Catastrophic Planning
States Participating in FEMA's Pilot Program Made Progress, but Better Guidance Could Enhance Future Pilot Programs Gao ID: GAO-11-383 April 8, 2011Hurricane Katrina in 2005 highlighted gaps in the nation's preparedness to respond effectively to catastrophic incidents. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designed the Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER) pilot program to advance and integrate state and federal catastrophic planning efforts. TFER, first envisioned by the Department of Defense (DOD), ran from September 2008 to September 2010, and FEMA provided the five participating states--Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia--with $350,000 each to develop plans, build relationships with stakeholders, and document lessons learned (i.e., TFER's stated objectives). As requested, GAO evaluated the extent to which (1) FEMA followed sound management practices in designing, administering, and evaluating TFER and (2) the five participating states satisfied TFER's stated objectives. GAO analyzed FEMA guidance, such as the TFER Pilot Information Package, conducted site visits to all five participant states, and met with relevant FEMA and DOD officials, to evaluate FEMA's management of TFER and the states' implementation of it.
FEMA developed program objectives and procedures for administering the TFER pilot, but did not develop other elements of sound management practices in designing, administering, and evaluating pilot programs that GAO identified from its prior work and social science literature. FEMA developed objectives for the pilot, but did not document standards for determining the pilot's success. FEMA also provided resources such as funding, training, and support, but FEMA did not always follow the procedures it established for TFER. For example, FEMA did not consistently conduct biweekly conference calls with the states, and four states reported that it would have been helpful if FEMA provided more guidance. FEMA did not develop a data analysis plan, which could have better ensured FEMA collected data on the extent to which the pilot states coordinated with key stakeholders and provided reasonable assurance that FEMA conducted a systematic assessment of TFER using comparable data across the five pilot states. In Spring 2010, FEMA announced TFER would not continue past the pilot stage before evaluating TFER on its merits in strengthening and advancing state catastrophic planning, but FEMA allowed the states to draw down the remaining TFER funds and continue to complete initiatives started under TFER through August 2011. GAO previously reported in April 2009 that FEMA faced challenges in assessing pilot program data, and FEMA officials reported the agency does not have pilot program policy guidance. In the absence of this, FEMA lacks a systematic approach to developing, administering, and evaluating pilot programs. FEMA could better ensure other pilot programs meet their intended goals by developing policies and guidance that include sound management practices. All five states have taken steps to follow FEMA's guidance to address TFER's objectives, but no state has fully addressed them all. First, two of the five states have completed draft catastrophic plans, and all five states reported following FEMA's planning process. Second, all five states built relationships with stakeholders such as state agencies and FEMA, but state officials said coordination with DOD--a key federal stakeholder who may be called upon to assist in disaster response--was limited. State officials reported not coordinating with DOD because they did not have draft plans for DOD officials to review. Third, all states have documented lessons learned to date, but four states have not exercised TFER plans to determine their effectiveness in the event of an emergency. GAO recommends that FEMA develop policies and guidance that follow sound management practices for future pilot programs, and share TFER results with stakeholders. FEMA agreed with GAO's recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Davi M. Dagostino Team: Government Accountability Office: Defense Capabilities and Management Phone: (202)512-3000GAO-11-383, Catastrophic Planning: States Participating in FEMA's Pilot Program Made Progress, but Better Guidance Could Enhance Future Pilot Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-383
entitled 'Catastrophic Planning: States Participating in FEMA's Pilot
Program Made Progress, but Better Guidance Could Enhance Future Pilot
Programs' which was released on May 9, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
April 2011:
Catastrophic Planning:
States Participating in FEMA's Pilot Program Made Progress, but Better
Guidance Could Enhance Future Pilot Programs:
GAO-11-383:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-383, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 highlighted gaps in the nation‘s
preparedness to respond effectively to catastrophic incidents. The
Department of Homeland Security‘s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) designed the Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER)
pilot program to advance and integrate state and federal catastrophic
planning efforts. TFER, first envisioned by the Department of Defense
(DOD), ran from September 2008 to September 2010, and FEMA provided
the five participating states”Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina,
Washington, and West Virginia”with $350,000 each to develop plans,
build relationships with stakeholders, and document lessons learned
(i.e., TFER‘s stated objectives). As requested, GAO evaluated the
extent to which (1) FEMA followed sound management practices in
designing, administering, and evaluating TFER and (2) the five
participating states satisfied TFER‘s stated objectives. GAO analyzed
FEMA guidance, such as the TFER Pilot Information Package, conducted
site visits to all five participant states, and met with relevant FEMA
and DOD officials, to evaluate FEMA‘s management of TFER and the states‘
implementation of it.
What GAO Found:
FEMA developed program objectives and procedures for administering the
TFER pilot, but did not develop other elements of sound management
practices in designing, administering, and evaluating pilot programs
that GAO identified from its prior work and social science literature.
FEMA developed objectives for the pilot, but did not document
standards for determining the pilot‘s success. FEMA also provided
resources such as funding, training, and support, but FEMA did not
always follow the procedures it established for TFER. For example,
FEMA did not consistently conduct biweekly conference calls with the
states, and four states reported that it would have been helpful if
FEMA provided more guidance. FEMA did not develop a data analysis
plan, which could have better ensured FEMA collected data on the
extent to which the pilot states coordinated with key stakeholders and
provided reasonable assurance that FEMA conducted a systematic
assessment of TFER using comparable data across the five pilot states.
In Spring 2010, FEMA announced TFER would not continue past the pilot
stage before evaluating TFER on its merits in strengthening and
advancing state catastrophic planning, but FEMA allowed the states to
draw down the remaining TFER funds and continue to complete
initiatives started under TFER through August 2011. GAO previously
reported in April 2009 that FEMA faced challenges in assessing pilot
program data, and FEMA officials reported the agency does not have
pilot program policy guidance. In the absence of this, FEMA lacks a
systematic approach to developing, administering, and evaluating pilot
programs. FEMA could better ensure other pilot programs meet their
intended goals by developing policies and guidance that include sound
management practices.
All five states have taken steps to follow FEMA‘s guidance to address
TFER‘s objectives, but no state has fully addressed them all (see
table below). First, two of the five states have completed draft
catastrophic plans, and all five states reported following FEMA‘s
planning process. Second, all five states built relationships with
stakeholders such as state agencies and FEMA, but state officials said
coordination with DOD”a key federal stakeholder who may be called upon
to assist in disaster response”was limited. State officials reported
not coordinating with DOD because they did not have draft plans for
DOD officials to review. Third, all states have documented lessons
learned to date, but four states have not exercised TFER plans to
determine their effectiveness in the event of an emergency.
Table: Progress in Meeting FEMA‘s TFER Pilot Program Objectives:
State: Hawaii;
Develop plans: Some progress: average state progress ranged from 20
percent to 80 percent;
Build relationships: Some progress: average state progress ranged from
20 percent to 80 percent;
Document lessons learned: Some progress: average state progress ranged
from 20 percent to 80 percent.
State: Massachusetts;
Develop plans: Some progress: average state progress ranged from 20
percent to 80 percent;
Build relationships: Some progress: average state progress ranged from
20 percent to 80 percent;
Document lessons learned: Some progress: average state progress ranged
from 20 percent to 80 percent.
State: South Carolina;
Develop plans: Substantial progress: average state progress was
greater than 80 percent;
Build relationships: Some progress: average state progress ranged from
20 percent to 80 percent;
Document lessons learned: Some progress: average state progress ranged
from 20 percent to 80 percent.
State: Washington;
Develop plans: Substantial progress: average state progress was
greater than 80 percent;
Build relationships: Some progress: average state progress ranged from
20 percent to 80 percent.
Document lessons learned: Substantial progress: average state progress
was greater than 80 percent.
State: West Virginia
Develop plans: Some progress: average state progress ranged from 20
percent to 80 percent;
Build relationships: Some progress: average state progress ranged from
20 percent to 80 percent;
Document lessons learned: Some progress: average state progress ranged
from 20 percent to 80 percent.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that FEMA develop policies and guidance that follow
sound management practices for future pilot programs, and share TFER
results with stakeholders. FEMA agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-383] or key
components. For more information, contact Davi M. D'Agostino at (202)
512-5431 or dagostinod@gao.gov or William O. Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-
8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
FEMA Implemented Some, but Not All Elements of Sound Management
Practices in Its Administration of the TFER Pilot Program, and Does
Not Have Policy Guidance on Developing Pilot Programs:
All Pilot States Have Made Progress in Addressing the Pilot Program
Objectives, but No State Has Fully Addressed All Three Objectives:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Other FEMA Grants Available for Catastrophic Planning and
States' Views on Using These Grants for Planning:
Appendix III: Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER) Evaluation
Criteria:
Appendix IV: Our Review of Each State's Participation in the Task
Force for Emergency Readiness Pilot Program:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: GAO Assessment of FEMA's Implementation of Sound Management
Practices for TFER:
Table 2: FEMA Grant Programs That States and Localities Can Use for
Catastrophic Planning (fiscal year 2010 funding levels):
Table 3: FEMA Preparedness Grant Programs Funding Allocated to TFER
Pilot States and Localities within TFER Pilot States:
Figures:
Figure 1: Roles of FEMA and DOD--the Primary Stakeholders for TFER--
within the National Response Framework:
Figure 2: Location of TFER Pilot States within FEMA Regions:
Figure 3: Timeline of TFER-related Activities:
Figure 4: Assessment of Pilot States' Plan Development Through an
Effective Planning Process, as of March 2011:
Figure 5: TFER Funds Spent by State, as of March 2011:
Figure 6: Furthest Step Each Pilot State Achieved in the CPG 101
Planning Process, as of March 2011:
Figure 7: Assessment of Pilot States' Progress in Building
Relationships with Stakeholders, as of March 2011:
Figure 8: Assessment of Pilot States' Documentation of Lessons
Learned, as of March 2011:
Figure 9: Summary and Status of Hawaii's TFER Initiatives and the Role
of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
Figure 10: Expenditure Status of the Hawaii TFER Program and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
Figure 11: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in Hawaii TFER Pilot
Program towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011:
Figure 12: Summary and Status of Massachusetts' TFER Initiatives and
the Role of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
Figure 13: Expenditure Status of the Massachusetts TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
Figure 14: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in Massachusetts TFER
Pilot towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011:
Figure 15: Summary and Status of South Carolina's TFER Initiatives and
the Role of Planners Working on Them as of March 2011:
Figure 16: Expenditure Status of the South Carolina TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
Figure 17: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in South Carolina's
TFER Pilot towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011:
Figure 18: Summary and Status of Washington's TFER Initiatives and the
Role of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
Figure 19: Expenditure Status of the Washington TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
Figure 20: GAO Assessment of FEMA's Evaluation Criteria: Washington,
as of March 2011:
Figure 21: Summary and Status of West Virginia's TFER Initiatives and
the Role of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
Figure 22: Expenditure Status of the West Virginia TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
Figure 23: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in West Virginia TFER
Pilot towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20546:
April 8, 2011:
Congressional Requesters:
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 highlighted gaps in the nation's
preparedness to respond effectively to catastrophic incidents. In the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), was charged with leading the nation in preparing for disasters
in coordination with other federal entities like the Departments of
Defense (DOD) and Justice; the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and five territories; tribal, city, and county governments; nonprofit
organizations; and private entities.[Footnote 1] The Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 appropriated approximately
$7.1 billion to FEMA, and FEMA has allocated more than $1.8 billion to
preparedness grant programs.[Footnote 2]
The Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER) pilot program was
launched by FEMA in September 2008 to strengthen state preparedness
for catastrophic disasters by facilitating greater capacity in and
more comprehensive integration of planning efforts across all levels
of government through $1.75 million in grant funds. In particular,
TFER emphasized integration of planning efforts across sectors,
jurisdictions, and functional disciplines, as well as integration
among state, regional, and federal agencies, primarily FEMA and DOD.
The TFER grant funds allowed states to hire three full-time planners
with civilian and military planning expertise to develop catastrophic
plans. FEMA selected five states to participate in this pilot program:
Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia.
Planning is a key component of national preparedness.[Footnote 3]
According to FEMA planning guidance, planning provides a methodology
to examine the entire life cycle of a potential crisis, determine
required capabilities, and help stakeholders learn and practice their
roles for building and sustaining national preparedness capabilities
against terrorist attacks and other hazards. This is particularly
important in a catastrophic incident, defined as any natural disaster,
act of terrorism, or man-made disaster that results in extraordinary
levels of casualties or damage or disruption severely affecting the
population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, or
government functions in an area.[Footnote 4] Catastrophic events
differ from a normal disaster in the severity of the damage, number of
persons affected, and the scale of preparation and response required.
They quickly overwhelm or incapacitate local and/or state response
capabilities, thus requiring coordinated assistance from outside the
affected area.
You asked us to review the TFER pilot program. Our objectives for this
report were to identify the extent to which (1) FEMA followed sound
management practices in developing, administering, and evaluating the
TFER pilot program and (2) the five participating states satisfied the
TFER pilot program's stated objectives.
To conduct this work, we completed site visits to all five participant
states from June through September 2010 and interviewed relevant FEMA,
DOD, and DHS headquarters and regional officials. During our site
visits, we met with the planners hired through the TFER pilot program
and other state, local, and DOD and FEMA regional officials to discuss
FEMA's management of the TFER pilot program and the states'
implementation of it.
To identify the extent to which FEMA followed sound management
practices in developing, administering, and evaluating TFER, we
analyzed program guidance and other key documents including the TFER
Pilot Information Package and the TFER Guidance and Application Kit.
We also analyzed our prior work on pilot programs and program
management[Footnote 5] as well as social science literature[Footnote
6] to determine elements of sound management practices. We grouped
these elements into three categories: design, administration, and
evaluation. We analyzed the program guidance, other documents, and
information obtained from our interviews and site visits and compared
the results of our work with the identified elements of sound
management practices. Furthermore, we analyzed our prior work and DHS
Office of Inspector General reports on FEMA grants administration and
catastrophic preparedness to identify any past challenges.[Footnote 7]
To identify the extent to which the five states participating in TFER
addressed the program's stated objectives, we analyzed information
that FEMA provided in the TFER Pilot Information Package and further
defined in its TFER Evaluation Criteria document. The three program
objectives included developing plans, building relationships, and
documenting lessons learned, and FEMA provided criteria to measure
progress towards addressing each of these objectives. We used FEMA's
criteria to then assess states' progress toward addressing the three
program objectives. Additionally, FEMA identified key components of
each objective. To assess the states' progress towards addressing
TFER's program objectives, we assigned a numerical ranking to each
objective's components and then averaged the components' numerical
rankings for each of the objectives. We then assigned designations to
these averages.[Footnote 8] We determined that states could not
receive a designation of "substantial progress" for their objectives
without meeting the criteria related to these key components. To
assist in assessing states' progress, we reviewed and analyzed the
documents obtained during our site visits that included draft plans,
progress reports, and status briefings, and interviewed cognizant
officials. As part of this analysis, we reviewed the guidance in
FEMA's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, which provides
instructions regarding plan structure, and we used this information to
determine the extent to which the states' plans adhered to FEMA's
guidance.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 to April 2011 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. Additional
details on our scope and methodology are contained in appendix I.
Background:
The National Response Framework Established a Tiered Response for
Emergencies:
DHS issued the National Response Framework for federal, state, and
local agencies to use in planning for emergencies.[Footnote 9] It
establishes standardized doctrine, terminology, and processes for
responding to disasters and other catastrophic events in the United
States. The framework is based on a tiered, graduated response; that
is, incidents are managed at the lowest jurisdictional levels and
supported by additional higher-tiered response capabilities as needed
(see figure 1).
Figure 1: Roles of FEMA and DOD--the Primary Stakeholders for TFER--
within the National Response Framework:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Incident:
First level responders:
Local resources are exhausted.
Second level responders:
Local mutual aid resources are exhausted.
Third level responders:
State resources are exhausted (including the National Guard).
Fourth level responders:
Interstate mutual aid resources are exhausted.
Governor requests assistance and a Presidential Declaration is issued.
Fifth level responders:
FEMA evaluates situation and coordinates federal response.
Sixth level responders:
Federal government emergency support function resources are exhausted.
Seventh level responders:
FEMA requests DOD assistance: First mission assignment is generally to
activate the Defense Coordinating Officer and staff.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD, FEMA, and state information.
Note: Each Emergency Support Function comprises a coordinator, a
primary agency, and support agencies--usually governmental agencies--
that plan and support response activities. Support agencies are
assigned based on their authorities, resources, and capabilities in a
given functional area. According to the National Response Framework,
if a state anticipates that its resources may be exceeded, the
governor can request assistance from the federal government and/or
other states through mutual aid and assistance agreements such as
Emergency Management Assistance Compacts.
[End of figure]
Local governments respond to emergencies using their own resources or
assistance from neighboring localities. For larger-scale incidents
that overwhelm the capabilities of local governments, assistance from
the state may be sought. Depending on the circumstances, states have
capabilities, such as the National Guard,[Footnote 10] that can help
communities respond and recover. If additional resources beyond what
an individual state can provide are required, the state may request
assistance from other states through Emergency Management Assistance
Compacts or from the federal government.[Footnote 11] Catastrophic
incidents, by definition, result in extraordinary levels of damage or
disruption to government functions, and governors have the option to
seek federal assistance. The federal government has a wide array of
capabilities and resources to assist state and local agencies respond
to incidents. In accordance with the National Response Framework and
applicable laws including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act),[Footnote 12] various federal
departments and agencies may play primary, coordinating, or supporting
roles, based on their authorities and resources and the nature of the
incident. In certain instances, national military capabilities may be
requested to respond to an incident. Defense resources are committed
following approval by the Secretary of Defense or at the direction of
the President.
According to FEMA planning guidance,[Footnote 13] plans must be
integrated vertically among levels of government (e.g., local, state,
and federal) to ensure a common operational focus and horizontally
(e.g., health departments and law enforcement) to ensure that
individual department and agency operations plans complement the
jurisdiction's plans. This integration enables stakeholders to
synchronize the sequence and scope of a planned response in terms of
roles and responsibilities, place, and time to a catastrophic
incident. Catastrophic incidents include those that are defined in the
National Planning Scenarios,[Footnote 14] which represent examples of
the gravest dangers facing the United States, including terrorist
attacks and natural disasters, and have been accorded the highest
priority for federal planning efforts.
FEMA and DOD Each Play a Role in Emergency Response:
FEMA's primary mission is to reduce the loss of life and property and
protect the nation from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts
of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and supporting
the nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system
of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation.
[Footnote 15] As described in the National Response Framework,
planning is one of six activities essential to preparing for an
incident. Other activities include training; equipping; exercising;
and evaluating and improving to build tribal, local, state, regional,
and national capabilities necessary to respond to any type of disaster.
As shown in figure 2, FEMA has 10 regional offices nationwide. Each
region serves several states, and FEMA regional personnel work
generally with the states to help plan for disasters, develop
mitigation programs, and meet other needs when major disasters occur.
Regional office locations are starred in the figure below, and in some
cases are located within a pilot state.
Figure 2: Location of TFER Pilot States within FEMA Regions:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
National Office: Washington, DC.
Region: 1;
Regional Office: Boston;
Pilot state: Massachusetts.
Region: 2;
Regional Office: New York City.
Region: 3;
Regional Office: Philadelphia
Pilot state: West Virginia.
Region: 4;
Regional Office: Atlanta;
Pilot state: South Carolina.
Region: 5;
Regional Office: Chicago.
Region: 6;
Regional Office: Denton, Texas.
Region: 7;
Regional Office: Kansas City, Kansas.
Region: 8;
Regional Office: Denver.
Region: 9;
Regional Office: Oakland;
Pilot state: Hawaii.
Region: 10;
Regional Office: Seattle;
Pilot state: Washington.
Source: FEMA; Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) are
the combatant commands charged with carrying out DOD's domestic civil
support mission, which involves responding to the needs of 56 separate
and often unique state and territorial governments. Additionally,
NORTHCOM and PACOM coordinate with numerous federal agencies that also
have roles in planning for and responding to a variety of incidents in
the homeland. As part of the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina,
both NORTHCOM and PACOM have established Defense Coordinating Officers
with staff to serve as DOD representatives to civilian authorities in
the 10 FEMA regions.[Footnote 16] Defense Coordinating Officers are
full-time senior-level military officers who provide liaison support
and requirements validation, and they serve as single points of
contact for state, tribal, local, and other federal authorities that
need DOD support. In that way they are able to develop relationships
with civilian authorities and gain an understanding of civilian
capabilities so that DOD will know what, if anything, it may be called
upon to provide in the event of a disaster or other incident.
Additional defense resources include Emergency Preparedness Liaison
Officers who are senior Reserve officers that are expected to assist
the Defense Coordinating Officers in coordinating the provision of
military personnel, equipment, and supplies to support the emergency
relief and cleanup efforts of civilian authorities.[Footnote 17] When
NORTHCOM and PACOM are called upon to support civilian authorities, in
most cases support will be localized, limited, and specific. When the
scope of the disaster is reduced to the point where the primary
federal agency can again assume full control and management without
military assistance, NORTHCOM and PACOM will withdraw.
DOD Envisioned TFER, but FEMA Implemented the Pilot Program:
The TFER pilot program was first envisioned by senior DOD leadership
to address the National Planning Scenarios through supporting and
strengthening the catastrophic disaster preparedness of individual
states. However, since DOD is always a supporting agency when
responding to catastrophic events in the homeland, DOD leadership did
not think it was appropriate for DOD to administer the pilot program,
and FEMA administered and funded the pilot program. Although FEMA
administered TFER, pilot program guidance stated that the TFER program
was to place a special emphasis on coordination and integration
between the pilot states, FEMA, and DOD. Further, a key measure of
achievement in the pilot program is the degree to which DOD
stakeholders are integrated as full partners in the development of
states' plans.
FEMA designed TFER to help assess, strengthen, and advance state
catastrophic preparedness planning across state and local agencies and
the private sector, as well as achieve a fuller integration of state
planning efforts with federal agency partners through a deliberate
blending of civil-military planning expertise. The TFER pilot program
centered on the creation and employment of a dedicated planning team.
Specifically, the planning team was to synchronize catastrophic
planning efforts at the respective state, regional, and federal
levels; prepare planning documents; identify gaps in capabilities; and
assist in the overall organization, administration, and improvement of
the states' catastrophic preparedness planning capacity. The three
objectives of TFER are to (1) develop plans, (2) build relationships,
and (3) document lessons learned.
FEMA designed TFER to run 18 months, beginning on September 1, 2008,
and ending on March 31, 2010. The pilot program was extended another 6
months to September 30, 2010--for a total time of 2 years--to allow
states more time to accomplish their planning goals. As shown in
figure 3 , FEMA announced in March 2010 that TFER would not continue
past the pilot stage, but allowed the pilot states to draw down the
remaining TFER funds and continue to complete initiatives started
under TFER through August 2011.
Figure 3: Timeline of TFER-related Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
September 2008:
FEMA releases TFER Guidance and Application Kit.
February 2009:
Participating states begin to hire TFER planners.
April 2009:
Training held in West Virginia for TFER planners.
March 2010:
* FEMA informs stakeholders TFER will not continue past the pilot
stage;
* Original completion date of TFER; 6-month extension granted.
June 2010 - February 2011:
FEMA conducts its evaluation of TFER.
September 2010 - August 2011:
TFER‘s 6-month extension expires September 2010, however, FEMA allows
states to complete planning activities initiated under TFER and finish
drawing down funds until August 2011[A].
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
[A] FEMA's grant extension to the TFER pilot states extended the
period of performance for the grant, meaning states could continue to
draw down TFER funding and work on catastrophic planning activities.
[End of figure]
FEMA limited the pilot program to five states, each of which received
$200,000 in the first year of the pilot program, and an additional
$150,000 for the remainder of the program, for overall program funds
totaling $1.75 million. It selected applicants to achieve a
representative cross-section of geographic differences, FEMA regions,
threat of catastrophic events, state emergency management structures,
and participation in a separate FEMA catastrophic planning grant.
[Footnote 18] As discussed in appendix II, FEMA provides funds to
states and localities for catastrophic planning through other grant
programs. For example, FEMA's State Homeland Security Program provides
funding that may be used for planning efforts that enable states to
prioritize needs, build capabilities, update preparedness strategies,
allocate resources, and deliver preparedness programs across
disciplines and levels of government.
FEMA administers the pilot program within its National Preparedness
Directorate.[Footnote 19] This directorate is responsible for
overseeing the coordination and development of strategies necessary to
prepare for all hazards. As part of this mission, the National
Preparedness Directorate is to provide policy and planning guidance,
training and exercises, and technical assistance that builds
prevention, protection, response, and recovery capabilities.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA began to address the
challenges revealed by its response. FEMA's 2006 Nationwide Plan
Review highlighted the need for fundamental planning modernization and
observed, among other things, that: catastrophic planning efforts were
unsystematic and uneven; planning expertise was insufficient for
catastrophic incidents; and collaboration requirements were not well-
defined, fostering a tendency to plan internally. In addition,
according to FEMA, the 2006 Nationwide Plan Review revealed that 95
percent of state and urban area participants cited the need for
federally funded planning support and technical assistance. FEMA also
reported that in 2007, states and urban areas ranked planning among
their highest grant funding priorities.[Footnote 20] The Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General recently reported that
while progress has been made, the National Preparedness Directorate
needs more effective coordination with state, local, and tribal
governments.[Footnote 21] Our prior work on FEMA, and specifically the
National Preparedness Directorate, has highlighted the need for
strategic planning that identifies outcomes and performance measures
for the Directorate's programs.[Footnote 22] In October 2010, we also
reported that since April 2009, FEMA has made limited progress in
assessing preparedness capabilities and has not yet developed national
preparedness capability requirements based on established metrics to
provide a framework for these assessments.[Footnote 23] We reported
that until such a framework is in place, FEMA will not have a basis to
operationalize and implement its conceptual approach for assessing
local, state, and federal preparedness capabilities against capability
requirements to identify gaps for prioritizing investments in national
preparedness. FEMA responded that it has made much progress since 2009
in meeting its legislative requirements and highlighted some of its
specific achievements, such as the establishment of a working group to
help consolidate and streamline reporting requirements for state,
tribal, and local stakeholders.
FEMA Implemented Some, but Not All Elements of Sound Management
Practices in Its Administration of the TFER Pilot Program, and Does
Not Have Policy Guidance on Developing Pilot Programs:
FEMA developed program objectives and a data collection plan--elements
of sound management practices--but did not implement other elements of
sound management practices, such as documenting standards for
determining the program's success and did not always follow its stated
processes and procedures for TFER. Further, FEMA does not have
agencywide policy guidance for FEMA program managers to follow when
developing pilot programs. In November 2008, we reported that pilot
programs can more effectively inform future program rollout when sound
management practices are followed.[Footnote 24] Consistent with best
practices in program management,[Footnote 25] our guide for designing
evaluations,[Footnote 26] and our prior work, we identified sound
management practices to design a pilot, to guide consistent
implementation of a pilot, and to conduct analysis of the results. Our
assessment of FEMA's implementation of sound management practices for
TFER is shown in table 1.
Table 1: GAO Assessment of FEMA's Implementation of Sound Management
Practices for TFER:
Sound management practice: 1. Develop objectives that link to the
goals of the program and clearly articulate standards for determining
pilot-program performance;
GAO assessment: FEMA developed objectives for the states to follow
that reflected TFER's goals but did not document the standards for
determining whether TFER was successful.
Sound management practice: 2. Develop processes and procedures for
approving, reporting, and monitoring and provide program support;
GAO assessment: FEMA specified support it would provide to the pilot
program and procedures to monitor the pilot, but did not always follow
these procedures.
Sound management practice: 3. Develop and implement a data collection
and data analysis plan;
GAO assessment: FEMA developed elements of a data collection plan, but
did not always ensure data collection tools would produce reliable
results. Further, FEMA did not develop a data analysis plan to
describe how it would track TFER's performance and evaluate its
effectiveness.
Sound management practice: 4. Ensure evaluation results are
communicated to stakeholders;
GAO assessment: FEMA has not yet decided whether, how, or when the
TFER evaluation results will be shared with stakeholders.
Source: GAO analysis of sound management practices and FEMA
information.
[End of table]
FEMA Developed Objectives that Reflect the Goals of the Pilot Program,
but Did Not Document Standards for Determining Pilot Program Success:
FEMA developed objectives for the pilot states to follow, but did not
document standards for determining whether TFER was successful.
According to sound management practices, having objectives that
reflect the goals of the pilot program can help determine whether the
objectives of the pilot have been met. FEMA outlined three objectives
for the TFER pilot program--develop plans, build relationships, and
document lessons learned--and these objectives reflect TFER's goals.
For example, the "develop plans" and "document lessons learned"
objectives reflect the goals of TFER because achieving these
objectives may help assess, strengthen, and advance state catastrophic
preparedness planning--a stated TFER goal. Further, achieving the
"build relationships" objective may enhance the stated TFER goal of
integrating state planning efforts with those of federal agency
partners. However, FEMA did not define how states' implementation of
the objectives would impact the decision to extend or end TFER.
According to sound program management practices, defining standards
for determining pilot-program performance is necessary to determine
what success level is appropriate for judging the pilot program's
effect. The TFER program manager said that discussions about the
expectations for TFER were held at a high level with senior leadership
from FEMA, DOD, and the participating states, such as the Adjutants
General, before TFER planners were hired. However, FEMA did not
include the standards resulting from these conversations in the TFER
program guidance. The program manager said that the agency had a
limited time frame in which to design the pilot and that if he were to
design the TFER pilot now, he would build language into the grant
guidance that included standards for measuring performance. By clearly
defining standards for determining program performance, FEMA would be
better positioned to determine whether TFER enhanced states'
catastrophic planning, as well as achieved a fuller integration of
state planning efforts with federal agency partners through a
deliberate blending of civil-military expertise.
FEMA Outlined Steps to Administer TFER, but Did Not Always Adhere to
Its Processes and Procedures:
FEMA outlined steps for administering TFER, which aligns with sound
management practices, but FEMA did not always adhere to the processes
and procedures it developed for the pilot. Sound management practices
include developing processes and procedures for approving, reporting,
and monitoring and providing program support. Further, according to
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, such control
activities are an integral part of an entity's planning, implementing,
reviewing, and accountability for stewardship of government resources
and achieving effective results. FEMA outlined steps in two key
documents, the TFER Guidance and Application Kit and the TFER Pilot
Information Package in which FEMA described the support it would
provide the participating states and the procedures for monitoring the
program.
FEMA developed processes and procedures for providing funding,
training, holding a meeting with the pilot states, and approving state
project management plans that met certain requirements, and
establishing a mechanism for sharing lessons learned among the states,
but FEMA did not fully follow the steps it outlined. For example, FEMA
provided $1.75 million in funds to the state administrative agencies
identified in the TFER Pilot Information Package and established a
virtual communication tool for the TFER pilot states to communicate
and share lessons learned. However, FEMA provided training for the
initial cohort of TFER planners in April 2009, which FEMA officials
told us consisted of two-thirds of the planners originally hired by
the states. All five states found FEMA's training useful. However,
officials in two states told us additional training would have been
useful. For example, one TFER planner who was not hired at the time of
the training stated that additional training could have provided
planners more opportunities to network and gain knowledge about state
and federal resources. Further, FEMA conducted a meeting with the
pilot states to accomplish tasks such as establishing support
requirements and planning deliverables, but FEMA approved three state
project management plans that did not contain all the recommended
information, such as specific tasks, milestones, and deliverables. The
TFER program manager stated that part of the intent of TFER was to
design it in real time, working with the jurisdictions, and that the
omissions of the recommended information did not negatively impact the
states' implementation of TFER. However, the states whose project
management plans did not include specific deliverables have not
completed draft plans.
Further, FEMA also established processes and procedures for reporting
and monitoring, but did not fully follow them. Specifically, FEMA
stated in the TFER Pilot Information Package that the project manager
would conduct biweekly conference calls with the states, but state
officials in all five pilot states noted that FEMA headquarters
involvement was inconsistent. According to the program manager, the
purpose of these meetings was to ensure the pilot was functioning
smoothly, so FEMA conducted biweekly meetings as TFER became
operational but the meetings were discontinued once the pilots were
underway. However, officials in four states reported that it would
have been helpful if FEMA had provided more guidance on plan
development. Further, TFER planners in one state reported that the
lack of guidance made it more difficult to write plans. Another
planner stated that FEMA did not provide the expected level of
meetings and technical assistance. The program manager stated he was
available to provide the states with assistance as needed throughout
the pilot program. In addition, FEMA established reporting
requirements and a plan to conduct a 6-month evaluation. For example,
the states submitted reports to FEMA--to include the status of
milestones and deliverables--but the program manager told us he did
not review all of these reports because not all of these reports were
submitted to his office. As a result, the program manager could not
monitor progress in meeting milestones and completing deliverables.
FEMA also conducted a 6-month evaluation of the pilot program, but
four pilot states reported that FEMA did not provide feedback on the
evaluation. According to sound management practices, continuous
monitoring can be a useful tool for facilitating effective management
by providing regular feedback about how well a program is performing
its functions. This type of feedback allows managers to take
corrective action when problems arise and can also provide
stakeholders with regular assessments of program performance. By
adhering to the steps outlined in TFER documents, FEMA could have more
effectively monitored the pilot program to better ensure that the
states receive the level of guidance and support they identified as
beneficial in order to enhance their TFER catastrophic planning
efforts.
FEMA Took Steps to Collect and Analyze Data from States to Evaluate
TFER, but Did Not Always Include Elements of Sound Management
Practices:
FEMA developed a data collection plan but did not reliably collect
data for the pilot evaluation, and FEMA did not develop a data
analysis plan to describe how it would track TFER's performance and
evaluate its effectiveness based on standards to determine program
performance. For example, FEMA developed elements of a data collection
plan, following sound management practices such as detailing the type
of data necessary to monitor and evaluate the pilot and identifying
the timing and frequency of data collection. Further, FEMA's data
collection plan followed reporting requirements specified in its
program documents for TFER participants, and also included a data
collection tool for evaluation of the pilot, presented in appendix
III. However, FEMA did not always identify the source that was to
collect the data. Sound management practices say that the source of
data should be specified in the data collection plan, and according to
program evaluation guidance, the reliability of evaluations can vary
depending on who responds. During interviews with officials from
participating states and FEMA regional offices, we found
inconsistencies in who completed the evaluation questions. For
example, two pilot states developed their own responses and three FEMA
regions developed the responses for their respective pilot states,
even though one of the questions explicitly asked for the opinion of
state stakeholders. Further, two of the three states were not
cognizant of the fact that their FEMA regional offices had completed
the evaluation questions; therefore, these states' views may not have
been accurately captured in the evaluation responses. Moreover,
officials in one FEMA regional office questioned whether they were the
appropriate FEMA personnel to administer the evaluation questions,
since FEMA headquarters had collected all prior information from the
states. Collecting data from consistent sources across the five pilot
states could have better positioned FEMA to ensure the data were
reliable and compare responses across states in order to draw
conclusions about states' experiences in the pilot program.
Further, FEMA did not collect information to determine whether all of
the pilot program objectives were fully met. Specifically, FEMA
changed some of the data collection questions it provided the states
in the TFER Pilot Information Package when it released updated
questions in the TFER Evaluation Criteria document.[Footnote 27] For
example, FEMA used the same three objectives in both its original and
updated documents, and its objectives on developing plans and
documenting lessons learned objectives were consistent across
documents, but FEMA did not collect information to assess all of the
relationships it identified as important for its objective on building
relationships in the TFER Pilot Information Package. For instance,
FEMA did not evaluate coordination with FEMA, Defense Coordinating
Officers, or Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers--all
relationships principal to implementing TFER, according to the TFER
Pilot Information Package document. FEMA included a question that
asked the pilot states which federal agencies they coordinated with,
but did not include any question that would allow it to evaluate the
extent to which coordination occurred with these stakeholders. As a
result, the evaluation responses we reviewed listed the stakeholders
they coordinated with but did not discuss the extent of coordination
between state officials and stakeholders.[Footnote 28] FEMA officials
said that because the Defense Coordinating Officer and Emergency
Preparedness Liaison Officer positions were not the only relationships
explored between states and federal agencies, the evaluation criteria
was changed to make it more general to determine with which agencies
the TFER states engaged. However, by changing the evaluation question
to a general and descriptive question on federal relationships, it
will be difficult for FEMA to determine if the states achieved a
fuller integration of planning efforts with federal agency partners--
one of the goals of TFER.
FEMA did not develop a data analysis plan to describe how it would
track TFER's performance and evaluate its effectiveness based on
criteria to determine program performance. According to sound
management practices, a data analysis plan sets out who will do the
analysis and when and how data will be analyzed to measure the pilot
program's performance. FEMA did not finalize a data-analysis
methodology describing how FEMA would use information collected from
the states to evaluate TFER until after it collected responses to
FEMA's evaluation criteria questions. The TFER program manager stated
that FEMA plans to look for trends in the states' responses to the
evaluation questions to discern common threads and outliers. According
to the program manager, FEMA did not develop a plan that outlined the
overall approach it would use to analyze the TFER data during design
of the pilot program because the pilot was not intended to produce
quantitative results. He further stated that FEMA wanted to see what
worked and what did not work as the pilot evolved. However, a data
analysis plan could have helped guide the analysis of the qualitative
data FEMA collected from the pilot states and FEMA regional offices.
Developing data collection and data analysis plans following sound
management practices to establish a methodology for collecting and
evaluating the pilot's results could have provided FEMA with
reasonable assurance that it possessed the data and performance
information needed to draw reasonable conclusions on the impact of
TFER.
The TFER program manager told us he is analyzing the data collected
for TFER to draw conclusions regarding the pilot program, but FEMA
officials stated that TFER would not be continued past the pilot
stage. The information on the TFER pilot program's evaluation stated
that the results of the evaluation would determine the prospect for
the program's continuation and level of future funding. However, prior
to conducting its evaluation of the pilot, FEMA announced in March
2010 that TFER would not be continued as a stand-alone grant program.
According to FEMA officials, the decision to discontinue TFER as a
stand-alone grant program was made because DOD may begin a similar
initiative and states could allocate other FEMA grant funding for
catastrophic planning purposes. Specifically, the TFER program manager
noted that the National Guard Homeland Response Force, which is a DOD
concept that would place National Guard personnel in each FEMA region,
could continue the planning efforts associated with TFER.[Footnote 29]
DOD officials stated that these personnel would be located regionally
and not in individual states; therefore, the National Guard Homeland
Response Force initiative could supplement but not replace a TFER-like
initiative. Also, according to DOD, the National Guard Homeland
Response Force would have as its mission response to chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-explosive incidents and
would not have a broad purview like TFER. A FEMA assistant
administrator also said that FEMA made the decision to not continue
TFER due to changing budget conditions and to focus on its legislative
and presidential directive mandates. Other FEMA grant programs
available for catastrophic planning are discussed in appendix II.
FEMA Has Not Committed to Sharing the TFER Evaluation Results with
Stakeholders:
According to the TFER program manager, FEMA leadership will make a
decision on whether and how the results of the evaluation are
disseminated after the program office finishes the evaluation of TFER.
[Footnote 30] According to sound management practices, results and
recommendations that emerge from evaluations must be disseminated in
ways that meet the needs of stakeholders. The TFER program manager
stated it is not his decision whether the results of the pilot's
evaluation will be shared. According to the TFER program manager, FEMA
leadership will make a decision on whether and how the results of the
evaluation are disseminated after the program office finishes the
evaluation of TFER. FEMA administered the TFER pilot program, but
other key stakeholders in federal disaster response, such as the pilot
states and DOD, could benefit from the results of FEMA's evaluation of
the TFER pilot program. Disseminating the results, recommendations,
and lessons learned from the TFER pilot could assist future state
catastrophic planning efforts, whether they be led by FEMA, DOD,
another federal agency, or a state.
FEMA Does Not Have Clear Policy Guidance on Designing, Administering,
and Evaluating Pilot Programs:
FEMA's Office of Policy and Program Analysis reported that FEMA does
not have a directive on how to design, administer, and evaluate a
pilot program. In the absence of this, FEMA does not have a systematic
approach for designing, administering, and evaluating such programs.
The program manager stated there are no formal guidelines for
developing FEMA grants. We previously reported that FEMA faced
methodological challenges in assessing capabilities and has not
generated meaningful preparedness information from data collected from
pilot programs.[Footnote 31] Standards for Internal Controls in the
Federal Government state that management is responsible for ensuring
that detailed policies, procedures, and practices are developed and
built into and are an integral part of operations.[Footnote 32] These
elements, which are an integral part of an agency's ability to ensure
accountability and achieve effective results, need to be clearly
documented to help ensure that management directives are carried out
as intended. By developing and implementing policy guidance that
includes sound management practices, FEMA could be better positioned
to ensure its pilot programs meet their intended goals.
All Pilot States Have Made Progress in Addressing the Pilot Program
Objectives, but No State Has Fully Addressed All Three Objectives:
All five states have taken steps to follow FEMA's TFER Information
Package and TFER Evaluation Criteria document to address the TFER
pilot program's three objectives--develop plans, build relationships,
and document lessons learned--and these efforts are ongoing.[Footnote
33] First, of the four states committed to developing plans, two
states have completed draft plans, and TFER planners in all states
reported using FEMA's CPG 101 planning process to develop initiatives
that fill gaps in state catastrophic planning. Second, all five states
built relationships with stakeholders, including FEMA and state
agencies, but coordination with DOD--specifically, with the Defense
Coordinating Officers and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers--was
limited. Third, all states documented lessons learned from the pilot
program, which included the benefit of dedicated funding for
catastrophic planning, and establishing longer time frames for states
to complete the planning process. However, these efforts are ongoing
as four states continue to spend TFER funds.
Two of Five States Have Made Substantial Progress in Developing Plans,
and TFER Planners in All States Reported Using FEMA's Planning Process
to Develop Initiatives that Fill Gaps in State Catastrophic Planning:
Four of the states are developing plans and all five pilot states
reported they are using the planning process outlined in FEMA's CPG
101. However, two of the four states developing plans have not
completed them. The fifth state is focusing on other planning
initiatives. FEMA articulated the criteria for this objective in the
TFER Pilot Information Package and the TFER Evaluation Criteria
document, which focused on organizing plans according to CPG 101 and
plan development. Based on audit work conducted in the TFER pilot
states, we assessed the states' progress based on these criteria, and
concluded that two of the states have made substantial progress in
fulfilling the FEMA objective on developing plans, and the other three
have made some progress, as shown in figure 4. Figure 4 further
explains this assessment, as well as appendix IV, which provides
specific information regarding each pilot state's TFER initiatives and
progress made towards meeting FEMA's objectives for TFER.
[Side bar:
TFER Objective 1: Develop Plans:
Assessing a state‘s progress in this objective was based on efforts
made to address the following components, among others:
* Description of efforts to integrate plans with state and federal
partners;
* Planning that reflects the National Preparedness Guidelines;
* Planning responsive to the National Planning Scenarios and other
threats based on the state‘s all-hazards risk assessment;
* Planning consistent and integrated with the state‘s emergency plans;
* Development of actual plans.
Source: GAO application of FEMA criteria.
End of side bar]
Figure 4: Assessment of Pilot States' Plan Development Through an
Effective Planning Process, as of March 2011[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
State: Hawaii;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: State officials reported that TFER planning integrates with
the state's existing hurricane planning efforts, which relates to a
National Planning Scenario. State officials told us that TFER planners
are following the steps outlined in CPG 101, but have not completed
the full cycle of planning steps for its plans, as Hawaii has not
completed draft plans.
State: Massachusetts;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Massachusetts focused on initiatives pertaining to a hurricane
and other priorities identified by state emergency management
officials and TFER planners. However, state officials told us only one
of the initiatives specifically pertained to a National Planning
Scenario. State officials said the planners followed the steps
outlined in CPG 101, but could not complete the full cycle of planning
because state officials decided that the Massachusetts TFER planners
would coordinate the planning efforts but plans would be completed by
other state agencies.
State: South Carolina;
GAO assessment: Substantial progress;
Status: South Carolina focused on the National Planning Scenarios
related to terrorist attacks. The state has completed a revision of
its Catastrophic Incident Annex and it has completed drafts of its
Terrorism Prevention and Response Plan and three other plans related
to terrorist attacks, which officials told us fill gaps in state
planning. Planners reported they are following the steps outlined in
CPG 101, but have not finished the full cycle of planning for any of
its plans, as South Carolina has not exercised them.
State: Washington;
GAO assessment: Substantial progress;
Status: Washington selected as its primary National Planning Scenario
a catastrophic earthquake and accompanying tsunami. Washington
integrated TFER logistics plans and a catastrophic incident plan with
existing state plans and filled gaps in the state plan compendium,
according to state officials. The state has finalized two of its seven
plans and has final drafts for three others. Washington officials told
us they are following CPG 101 planning process and are structuring
plan content accordingly.
State: West Virginia;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: West Virginia identified three possible scenarios: a chemical
incident, a mass evacuation of the National Capital Region, and a dam
failure. These events could be caused by a hurricane or terrorist
attack, which pertain to several National Planning Scenarios.
According to state officials, West Virginia's TFER planning efforts
fill gaps in catastrophic planning and include development of a
catastrophic incident plan. State officials said that planners are
following the steps outlined in CPG 101, but have not finished the
full cycle of planning for any of its products, as West Virginia has
not completed draft plans.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] The GAO assessment was assigned based on an average of five
components, as discussed in appendix I and elaborated in appendix IV.
[End of figure]
Developing plans. The status of the states' TFER plans varies;
Washington and South Carolina have completed some but not all of their
plans, while Hawaii and West Virginia have not completed any draft
plans. Hawaii and West Virginia officials identified reasons for not
having completed draft plans, including delays in hiring qualified
planners. One of FEMA's requirements for TFER was that planners have
experience in conducting civil-military support planning and
operations with the National Guard and/or military experience. In
Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Washington, all planners initially
hired for TFER had military backgrounds. These states hired planners
as early as February 2009--5 months after the pilot program began. One
of the planners initially hired had prior military and civilian
experience, and the other had a logistics background.[Footnote 34]
Hawaii hired its first TFER planner in April 2009 but did not hire a
second planner until August 2009--11 months after the pilot began.
Hawaii officials told us that they found it difficult to hire
qualified individuals with a military background because better paying
options exist in the state for qualified individuals. One of Hawaii's
two current planners does not have military experience, but state
officials told us that the individual is qualified because of his
information technology background, which was needed to support
logistics planning. Additionally, he worked for the state planning
agency. West Virginia officials reported that they hired their
planners in the July/August 2009 time frame--10 to 11 months after the
pilot began. Two applicants originally applied for the position, one
of which West Virginia hired. This individual did not have a military
background, but officials stated he was qualified based on his decades
of experience as a first responder. West Virginia subsequently hired a
National Guardsman. The West Virginia TFER supervisor stated that
inadequate planning capacity at the local level also delayed TFER
efforts because West Virginia TFER focused on building capacity at the
local level. FEMA granted all five states a 6-month extension based on
delays the states experienced. As previously discussed, planning
continues in four states, as they are still spending TFER funds, as of
March 2011 (see figure 5).
Figure 5: TFER Funds Spent by State, as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Total TFER funds per state: $350,000.
State: Hawaii;
TFER funds spent: $257.000.
State: Massachusetts;
TFER funds spent: $350,000.
State: South Carolina;
TFER funds spent: $296,000.
State: Washington;
TFER funds spent: $339,000.
State: West Virginia;
TFER funds spent: $245,000.
Source: GAO analysis of state-provided data.
[End of figure]
Massachusetts TFER planners facilitated planning between different
levels of government, but other state planners are developing the
plans. Massachusetts initially focused on contributing to Boston's
improvised explosive device planning efforts, but differences in time
lines, combined with TFER's brief performance period, caused the team
to change its focus to facilitating collaborative emergency planning
among federal, state, local, and private stakeholders. For example,
the Massachusetts TFER planners facilitated collaborative planning
among the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the Massachusetts Emergency
Management Agency, and FEMA to create a statewide medical support
plan. TFER planners developed interagency relationships and helped the
planning team select goals and objectives but did not draft the plan,
which state officials said other state planners are developing. State
officials decided the TFER planners would not actually write the plans
because of the pilot program's short time frame.
Filling gaps in state planning. State officials reported that TFER
initiatives fill gaps in existing state plans. For example, South
Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia chose to work on a
catastrophic incident plan as part of their TFER efforts, and this
plan is an annex to the states' basic emergency operations plan.
Further, officials in four of five states reported that TFER
initiatives focused on gaps not addressed by other planning
initiatives. For example, the FEMA Region X TFER contact stated that
Washington successfully integrated TFER with the Regional Catastrophic
Grant Planning Program. Two of three West Virginia TFER scenarios
pertain in part to scenarios addressed by other planning efforts, but
officials stated that TFER planners work collaboratively with the
planners involved in these other efforts, as described in appendix IV.
Additionally, Hawaii officials anticipate the Regional Catastrophic
Planning Grant Program will address hurricanes in 2011--before the
state exhausts its TFER funds. State officials expect these efforts to
be complementary.
FEMA's planning process. All five states reported that they are
following FEMA's planning process, and states that developed draft
plans utilized the structure recommended in FEMA's CPG 101 (see figure
6). All of the states reported they are following FEMA's six-step
planning process, but they are in different stages of that process, as
of March 2011.
Figure 6: Furthest Step Each Pilot State Achieved in the CPG 101
Planning Process, as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Step 1:
Form a collaborative planning team.
Step 2:
Understand the situation.
Step 3:
Determine goals and objectives.
Step 4: Plan development: generate and compare possible solutions;
Massachusetts.
Step 5:
Plan preparation,review, and approval;
Hawaii; South Carolina; West Virginia.
Step 6:
Plan refinement and execution;
Washington.
Source: GAO analysis of Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 and
interviews with state officials.
[End of figure]
Washington has exercised three out of seven of its plans--part of step
six. However, most of Washington's plans remain in draft form, which
is associated with step five. Since Hawaii, South Carolina, and West
Virginia officials told us their states have not exercised any plans,
they are in step five--the step where planners write the plan and the
plan is approved. Massachusetts state officials decided that their
pilot program would coordinate planning efforts, but that other state
planners would develop plans; officials stated they did not move
beyond step four in the planning process.
Officials in the four states that committed to developing plans
reported that they are structuring plans as recommended by CPG 101,
but some sections are not included in the states' draft plans. CPG 101
provides a recommended structure for annexes to a state's basic
emergency operations plan. [Footnote 35] These annexes comprise half
of the 32 TFER initiatives spanning all five pilot states. Ten of 13
annexes we reviewed were missing at least one recommended section.
[Footnote 36] For example, none of the three catastrophic incident
plans we reviewed contain a section on direction, control, and
coordination. South Carolina and Washington officials noted that their
plans did not include all of the recommended sections because other
state plans like the basic emergency operations plan contained these
sections. Washington officials further stated that TFER-supported
planning is part of the state emergency operations plan and is not
designed to stand alone. Further, Hawaii officials told us that they
are following the FEMA guidance, but its plans are incomplete and work
is ongoing. West Virginia officials stated that it is following the
structure recommended in CPG 101, but since some of the sections rely
on information gathered at the county level, it will take about 5
years before the state has enough information to include each
recommended section in its catastrophic incident plan. We were unable
to further assess the content of the pilot states' plans because all
but three of the plans TFER states are developing remain in draft form.
All Five States Made Progress in Building Relationships with
Stakeholders such as FEMA and State Agencies, but Coordination with
Federal Military Stakeholders Was Limited:
[Side bar:
TFER Objective 2: Build Relationships:
Assessing a state‘s progress in this objective was based on efforts
made to address the following components:
* Planning that reflects the formation of integrated planning teams
described in the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101;
* Establishment or enhancement of mechanisms to ensure
multijurisdictional and interagency planning coordination;
* Plans coordinated with local, state, and federal agencies;
* Full use of civil-military planning expertise to assess, strengthen,
and advance state catastrophic planning;
* Incorporation of private sector capabilities;
* Coordination with other states;
* Coordination with FEMA.
Source: GAO application of FEMA criteria.
End of side bar]
All five states participating in the TFER pilot program reported that
they built relationships with stakeholders through collaborative
planning teams and coordinated with various stakeholders. State
officials told us they coordinated with FEMA, other state agencies,
and the National Guard, but none of the states coordinated regularly
with federal military stakeholders such as Defense Coordinating
Officers and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers as FEMA
recommended in the TFER Pilot Information Package. FEMA articulated
the criteria for this objective in the TFER Pilot Information Package
and the TFER Evaluation Criteria document, which focused on forming
planning teams and building relationships with relevant stakeholders.
As discussed in figure 7, all five states have made some progress in
building relationships with relevant stakeholders. Our assessment--
based on audit work conducted in the TFER pilot states--is summarized
in figure 7 and further explained below as well as in appendix IV,
which provides specific information regarding each pilot state's TFER
initiatives and progress made towards this objective.
Figure 7: Assessment of Pilot States' Progress in Building
Relationships with Stakeholders, as of March 2011[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
State: Hawaii;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Hawaii developed planning teams that included state agencies
and relevant stakeholders, but state officials told us they had little
contact with DOD entities.
State: Massachusetts;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Massachusetts TFER planners helped formulate planning teams
that worked to improve the state‘s catastrophic preparedness, and
included planners from state agencies, as well as relevant
stakeholders. State officials told us that contact with DOD entities
was minimal.
State: South Carolina;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: South Carolina inserted its TFER planners into existing
planning teams in its law enforcement and emergency management
divisions that also included other state agencies and relevant
stakeholders. According to state officials, TFER planners coordinated
with the DOD entities, but this coordination was limited.
State: Washington;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Washington officials stated they developed planning teams that
included planners from state agencies, and relevant stakeholders.
According to state officials, DOD entities were minimally involved.
State: West Virginia;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: West Virginia officials said they developed planning teams
that included state agencies, the National Guard, and private sector
stakeholders. State officials told us coordination with DOD entities
was minimal.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] The GAO assessment was assigned based on an average of seven
components, as discussed in appendix I and elaborated in appendix IV.
[End of figure]
Four states reported that their TFER planning teams worked
efficiently. One state, West Virginia, identified problems with its
planning team. West Virginia officials told us they faced challenges
coordinating and integrating plans with some stakeholders. For
example, some state and local stakeholders resisted coordination and
overestimated their planning capacities. All five pilot states
included federal, state, local, and private stakeholders in the
planning process, and utilized work groups to enhance these
relationships.
All five states reported that they coordinated with FEMA and other
states, but the level of coordination was inconsistent throughout the
pilot. All states reported they benefited from coordination with FEMA
headquarters in the beginning of the pilot through training and/or
teleconferences. Further, four states identified their relationship to
the FEMA region as beneficial during the pilot program. A TFER planner
in the fifth state received some needed information from its region
but the state's TFER program supervisor told us they coordinated
infrequently and that regional support was inadequate. However, as
previously discussed, all states reported that coordination with FEMA
headquarters waned throughout the pilot. Further, Washington TFER
planners coordinated with FEMA, but officials told us that
coordination could be improved. Specifically, state officials reported
that FEMA Region X participated in work groups and provided
suggestions on planning, but FEMA headquarters provided limited
guidance on the implementation of the pilot program, and grant
guidance was inconsistent. According to FEMA's TFER program manager,
FEMA headquarters was more involved at the beginning phase of the TFER
to help set up the pilot program, but states needed less assistance
after that point.
In addition to FEMA's guidance that TFER planners have experience in
conducting civil-military support planning and operations with the
National Guard and/or military experience, FEMA also encouraged TFER
states to coordinate with National Guard and/or federal military
entities throughout the pilot program. We found that all TFER states
coordinated with the National Guard to varying degrees, but
coordination with federal military entities was limited in all pilot
states. In Massachusetts and West Virginia, state officials placed at
least one TFER planner under National Guard management, which
facilitated collaboration, according to state officials. In Hawaii and
Washington, the state Adjutant General oversees both the National
Guard and the state emergency management agency, which facilitated
coordination. However, Hawaii and Washington officials stated that
coordination with the National Guard was limited because of
deployments. A TFER planner in South Carolina told us the state
agencies involved in TFER coordinated with National Guard officials on
a monthly basis and included them in TFER workgroups. However, a South
Carolina National Guard official told us the National Guard could have
provided more input into the TFER products South Carolina produced.
FEMA's TFER Pilot Information Package recommended the pilot states
include military entities as full partners in the planning process. At
the onset of TFER, DOD provided training to planners and state
officials on civil-military planning integration and how NORTHCOM
could support TFER efforts. State officials in two states told us DOD
officials were involved in TFER work groups and officials in another
state reported that DOD officials provided them with contacts and
information needed to develop their plans, but none of the states
coordinated regularly with the federal military Defense Coordinating
Officers or Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers. In no instance
did TFER pilot states ask Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers or
Defense Coordinating Officers to help develop or comment on plans,
according to state and DOD officials. DOD stakeholders are important
in the planning process because DOD may be asked to provide response
capabilities in the event of a catastrophic incident. State officials
told us they needed to draft the plans first, before soliciting DOD's
input. One of the Defense Coordinating Officers we spoke with agreed
that there was little he could do to assist TFER states until the
planners drafted plans. Further, state officials told us the
availability of the Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers--part-time
military personnel who work primarily on weekends--limited
coordination with state officials and TFER planners. State officials
and a Defense Coordinating Officer told us this work schedule is not
conducive to frequent coordination between Emergency Preparedness
Liaison Officers and state officials, who work during the week.
Further, DOD officials in two regions stated that DOD entities could
have helped TFER planners integrate state and federal plans.
All Five Pilot States Have Made Some Progress in Documenting Lessons
Learned, but Four States Have Not Exercised Plans to Evaluate TFER's
Effectiveness:
[Side bar:
TFER Objective 3: Document Lessons Learned:
Assessing a state‘s progress in this objective was based on efforts
made to address the following components, among others:
* Development of after-action reports from exercises or assessment
documents during TFER to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot;
* Provide recommendations for improvement to increase the
effectiveness of catastrophic planning programs.
Source: GAO application of FEMA criteria.
End of side bar]
All states have documented lessons learned to date, but four states
have not exercised TFER plans to determine their effectiveness in the
event of an emergency. As shown in figure 8 and further explained in
appendix IV, the TFER pilot states have provided a number of lessons
learned and recommendations on how to improve a similar program in the
future.[Footnote 37] One state, Washington, has made substantial
progress documenting lessons learned because it has exercised three of
its plans to evaluate their effectiveness, one of the components FEMA
cited in the objective. FEMA articulated the criteria for this
objective in the TFER Pilot Information Package and the TFER
Evaluation Criteria document, which focused on documenting lessons
learned, including exercising plans to evaluate TFER's effectiveness.
All five pilot states documented lessons learned for a report
published by the National Guard Bureau in August 2010, and we obtained
additional lessons learned during our interviews with state officials.
[Footnote 38] Further, two of the states provided us with the lessons
learned they submitted to FEMA for its evaluation, which is not yet
complete.[Footnote 39]
Figure 8: Assessment of Pilot States' Documentation of Lessons
Learned, as of March 2011A:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
State: Hawaii;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Hawaii officials provided recommendations, including: continue
and expand the program to other states, maintain flexibility to
determine work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning.
Additionally, state officials recommended that future catastrophic
planning programs have longer time frames than the TFER pilot program,
provide more clearly defined guidance, and greater coordination
between FEMA and DOD. Further, funding was not enough to provide
competitive salaries. Hawaii has not exercised any of its plans to
determine if they will be effective in the event of an emergency.
State: Massachusetts;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Massachusetts officials recommended that FEMA continue and
expand the program to other states, maintain flexibility to determine
work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning. Officials
stated the TFER planners all had some level of military experience,
which helped them cope with the logistical challenges, and have
credibility with certain audiences. Additionally, officials
recommended that future catastrophic planning programs have longer
time frames than the TFER pilot program and provide more clearly
defined guidance. According to state officials, they have not
exercised any plans.
State: South Carolina;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: South Carolina provided a number of recommendations,
including: continue and expand the program, maintain flexibility to
determine work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning.
Additionally, South Carolina officials recommended that future
catastrophic planning programs have longer time frames than the TFER
pilot program, and that FEMA should provide more clearly defined
guidance. Officials identified coordinating security clearances across
DHS and DOD as a challenge that should be resolved in similar programs
in the future. The sharing of lessons learned and
techniques/procedures with other states would have been helpful in
developing catastrophic plans through the TFER pilot program. South
Carolina also cited good initial training opportunities through TFER;
however these opportunities did not extend throughout the life of the
program, and thus were not available to all South Carolina TFER staff.
Officials stated they have scheduled an exercise for March 2011 and
that after-action reports will subsequently be developed.
State: Washington;
GAO assessment: Substantial progress;
Status: Washington provided recommendations, including: continue and
expand the program to other states, maintain the broad scope of the
projects eligible to be addressed by the TFER resources, and dedicate
funding for catastrophic planning. Additionally, state officials
recommended that future catastrophic planning programs have longer
time frames than the TFER pilot program and FEMA provide more
guidance. Further, FEMA could improve in management of grants like
TFER. Washington has exercised three out of seven of its TFER plans.
State: West Virginia;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: West Virginia recommended FEMA continue and expand the
program, maintain flexibility to determine workplans, and dedicate
funding to hire planners. Additionally, officials recommended that the
new program have longer time frames than the pilot and provide more
clearly defined guidance. West Virginia reported there was significant
difficulty in hiring people with the requisite military/civilian
catastrophic planning skills and experience because of the short
duration of the program. West Virginia has not exercised any of its
plans.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] The GAO assessment was assigned based on an average of two
components, as discussed in appendix I and elaborated in appendix IV.
[End of figure]
Some of the lessons learned were similar across the pilot states. For
example, all five states considered the pilot a success; Hawaii,
Massachusetts, South Carolina, and West Virginia officials reported
that TFER allowed their states to conduct catastrophic planning that
otherwise would not have occurred, and Washington reported that TFER
advanced its catastrophic and emergency logistics planning by at least
2 years. Washington officials further stated that the $350,000 the
state received in TFER funding generated more return on investment
than any other $350,000 in the state's emergency planning budget.
Based on their view of TFER's success, officials in each of the five
pilot states recommended FEMA expand TFER to other states.
All states reported three principal reasons for considering TFER a
success: (1) autonomy to develop their own work plans, (2) provision
of dedicated funds to hire planners, and (3) the background of the
TFER planners.
(1) State officials reported that they worked collaboratively with
FEMA to select catastrophic scenarios. For example, South Carolina
chose to work on plans related to terrorism attacks because state
officials believe they had adequately planned for hurricanes and
earthquakes--the two National Planning Scenarios ranked higher than
terrorism attacks in the state's risk assessment. Officials in all
five states highlighted the benefit of this flexibility.
(2) Officials in all five states reported that the narrow focus of
TFER, dedicated solely to enhance catastrophic planning, was key to
the pilot program's success. State officials told us that state
planners are often required to assist emergency planning and response
efforts during more routine disasters, such as seasonal floods and
forest fires, but since the terms of TFER did not allow states to use
TFER funds for these efforts, catastrophic planning continued unabated.
(3) Officials in all five states reported that the planners' military
background was beneficial. For example, state officials in
Massachusetts told us the planners' military experience provided them
with a level of experience and training not often found in other
sectors and gave them credibility. However, officials in three states
told us that civilian planning or emergency management experience also
provided TFER planners the needed skill set.
States also reported challenges they faced, including (1) short time
frames that limited their ability to complete the planning process,
and (2) not enough guidance for the specialized plans they were
developing.
(1) All five states reported that the short time frames limited their
ability to complete the planning process. FEMA structured TFER as an
18-month program, and states noted that this was an insufficient
amount of time to complete the full cycle of planning. Officials in
one state thought that an adequate time frame would have been 3 years,
noting that this is the time frame FEMA established for the Regional
Catastrophic Planning Grant Program. The TFER program manager stated
that FEMA's 6-month program extension--bringing the pilot program time
frame to 2 years--provided a sufficient amount of time to complete the
TFER initiatives.
(2) CPG 101 provides general format and content guidance applicable to
all plans, but officials in four of the pilot states said that it
would have been helpful for FEMA to provide guidance for specialized
plans such as catastrophic incident annexes, terrorism plans, and
logistics plans. For example, one TFER planner stated that clearer
guidance could have accelerated the planning process. Further,
officials in a fourth state said that they are using an unpublished
FEMA guide to support their planning efforts. FEMA officials told us
that states can request technical assistance and examples of well-
developed plans to aid in their own plan development. According to the
TFER program manager, FEMA is in the process of developing additional
Comprehensive Preparedness Guides that will inform plan content for
future state planning efforts.
The process of documenting lessons learned is ongoing because Hawaii,
South Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia are still developing
TFER plans and spending TFER funds.
Conclusions:
Hurricane Katrina highlighted gaps in the nation's preparedness to
respond effectively to catastrophic incidents. By their nature,
catastrophic events involve extraordinary levels of casualties,
damage, or disruption that will likely immediately overwhelm state and
local responders--circumstances that make sound planning for
catastrophic events all the more crucial. Planning is a key component
of national preparedness. Planning provides a methodology to determine
required capabilities and helps stakeholders learn and practice their
roles for building and sustaining national preparedness capabilities
against terrorist attacks and other hazards. As state and local
governments continue to develop and improve plans for catastrophic
events and identify potential resource shortfalls, the federal
government will be in a better position to understand the nature of
the gaps it may be called upon to fill if state and local resources
are overwhelmed. The TFER pilot program was one such effort to enhance
catastrophic preparedness and provide federal stakeholders with
valuable information regarding local, state, or regional response
capability. However, by not consistently following sound management
practices to design, administer, and evaluate the TFER pilot program
and by not following its processes and procedures for administering
the pilot, it is unclear whether TFER achieved its intended purpose.
As we have reported, FEMA has piloted other efforts that have not
generated meaningful preparedness information from the data collected.
Future pilot programs at FEMA could benefit from policy guidance that
includes sound management practices to design, administer, and
evaluate pilot programs. In addition, future state catastrophic
planning efforts could benefit from the dissemination of the
evaluation results of the TFER pilot program to relevant stakeholders.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
take the following two actions.
* To help ensure future pilot programs achieve their intended results
and provide the performance information needed to make effective
management decisions for broader implementation, develop and implement
policies and guidance for pilot programs that follow sound management
practices. This guidance should include, at a minimum, requirements
for:
- a clearly articulated methodology with objectives reflective of
overall program goals and standards for determining program
performance;
- procedures for monitoring program performance;
- a data collection plan;
- a data analysis plan; and:
- a process to disseminate the results and lessons learned that emerge
from the pilot.
* To help ensure stakeholders receive valuable information regarding
catastrophic preparedness from lessons learned during the TFER pilot
program, disseminate the evaluation results and recommendations that
emerge from the TFER pilot program in ways that meet the needs of
current and future stakeholders.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to FEMA and DOD for review and
comment. FEMA provided oral comments on the draft report on April 5,
2011. FEMA fully concurred with both of our recommendations but did
not specify how it planned to address them. DOD did not provide
comments on the draft report because the report did not include
recommendations to DOD. Both FEMA and DOD provided technical comments,
which we incorporated throughout our report as appropriate.
As agreed, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report
earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report
date. At that time, we are sending copies of this report to the
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Secretary of
Defense. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your
staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact Bill
Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at jenkinswo@gao.gov, or Davi
M. D'Agostino at (202) 512-5431 or by e-mail at dagostinod@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
Signed by:
Davi M. D'Agostino, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice:
List of Congressional Requesters:
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 Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jeff Miller:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify the extent to which the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) followed sound management practices in developing,
administering, and evaluating the Task Force for Emergency Readiness
(TFER) pilot program, we analyzed program guidance and other key
documents including the TFER Pilot Information Package and the
Guidance and Application Kit. We analyzed prior GAO work on pilot
programs and program management[Footnote 40] as well as social science
literature[Footnote 41] to determine elements of sound management
practices. We considered other criteria, consulting checklists on
elements of program management, but determined some of the
characteristics identified in this literature were not appropriate or
suitable to the type of study performed by FEMA. We grouped the
elements of sound management practices that we identified as relevant
into three categories: design, administration, and evaluation. We then
analyzed the information obtained from our interviews and site visits
and compared the results of our analysis with the identified elements
of sound management practices. Furthermore, we analyzed prior GAO
reports and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector
General reports on FEMA grants administration and catastrophic
preparedness to identify any past challenges.
We reviewed and analyzed FEMA grant program guidance and met with FEMA
officials in the Grants Program Directorate to determine whether other
grant programs, in addition to TFER, allow for funds to be used for
catastrophic planning. We identified four major grant programs states
can use for catastrophic planning purposes: the Regional Catastrophic
Planning Grant Program, the State Homeland Security Program, the Urban
Areas Security Initiative, and the Emergency Management Performance
Grants. Other grants, such as the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)
were considered, but discussions with officials in the Grant Programs
Directorate helped to clarify and narrow the scope of our review to
the most appropriate candidates for the types of catastrophic planning
described in the TFER grant. We collected fiscal year 2010 funding
levels for these grants, as well as information about how funds could
be used for planning, funding restrictions, and eligibility
requirements.
To identify the extent to which the five states participating in
FEMA's TFER pilot program addressed the pilot program's stated
objectives, we analyzed information that FEMA provided in the Pilot
Information Package and further defined in its TFER Evaluation
Criteria document. The pilot program's three stated objectives were
building relationships, developing plans, and documenting lessons
learned, and FEMA provided several criteria to measure progress
towards addressing each of these objectives. Additionally, FEMA
identified key components to each objective. We used FEMA's criteria
to assess states' progress toward addressing the three program
objectives. Moreover, we identified additional criteria for the
building relationships objective in FEMA's TFER Pilot Information
Package, including whether pilot states coordinated with other states
and with FEMA. These components were identified as key components in
the TFER Pilot Information Package, but were not identified in the
TFER Evaluation Criteria. Therefore, we included the additional
criteria in assessing the states' progress toward addressing the
building relationships objective. We assigned a numerical ranking to
represent states' progress for each objective's components based on
interviews we conducted and our review and analysis of documents we
obtained during our site visits that included draft plans, progress
reports, and status briefings. We gathered information related to the
lessons learned objective from state submissions to a report published
by the National Guard Bureau in August 2010, and we obtained
additional lessons learned during our interviews with state officials.
[Footnote 42] Further, two of the states provided us with the lessons
learned they submitted to FEMA for its evaluation, which is not yet
complete.[Footnote 43] If the state met the criterion for a particular
component, we assigned it a ranking of '5', if the state partially met
the criterion, we assigned it a ranking of '3', and if the state did
not meet the criterion, we assigned it a ranking of '0'. Next, we
averaged the components for each of the three objectives to obtain an
overall objective score. We then assigned designations to the overall
percentages of scores as follows: averages greater than 80 percent
were designated as 'substantial progress'; averages from 20 percent to
80 percent were designated as 'some progress'; and averages less than
20 percent were designated as 'little or no progress.' We did not
assign designations to four criteria pertaining to developing plans
and six criteria pertaining to lessons learned because we determined
that these criteria do not inform the extent to which states met the
objective and/or there was not enough information to quantify the
results.
States did not receive a designation of "substantial progress" for
each objective unless they met the criteria related to the key
component of that objective, that is, (1) developing actual plans--
measured by the completion of draft plans; and (2) building
relationships with FEMA officials, Defense Coordinating Officers, and
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers. FEMA did not identify key
components of the third objective, documenting lessons learned. In
instances where states received an average above 80 percent but did
not meet the criteria related to these key components, we assigned a
designation of "some progress" for that particular objective. For
example, by adding the rankings assigned to South Carolina for
building relationships, the state received a score of 31 out of 35, or
89 percent. However, South Carolina did not fully meet the criteria
for coordinating with DOD and FEMA; so the state received the
designation of 'some progress.'
Where possible, we used the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101
to determine the extent to which the states' plans adhered to FEMA's
suggested guidelines regarding plan structure and content. About one
half of the TFER states' 32 planning initiatives involved developing
plans. Specifically, CPG 101 recommends that basic emergency
operations plans and their annexes include the following sections:
purpose, situation overview, and planning assumptions; concept of
operations; organization and assignment of responsibilities;
direction, control, and coordination; information collection and
dissemination; administration, finance, and logistics; and authorities
and references. CPG 101 provides additional guidance for the structure
of the concept of operations section for hazard-specific annexes--
plans South Carolina developed--and functional annexes--one of which
Washington developed. We did not evaluate the content of these plans
because the plans remain in draft form. CPG 101 does not offer
specific content guidance for the other plans types of plans TFER
states developed. We did not assign a progress designation for the
criterion that asked the extent to which states' plans adhered to CPG
101 because all but 3 of the plans TFER states are developing remain
in draft form.
To address these objectives, we interviewed officials and obtained
information and related documents from federal agencies, the five
pilot states, and other relevant entities. Within FEMA, we met with
officials from the National Preparedness Directorate, the Grants
Programs Directorate, the Response Directorate, and officials in FEMA
Regions I, III, IV, IX, and X. Within the Department of Defense (DOD),
we met with representatives from the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. We also met with U.S. Northern Command and U.S.
Pacific Command officials because they are the combatant commanders
whose areas of responsibilities include the United States and its
territories. Further, we met with the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, the National Guard Bureau, the Institute for Defense
Analyses, and the National Governor's Association. We conducted site
visits to all five participant states from June through September
2010. During our site visits, we met with the planners hired through
the TFER pilot program and other state, local, National Guard, and DOD
regional officials to discuss FEMA's management of the TFER pilot
program and the states' implementation of it.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 to April 2011 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Other FEMA Grants Available for Catastrophic Planning and
States' Views on Using These Grants for Planning:
We identified four primary FEMA grant programs that states and
localities can use for catastrophic planning purposes, as shown in
table 2.
Table 2: FEMA Grant Programs That States and Localities Can Use for
Catastrophic Planning (fiscal year 2010 funding levels):
State Homeland Security Program ($842 million):
Eligible recipients: All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands;
Basis of fund allocation: Allocated based on three factors: minimum
amounts as legislatively mandated, DHS's risk methodology, and prior
year effectiveness;
Funding restrictions: States must pass through at least 80 percent of
funds to local governments. At least 25 percent of total combined
funds appropriated for the State Homeland Security Program and Urban
Areas Security Initiative must be dedicated towards law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities. Activities implemented under this
grant must support terrorism preparedness. However, many capabilities
which support terrorism preparedness simultaneously support
preparedness for other hazards. Grantees must demonstrate this dual-
use quality for any activities implemented under this program that are
not explicitly focused on terrorism preparedness. Grantees may provide
an optional cost share;
Use of funds for planning: Funds may be used for planning efforts that
enable states to prioritize needs, build capabilities, update
preparedness strategies, allocate resources, and deliver preparedness
programs across disciplines and levels of government. All planning
efforts should focus on prevention, protection, response, and recovery
efforts, which are the four core homeland security mission areas.
States are encouraged to use these funds to leverage other specialized
grant programs like the Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant Program.
Urban Areas Security Initiative ($833 million):
Eligible recipients: 64 highest risk urban areas;
Basis of fund allocation: Allocated based on DHS's risk methodology
and effectiveness - 10 highest risk urban areas are designated Tier I
and the remaining 54 are designated Tier II urban areas;
Funding restrictions: States must pass through at least 80 percent of
funds to local governments. At least 25 percent of total combined
funds appropriated for the State Homeland Security Program and Urban
Areas Security Initiative must be dedicated towards law enforcement
terrorism prevention. Activities must support terrorism preparedness.
However, many capabilities which support terrorism preparedness
simultaneously support preparedness for other hazards. Grantees must
demonstrate the dual-use quality for any activities implemented that
are not explicitly focused on terrorism preparedness. Any funds
retained by the state must be used in direct support of the urban area;
Use of funds for planning: Funds may be used for planning efforts that
enable states to prioritize needs, build capabilities, update
preparedness strategies, allocate resources, and deliver preparedness
programs across disciplines and levels of government. All planning
efforts should focus on prevention, protection, response, and recovery
efforts, which are the four core homeland security mission areas.
Emergency Management Performance Grants ($329.8 million):
Eligible recipients: All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, as well as the Republic of the Marshall Islands and
the Federated States of Micronesia;
Basis of fund allocation: Allocated based on a designated base amount
of the total available appropriated funds (0.75 percent for each of
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico; and 0.25 percent for each of the four territories -
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands). The balance of funds will be distributed on a
population-share basis;
Funding restrictions: Required to provide a 50 percent cost share or
cash or in-kind match[A];
Use of funds for planning: Fiscal year 2010 funds are used for a range
of emergency management planning activities. These plans include
aspects of the following, but are not limited to: (1) modifying
existing incident management and emergency operations plans, (2)
developing/enhancing all-hazards mitigation plans, (3) developing/
enhancing large-scale and catastrophic event incident plans, and (4)
developing/enhancing continuity of operations and continuity of
government plans.
Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant Program ($33.6 million):
Eligible recipients: Eleven predesignated urban areas;
Basis of fund allocation: Allocated based on the risk of a
catastrophic incident occurring in the region and the anticipated
effectiveness of the proposed projects as determined through the
application review process;
Funding restrictions: Up to 20 percent of a site's award may be
retained by the state for implementing or integrating the urban area's
approved project plans throughout the state, or with neighboring
states;
Use of funds for planning: Funds may be used for planning efforts to
address catastrophic events, including developing contingency
agreements that address logistics and prepositioning of commodities.
Funded efforts must enable the prioritization of needs, building of
capabilities, updating of preparedness strategies, allocation of
resources, and delivery of preparedness programs across disciplines
and levels of government. Funds may be used to hire staff for program
management functions, but not for operational duties.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA grant information.
[A] The requirement to allocate 25 percent of funding towards the
planning priority in previous Emergency Management Performance Grants
was removed from the fiscal year 2010 Emergency Management Performance
Grants guidance.
[End of table]
Table 3 shows that these FEMA grant programs provide the states and
other eligible recipients significantly more funds than TFER provided
the pilot states. For example, in fiscal year 2010 two of the TFER
pilot states received more than $6 million from the Emergency
Management Performance Grant program compared to the $350,000 they
each received for TFER over a 24-month period. According to FEMA
officials, the TFER grant represents at most 3 percent of the grant
money spent on planning by the pilot states, as of March 2010, and all
TFER activities are allowable under other grant programs.
Table 3: FEMA Preparedness Grant Programs Funding Allocated to TFER
Pilot States and Localities within TFER Pilot States[A]:
Fiscal year 2010 millions of dollars:
State Homeland Security Program;
State: Hawaii: $6.6 million;
State: Massachusetts: $15.6 million;
State: South Carolina: $7.9 million;
State: Washington: $18.4 million;
State: West Virginia: $6.6 million.
Urban Areas Security Initiative;
State: Hawaii: $4.8 million;
State: Massachusetts: $18.9 million;
State: South Carolina: 0;
State: Washington: $11.1 million;
State: West Virginia: 0.
Emergency Management Performance Grants;
State: Hawaii: $3.3 million;
State: Massachusetts: $6.6 million;
State: South Carolina: $5.3 million;
State: Washington: $6.7 million;
State: West Virginia: $3.6 million.
Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant Program;
State: Hawaii: $1.7 million;
State: Massachusetts: $3.6 million[B];
State: South Carolina: 0;
State: Washington: $1.7 million;
State: West Virginia: $3.6 million[B].
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA grant information.
[A] The five pilot states received $350,000 each for TFER over a 24-
month period.
[B] Funding was allocated to urban areas that span multiple states.
For Massachusetts, Boston is the principal city in its urban area, and
West Virginia has counties included in the National Capitol Region
urban area. West Virginia is one of six states that receive funds in
its area, and, given the small area of West Virginia included in the
region, a high-ranking state official said that most of the funds are
spent in areas outside West Virginia.
[End of table]
TFER has unique attributes from other FEMA grants. The primary
difference between TFER and these other grant programs is that the
TFER pilot states are required to use the grant funds exclusively for
planning efforts. In contrast, states may use the other FEMA grant
program funds for a full range of activities such as planning,
equipment, training, and construction and renovation. Like TFER, the
Emergency Management Performance Grants Program provides funding to
states with no requirement to pass through funding to local
governments. The Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant Program provides
funds directly to urban areas, but beginning in fiscal year 2010,
states were allowed to withhold up to 20 percent of the funds to
implement or integrate the urban areas' approved project plans
throughout the state, or with neighboring states.[Footnote 44]
According to the TFER program manger, FEMA provided the TFER pilot
states with the option of continuing their efforts using Regional
Catastrophic Planning Grant Program funds; however the four states
that received funds under both programs chose not to pursue this
option. Similarly, the State Homeland Security Program requires states
to pass through at least 80 percent of the funding to local
governments. Further, the Urban Area Security Initiative provides the
funding to urban areas, and any funds retained by the state must be
used to directly support the urban area. Consequently, states cannot
use most Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant, Urban Areas Security
Initiative, and State Homeland Security Program funds to conduct
statewide catastrophic planning. However, officials in one state told
us they used 2009 Emergency Management Performance Grant funds to hire
planners to continue planning begun under TFER, and officials in two
other states told us they may use State Homeland Security Program
grant funding to continue the catastrophic planning efforts begun
under TFER.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Task Force for Emergency Readiness (TFER) Evaluation
Criteria:
The TFER pilot program was to emphasize integration of planning
efforts across sectors, jurisdictions, and functional disciplines, as
well as integration among state, regional, and federal agencies. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed the following
questions in collaboration with the participating states to evaluate
TFER. The evaluation questions were structured around FEMA's stated
objectives for TFER--to develop plans, build relationships, and
document lessons learned.
Our assessment of the extent to which each state addressed FEMA's
stated objectives for the TFER pilot is presented in appendix IV. We
did not assess four criteria pertaining to developing plans and six
criteria pertaining to lessons learned because we determined that
these criteria do not inform the extent to which states met the
objective and/or there was not enough information to quantify the
results. Further, we did not assess the administrative elements of the
data collection process or administrative elements in appendix IV.
Those criteria which we did not assess are italicized below.
FEMA's TFER Pilot Program Evaluation:
1. Development of well coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process.
a. Please provide a summary of the primary TFER accomplishments.
b. Describe efforts to coordinate and integrate plans with state and
federal partners.
c. Does TFER supported planning reflect the National Preparedness
Guidelines and the full cycle of planning steps outlined in CPG 101?
d. Is TFER planning responsive to the National Planning Scenarios and/
or other threats identified through the state's own all-hazards risk
assessment?
e. Are the structure, organization, and content of TFER-developed
plans/annexes/appendices consistent with that recommended in CPG 101?
f. How are TFER efforts coordinated and integrated with resourcing
efforts (e.g., training, exercises, grants, etc.)?
g. Are TFER developed plans consistent with current state emergency
plans?
Are they integrated and not duplicative?
h. Have actual plans been produced? If so, what is their impact on
state emergency readiness?
i. In what areas have TFER supported plans been developed (e.g.,
logistics, coordination, etc.)?
2. Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols.
a. Does TFER supported planning reflect the formation and involvement
of the sort of integrated and collaborative planning teams described
in CPG 101?
b. Have mechanisms been established/augmented and employed to ensure
cross-sector, multijurisdictional, and interagency planning
coordination and integration?
c. Have TFER supported plans been coordinated with local
jurisdictions? Which ones? State agencies? Which ones? Federal
partners? Which ones?
d. Has a blending of TFER civil-military planning expertise been fully
exploited to assess, strengthen, and advance state catastrophic
preparedness planning?
e. How have TFER efforts incorporated the capabilities of the private
sector as partners in planning activities?
3. Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for
improvement.
a. In the opinion of state stakeholders, has the TFER Program resulted
in demonstrable improvement in state planning capability?
b. To what degree has state-level TFER planning been synchronized with
and improved the overall quality and effectiveness of planning efforts?
c. How were TFER planners integrated into the state emergency
management structure and process?
d. Has the TFER Program resulted in meaningful recommendations for the
improvement of catastrophic preparedness planning doctrine?
e. Are TFER lessons learned exportable and useful to other states and
regions to further the evolution and strengthening of their own
planning programs?
f. Has the pilot identified any additional planning/protocol/
procedure shortfalls due to integration/synchronization efforts?
g. Have any exercise After-Action Reports (AARs) or assessment
documents been developed by the site in the course of the TFER Pilot
implementation to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot?
h. Please provide recommendations for improvements to increase the
effectiveness of the catastrophic planning programs.
FEMA also requested copies of plans developed and collected feedback
on the administrative aspects of the pilot program.
1. Data collection process.
a. Please provide copies of completed/draft plans.
b. Please provide an update of the program plan, to include the steps
necessary to complete ongoing projects.
2. Administrative elements.
a. Describe any challenges faced managing the TFER funds.
b. Describe the hiring and retention process for your TFER planners.
Include time lines, training, and other elements as appropriate.
c. Describe additional administrative successes and challenges in
managing the pilot.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Our Review of Each State's Participation in the Task
Force for Emergency Readiness Pilot Program:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) launched the Task Force
for Emergency Readiness Pilot Program (TFER) to improve the capacity
and integration of efforts to plan a response to catastrophic
disasters. Under the TFER pilot, FEMA was to grant $350,000 to each of
five participating states--Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina,
Washington, and West Virginia. FEMA designed TFER to run 18 months,
beginning on September 1, 2008, and ending on March 31, 2010, but
extended the pilot program by an additional 6 months to allow the
states more time to accomplish their goals. The TFER pilot was to
emphasize horizontal integration of planning efforts across sectors,
jurisdictions, and functional disciplines, as well as vertical
integration among state, regional, and federal agencies. For example,
regarding vertical integration, states were to integrate planning
efforts with the Department of Defense (DOD) through its Defense
Coordinating Officers and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers. To
help develop plans to respond to catastrophic disasters, states could
hire up to three full-time planners ideally with civilian and military
planning expertise. FEMA's stated objectives for the TFER pilot were
to build relationships, develop plans, and document lessons learned,
and states were to focus their planning on the National Planning
Scenarios, which represent examples of the gravest dangers facing the
United States, including terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and
have been accorded the highest priority for federal planning efforts.
FEMA articulated these objectives in the TFER Pilot Information
Package and the TFER Evaluation Criteria document that was ultimately
to be used to evaluate the TFER pilot. Both of these documents refer
to FEMA's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 as a source
states were to use to guide their planning process.
In our assessment of the extent to which each state had addressed
FEMA's stated objectives for the TFER pilot, we reviewed those
documents, used the criteria in them that we determined were
measurable and appropriate to assess the states' progress towards
meeting each objective, assigned a numerical ranking to each
objective's criteria, and then averaged the rankings for each
objective's criteria. Finally, we assigned designations to these
averages. When a state addressed more than 80 percent of the criteria
for an objective this was designated "substantial progress"; from 20
percent to 80 percent, "some progress"; and below 20 percent, "little
or no progress." We gathered information related to the lessons
learned objective from state submissions to a report published by the
National Guard Bureau in August 2010, and we obtained additional
lessons learned during our interviews with state officials.[Footnote
45] Further, two of the states provided us with the lessons learned
they submitted to FEMA for its evaluation, which is not yet complete.
[Footnote 46] We did not assign designations to four criteria
pertaining to developing plans and six criteria pertaining to lessons
learned because we determined that these criteria do not inform the
extent to which states met the objective and/or there was not enough
information to quantify the results. Four of the five pilot states are
still spending TFER funds, and the states' status in meeting TFER's
stated objectives may change as catastrophic planning continues. We
assessed states' progress as of March 2011.
Hawaii:
In figure 9, we summarize Hawaii's TFER initiatives, note their
status, and describe the role of the planners working on them.
Figure 9: Summary and Status of Hawaii's TFER Initiatives and the Role
of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
TFER initiative: Various logistics and resource management plans:
Include the Resource Management Plan, Hawaii Logistics Plan, and
Mutual Aid Plans;
Status: Ongoing;
Planner's role: Research and provide input to state officials writing
the plans.
TFER initiative: Logistics synchronization matrix: Identifies (1)
interdependencies among six task forces (e.g., those for mass
evacuation, energy, and debris removal) that would respond to a major
hurricane making landfall in Honolulu and (2) actions taken by those
task forces;
Status: Draft products;
Planner's role: Engage all six task forces and the Statewide Logistics
Working Group and create the logistics synchronization matrix.
TFER initiative: Mass evacuation/reception initiative with Western
states: Develops a pilot program with Arizona, California, and
Washington to establish reception sites to receive evacuees for
further placement/movement;
Status: Ongoing;
Planner's role: Coordinate efforts with Arizona, California, and
Washington.
TFER initiative: Disaster management software tool (WebEOC):
Coordinates responses to catastrophic events;
Status: Ongoing;
Planner's role: Link other state plans with this software.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
Hawaii is still spending TFER funds and has two TFER planners. As of
March 2011, Hawaii had made some progress in addressing FEMA's stated
pilot program objectives. In figure 10, we depict the funding
expenditure status of the Hawaii TFER pilot and our assessment of the
progress made in the pilot program towards addressing FEMA's stated
pilot program objectives.
Figure 10: Expenditure Status of the Hawaii TFER Program and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Hawaii:
$93,000 of funding remaining;
2 planners originally hired;
2 planners currently employed;
Planning for hurricane.
Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process:
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: State officials reported that TFER planning integrates with
the state's existing hurricane planning efforts, which relates to a
National Planning Scenario. State officials told us that TFER planners
are following the steps outlined in CPG 101, but have not completed
the full cycle of planning steps for its products, as Hawaii has not
completed its plans.
Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols:
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Hawaii developed planning teams that included planners from
the state civil defense division and other state agencies, as well as
relevant county, federal, and private sector stakeholders. State
planners told us they had little contact with DOD entities. According
to state officials, the TFER planner‘s prior military experience was
helpful, but not necessary for a civilian planner to be successful.
Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement:
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Hawaii officials provided recommendations, including: continue
and expand the program to other states, maintain flexibility to
determine work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning.
Addition-ally, state officials recommended that future catastrophic
planning programs have longer time frames than the TFER pilot program,
provide more clearly defined guidance, and greater coordination
between FEMA and DOD. Further, funding was not enough to provide
competitive salaries. Hawaii has not exercised any of its plans to
determine if they will be effective in the event of a catastrophe.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
In figure 11, we detailed figure 10's assessment of the progress made
in the Hawaii TFER pilot program towards addressing FEMA's stated
objectives by (1) listing the criteria from the TFER Pilot Information
Package and the TFER Evaluation Criteria document used to evaluate the
progress of each objective and (2) providing our assessment score for
each criterion.
Figure 11: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in Hawaii TFER Pilot
Program towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process: Some progress:
Describe efforts to coordinate and integrate plans with state and
federal partners:
According to state officials, Hawaii coordinated with state agencies
such as the Department of Health and Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations; and federal agencies such as Transportation
Security Administration and the General Services Administration.
Status: Substantial progress.
Does TFER supported planning reflect the National Preparedness
Guidelines and the full cycle of planning steps outlined in CPG 101?
TFER planners stated they are following the steps outlined in CPG 101,
but have not completed the full cycle of planning steps for its
products;
Status: Some progress.
Is TFER planning responsive to the National Planning Scenarios and/or
other threats identified through the state‘s own all-hazards risk
assessment?
Hawaii based its TFER Pilot Program project areas on the 2006
Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report, which cited a scenario
involving the impact of a major hurricane.Development of well-
coordinated and integrated preparedness plans through an effective
planning process;
Status: Substantial progress.
Are TFER developed plans consistent with current state emergency plans?
Are they integrated and not duplicative?
The logistics plans integrate with the state's existing hurricane
planning efforts, are consistent with state plans, and are not
duplicative;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have actual plans been produced?
Hawaii has provided us with two draft plans. However, the plans are
incomplete and work is ongoing;
Status: Some progress.
Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols: Some progress:
Does TFER supported planning reflect the formation and involvement of
the sort of integrated and collaborative planning teams described in
CPG 101?
Hawaii inserted its TFER planners into its existing planning team in
the state‘s civil defense division. The team includes other state
agencies, as well as relevant local, federal, and private sector
stakeholders;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have mechanisms been established/augmented and employed to ensure
cross-sector, multijurisdictional, and interagency planning
coordination and integration?
The TFER planners coordinated with existing interagency taskforces as
well as the statewide Logistics Working Group;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER supported plans been coordinated with local jurisdictions?
State agencies? Which ones? Federal partners? Which ones?
According to state officials, Hawaii coordinated with local
jurisdictions such as county and city officials; state agencies such
as the Department of Transportation; and federal agencies such as
Transportation Security Administration and General Services
Administration;
Status: Substantial progress.
Has a blending of TFER civil-military planning expertise been fully
exploited to assess, strengthen, and advance state catastrophic
preparedness planning?
While Hawaii TFER officials agreed that a blend of civilian-military
expertise is helpful and one of the TFER planners and the TFER
supervisor had prior military experience, they did not feel it was
necessary in order to be a successful civilian planner. Officials
stated that the TFER planners did not have frequent contact with the
Defense Coordinating Officer or other personnel in the Defense
Coordinating Element. However, the Defense Coordinating Officer
participates in TFER workgroups. Further, they did not coordinate with
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers – part-time military personnel
who work primarily on the weekends. Hawaii TFER planners coordinated
with the National Guard as the Adjutant General oversees the National
Guard and the state civil defense division where the TFER planners
were placed, but this coordination was limited by deployments;
Status: Some progress.
How have TFER efforts incorporated the capabilities of the private
sector as partners in planning activities?
Hawaii included Target and Walmart in its planning processes, and
state officials told us they included nongovernmental organizations
such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army in their planning work groups;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with other states?
Hawaii planners coordinated with the TFER pilot state of Washington,
along with the non-TFER states Oregon, California, Nevada, and Arizona
in its hurricane exercise. Hawaii planners visited Florida, North
Carolina, and Washington to learn more about how these states
developed catastrophic planning tools;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with FEMA?
TFER planners told us they coordinated frequently with FEMA's Pacific
Area Office within FEMA Region IX, but did not coordinate regularly
with FEMA Headquarters. Specifically, FEMA provided technical
assistance and trainings;
Status: Some progress.
Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement:
Some progress:
Have any exercise after-action reports or assessment documents been
developed by the site in the course of the TFER Pilot implementation
to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot?
According to state officials, they have not exercised their plans. As
such, the state has not developed any exercise after-action reports;
Status: Little to no progress.
Please provide recommendations for improvement to increase the
effectiveness of the catastrophic planning programs;
Hawaii officials provided a number of recommendations, including:
continue and expand the program to other states, maintain flexibility
to determine work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic
planning. Additionally, state officials recommended that future
catastrophic planning programs have longer time frames than the TFER
pilot program, provide more clearly defined guidance, and greater
coordination between FEMA and DOD. Further, funding was not enough to
provide competitive salaries;
Status: Substantial progress.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] We selected these criteria from the TFER Evaluation Criteria
document and the TFER Pilot Information Package. We did not assess 10
of the criteria, as described in appendix I, because they do not
inform the extent to which states met the objective and/or there was
not enough information to quantify the results.
[End of figure]
We gathered additional information on Hawaii's efforts to develop
plans and document lessons learned for the criteria we were unable to
quantify. For example, we analyzed two Hawaii draft plans, which did
not contain all of the CPG 101 components. However, we were unable to
fully assess the content of the plans because they are incomplete and
work is ongoing. Further, Hawaii officials stated that TFER allowed
Hawaii to focus on logistics planning, and without TFER, Hawaii would
not be able to undertake this planning. Hawaii reported that TFER has
clearly contributed to the development of planning task forces and has
provided a significant contribution towards state catastrophic
planning. Additionally, Hawaii officials stated that the TFER
logistics planning can be used by island territories such as Guam and
Puerto Rico with similar logistical challenges.
Massachusetts:
In figure 12, we summarize Massachusetts's TFER initiatives, note
their status, and describe the role of the planners working on them.
Figure 12: Summary and Status of Massachusetts' TFER Initiatives and
the Role of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
TFER Initiative: Cape Cod Emergency Traffic Plan:
* Facilitates egress of the high volume of traffic from Cape Cod in
the event of a hurricane, particularly during the peak tourist season,
as well as prepares for the temporary sheltering of displaced persons;
Status: Updated annually;
Planner's role: Coordinate planning efforts for transient shelter
operations and shelter medical services.
TFER Initiative: Force package planning:
* Provides local jurisdictions Massachusetts National Guard domestic
response capabilities, should locales need these resources during an
emergency;
* Clarifies capabilities and capability gaps in state emergency plans;
Status: Draft product;
Planner's role: Draft packages.
TFER Initiative: Massachusetts state defense force revitalization:
* Provides a cadre of skilled professionals capable of assisting the
state in an emergency;
* Trains medical response force so that out-of-state assistance is not
necessary;
Status: Cadre is operational and expected to be fully staffed by mid-
2011;
Planner's role: Establish the defense force and recruited its
leadership.
TFER Initiative: Statewide medical support planning:
* Focuses on leveraging federal resources (e.g., Federal Medical
Stations) while increasing the state‘s self-reliance, as the State
Defense Force could operate these stations;
Status: State‘s Department of Public Health is coordinating with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well as the National
Guard;
Planner's role: Facilitate collaborative planning among various state
and federal stakeholders to create a statewide medical support plan.
TFER Initiative: Input critical infrastructure into database:
* Helps to ensure that state and local first responders had access to
sufficient information about the Massachusetts National Guard
infrastructure for their emergency response planning;
Status: TFER planners have added the National Guard infrastructure to
the Automated Critical Asset Management System database and are
encouraging state agencies and the private sector to do the same;
Planner's role: Work with the Commonwealth Fusion Center to add 24
National Guard facilities into the database.
TFER Initiative: Joint reception, staging, onward movement, and
integration:
* Establishes written rules and guidelines for the reception,
tracking, and demobilization of emergency responders following or in
anticipation of a significant preplanned event, major disaster, or
emergency;
* Includes FEMA Region I and all states within the region;
Status: Existing planning efforts may be integrated into DOD regional
planning;
Planner's role: Collect data on the state‘s capabilities to support
these operations.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
Massachusetts spent all of its TFER funds and therefore does not have
any TFER planners employed. As of March 2011, Massachusetts had made
some progress in meeting FEMA's stated pilot program objectives. In
figure 13, we depict the funding expenditure status of the
Massachusetts TFER pilot and our assessment of the progress made in
the pilot program towards addressing FEMA's stated pilot program
objectives.
Figure 13: Expenditure Status of the Massachusetts TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Massachusetts:
$0 of funding remaining;
3 planners originally hired;
0 planners currently employed;
Planning for hurricane.
Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Massachusetts focused on initiatives pertaining to a hurricane
and other priorities identified by state emergency management
officials and TFER planners. The balance of its efforts did not
specifically pertain to National Planning Scenarios. State officials
said the planners followed the steps outlined in CPG 101, but could
not complete the full cycle of planning because state officials
decided that the Massachusetts TFER planners would coordinate planning
efforts but plans would be completed by other state agencies.
GAO assessment: Some progress;
State: Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Rather than developing plans, TFER planners served as liaisons
to help formulate planning teams that worked to improve the state‘s
catastrophic preparedness. Planners worked within the state National
Guard. According to state officials, planning teams included planners
from the state emergency management division and other state agencies,
as well as relevant local, federal, and private sector stakeholders.
State officials told us the planners‘ military planning experience
gave them credibility in military circles. However, state officials
told us that DOD entities were minimally involved.
GAO assessment: Some progress;
State: Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for
improvement;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Massachusetts officials recommended that FEMA continue and
expand the program to other states, maintain flexibility to determine
work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning. Officials
stated the TFER planners all had some level of military experience,
which helped them cope with the logistical challenges and have
credibility with certain audiences. Additionally, officials
recommended that future catastrophic planning programs have longer
time frames than the TFER pilot program and provide more clearly
defined guidance. According to state officials, they have not
exercised any plans.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
In figure 14, we detailed figure 13's assessment of the progress made
in the Massachusetts TFER pilot program towards addressing FEMA's
stated objectives by (1) listing the criteria from the TFER Pilot
Information Package and the TFER Evaluation Criteria document used to
evaluate the progress of each objective and (2) providing our
assessment score for each criterion.
Figure 14: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in Massachusetts TFER
Pilot towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011[A]:
Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process: Some progress:
Describe efforts to coordinate and integrate plans with state and
federal partners:
Massachusetts TFER planners told us they coordinated TFER planning
initiatives with state agencies such as the Massachusetts Emergency
Management Agency, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, and
the Massachusetts State Police; and federal agencies such as the
National Guard, U.S. Public Health Service, the Department of Health
and Human Services, and the U.S. Coast Guard;
Status: Substantial progress.
Does TFER supported planning reflect the National Preparedness
Guidelines and the full cycle of planning steps outlined in CPG 101?
Planners told us they followed the steps outlined in CPG 101, but
could not complete the full cycle of planning because state officials
decided that the Massachusetts TFER planners would coordinate the
planning efforts but plans would be completed by other state agencies;
Status: Some progress.
Is TFER planning responsive to the National Planning Scenarios and/or
other threats identified through the state‘s own all-hazards risk
assessment?
Massachusetts focused on initiatives pertaining to a hurricane and
other priorities identified by state emergency management officials
and TFER planners. The balance of its efforts did not specifically
pertain to National Planning Scenarios;
Status: Some progress.
Are TFER developed plans consistent with current state emergency plans?
Are they integrated and not duplicative?
The projects chosen addressed gaps in Massachusetts catastrophic
planning and are not duplicative;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have actual plans been produced?
No. However, the TFER planners coordinated efforts that resulted in an
update to the Cape Cod Emergency Traffic Plan to include transient
shelter operations and shelter medical services;
Status: Little to no progress.
Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols: Some progress:
Does TFER supported planning reflect the formation and involvement of
the sort of integrated and collaborative planning teams described in
CPG 101?
The focus of the Massachusetts TFER effort was to serve as liaisons to
help formulate planning teams that worked to improve the state‘s
catastrophic preparedness, and planners worked within the
Massachusetts National Guard. Planning teams included planners from
the state emergency management division and other state agencies, as
well as relevant local, federal, and private sector stakeholders;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have mechanisms been established/augmented and employed to ensure
cross-sector, multijurisdictional, and interagency planning
coordination and integration?
According to state officials, the TFER program established and
employed workgroups for its various initiatives;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER supported plans been coordinated with local jurisdictions?
State agencies? Which ones? Federal partners? Which ones?
Massachusetts TFER planners told us they coordinated TFER planning
initiatives with local jurisdictions such as Barnstable County and
local law enforcement; state agencies such as the Massachusetts
Emergency Management Agency, the National Guard, and the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health; and federal agencies such as FEMA Region
1, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the U.S. Coast Guard;
Status: Substantial progress.
Has a blending of TFER civil-military planning expertise been fully
exploited to assess, strengthen, and advance state catastrophic
preparedness planning?
State officials told us the planners‘ military planning experience
gave them credibility in military circles, and all three planners were
placed within the National Guard. However, state officials told us
that DOD entities such as the Defense Coordinating Officer and
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer were minimally involved.
Further, the Defense Coordinating Officer from FEMA Region I told us
it would be difficult for TFER planners to coordinate with Emergency
Preparedness Liaison Officers because they work on the weekends, and
do not often develop plans;
Status: Some progress.
How have TFER efforts incorporated the capabilities of the private
sector as partners in planning activities?
Massachusetts TFER planners told us they coordinated with the private
sector. For example, the planners gathered critical infrastructure
data from the private sector for one of its projects and coordinated
with nongovernmental organizations such as the American Red Cross and
State of Massachusetts Animal Response Team;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with other states?
The Massachusetts TFER planners said they had contact with their
counterparts in Hawaii and Washington as well as North Carolina, a non-
TFER state;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with FEMA?
TFER planners told us they coordinated frequently with FEMA Region I,
but had limited contact with FEMA headquarters. Specifically, Region I
provided information on trainings and responded to information
requests from TFER planners;
Status: Some progress.
Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement:
Some progress:
Have any exercise after-action reports or assessment documents been
developed by the site in the course of the TFER Pilot implementation
to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot?
According to state officials, they have not exercised any plans. As
such, the state has not developed any exercise after-action reports;
Status: Little to no progress.
Please provide recommendations for improvement to increase the
effectiveness of the catastrophic planning programs;
Massachusetts officials provided a number of recommendations,
including: continue and expand the program to other states, maintain
flexibility to determine work plans, and dedicate funding for
catastrophic planning. Officials stated the TFER planners all had some
level of military experience, which helped them cope with the
logistical challenges, and have credibility with certain audiences.
Additionally, officials recommended that future catastrophic planning
programs have longer time frames than the TFER pilot program and
provide more clearly defined guidance;
Status: Substantial progress.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] We selected these criteria from the TFER Evaluation Criteria
document and the TFER Pilot Information Package. We did not assess 10
of the criteria, as described in appendix I, because they do not
inform the extent to which states met the objective and/or there was
not enough information to quantify the results.
[End of figure]
We gathered additional information from Massachusetts on developing
plans and documenting lessons learned, but were unable to quantify
this information using FEMA's evaluation criteria. For example,
Massachusetts TFER planners told us they often attended state and
regional training and workshops, which integrated them with resourcing
efforts. However, we did not assess progress towards meeting this
objective because it is unclear how these training and workshops
inform plan development. Further, Massachusetts officials stated that
TFER was successful and proved valuable in bringing state, local, and
county agencies together with nongovernmental organizations under the
umbrella of state emergency planning. Additionally, TFER officials
stated it would have been beneficial to have TFER planners in other
New England states available to coordinate with for events that would
likely impact the entire region.
South Carolina:
South Carolina focused its TFER pilot on planning in response to
terrorist attacks. In figure 15, we summarize South Carolina's TFER
initiatives, note their status, and describe the role of the planners
working on them.
Figure 15: Summary and Status of South Carolina's TFER Initiatives and
the Role of Planners Working on Them as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
TFER Initiative: Terrorism Prevention and Response Plan:
* Comprises an appendix to the South Carolina Emergency Operations
Plan that articulates prevention, protection, response, and recovery
activities related to a terrorist event;
Status: Draft complete. Some of the plan‘s concepts have been
exercised;
Planner's role: Update plan to address gaps in the response and
recovery sections and draft prevention and protection aspects of the
plan.
TFER Initiative: Catastrophic Incident Response Annex:
* Comprises an appendix to the South Carolina Emergency Operations
Plan to provide guidance and direction for the State Emergency
Response Team as it responds to, and recovers from, specific
catastrophic incidents;
Status: Complete;
Planner's role: Update plan.
TFER Initiative: Radiological Dispersal Device Attack Response Plan:
* Outlines an organized, timely, and integrated response from local,
state, and federal responders to a detonation of a radiological
dispersal device at a public park in South Carolina;
* Serves as an attachment to the South Carolina Catastrophic Incident
Response Annex;
Status: Draft product;
Planner's role: Draft attachment.
TFER Initiative: 10 Kiloton Uranium Improvised Nuclear Device Response
Plan[A]:
* Outlines an organized, timely, and integrated response from local,
state, and federal responders to a detonation of an improvised 10
kiloton nuclear device at a major seaport in South Carolina;
Status: Draft product;
Planner's role: Draft attachment.
TFER Initiative: Explosives Attack-Bombing Using Multiple Improvised
Explosive Devices Plan[A]:
* Guides the assignment of responsibilities and actions of South
Carolina Emergency Management Division and its associated State
Emergency Response Team, when responding to requests from South
Carolina counties that may be involved in such an incident;
Status: Draft product;
Planner's role: Draft attachment.
TFER Initiative: Biological Attack: Animal Disease Response Plan[A]:
* Outlines an organized, timely, and integrated response from federal,
state, and local responders to an animal disease outbreak;
Status: Ongoing;
Planner's role: Draft attachment.
TFER Initiative: Biological Event: Aerosol Anthrax Response Plan[A]:
* Outlines an organized, timely, and integrated response from federal,
state, and local responders to an aerosol anthrax attack;
Status: Ongoing;
Planner's role: Draft attachment.
TFER Initiative: Cyber Attack Response Plan[A]:
* Outlines an organized, timely, and integrated response from federal,
state, and local responders to a cyber attack;
Status: Incomplete;
Planner's role: Draft attachment.
TFER Initiative: National Planning Scenarios response matrices:
* Document the assets and capabilities of state agencies by emergency
support function for the National Planning Scenarios:
Status: Incomplete;
Planner's role:
* Compile matrices for the National Planning Scenarios;
* Focus on nuclear, radiological, and improvised explosive device
scenarios.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
South Carolina is still spending TFER funds and currently has two TFER
planners employed. As of March 2011, South Carolina had made some
progress in addressing FEMA's stated pilot program objectives of
building relationships and documenting lessons learned and had made
substantial progress in developing plans. In figure 16, we depict the
funding expenditure status of the South Carolina TFER pilot program
and our assessment of the progress made in TFER towards addressing
FEMA's stated pilot program objectives.
Figure 16: Expenditure Status of the South Carolina TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
South Carolina:
$54,000 of funding remaining;
3 planners originally hired;
2 planners currently employed;
Planning for various terrorist attacks.
State: Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness
plans through an effective planning process;
GAO assessment: Substantial progress;
Status: South Carolina focused on the National Planning Scenarios
related to terrorist attacks. The state has completed a revision of
its Catastrophic Incident Annex and it has completed drafts of its
Terrorism Prevention and Response Plan and three other plans related
to terrorist attacks, which officials told us fill gaps in state
planning. Planners reported they are following the steps outlined in
CPG 101, but have not finished the full cycle of planning for any of
its products, as South Carolina has not exercised them.
State: Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: South Carolina provided a number of recommendations,
including: continue and expand the program, maintain flexibility to
determine work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning.
Additionally, South Carolina officials recommended that future
catastrophic planning programs have longer time frames than the TFER
pilot program, and that FEMA should provide more clearly defined
guidance. Officials identified coordinating security clearances across
DHS and DOD as a challenge that should be resolved in similar programs
in the future. The sharing of lessons learned and
techniques/procedures with other states would have been helpful in
developing catastrophic plans through the TFER pilot program. South
Carolina also cited good initial training opportunities through TFER;
however these opportunities did not extend throughout the life of the
program, and thus were not available to all South Carolina TFER staff.
State: Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for
improvement;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: South Carolina provided a number of recommendations,
including: continue and expand the program, maintain flexibility to
determine work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning.
Additionally, South Carolina officials recommended that future
catastrophic planning programs have longer time frames than the TFER
pilot program, and that FEMA should provide more clearly defined
guidance. Officials identified coordinating security clearances across
DHS and DOD as a challenge that should be resolved in similar programs
in the future. The sharing of lessons learned and
techniques/procedures with other states would have been helpful in
developing catastrophic plans through the TFER pilot program. South
Carolina also cited good initial training opportunities through TFER;
however, these opportunities did not extend throughout the life of the
program and thus were not available to all South Carolina TFER staff.
Officials stated that an exercise is scheduled for March 2011 and that
after-action reports will subsequently be developed.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
In figure 17, we detailed figure 16's assessment of the progress made
in South Carolina's TFER pilot program towards addressing FEMA's
stated objectives by (1) listing the criteria from the TFER Pilot
Information Package and the TFER Evaluation Criteria document used to
evaluate the progress of each objective and (2) providing our
assessment score for each criterion.
Figure 17: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in South Carolina's
TFER Pilot towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process: Substantial progress:
Describe efforts to coordinate and integrate plans with state and
federal partners:
According to state officials, South Carolina coordinated TFER plans
with state entities, including the South Carolina Department of Public
Safety, Department of Health and Environmental Control, and emergency
support function team leaders; and federal agencies, including the
Department of Homeland Security‘s Office of Intelligence and Analysis,
the U.S. Attorney‘s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
FEMA Region IV;
Status: Substantial progress.
Does TFER supported planning reflect the National Preparedness
Guidelines and the full cycle of planning steps outlined in CPG 101?
Planners stated they are following the steps outlined in CPG 101, but
have not finished the full cycle of planning for any of its products;
Status: Some progress.
Is TFER planning responsive to the National Planning Scenarios and/or
other threats identified through the state‘s own all-hazards risk
assessment?
South Carolina focused on the National Planning Scenarios related to
terrorist attacks;
Status: Substantial progress.
Are TFER developed plans consistent with current state emergency plans?
According to state officials, TFER-developed plans integrate with
existing state plans, fill gaps in the state plan compendium, are not
duplicative, and revise an existing plan to address shortcomings;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have actual plans been produced?
The state is developing response plans for terrorist attacks and is
updating its Terrorism Prevention and Response Plan. South Carolina
has completed an update of its Catastrophic Incident Response Annex,
has completed drafts of the Terrorism Prevention and Response Plan,
and three hazard-specific response plans;
Status: Substantial progress.
Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols: Some progress:
Does TFER supported planning reflect the formation and involvement of
the sort of integrated and collaborative planning teams described in
CPG 101?
South Carolina inserted its TFER planners into the existing planning
teams in its law enforcement and emergency management divisions.
Planning teams also included other state agencies, as well as relevant
local, federal, and private sector stakeholders;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have mechanisms been established/augmented and employed to ensure
cross-sector, multijurisdictional, and interagency planning
coordination and integration?
South Carolina's TFER planners stated they coordinated with
established workgroups including leaders from the state‘s emergency
support function framework;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER supported plans been coordinated with local jurisdictions?
State agencies? Which ones? Federal partners? Which ones?
According to state officials, South Carolina coordinated TFER plans
with local jurisdictions such as local law enforcement and emergency
management organizations; state entities, including the South Carolina
Department of Public Safety, Department of Health and Environmental
Control, and emergency support function team leaders; and federal
agencies, including the U.S. Attorney‘s Office and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation;
Status: Substantial progress.
Has a blending of TFER civil-military planning expertise been fully
exploited to assess, strengthen, and advance state catastrophic
preparedness planning?
TFER and FEMA officials stated the planners' military background
helped them learn quickly about planning issues and proved to be an
asset. A TFER planner in South Carolina told us the state agencies
involved in TFER coordinated with National Guard officials on a
monthly basis and included them in TFER workgroups. TFER planners
coordinated with the Region's Defense Coordinating Officer and an
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer but the coordination was
limited;
Status: Some progress.
How have TFER efforts incorporated the capabilities of the private
sector as partners in planning activities?
Planners consulted with the private sector and included it in
workgroups and the statewide exercise;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with other states?
The South Carolina TFER planners told us they regularly exchanged
ideas with other states‘ TFER planners. South Carolina shared its
Catastrophic Incident Annex with TFER planners in Washington and West
Virginia. A South Carolina TFER planner also told us she coordinated
terrorism planning efforts with North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with FEMA?
According to state officials, TFER planners coordinated frequently
with FEMA Region IV, but had limited contact with FEMA headquarters.
Specifically, Region IV provided information on technical issues and
helped the TFER planners build relationships with other stakeholders;
Status: Some progress.
Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement:
Some progress:
Have any exercise after-action reports or assessment documents been
developed by the site in the course of the TFER Pilot implementation
to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot?
According to state officials, the first of two exercises is scheduled
for March 10, 2011, and after-action reports will subsequently be
developed;
Status: Little to no progress.
Please provide recommendations for improvement to increase the
effectiveness of the catastrophic planning programs;
South Carolina provided a number of recommendations, including:
continue and expand the program, maintain flexibility to determine
work plans, and dedicate funding for catastrophic planning.
Additionally, South Carolina officials recommended that future
catastrophic planning programs have longer time frames than the TFER
pilot program, and that FEMA should provide more clearly defined
guidance. Officials identified coordinating security clearances across
DHS and DOD as a challenge that should be resolved in similar programs
in the future. The sharing of lessons learned and
techniques/procedures with other states would have been helpful in
developing catastrophic plans through the TFER pilot program. South
Carolina also cited good initial training opportunities through TFER;
however, these opportunities did not extend throughout the life of the
program, and thus were not available to all South Carolina TFER staff.
The second and third hired South Carolina TFER planners went through
an informal in-house training procedure;
Status: Substantial progress.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] We selected these criteria from the TFER Evaluation Criteria
document and the TFER Pilot Information Package. We did not assess 10
of the criteria, as described in appendix I, because they do not
inform the extent to which states met the objective and/or there was
not enough information to quantify the results.
[End of figure]
We gathered additional information from South Carolina on developing
plans and documenting lessons learned, but were unable to quantify
this information using FEMA's evaluation criteria. For example, we
were unable to fully assess South Carolina's plans because seven of
eight TFER-developed plans are in draft form. However, all four of the
plans state officials provided are missing at least one of the
recommended sections described in CPG 101. State officials told us
that omitted sections are included in other state planning documents.
Additionally, state officials reported that the state used TFER to
continue work on its existing work plan, and South Carolina has
developed plans and responses to some of the threats that they would
not have otherwise been able to address.
Washington:
Washington focused its TFER pilot on developing logistics plans and on
a catastrophic incident plan. In figure 18, we summarize Washington's
TFER initiatives, note their status, and describe the role of the
planners working on them.
Figure 18: Summary and Status of Washington's TFER Initiatives and the
Role of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
TFER Initiative: Catastrophic Incident Annex:
* Establishes the context and the strategy for implementing and
coordinating a proactive state response to a catastrophic incident;
Status: Final draft product;
Planner's role: Draft annex from start to finish.
TFER Initiative: Evacuation Annex:
* Establishes context for a state-managed evacuation;
Status: Draft framework completed'
Planner's role: Develop framework from beginning.
TFER Initiative: Reception and Integration Plan Standard Operating
Procedures:
* Establishes written rules and guidelines for the reception,
tracking, and demobilization of emergency responders following or in
anticipation of a significant preplanned event, major disaster or
emergency;
* Supports the Movement Coordination Appendix to the State
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan;
Status: Draft product. The Emergency Management Division has exercised
the plan. Final adjustments being made;
Planner's role: Draft product.
TFER Initiative: Long Term Recovery Appendix:
* Establishes uniform policies for effective coordination to
accomplish short-term and long-term recovery, restoration, and
redevelopment;
Status: Final draft product;
Planner's role: Update appendix.
TFER Initiative: Movement Coordination Appendix:
* Tracks and coordinates safe, secure, and timely movement of inbound
disaster resources into the state and through affected jurisdictions
following an emergency or disaster;
Status: Draft product;
Planner's role: Draft appendix. Participate in the exercises
pertaining to the procedures described in the appendix.
TFER Initiative: State Staging Areas Standard Operation Procedures:
* Establishes written rules and guidelines for the selection,
activation, operation, and demobilization of state staging areas to
ensure that the state can receive, track, and distribute emergency
resources throughout the state in an efficient, effective, and timely
manner following or in anticipation of a significant preplanned event,
major disaster, or emergency;
Status: Final product;
Planner's role: Draft procedures. Participate in the exercises
pertaining to these procedures.
TFER Initiative: TFER trainings for Local Jurisdictions:
* Prepares local jurisdictions to integrate with state logistics
efforts;
Status: Some trainings are complete, while others are in development;
Planner's role: Develop and execute training sessions.
TFER Initiative: Defense Support for Civil Authorities Annex:
* Establishes the circumstances and procedures under which the
governor can order the Washington National Guard into active duty;
* Coordinates the use of military assets during an emergency or
disaster;
Status: Final product;
Planner's role: Update this annex to the State Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
Washington is spending TFER funds and as of March 2011 had one TFER
planner employed. As of March 2011, Washington had made some progress
in addressing FEMA's stated pilot program objectives. In figure 19, we
depict the funding expenditure status of the Washington TFER pilot and
our assessment of the progress made in the pilot towards addressing
FEMA's stated pilot objectives.
Figure 19: Expenditure Status of the Washington TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Washington:
$11,000 of funding remaining;
3 planners originally hired;
1 planner currently employed;
Planning for earthquake.
State: Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness
plans through an effective planning process;
GAO assessment: Substantial progress;
Status: Washington selected as its primary National Planning Scenario
a catastrophic earthquake and accompanying tsunami. Washington
integrated TFER logistics plans and a catastrophic incident plan with
existing state plans and filled gaps in the state plan compendium,
according to state officials. The state has finalized two of its seven
plans and has final drafts for three others. Washington officials told
us they are following CPG 101 planning process and are structuring
plan content accordingly.
State: Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: Washington officials stated they developed planning teams that
included planners from the state Emergency Management Division and
other state agencies, as well as relevant local, federal, and private
sector stakeholders. State officials told us the planners‘ military
planning experience accelerated the learning of civilian planning
protocols and helped the program advance the states logistics and
catastrophic planning. However, according to state officials, DOD
entities were minimally involved.
State: Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for
improvement;
GAO assessment: Substantial progress;
Status: Washington provided recommendations, including: continue and
expand the program to other states, maintain the broad scope of the
projects eligible to be addressed through TFER, and dedicate funding
for catastrophic planning. Additionally, state officials recommended
that future catastrophic planning programs have longer time frames
than the TFER pilot program and FEMA provide more guidance. Further,
FEMA could improve in management of grants like TFER. Washington has
exercised three out of seven of its TFER plans.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
In figure 20, we detailed figure 19's assessment of the progress made
in Washington's TFER pilot program towards addressing FEMA's stated
objectives by (1) listing the criteria from the TFER Pilot Information
Package and the TFER Evaluation Criteria document used to evaluate the
progress of each objective and (2) providing our assessment score for
each criterion.
[Refer to PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 20: GAO Assessment of FEMA's Evaluation Criteria: Washington,
as of March 2011[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process: Substantial progress:
Describe efforts to coordinate and integrate plans with state and
federal partners:
Washington coordinated TFER plans with state agencies such as the
Department of Licensing, Department of Labor and Industries,
Department of General Administration, and the Department of
Transportation; and federal partners such as FEMA;
Status: Substantial progress.
Does TFER supported planning reflect the National Preparedness
Guidelines and the full cycle of planning steps outlined in CPG 101?
The Washington TFER program supervisor stated the TFER planners are
following the steps outlined in CPG-101, and have completed the full
cycle of planning steps for one of its products;
Status: Substantial progress.
Is TFER planning responsive to the National Planning Scenarios and/or
other threats identified through the state‘s own all-hazards risk
assessment?
Washington selected a catastrophic earthquake (and accompanying
tsunami) as the primary scenario for TFER, which is one of the
national planning scenarios. Specific plans developed for the scenario
address gaps identified by the state through a gap analysis;
Status: Substantial progress.
Are TFER developed plans consistent with current state emergency plans?
TFER-developed plans integrate with existing state plans and fill gaps
in the state plan compendium. TFER plans are annexes to the state‘s
base emergency operations plan, and are not duplicative;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have actual plans been produced?
The state is developing logistics plans and a catastrophic incident
plan for TFER. It has finalized two of its seven plans, and has final
drafts for three others;
Status: Substantial progress.
Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols: Some progress:
Does TFER supported planning reflect the formation and involvement of
the sort of integrated and collaborative planning teams described in
CPG 101?
According to state officials, Washington developed planning teams that
included planners from the state emergency management division and
other state agencies, as well as relevant local, federal, and private
sector stakeholders;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have mechanisms been established/augmented and employed to ensure
cross-sector, multijurisdictional, and interagency planning
coordination and integration?
Washington‘s TFER program augmented already established practices of
coordination and integration such as focused workgroups that included
representatives from local, state, federal, and nongovernmental
organizations;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER supported plans been coordinated with local jurisdictions?
State agencies? Which ones? Federal partners? Which ones?
Washington coordinated TFER plans with local jurisdictions including
those engaged in the Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant; state
agencies including the Department of Licensing, Department of Labor
and Industries, General Administration, and the Department of
Transportation; and federal partners through FEMA Region X;
Status: Substantial progress.
Has a blending of TFER civil-military planning expertise been fully
exploited to assess, strengthen, and advance state catastrophic
preparedness planning?
State officials told us that the planners‘ military planning
experience accelerated the learning of civilian planning protocols and
helped the program advance the state‘s logistics and catastrophic
planning. Washington TFER planners coordinated with the National Guard
as the Adjutant General oversees the National Guard and the state
emergency management division where the TFER planners were placed, but
this coordination was limited by deployments. However, state officials
told us coordination with DOD entities such as the Defense
Coordinating Officer and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer were
minimally involved. State officials said further coordination with DOD
was limited because the draft plans were not yet ready for DOD review
and coordination with the federal government agencies normally occurs
through FEMA unless the federal agency is directly involved in plan
development;
Status: Some progress.
How have TFER efforts incorporated the capabilities of the private
sector as partners in planning activities?
Private sector groups were involved in the planning and exercising of
TFER products. For example, the Red Cross participated in one of the
TFER workgroups, and multiple private sector associations played roles
in developing the Reception and Integration Plan and exercise;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with other states?
TFER efforts have been shared with neighboring states and Hawaii to
help them understand Washing-ton's intentions and processes for
logistics response support;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with FEMA?
Washington TFER planners coordinated with FEMA, but officials told us
that coordination could be improved. Specifically, state officials
told us FEMA Region X participated in workgroups and provided
suggestions on planning, but FEMA headquarters provided limited
guidance on the implementation of the program, and grant guidance was
inconsistent;
Status: Some progress.
Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement:
Substantial progress:
Have any exercise after-action reports or assessment documents been
developed by the site in the course of the TFER Pilot implementation
to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot?
The state has exercised three of its TFER products during two
exercises and developed after-action reports for these exercises;
Status: Substantial progress.
Please provide recommendations for improvement to increase the
effectiveness of the catastrophic planning programs;
The state provided a number of recommendations, including: continue
and expand the program to other states, maintain the broad scope of
the projects eligible to be addressed by the TFER resources, and
dedicate funding for catastrophic planning. Additionally, state
officials recommended that future catastrophic planning programs have
longer time frames than the TFER pilot program and FEMA provide more
guidance. Further, FEMA could improve in management of grants like
TFER;
Status: Substantial progress.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] We selected these criteria from the TFER Evaluation Criteria
document and the TFER Pilot Information Package. We did not assess 10
of the criteria, as described in appendix I, because they do not
inform the extent to which states met the objective and/or there was
not enough information to quantify the results.
[End of figure]
We gathered additional information from Washington on developing plans
and documenting lessons learned, but were unable to quantify this
information using FEMA's evaluation criteria. For example, Washington
selected projects for TFER which were previously identified as part of
the state's future emergency planning work. Washington's TFER planning
also synchronized with catastrophic planning efforts undertaken
through the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program as both
efforts included evacuation and logistics components. However, we were
unable to assess the degree to which TFER efforts were synchronized
with other planning efforts because we did not have a basis for
measuring how this synchronization improved the effectiveness of
planning efforts. Further, Washington's TFER plans contain some but
not all of the recommended sections described in CPG 101, but state
and FEMA officials stated that omitted sections are included in other
state planning documents. We could not fully assess the content of
Washington's plans because five out of seven of the plans are in draft
form. According to state officials, accomplishments included drafting
both catastrophic logistics plans and developing a closer working
relationship with Hawaii, Oregon, and California by participating in
Hawaii's annual hurricane exercise.
West Virginia:
West Virginia focused its TFER pilot on developing response plans for
three scenarios: a chemical incident, a mass evacuation of the
National Capital Region, and a dam failure. In figure 21, we summarize
West Virginia's TFER initiatives, note their status, and describe the
role of the planners working on them.
Figure 21: Summary and Status of West Virginia's TFER Initiatives and
the Role of Planners Working on Them, as of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
TFER Initiative: Catastrophic Incident Annex:
Provides procedures that allow emergency management officials to
coordinate the application of federal, state, and local resources in
response to a catastrophic event to prevent loss of life, minimize
damage to property, and protect the environment;
Status: Preliminary draft completed. Full draft is expected to be
completed by summer 2011;
Planner's role: Draft annex.
TFER Initiative: Capacity development plans:
* Designs planning tools to help the TFER planners assess counties‘
catastrophic planning strengths and weaknesses for each of the three
scenarios worked on by the planners;
Status: Ongoing – 21 of these planning tools written and at varying
degrees of completion:
* 7 for the chemical incident scenario;
* 4 for the National Capitol Region mass evacuation scenario;
* 10 for the dam failure scenario;
Planner's role: Draft planning tools.
TFER Initiative: Narrow the focus tools:
* Identify assets and gaps, such as shelter capacity and cots for each
of the three scenarios worked on by the TFER planners;
* Inform the Capacity Development Plans;
Status: Ongoing;
Planner's role: Develop focus tools.
TFER Initiative: Bluestone Dam Failure Appendix:
* Informs the federal, state, and local response in the event of a
failure of the Bluestone Dam;
* Serves as a hazard-specific appendix to the Catastrophic Incident
Annex;
Status: Ongoing;
Planner's role: Aid plan development.
TFER Initiative: Kanawha County Evacuation Plan:
* Presents guidelines for emergency services agencies in Kanawha
County to help ensure a coordinated evacuation of the population,
including in the event of a failure of the Bluestone Dam;
Status: Draft complete;
Planner's role: Ensure consistency between the plan and national
planning doctrine like Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101.
[End of figure]
West Virginia is still spending TFER funds and currently has one TFER
planner employed. As of March 2011, West Virginia had made some
progress in meeting FEMA's stated pilot objectives. In figure 22, we
depict the funding expenditure status of the West Virginia TFER pilot
program and our assessment of the progress made in the pilot program
towards addressing FEMA's stated pilot program objectives.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[End of figure]
Figure 22: Expenditure Status of the West Virginia TFER Pilot and Our
Assessment of Progress Made towards Addressing FEMA's Objectives, as
of March 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
West Virginia:
$105,000 of funding remaining;
2 planners originally hired[A];
2 planners currently employed;
Planning for various terrorist attacks and hurricane.
State: Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness
plans through an effective planning process;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: West Virginia identified three possible scenarios: a chemical
incident, a mass evacuation of the National Capital Region, and a dam
failure. These events could be caused by a hurricane or terrorist
attack, which pertain to several National Planning Scenarios.
According to state officials, West Virginia's TFER planning efforts
fill gaps in catastrophic planning and include development of a
catastrophic incident plan. State officials said that planners are
following the steps outlined in CPG 101, but have not finished the
full cycle of planning for any of its products, as West Virginia has
not completed draft plans.
State: Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: West Virginia officials said they developed planning teams
that included TFER planners, the Department of Military Affairs and
Public Safety, the National Guard‘s planning office, other state
partners, and county partners, as well as the private sector. State
officials told us the military-civilian blend of planning experience
was beneficial in West Virginia. However, only one of the two planners
has a military background and state officials told us coordination
with DOD entities was minimal.
State: Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for
improvement;
GAO assessment: Some progress;
Status: West Virginia recommended FEMA continue and expand the
program, maintain flexibility to determine workplans and dedicated
funding to hire planners. Additionally, officials recommended that the
new program have longer time frames than the pilot and provide more
clearly defined guidance. West Virginia reported there was significant
difficulty in hiring people with the requisite military/civilian
catastrophic planning skills and experience because of the short
duration of the program, which delayed the start-up of West Virginia‘s
TFER program. West Virginia has not exercised any of its plans.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] One of the TFER planners is a National Guardsman who was mobilized
in September 2010. He is expected to resume his TFER planning position
when he returns. West Virginia hired another TFER planner in December
2011.
[End of figure]
In figure 23, we detailed figure 22's assessment of the progress made
in West Virginia's TFER pilot program towards addressing FEMA's stated
objectives by (1) listing the criteria from the TFER Pilot Information
Package and the TFER Evaluation Criteria document used to evaluate the
progress of each objective and (2) providing our assessment score for
each criterion.
Figure 23: Criteria Used to Assess Progress Made in West Virginia TFER
Pilot towards Addressing FEMA Objectives, as of March 2011[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Development of well-coordinated and integrated preparedness plans
through an effective planning process: Some progress:
Describe efforts to coordinate and integrate plans with state and
federal partners:
West Virginia officials told us they coordinated TFER planning efforts
with the West Virginia National Guard, Department of Transportation,
Department of Agriculture, and other state agencies, and also
coordinated with federal partners such as FEMA and the Army Corps of
Engineers;
Status: Substantial progress.
Does TFER supported planning reflect the National Preparedness
Guidelines and the full cycle of planning steps outlined in CPG 101?
West Virginia officials stated that the TFER planners are following
the steps outlined in CPG 101, but have not finished the full cycle of
planning for any of its products;
Status: Some progress.
Is TFER planning responsive to the National Planning Scenarios and/or
other threats identified through the state‘s own all-hazards risk
assessment?
West Virginia identified three possible scenarios: a chemical
incident, a mass evacuation of the National Capital Region, and a dam
failure. These events could be caused by a hurricane or terrorist
attack, which pertain to several National Planning Scenarios;
Status: Substantial progress.
Are TFER developed plans consistent with current state emergency plans?
West Virginia's TFER planning efforts fill an existing gap in
catastrophic planning and are intended to integrate with the base
emergency operations plan, according to state officials. State
officials told us that similar planning efforts are underway apart
from TFER, but TFER integrates with those efforts as well;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have actual plans been produced?
West Virginia developed a preliminary draft for a catastrophic
incident annex and several planning tools under TFER. These efforts
are ongoing;
Status: Some progress.
Establishment of cross-sector and interagency relationships and
protocols: Some progress:
Does TFER supported planning reflect the formation and involvement of
the sort of integrated and collaborative planning teams described in
CPG 101?
West Virginia officials stated that they developed planning teams that
included TFER planners, the Department of Military Affairs and Public
Safety, the National Guard‘s planning office, other state partners,
and county partners. However, the state faced challenges coordinating
and integrating plans with some stakeholders;
Status: Some progress.
Have mechanisms been established/augmented and employed to ensure
cross-sector, multijurisdictional, and interagency planning
coordination and integration?
According to state officials, the TFER program integrated with already
established workgroups such as Homeland Security Forums and Local
Emergency Planning Committees;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER supported plans been coordinated with local jurisdictions?
State agencies? Which ones? Federal partners? Which ones?
West Virginia officials told us they coordinated TFER planning efforts
using a bottom-up approach, including coordination at the local level
with all 55 counties in the state. Further, TFER planners coordinated
with the West Virginia National Guard, Department of Transportation,
Department of Agriculture, and other state agencies, and also
coordinated with federal partners such as FEMA and the Army Corps of
Engineers. West Virginia officials told us that they faced challenges
coordinating and integrating plans. For example, some state and local
stakeholders resisted coordination and overestimated their planning
capacities;
Status: Substantial progress.
Has a blending of TFER civil-military planning expertise been fully
exploited to assess, strengthen, and advance state catastrophic
preparedness planning?
State officials told us the military-civilian blend of planning
experience was beneficial in West Virginia. Specifically, one West
Virginia TFER planner is an active member of the state National Guard
and coordinated regularly with the Guard planning office; the other is
a retired fire chief with decades of emergency response experience.
However, coordination with DOD entities such as the Defense
Coordinating Officer and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer was
minimal. State officials said that further coordination with DOD was
limited because the draft plans were not yet ready for DOD review;
Status: Some progress.
How have TFER efforts incorporated the capabilities of the private
sector as partners in planning activities?
According to state officials, TFER workgroups, such as Local Emergency
Planning Committees, include multiple private sector stakeholders;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with other states?
State officials told us that, in order to develop a comprehensive
Catastrophic Incident Annex, West Virginia TFER planners reviewed
plans and other planning products from other TFER states such as South
Carolina and Washington. Specifically, West Virginia is using South
Carolina‘s Catastrophic Incident Annex as a template for its own
Catastrophic Incident Annex;
Status: Substantial progress.
Have TFER pilot states coordinated with FEMA?
West Virginia officials said planners coordinated infrequently with
both FEMA Region III and headquarters officials. Regional officials
did, however, help them obtain needed information for the dam failure
and National Capitol Region mass evacuation scenarios;
Status: Some progress.
Documentation of lessons learned and recommendations for improvement:
Some progress:
Have any exercise after-action reports or assessment documents been
developed by the site in the course of the TFER Pilot implementation
to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot?
According to state officials, they have not exercised their plans. As
such, the state has not developed any exercise after-action reports;
Status: Substantial progress.
Please provide recommendations for improvement to increase the
effectiveness of the catastrophic planning programs;
West Virginia provided a number of recommendations, including:
continue and expand the program, maintain flexibility to determine
workplans and dedicated funding to hire planners for catastrophic
planning. Additionally, officials recommended that the new program
have longer time frames than the pilot and provide more clearly
defined guidance. West Virginia reported there was significant
difficulty in hiring people with the requisite military/civilian
catastrophic planning skills and experience because of the short
duration of the program, which delaying the start-up of West Virginia‘
s TFER program;
Status: Little or no progress.
Source: GAO analysis of state information.
[A] We selected these criteria from the TFER Evaluation Criteria
document and the TFER Pilot Information Package. We did not assess 10
of the criteria, as described in appendix I, because they do not
inform the extent to which states met the objective and/or there was
not enough information to quantify the results.
[End of figure]
We gathered additional information on West Virginia's efforts to
develop plans and document lessons learned for the criteria we were
unable to quantify. For example, we analyzed West Virginia's
Catastrophic Incident Annex, which did not contain all of the CPG 101
components. West Virginia reported that the development of this draft
annex fulfilled one of the main objectives of the pilot program.
However, we were unable to fully assess the content of the annex
because it is incomplete and work is ongoing. Additionally, West
Virginia TFER planners determined during their assessments that there
were insufficient personnel available at the county level to
accomplish the tasks necessary during an incident response. In some
cases, key individuals were identified as having multiple roles and/or
responsibilities, which would be impossible to fulfill during an
actual catastrophic incident. Further, West Virginia reported the
"bottom up" approach of the West Virginia TFER pilot program is highly
effective in communicating and working with local jurisdictions, but
may prove to be less useful in an urban setting. According to state
officials, West Virginia's TFER efforts are synchronized with the
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program to ensure efforts are
not duplicative, particularly for the mass evacuation scenario.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Davi M. D'Agostino (202) 512-5431 or dagostinod@gao.gov:
William O. Jenkins, Jr. (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts named above, the following individuals
made significant contributions to this report: Marc Schwartz and Leyla
Kazaz (Assistant Directors), Courtney Reid, Susanna Kuebler, Paul
Hobart, Jena Whitley, Katrina Moss and Cody Loew; Mae Jones, Lara
Miklovek, Amie Steele, Cynthia Saunders, Kate Lenane, and Tracey King.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Disaster Response: Criteria for Developing and Validating Effective
Response Plans. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-969T.
Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2010.
Homeland Defense: DOD Can Enhance Efforts to Identify Capabilities to
Support Civil Authorities During Disasters. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-386. Washington, D.C.: March 30,
2010.
Homeland Defense: DOD Needs to Take Actions to Enhance Interagency
Coordination for Its Homeland Defense and Civil Support Missions.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-364]. Washington, D.C.:
March. 30, 2010.
Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of
National Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and
Information Sharing. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-904SP]. Washington, D.C.: September
25, 2009.
Homeland Defense: U.S. Northern Command Has a Strong Exercise Program,
but Involvement of Interagency Partners and States Can Be Improved.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-849]. Washington, D.C.:
September 9, 2009.
National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to Complete
and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369]. Washington, D.C.: April 30,
2009.
Emergency Management: Observations on DHS's Preparedness for
Catastrophic Disasters. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-868T]. Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2008.
National Response Framework: FEMA Needs Policies and Procedures to
Better Integrate Non-Federal Stakeholders in the Revision Process.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-768]. Washington, D.C.:
June 11, 2008.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 provided
that FEMA must lead the nation's efforts to prepare for, protect
against, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of natural
disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, including
catastrophic incidents. 6 U.S.C. § 313(b)(2)(A).
[2] Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142 (2009).
[3] See, GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs
to Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 30, 2009); Emergency Preparedness: FEMA Faces Challenges
Integrating Community Preparedness Programs into Its Strategic
Approach [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-193],
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2010).
[4] As defined in the Post-Katrina Act. 6 U.S.C. § 701(4).
[5] GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its Approach for
Evaluating the SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-45] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7,
2008); GAO, Designing Evaluations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/PEMD-10.1.4] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
1991).
[6] P.H. Rossi, M.W. Lipsey, and H.E. Freeman, Evaluation: A
Systematic Approach (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: 2004); Project Management
Institute, The Standard for Program Management® (Newton Square, Pa:
2006); and Daniel L. Stufflebeam, Program Evaluations Metaevaluation
Checklist (Based on The Program Evaluation Standards), 1999.
[7] GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to
Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 30, 2009); GAO, Emergency Management: Observations on DHS's
Preparedness for Catastrophic Disasters, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-868T] (Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2008); Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General,
Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs, OIG-10-69 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22,
2010).
[8] Averages greater than 80 percent were designated as 'substantial
progress'; averages from 20 percent to 80 percent were designated as
'some progress'; and averages less than 20 percent were designated as
'little or no progress.'
[9] The National Response Plan preceded the Department of Homeland
Security's National Response Framework (Washington, D.C.: January
2008). Several years earlier, the President issued Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8--National Preparedness (Dec. 17, 2003) that
called on the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out and
coordinate preparedness activities with public and private
organizations involved in such activities.
[10] The National Guard holds a unique dual status in that it performs
its state missions under the command of the state's governor and
federal missions as needed under the command of the President.
Currently, the majority of the National Guard's personnel, training,
and equipment are provided for its federal warfighting mission with
funding appropriated to DOD. The National Guard can use capabilities
provided by DOD when available to respond to domestic emergencies
while operating under the command of the governors and generally paid
for with state funding. Further, under certain circumstances such as
homeland security-related activities or federally declared disasters,
federal funding has been provided for missions carried out by the
states' National Guard.
[11] Pub. L. No. 104-321, 110 Stat. 3877 (1996).The Emergency
Management Assistance Compact is a congressionally ratified
organization that provides form and structure to interstate mutual
aid. Through this emergency management assistance compact, a disaster-
impacted state can request and receive assistance from other member
states quickly and efficiently, resolving two key issues upfront:
liability and reimbursement.
[12] Pub. L. No. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4689 (1988) (codified as amended
at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5208). The Stafford Act is the most widely used
authority under which federal disaster assistance occurs.
[13] In 2009, FEMA published CPG 101 that provides general guidelines
on developing emergency operations plans. It promotes a common
understanding of the fundamentals of planning and decision making to
help operations planners examine a hazard or threat and produce
integrated, coordinated, and synchronized plans. This guide helps
emergency and homeland security managers in state, territorial,
tribal, and local governments in their efforts to develop and maintain
viable all-hazard emergency plans. FEMA recommends that organizations
responsible for developing emergency operations plans use CPG 101 to
guide their efforts.
[14] DHS's all-hazards National Planning Scenarios are an integral
part of the department's capabilities-based approach to implementing
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8: National Preparedness. The
scenarios serve as the foundation for the development of homeland
security tasks, target capabilities, and standards and performance
metrics.
[15] FEMA's mission is outlined in 6 U.S.C. § 313(b)(1).
[16] NORTHCOM has designated 10 Defense Coordinating Officers with
staff, one in each of the 10 FEMA regions. However, since FEMA Region
IX is located in both NORTHCOM and PACOM, NORTHCOM has a Defense
Coordinating Officer assigned to the FEMA regional office in
California and PACOM has established two Defense Coordinating Officers
of its own, one under the Army for the state of Hawaii and the
territory of American Samoa, and one under the Navy for the
territories of Guam and the Northern Marianas. Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands are part of FEMA Region II and are covered by the
NORTHCOM Defense Coordinating Officer for Region II.
[17] In March 2010, we reported that the ability of Defense
Coordinating Officers and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers to
coordinate and provide DOD capabilities to civil authorities may be
limited because DOD has not delineated the roles, responsibilities,
and command and control relationships between the Defense Coordinating
Officers and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers. DOD officials
told us that there is confusion between the military services and the
Defense Coordinating Officers regarding the proper employment of
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers. DOD concurred with the
findings in our report. GAO, Homeland Defense: DOD Can Enhance Efforts
to Identify Capabilities to Support Civil Authorities during
Disasters, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-368]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2010).
[18] FEMA selected four states that receive funds through the Regional
Catastrophic Planning Grant Program--Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Washington, and West Virginia. South Carolina does not receive funds
through this grant and served as a comparison state. The Regional
Catastrophic Planning Grants Program is intended to enhance
catastrophic incident preparedness in selected high-risk, high-
consequence urban areas and their surrounding regions.
[19] The National Preparedness Directorate also administers the
Regional Catastrophic Planning Grants Program. FEMA's Grant Program
Directorate is responsible for administering all of the other FEMA
preparedness grant programs.
[20] In July 2010, FEMA issued an update to the Nationwide Plan Review
in which it reported that the state of national planning had
substantially improved (e.g., states and urban areas reported updating
their basic plans and increased confidence in planning for
catastrophic events) and much had been accomplished to address the
recommendations and findings from the 2006 review.
[21] DHS, Office of Inspector General, OIG-10-123, FEMA's Preparedness
for the Next Catastrophic Disaster - An Update (Washington, D.C., Sep.
27, 2010).
[22] See, GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but
Needs to Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2009); Emergency Preparedness: FEMA Faces
Challenges Integrating Community Preparedness Programs into Its
Strategic Approach, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-193] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29,
2010).
[23] See, GAO, FEMA Capabilities Assessments: FEMA Has Made Limited
Progress in Efforts to Develop and Implement a System to Assess
National Preparedness Capabilities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-51R] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29,
2010).
[24] See, GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its
Approach for Evaluating the SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-45] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 7, 2008). Specifically, in GAO-09-45 we reported that a sound,
well-developed and documented evaluation plan includes, at a minimum:
(1) well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives; (2) criteria or
standards for determining pilot-program performance; (3) clearly
articulated methodology, including sound sampling methods,
determination of appropriate sample size for the evaluation design,
and a strategy for comparing the pilot results with other efforts; (4)
a clear plan that details the type and source of data necessary to
evaluate the pilot, methods for data collection, and the timing and
frequency of data collection; and (5) a data analysis plan to track
the program's performance and evaluate the final results of the
project.
[25] See, for example, P.H. Rossi, M.W. Lipsey, and H.E. Freeman,
Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: 2004); and
the Project Management Institute. The Standard for Program Management®
(Newton Square, Pa: 2006). Specifically, Evaluation: A Systematic
Approach covers evaluation research activities used in appraising the
design, implementation, effectiveness, and efficiency of social
programs. Also, The Standard for Program Management describes program
phases to facilitate program governance, enhanced control, and
coordination of program and project resources and overall risk
management.
[26] See, GAO, Designing Evaluations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/PEMD-10.1.4] (Washington, D.C.: March
1991).
[27] FEMA described the general objectives and proposed criteria in
its December 2008 TFER Pilot Information Package document and provided
more specifics in its June 2010 TFER Evaluation Criteria document.
[28] We reviewed evaluation responses from two of the pilot states.
[29] According to a September 2010 report, "the purpose of these
personnel is to provide a regional response capability; focus on
planning, training and exercising; and forge strong links between the
federal level and state and local authorities." Before Disaster
Strikes: Imperatives for Enhancing Defense Support to Civil
Authorities. Advisory Panel to Department of Defense Capabilities for
Support of Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents (Sept. 15, 2010).
[30] In January 2011, FEMA said the evaluation would be completed in
February 2011, but as of March 2011 FEMA had not completed its
evaluation of TFER.
[31] See, GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but
Needs to Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-369]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2009). For example, the National
Preparedness System was piloted in 10 states and discontinued because
it was time consuming and did not produce meaningful data. In response
to our recommendations, FEMA said it has established a working group
to help consolidate and streamline reporting requirements for state,
tribal, and local stakeholders.
[32] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (November
1999).
[33] FEMA announced it is not continuing TFER past the pilot stage,
but states continue to draw down remaining funds and complete
activities initiated under TFER.
[34] This second planner worked from August 2009 to February 2010.
[35] CPG 101 recommends including the following sections in supporting
annexes to the state basic emergency operations plan: purpose,
situation overview, and planning assumptions; concept of operations;
organization and assignment of responsibilities; direction, control,
and coordination; information collection and dissemination;
administration, finance, and logistics; and authorities and references.
[36] We were unable to review the other annexes because states were
not at the point in the planning process to provide us with draft
plans.
[37] The states provided lessons learned to the National Guard Bureau
Strategic Advisory Group Leadership Council, which are described in
the August 2010 report to the group; to GAO in interviews with state
officials; and to FEMA in evaluation forms.
[38] The National Guard Bureau, Task Force for Emergency Readiness
(TFER) Program: Report to the National Guard Bureau Strategic Advisory
Group Leadership Council (Washington, D.C., August 2010).
[39] FEMA regional offices responded for the remaining three states.
[40] See, GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its
Approach for Evaluating the SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-45] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 7, 2008). Aviation Security: A National Strategy and Other
Actions Would Strengthen TSA's Efforts to Secure Commercial Airport
Perimeters and Access Controls, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-399] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30,
2009). Transportation Worker Identification Credential: Progress Made
in Enrolling Workers and Activating Credentials but Evaluation Plan
Needed to Help Inform the Implementation of Card Readers, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-43] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18,
2009). See also, GAO, Designing Evaluations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/PEMD-10.1.4] (Washington, D.C.: March
1991).
[41] P.H. Rossi, M.W. Lipsey, and H.E. Freeman, Evaluation: A
Systematic Approach (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: 2004); Project Management
Institute, The Standard for Program Management® (Newton Square, Pa:
2006); and Daniel L. Stufflebeam, Program Evaluations Metaevaluation
Checklist (Based on The Program Evaluation Standards), 1999.
[42] The National Guard Bureau, Task Force for Emergency Readiness
(TFER) Program: Report to the National Guard Bureau Strategic Advisory
Group Leadership Council (Washington, D.C.: August 2010).
[43] FEMA regional offices responded for the remaining three states.
[44] The president's budget for fiscal year 2012 proposes eliminating
funding for the Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant program.
[45] The National Guard Bureau, Task Force for Emergency Readiness
(TFER) Program: Report to the National Guard Bureau Strategic Advisory
Group Leadership Council (Washington, D.C.: August 2010).
[46] FEMA regional offices responded for the remaining three states.
[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:
