Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the
National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated
Planning and Performance Goals (28-MAY-04, GAO-04-433).
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the National
Capital Region (NCR), comprising jurisdictions including the
District of Columbia and surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland
and Virginia, has been recognized as a significant potential
target for terrorism. GAO was asked to report on (1) what federal
funds have been allocated to NCR jurisdictions for emergency
preparedness; (2) what challenges exist within NCR to organizing
and implementing efficient and effective regional preparedness
programs; (3) what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency
preparedness of NCR; and (4) what has been the role of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in NCR to date.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-433
ACCNO: A10242
TITLE: Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants
in the National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated
Planning and Performance Goals
DATE: 05/28/2004
SUBJECT: Counterterrorism
Emergency preparedness
Federal funds
Funds management
National preparedness
Terrorism
Homeland security
Washington (DC), Urban Area Security
Initiative Grants
******************************************************************
** 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-04-433
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives
May 2004
HOMELAND SECURITY
Management of First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region Reflects the
Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Goals
GAO-04-433
Highlights of GAO-04-433, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the National Capital Region
(NCR), comprising jurisdictions including the District of Columbia and
surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia, has been recognized as
a significant potential target for terrorism. GAO was asked to report on
(1) what federal funds have been allocated to NCR jurisdictions for
emergency preparedness; (2) what challenges exist within NCR to organizing
and implementing efficient and effective regional preparedness programs;
(3) what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency preparedness of NCR; and
(4) what has been the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in
NCR to date.
GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS (1) work with local NCR
jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to establish
capacity enhancement goals and priorities; (2) monitor the plan's
implementation; and (3) identify and address gaps in emergency
preparedness and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures by conducting
assessments based on established standards and guidelines.
DHS and the ONCRC Senior Policy Group generally agreed with GAO's
recommendations and noted that a new governance structure, adopted in
February 2004, should accomplish essential coordination.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-433.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr., at
(202) 512-8757 or [email protected].
May 2004
HOMELAND SECURITY
Management of First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region Reflects the
Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Goals
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, grant programs administered by the
Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Justice
awarded about $340 million to eight NCR jurisdictions to enhance emergency
preparedness. Of this total, the Office for National Capital Region
Coordination (ONCRC) targeted all of the $60.5 million Urban Area Security
Initiative funds for projects designed to benefit NCR as a whole. However,
there was no coordinated regionwide plan for spending the remaining funds
(about $279.5 million). Local jurisdictions determined the spending
priorities for these funds and reported using them for emergency
communications and personal protective equipment and other purchases.
NCR faces several challenges in organizing and implementing efficient and
effective regional preparedness programs, including the lack of a
coordinated strategic plan for enhancing NCR preparedness, performance
standards, and a reliable, central source of data on funds available and
the purposes for which they were spent.
Without these basic elements, it is difficult to assess first responder
capacities, identify first responder funding priorities for NCR, and
evaluate the effectiveness of the use of federal funds in enhancing first
responder capacities and preparedness in a way that maximizes their
effectiveness in improving homeland security.
National Capital Region Jurisdictions
Source: National Capital Planning Commission.
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Multiple Grants Support a Wide Variety of Uses, Including
Equipment, Training and Exercises, Planning, and Bioterrorism
Preparedness
Challenges to Effective Grants Management Include Lack of
Standards, Planning, and Data
Assessing the Remaining Gaps in NCR is Difficult without
Guidance, Reliable Data, or Analysis
DHS and ONCRC Appear to Have Had a Limited Role in Promoting
Regional Coordination in NCR
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1
3 6
13
23
34
35 36 37 37
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
Appendix II NCR Jurisdictions' Arrangements to Respond to
Public Safety Emergencies 42
Regional Bodies Facilitate Coordination Efforts in Other Areas 42
Mutual Aid Agreements Are in Place within NCR 43
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group
Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 53
GAO Contacts 53
Staff Acknowledgments 53
Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of National Capital Region Jurisdictions Table 2:
Selected Emergency Preparedness Funding Sources to
NCR Jurisdictions in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 Table 3: Uses of Selected
Homeland Security Grant Programs Table 4: Major Items Funded by NCR
Jurisdictions from Fiscal
Year 2002 DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Table 5: Uses of NCR
Urban Area Security Initiative Funds
12
14 17
20 22
Figure
Figure 1: National Capital Region Jurisdictions
Abbreviations
CapWIN Capital Wireless Integrated Network
CERT Citizens Emergency Response Training
CFDA Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOD Department of Defense
EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
FEMA DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
MEMA Maryland Emergency Management Agency
NCR National Capital Region
NVRC Northern Virginia Regional Commission
ODP DHS's Office for Domestic Preparedness
ONCRC DHS's Office of National Capital Region Coordination
RECP Regional Emergency Coordination Plan
RICCS Regional Incident Communication and Coordination
System UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VDEM Virginia Department of
Emergency Management WashCOG Washington Metropolitan Council of
Governments WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
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. However, 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 General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
May 28, 2004
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Washington, D.C., area,
known as the National Capital Region (NCR), has been recognized as a
high-threat area for terrorism.1 The complexity of the region, composed of
jurisdictions including the nation's capital and surrounding areas in the
states of Maryland and Virginia, and a range of potential targets,
presents
significant challenges to coordinating and developing effective homeland
security programs. In recognition of the region's status as a significant
potential target, a substantial amount of federal funding was provided to
NCR in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to enhance the region's ability to
prepare for and respond to emergencies, including terrorist attacks.
Federal funding has also been provided to other high-threat urban areas
around the nation, and at your request, our work in NCR will be followed
by a review of coordination practices in several other urban regions
around the nation.
In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established to
consolidate the resources of 22 federal agencies for dealing in a
multifaceted and comprehensive manner with domestic preparedness,
including coordinating with other levels of government, planning
programs, and assessing their effectiveness. These responsibilities
include
oversight of the grant-making process to promote effective domestic
preparedness programs. Appropriations to DHS and agencies in the
Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services for domestic
preparedness programs for state and local governments totaled nearly
1The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, S:882 (2002))
incorporates the following definition of the National Capital Region from
10 U.S.C. 2674 (f)(2). It is a geographic area that consists of the
District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland;
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties and the City of
Alexandria in Virginia; and all cities and other units of government
within the geographic areas of such district, counties, and city. We
focused on the eight largest jurisdictions.
$13.9 billion in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. These grants include funding
to NCR, which received special focus with the creation of the Office for
National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) in statute as part of the new
department. ONCRC was established to oversee and coordinate federal
programs for, and relationships with, state, local, and regional
authorities. ONCRC's statutory responsibilities also include assessing
needs, providing information and support, and facilitating access to
federal domestic preparedness grants and related programs. To assist in
accomplishing its mission, ONCRC developed a governance structure to
receive input from state and local authorities through a Senior Policy
Group composed of representatives designated by the Governors of Maryland
and Virginia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
You asked us to examine preparedness efforts in NCR, with an emphasis on
the use of funds, what has been done recently to better position the area
to address potential threats, and what continuing problems exist in
organizing and implementing efficient regional programs. This report
addresses the following questions:
o What federal funds have been allocated to local jurisdictions in the
NCR for emergency preparedness, for what specific purposes, and from what
sources?
o What challenges exist within NCR to organizing and implementing
efficient and effective regional preparedness programs?
o What gaps, if any, remain in the emergency preparedness of NCR?
o What has been DHS's role to date in enhancing the preparedness of NCR
through such actions as coordinating the use of federal emergency
preparedness grants, assessing preparedness, providing guidance, targeting
funds to enhance preparedness, and monitoring the use of those funds?
To respond to the questions, we met with and obtained documentation on
grant awards and spending plans from officials of DHS, the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, ONCRC Senior Policy Group, state
emergency management agencies, and first responder officials from NCR
jurisdictions. We identified 25 emergency preparedness programs that
provided funding to NCR, and we selected 16 of them for our detailed
review. These 16 grants were selected to cover a range of programs
including the largest funding sources; grants provided for general
purposes, such as equipment and training; and grants provided for specific
Results in Brief
purposes, such as fire prevention and bioterrorism. We collected and
analyzed grant data from federal, state, and local sources. We also
reviewed relevant reports, studies, and guidelines on homeland security
and domestic preparedness. We conducted our review from June 2003 through
February 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. See appendix I for more details on our scope and methodology.
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NCR received a total of about $340 million
from 16 grants administered by the Departments of Homeland Security,
Health and Human Services, and Justice. These grants were awarded to state
and local emergency management, law enforcement, fire departments, and
other emergency response agencies in the National Capital Region to
enhance their ability to prepare for and respond to emergencies, including
terrorist incidents. Within NCR, two funding sources-the Fiscal Year 2002
Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (almost $230
million) and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) ($60.5
million)-accounted for 85 percent of the homeland security grant funds
awarded. These two sources were used for similar purposes. Funds from the
Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental went
directly to local jurisdictions that had discretion to use it for their
own priorities and needs. NCR jurisdictions reported they used these funds
to purchase a range of equipment, supplies, training, and technical
assistance services. The major expenditures reported were mostly for
communications systems, including an interoperable radio system, and other
types of equipment, such as equipment for emergency operations centers,
bomb squad materials, bomb squad and command vehicles, and a mass casualty
and disaster unit. ONCRC developed a plan for the use of funds from UASI,
the purpose of which was to enhance security in large urban areas. The
plan for these funds identified activities that would benefit the region
as a whole, including equipment ($26.5 million), planning ($12.4 million),
the costs of higher threat alert levels ($10.6 million), training ($5.2
million), exercises ($4 million), and administrative costs ($1.8 million).
ONCRC and NCR face at least three interrelated challenges in managing
federal funds in a way that maximizes the increase in first responder
capacities and preparedness while also minimizing inefficiency and
unnecessary duplication of expenditures. First, and most fundamental, is
the lack of preparedness standards that could be used to assess existing
first responder capacities, identify gaps in those capacities, and measure
progress in achieving specific performance goals. Such standards would
include functional standards for equipment, such as personal protection
suits; performance standards, such as the number of persons per hour that
could be decontaminated after a chemical attack; and perhaps best practice
benchmarks. DHS administered the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)
Assessment to NCR jurisdictions in the summer of 2003. However, the lack
of performance standards makes it difficult to use the results of the
assessment to identify the most critical gaps in capacities. Since the NCR
jurisdictions completed their ODP assessments, DHS has taken steps to
address this challenge by adopting its first set of functional standards
for protective equipment and making reference to establishing a system of
national standards in its recently released strategic plan.
Second, there is no coordinated regionwide plan for establishing first
responder performance goals, needs, and priorities and assessing the
benefits of expenditures to enhance first responder capabilities. Prior to
September 11, there were some efforts to develop regional emergency
response planning and coordination, such as mutual aid agreements among
neighboring jurisdictions. Since that time, the Washington Council of
Governments (WashCOG) has developed one of the first regional emergency
coordination plans and a communications notification system for NCR.
However, no such NCR-wide coordination methods have been developed for
guiding the spending of federal grant dollars and assessing their effects
on enhancing first responder capacities and preparedness.
Individual jurisdictions and their emergency response agencies have
determined how the majority ($279.5 million) of the approximately $340
million in federal grant funds will be spent. The one exception is the
funding for UASI ($60.5 million). ONCRC has focused its initial
coordination efforts on developing a regional plan for the use of UASI
funds for projects to benefit NCR as a whole.
Third, there is no readily available, reliable source of information on
the amount of first responder federal grant funds available to each NCR
jurisdiction, the budget plans and criteria used to determine spending
priorities, and actual expenditures. While the NCR jurisdictions are
required to submit separate reports on each grant to the administering
federal agency, ONCRC has not obtained or consolidated this information to
develop a comprehensive source of information for NCR on grants received,
plans and priorities for spending those funds, and actual expenditures.
Generally, spending decisions were made on a grant-bygrant basis and were
largely in response to first responder and emergency management officials'
requests for specific expenditures. Without
consistently available, reliable data, it is difficult to verify the
results of ODP's assessment and establish a baseline that could then be
used to develop plans to address outstanding needs.
During our review, we also could identify no reliable data on preparedness
gaps in NCR, which of those gaps were most important, and the status of
efforts to close those gaps. This is because the baseline data needed to
assess those gaps had not been fully developed or made available on a
NCR-wide basis, and ONCRC does not have information on how local
jurisdictions have used federal grant monies to enhance their capacity and
preparedness. Consequently, it is difficult for us or ONCRC to determine
what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency response capacities and
preparedness within NCR. Were these data available, the lack of standards
against which to evaluate them would make it difficult to assess gaps. The
ODP assessment did, however, collect information on regional security
risks and needs for the NCR jurisdictions. ONCRC based spending decisions
for UASI funds on the results of the assessment, with the funds used only
for regional needs. On the other hand, officials in several NCR
jurisdictions said that they have not received any feedback on the results
of the assessment for their individual jurisdictions. It is not clear how
the regional assessment and UASI spending plan links to the use of other
grants for local jurisdictions and the gaps the jurisdictions' spending is
designed to address.
To date, DHS and ONCRC appear to have had a limited role in assessing and
analyzing first responder needs in NCR and developing a coordinated effort
to address those needs through the use of federal grant funds. Without an
NCR baseline on emergency preparedness, a plan for prioritizing
expenditures and assessing their benefits, and reliable information on
funds available and spent on first responder needs in NCR, it is difficult
for ONCRC to fulfill its statutory responsibility to oversee and
coordinate federal programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for
state, local, and regional authorities in NCR. Some officials within NCR
generally believed that additional DHS guidance also is needed on likely
emergency scenarios for which to prepare and how to prepare for them. In
meetings with us, the former Director of ONCRC acknowledged that the
office could consider coordinating expenditures for federal grants other
than the UASI grant. He also said that consistent records and a central
source of information on NCR emergency responder grants would assist ONCRC
in fulfilling its responsibilities.
Because of the importance of preparing NCR and other high-risk areas to
meet considerable homeland security challenges, we are recommending
Background
that the Secretary of DHS (1) work with NCR jurisdictions to develop a
coordinated strategic plan to establish first responder enhancement goals
and priorities that can be used to guide the use of federal emergency
preparedness funds; (2) monitor the plan's implementation to ensure funds
are used in a way that promotes effective expenditures that are not
unnecessarily duplicative; and (3) identify and address gaps in emergency
preparedness and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures in meeting
those needs by adapting standards and preparedness guidelines based on
likely scenarios for NCR and conducting assessments based on them.
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of DHS and to NCR's
Senior Policy Group for comment. DHS and the Senior Policy Group generally
agreed with our recommendations, but also stated that NCR jurisdictions
had worked cooperatively together to identify opportunities for synergies
and lay a foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the report. DHS
and the Senior Policy Group also agreed that there is a need to continue
to improve preparedness by developing more specific and improved
preparedness standards, clearer performance goals, and an improved method
for tracking regional initiatives. DHS noted that a new governance
structure, adopted in February 2004, should accomplish essential
regionwide coordination.
Since September 11, 2001, there has been broad acknowledgment by the
federal government, state and local governments, and a range of
independent research organizations of the need for a coordinated
intergovernmental approach to allocating the nation's resources to address
the threat of terrorism and improve our security. This coordinated
approach includes developing national guidelines and standards and
monitoring and assessing preparedness against those standards to
effectively manage risk. The National Strategy for Homeland Security
(National Strategy), released in 2002 following the proposal for DHS,
emphasized a shared national responsibility for security involving close
cooperation among all levels of government and acknowledged the complexity
of developing a coordinated approach within our federal system of
government and among a broad range of organizations and institutions
involved in homeland security. The national strategy highlighted the
challenge of developing complementary systems that avoid unintended
duplication and increase collaboration and coordination so that public and
private resources are better aligned for homeland security. The national
strategy established a framework for this approach by identifying critical
mission areas with intergovernmental initiatives in each area. For
example, the strategy identified such initiatives as modifying federal
grant requirements and consolidating funding sources to state and
local governments. The strategy further recognized the importance of
assessing the capability of state and local governments, developing plans,
and establishing standards and performance measures to achieve national
preparedness goals.
Recent reports by independent research organizations have highlighted the
same issues of the need for intergovernmental coordination, planning, and
assessment. For example, the fifth annual report of the Advisory Panel to
Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of
Mass Destruction2 (the Gilmore Commission) also emphasizes the importance
of a comprehensive, collaborative approach to improve the nation's
preparedness. The report states that there is a need for a coordinated
system for the development, delivery, and administration of programs that
engage a broad range of stakeholders. The Gilmore Commission notes that
preparedness for combating terrorism requires measurable demonstrated
capacity by communities, states, and the private sector to respond to
threats with well-planned, well-coordinated, and effective efforts by all
participants. The Gilmore Commission recommends a comprehensive process
for establishing training and exercise standards for responders that
includes state and local response organizations on an ongoing basis. The
National Academy of Public Administration's recent panel report3 also
notes the importance of coordinated and integrated efforts at all levels
of government and in the private sector to develop a national approach to
homeland security. Regarding assessment, the report recommends
establishing national standards in selected areas and developing impact
and outcome measures for those standards.
The creation of DHS was an initial step toward reorganizing the federal
government to respond to some of the intergovernmental challenges
identified in the national strategy. 4 The reorganization consolidated 22
agencies with responsibility for domestic preparedness functions to, among
other things, enhance the ability of the nation's police, fire, and
2The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, The Fifth Annual Report to the
President and the Congress, Forging America's New Normalcy: Securing our
Homeland, Protecting Our Liberty
(Arlington, VA.: Dec. 15, 2003).
3National Academy of Public Administration, Advancing the Management of
Homeland Security: Managing Intergovernmental Relations for Homeland
Security (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).
4Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P. L. 107-296 (2002)).
other first responders to respond to terrorism and other emergencies
through grants. Many aspects of DHS's success depend on its maintaining
and enhancing working relationships within the intergovernmental system as
the department relies on state and local governments to accomplish its
mission. The Homeland Security Act contains provisions intended to foster
coordination among levels of government, such as the creation of the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination and ONCRC.
The Homeland Security Act established ONCRC within DHS to oversee and
coordinate federal programs for, and relationships with, state, local, and
regional authorities in the National Capital Region.5 Pursuant to the act,
ONCRC's responsibilities include
o coordinating the activities of DHS relating to NCR, including
cooperating with the Office for State and Local Government Coordination;
o assessing and advocating for resources needed by state, local, and
regional authorities in NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland;
o providing state, local, and regional authorities in NCR with regular
information, research, and technical support to assist the efforts of
state, local, and regional authorities in NCR in securing the homeland;
o developing a process for receiving meaningful input from state, local,
and regional authorities and the private sector in NCR to assist in the
development of the federal government's homeland security plans and
activities;
o coordinating with federal agencies in NCR on terrorism preparedness to
ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution of
the federal role in domestic preparedness activities;
o coordinating with federal, state, and regional agencies and the
private sector in NCR on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate
planning, information sharing, training, and execution of domestic
preparedness activities among these agencies and entities; and
o serving as a liaison between the federal government and state, local,
and regional authorities, and private sector entities in NCR to facilitate
access to federal grants and other programs.
5P.L. 107-296 S:882.
The act also requires ONCRC to submit an annual report to Congress that
includes
o the identification of resources required to fully implement homeland
security efforts in NCR,
o an assessment of the progress made by NCR in implementing homeland
security efforts in NCR, and
o recommendations to Congress regarding the additional resources needed
to fully implement homeland security efforts in NCR.
The first ONCRC Director served from March to November 2003, and the
Secretary of DHS appointed a new Director on April 30, 2004. The ONCRC has
a small staff including full-time and contract employees and staff on
detail to the office.
Figure 1: National Capital Region Jurisdictions
Source: National Capital Planning Commission.
NCR is a complex multijurisdictional area comprising the District of
Columbia and surrounding counties and cities in the states of Maryland and
Virginia and is home to the federal government, many national landmarks,
and military installations. Coordination within this region
presents the challenge of working with eight NCR jurisdictions that vary
in size, political organization, and experience with managing emergencies.
The largest municipality in the region is the District of Columbia, with a
population of about 572,000. However, the region also includes large
counties, such as Montgomery County, Maryland, with a total population of
about 873,000, incorporating 19 municipalities, and Fairfax County,
Virginia, the most populous jurisdiction (about 984,000), which is
composed of nine districts. NCR also includes smaller jurisdictions, such
as Loudoun County and the City of Alexandria, each with a population below
200,000. The region has significant experience with emergencies, including
natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards, and
terrorist incidents such as the attacks of September 11, and subsequent
events, and the sniper incidents of the fall of 2002. For more details on
the characteristics of the individual jurisdictions, see table 1.
Table 1: Characteristics of National Capital Region Jurisdictions
Jurisdictional
structure/ Population Locality characteristics (2000 Census) Budget
Maryland Virginia
Montgomery County County has 19 873,341 $3.1 billion
municipalities and an (FY 2004
elected county Adopted)
executive and county
council
Prince George's County has 27 801,515 $1.8 billion
County municipalities and an (FY 2004
elected county council Adopted)
and county executive
District of $1.8 billion
Columbia City council, city 572,059
administrator, and (FY 2004
mayor Adopted)
Alexandria City Elected mayor and city 128,283 $479.2 million
council and appointed (FY 2004
city manager Adopted)
Arlington County Elected county board 189,453 $805.3 million
and appointed county (FY 2004
manager Adopted)
Fairfax County County has 9 districts; 984,366 $2.6 billion
an elected board of (FY 2004
supervisors, and an Adopted)
appointed county
executive
Loudoun County County has 8 districts 169,599 $799.2 million
containing 7 towns, an (FY 2004
elected board of Adopted)
supervisors, and an
appointed county
administrator
Prince William County has 4 towns 280,813 $1.3 billion
County
and 2 independent (FY 2004
cities, an elected board Adopted)
of supervisors, and an
appointed county
executive
Source: Prepared by GAO from jurisdictions' data.
Multiple Grants Support a Wide Variety of Uses, Including Equipment,
Training and Exercises, Planning, and Bioterrorism Preparedness
In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Congress provided billions of dollars in
grants to state and local governments to enhance the ability of the
nation's first responders to prevent and respond to terrorism events. We
reviewed 16 of the funding sources available for use by first responders
and emergency managers that were targeted for improving preparedness for
terrorism and other emergencies. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, these
grant programs, administered by DHS, Health and Human Services (HHS), and
Justice awarded about $340 million to the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Virginia, and state and local emergency management, law enforcement, fire
departments, and other emergency response agencies in NCR.6 Table 2 shows
the individual grant awards to the jurisdictions. The funding sources we
reviewed include a range of grants that can be used for broad purposes,
such as ODP's State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Management Performance Grant,
as well as more targeted grants for specific disciplines such as FEMA's
Assistance to Firefighters Grant and HHS's Bioterrorism Preparedness
Grants.
6The $340 million includes the $60.5 million for UASI that is allocated to
NCR for regionwide projects.
Table 2: Selected Emergency Preparedness Funding Sources to NCR Jurisdictions in
Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in thousands
District of Montgomery Prince
George's
Agency Grant title with CFDAa number Columbia County County
DHS (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters $221 $251 $147
(83.554)
DHS (FEMA) Citizen Corps (83.564) 35 2
DHS (FEMA) Community Emergency Response 148 14
Teams (83.565)
DHS (FEMA) Emergency Management Performance 2,195 305
Grant (83.552)
DHS (FEMA) Emergency Operations Center 50 0
Assessment (83.563)
DHS (FEMA) Interoperable Communications 0 0
Equipment Grant (83.566)
State and Local All-Hazards
DHS (FEMA) Emergency Operations Planning
Grant (83.562) 198 0
State Domestic Preparedness
DHS (ODP) Equipment Support Program
(16.007) 2,747 467
State and Local Domestic
DHS (ODP) Preparedness Training Program
(16.008) 0 0
State and Local Domestic
DHS (ODP) Preparedness Exercise Support
Program (16.009) 0 44
State and Local Domestic
DHS (ODP) Preparedness Technical Assistance
(16.010) 0 0
DHS (ODP) State Homeland Security Grant 17,916 1,214 1,279
Program Phases I and II (16.007)
DHS (ODP) Urban Area Security Initiative 60,491 0
Phases I and II (16.011)b
DHS (BJAc) DOD Emergency Supplemental 168,952 8,551 7,855
Appropriation (16.580)
HHS Bioterrorism Hospital 722 0
Preparedness (93.003)
HHS Public Health Preparedness and
Response for Bioterrorism
(93.283) 12,705 617
Total $266,380 $11,465 $10,335
Prince Total by
William funding
Alexandria Arlington Fairfax Loudoun County source
City County County County
$47 0 $170 0 $469 $1,305
0 $5 5 0 0
14 35 20 0 0
10 53 0 $30 47 2,799
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
29 0 186 0 57
88 119 372 109 115 4,371
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
516 581 2,735 528 828 25,597
0 0 0 0 0 60,491
8,021 16,000 12,000 4,300 4,300 229,979
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 13,852
$8,725 $16,793 $15,488 $4,967 $5,816 $339,969
Source: GAO analysis of NCR data.
aCatalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance.
bThe District of Columbia is the recipient of the UASI funds for projects
to benefit NCR as a whole.
cBureau of Justice Assistance.
While some of these grants are targeted to different recipients, many of
them can be used to fund similar projects and purposes. For example, there
are multiple grants that can be used to fund equipment, training, and
exercises. We have previously reported the fragmented delivery of federal
assistance can complicate coordination and integration of services and
planning at state and local levels.7 Multiple fragmented grant programs
can create a confusing and administratively burdensome process for state
and local officials seeking to use federal resources for homeland security
needs. In addition, many of these grant programs have separate
administrative requirements such as applications and different funding and
reporting requirements.
In fiscal year 2004, in an effort to reduce the multiplicity of separate
funding sources and to allow greater flexibility in the use of grants,
several ODP State and Local Domestic Preparedness grants, which were
targeted for separate purposes such as equipment, training, and exercises,
were consolidated into a single funding source and renamed the State
Homeland Security Grant Program.8 In addition, four FEMA grants (Citizen
Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, Emergency Operations Centers,
and State and Local All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning) now have a
joint application process; the same program office at FEMA administers
these grants. Overall, NCR jurisdictions used the 16 funding sources we
reviewed to address a wide variety of emergency preparedness activities
such as (1) purchasing equipment and supplies; (2) training first
responders; (3) planning, conducting, and evaluating exercises; (4)
planning and administration; and (5) providing technical assistance. Table
3 shows the eligible uses for each of the 16 grants.
7See U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Assistance: Grant System
Continues to Be Highly Fragmented, GAO-03-718T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29,
2003).
8The grants that were consolidated into the State Homeland Security Grant
Program include the State and Local Domestic Preparedness Training
Program, State and Local Domestic Preparedness Exercise Support Program,
and State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support Program.
Table 3: Uses of Selected Homeland Security Grant Programs
Equipment Planning and/or and/or Technical Agency number Grant objectives
supplies Training Exercises administration assistance
Grant title with CFDA
DHS Assistance to Firefighters Grants made directly to o o o o
(FEMA) Grant (83.554) fire departments to equip
and train fire fighters and
emergency medical
technicians
DHS Citizen Corps (83.564) Grants to supplement and o o o
(FEMA) assist state and local
efforts to expand Citizen
Corps
DHS Community Emergency Assist state and local o o o
(FEMA) Response Teams efforts to start or expand
(83.565) community and
emergency response
teams
DHS Emergency Management Grants to states to o o o
(FEMA) Performance Grant develop comprehensive
(83.552) emergency management
plans
DHS Emergency Operations Grants to states to o
(FEMA) Centersa (83.563) develop emergency
operations centers
DHS Interoperable Funding to jurisdictions for o o o
(FEMA) Communications demonstration projects
Equipment (83.566) that explore uses of
equipment and
technologies to increase
interoperability among fire,
law enforcement, and
emergency medical
services
DHS State and Local All- Grants to states to o
(FEMA) Hazards Emergency encourage the
Operations Planning development of all-hazard
(83.562) emergency plans
DHS State Domestic Grants to states to o o o
(ODP) Preparedness Equipment develop and implement a
Support Program statewide domestic
(16.007) preparedness strategy
DHS State and Local Grants to state and local o
(ODP) Domestic Preparedness governments to enhance
Training Program capacity to respond to
(16.008) weapons of mass
destruction (WMD)
terrorism
Equipment Planning
Grant title and/or and/or Technical
with CFDA
Agency number Grant supplies Training Exercises administration assistance
objectives
State and Grants to
DHS Local state and o o o
local
Domestic governments
(ODP) Preparedness to plan and
Exercise conduct
Support domestic
(16.009) preparedness
exercises
State and Grant to
DHS Local state and o o
local
Domestic governments
(ODP) Preparedness to develop,
Technical plan, and
Assistance implement a
program for
(16.010) WMD
DHS State Homeland Security Grants to states and local o o o o o
(ODP) Grant Program, Phases I governments to purchase
and II (16.007) equipment and mitigate
costs of enhanced security
DHS Urban Area Security Designed to enhance the o o o o o
(ODP) Initiative, Phases I and ability of first responders
II
(16.011) and public safety officials
to secure urban area's
critical infrastructure and
respond to potential acts
of terrorism
DOJ Fiscal Year 2002 Direct funding to NCR o o o o o
(BJA) Department of Defense Emergency jurisdictions
Supplemental
Appropriation (16.580)
HHS Bioterrorism Hospital Cooperative agreementa o o o o o
Preparedness (93.003) with health departments of
all states, the District of
Columbia, the 3 largest
municipalities, and other
entities
HHS Public Health Cooperative agreement o o o o o
Preparedness and with health departments of
Response for all states, the District of
Bioterrorism (93.283) Columbia, the 3 largest
municipalities, and other
entities
Source: GAO analysis of CFDA and Congressional Research Service data.
aA cooperative agreement is used as a mechanism to provide financial
support when substantial interaction is expected between the executive
agency and a state, local government, or other recipient carrying out the
funded activity.
Two Largest Funding Sources Supported a Range of Efforts
Of the $340 million awarded for the 16 funding sources, the two largest
funding sources-which collectively provided about $290.5 million (85
percent) in federal funding to NCR-were the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of
Defense (DOD) Emergency Supplemental Appropriation9 and the Fiscal Year
2003 Urban Area Security Initiative. Both of these sources fund a range of
purposes and activities such as equipment purchases, including
communications systems; training and exercises; technical assistance; and
planning.
The Fiscal Year 2002 DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, which was
provided in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, provided
approximately $230 million to enhance emergency preparedness. Individual
NCR jurisdictions independently decided how to use these dollars and used
them to fund a wide array of purchases to support first responders and
emergency management agencies. Our review of the budgets for this
appropriation submitted by NCR jurisdictions showed that many of these
grant funds were budgeted for communications equipment and other equipment
and supplies. Table 4 provides examples of major projects funded by each
jurisdiction with these funds.
9Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks On The United States Act,
2002, P.L. 107-117 (2002). This appropriation provided funds to NCR
jurisdictions through Byrne Discretionary grants under the State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance Programs within the Office of Justice Programs
at the Department of Justice.
Table 4: Major Items Funded by NCR Jurisdictions from Fiscal Year 2002 DOD
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation
Dollars in thousands
NCR locality Amount Grant categories Major uses of grant dollars
District of $168,952 Communications equipment, Wireless interoperability
project ($45,494) Columbia personnel/contracts
Equipment and supplies, Increased security at facilities including public
schools and the personnel/contracts emergency management agency ($25,536)
Equipment and supplies, contracts Emergency traffic management, including
upgrading traffic light controllers ($14,000) and video traffic monitoring
system ($4,700)
Equipment and supplies, Chemical and biological weapons preparedness
($10,355) personnel/contracts
Maryland
Montgomery 8,551 Equipment and supplies Command vehicle ($350)
County
Equipment and supplies Police command bus ($310)
Equipment and supplies Bomb squad vehicle ($300)
Communications Special audio visual display
equipment ($410)
Communications Communications console ($202)
equipment
Personnel Unanticipated overtime costs
Prince George's 7,855 and emergency response
events. Other personnel costs
County include participation in
disaster
preparedness training and
exercises ($4,424)
Equipment and supplies 9 ambulances ($1,188)
Planning and administration Fire/emergency medical services record
management system to record, track, and analyze data collected based on
specific parameters or requests by management to assist the Fire Chief in
staffing levels, response times, and other resource allocation issues
($525)
Virginia
City of 8,021 Communications equipment Tactical computers ($535)
Alexandria
Equipment and supplies Aerial platform ladder truck ($625)
Radio communication digital equipment encryption capability ($482)
Arlington 16,000 Communications equipment Portable and mobile radios,
command vehicles, upgrade Countya records management system
Fairfax County 12,000 Communications Radio expansion project ($5,798)
Equipment and supplies Emergency operations center upgrade ($922)
Mass casualty and disaster unit ($500)
Loudoun County 4,300 Communications Trailers ($100)
Equipment and Supplies Ladder truck ($325)
Dollars in thousands
NCR locality Amount Grant categories Major uses of grant dollars
Bomb squad materials and supplies ($125)
Prince William 4,300 Communications equipment Command bus replacement
($580) County
Equipment and supplies Alternate command vehicles ($200)
Personal protection equipment and training ($1,000)
Grand Total $229,979
Source: GAO analysis of budgets and expenditures provided by NCR
jurisdictions.
Note: The Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation provided direct funding to NCR jurisdictions through the
Byrne Discretionary grant under the State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs within the Department of Justice's Office of Justice
Programs.
aArlington, Virginia, did not provide supporting budget documentation for
the specific expenditures from this appropriation.
UASI Targets Regionwide Preparedness Needs
In 2003, DHS announced a new source of funding targeted to large urban
areas under UASI to enhance the ability of metropolitan areas to prepare
for and respond to threats or incidents of terrorism. This initiative
included a total of $60.5 million to NCR,10 which was one of seven
metropolitan areas included in the initial round of funding.11 The cities
were chosen by applying a formula based on a combination of factors,
including population density, critical infrastructure, and
threat/vulnerability assessment. UASI's strategy for NCR includes plans to
fund 21 individual lines of effort for the region in the areas of
planning, training, exercises, and equipment. In addition, funds are
provided for administration and planning and to reimburse localities for
changing levels of homeland security threat alerts. Table 5 summarizes the
planned use of the UASI funds.
10Two appropriations provided funds used for the UASI initiatives.
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, P.L. 108-7 (2003); and Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, P.L. 108-11 (2003).
11Other cities included Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, and Seattle. Subsequently, a second round of funding was
announced to include 23 additional metropolitan areas and additional
funding for the original seven regions, including NCR.
Table 5: Uses of NCR Urban Area Security Initiative Funds
Project Description Cost
Planning
Planning support Contract with WashCOG to provide secretariat support to
NCR planning efforts
Communication protocol Contract for the development of communications
protocols, including business rules and training and testing programs
Nonprofit coordination Contract with Nonprofit Roundtable (with Red Cross
buy-in) to coordinate nonprofit organization roles in emergencies
including: who would be providing what; how support would be delivered;
identify resource requirements, etc.
Regional connectivity study Contract for a study of a regional Emergency
Operations Center (EOC), including location, staffing, connectivity, etc.
Critical infrastructure protection Contract to manage and coordinate
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) activities in oversight NCR to
include completing an analysis of each Critical Infrastructure (CI) sector
Private sector assessment Support the development of an assessment tool
that private sector within NCR can use to determine their vulnerabilities
Preparedness for schools Contract to provide materials to schools for
education on preparedness
Citizen education Contract for a comprehensive and complete citizen
education campaign for the region designed to reach all citizens and
communicate emergency preparedness information
Address special needs Engage special needs populations to discuss and
address preparedness, response, and recovery issues faced by citizens with
special needs
Other Planning Priorities Support other Senior Policy Group (SPG) planning
priorities
Subtotal planning $12,388,570
Training
Public information officer/media Develop regular training program/dialogue
for regional Public Information Officers
training (PIOs) and local media to help them protect themselves and
communicate effectively during an emergency
Local emergency responder Manage local emergency responder training
program for NCR training
Subtotal training $5,150,000
Exercise
Full-scale exercise Conduct a Topoff-2-like full-scale exercise in NCR
with a series of three to four
planning seminars leading up to an exercise that
engages the entire region
Regional exercises Support regional exercises by
jurisdiction and by discipline
Subtotal exercises $4,000,000
Equipment
Develop regional quartermaster
Responder equipment capability to augment jurisdictional
equipment
Syndromic surveillance Complete NCR node of "ESSENCE II"
bio-surveillance program
Public health and Purchase equipment to support hospital
hospital surge capacity for NCR
capacity
Project Description Cost
Provide "Roam Secure/Reverse 911"
Citizen notification and service and weather radios as
family appropriate to
ensure communication with NCR
reunification citizenry. Provide family
reunification software to
area shelters to assist in uniting
families that are separated during
incidents
Purchase required communication
Communication hardware equipment (including radio cache) to
establish an
immediate interoperable
communications capability (voice and
data) for NCR
Purchase equipment to track emergency
response aircraft to deconflict their
Air tracking flights
during periods of emergency
Prevention Support NCR prevention activities
Subtotal equipment $26,535,093
Total $48,073,663
Grant administration 3 percent to support the grants $1,814,725
administration requirements
25 percent set aside from UASI II to
Reimbursement reimburse jurisdictions for costs
associated with $10,602,463
Homeland Security Advisory System changes. (Note: This only applies to the
$42 million of UASI II funds)
Total $60,490,851
Source: ONCRC data.
Challenges to Effective Grants Management Include Lack of Standards,
Planning, and Data
Effectively managing first responder federal grant funds requires the
ability to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of
public funds. As with other major policy areas, demonstrating the results
of homeland security efforts includes developing and implementing
strategies, establishing baselines, developing and implementing
performance goals and data quality standards, collecting reliable data,
analyzing the data, assessing the results, and taking action based on the
results. This strategic approach to homeland security includes identifying
threats and managing risks, aligning resources to address them, and
assessing progress in preparing for those threats and risks. Without a NCR
baseline on emergency preparedness, a plan for prioritizing expenditures
and assessing their benefits, and reliable information on funds available
and spent on first responder needs in NCR, it is difficult for ONCRC to
fulfill its statutory responsibility to oversee and coordinate federal
programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for state, local, and
regional authorities in NCR.
Regarding first responders, the purpose of these efforts is to be able to
address three basic, but difficult, questions: "For what types of threats
and emergencies should first responders be prepared?" "What is required-
coordination, equipment, training, etc.-to be prepared for these threats
and emergencies?" "How do first responders know that they have met their
preparedness goals?"
NCR is an example of the difficulties of answering the second and third
questions in particular. ONCRC and its jurisdictions face three
interrelated challenges that limit their ability to jointly manage federal
funds in a way that demonstrates increased first responder capacities and
preparedness while minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of
expenditures. First and most fundamental are the lack of preparedness
standards and a baseline assessment of existing NCR-wide first responder
capacities that is linked to those standards.
Performance Goals for First Responders Needed to Assess Spending Benefits
As in other areas of the nation generally, NCR does not have a set of
accepted benchmarks (best practices) and performance goals that could be
used to identify desired goals and determine whether first responders have
the ability to respond to threats and emergencies with well-planned,
well-coordinated, and effective efforts that involve police, fire,
emergency medical, public health, and other personnel from multiple
jurisdictions. The Gilmore Commission's most recent report noted that
there is a continuing problem of a lack of clear guidance from the federal
level about the definition and objectives of preparedness, a process to
implement those objectives, and how states and localities will be
evaluated in meeting those objectives. The report states the need for a
coordinated system for the development, delivery, and administration of
programs that engages a broad range of stakeholders.
Over the past few years, some state and local officials and independent
research organizations have expressed an interest in some type of
performance standards or goals that could be used as guidelines for
measuring the quality and level of first responder preparedness, including
key gaps. However, in discussing "standards" for first responders, it is
useful to distinguish between three different types of measures that are
often lumped together in the discussion of standards.
Functional standards generally set up to measure such things as
functionality, quantity, weight, and extent and in the context of first
responders generally apply to equipment. Examples include the number of
gallons of water per minute that a fire truck can deliver or the ability
of a biohazard suit to filter out specific pathogens, such as anthrax.
Benchmarks are products, services, or work processes that are generally
recognized as representing best practices for the purposes of
organizational improvement. An example might be joint training of fire and
police for biohazard response-a means of achieving a specific performance
goal for responding to biohazard threats and incidents.
Performance goals are measurable objectives against which actual
achievement may be compared. An example might be the number of persons per
hour who could be decontaminated after a chemical attack. Realistic
training exercises could then be used to test the ability to meet that
objective.
Homeland security standards should include both functional standards and
performance goals. In February 2004, DHS adopted its first set of
functional standards for protective equipment. The eight standards,
previously developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), are
intended to provide minimum requirements for equipment. These standards
include NIOSH standards for three main categories of chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) respiratory protection equipment and five
NFPA standards for protective suits and clothing to be used in responding
to chemical, biological, and radiological attacks.
Performance and readiness standards are more complicated and difficult to
develop than functional standards. In a large, diverse nation, not all
regions of the nation require exactly the same level of preparedness
because, for example, not all areas of the nation face the same types and
levels of risks and, thus, first responder challenges. For example, first
responder performance goals and needs are likely to be different in New
York City and Hudson, New York. Thus, different levels of performance
goals may be needed for different types and levels of risk.
Recently, the administration has focused more attention on the development
of homeland security standards, including the more difficult performance
goals or standards. For example, DHS's recently issued strategic plan12
makes reference to establishing, implementing, and evaluating capabilities
through a system of national standards. Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 8 (December 2003) requires the development of a national
preparedness goal to include readiness metrics and a system for assessing
the nation's overall preparedness by the fiscal year 2006 budget
submission.
12U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Securing Our Homeland, Strategic
Plan 2004 (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).
Coordinated NCR-wide Plan Needed to Guide First Responder Spending
The lack of benchmarks and performance goals may contribute to
difficulties in meeting the second challenge in NCR-developing a
coordinated regionwide plan for determining how to spend federal funds
received and assess the benefit of that spending. A strategic plan for the
use of homeland security funds-whether in NCR or elsewhere-should be based
on established priorities, goals, and measures and align spending plans
with those priorities and goals. At the time of our review, such a
strategic plan had yet to be developed. Although ONCRC had developed a
regional spending plan for the UASI grants, this plan was not part of a
broader coordinated plan for spending federal grant funds and developing
first responder capacity and preparedness in NCR. The former ONCRC
Director said that ONCRC and the Senior Policy Group could have a greater
role in overseeing the use of other homeland security funds in the future.
Consistent Data on Funding and Spending Needed to Establish Accountability
There is no established process or means for regularly and reliably
collecting and reporting data on the amount of federal funds available to
first responders in each of NCR's eight jurisdictions, the planned and
actual use of those funds, and the criteria used to determine how the
funds would be spent. Reliable data are needed to establish
accountability, analyze gaps, and assess progress toward meeting
established performance goals. Credible data should also be used to
develop and revise plans and to set goals during the planning process.
Were these data available, the lack of standards against which to evaluate
the data would make it difficult to assess gaps.
It should be noted that the fragmented nature of the multiple federal
grants available to first responders-some awarded to states, some to
localities, some directly to first responder agencies-may make it more
difficult to collect and maintain regionwide data on the grant funds
received and the use of those funds in NCR. Our previous work suggests
that this fragmentation in federal grants may reinforce state and local
fragmentation and can also make it more difficult to coordinate and use
those multiple sources of funds to achieve specific objectives.13
13See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Reforming Federal
Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 3, 2003).
DHS Efforts to Assess First Responder Needs Did Not Include Feedback to
NCR Jurisdictions
NCR jurisdictions completed the Office for Domestic Preparedness State
Homeland Security Assessment (ODP assessment) in the summer of 2003. At
the time of our review, NCR jurisdictions said that they had not received
any feedback from ODP or ONCRC on the review of those assessments.
Preparedness expectations should be established based on likely threat and
risk scenarios and an analysis of the gap between current and needed
capabilities based on national guidelines. In keeping with the requirement
of the Homeland Security Act that DHS conduct an assessment of threats and
state and local response capabilities, risks, and needs with regard to
terrorist incidents, DHS developed the ODP State Homeland Security
Assessment and Strategy Program.14 The ODP assessment was aligned with the
six critical mission areas in the National Strategy for Homeland
Security,15 and generally followed the structure of a risk management
approach. The assessment used the same scenarios for all jurisdictions
nationwide, allowing ODP to compare different jurisdictions using the same
set of facts and assumptions. Of course, the scenarios used may not be
equally applicable to all jurisdictions nationwide.
The assessment collected data in three major areas: risk, capability, and
needs related to terrorism prevention. The risk assessment portion
includes threat and vulnerability assessments. The capability assessment
includes discipline-specific tasks for weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
events. The needs assessment portion covers five functional areas of
planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises. Supporting
materials and worksheets on a threat profile, capability to respond to
specific WMD, an equipment inventory, and training needs are provided to
assist local jurisdictions in completing the assessment.
A feedback loop is a key part of a risk management process. It involves
evaluating the assessment results to inform decision making and establish
priorities; it is not clear how the results of the assessment were used to
complete this process for NCR. ONCRC did not present any formal
14The State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Program is a refined
version of the assessment that was established in fiscal year 1999 for the
State and Local Domestic Preparedness Programs. The assessment was
intended to allow state and local jurisdictions to update their earlier
data to consider post-September 11, concerns, as well as to identify
progress on the priorities outlined in their initial homeland security
strategies.
15The six critical mission areas are Intelligence and Warning; Border and
Transportation Security, Domestic Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical
Infrastructure and Key Assets, Defending Against Catastrophic Threats, and
Emergency Preparedness and Response.
analysis of the gap in capabilities identified by the assessment, and
several NCR jurisdictions said they did not receive any feedback on the
results of the assessment for their individual jurisdictions. The former
ONCRC Director said that the results of the assessment for each of the NCR
jurisdictions were combined to establish priorities and develop the
strategy for the use of the UASI funds, but he did not provide any
information on how the individual assessments were combined or the
methodology used to analyze the assessment results. While the former
Director said the results of the assessment were used to develop the plan
for the use of the UASI funds within NCR, he said that they were not
applied beyond that one funding source to establish priorities for the use
of other federal grants.
Some Regional Planning Efforts Exist but Do Not Include Coordination for
Funding
While the NCR jurisdictions had emergency coordination practices and
procedures, such as mutual aid agreements, in place long before September
11,2001,16 the terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax events in NCR
highlighted the need for better coordination and communication within the
region. As a result, WashCOG developed a regional emergency coordination
plan (RECP) to facilitate coordination and communication for regional
incidents or emergencies. While this new plan and the related procedures
represent efforts to improve coordination, more comprehensive planning
would include a coordinated regional approach for the use of federal
homeland security funds.
NCR is one of the first regions in the country to prepare a regional
emergency coordination plan. The plan is intended to provide structure
through which the NCR jurisdictions can collaborate on planning,
communication, information sharing, and coordination activities before,
during, and after a regional emergency. RECP, which is based on FEMA's
Federal Response Plan, identifies 15 specific regional emergency support
functions, including transportation, hazardous materials, and law
enforcement. The Regional Incident Communication and Coordination System
(RICCS), which is included in the WashCOG plan, provides a system for
WashCOG members, the state of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
federal government, public agencies, and others to collaborate in
planning, communicating, sharing information, and coordinating activities
before, during, and after a regional incident or emergency. RICCS relies
on multiple means of communication, including
16Appendix II of this report describes some of these regional coordination
practices.
conference calling, secure Web sites, and wireless communications. The
system has been used on several occasions to notify local officials of
such events as a demonstration in downtown Washington, D.C., and the
October 2002 sniper incidents. For example, RICCS allowed regional school
systems to coordinate with one another regarding closure policies during
the sniper events.
Planning and Budgeting of Federal Grant Funds Is Not Coordinated among the
NCR Jurisdictions
Our work in NCR found that no regional coordination methods have been
developed for planning for the use of 15 of the 16 funding sources we
reviewed. While the region has experience with working together for
regional emergency preparedness and response, NCR officials told us that
they have not worked together to develop plans and coordinate expenditures
for the use of federal funds. Most NCR jurisdictions did not have a formal
overall plan for the use of these funds within their individual
jurisdictions. In addition, while the grant recipients are required to
report to the administering federal agencies on each individual grant, DHS
and ONCRC have not implemented a process to collect and analyze the
information reported for NCR as a whole. The one exception to this lack of
coordination is UASI, for which ONCRC developed a regional plan for the
use of the funds. Internal control standards support developing
documentation, such as plans, to assist in controlling management
operations and making decisions.17 Without this type of documentation, it
is difficult for ONCRC to monitor the overall use of funds within NCR and
to evaluate their effectiveness and plan for future use of grant funds.
While some NCR and ONCRC officials said that there was a need for DHS and
the NCR jurisdictions to establish controls over how emergency
preparedness grant funds are used in the region, they did not indicate any
plans to do so.
Within NCR, planning for the use of federal emergency and homeland
security grant funds is generally informal and is done separately by each
of the NCR jurisdictions. Most of the jurisdictions told us that they have
undocumented or informal plans for the uses of the federal grant monies
for emergency preparedness activities. Only two jurisdictions have formal
written plans that indicate how the jurisdiction would use its federal
homeland security grants. NCR states and local jurisdictions had various
budgets for uses of emergency preparedness grant funds they received
17See U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-0021.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November
1999).
from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2003. However, they did not
coordinate with one another in defining their emergency preparedness
needs, in developing their budgets, or in using the federal grant funds to
avoid unnecessary duplication of equipment and other resources within the
region. In general, budgeting for the use of federal emergency
preparedness grants was done on a grant-by-grant basis within each
jurisdiction and is largely based on requests from first responder and
emergency management officials. Budgets indicate how the individual
jurisdictions intend to spend funds from a specific grant but do not
indicate whether those budgets are based on any strategic plan or set of
priorities.
One Maryland county developed an overall plan for the use of federal
homeland security and emergency preparedness grants. The July 1, 2003,
homeland security strategy outlined the priorities for the county in using
federal emergency preparedness grant funds. However, it did not specify
grants or amounts for each of the initiatives. The priorities for such
funding were focused on equipping and training its first responders;
conducting exercises and drills for its government employees; training
other essential and critical government workers, as well as the citizens
and residents of the county; working vigorously to implement
recommendations from its Homeland Security Task Force; and solidifying the
county's relationships with other federal, state, and regional homeland
security entities.
While officials from other NCR jurisdictions do not have a formal plan,
some have established a process for reviewing proposals for the use of the
homeland security grants. For example, one Northern Virginia jurisdiction
recently adopted a planning process in which its Emergency Management
Coordination Committee, composed of the county's senior management team,
solicits budget proposals from first responder and emergency management
agencies for potential grant funds. This committee then makes funding
recommendations based upon a review of these proposals and their funding
priorities for the county. Officials from other jurisdictions described
similar processes for developing budget proposals, but they have not
developed longer-term or comprehensive strategic plans.
To determine how the NCR jurisdictions used the funds, we reviewed the use
of funds of the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Supplemental
Appropriation, which was the largest source of funding for the period of
our review. Each NCR jurisdiction used those funds to buy emergency
equipment for first responders. However, officials said they did not
coordinate on planning for these expenditures with the other NCR
jurisdictions. For example, five of the eight NCR jurisdictions planned to
either purchase or upgrade their command vehicles. One of the
jurisdictions allocated $310,000 for a police command bus and $350,000 for
a fire and rescue command bus; a neighboring jurisdiction allocated
$350,000 for a mobile command unit for its fire department; another
jurisdiction allocated $500,000 for a police command vehicle replacement;
a nearby jurisdiction allocated $149,000 to upgrade its incident command
vehicle; and its neighboring jurisdiction allocated $200,000 to modify and
upgrade its mobile command van. In another example, four nearby
jurisdictions allocated grant funds on hazardous response vehicles or
hazardous materials supplies that reflected costs of $155,289 for one
jurisdiction's rapid hazmat unit, $355,000 for a neighboring
jurisdiction's hazardous materials response vehicle, $550,000 for a
jurisdiction's fire and rescue hazmat unit vehicle, and $115,246 for a
jurisdiction's hazardous materials supplies. While such purchases might
not be duplicative, discussions among neighboring jurisdictions could have
facilitated a plan and determined whether these purchases were necessary
or whether the equipment purchased could be shared among the
jurisdictions, thereby freeing up grant dollars for other needed,
equipment to create greater combined capacity within the region.
Maximizing the use of resources entails avoiding unnecessary duplication
wherever possible. This requires some discussion and general agreement on
priorities, roles, and responsibilities among the jurisdictions. Some NCR
and ONCRC officials said they believed the NCR jurisdictions could plan
better to share resources and work to prevent redundancy while avoiding
gaps in inventory.
Data on Grants to NCR
Jurisdictions Were Not
Consistently Available
During our review, NCR jurisdictions and federal grantor agencies could
not consistently provide data on the 16 grants and funding sources within
the scope of our study, such as award amounts, budgets, and financial
records. The individual jurisdictions and ONCRC did not have systems in
place to identify and account for all federal grants that can be used to
enhance domestic preparedness in NCR and elsewhere. The lack of
consistently available budget data for all emergency preparedness and
homeland security grants limits the ability to analyze and assess the
impact of federal funding and to make management decisions to ensure the
effective use of federal grant dollars.
No Central Source Exists for Data on Emergency Preparedness Grants and
Information Varies by Jurisdiction
There is no central source within each jurisdiction or at the federal
level to identify all of the emergency preparedness grants that have been
allocated to NCR. At the local level, such information is needed to meet
legislative and regulatory reporting requirements for federal grant
expenditures of $300,000 or more.18 In addition, each grant has specific
reporting requirements, such as quarterly financial status reports,
semiannual program progress reports, and related performance information
to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62).
Moreover, federal grant financial system guidelines require that federal
agencies implement systems that include complete, accurate, and prompt
generation and maintenance of financial records and transactions. Those
federal system requirements also require timely and efficient access to
complete and accurate information, without extraneous material, to
internal and external parties that require that information.19 We asked
ONCRC, the Virginia and Maryland emergency management agencies, and the
eight NCR jurisdictions for data on the emergency preparedness grants
allocated in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. ONCRC could not provide a
complete list of grants allocated to the NCR as a whole, and the state
emergency management agencies did not provide complete lists of grants for
NCR jurisdictions within their respective states. For example, the
Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) provided data on the federal
grants for Montgomery and Prince George's counties that were allocated
through the state. MEMA is not required to oversee grants not allocated
through the state and, therefore, it did not provide grant data on all of
the federal grants provided to the two counties. Similarly, the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) did not provide data on all of
the grants to the jurisdictions in Virginia. We compiled grant data for
the NCR jurisdictions by combining information received from the NCR
jurisdictions and the state emergency management agencies. This involved
contacting several different budget officials at the NCR jurisdictions and
at the state level.
The availability of emergency preparedness grant data at the local level
also varied by NCR jurisdiction, and complete data were not readily
18Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-156 (1996)). Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-133, as revised June 27, 2003. For fiscal
years ending after December 31, 2003, the requirements apply to federal
grant expenditures of $500,000 or more.
19Joint Financial Management Improvement Program Federal Financial
Management System Requirements: Grant Financial System Requirements
(JFMIP-SR-00-3, June 2000).
available. After repeated requests for the grant awards, budgets, and
plans over a period of 7 months, NCR jurisdictions or the State emergency
management agencies provided us with the grant amounts awarded to them
during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Some jurisdictions provided
documentation on amounts awarded, but did not provide supporting budget
detail for individual grants to substantiate the amounts awarded.
Regarding budgets, we obtained a range of information from the NCR
jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions provided budget documentation on all the
federal grants that were allocated to them; others provided budget
documentation on some of their grants; and two did not provide any grant
budget documentation. This lack of supporting documentation indicates a
lack of financial controls that should be in place to provide accurate and
timely data on federal grants.
Guidance on financial management practices20 notes that to effectively
evaluate government programs and spending, Congress and other decision
makers must have timely, accurate, and reliable financial information on
program cost and performance. Moreover, the Comptroller General's
standards for internal control state that "program managers need both
operational and financial data to determine whether they are meeting their
agencies' strategic and annual performance plans and meeting their goals
for accountability for effective and efficient use of resources." These
standards stress the importance of this information to make operating
decisions, monitor performance, and allocate resources and that "pertinent
information is identified, captured, and distributed to the right people
in sufficient detail, in the right form, and at the appropriate time to
enable them to carry out their duties and responsibilities efficiently and
effectively." Having this information could help NCR officials make
informed decisions about the use of grant funds in a timely manner.
20See U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Creating Value
through World-Class Financial Management, GAO/AIMD-00-134 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 2000).
Assessing the Remaining Gaps in NCR is Difficult without Guidance,
Reliable Data, or Analysis
Without national standards, guidance on likely scenarios for which to be
prepared, plans, and reliable data, NCR officials assess their gaps in
preparedness based on their own judgment. The lack of standards and
consistently available data makes it difficult for the NCR officials to
use the results of DHS's ODP assessment to identify the most critical gaps
in capacities and to verify the results of the assessment and establish a
baseline that could then be used to develop plans to address outstanding
needs. Consequently, it is difficult for us or ONCRC to determine what
gaps, if any, remain in the emergency response capacities and preparedness
within the NCR. Each jurisdiction provided us with information on their
perceived gaps and specific needs for improving emergency preparedness.
However, there is no consistent method for identifying these gaps among
jurisdictions within NCR. Some officials from NCR jurisdictions said that
in the absence of a set of national standards, they use the standards and
accreditation guidelines for disciplines such as police, fire, hazardous
materials, and emergency management in assessing their individual needs.
While these standards may provide some general guidance, some NCR
officials said that they need more specific guidance from DHS, including
information about threats, guidance on how to set priorities, and
standards. Some of the jurisdictions reported that they have conducted
their own assessments of need based on their knowledge of threat and risk.
Officials from other jurisdictions said they have used FEMA's Local
Capability Assessment for Readiness or the hazardous materials assessment
to identify areas for improvement.21
Several jurisdictions told us that they identify remaining gaps based on
requests from emergency responder agencies. Other jurisdictions said that
they have established emergency management councils or task forces to
review their preparedness needs and begin to develop a more strategic plan
for funding those needs. Officials of most NCR jurisdictions commonly
identified the need for more comprehensive and redundant communications
systems and upgraded emergency operations centers. Some officials of NCR
jurisdictions also expressed an interest in training exercises for the
region as a whole to practice joint response among the Maryland and
Virginia jurisdictions and the District of Columbia.
21FEMA's Local Capability Assessment for Readiness is a self-assessment
tool that local jurisdictions can use to identify emergency management
program strengths and areas needing improvement. The tool encourages
collaborative discussions among state, local, and state emergency
management agencies and allows emergency managers to evaluate the status
of their partnerships with other jurisdictions.
DHS and ONCRC Appear to Have Had a Limited Role in Promoting Regional
Coordination in NCR
DHS and ONCRC appear to have played a limited role in fostering a
coordinated approach to the use of federal domestic preparedness funds in
NCR. According to the former ONCRC Director, ONCRC has focused its initial
coordination efforts on the development of a strategy for the use of the
UASI funds of $60.5 million in NCR. However, ONCRC efforts to date have
not addressed about $279.5 million in other federal domestic preparedness
funding that we reviewed. According to officials from one NCR
jurisdiction, they would like additional support and guidance from DHS on
setting priorities for the use of federal funds.
ONCRC Has Focused on Planning for UASI Funding
One of ONCRC's primary responsibilities is to oversee and coordinate
federal programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for state, local,
and regional authorities in NCR and to cooperate with and integrate the
efforts of elected officials of NCR. ONCRC established a governance
structure to receive input from state and local authorities through a
Senior Policy Group composed of representatives designated by the
Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of Washington, D.C. The
Senior Policy Group developed the UASI strategy to fund a range of
projects that would enhance regional capabilities to improve preparedness
and reduce the vulnerability of NCR to terrorist attacks. (See table 5.)
According to ONCRC's former Director, the strategy for UASI was an attempt
to force a new paradigm, by developing a regional plan for the use of the
funds, with input from outside organizations in addition to
representatives from the local jurisdictions. The plan for the $60.5
million allocated funds for projects, including planning, training,
equipment, and exercises to benefit the region as a whole, as opposed to
allocating funds to meet the individual needs of each NCR jurisdiction
separately. The former Director said that funding allocations to these
regional projects were based on a summary of the results of the assessment
that was completed by each NCR jurisdiction.
NCR Jurisdictions Expressed Mixed Views on ONCRC's Effectiveness
Officials from NCR state and local jurisdictions expressed mixed opinions
on the effectiveness of ONCRC. Officials from a Virginia jurisdiction
expressed a need for more guidance on how to set priorities and allocate
federal domestic preparedness funding. District of Columbia officials said
ONCRC has done a good job of coordination and has been very supportive,
given its small staff and the newness of the office. Some noted that
ONCRC's role is still evolving. For example, some officials in one
jurisdiction said that ONCRC's long-term mission has not yet been
finalized and ONCRC is still in the process of establishing its role
within NCR. The officials believe that ONCRC has significant potential for
leading
and coordinating homeland security efforts in the region. They recommended
that ONCRC become a routine part of regional governance and provide
guidance to local governments, focus resources, and enhance the ability of
localities to work together to implement homeland security strategies. The
officials noted that ONCRC's efforts were motivated primarily by the
leadership of the Director and had not become routine.
We discussed NCR officials' views with the former ONCRC Director. He
acknowledged that ONCRC's initial efforts to coordinate the use of federal
grant funds in NCR concentrated on implementing UASI. He said that UASI
presented an improvement over previous funding allocations in NCR by
allocating funds on a regional basis-rather than jurisdictional
perceptions-that considered the results of an assessment of NCR
preparedness levels and requirements. The Director said that ONCRC could
consider coordinating for other federal programs in addition to UASI, but
he did not indicate any concrete plans to do so.
Conclusions
The nation's ongoing vulnerability to terrorist attacks after September
11, 2001, is magnified in NCR because it is the location of critical
government infrastructure, national and international institutions, and
significant landmarks. In addition to NCR, there are several other
highthreat urban areas that share similar vulnerabilities, and improving
homeland security is a concern for the entire nation. The challenges faced
in NCR a lack of performance standards; baseline information on
preparedness and threat and risk scenarios, plans based on those tools,
and reliable data to report on the status of initiativesare
fundamental obstacles in achieving desired levels of preparedness.
Furthermore, NCR's complex structure requires working with individual
political jurisdictions with varying experience in managing homeland
security funds and responding to emergencies. This adds to the challenge
of developing and implementing a coordinated plan for enhancing first
responder capacity.
Effective regional and local management of the large amounts of available
homeland security funding is an important element in improving our
national preparedness. However, it is difficult for regional coordinators
and local jurisdictions to avoid duplication and inefficiency in the
procurement of goods and services without a knowledge of all the grants
that can be leveraged to fight the terror threat; without centralized,
standard records to account for the use of those grants; and without a
coordinated regional plan for using those funds. It is also difficult to
target funding in a way that ensures it is used for goods and services
that enhance preparedness and response without current threat information
or
scenarios and standards that reflect performance goals for preparedness
and response. The approach taken in planning for the use of the UASI
funds, with its emphasis on regional allocations, is a step toward
improved coordination that could provide a more rational and effective
method for enhancing emergency preparedness within NCR. In addition, DHS's
recently released strategic plan and the endorsement of standards for
equipment represent steps toward addressing some of the challenges noted
in this report. However, more needs to be done to develop plans, monitor
the use of funds, and assess against goals and standards to evaluate
progress toward improved homeland security.
To help ensure that emergency preparedness grants and associated funds are
managed in a way that maximizes their effectiveness, we recommend that the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security take the following three
actions in order to fulfill the department's statutory responsibilities in
the NCR:
Recommendations for Executive Action
o work with the NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic
plan to establish goals and priorities for enhancing first responder
capacities that can be used to guide the use of federal emergency
preparedness funds;
o monitor the plan's implementation to ensure that funds are used in a
way that promotes effective expenditures that are not unnecessarily
duplicative; and
o identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness and evaluate the
effectiveness of expenditures in meeting those needs by adapting standards
and preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios for NCR and
conducting assessments based on them.
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
On April 29, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of
DHS and to ONCRC's Senior Policy Group for comment. On May 19, 2004, we
received comments from DHS's GAO/OIG Liaison and the Senior Policy Group
that are reprinted in appendix III and IV, respectively.
DHS and the Senior Policy Group generally agreed with our recommendations
but also stated that NCR jurisdictions had worked cooperatively together
to identify opportunities for synergies and lay a foundation for meeting
the challenges noted in the report. DHS and the Senior Policy Group also
agreed that there is a need to continue to improve preparedness by
developing more specific and improved preparedness standards, clearer
performance goals, and an improved
method for tracking regional initiatives. In addition, DHS identified the
following concerns:
o DHS stated that the report demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding
regarding homeland security grant programs in NCR and the oversight role
and responsibilities of ONCRC. DHS stated that GAO fails to distinguish
between funds provided to specific jurisdictions for local priorities and
enhancements and funds intended to address regional needs. We disagree.
The responsibilities of ONCRC are outlined in the Homeland Security Act
and on page 8 of this report. These include activities such as
coordinating with federal, state, and regional agencies and the private
sector to ensure adequate planning and execution of domestic preparedness
activities among these agencies and entities, and assessing and advocating
for resources that state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR need
to implement efforts to secure the homeland. The responsibilities further
require an annual report to Congress that identifies resources required to
implement homeland security efforts in NCR, assesses progress made in
implementing these efforts, and makes recommendations regarding additional
resources needed. In order to fulfill this mandate, ONCRC needs
information on how all grant monies have been used, not just those
designated specifically for regional purposes, information on how those
expenditures have enhanced first responder capacity in the region, and an
ability to coordinate all federal domestic preparedness funding sources to
NCR.
o DHS noted that our report recognizes the importance of a coordinated
regionwide plan for establishing first responder goals, needs, and
priorities and assessing the benefits of all expenditures to enhance first
responder capabilities, and our review found that no such coordination
methods have been developed. DHS stated that this task is accomplished by
the formal NCR Review and Recommendation Process, adopted on February 4,
2004, which ensures coordination of resources among all jurisdictions
within NCR. DHS provided us information on this process at our exit
conference on April 15, 2004. DHS explained that the Review and
Recommendation Process was developed for the UASI program, and ONCRC and
NCR officials are in the process of extending it to additional federal
programs. While this process could be used to facilitate the development
of a regional plan in the future, the process has not included a review of
how federal grants have already been used or the development of a
coordinated regional plan for establishing needs and priorities and
assessing benefits of all federal domestic preparedness programs.
Finally, the comments noted a correction to our draft regarding the
establishment of the Senior Policy Group, and we have revised the report
accordingly.
As agreed with your office, unless you release this report earlier, we
will not distribute it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that
time, we will send copies to relevant congressional committees and
subcommittees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, to members of the
NCR Senior Policy Group, and to other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it further,
please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Patricia A. Dalton, Director, (202)
512-6737. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
William O. Jenkins, Jr. Director, Homeland Security
and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
We met with and obtained documentation from officials of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
and the Office for Domestic Preparedness; the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (WashCOG); the homeland security advisers and
officials from the emergency management agencies for the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; and first responder officials from the
National Capital Region (NCR) jurisdictions, including the District of
Columbia; the city of Alexandria; and the counties of Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and Prince William in Virginia; and Montgomery and Prince Georges
counties in Maryland.
To determine what federal funds have been provided to local jurisdictions
for emergency preparedness, for what specific purposes, and from what
sources, we met with officials from the DHS's Office for National Capital
Region Coordination (ONCRC), ONCRC's Senior Policy Group, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), homeland security advisers for the
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, and first responders from
eight jurisdictions within NCR-the District of Columbia; the city of
Alexandria; and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Montgomery,
and Prince George's counties. We identified 25 emergency preparedness
programs that provided funding to NCR, and we selected 16 for our detailed
review. These 16 programs were selected to cover a range of programs,
including the largest funding sources; grants provided for general
purposes such as equipment and training; and grants provided for specific
purposes, such as fire prevention and bioterrorism. We obtained and
reviewed the emergency preparedness grant data for the period of October
2001 through September 30, 2003, including grant awards, budgets, and
detailed plans for purchases, such as equipment and supplies,
communications, and training and exercises. To the extent possible, we
independently verified the data we received on funds available and the
planned and actual use of those funds by comparing federal, state, and
local data sources. Our review revealed the lack of consistent data
reported by the jurisdictions in the region and the lack of a central
source for such data. For example, NCR state and local jurisdictions vary
in their ability to provide budget information on the emergency
preparedness and homeland security grants they received. Also, DHS and
ONCRC do not have systems in place to account for all federal homeland
security and emergency preparedness grants covering their respective
jurisdictions.
To determine the regional coordination practices and remaining challenges
to implementing regional preparedness programs in NCR, we met with
officials from WashCOG, DHS, Virginia, Maryland, and local NCR
jurisdictions. Oral and documentary evidence obtained from these officials
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
has provided us with an overall perspective on the status of coordination
for homeland security within the region and remaining challenges to
implementing effective homeland security measures in NCR. We also talked
with officials about regional programs that have been successfully
implemented in NCR.
To determine the gaps that exist in emergency preparedness in NCR, we
obtained oral and documentary information from officials of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; DHS; the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia emergency management agencies; homeland
security advisers; and local first responders. Our discussions with these
officials provide their views of the state of preparedness in NCR. We also
obtained information from these officials regarding their plans to address
those emergency preparedness gaps. In addition, we reviewed relevant
reports, studies, and guidelines to provide context for assessing
preparedness. However, there are no uniform standards or criteria by which
to measure gaps, and self-reported information from local jurisdictions
may not be objective.
To determine DHS's role in enhancing the preparedness of NCR through
coordinating the use of federal emergency preparedness grants, assessing
preparedness, providing guidance, targeting funds to enhance preparedness,
and monitoring the use of those funds, we met with DHS, as well as with
state homeland security advisers, state emergency management officials,
and local first responders. We obtained and analyzed verbal and
documentary evidence on the ODP assessment completed by the NCR
jurisdictions, and how that assessment was used, as well as other actions
DHS had taken to facilitate homeland security coordination within NCR.
Finally, we contacted the District of Columbia Auditor, the Maryland
Office of Legislative Audits, and the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Commission to inform them of our review and determine if the
agencies had related past or ongoing work. None of the agencies had
conducted or planned to conduct reviews of emergency preparedness or
homeland security in the NCR.
We conducted our review from June 2003 to February 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions' Arrangements to Respond to Public Safety
Emergencies
Regional Bodies Facilitate Coordination Efforts in Other Areas
NCR jurisdictions over the years have implemented various mechanisms to
ensure planned and coordinated interjurisdictional approaches to the
activities of first responders and other public safety professionals.
These efforts involve the activities of regional planning and coordinating
bodies, such as the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(WashCOG), the regional metropolitan planning organization, and mutual
assistance agreements between the first responders of neighboring NCR
jurisdictions.
Planning and coordinating bodies have existed in NCR for many years.
WashCOG is a regional entity that includes all the jurisdictions within
the region. Other planning and coordinating organizations exist in both
Maryland and Virginia.
WashCOG is a nonprofit association representing local governments in the
District of Columbia, suburban Maryland, and Northern Virginia. Founded in
1957, WashCOG is supported by financial contributions from its 19
participating local governments, federal and state grants and contracts,
and donations from foundations and the private sector. WashCOG's members
are the governing officials from local NCR governments, plus area
delegation members from Maryland and Virginia legislatures, the U. S.
Senate, and the House of Representatives. According to WashCOG, the
council provides a focus for action and develops regional responses to
such issues as the environment, affordable housing, economic development,
health and family concerns, human services, population growth, public
safety, and transportation. The full membership, acting through its board
of directors, sets WashCOG policies. The National Capital Region
Preparedness Council is an advisory body that makes policy recommendations
to the board of directors and makes procedural and other recommendations
to various regional agencies with emergency preparedness responsibilities
or operational response authority. The council also oversees the regional
emergency coordination plan.
Other regional coordinating bodies exist in the National Capital Region,
including the Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC), the Maryland
Terrorism Forum, and the Maryland Emergency Management Assistance Compact.
NVRC is one of the 21 planning district commissions in Virginia. A
42-member board of commissioners composed of elected officials and citizen
representatives all appointed by 14 member localities establishes NVRC's
programs and policies. The commission is supported by annual contributions
from its member local governments, by appropriations of the Virginia
General Assembly, and by grants from
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions' Arrangements to Respond to Public Safety
Emergencies
Mutual Aid Agreements Are in Place within NCR
federal and state governments and private foundations. According to a NVRC
official, the commission established an emergency management council to
coordinate programs, funding issues, and equipment needs. The emergency
management council is composed of local chief administrative officers,
fire chiefs, police chiefs, and public works managers.
In 1998, the Governor of Maryland established the Maryland Terrorism Forum
to prepare the state to respond to acts of terrorism, especially those
involving weapons of mass destruction. The forum also serves as the key
means of integrating all services within federal, state, and local
entities as well as key private organizations. The forum's executive
committee, composed of agency directors and cabinet members, provides
policy guidance and recommendations to the steering committee; which
addresses policy concerns. According to Maryland Emergency Management
Agency (MEMA) officials, the forum's first focus was on planning in terms
of equipment interoperability; evacuation planning; and commonality of
standards, procedures, and vocabulary. The forum is in the process of
hiring a full-time planner for preparedness assessment and strategic
planning for the region.
The terrorist attacks in New York City and on the Pentagon on September
11, 2001, security preparations during the World Bank demonstrations, and
the sniper incidents in the summer and fall of 2002 highlighted the need
for enhanced mutual cooperation and aid in responding to emergencies.
Several NCR jurisdiction public safety officials told us that mutual aid
agreements have worked well and are examples of regional programs that
have been successfully implemented in NCR. Mutual aid agreements provide a
structure for assistance and for sharing resources among jurisdictions in
preparing for and responding to emergencies and disasters. Because
individual jurisdictions may not have all the resources they need to
acquire equipment and respond to all types of emergencies and disasters,
these agreements allow for resources to be regionally distributed and
quickly deployed. These agreements provide opportunities for state and
local governments to share services, personnel, supplies, and equipment.
Mutual aid agreements can be both formal and informal and provide
cooperative planning, training, and exercises in preparation for
emergencies and disasters.
For over 40 years, jurisdictions in the National Capital Region have been
supporting one another through mutual aid agreements. According to a
WashCOG official, the agency has brokered and facilitated most of these
agreements and acts as an informal secretariat for mutual aid issues.
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions' Arrangements to Respond to Public Safety
Emergencies
According to WashCOG, there are currently 21 mutual aid agreements in
force among one or more of the 18 member jurisdictions, covering one or
more issues. These can be as broad as a police services support agreement
among 12 jurisdictions and as restricted as a two-party agreement relating
to control over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. In September 2001, for example,
WashCOG member jurisdictions developed planning guidance for health system
response to a bioterrorism event in NCR. The purpose of this guidance is
to strengthen the health care response systems allowing them to, among
other things, improve early recognition and provide mass care. According
to WashCOG, the planning guidance was developed through the cooperative
effort of more than 225 individuals representing key government and
private elements with NCR that would likely be involved should such an
event occur.
The Maryland Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a mutual aid
compact established to help Maryland's local jurisdictions support one
another with their resources during emergencies and disasters and
facilitate efficient operational procedures. The compact establishes
partnerships among local jurisdictions so that resources can be requested
and provided in response to emergencies and disasters. In addition to
helping local governments and their emergency response agencies develop
risk management decisions, the compact provides a framework that will
increase accessibility for maximum compensation in federally declared
disasters. The compact, established by legislation in June 2002, is
modeled after the Emergency Management Assistance Compact with 48 states
and two U.S. territories participating in interstate mutual aid.
Appendix III: Comments from the
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region's Senior Policy
Group
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
(440221)
William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director (202) 512-8757
Patricia A. Dalton, Director, (202) 512-6737
In addition to those mentioned above, Ernie Hazera and Amelia Shachoy
(Strategic Issues) and Wendy Johnson, Jack Bagnulo, David Brown,
R. Rochelle Burns (Homeland Security and Justice) made key
contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting 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.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***