland security program required to execute the five
QHSR mission areas. However, neither the QHSR nor the BUR report
provided a description of a budget plan or did not fully describe the
preparedness of federal response assets required to execute the five
QHSR mission areas. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is
currently developing its fiscal year 2012 budget request and the
Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security Program for
implementing the QHSR missions and strategy.
* Interagency cooperation. The BUR report described initiatives that
require interagency cooperation to execute the five QHSR mission areas”
largely referring to cooperation between DHS and other agencies. For
example, under Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security,
DHS stated in the BUR report that it is partnering with the Department
of Energy and private industry to develop new technologies to deter
and disrupt terrorist threats. In regard to an initiative under
Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace, DHS stated that it
will develop and implement a process to share cyber intelligence
products with federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and private
sector partners. The QHSR report also provided examples of how
interagency cooperation could benefit certain homeland security
missions. For example, the report stated that Mission 2: Securing and
Managing our Borders can only be achieved by cooperative efforts among
federal departments and agencies, international partnerships, global
private-sector partners, and federal, state, local, and tribal law
enforcement agencies.
* Preparedness of federal response assets. The QHSR and BUR reports
did not fully describe the preparedness of response assets across
federal agencies required to execute the QHSR mission areas, such as
the ability to deploy assets from federal agencies, other than DHS,
that have critical homeland security roles and responsibilities.
[Footnote 1] However, the BUR report described the preparedness of DHS
response assets required to execute the five QHSR mission areas.
Specifically, the BUR report provided an overview of DHS's role within
each mission area, including a discussion of the preparedness of DHS
assets and the ability to deploy these assets, if necessary. For
example, for Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters, it stated
that FEMA maintains Incident Management Teams and an emergency alert
system, among other things, to provide a mechanism for meeting
disaster response requirements. In regards to Mission 4, the BUR
report stated that DHS maintains the United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team to provide response support and defense against cyber
attacks as well as information sharing.
* Infrastructure. Within the discussion of the QHSR missions and goals
in the BUR report, DHS provides examples of physical, human capital,
or technological infrastructure that could assist with achieving these
goals. For example, under Mission 2: Securing and Managing our
Borders, the BUR report stated that U.S. Customs and Border Protection
screens 100 percent of all arriving cargo through an automated risk
assessment process and advanced manifest data. Under Mission 3:
Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws, DHS noted in the BUR
report that it works to reduce demand for illegal immigrants by
conducting investigations of employers who hire illegal immigrants and
administers tools such as E-Verify, the department's electronic system
for employers to verify the work authorization status of newly hired
employees.
* Budget plan. Neither the QHSR nor the BUR report included a
description of the budget plan required to execute the QHSR missions
and strategy. DHS plans to include a budget plan for implementing the
QHSR missions and strategy in DHS's fiscal year 2012 budget request
and in its Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security
Program documents.
* Other elements of the homeland security program. The QHSR and the
BUR reports included other elements of the homeland security program
required to execute the five mission areas. For example, the QHSR
report outlined 4 strategic goals and 18 objectives for maturing and
strengthening the homeland security enterprise”that is, the federal,
state, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector
entities, as well as individuals, families, and communities who share
a common national interest in homeland security. Relatedly, the BUR
report described various initiatives and enhancements for improving
department management, related to DHS's focus on maturing and unifying
DHS, such as improving cross-departmental management, policy and
functional integration, and enhancing DHS's workforce.
Reporting Element: Interagency Cooperation, Preparedness of Federal
Response Assets, Infrastructure, Budget Plan, and Other Elements Page 21
Enclosure II: Detailed Assessments of Required Elements
Footnote:
[1] According to DHS officials, DHS's Federal Emergency Management
Agency (14.E.MA) is responsible for reporting on federal preparedness
capabilities. Also, the BUR report stated that FEMA acts as an
aggregator of resources from across the federal government to oversee
various duties, including disaster response, disaster logistics,
individual and public assistance programs, as well as national
continuity programs. However, in October 2010 GAO reported that since
April 2009, FEMA has made limited progress in assessing preparedness
capabilities. See GAO, FEMA Has Made Limited Progress in Efforts to
Develop and Implement a System to Assess National Preparedness
Capabilities, GAO-11-51R (Washington, D.C.: October 2010).
[End of Reporting Element: Interagency Cooperation, Preparedness of
Federal Response Assets, Infrastructure, Budget Plan, and Other
Elements]
Reporting Element: Assessment of DHS Organizational Alignment with
QHSR Missions:
Reporting Element 5:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(E), each report shall include "an
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with the
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined
under subsection (b)(2), including the Department's organizational
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human
resources systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical
infrastructure."
Our Assessment: Addressed in part:
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in
part.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010
Bottom-Up Review (BUR) report included an assessment of the alignment
of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) organizational
structure with the five Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR)
mission areas, but neither the QHSR nor the BUR report included an
assessment or evaluation of the extent to which management systems,
budget and accounting systems, human resources systems, procurement
systems, and physical and technical infrastructure aligned with the
QHSR missions. According to DHS officials, an assessment of the
alignment of these systems with QHSR missions was not appropriate
because these systems are critical to supporting all five QHSR mission
areas.
* Organizational structure. The BUR report listed how the various DHS
components' current activities align with the five QHSR missions (see
figure 2). According to the BUR report, this analysis is intended to
help facilitate a more detailed evaluation of what DHS does within
each mission area and identify priority capability gaps and capacity
overlaps within and across mission areas.
Figure 2: Examples of DHS Component Activities' Alignment with QHSR
Missions:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
QHSR Mission: Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security;
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]:
* Conducts physical screening of passengers and crew, baggage, and
cargo -Transportation Security Administration (TSA);
* Coordinates national efforts to secure and protect critical
infrastructure - National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD).
QHSR Mission: Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders;
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]:
* Conducts screening of people and goods at ports of entry while
facilitating trade and travel - U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP);
* Conducts inspections of foreign airports with flights to the United
States, and regulates security at domestic airports - TSA;
* Investigates over 400 statutes that protect the United States
against the unlawful entry and export of people, goods, and monetary
instruments - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
QHSR Mission: Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration
Laws;
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]:
* Provides immigration and naturalization benefits, as well as asylum
and other services to immigrants; works to reduce demand for illegal
immigrants by conducting investigations of employers who hire illegal
immigrants and administers tools such as E-Verify, the department's
electronic system for employers to verify the work authorization
status of newly hired employees - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS);
* Administers the detention and removal system by which foreign
nationals found to be a national security or public safety threat are
arrested, detained, and removed from the United States - ICE.
QHSR Mission: Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace;
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]:
* Receives and analyzes reports of cyber incidents on federal networks
and provides warnings to federal agencies, state, local, and tribal
governments - NPPD National Cyber Security and Communications
Integration Center;
* Investigates, disrupts, and deters homeland security cyber crimes
committed in cyberspace or against cyber networks - U.S Secret Service
and ICE.
QHSR Mission: Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters;
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]:
* Supports citizens and first responders ability to prepare for,
protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards -
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
* Enforces safety and security regulations on mariners and vessels to
ensure all-hazard preparedness - U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
Source: GAO analysis of DHS's Bottom Up Review Report.
Note: DHS components and directorates listed in bold text are
primarily responsible for carrying out the activities listed.
[A] The following examples of DHS organizational components and
activities were derived from (1) a description of DHS authorities and
roles in the BUR report, and (2) information contained in Annex D in
the BUR report, which is a high-level summary of selected major
categories from DHS's existing program structure and alignment of
DHS's major investments with each mission. It is important to note
that: (1) the table represents only a sample of DHS organizational
activities, which includes DHS components and directorates, and (2)
according to the BUR report, certain activities cross over multiple
QHSR mission areas.
[End of figure]
The BUR report stated that DHS's bottom-up review process included an
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with QHSR
missions, including an assessment of management systems, procurement
systems, and physical and technical infrastructure. However, our
review determined that although the BUR report included examples of
DHS's management systems, procurement systems, and physical and
technical infrastructure planned initiatives”mainly related to
improving department management and increasing accountability”it did
not include an assessment of the extent to which each of these sub-
elements aligned with QHSR mission areas. We also found that the BUR
report identified initiatives related to the two remaining sub-
elements”budget and accounting systems and human resources systems”but
did not include an assessment of how these systems aligned with QHSR
mission areas.
* Management systems. In the BUR report DHS described not only its
activities within each of the five QHSR missions, but also its
activities within two broad DHS functional areas that complement the
homeland security missions”department management and accountability.
Within the department management functional area, the BUR report
identified initiatives related to the department's management systems,
such as improving cross-departmental management, policy, and
functional integration.[Footnote 1] Under this initiative, DHS plans
to examine the creation of a Headquarters Services Division in the
Management Directorate; elevate the position of Assistant Secretary
for Policy to an Undersecretary; and focus on transforming to a "One
DHS" culture through seven specific initiatives such as headquarters
consolidation–the collocation of the department by combining existing
department and component leases and building out St. Elizabeth's
campus in Washington, D.C.[Footnote 2] However, the BUR and QHSR
reports did not describe how DHS's management systems align with the
QHSR mission areas.
* Budget and accounting systems. The BUR report described department
management initiatives to transform DHS's budget and accounting
systems. For example, one initiative related to integrating DHS
management functions is the Transformation and Systems Consolidation
program, DHS's initiative to consolidate financial, acquisition, and
asset management systems, establish a single line of accounting, and
standardize business processes. Further, the BUR report identified
another initiative to increase departmental accountability by DHS
reforming its budget account structure to increase its ability to
compare like costs across components and offices. Still, the QHSR and
BUR reports did not discuss how DHS's budget and accounting systems
are aligned with the QHSR mission areas.
* Human resources systems: As a part of DHS's efforts to improve
department management, the BUR report described initiatives to
strengthen DHS's human resources systems, such as plans to enhance
DHS's workforce through an employee recruitment initiative to improve
diversity of applicants and a reexamination of the
department's workforce needs and reliance on contractors. The BUR
report also identified the current composition of DHS's workforce, but
did not align these workforce resources with the QHSR mission areas.
The QHSR report also did not discuss how DHS's human resource systems
are aligned with the QHSR mission areas.
* Procurement systems: The BUR report identified initiatives to
strengthen DHS's procurement systems as a part of DHS's efforts to
increase accountability for DHS resources. For example, one initiative
regarding strengthening acquisition oversight is to increase DHS's
cost analysis capability to ensure program cost estimates are
reasonable reflections of the program's requirements and can withstand
the scrutiny of external reviews and audits. The BUR report also noted
that DHS plans to conduct rigorous analysis of operational
requirements, technology alternatives, and testing of technology
acquisitions to ensure investments result in mission improvements.
However, the BUR and QHSR reports did not discuss how DHS's
procurement systems align with the QHSR mission areas.
* Physical and technical infrastructure: The BUR report identified
examples of DHS's physical and technical infrastructure initiatives
associated with some of the QHSR mission areas. For example, under
Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security, the BUR report
stated that DHS will create an information-sharing architecture to
consolidate and streamline access to intelligence, law enforcement,
and screening across DHS.[Footnote 3] Under DHS's management
initiatives, the BUR report described DHS's plans to align the seven
separate regional structures currently in use by the operating
components to a single, nationwide regional structure. However, the
BUR and QHSR reports did not discuss how DHS's physical and technical
infrastructure aligns with the QHSR mission areas.
According to DHS, while conducting analysis supporting the BUR report,
DHS officials assessed the alignment of DHS's component activities
with the QHSR report missions, and included this assessment in the BUR
report. In addition, DHS provided us with documentation of DHS's
strategic management study group's assessment of DHS's management
systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources systems, and
procurement systems.[Footnote 4] However, according to DHS officials,
an assessment of the alignment of DHS's management systems, budget and
accounting systems, human resource systems, procurement systems, and
physical and technical infrastructure with QHSR missions was not
appropriate for inclusion in the BUR report because none of these
systems were unique to any particular mission. For example, DHS's
procurement systems are critical to supporting all five mission areas
and therefore DHS focused its assessment on building an effective
procurement system across the department and not assessing how the
system aligned with each mission, according to DHS officials. To that
end, the BUR report provided initiatives for enhancing its procurement
system across the department, described above, but did not assess the
alignment of the system with the QHSR report missions. In addition,
the QHSR and BUR reports did not include an explanation as to why the
department did not include an assessment of the alignment of DHS's
management systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources
systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical
infrastructure to QHSR mission areas.
Footnotes:
[1] For more information on DHS's management integration efforts, see
GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Actions Taken Toward Management
Integration, but a Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed, GAO 10-131
(Washington, D.C.: November 2009).
[2] According to the BUR report, the other six initiatives DHS has
identified to drive transformation and integration of departmental
functions to a "One DHS" culture are (1) Enterprise governance, a
governance model that would allow DHS to implement mechanisms for
integrated management of DHS programs as parts of broader portfolios
of related activities; (2) Transformation and Systems Consolidation, a
DHS initiative to consolidate financial, acquisition, and asset
management systems, establish a single line of accounting, and
standardize business processes; (3) Human resources information
technology, a DHS initiative to consolidate, replace, and modernize
existing departmental and component payroll and personnel systems; (4)
Data center migration, an initiative to move DHS component agencies'
data systems from the agencies' multiple existing data centers to two
DHS consolidated centers; (5) , a Balanced workforce strategy that
includes workforce planning efforts to identify the proper balance of
federal employees and private labor resources; and (6) Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 12 personal identification
verification cards deployment, the provision of cards to DHS employees
and contractors for use to access secure facilities, communications,
and data.
[3] According to the BUR report, the information-sharing architecture
will include, among other things, the capability for automated
recurrent screening and vetting for individuals to whom DHS has
provided a license, privilege, or status (including immigration
status) so that, as new information becomes available, DHS can assess
whether the individual is no longer eligible for the benefit or
presents a threat.
[4] An assessment of DHS's physical and technical infrastructure was
not included as a part of the DHS strategic management study group
analysis.
[End of Reporting Element: Assessment of DHS Organizational Alignment
with QHSR Missions]
Reporting Element: Status of Cooperation among Federal Agencies:
Reporting Element 6:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(F), each report shall include "a
discussion of the status of cooperation among Federal agencies in the
effort to promote national homeland security."
Our Assessment: Addressed in part:
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in
part.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010
Bottom-Up Review (BUR) report provided descriptions of cooperation
between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal
agencies for homeland security, and the Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review (QHSR) report discussed homeland security roles and
responsibilities for federal agencies. However, the QHSR and BUR
reports did not discuss cooperation for homeland security efforts
among federal agencies other than DHS, such as cooperation between the
Departments of Justice and State for sharing terrorist watchlist
information among themselves. According to DHS officials, the QHSR and
BUR reports did not include a discussion of the status of cooperation
among federal agencies other than DHS because DHS officials viewed
such an assessment as outside of DHS's authority to conduct, and noted
that such assessments were already conducted in other venues. For
example, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and the National
Response Framework discuss the mechanisms by which federal agencies
coordinate with each other in those contexts.[Footnote 1]
The BUR report discussed the status of cooperation between DHS and
other federal agencies as a part of the BUR's descriptions of DHS's
current role in executing the QHSR's five mission areas. However, the
BUR report did not discuss the status of cooperation among other
federal agencies for homeland security, as the report was intended to
align DHS's activities and organizational structure to the QHSR
missions and goals. For example:
* Mission 1 - Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security. According
to the BUR report, DHS shares the responsibility to prevent terrorist
attacks with several federal departments and agencies, including the
Departments of State, Justice, and Defense; the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI); and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
For example, the NCTC maintains the Terrorist Identities Datamart
Environment, the federal government's central repository of
information on international terrorist identities.[Footnote 2] The FBI
administers the Terrorist Screening Center, which determines which
individuals will be placed into the Terrorist Screening Database”the
comprehensive terrorist watchlist”and administers the process by which
the No Fly and Selectee lists are derived.[Footnote 3] The FBI and
the Department of Justice also lead terrorism investigations;
coordinate law enforcement efforts to detect, prevent, and disrupt
terrorist attacks against the United States; and are responsible for
the related intelligence collection activities within the United
States. DHS operates as a principal consumer of NCTC and FBI watchlist
products for DHS border and aviation security operations and vetting
of key transportation workers. Further, the BUR report notes that DHS
is a partner in data sharing and threat analysis, and supports the
NCTC and national network of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
* Mission 2 - Securing and Managing Our Borders. According to the BUR
report, DHS works with other federal departments and agencies,
including the Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Defense, in
conducting activities such as detecting and interdicting threats
approaching U.S. borders and monitoring offshore activity to ensure
security along maritime borders.
* Mission 3 - Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws. The
BUR report states that DHS works to prevent illegal entry by
partnering with the Department of State both domestically and overseas
to help ensure that visas to enter the United States are not granted
to foreign nationals who pose a threat to public safety or national
security. The BUR report also states that DHS works with the
Departments of Justice and State as well as foreign governments and
nongovernmental partners to share information used to combat alien
smuggling and human trafficking. In addition, DHS works with the
Department of Justice to ensure timely hearing of immigration cases
and appeals, and with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces with
respect to foreign nationals who pose a national security threat.
* Mission 4 - Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace. The BUR report
states that in cooperation with the Department of Commerce and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DHS develops and issues cyber
security advisories and best practices to federal agencies, to help
ensure that known vulnerabilities are addressed and that preparations
are made to mitigate emerging threats. DHS also operates the National
Cyber Security Center, which promotes coordination and common
situational awareness across federal cyber security operations centers.
* Mission 5 - Ensuring Resilience to Disasters. According to the BUR
report, during domestic disasters, DHS's role, largely executed
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is among other
things, to aggregate resources from across the federal government to
mitigate and respond to incidents. The BUR report also notes that, as
of July 2010, DHS co-chaired with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development a federal interagency working group to strengthen long-
term disaster recovery at the federal, state, local, tribal, and
territorial levels.
As the BUR report was intended to discuss DHS's homeland security
activities and alignment to the QHSR missions and goals, the report
did not discuss cooperation among federal agencies other than DHS. For
example, under Mission 4, the report did not describe how federal
agencies other than DHS coordinate with OMB to secure federal
information systems. According to an August 2009 OMB memorandum, all
federal departments and agencies submit to OMB annual reports that
determine the adequacy and effectiveness of their information security
procedures and practices, including reports on the security adequacy
of national security-related information systems.
In addition, the QHSR report described homeland security roles and
responsibilities for federal agencies with brief summaries of
coordination leadership roles for several federal agencies. According
to the QHSR report, the role and responsibility descriptions are
derived from statutes, Presidential directives, the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the National Response Framework.
The descriptions indicated leadership roles in coordination efforts,
but did not provide the status of cooperation among federal agencies
to promote homeland security. For example, the QHSR report stated that
the Department of Health and Human Services leads the coordination of
all federal functions relevant to public health emergency preparedness
and disaster medical response and that the Department of Energy is the
designated federal agency to provide a unifying structure for the
integration of federal critical infrastructure and key resources
protection efforts specifically for the energy sector. While helpful
for understanding which federal agencies lead particular homeland
security efforts, the QHSR report did not provide a description of how
the federal agencies cooperate with one another in addressing the
efforts. For example, the QHSR report did not state how the Department
of Health and Human Services coordinates with other federal
departments in leading public health emergency preparedness and
disaster medical response. Similarly, the QHSR report did not describe
how the Department of Energy coordinates with other federal agencies
in protecting the energy sector's infrastructure.
Footnotes:
[1] The National Infrastructure Protection Plan is DHS's
governmentwide plan for protecting critical infrastructure and key
resources within the United States, such as chemical facilities and
gas pipelines, from terrorist attacks. The plan includes assignment of
protection roles and responsibilities across federal agencies. The
National Response Framework defines coordinating structures to align
key roles and responsibilities across the United States and describes
specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents.
[2] The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment supports the federal
government's various terrorist screening systems or watchlists.
[3] DHS's Transportation Security Administration uses the No Fly list
to identify individuals who are prohibited from boarding an aircraft
and the Selectee list to identify individuals who are to receive
additional physical screening prior to boarding an aircraft.
[End of Reporting Element: Status of Cooperation among Federal
Agencies]
Reporting Element: Cooperation between Federal Government and State,
Local, and Tribal Governments:
Reporting Element 7:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(G), each report shall include "a
discussion of the status of cooperation between the Federal Government
and State, local, and tribal governments in preventing terrorist
attacks and preparing for emergency response to threats to national
homeland security."
Our Assessment: Addressed in Part.
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in
part.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed in part because the Bottom-Up
Review (BUR) report provided descriptions of cooperation between the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and state, local, tribal, and
territorial governments. However, the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland
Security Review (QHSR) and BUR reports did not discuss the status of
cooperation between other federal agencies and these entities, such as
cooperation between other federal departments that have critical
homeland security roles and responsibilities, like the Department of
Justice, with state, local, and tribal governments. According to DHS,
the QHSR report is not intended to define the roles and
responsibilities of federal departments or institutions.
The BUR report addressed cooperation between DHS and state, local,
tribal, and territorial governments. Specifically, the BUR report
provided an overview of DHS's role within each mission area, including
a discussion of how such cooperation occurs. For example, for Mission
1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security, the BUR report states
that DHS responsibilities for preventing terrorist attacks include
assisting state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to obtain
the information and capabilities to address threats by awarding almost
$4 billion annually to state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments through the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the
Urban Areas Security Initiative, and other grant programs.[Footnote 1]
According to the BUR report, these grant programs help state, local,
tribal, and territorial governments build and sustain capabilities
necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, as well as address other
threats, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all hazards. In
regards to Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters, the BUR report
noted DHS's role in supporting communities during a disaster and
enabling state, local, regional, tribal, and territorial partners to
take steps to decrease risk and mitigate future hazards before
disasters occur.
However, the QHSR and BUR reports did not discuss the status of
cooperation between other federal agencies and these entities. The
QHSR report acknowledged that the report is not intended to define the
roles and responsibilities of federal departments or institutions for
each of the five mission areas, but instead, functions as a strategic
document to guide participants toward a common end. The QHSR report
also acknowledged existing relationships, roles, and responsibilities,
and seeks to set forth a shared vision of homeland security. However,
it did not include a discussion of the specific roles and
responsibilities of the federal agencies and stakeholders across the
homeland security enterprise. The QHSR report stated that the division
of operational roles and responsibilities among federal departments
and agencies for various homeland security mission goals and
objectives emerged as a major area requiring further study following
the QHSR report. According to the QHSR report, an analysis of roles
and responsibilities across the homeland security missions would help
resolve gaps or unnecessary redundancies between departments and
agencies going forward.
DHS officials confirmed an attempt was not made in the quadrennial
review reporting process to discuss the status of cooperation among
other federal departments and state, local, and tribal governments.
However, they said that DHS solicited comments from other federal
departments and state, local, and tribal governments on the role and
responsibility descriptions for each of these entities listed in the
QHSR report.
Footnote:
[1] The State Homeland Security Grant Program provides funds to build
state and local capabilities and implement state homeland security
goals. The Urban Areas Security Initiative focuses on enhancing
regional preparedness in major metropolitan areas, including providing
assistance with developing regional systems for prevention,
protection, response, and recovery.
[End of Reporting Element: Cooperation between Federal Government and
State, Local, and Tribal Governments]
Reporting Element: Quadrennial Review Assumptions:
Reporting Element 8:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(H), each report shall include "an
explanation of any underlying assumptions used in conducting the
review."
Our Assessment: Addressed.
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed because the 2010 Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review (QHSR) report stated that three broad
assumptions shaped the development of DHS's homeland security
strategy: (1) rapid technological change that will continue to alter
social, economic, and political forces, rapidly disperse information,
and provide new means for adversaries and competitors to challenge the
United States; (2) multiple simultaneous crises that will likely
challenge the United States and its resources, requiring all
stakeholders to be capable of managing crises including some for
extended periods; and (3) the need for the United States to guard
against complacency as memories of 9/11 recede.
The QHSR report also listed nine specific assumptions concerning the
current security environment:
(1) violent extremist groups, including potential homegrown
extremists, that will continue to use terrorism to attack U.S. targets;
(2) technologies associated with weapons of mass destruction, often
dual-use, that will circulate easily in a globalized economy,
challenging traditional weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation
and counterproliferation efforts, especially in the nuclear and
biological areas;
(3) terrorists, proliferators, and other criminal elements that will
seek to take advantage of the increasingly globalized financial system
and its legitimate and beneficial functions to move money in support
of their dangerous conduct;
(4) economic crises and disparities that will continue to induce
social and/or political instability, in some cases increasing migrant
and refugee flows”legal and illegal”into the United States;
(5) globalization that will continue to make it increasingly difficult
to prevent health threats to the United States, whether from emerging
disease or deliberate attacks, or via imports;
(6) technological change and cyber threats from state and non-state
actors that will continue to alter social, economic, and political
forces, allow for the rapid dissemination of information, and provide
new means for adversaries to challenge the United States;
(7) climate change that will increase the severity and frequency of
weather-related hazards such as extreme storms, high rainfalls,
floods, droughts, and heat waves;
(8) the security environment that will continue to pose the potential
for multiple simultaneous crises; and;
(9) the danger of complacency as major crises recede.
According to DHS officials, the QHSR report's broad and specific
assumptions were developed through discussions with federal national
security officials and through reviews of intelligence community
materials.
[End of Reporting Element: Quadrennial Review Assumptions]
Reporting Element: Matters the Secretary Considers Appropriate:
Reporting Element 9:
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(I), each the report shall include
"any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate."
Our Assessment: Addressed.
Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed.
Detailed Assessment of This Element:
We found that this element was addressed because the 2010 Quadrennial
Homeland Security review (QHSR) and Bottom-Up Review (BUR) reports
included items, in addition to those that were specifically delineated
in the 9/11 Commission Act, such as (1) specifying QHSR mission goals
and objectives, (2) outlining a strategy for maturing the homeland
security enterprise to support QHSR missions, and (3) developing
initiatives and enhancements aimed at increasing mission performance
and improving department management.
The 9/11 Commission Act required the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) to report on the national homeland security strategy, including
the critical missions of the nation. In addition to identifying five
homeland security missions (see figure 1 in the section of this
enclosure related to reporting element 3), DHS also included goals and
objectives to support each of the mission areas in the QHSR report.
Further, the QHSR report discussed the need for maturing and
strengthening what is referred to as the homeland security enterprise”
that is, the federal, state, local, tribal, territorial,
nongovernmental, and private-sector entities, as well as individuals,
families, and communities who share a common national interest in
homeland security. The QHSR report described the following four
strategic goals for maturing and strengthening the homeland security
enterprise based on common themes across the five homeland security
mission areas:
* establish a comprehensive system for awareness and understanding of
homeland security risks and threats;
* build capable communities that have resources to prevent and respond
to threats;
* foster a national culture of cooperation across all levels of the
homeland security enterprise; and;
* foster innovative science and technology approaches to studying
threats and developing solutions.
Beyond endeavoring to fulfill the 9/11 Commission Act requirement of
aligning DHS's organizational activities with the QHSR missions, the
BUR report described 43 initiatives and enhancements aimed at
increasing mission performance, improving department management, and
increasing accountability. DHS organized the initiatives and
enhancements under each of the five QHSR mission areas or the DHS
functional areas of department management and accountability to align
with the QHSR report. According to DHS, all initiatives and
enhancements will not be accomplished in fiscal year 2012. DHS plans
to begin working on the highest-priority initiatives in the near term.
[Footnote 1] DHS plans to propose initiation of others in the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request, and accomplish others
through the Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security
Program that require programmatic or budgetary changes.
Footnote:
[1] According to DHS officials, senior DHS leadership, including DHS
component leaders, each rated the priority of the 43 BUR initiatives.
The results of these ratings were presented to the DHS Secretary, who
made the final decision on which initiatives were highest priority for
implementation. As of October 2010, DHS officials could not identify
which initiatives were chosen for more immediate implementation
because the budget process identifying these initiatives was not
complete.
[End of Reporting Element: Matters the Secretary Considers Appropriate]
[End of Enclosure II]
Enclosure III: QHSR Legislative Requirements:
Sec. 2401. Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.
(a) Review Required.--Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(a) Requirement:
"(1) Quadrennial Reviews Required.--In fiscal year 2009, and every 4
years thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct a review of the homeland
security of the Nation (in this section referred to as a 'quadrennial
homeland security review').
"(2) Scope Of Reviews.--Each quadrennial homeland security review
shall be a comprehensive examination of the homeland security strategy
of the Nation, including recommendations regarding the long-term
strategy and priorities of the Nation for homeland security and
guidance on the programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and
authorities of the Department.
"(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall conduct each quadrennial
homeland security review under this subsection in consultation with:
"(A) the heads of other Federal agencies, including the Attorney
General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the Treasury,
the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of National
Intelligence;
"(B) key officials of the Department; and:
"(C) other relevant governmental and nongovernmental entities,
including State, local, and tribal government officials, members of
Congress, private sector representatives, academics, and other policy
experts.
"(4) Relationship With Future Years Homeland Security Program.--The
Secretary shall ensure that each review conducted under this section
is coordinated with the Future Years Homeland Security Program
required under section 874.
"(b) Contents Of Review.--In each quadrennial homeland security
review, the Secretary shall:
"(1) delineate and update, as appropriate, the national homeland
security strategy, consistent with appropriate national and Department
strategies, strategic plans, and Homeland Security Presidential
Directives, including the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the
National Response Plan, and the Department Security Strategic Plan;
"(2) outline and prioritize the full range of the critical homeland
security mission areas of the Nation;
"(3) describe the interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal
response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of
the homeland security program and policies of the Nation associated
with the national homeland security strategy, required to execute
successfully the full range of missions called for in the national
homeland security strategy described in paragraph (1) and the homeland
security mission areas outlined under paragraph (2);
"(4) identify the budget plan required to provide sufficient resources
to successfully execute the full range of missions called for in the
national homeland security strategy described in paragraph (1) and the
homeland security mission areas outlined under paragraph (2);
"(5) include an assessment of the organizational alignment of the
Department with the national homeland security strategy referred to in
paragraph (1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined under
paragraph (2); and 6 USC 347.
"(6) review and assess the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the
Department for executing the process of turning the requirements
developed in the quadrennial homeland security review into an
acquisition strategy and expenditure plan within the Department.
"(c) Reporting:
"(1) In General.--Not later than December 31 of the year in which a
quadrennial homeland security review is conducted, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report regarding that quadrennial homeland
security review.
"(2) Contents Of Report.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include:
"(A) the results of the quadrennial homeland security review;
"(B) a description of the threats to the assumed or defined national
homeland security interests of the Nation that were examined for the
purposes of that review;
"(C) the national homeland security strategy, including a prioritized
list of the critical homeland security missions of the Nation;
"(D) a description of the interagency cooperation, preparedness of
Federal response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other
elements of the homeland security program and policies of the Nation
associated with the national homeland security strategy, required to
execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined
under subsection (b)(2);
"(E) an assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department
with the applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined
under subsection (b)(2), including the Department's organizational
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human
resources systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical
infrastructure;
"(F) a discussion of the status of cooperation among Federal agencies
in the effort to promote national homeland security;
"(G) a discussion of the status of cooperation between the Federal
Government and State, local, and tribal governments in preventing
terrorist attacks and preparing for emergency response to threats to
national homeland security;
"(H) an explanation of any underlying assumptions used in conducting
the review; and:
"(I) any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate.
"(3) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall, consistent with the
protection of national security and other sensitive matters, make each
report submitted under paragraph (1) publicly available on the
Internet website of the Department.
"(d) Authorization Of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section."
(b) Preparation For Quadrennial Homeland Security Review:
(1) IN GENERAL.--During fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall make preparations to conduct the first
quadrennial homeland security review under section 707 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), in fiscal year 2009,
including:
(A) determining the tasks to be performed;
(B) estimating the human, financial, and other resources required to
perform each task;
(C) establishing the schedule for the execution of all project tasks;
(D) ensuring that these resources will be available as needed; and:
(E) all other preparations considered necessary by the Secretary.
(2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress and make publicly
available on the Internet website of the Department of Homeland
Security a detailed resource plan specifying the estimated budget and
number of staff members that will be required for preparation of the
first quadrennial homeland security review.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 1(b) of such
Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 706 the
following new item:
"Sec. 707. Quadrennial Homeland Security Review."
[End of Enclosure III]
Enclosure IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 29528:
December 8, 2010:
Mr. David Maurer:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: GAO-11-153R: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review:
Dear Mr. Maurer:
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to respond to the GAO
Draft Report GAO-11-153R: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, dated
November 20, 2010 (GAO Code 440876). Overall, DHS believes that GAO
has conducted a fair and accurate assessment of DHS's efforts in
executing the first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) as
described in Section 2401 of the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/II Commission Act of 2007. Of the nine reporting elements evaluated,
GAO found that DHS "Addressed" three elements in full and "Addressed
in Part" six of the elements. As noted in the draft report, DHS takes
exception only with the rating of reporting element (5) as "Addressed
in part."
Reporting element (5) stipulates that: "Each report shall include 'an
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with the
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in
subsection (b) (1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined
under subsection (b) (2), including the Department's organizational
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human
resources systems, procurements systems, and physical and technical
infrastructure.
GAO found that DHS assessed the alignment of DHS's organizational
structure with the QHSR mission strategies. GAO further found that the
Bottom Up Review (BUR) report included examples of DHS's management
systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources systems,
procurements systems, and physical and technical infrastructure roles.
authorities and planned initiatives (which we refer to as business
lines). DHS believes that these examinations satisfied reporting
element (5) in full.
However, GAO concluded that DIIS addressed reporting element (5) only
in part because DFIS did not include an assessment of the extent to
which each of these business lines align to the QHSR mission areas.
DHS disagrees with GAO's interpretation that reporting element (5)
requires DHS to make such an alignment of each of its business lines
to the QHSR mission areas. Moreover, within DHS, the business lines
cut across all mission areas and support all QHSR mission goals and
objectives; likewise, the conclusions described in the BUR Report
apply equally to all missions. DHS believes that specific alignment of
the Department's business lines to specific missions is neither
desired nor feasible. The cross-Departmental nature of these business
lines and their associated processes is critical to ensuring that a
department as diverse as DHS is able to efficiently and effectively
optimize management activities across the missions. For these reasons,
DHS believes that reporting element (5) should be evaluated as
"Addressed."
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft
report. For further questions concerning this report, please contact
Alan Cohn, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy (Strategic Plans), at
(202) 282-9382 or alan.cohn@dhs.gov.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
H.W. Couch, Jr.
Deputy Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of Enclosure IV]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 2401(a), 121 Stat. 266, 543-45 (2007)
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 347).
[2] 6 U.S.C. § 347(c). Although the act requires the first QHSR to be
conducted in 2009, the QHSR report was issued in February 2010, and we
refer to it in this report as the "2010 QHSR." Throughout this report,
we refer to the elements that the 9/11 Commission Act required to be
included in the QHSR report as "reporting elements." The 9/11
Commission Act required DHS to conduct various tasks as part of the
quadrennial review. For this report, we reviewed the extent to which
DHS addressed the 9/11 Commission Act reporting elements and not the
extent to which DHS conducted the tasks.
[3] DHS, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic
Framework for a Secure Homeland (Washington, D.C.: February 2010).
[4] In the QHSR report, the term enterprise refers to the collective
efforts and shared responsibilities of federal, state, local, tribal,
territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners--as well as
individuals, families, and communities--to maintain critical homeland
security capabilities.
[5] DHS, Bottom-Up Review Report (Washington, D.C.: July 2010).
[6] The seven agencies listed in the 9/11 Commission Act are the
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services,
Justice, State, and the Treasury, and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
[7] 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(A)-(I). For the purposes of this review, we
did not evaluate the extent to which DHS conducted tasks specified in
the 9/11 Commission Act for the quadrennial review.
[8] Approximately 25 full-time equivalent staff oversaw the QHSR
report process, including Office of Policy staff, study group lead
officials, and liaisons from the Office of Program Analysis and
Evaluation, according to DHS.
[9] The FYHSP provides a summary and breakdown of DHS program
resources over a 5-year period, including resource alignment by goals,
component appropriations, and component programs, as well as program
descriptions, milestones, performance measures, and targets.
[10] Because DHS used a three-phased approach to conduct the
quadrennial review specified in the 9/11 Commission Act and the QHSR
and BUR phases have been completed, we refer to DHS's QHSR and BUR
processes collectively as the "quadrennial review processes"
throughout this report.
[11] The 2010 QDR is a legislatively mandated review that articulates
DOD's strategic plan to rebalance capabilities in order to prevail in
current operations and develop capabilities to meet future threats.
The QDR results are intended to guide the military services in making
resource allocation decisions when developing future budgets. DOD
examined the force structure needed for three sets of scenarios, each
consisting of multiple concurrent operations, chosen to reflect the
complexity and range of events that may occur in overlapping time
frames. According to the 2010 QDR, DOD used a multidisciplinary
approach in assessing risk drawing on best practices, quantitative
analysis, informed judgment, expert opinions, and the use of
scenarios. For evaluations of the two most recent QDRs, see GAO,
Quadrennial Defense Review: 2010 Report Addressed Many but Not All
Required Items, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-575R]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2010); and GAO, Quadrennial Defense
Review: Future Reviews Could Benefit from Improved Department of
Defense Analyses and Changes to Legislative Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-709] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14,
2007).
[12] DHS distributed the draft QHSR terms of reference for internal
DHS review in May 2009. The final draft QHSR terms of reference was
distributed to study group lead officials in early June 2009. The
Secretary of Homeland Security formally signed the QHSR terms of
reference in July 2009.
[13] While 43 initiatives are listed in the BUR report, DHS tracks 44
BUR initiatives because 2 initiatives were consolidated into 1 for
implementation purposes, according to DHS officials.
[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:
