Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to
Better Manage First Responder Grants in the National Capital
Region (24-JUN-04, GAO-04-904T).
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-04-904T
ACCNO: A10635
TITLE: Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning and Standards
Needed to Better Manage First Responder Grants in the National
Capital Region
DATE: 06/24/2004
SUBJECT: Counterterrorism
Emergency preparedness
Federal funds
Grants
Interagency relations
Terrorism
Homeland security
******************************************************************
** 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-04-904T
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Testimony
Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT HOMELAND SECURITY
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to Better Manage First Responder
Grants in the National Capital Region
Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
GAO-04-904T
Highlights of GAO-04-904T, a testimony before 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-04-904T
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].
June 24, 2004
HOMELAND SECURITY
Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to Better Manage First Responder
Grants In the National Capital Region
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.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the results of our work on the
management of first responder grants in the National Capital Region (NCR).
Our report is being released today, and my testimony highlights the major
findings and recommendations of that report. 1
Our report addressed the following questions:
o What federal funds have been allocated to local jurisdictions in 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 the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) 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 these questions, we met with and obtained documentation from
officials of DHS including its Office for National Capital Region
Coordination (ONCRC), the Senior Policy Group, the Metropolitan Council of
Governments, state emergency management agencies, and first responder
officials from NCR jurisdictions. We identified 25 emergency preparedness
programs that provided funding to NCR jurisdictions in fiscal years 2002
and 2003, and we selected 16 of them for 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 purposes, such as fire
prevention and bioterrorism. We collected and analyzed grant data from
federal, state, and local sources; and reviewed relevant reports, studies,
and guidelines on homeland security and domestic preparedness.
1See Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the
National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and
Performance Goals, GAO-04-433, (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004),
We conducted our review from June 2003 through February 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary o In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the DHS, the Department of
Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services awarded about
$340 million through 16 grants to NCR jurisdictions. Of these funds, $60.5
million were from the Urban Area Security Initiative grant, designated for
region-wide needs, and the Office of National Capital Region Coordination
has developed a regional plan for their use. The remaining funds, about
$279.5 million, were available to local jurisdictions for a wide variety
of needs, such as equipment and training, and local jurisdictions
determined how these funds were to be spent. Local jurisdictions used or
planned to use monies from those grants to buy equipment and to implement
training and exercises for the area's first responders, as well as improve
planning for responding to a terrorist event. But, spending for these
purposes was not generally based on a coordinated plan for enhancing
regional first responder capacities and preparedness.
o ONCRC and the 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. These challenges are (1) a
lack of preparedness standards; (2) a coordinated region-wide plan for
establishing first responder performance goals, needs, and priorities and
assessing the benefits of expenditures in enhancing first responder
capabilities; and (3) the lack of a readily available, reliable source of
data on the federal grant funds available to first responders in NCR,
budget plans and criteria used to determine spending priorities, and
actual expenditures. Without the standards, a region-wide plan, and needed
data on spending, it is extremely difficult to determine whether NCR first
responders have the ability to respond to threats and emergencies with
well-planned, well-coordinated, and effective efforts that involve a
variety of first responder disciplines from NCR jurisdictions.
o During our review, we could identify no reliable data on preparedness
gaps in the NCR, which of those gaps were most important, and the status
of efforts to close those gaps. The baseline data needed to assess those
gaps had not been fully developed or made available on a NCR-wide basis.
o 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.
ONCRC has focused principally on developing a plan for using the Urban
Area Security Initiative funds. In its comments on a draft of our report,
DHS said that a governance structure approved in February 2004, should
accomplish essential region-wide coordination.
Background
Since September 11, 2001, the federal government, state and local
governments, and a range of independent research organizations have agreed
on the need for a coordinated intergovernmental approach to allocating the
nation's resources to address the threat of terrorism and improve our
security. The need for a coordinated approach was most recently stated in
the report of the Homeland Security Advisory Council,2 released earlier
this month:
Arguably, while each at-risk locality must be provided adequate resources
to effectively fight this war, no single jurisdiction or response
discipline can fight it alone. Effective homeland security efforts require
continuous regional collaboration and coordination.
Such an 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, 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. In addition, many aspects of DHS'
2U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Homeland Security Advisory
Council, A Report from the Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security
Funding (Washington, D.C.: June 2004), p. 12.
ONCRC Responsibilities Include Assessing Capabilities and Advocating for
o
Needed Resources
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 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 for Homeland Security. The Homeland
Security Act established ONCRC within DHS to oversee and coordinate
federal programs for, and relationships with, federal, state, local, and
regional authorities in the NCR.3 Specifically, ONCRC was mandated to
coordinate the activities of DHS relating to NCR, including cooperating
with the DHS' Office for State and Local Government Coordination;
o coordinate with federal agencies in the NCR on terrorism preparedness
to ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution
of the federal role in domestic preparedness activities;
o coordinate 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;
o serve 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.4
With regard to resource assessments and needs, the NCR's responsibilities
also include
o assessing and advocating for resources needed by state, local, and
regional authorities in the NCR to implement efforts to secure the
homeland and
3P.L. 107-296 S:882.
4The Office of National Capital Region Coordination was also mandated to
provide 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;
and develop 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 submitting an annual report to Congress that (1) identifies resources
required to fully implement homeland security efforts, (2) assesses
progress in implementing homeland security efforts in the NCR, and (3)
includes recommendations to Congress regarding additional resources needed
to fully implement homeland security efforts in the NCR.
Grants Available to In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 16 separate federal
grant programs conveyed about $340 million to state and local emergency
management, law NCR Jurisdictions and enforcement, fire, public health,
and other emergency response agencies
Their Use
Challenges to Using Coordinated, Effective Use of Federal Grants in NCR
in NCR. Two funding sources-the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (almost $230 million) and the fiscal
year 2003 Urban Area Security Initiative ($60.5 million) accounted for
about 85 percent of those funds. The Urban Area Security Initiative funds
were designated for regional use, and a plan has been developed for using
the funds to benefit the region as a whole. These funds have been targeted
for equipment ($26.5 million), planning ($12.4 million), exercises ($4
million), and administrative costs ($1.8 million), among other things.
The other grant programs were not specifically designated for regional
purposes, and spending for these funds was determined by individual local
jurisdictions. These funds were available for such purposes as purchasing
additional equipment and supplies for first responders; planning,
coordinating, and evaluating exercises; training first responders; funding
the emergency preparedness planning efforts and administration; and
providing technical assistance. NCR jurisdictions reported using or
planning to use these funds to purchase a range of equipment-for example,
vehicles and communications equipment-supplies, training, and technical
assistance services.
In our report, we discuss issues associated with managing federal first
responder grants in NCR, assessing gaps in first responder capacities and
preparedness in the region, and the role of the Office for National
Capital Region Coordination in coordinating and assessing efforts to
enhance first responder capacity across NCR. Effectively managing first
responder federal grants funds requires the ability to measure progress
and provide accountability for the use of public funds. A 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. 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. The purpose of these efforts with regard to
first responder grant funds to be able to answer three basic, but
difficult, questions:
o For what types of threats and emergencies should first responders be
prepared?
o What is required-for example, coordination, equipment, training-to be
prepared for these threats and emergencies?
o 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.
Lack of Standards, Plans, and Data Limit Effective Grant Management to
Guide First Responder Spending in NCR
The region faces significant challenges in managing homeland security
dollars. ONCRC and NCR 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, a lack of preparedness standards for both equipment and performance
means that it is difficult to assess first responder capabilities,
identify gaps in those capabilities, and measure progress in closing those
gaps. 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.
Second, a strategic plan for the use of homeland security funds-whether in
NCR or elsewhere-should be based on established goals, priorities, and
measures, and align spending plans with those priorities and goals. At the
time of our review, ONCRC had developed a regional spending plan for the
Urban Area Security Initiative grants, but 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 lack of benchmarks
and performance goals may contribute to difficulties in
Guidance, Reliable Data Needed to Assess Remaining Gaps in First Responder
Capabilities
developing a coordinated region-wide plan for determining how to spend
federal funds and assessing the benefits of that spending.
Third, there is no established process or means for regularly and reliably
collecting data on (1) the amounts of first responder grants available to
each jurisdiction and (2) the budget plans and criteria used for
determining spending allocations and budget priorities. Reliable data are
needed to establish accountability, analyze gaps, and assess progress
toward meeting established performance goals. Without such data, it is
difficult to verify the results of preparedness assessments and to
establish a baseline that could be used to develop plans to address
outstanding needs. 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 local first responder
agencies-may make it more difficult to collect and maintain region-wide
data on grant funds received and the use of those funds in NCR.
Without national standards, guidance on likely threats and scenerios for
which to be prepared, coordinated plans, and reliable data, it is
difficult for us or ONCRC to determine what gaps, if any, remain in the
emergency response capacities and preparedness within NCR.
Determining the existence of gaps in NCR's emergency preparedness is
difficult currently because there is little baseline data on the region's
preparedness, and DHS's Office for National Capital Region Coordination
does not have information on how NCR localities used federal grant dollars
to enhance their capacities or preparedness. Even if those data were
available, a lack of standards against which to evaluate the data would
also have made it difficult to assess any gaps. The Office for Domestic
Preparedness collected information on regional security risks and needs
for NCR jurisdictions, and ONCRC based funding decisions for the Urban
Area Security Initiative on the results. However, as already noted, it is
not clear how the Urban Area Security Initiative spending plan links to
the actual and planned uses for the other funding sources that comprised
about $279.5 million of the $340 million in federal homeland security
grants to the NCR during fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
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. Several jurisdictions told us that they identify remaining gaps based
on requests from emergency responder agencies. Other jurisdictions
DHS and ONCRC Appear to Have Had Limited Role in Promoting Regional
Coordination in NCR
said they have established emergency management councils or task forces to
review their preparedness needs and are developing 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.
We recognize that NCR is a complex multijurisdictional area comprising the
District of Columbia and surrounding county and city jurisdictions in
Maryland and Virginia. The region is the home to the federal government,
many national landmarks, and military installations. Coordination within
this region presents the challenge of working with numerous jurisdictions
that vary in size, political organization, and experience with managing
large emergencies.
According to emergency management officials we contacted, DHS' Office for
National Capital Region Coordination could play a potentially important
role in assisting them to implement a coordinated, well-planned effort in
using federal resources to improve the region's preparedness. In our view,
meeting ONCRC's statutory mandate would fulfill such a key responsibility.
We recognize that the Office for National Capital Region Coordination was
created about 15 months ago, and that some start-up time has been
required. To date, however, it appears that ONCRC's efforts have not
focused on assessing what has been accomplished with funds available
within NCR to date and identifying what needs remain and for what
purposes. ONCRC has concentrated its efforts on developing a coordinated
assessment and plan for the use of Urban Area Security Initiative funds.
Although we believe that those steps are important for rationalizing and
prioritizing the expenditure of homeland security dollars designated for
region-wide use, ONCRC's efforts generally do not address expenditures
from the majority of the homeland security grant dollars received in NCR.
In addition, it is difficult for the ONCRC to meet its statutory
responsibilities without an NCR emergency preparedness baseline, a
region-wide plan for prioritizing expenditures and assessing their
benefits, and reliable data on funds that are available and those have
been spent.
According to DHS, a governance structure was approved in February 2004
that will provide the essential region-wide coordination that is
necessary.
Our Recommendations
o
o
o
Concluding Comments
Our report contains several recommendations. 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 to
fulfill DHS's statutory responsibilities in NCR:
Work with 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.
Monitor the plan's implementation to ensure that funds are used in a way
that promotes effective expenditures that are not unnecessarily
duplicative.
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.
In their comments on a draft of our report, DHS and the Senior Policy
Group generally agreed with our recommendations, but also said that NCR
jurisdictions had worked cooperatively together to identify opportunities
for synergies and lay a foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the
report. The Senior Policy Group noted the challenge and critical
importance of integrating private sector initiatives as part of the
broader effort. 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. They believe the
governance process now in place will accomplish essential regional
coordination.
Coordinated planning for the use of federal grant funds and monitoring the
results achieved with those funds are fundamental for assessing and
building the needed first responder capacity of the region to prepare for,
mitigate, respond to, and recover from major emergency events in the
region-whether the result of nature, accident, or terrorist act. The
urgent nature of the security risk to the National Capital Region requires
a coordinated, well-planned approach to the expenditure of federal first
responder grants. To maximize the positive impact of such federal dollars,
duplication needs to be minimized, available resources used to the maximum
extent possible, and a strategic, region-wide plan based on an
assessment of preparedness gaps developed to guide those expenditures.
Assessments of the current status of emergency preparedness and of any
existing preparedness gaps require the existence and application of
various types of standards. DHS's Office for National Capital Region
Coordination has a significant, statutorily mandated role in meeting those
requirements. It has made a good first step in developing a region-wide
plan for the use of the Urban Area Initiative Grants. However, information
and analysis of planned and actual expenditures by local NCR jurisdictions
is also needed to develop a region-wide plan for the use of federal
grants.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
Contacts and For questions regarding this testimony, please contact
William O. Jenkins, Jr., on (202) 512-8777 or Patricia A. Dalton,
Director, on (202) 512-6737. Acknowledgments Other individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Amelia Shachoy, Ernie Hazera,
John Bagnulo, and Wendy Johnson.
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.
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. ***