Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental Coordination Is
Key to Success (20-AUG-02, GAO-02-1011T).
The challenges posed by homeland security exceed the capacity and
authority of any one level of government. Protecting the nation
against these threats calls for a truly integrated approach,
bringing together the resources of all levels of government. The
proposed Department of Homeland Security will clearly have a
central role in efforts to enhance homeland security. The
proposed consolidation of homeland security programs has the
potential to reduce fragmentation, improve coordination, and
clarify roles and responsibilities. Realistically, the challenges
that the new department faces will clearly require substantial
time and effort, and it will take additional resources to make it
effective. Moreover, formation of a department should not be
considered a replacement for the timely issuance of a national
homeland security strategy to guide implementation of the complex
mission of the department. Appropriate roles and responsibilities
within prompting a reassessment and shifting of longstanding
roles and responsibilities, but these shifts are being considered
on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis without benefit of an overarching
framework and criteria to guide the process. A national strategy
could provide such guidance by more systematically identifying
the unique capacities and resources of each level of government
to enhance homeland security and by providing increased
accountability within the intergovernmental system. The nation
does not yet have performance goals and measures upon which to
assess and improve preparedness and develop common criteria that
can demonstrate success, promote accountability and determine
areas where additional resources are needed, such as improving
communications and equipment interoperability. A careful choice
of the most appropriate tools is critical to achieve and sustain
national goals. The choice and design of policy tools, such as
grants, regulations, and tax incentives, can enhance the capacity
of all levels of government to target areas of highest risk and
greatest need, promote shared responsibilities, and track assess
progress toward achieving preparedness goals.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-1011T
ACCNO: A04609
TITLE: Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental
Coordination Is Key to Success
DATE: 08/20/2002
SUBJECT: Counterterrorism
Emergency preparedness
Intergovernmental relations
National defense operations
National preparedness
Terrorism
Emergency Management Accreditation
Program
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic
Preparedness Program
Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental Coordination Is
Key to Success (20-AUG-02, GAO-02-1011T).
The challenges posed by homeland security exceed the capacity and
authority of any one level of government. Protecting the nation
against these threats calls for a truly integrated approach,
bringing together the resources of all levels of government. The
proposed Department of Homeland Security will clearly have a
central role in efforts to enhance homeland security. The
proposed consolidation of homeland security programs has the
potential to reduce fragmentation, improve coordination, and
clarify roles and responsibilities. Realistically, the challenges
that the new department faces will clearly require substantial
time and effort, and it will take additional resources to make it
effective. Moreover, formation of a department should not be
considered a replacement for the timely issuance of a national
homeland security strategy to guide implementation of the complex
mission of the department. Appropriate roles and responsibilities
within prompting a reassessment and shifting of longstanding
roles and responsibilities, but these shifts are being considered
on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis without benefit of an overarching
framework and criteria to guide the process. A national strategy
could provide such guidance by more systematically identifying
the unique capacities and resources of each level of government
to enhance homeland security and by providing increased
accountability within the intergovernmental system. The nation
does not yet have performance goals and measures upon which to
assess and improve preparedness and develop common criteria that
can demonstrate success, promote accountability and determine
areas where additional resources are needed, such as improving
communications and equipment interoperability. A careful choice
of the most appropriate tools is critical to achieve and sustain
national goals. The choice and design of policy tools, such as
grants, regulations, and tax incentives, can enhance the capacity
of all levels of government to target areas of highest risk and
greatest need, promote shared responsibilities, and track assess
progress toward achieving preparedness goals.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-1011T
ACCNO: A04609
TITLE: Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental
Coordination Is Key to Success
DATE: 08/20/2002
SUBJECT: Counterterrorism
Emergency preparedness
Intergovernmental relations
National defense operations
National preparedness
Terrorism
Emergency Management Accreditation
Program
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic
Preparedness Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-1011T
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives
United States General Accounting Office
GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m., Tuesday, August 20,
2002 HOMELAND SECURITY
Effective Intergovernmental Coordination Is Key to Success
Statement of Patricia A. Dalton, Director, Strategic Issues
GAO- 02- 1011T
Page 1 GAO- 02- 1011T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity
to be here to discuss issues critical to successful federal leadership of,
assistance to, and partnership with state and local governments to enhance
homeland security. As you are aware, the challenges posed by homeland
security exceed the capacity and authority of any one level of government.
Protecting the nation against these unique threats calls for a truly
integrated approach, bringing together the resources of all levels of
government. The President?s recently released national strategy for homeland
security emphasizes security as a shared national responsibility involving
close cooperation among all levels of government. 1 In addition, as you
know, Mr. Chairman, the House has passed (H. R. 5005), and the Senate will
take under consideration, after the August recess, legislation (S. 2452) to
create a Department of Homeland Security. Although the bills are different,
they share the goal of establishing a statutory Department of Homeland
Security.
In my testimony today, I will focus on the challenges facing the federal
government in (1) establishing a leadership structure for homeland security,
(2) defining the roles of different levels of government, (3) developing
performance goals and measures, and (4) deploying appropriate tools to best
achieve and sustain national goals. My comments are based on a body of GAO?s
work on terrorism and emergency preparedness and policy options for the
design of federal assistance, 2 our review of many other studies, 3 and the
Comptroller General?s recent testimonies on the proposed Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). 4 In
1 National Strategy for Homeland Security. The White House. Office of
Homeland Security, July 16, 2002. In addition, the Office of Homeland
Security issued a companion publication titled State and Local Actions for
Homeland Security identifying measures state and local governments are
taking to improve homeland security.
2 See attached list of related GAO products. 3 These studies include the
Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, Third Annual Report (Arlington, Va:
Dec. 15, 2001); and the United States Commission on National Security/ 21st
Century, Road Map for Security: Imperative for Change (February 15, 2001).
4 Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues. GAO- 02-
957T (Washington, D. C.: July 17, 2002) and Homeland Security: Proposal for
Cabinet Agency Has Merit, But Implementation Will Be Pivotal to Success.
GAO- 02- 886T (Washington, D. C.: June 25, 2002).
Page 2 GAO- 02- 1011T
addition, I will draw on GAO?s ongoing work for this Subcommittee, including
an examination of the diverse ongoing and proposed federal preparedness
programs, as well as a series of case studies we are conducting that examine
preparedness issues facing state and local governments. To date, we have
conducted interviews of officials in five geographically diverse cities:
Baltimore, Maryland; Denver, Colorado; Los Angeles, California; New Orleans,
Louisiana; and Seattle, Washington. We have also interviewed state emergency
management officials in these states.
In summary: The proposed Department of Homeland Security will clearly have
a central
role in the success of efforts to enhance homeland security. Many aspects of
a consolidation of homeland security programs have the potential to reduce
fragmentation, improve coordination, and clarify roles and responsibilities.
Realistically, however, in the short term, the magnitude of the challenges
facing the new department will clearly require substantial time and effort
and will take additional resources to make it effective. The recently
released national strategy is intended to guide implementation of the
complex mission of the proposed department and the efforts of other federal
and non- federal entities responsible for homeland security initiatives.
Appropriate roles and responsibilities within and between the levels of
government and with the private sector are evolving and need to be
clarified. New threats are prompting a reassessment and shifting of
longstanding roles and responsibilities. Until now these shifts have been
occurring on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis without benefit of an overarching
framework and criteria to guide the process. The administration?s national
strategy recognizes the challenge posed by a complex structure of
overlapping federal, state, and local governments- our country has more than
87,000 jurisdictions. There are also challenges in defining the appropriate
roles and responsibilities of the private sector.
The national strategy?s initiatives often do not provide a baseline set of
performance goals and measures upon which to assess and improve
preparedness. Therefore, the nation does not yet have a comprehensive set of
performance goals and measures upon which to assess and improve prevention
efforts, vulnerability reduction, and responsiveness to damage and recovery
needs at all levels of government. Given the need for a highly integrated
approach to the homeland security challenge, national performance goals and
measures for strategy initiatives that involve both
Page 3 GAO- 02- 1011T
federal and non- federal actors may best be developed in a collaborative way
involving all levels of government and the private sector. Standards are one
tool the national strategy emphasizes in areas such as training, equipment,
and communications.
A careful choice of the most appropriate assistance tools is critical to
achieve and sustain national goals. The choice and design of policy tools,
such as grants, regulations, and tax incentives, can enhance the capacity of
all levels of government to target areas of highest risk and greatest need,
promote shared responsibilities by all parties, and track and assess
progress toward achieving national preparedness goals. The national strategy
notes that until recently, federal support for domestic preparedness efforts
has been relatively small and disorganized, with various departments and
agencies providing money in a ?tangled web? of grant programs. It notes the
shared responsibility of providing homeland security between federal, state,
and local governments, and the private sector and recognizes the importance
of using appropriate tools of government to improve preparedness.
Homeland security is a complex mission that involves a broad range of
functions performed throughout government, including law enforcement,
transportation, food safety and public health, information technology, and
emergency management, to mention only a few. Federal, state, and local
governments have a shared responsibility in preparing for catastrophic
terrorist attacks as well as other disasters. The initial responsibility for
planning, preparing, and response falls upon local governments and their
organizations- such as police, fire departments, emergency medical
personnel, and public health agencies- which will almost invariably be the
first responders to such an occurrence. For its part, the federal government
has principally provided leadership, training, and funding assistance.
The federal government?s role in responding to major disasters has
historically been defined by the Stafford Act, 5 which makes most federal
assistance contingent on a finding that the disaster is so severe as to be
beyond the capacity of state and local governments to respond effectively.
Once a disaster is declared, the federal government- through the Federal
5 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U. S.
C. sect. 121 et seq.) establishes the process for states to request a
presidential disaster declaration. Background
Page 4 GAO- 02- 1011T
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)- may reimburse state and local
governments for between 75 and 100 percent of eligible costs, including
response and recovery activities.
In addition to post disaster assistance, there has been an increasing
emphasis over the past decade on federal support of state and local
governments to enhance national preparedness for terrorist attacks. After
the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway system on March 20, 1995, and the
Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, the United States initiated a new
effort to combat terrorism. In June 1995, Presidential Decision Directive 39
was issued, enumerating responsibilities for federal agencies in combating
terrorism, including domestic terrorism. Recognizing the vulnerability of
the United States to various forms of terrorism, the Congress passed the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (also known as the
Nunn- Lugar- Domenici program) to train and equip state and local emergency
services personnel who would likely be the first responders to a domestic
terrorist event. Other federal agencies, including those in FEMA; the
departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Energy; and the
Environmental Protection Agency, have also developed programs to assist
state and local governments in preparing for terrorist events.
As emphasis on terrorism prevention and response grew, however, so did
concerns over coordination and fragmentation of federal efforts. More than
40 federal entities have a role in combating and responding to terrorism,
and more than 20 in bioterrorism alone. Our past work, conducted prior to
the establishment of an Office of Homeland Security and the current
proposals to create a new Department of Homeland Security, has shown
coordination and fragmentation problems stemming largely from a lack of
accountability within the federal government for terrorism- related programs
and activities. Further, our work found there was an absence of a central
focal point that caused a lack of a cohesive effort and the development of
similar and potentially duplicative programs. Also, as the Gilmore
Commission report notes, state and local officials have voiced frustration
about their attempts to obtain federal funds from different programs
administered by different agencies and have argued that the application
process is burdensome and inconsistent among federal agencies.
President Bush has taken a number of important steps in the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks of September 11th to address the concerns of fragmentation
and to enhance the country?s homeland security efforts, including creating
of the Office of Homeland Security in October 2001,
Page 5 GAO- 02- 1011T
proposing the Department of Homeland Security in June 2002, and issuing a
national strategy in July 2002. Both the House and Senate have worked
diligently on these issues and are deliberating on a variety of homeland
security proposals. The House has passed (H. R. 5005), and the Senate will
take under consideration, after the August recess, legislation (S. 2452) to
create a Department of Homeland Security. While these proposals would both
transfer the functions, responsibilities, personnel, and other assets of
existing agencies into the departmental structure, each bill has unique
provisions not found in the other. For example, while both bills establish
an office for State and Local Government Coordination and a first responder
council to advise the department, the Senate bill also establishes a Chief
Homeland Security Liaison Officer appointed by the Secretary and puts
federal liaisons in each state to provide coordination between the
department and the state and local first responders.
The proposal to create a statutorily based Department of Homeland Security
holds promise to better establish the leadership necessary in the homeland
security area. It can more effectively capture homeland security as a long-
term commitment grounded in the institutional framework of the nation?s
governmental structure. As we have previously noted, the homeland security
area must span the terms of various administrations and individuals.
Establishing homeland security leadership by statute will ensure legitimacy,
authority, sustainability, and the appropriate accountability to the
Congress and the American people. 6
The proposals call for the creation of a Cabinet department that would be
responsible for coordination with other executive branch agencies involved
in homeland security, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Central Intelligence Agency. Additionally, the proposals call for
coordination with nonfederal entities and direct the new Secretary to reach
out to state and local governments and the private sector in order to:
ensure adequate and integrated planning, training, and exercises occur, and
that first responders have the necessary equipment; attaining
interoperability of the federal government?s homeland security
communications systems with state and local governments? systems; oversee
federal grant programs for state and local homeland security
6 U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Responsibility And
Accountability for Achieving National Goals. GAO- 02- 627T (Washington, D.
C.: Apr. 11, 2002). Proposed Department
and National Strategy Will Guide Homeland Security
Page 6 GAO- 02- 1011T
efforts; and coordinate warnings and information to state and local
government entities and the public.
Many aspects of the proposed consolidation of homeland security programs are
in line with previous recommendations and show promise towards reducing
fragmentation and improving coordination. For example, the new department
would consolidate federal programs for state and local planning and
preparedness from several agencies and place them under a single
organizational umbrella. Based on our prior work, we believe that the
consolidation of some homeland security functions makes sense and will, if
properly organized and implemented, over time lead to more efficient,
effective, and coordinated programs, better intelligence sharing, and a more
robust protection of our people, borders, and critical infrastructure.
However, as the Comptroller General has recently testified, 7 implementation
of the new department will be an extremely complex task, and in the short
term, the magnitude of the challenges that the new department faces will
clearly require substantial time and effort, and will take additional
resources to make it effective. Further, some aspects of the new department,
as proposed, may result in yet other concerns. For example, as we reported
on June 25, 2002, 8 the new department could include public health
assistance programs that have both basic public health and homeland security
functions. These dual- purpose programs have important synergies that should
be maintained and could potentially be disrupted by such a change.
The recently issued national strategy for homeland security states it is
intended to answer four basic questions: what is ?homeland security? and
what missions does it entail; what does the nation seek to accomplish, and
what are the most important goals of homeland security; what is the federal
executive branch doing now to accomplish these goals and what should it do
in the future; and what should non- federal governments, the
7 U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Proposal for Cabinet
Agency Has Merit, but Implementation Will Be Pivotal to Success, GAO- 02-
886T (Washington, D. C.: June 25, 2002).
8 U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: New Department Could
Improve Coordination but May Complicate Public Health Priority Setting, GAO-
02- 883T (Washington, D. C.: June 25, 2002).
Page 7 GAO- 02- 1011T
private sector, and citizens do to help secure the homeland. Within the
federal executive branch, the key organization for homeland security will be
the proposed Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense will
contribute to homeland security, as well other departments such as the
Departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services. The
national strategy also makes reference to using tools of government such as
grants and regulations to improve national preparedness.
The national strategy defines homeland security as a concerted national
effort to 1) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, 2) reduce
America?s vulnerability to terrorism, 3) minimize the damage, and 4) recover
from attacks that do occur. This definition should help the government more
effectively administer, fund, and coordinate activities both inside and
outside the proposed new department and ensure all parties are focused on
the same goals and objectives. The three parts of the definition form the
national strategy?s three objectives.
The strategy identifies six critical mission areas, and outlines initiatives
in each of the six mission areas. It further describes four foundations that
cut across these mission areas and all levels of government. These
foundations- law; science and technology; information sharing and systems;
and international cooperation- are intended to provide a basis for
evaluating homeland security investments across the federal government.
Table 1 summarizes key intergovernmental roles in each of the six mission
areas as presented in the strategy.
Page 8 GAO- 02- 1011T
Table 1: National Strategy: Six Critical Mission Areas and Key
Intergovernmental Roles Mission Area Key Intergovernmental Roles
Intelligence and Warning Work with state and local law enforcement to
leverage critical intelligence information, and provide real- time
actionable information in the form of protective actions that should be
taken in light of terrorist threats, trends, capabilities, and
vulnerabilities.
Provide announcements of threat advisories and alerts to notify law
enforcement and state and local government officials of threats through the
Homeland Security Advisory System. Border and Transportation Security
Implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001
requires
partnerships among federal, state, and local government officials to assess
and protect critical transportation infrastructures and reduce
vulnerabilities. Domestic Counterterrorism Expand data included in federal
databases such as the FBI National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) database and ensure that they are fully accessible to state
and local law enforcement officials.
Expand the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, representing numerous federal
agencies and state and local law enforcement, to all 56 FBI field offices.
Protecting Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets
Work with state and local governments to implement a comprehensive
national infrastructure protection plan to ensure protection for critical
assets, systems, and functions, and for sharing protection responsibility
with state and local government.
Provide state and local agencies one primary federal contact for
coordinating protection activities with the federal government (e. g.
vulnerability assessments, strategic planning efforts, and exercises).
Defending Against Catastrophic Threats
In cooperation with state and local governments, develop additional
inspection procedures and detection systems throughout the national
transportation structure to detect the movement of nuclear materials within
the U. S.
Expand and modernize the Centers for Disease Control Epidemic Intelligence
Service to better train local and state officials in recognizing biological
attacks, and state and local jurisdictions with a population of 500,000 or
more will be provided with resources to hire skilled epidemiologists.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Working with state and local public safety organizations, build a
comprehensive national incident management system to respond to terrorist
incidents and natural disasters, and encourage first responder organizations
to adopt the already widespread Incident Management System by making it a
requirement for federal grants.
Provide grants in support of state and local preparedness efforts in areas
such as: mutual aid agreements; terrorism- related communications equipment;
training and equipping of state and local health care personnel to deal with
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorism; planning for the
receipt and distribution of medicines from the National Pharmaceutical
Stockpile; equipping, training, and exercising first responders to meet
certification standards.
Proposed grant requirements include: compliance with a national emergency
communication plan, progress in achieving communications interoperability
with other emergency response bodies, and annual certification of first
responder preparedness to handle and decontaminate any hazard.
Consolidate all grant programs that distribute federal funds to state and
local first responders. The First Responder Initiative proposes to increase
federal funding levels more than tenfold to $3. 5 billion in fiscal year
2003.
With regard to the costs of Homeland Security, the national strategy
emphasizes government should fund only those homeland security activities
that are not supplied, or are inadequately supplied, in the market, and cost
sharing between different governmental levels should reflect federalism
principles and different tools of government. In terms of the
Page 9 GAO- 02- 1011T
financial contributions made by state and local government to homeland
security, the strategy acknowledges that state and local governments are
incurring unexpected costs defending or protecting their respective
communities. These costs include protecting critical infrastructure,
improving technologies for information sharing and communications, and
building emergency response capacity. At this time, the National Governors?
Association estimates that additional homeland securityrelated costs,
incurred since September 11th and through the end of 2002, will reach
approximately $6 billion. Similarly, the U. S. Conference of Mayors has
estimated the costs incurred by cities during this time period to be $2.6
billion.
The proposed department will be a key player in the daunting challenge of
defining the roles of the various actors within the intergovernmental system
responsible for homeland security. In areas ranging from fire protection to
drinking water to port security, the new threats are prompting a
reassessment and shift of longstanding roles and responsibilities. However,
until this time, proposed shifts in roles and responsibilities have been
considered on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis without benefit of an overarching
framework and criteria to guide this process. The national strategy
recognizes that the process is challenging because of the structure of
overlapping federal, state, and local governments given that our country has
more than 87,000 jurisdictions. The national strategy further notes that the
challenge is to develop interconnected and complementary systems that are
reinforcing rather than duplicative.
The proposals for a Department of Homeland Security call for the department
to reach out to state and local governments and the private sector to
coordinate and integrate planning, communications, information, and recovery
efforts addressing homeland security. This is important recognition of the
critical role played by nonfederal entities in protecting the nation from
terrorist attacks. State and local governments play primary roles in
performing functions that will be essential to effectively address our new
challenges. Much attention has already been paid to their role as first
responders in all disasters, whether caused by terrorist attacks or natural
hazards.
The national strategy emphasizes the critical role state and local
governments play in homeland security and the need for coordination between
all levels of government. The national strategy emphasizes that Challenges
Remain in
Defining Appropriate Intergovernmental Roles
Page 10 GAO- 02- 1011T
homeland security is a shared responsibility. In addition, the national
strategy has several initiatives designed to improve partnerships and
coordination. Table 1 provides several examples of areas with key
intergovernmental roles and coordination. For example, there are initiatives
to improve intergovernmental law enforcement coordination and enabling
effective partnerships with state and local governments and the private
sector in critical infrastructure protection. States are asked to take
several legal initiatives, such as coordinating suggested minimum standards
for state driver?s licenses and reviewing quarantine authorities. Many
initiatives are intended to develop or enhance first responder capabilities,
such as initiatives to improve the technical capabilities of first
responders or enable seamless communication among all responders. In many
cases, these initiatives will rely on federal, state, and local cooperation,
some standardization, and the sharing of costs.
Achieving national preparedness and response goals hinges on the federal
government?s ability to form effective partnerships with nonfederal
entities. Therefore, federal initiatives should be conceived as national,
not federal in nature. Decision makers have to balance the national interest
of prevention and preparedness with the unique needs and interests of local
communities. A ?one- size- fits- all? federal approach will not serve to
leverage the assets and capabilities that reside within state and local
governments and the private sector. By working collectively with state and
local governments, the federal government gains the resources and expertise
of the people closest to the challenge. For example, protecting
infrastructure such as water and transit systems lays first and most often
with nonfederal levels of government.
Just as partnerships offer opportunities, they also pose risks based upon
the different interests reflected by each partner. From the federal
perspective, there is the concern that state and local governments may not
share the same priorities for use of federal funds. This divergence of
priorities can result in state and local governments simply replacing (?
supplanting?) their own previous levels of commitment in these areas with
the new federal resources. From the state and local perspective, engagement
in federal programs opens them up to potential federal preemption and
mandates. From the public?s perspective, partnerships if not clearly
defined, risk blurring responsibility for the outcome of public programs.
Our fieldwork at federal agencies and at local governments suggests a shift
is potentially underway in the definition of roles and responsibilities
National and Regional
Partnerships
Page 11 GAO- 02- 1011T
between federal, state, and local governments with far reaching consequences
for homeland security and accountability to the public. The challenges posed
by the new threats are prompting officials at all levels of government to
rethink long- standing divisions of responsibilities for such areas as fire
services, local infrastructure protection, and airport security. Current
homeland security proposals recognize that the unique scale and complexity
of these threats call for a response that taps the resources and capacities
of all levels of government as well as the private sector.
In many areas, these proposals would impose a stronger federal presence in
the form of new national standards or assistance. For instance, the Congress
is considering proposals to mandate new vulnerability assessments and
protective measures on local communities for drinking water facilities.
Similarly, new federal rules have mandated local airport authorities to
provide new levels of protection for security around airport perimeters. The
block grant proposal for first responders would mark a dramatic upturn in
the magnitude and role of the federal government in providing assistance and
standards for fire service training and equipment.
Additionally, the national strategy suggests initiatives for an expanded
state role in several areas. For example, there are no national or agreed
upon state standards for driver?s license content, format, or acquisition
procedures. The strategy states that the federal government should support
state- led efforts to develop suggested minimum standards for drivers?
licenses. In another example, in order to suppress money laundering, the
strategy recommends that states assess the current status of their
regulation regarding providers of financial services and work to adopt
uniform laws as necessary.
Governments at the local level are also moving to rethink roles and
responsibilities to address the unique scale and scope of the contemporary
threats from terrorism. Numerous local general- purpose governments and
special districts co- exist within metropolitan regions and rural areas
alike. Many regions are starting to assess how to restructure relationships
among contiguous local entities to take advantage of economies of scale,
promote resource sharing, and improve coordination of preparedness and
response on a regional basis. In our case studies of five metropolitan
areas, we have identified several common forms of regional cooperation and
coordination including special task forces or working groups, improved
collaboration among public health entities, increased countywide planning,
mutual aid agreements, and communications. These partnerships are at varying
stages of development and are continuing to evolve. Table 2 summarizes these
initiatives.
Page 12 GAO- 02- 1011T
Table 2: Case Study Examples of Metropolitan Cooperation and Coordination
Task Forces and Working Groups: To facilitate emergency planning and
coordination among cities in a metropolitan area, officials have joined
together to create task forces, such as terrorism working groups, advisory
committees, and Mayors? caucuses. For example, the Metropolitan Safety,
Security, and Anti- terrorism Task Force in New Orleans includes officials
from the city and four surrounding parishes.
Collaboration with Public Health Entities: Public health departments,
emergency medical services, and hospitals are participating in planning
efforts to coordinate use of limited resources such as emergency room
capacity, hospital beds, and medical supplies. For example, in Denver, the
Front Range Emergency Medical Service and Trauma Advisory Council involves
all hospitals and rescue squads in a six- county metropolitan area.
Countywide Planning: In some states, counties serve as the primary
coordinating agent and work with cities within their jurisdiction, other
counties, and the state to ensure that they develop and update emergency and
disaster plans, provide training, conduct assessments and exercises, and
have adequate emergency resources. For example, King County, Washington has
coordinated development of a Regional Disaster Plan, which includes Seattle
and 15 other cities within the county as well as 15 fire districts, 15
hospitals, 21 water and sewer districts, 12 school districts, and the
private sector.
Mutual Aid Agreements: Cities and counties have used mutual aid agreements
to share emergency resources in their metropolitan areas. These agreements
may include fire, police, emergency medical services, and hospitals and may
be formal or informal. For example, Los Angeles has mutual aid agreements
between police and fire departments in surrounding jurisdictions and a range
of private sector entities. The state has a Mutual Aid Regional Advisory
Commission that facilitates agreements, and the Standardized Emergency
Management System (SEMS) law requires mutual aid agreements for state
reimbursement.
Communications: Cities and counties currently use a variety of methods for
communicating among first responders, such as command centers, using radio,
cell phones, and pagers; amateur radio operators; and community alert
systems. Some are considering 800 MHz radio systems to permit
interoperability and mobile incident command centers to direct
communications among first responders. King County, Washington has a
countywide 800 MHz system and uses amateur radio operators to provide a
redundant emergency communications system.
Although promising greater levels of protection than before, these shifts in
roles and responsibilities have been developed on an ad hoc piecemeal basis
without the benefit of common criteria. An ad hoc process may not capture
the real potential each actor in our system offers. Moreover, a piecemeal
redefinition of roles risks the further fragmentation of the responsibility
for homeland security within local communities, blurring lines of
responsibility and accountability for results. While federal, state, and
local governments all have roles to play, care must be taken to clarify who
is responsible for what so that the public knows whom to contact to address
their problems and concerns. Current homeland security initiatives provide
an opportunity to more systematically identify the unique resources and
capacities of each level of government and better match these capabilities
to the particular tasks at hand. If implemented in a partnerial fashion, the
national strategy can also promote the
Page 13 GAO- 02- 1011T
participation, input, and buy in of state and local partners whose
cooperation is essential for success.
The proposed department, in fulfilling its broad mandate, has the challenge
of developing a national performance focus. The national strategy is a good
start in defining strategic objectives and related mission areas, plus
foundations that cut across the mission areas. The national strategy?s
initiatives to implement the objectives under the related mission and
foundation areas extend from building capabilities to achieving specific
outcomes.
According to the national strategy, each department and agency is to be held
accountable for its performance on homeland security efforts. However, the
initiatives often do not provide a baseline set of goals and measures upon
which to assess and improve many of its initiatives to prevent attacks,
reduce the nation?s vulnerability to attacks, or minimize the damage and
recovering from attacks that do occur. For example, the initiative of
creating ?smart borders? requires a clear specification of what is expected
of a smart border, including consideration of security and economic aspects
of moving people and goods.
Specific performance goals and measures for many initiatives will occur at a
later date. The strategy states that each department or agency will create
benchmarks and other performance measures to evaluate progress and allocate
future resources. Performance measures will be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of each homeland security program, allowing agencies to
measure their progress, make resource allocation decisions, and adjust
priorities. As the national strategy and related implementation plans
evolve, we would expect clearer performance expectations to emerge. Given
the need for a highly integrated approach to the homeland security
challenge, national performance goals and measures may best be developed in
a collaborative way involving all levels of government and the private
sector.
Assessing the capability of state and local governments to respond to
catastrophic terrorist attacks is an important feature of the national
strategy and the responsibilities of the proposed new department. The
President?s fiscal year 2003 budget proposal acknowledged that our
capabilities for responding to a terrorist attack vary widely across the
country. The national strategy recognizes the importance of standards and
performance measures in areas such as training, equipment, and
communications. For example, the national strategy proposes the Performance
Goals
and Measures Needed in Homeland Security Programs
Page 14 GAO- 02- 1011T
establishment of national standards for emergency response training and
preparedness. These standards would require certain coursework for
individuals to receive and maintain certification as first responders and
for state and local governments to receive federal grants. Under the
strategy, the proposed department would establish a national exercise
program designed to educate and evaluate civilian response personnel at all
levels of government. It would require individuals and government bodies to
complete successfully at least one exercise every year. The department would
use these exercises to measure performance and allocate future resources.
Standards are being developed in other areas associated with homeland
security, yet formidable challenges remain. For example, national standards
that would apply to all ports and all public and private facilities are well
under way. In preparing to assess security conditions at 55 U. S. ports, the
Coast Guard?s contractor has been developing a set of standards since May
2002. These standards cover such things as preventing unauthorized persons
from accessing sensitive areas, detecting and intercepting intrusions, and
checking backgrounds of those whose jobs require access to port facilities.
However, challenges remain in finalizing a complete set of standards for the
level of security needed in the nation?s ports, resolving issues between key
stakeholders that have conflicting or competing interests, and establishing
mechanisms for enforcement. Moreover, because security at ports is a concern
shared among federal, state, and local governments, as well as among private
commercial interests, the issue of who should pay to finance antiterrorism
activities may be difficult to resolve.
Communications is an example of an area for which standards have not yet
been developed, but various emergency managers and other first responders
have continuously highlighted that standards are needed. State and local
governments often report that there are deficiencies in their communications
capabilities, including the lack of interoperable systems. The national
strategy recognizes that it is crucial for response personnel to have and
use equipment, systems, and procedures that allow them to communicate.
Therefore, the strategy calls for the proposed Department of Homeland
Security to develop a national communication plan to establish protocols
(who needs to talk to whom), processes, and national standards for
technology acquisition. According to the national strategy, this is a
priority for fiscal year 2003 funding which ties all federal grant programs
that support state and local purchase of terrorism- related communications
equipment to this communication plan.
Page 15 GAO- 02- 1011T
The establishment of specific national goals and measures for homeland
security initiatives, including preparedness, will not only go a long way
towards assisting state and local entities in determining successes and
areas where improvement is needed, but could also be used as goals and
performance measures as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of federal
programs. The Administration should take advantage of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and its performance tools of strategic
plans, annual performance plans and measures, and accountability reports for
homeland security implementation planning. At the department and agency
level, until the new department is operational, GPRA can be a useful tool in
developing homeland security implementation plans within and across federal
agencies. Given the recent and proposed increases in homeland security
funding, as well as the need for real and meaningful improvements in
preparedness, establishing clear goals and performance measures is critical
to ensuring both a successful and fiscally responsible effort.
The choice and design of the policy tools the federal government uses to
engage and involve other levels of government and the private sector in
enhancing homeland security will have important consequences for performance
and accountability. Governments have a variety of policy tools including
grants, regulations, tax incentives, and information- sharing mechanisms to
motivate or mandate other levels of government or the private sector to
address security concerns. The choice of policy tools will affect
sustainability of efforts, accountability and flexibility, and targeting of
resources. The design of federal policy will play a vital role in
determining success and ensuring that scarce federal dollars are used to
achieve critical national goals. The national strategy acknowledges the
shared responsibility of providing homeland security between federal, state,
and local governments, and the private sector and recognizes the importance
of using tools of government such as grants, regulations, and information
sharing to improve national preparedness.
The federal government often uses grants to state and local governments as a
means of delivering federal assistance. Categorical grants typically permit
funds to be used only for specific, narrowly defined purposes. Block grants
typically can be used by state and local governments to support a range of
activities aimed at achieving a broad, national purpose and to provide a
great deal of discretion to state and local officials. In designing grants,
it is important to (1) target the funds to states and localities with the
greatest need based on highest risk and lowest capacity to meet these needs
from their own resource bases, (2) discourage the Appropriate Tools
Need to Be Selected for Providing Assistance
Grants
Page 16 GAO- 02- 1011T
replacement of state and local funds with federal funds, commonly referred
to as supplantation, with a maintenance- of- effort requirement that
recipients maintain their level of previous funding, and (3) strike a
balance between accountability and flexibility. At their best, grants can
stimulate state and local governments to enhance their preparedness to
address the unique threats posed by terrorism. Ideally, grants should
stimulate higher levels of preparedness and avoid simply subsidizing local
functions that are traditionally state or local responsibilities. One
approach used in other areas is the ?seed money? model in which federal
grants stimulate initial state and local activity with the intent of
transferring responsibility for sustaining support over time to state and
local governments.
Recent funding proposals, such as the $3.5 billion block grant for first
responders contained in the president?s fiscal year 2003 budget, have
included some of these provisions. This grant would be used by state and
local governments to purchase equipment; train personnel; and exercise,
develop, or enhance response plans. Once the details of the grant have been
finalized, it will be useful to examine the design to assess how well the
grant will target funds, discourage supplantation, and provide the
appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility, and whether it
provides temporary ?seed money? or represents a long- term funding
commitment.
Other federal policy tools can also be designed and targeted to elicit a
prompt, adequate, and sustainable response. In the area of regulatory
authority, the federal, state, and local governments share authority for
setting standards through regulations in several areas, including
infrastructure and programs vital to preparedness (for example,
transportation systems, water systems, and public health). In designing
regulations, key considerations include how to provide federal protections,
guarantees, or benefits while preserving an appropriate balance between
federal and state and local authorities and between the public and private
sectors. Regulations have recently been enacted in the area of
infrastructure. For example, a new federal mandate requires that local
drinking water systems in cities above a certain size provide a
vulnerability assessment and a plan to remedy vulnerabilities as part of
ongoing EPA reviews, while the Transportation and Aviation Security Act
grants the Department of Transportation authority to order deployment of
local law enforcement personnel in order to provide perimeter access
security at the nation?s airports.
In designing a regulatory approach, the challenges include determining who
will set the standards and who will implement or enforce them. Regulations
Page 17 GAO- 02- 1011T
Several models of shared regulatory authority offer a range of approaches
that could be used in designing standards for preparedness. Examples of
these models range from preemption through fixed federal standards to state
and local adoption of voluntary standards formulated by quasiofficial or
nongovernmental entities. 9
As the administration noted, protecting America?s infrastructure is a shared
responsibility of federal, state, and local government, in active
partnership with the private sector, which owns approximately 85 percent of
our nation?s critical infrastructure. To the extent that private entities
will be called upon to improve security over dangerous materials or to
protect critical infrastructure, the federal government can use tax
incentives to encourage or enforce their activities. Tax incentives are the
result of special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals, or
tax rates in the federal tax laws. Unlike grants, tax incentives do not
generally permit the same degree of federal oversight and targeting, and
they are generally available by formula to all potential beneficiaries who
satisfy congressionally established criteria.
Since the events of September 11th, a task force of mayors and police chiefs
has called for a new protocol governing how local law enforcement agencies
can assist federal agencies, particularly the FBI. As the U. S. Conference
of Mayors noted, a close working partnership of federal and local law
enforcement agencies, which includes the sharing of information, will expand
and strengthen the nation?s overall ability to prevent and respond to
domestic terrorism. The USA Patriot Act provides for greater sharing of
information among federal agencies. An expansion of this act has been
proposed (S1615; H. R. 3285) that would provide for information sharing
among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. In addition, the
Intergovernmental Law Enforcement Information Sharing Act of 2001 (H. R.
3483), which you sponsored, Mr. Chairman, addresses a number of information-
sharing needs. For instance, the proposed legislation provides that the
Attorney General expeditiously grant security clearances to Governors who
apply for them and to state and local officials who participate in federal
counterterrorism working groups or regional task forces.
9 For more information on these models, see U. S. General Accounting Office,
Regulatory Programs: Balancing Federal and State Responsibilities for
Standard Setting and Implementation. GAO- 02- 495 (Washington, D. C.: March
20, 2002). Tax Incentives
Information Sharing
Page 18 GAO- 02- 1011T
The national strategy also includes several information- sharing and systems
initiatives to facilitate dissemination of information from the federal
government to state and local officials. For example, the strategy supports
building and sharing law enforcement databases, secure computer networks,
secure video teleconferencing capabilities, and more accessible websites. It
also states that the federal government will make an effort to remove
classified information from some documents to facilitate distribution to
more state and local authorities.
The recent publication of the national strategy is an important initial step
in defining homeland security, setting forth key strategic objectives, and
specifying initiatives to implement them. The proposals for the Department
of Homeland Security represent recognition by the administration and the
Congress that much still needs to be done to improve and enhance the
security of the American people and our country?s assets. The proposed
department will clearly have a central role in the success of efforts to
strengthen homeland security, and has primary responsibility for many of the
initiatives in the national homeland security strategy.
Moreover, given the unpredictable characteristics of terrorist threats, it
is essential that the strategy be implemented at a national rather than
federal level with specific attention given to the important and distinct
roles of state and local governments. Accordingly, decision makers will have
to balance the federal approach to promoting homeland security with the
unique needs, capabilities, and interests of state and local governments.
Such an approach offers the best promise for sustaining the level of
commitment needed to address the serious threats posed by terrorism.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)
512- 9573 or JayEtta Hecker at (202) 512- 2834. Other key contributors to
this testimony include Matthew Ebert, Thomas James, David LavernyRafter,
Yvonne Pufahl, Jack Schulze, and Amelia Shachoy. Conclusion
Contacts and Acknowledgments
Page 19 GAO- 02- 1011T
Port Security: Nation Faces Formidable Challenges in Making New Initiatives
Successful. GAO- 02- 993T. Washington, D. C.: August 5, 2002.
Aviation Security: Transportation Security Administration Faces Immediate
and Long- Term Challenges. GAO- 02- 971T. Washington, D. C.: July 25, 2002.
Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues. GAO02- 957T.
Washington, D. C.: July 17, 2002.
Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Coordination but
Transferring Control of Certain Public Health Programs Raises Concerns. GAO-
02- 954T. Washington, D. C.: July 16, 2002.
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Significant Homeland Security Challenges
Need to Be Addressed. GAO- 02- 918T. Washington, D. C.: July 9, 2002.
Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Biomedical R& D Coordination
but May Disrupt Dual- Purpose Efforts. GAO- 02- 924T. Washington, D. C.:
July 9, 2002.
Homeland Security: Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
GAO- 02- 927T. Washington, D. C.: July 9, 2002.
Homeland Security: Intergovernmental Coordination and Partnership Will Be
Critical to Success. GAO- 02- 901T. Washington, D. C.: July 3, 2002.
Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Coordination but May
Complicate Priority Setting. GAO- 02- 893T. Washington, D. C.: June 28,
2002.
Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Coordination but May
Complicate Public Health Priority Setting. GAO- 02- 883T. Washington, D. C.:
June 25, 2002.
Homeland Security: Proposal for Cabinet Agency Has Merit, But Implementation
Will Be Pivotal to Success. GAO- 02- 886T. Washington, D. C.: June 25, 2002.
Homeland Security: Key Elements to Unify Efforts Are Underway but
Uncertainty Remains. GAO- 02- 610. Washington, D. C.: June 7, 2002. Related
GAO Products
Homeland Security
Page 20 GAO- 02- 1011T
National Preparedness: Integrating New and Existing Technology and
Information Sharing into an Effective Homeland Security Strategy.
GAO- 02- 811T. Washington, D. C.: June 7, 2002.
Homeland Security: Integration of Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector
Efforts Is Critical to an Effective National Strategy for Homeland Security
GAO- 02- 621T. Washington, D. C.: April 11, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships Through a National Preparedness
Strategy. GAO- 02- 549T. Washington, D. C.: March 28, 2002.
Homeland Security: Progress Made, More Direction and Partnership Sought.
GAO- 02- 490T. Washington, D. C.: March 12, 2002.
Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short- and Long-
Term National Needs. GAO- 02- 160T. Washington, D. C.: November 7, 2001.
Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness
Efforts. GAO- 02- 208T. Washington, D. C.: October 31, 2001.
Homeland Security: Need to Consider VA?s Role in Strengthening Federal
Preparedness. GAO- 02- 145T. Washington, D. C.: October 15, 2001.
Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach.
GAO- 02- 150T. Washington, D. C.: October 12, 2001.
Homeland Security: A Framework for Addressing the Nation?s Issues.
GAO- 01- 1158T. Washington, D. C.: September 21, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Development of a
National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO- 02- 550T.
Washington, D. C.: April 2, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships Through a National Preparedness
Strategy. GAO- 02- 549T. Washington, D. C.: March 28, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Critical Components of a National Strategy to Enhance
State and Local Preparedness. GAO- 02- 548T. Washington, D. C.: March 25,
2002. Combating Terrorism
Page 21 GAO- 02- 1011T
Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Partnership in a National Strategy to
Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO- 02- 547T. Washington, D. C.:
March 22, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Key Aspects of a National Strategy to Enhance State and
Local Preparedness. GAO- 02- 473T. Washington, D. C.: March 1, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Considerations for Investing Resources in Chemical and
Biological Preparedness. GAO- 01- 162T. Washington, D. C.: October 17, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations. GAO-
01- 822. Washington, D. C.: September 20, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD?s Antiterrorism Program
Implementation and Management. GAO- 01- 909. Washington, D. C.: September
19, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Comments on H. R. 525 to Create a President?s Council
on Domestic Preparedness. GAO- 01- 555T. Washington, D. C.: May 9, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Options to Improve the Federal
Response. GAO- 01- 660T. Washington, D. C.: April 24, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and National
Strategy. GAO- 01- 556T. Washington, D. C.: March 27, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: FEMA Continues to Make Progress in Coordinating
Preparedness and Response. GAO- 01- 15. Washington, D. C.: March 20, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Federal Response Teams Provide Varied Capabilities;
Opportunities Remain to Improve Coordination.
GAO- 01- 14. Washington, D. C.: November 30, 2000.
Combating Terrorism: Need to Eliminate Duplicate Federal Weapons of Mass
Destruction Training. GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 64. Washington, D. C.: March 21, 2000.
Page 22 GAO- 02- 1011T
Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Threat of Chemical and Biological
Terrorism. GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 50. Washington, D. C.: October 20, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of
Chemical and Biological Attack. GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 163. Washington, D. C.:
September 7, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs.
GAO/ T- NSIAD- 99- 181. Washington, D. C.: June 9, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Analysis of Potential Emergency Response Equipment and
Sustainment Costs. GAO- NSIAD- 99- 151. Washington, D. C.: June 9, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Use of National Guard Response Teams Is Unclear. GAO/
NSIAD- 99- 110. Washington, D. C.: May 21, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Federal Spending to Combat Terrorism.
GAO/ T- NSIAD/ GGD- 99- 107. Washington, D. C.: March 11, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness Program
Focus and Efficiency. GAO- NSIAD- 99- 3. Washington, D. C.: November 12,
1998.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Nunn- Lugar- Domenici Domestic
Preparedness Program. GAO/ T- NSIAD- 99- 16. Washington, D. C.: October 2,
1998.
Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and
Target Program Investments. GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 74. Washington, D. C.: April 9,
1998.
Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better
Management and Coordination. GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 39. Washington, D. C.: December
1, 1997.
Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Coordination but may
Complicate Public Health Priority Setting. GAO- 02- 883T. Washington, D. C.:
June 25, 2002. Public Health
Page 23 GAO- 02- 1011T
Bioterrorism: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?s Role in
Public Health Protection. GAO- 02- 235T. Washington, D. C.: November 15,
2001.
Bioterrorism: Review of Public Health and Medical Preparedness.
GAO- 02- 149T. Washington, D. C.: October 10, 2001.
Bioterrorism: Public Health and Medical Preparedness. GAO- 02- 141T.
Washington, D. C.: October 10, 2001.
Bioterrorism: Coordination and Preparedness. GAO- 02- 129T. Washington, D.
C.: October 5, 2001.
Bioterrorism: Federal Research and Preparedness Activities.
GAO- 01- 915. Washington, D. C.: September 28, 2001.
Chemical and Biological Defense: Improved Risk Assessments and Inventory
Management Are Needed. GAO- 01- 667. Washington, D. C.: September 28, 2001.
West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness.
GAO/ HEHS- 00- 180. Washington, D. C.: September 11, 2000.
Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of Chemical and
Biological Attacks. GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 163. Washington, D. C.: September 7,
1999.
Chemical and Biological Defense: Program Planning and Evaluation Should
Follow Results Act Framework. GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 159. Washington, D. C.: August
16, 1999.
Combating Terrorism: Observations on Biological Terrorism and Public Health
Initiatives. GAO/ T- NSIAD- 99- 112. Washington, D. C.: March 16, 1999.
Disaster Assistance: Improvement Needed in Disaster Declaration Criteria and
Eligibility Assurance Procedures. GAO- 01- 837. Washington, D. C.: August
31, 2001.
FEMA and Army Must Be Proactive in Preparing States for Emergencies. GAO-
01- 850. Washington, D. C.: August 13, 2001. Disaster Assistance
Page 24 GAO- 02- 1011T
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and
Addressing Major Management Challenges. GAO- 01- 832. Washington, D. C.:
July 9, 2001.
Managing for Results: Progress in Linking Performance Plans with Budget and
Financial Statements. GAO- 02- 236. Washington, D. C.: January 4, 2002.
Results- Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies. GAO- 01- 1084SP.
Washington, D. C.: August 2001.
Managing for Results: Federal Managers? Views on Key Management Issues Vary
Widely across Agencies. GAO- 01- 0592. Washington, D. C.: May 2001.
Determining Performance and Accountability Challenges and High Risks. GAO-
01- 159SP. Washington, D. C.: November 2000.
Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation
and Program Overlap. GAO/ AIMD- 97- 156. Washington, D. C.: August 29, 1997.
Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal
Missions and Approaches. GAO/ T- AIMD- 95- 161. Washington, D. C.: June 7,
1995.
Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and
Performance Information. GAO/ GGD- 98- 137. Washington, D. C.: June 22,
1998.
Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go Further.
GAO/ AIMD- 97- 7. Washington, D. C.: December 18, 1996.
Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions.
GAO/ AIMD- 95- 226. Washington, D. C.: September 1, 1995. Budget and
Management
Grant Design
(450136)
*** End of document. ***