Emergency Management: Observations on DHS's Preparedness for	 
Catastrophic Disasters (11-JUN-08, GAO-08-868T).		 
                                                                 
The Homeland Security Act was enacted in November 2002, creating 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to improve homeland	 
security following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on  
the United States. The act centralized the leadership of many	 
homeland security activities under a single federal department	 
and, accordingly, DHS has the dominant role in implementing this 
national strategy. This testimony discusses the status of DHS's  
actions in fulfilling its responsibilities to (1) establish	 
policies to define roles and responsibilities for national	 
emergency preparedness efforts and prepare for the transition	 
between presidential administrations, and (2) develop operational
plans and performance metrics to implement these roles and	 
responsibilities and coordinate federal resources for disaster	 
planning and response. This testimony is based on prior GAO work 
performed from September 2006 to June 2008 focusing on DHS's	 
efforts to address problems identified in the many post-Katrina  
reviews.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-868T					        
    ACCNO:   A82324						        
  TITLE:     Emergency Management: Observations on DHS's Preparedness 
for Catastrophic Disasters					 
     DATE:   06/11/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Disaster planning					 
	     Emergency management				 
	     Emergency preparedness				 
	     Emergency preparedness programs			 
	     Emergency response plans				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Hurricane Katrina					 
	     National policies					 
	     Natural disasters					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Presidential transition				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Risk assessment					 
	     Risk management					 
	     Standards						 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Terrorism						 
	     program goals or objectives			 
	     National Response Framework			 
	     National Response Plan				 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-868T

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-868T 
entitled 'Emergency Management: Observations on DHS's Preparedness for 
Catastrophic Disasters' which was released on July 11, 2008.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight, 
Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 11, 2008: 

Emergency Management: 

Observations on DHS's Preparedness for Catastrophic Disasters: 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. Director: Homeland Security and 
Justice: 

GAO-08-868T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO 08-868T, a report to Subcommittee on Management, 
Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Homeland Security Act was enacted in November 2002, creating the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to improve homeland security 
following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United 
States. The act centralized the leadership of many homeland security 
activities under a single federal department and, accordingly, DHS has 
the dominant role in implementing this national strategy. 

This testimony discusses the status of DHSï¿½s actions in fulfilling its 
responsibilities to (1) establish policies to define roles and 
responsibilities for national emergency preparedness efforts and 
prepare for the transition between presidential administrations, and 
(2) develop operational plans and performance metrics to implement 
these roles and responsibilities and coordinate federal resources for 
disaster planning and response. This testimony is based on prior GAO 
work performed from September 2006 to June 2008 focusing on DHSï¿½s 
efforts to address problems identified in the many post-Katrina 
reviews. 

What GAO Found: 

DHS has taken several actions to define national roles and 
responsibilities and capabilities for emergency preparedness efforts in 
key policy documents and has begun preparing for the upcoming 
transition between presidential administrations. DHS prepared initial 
versions of key policy documents that describe what should be done and 
by whom (National Response Plan in 2004), how it should be done (the 
National Incident Management System in 2004) and how well it should be 
done (the interim National Preparedness Goal in 2005). DHS subsequently 
developed and issued revisions to these documents to improve and 
enhance its national-level policies, such as the National Preparedness 
Guidelines in 2007 which was the successor to the interim National 
Preparedness Goal. Most recently, DHS developed the National Response 
Framework (NRF), the successor to the National Response Plan, which 
became effective in March 2008. This framework describes the doctrine 
that guides national response actions and the roles and 
responsibilities of officials and entities involved in response 
efforts. Clarifying roles and responsibilities will be especially 
critical as a result of the coming change in administrations and the 
associated transition of key federal officials with homeland security 
preparedness and response roles. To cope with the absence of many 
political appointed executives from senior roles, DHS has designated 
career executives to carry out specific responsibilities in the 
transition between presidential administrations and recently provided 
information to this Committee on its transition plans. To assist in 
planning to execute an efficient and effective administration 
transition, DHS has also contracted with the Council for Excellence in 
Government to identify key roles and responsibilities for the 
Department and its homeland security partners for responding to 
disasters during the transition between administrations. 

DHS is still developing operational plans to guide other federal 
agenciesï¿½ response efforts and metrics for assessing federal 
capabilities. Two essential supplements to the new National Response 
Frameworkï¿½response guides for federal partners and an integrated 
planning systemï¿½are still under development. Also, DHS is still 
establishing a process to measure the nationï¿½s overall preparedness 
based on a list of targeted capabilities and has not yet completed an 
inventory of all federal response capabilities. The measures and 
metrics associated with these targeted capabilities are not standards, 
but serve as guides for planning, training, and exercise activities. 
However, DHS policy does not direct development of these capabilities 
to address national priorities for federal agencies. For example, for 
the national priority to ï¿½Strengthen Interoperable and Operable 
Communications Capabilitiesï¿½ the National Preparedness Guidelines state 
that communications capabilities are developed to target levels in the 
states, tribal areas, territories, and designated urban areas that are 
consistent with measures and metrics established for targeted 
capabilities; federal agenciesï¿½ interoperability is not addressed. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making any new recommendations in this testimony. GAO has 
made recommendations in the prior reports identified in this testimony, 
and DHS has generally concurred with these recommendations and is 
taking action to implement them. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-868T]. For more 
information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512-8777 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing to 
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) preparedness to 
lead federal efforts to prepare for, prevent, mitigate the effects of, 
respond to, and recover from all domestic disasters, whether natural or 
man-made, including acts of terror. My remarks today focus on the 
preparation for and response to major and catastrophic disasters which 
require substantial federal coordination with and assistance to state 
and local responders. My statement is grounded in the work GAO has done 
to-date on DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 
preparing for, responding to and recovering from major disasters and 
catastrophes. 

The need for federal leadership in homeland security efforts was never 
greater than in the hours and days following the attacks of September 
11, 2001, which ultimately led to the creation of DHS and the 
establishment of the Department's roles to provide strategic, national 
leadership as the focal point for federal response and coordination. 
This role is defined in law and executive order and described in 
federal emergency management strategies, policies, and procedures. In 
order to provide the coordinated national homeland security effort 
directed by the Congress and the President, DHS must provide leadership 
across a broad spectrum of stakeholders including: federal agencies and 
departments, and DHS's own components; state, local and tribal 
governments, their emergency management agencies and other state 
agencies; sector-specific businesses and industry; voluntary 
organizations; and academia. It is an enormous challenge and 
responsibility. In leading national preparedness efforts, DHS through 
FEMA is responsible for developing national-level policies and doctrine 
to guide the efforts of these stakeholders to establish operational 
plans to carry out their roles and responsibilities and build, measure, 
and sustain their ability to do so effectively. 

The effectiveness of DHS and FEMA in assuming these responsibilities 
was severely tested--and in some cases clearly found wanting--in the 
aftermath of the 2005 hurricane season and its catastrophic impact on 
the Gulf Coast. Numerous reports,[Footnote 1] along with our own 
observations,[Footnote 2] identified concerns about leadership of the 
federal response to Hurricane Katrina and questions regarding the 
roles, and responsibilities of DHS, FEMA and other federal agencies, as 
well as state and local officials and non-governmental organizations. 
As we reported in September 2006, effective preparation and response 
for catastrophic disasters requires that roles and responsibilities be 
clearly defined and understood and that responsible officials know what 
capabilities are needed to fulfill their roles and responsibilities, 
develop the operational plans to implement those roles and 
responsibilities, and establish, realistically test, and maintain the 
needed capabilities. To address many of the issues and problems 
highlighted by the Katrina response, Congress passed the Post-Katrina 
Emergency Management Reform Act of October 2006 (Post-Katrina Act), 
[Footnote 3] which charged FEMA with the primary responsibility for 
coordinating and implementing key aspects of federal emergency 
preparedness and response. 

The Post-Katrina Act defines a catastrophic incident as any natural 
disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster that results in 
extraordinary levels of casualties or damage or disruption severely 
affecting the population (including mass evacuations), infrastructure, 
environment, economy, national morale, or government functions in an 
area. Effective federal preparation for and response to such an event 
requires planning, coordination, cooperation, and leadership within DHS 
and between DHS and other federal agencies--civilian and military--as 
well as state and local governments, and the private and nonprofit 
sectors who have resources and capabilities needed for the response. 

Today, I'd like to briefly discuss the status of DHS's actions in 
fulfilling its responsibilities to: 

* establish policies to define roles and responsibilities for national 
emergency preparedness efforts and prepare for the transition between 
presidential administrations; and; 

* develop operational plans and performance metrics to implement these 
roles and responsibilities and coordinate federal resources for 
disaster planning and response: 

My observations on DHS's and FEMA's development of policies, plans and 
metrics to lead federal efforts in this statement are based on our 
prior work, focusing on DHS's efforts to address problems identified in 
the many post-Katrina reviews from September 2006 to June 2008, as well 
as related work by the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG). We have 
issued a number of GAO reports that have examined a wide variety of 
operational and management issues, made observations and 
recommendations, and followed up on our reports assessing DHS's 
leadership capabilities in working with other federal agencies. 
Examples relevant to the hearing today include our reviews of emergency 
communications interoperability,[Footnote 4] evacuations of 
disadvantaged populations,[Footnote 5] national preparedness for 
pandemic flu,[Footnote 6] and coordination with the Department of 
Defense (DOD).[Footnote 7] 

Summary: 

DHS has taken several actions to define national roles and 
responsibilities and capabilities for preparedness and response in key 
policy documents and has begun preparing for the upcoming transition 
between presidential administrations. However, it needs to better 
integrate stakeholders in its revision of key policy documents, 
particularly the National Response Framework. To implement requirements 
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and HSPDs 5 and 8,[Footnote 8] DHS 
issued initial versions of key policy documents in 2004 (NIMS and the 
National Response Plan) and 2005 (National Preparedness Goal) and has 
developed and issued revisions intended to improve and enhance its 
national-level policies. Most recently, the National Response Framework 
(NRF), the successor to the National Response Plan, became effective in 
March 2008; it describes the doctrine that guides national response 
actions and the roles and responsibilities of officials and entities 
involved in response efforts. Clarifying roles and responsibilities 
will be especially critical as a result of the coming change in 
administrations and the associated transition of key federal officials 
with homeland security preparedness and response roles. To cope with 
the absence of many political appointed executives from senior roles, 
DHS has designated career executives to carry out specific 
responsibilities in the transition between presidential administrations 
and recently provided information to this Committee on its transition 
plans. To assist in planning to execute an efficient and effective 
administration transition, DHS has also contracted with the Council for 
Excellence in Government to identify key roles and responsibilities for 
the Department and its homeland security partners for responding to 
disasters during the transition between administrations. 

DHS's efforts to develop operational plans to guide other federal 
agencies' response efforts and metrics for assessing federal 
capabilities are incomplete. In addition, DHS is still establishing a 
process to measure the nation's overall preparedness based on the 
Target Capabilities List (TCL)[Footnote 9] and has not yet developed a 
complete inventory of all federal response capabilities. For example, 
for the national priority to "Strengthen Interoperable and Operable 
Communications Capabilities" the National Preparedness Guidelines state 
that communications capabilities are developed to target levels in the 
states, tribal areas, territories, and designated urban areas that are 
consistent with measures and metrics established for targeted 
capabilities; federal agencies' interoperability is not addressed. 

Background: 

DHS's federal leadership role and responsibilities for emergency 
preparedness as defined in law and executive order are broad and 
challenging. To increase homeland security following the September 11, 
2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, President Bush issued the 
National Strategy for Homeland Security in July 2002,[Footnote 10] and 
signed the Homeland Security Act in November 2002 creating DHS. The act 
centralized the leadership of many homeland security activities under a 
single federal department and, accordingly, DHS has the dominant role 
in implementing the strategy. As we noted in our review of DHS's 
mission and management functions, the National Strategy for Homeland 
Security underscores the importance for DHS of partnering and 
coordination.[Footnote 11] For example, 33 of the strategy's 43 
initiatives are required to be implemented by 3 or more federal 
agencies. If these entities do not effectively coordinate their 
implementation activities, they may waste resources by creating 
ineffective and incompatible pieces of a larger security program. 

In addition, more than 20 Homeland Security Presidential Directives 
(HSPDs) define DHS's and other federal agencies' roles in leading 
efforts to prepare for and respond to disasters, emergencies, and 
potential terrorist threats. Directives that focus on DHS's leadership 
role and responsibilities for homeland security include HSPD-5 and HSPD-
8 which are summarized below: 

* Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5), issued on 
February 28, 2003, identifies the Secretary of Homeland Security as the 
principal federal official for domestic incident management and directs 
him to coordinate the federal government's resources utilized in 
response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or 
other emergencies.[Footnote 12] The Secretary of DHS, as the principal 
federal official, is to provide standardized, quantitative reports to 
the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security on the readiness 
and preparedness of the nation--at all levels of government--to 
prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents 
and develop and administer a National Response Plan (NRP). To 
facilitate this role, HSPD-5 directs the heads of all federal 
departments and agencies to assist and support the Secretary in the 
development and maintenance of the NRP. (The plan was recently revised 
and is now called the National Response Framework. 

* Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), issued in 
December 2003, called for a new national preparedness goal and 
performance measures, standards for preparedness assessments and 
strategies, as well as a system for assessing the nation's overall 
preparedness. According to the HSPD, the Secretary is the principal 
federal official for coordinating the implementation of all-hazards 
preparedness in the United States. In cooperation with other federal 
departments and agencies, the Secretary coordinates the preparedness of 
federal response assets. In addition, the Secretary, in coordination 
with other appropriate federal civilian departments and agencies, is to 
develop and maintain a federal response capability inventory that 
includes the performance parameters of the capability, the time (days 
or hours) within which the capability can be brought to bear on an 
incident, and the readiness of such capability to respond to domestic 
incidents. Last year, the President issued an annex to HSPD-8 intended 
to establish a standard and comprehensive approach to national planning 
and ensure consistent planning across the federal government. 

After the hurricane season of 2005, Congress passed the Post-Katrina 
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, that, among other things, made 
organizational changes within DHS to consolidate emergency preparedness 
and emergency response functions within FEMA. Most of the 
organizational changes, such as the transfer of various functions from 
DHS's Directorate of Preparedness to FEMA, became effective as of March 
31, 2007. According to the act, the primary mission of FEMA is to: 

"reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all 
hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man- 
made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, 
comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, protection, 
response, recovery, and mitigation."[Footnote 13] The act kept FEMA 
within DHS and enhanced FEMA's responsibilities and its autonomy within 
DHS.[Footnote 14] As a result of the Post-Katrina Act, FEMA is the DHS 
component now charged with leading and supporting the nation in a risk- 
based, comprehensive emergency management system of preparedness, 
protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. 

DHS Has Issued and Revised National-Level Preparedness Policies to 
Define Roles and Responsibilities: 

DHS Has Taken Action to Revise National Preparedness Policies But 
Should Plan for Better Integrating Stakeholders in the Future: 

DHS has taken action to define national roles and responsibilities and 
capabilities for preparedness and response which are reflected in 
several key policy documents: the National Response Framework, (what 
should be done and by whom); the National Incident Management System 
(NIMS) (how it should be done), and the National Performance Guidelines 
(how well it should be done). To implement requirements of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 and HSPDs 5 and 8,[Footnote 15] DHS issued initial 
versions of these documents in 2004 (NIMS and the National Response 
Plan) and 2005 (National Preparedness Goal) and has developed and 
issued revisions intended to improve and enhance these national-level 
policies. Most recently, the National Response Framework (NRF), the 
successor to the National Response Plan, became effective in March 
2008; it describes the doctrine that guides national response actions 
and the roles and responsibilities of officials and entities involved 
in response efforts. The NRF also includes a Catastrophic Incident 
Annex, which describes an accelerated, proactive national response to 
catastrophic incidents, as well as a Supplement to the Catastrophic 
Incident Annex--both designed to further clarify federal roles and 
responsibilities and relationships among federal, state and local 
governments and responders. Together, these documents are intended to 
provide a comprehensive structure, guidance, and performance goals for 
developing and maintaining an effective national preparedness and 
response system. 

Because there are a range of federal and nonfederal stakeholders with 
important responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response, it 
is important that FEMA and DHS include these stakeholders in its 
development and revisions of national policies and guidelines. Today we 
are issuing a report on the process DHS used to revise the NRF, 
including how DHS integrated key stakeholders. DHS included non-federal 
stakeholders in the revision process during the initial months when 
issues were identified and draft segments written, and during the final 
months when there was broad opportunity to comment on the draft that 
DHS had produced. However, DHS deviated from the work plan it 
established for the revision process that envisioned the incorporation 
of stakeholder views throughout the process and did not provide the 
first full revision draft to non-federal stakeholders for their 
comments and suggestions before conducting a closed, internal federal 
review of the draft. DHS's approach was also not in accordance with the 
Post-Katrina Act's requirement that DHS establish a National Advisory 
Council (NAC) to incorporate non-federal input into the revision 
process. Although the NAC was to be established within 60 days of the 
Act (i.e., December 4, 2006), FEMA, which assumed responsibility for 
selecting members, did not name NAC members until June 2007 because of 
the additional time needed to review hundreds of applications and 
select a high quality body of advisors, according to the FEMA 
Administrator. The NAC's first meeting took place in October 2007 after 
DHS issued the revised plan for public comment. We are recommending 
that, as FEMA begins to implement and eventually review the 2008 
National Response Framework, the Administrator develop and disseminate 
policies and procedures describing the conditions and time frames under 
which the next NRF revision will occur and how FEMA will conduct the 
next NRF revision. These policies and procedures should clearly 
describe how FEMA will integrate all stakeholders, including the NAC 
and other non-federal stakeholders, into the revision process and the 
methods for communicating to these stakeholders. FEMA agreed with our 
recommendation. 

The importance of involving stakeholders, both federal and non-federal, 
was underscored in our review of The National Strategy for Pandemic 
Influenza (National Pandemic Strategy) and The Implementation Plan for 
the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (National Pandemic 
Implementation Plan) which were issued in November 2005 and May 2006 
respectively, by the President and his Homeland Security Council. 
[Footnote 16] Key non-federal stakeholders, such as state and local 
governments, were not directly involved in developing the National 
Pandemic Strategy and Implementation Plan, even though these 
stakeholders are expected to be the primary responders to an influenza 
pandemic. While DHS collaborated with the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) and other federal agencies in developing the 
National Pandemic Strategy and Implementation Plan, we found that there 
are numerous shared leadership roles and responsibilities, leaving 
uncertainty about how the federal government would lead preparations 
for and response to a pandemic. Although the DHS Secretary is to lead 
overall non-medical support and response actions and the HHS Secretary 
is to lead the public health and medical response, the plan does not 
clearly address these simultaneous responsibilities or how these roles 
are to work together, particularly over an extended period and at 
multiple locations across the country. In addition to the two 
Secretaries, we observed that the FEMA Administrator is now the 
principal domestic emergency management advisor to the President, the 
Homeland Security Council, and the DHS Secretary, pursuant to the Post- 
Katrina Act, adding further complexity to the leadership structure in 
the case of an influenza pandemic. Most of these leadership roles and 
responsibilities have not been tested under pandemic scenarios, leaving 
it unclear how they will work. We therefore recommended that DHS and 
HHS work together to develop and conduct rigorous testing, training, 
and exercises for pandemic influenza to ensure that federal leadership 
roles are clearly defined and understood and that leaders are able to 
effectively execute shared responsibilities to address emerging 
challenges, and ensure these roles are clearly understood by all key 
stakeholders. We also recommended that, in updating the National 
Pandemic Implementation Plan, the process should involve key non- 
federal stakeholders. DHS and HHS agreed with our recommendations, and 
said that they were taking or planned to take actions to implement our 
recommendations. 

Presidential Transition Period Poses Challenges for DHS Leadership of 
National Preparedness Efforts: 

As we noted in our report on the preparation for and response to 
Hurricane Katrina issued in September 2006,[Footnote 17] clearly 
defined and understood roles and responsibilities are essential for an 
effective, coordinated response to a catastrophic disaster. 

In any administration, the number of political appointees who depart 
rises as the President's term nears an end. Many cabinet secretaries 
and agency heads --in addition to the DHS Secretary and the FEMA 
Administrator--have response responsibilities in a major or 
catastrophic disaster, which could occur at any time. As political 
appointees depart, it is therefore essential that there be career 
senior executives who are clearly designated to lead their respective 
department and agency responsibilities for emergency response and 
continuity of operations. It is also important that they clearly 
understand their roles and responsibilities and have training to 
exercise them effectively. 

DHS has designated career executives to carry out specific 
responsibilities in the transition between presidential administrations 
and recently provided information to this Committee on its transition 
plans. DHS has also contracted with the Council for Excellence in 
Government to map key roles and responsibilities for responding to 
disasters during the transition between administrations. The Council is 
to produce a visual mapping of these roles, plus supplementary 
documentation to support/explicate the mapping. Once those materials 
had been developed, the Council plans to hold a series of 
trainings/workshops for career civil servants in acting leadership 
positions and nominated political appointees based on the roles mapped 
out by the Council. In addition, the project includes training and 
workshops for those in acting leadership positions outside DHS. 

DHS Has Not Yet Developed Comprehensive Operational Plans and Metrics 
to Coordinate Federal Response Resources: 

DHS Still Developing Ways to Lead National Planning: 

DHS is responsible for, but has not yet completed, leading the 
operational planning needed for an effective national response. Two 
essential supplements to the new National Response Framework--Federal 
Partner Response Guides and DHS's Integrated Planning System--are still 
under development. The partner guides are designed to provide a ready 
reference of key roles and actions for federal, state, local, tribal, 
and private-sector response partners. According to DHS, the guides are 
to provide more specific "how to" handbooks tailored specifically to 
the federal government and the other non-federal stakeholders: state, 
local and tribal governments, the private sector and nongovernmental 
organizations. DHS has not established a schedule for completing these 
guides. 

On December 3, 2007, President Bush issued Annex I to HSPD-8, entitled 
National Planning. The Annex describes the development of a national 
planning system in which all levels of government work together in a 
collaborative fashion to create plans for various scenarios and 
requires that DHS develop a standardized, integrated national planning 
process. This Integrated Planning System (IPS) is intended to be the 
national planning system used to develop interagency and 
intergovernmental plans based upon the National Planning Scenarios. The 
National Response Framework states that local, tribal, state, regional, 
and federal plans are to be mutually supportive. Although the Annex 
calls for the new system to be developed in coordination with relevant 
federal agencies and issued by February 3, 2008, DHS has not yet 
completed the IPS, and HSPD-8 Annex 1 (i.e. the White House) does not 
lay out a timeframe for release of the IPS. 

According to FEMA's Administrator, the agency's National Preparedness 
Directorate, in coordination with its Disaster Operations Directorate 
and the DHS's Office of Operations Coordination, has begun to develop a 
common federal planning process that will support a family of related 
planning documents. These related planning documents will include 
strategic guidance statements, strategic plans, concept plans, 
operations plans, and tactical plans. The Annex to HSPD-8 is designed 
to "enhance the preparedness of the United States by formally 
establishing a standard and comprehensive approach to national 
planning" in order to "integrate and effect policy and operational 
objectives to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from 
all hazards." According to the Administrator, FEMA continues to be a 
significant contributor to the draft IPS, and will also be involved in 
developing the family of plans for each of the national planning 
scenarios as required by the Annex. 

In following up on the status of recommendations we made after 
Hurricane Katrina related to planning for the evacuation of 
transportation disadvantaged populations,[Footnote 18] we found that 
DHS's leadership in this area had led to the implementation of some, 
but not all of our recommendations.[Footnote 19] For example, we 
recommended that DHS clarify within the National Response Plan that 
FEMA is the lead and coordinating agency to provide evacuation 
assistance when state and local governments are overwhelmed, and 
clarify the supporting federal agencies' responsibilities. In April 
2008, we noted that DHS's draft Mass Evacuation Incident Annex to the 
National Response Framework appears to clarify the role of FEMA and 
supporting federal agencies, although the annex is still not finalized. 
Similarly, we recommended that DHS improve its technical assistance by, 
among other things, providing more detailed guidance on how to plan, 
train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation of transportation 
disadvantaged populations. DHS had developed basic guidance on the 
evacuation of transportation disadvantaged populations and was 
currently working on targeted guidance for states and localities. 
However, we had also recommended that DHS require, as part of its grant 
programs, all state and local governments plan, train, and conduct 
exercises for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged 
populations, but DHS had not done so. DHS agreed to consider our 
recommendation. 

We also recommended that DHS clearly delineate how the federal 
government will assist state and local governments with the movement of 
patients and residents out of hospitals and nursing homes to a 
mobilization center where National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) 
[Footnote 20] transportation begins. DHS and HHS have collaborated with 
state and local health departments in hurricane-prone regions to 
determine gaps between needs and available resources for hospital and 
nursing home evacuations and to secure local, state, or federal 
resources to fill the gaps. Based on this analysis, HHS and DHS 
contracted for ground and air ambulances and para-transit services for 
Gulf and East Coast states. 

At a more tactical level of planning, FEMA uses mission assignments to 
coordinate the urgent, short-term emergency deployment of federal 
resources to address disaster needs. Mission assignments may be issued 
for a variety of tasks, such as search and rescue missions or debris 
removal, depending on the performing agencies' areas of expertise. 
According to DHS, the Department has agreements and pre-scripted 
mission assignments with 31 federal agencies for a total of 223 
assignments that essentially pre-arrange for the deployment of health 
equipment, a national disaster medical system, military equipment, and 
a whole host of other services in the event that they are necessary to 
support a state or a locality. FEMA officials said these assignments 
are listed in the operational working draft of the "Pre-Scripted 
Mission Assignment Catalogue," which FEMA intends to publish this 
month. 

We have previously made recommendations aimed at improving FEMA's 
mission assignment process and FEMA officials concurred with our 
recommendations and told us that they are reviewing the management of 
mission assignments.[Footnote 21] In addition, reviews by the DHS OIG 
regarding mission assignments concluded that FEMA's management controls 
were generally not adequate to ensure that deliverables (missions 
tasked) met requirements; costs were reasonable; invoices were 
accurate; federal property and equipment were adequately accounted for 
or managed; and FEMA's interests were protected. 

According to the DHS OIG, mission assignment policies, procedures, 
training, staffing, and funding have never been fully addressed by 
FEMA, creating misunderstandings among federal agencies concerning 
operational and fiduciary responsibilities and FEMA's guidelines 
regarding the mission assignment process, from issuance of an 
assignment through execution and close-out, are vague. Reflecting upon 
lessons learned from Hurricane Dean, the California wildfires, and the 
national-level preparedness exercise for top officials in October 2007, 
FEMA's Disaster Operations Directorate formed an intra/interagency 
Mission Assignment Working Group to review mission assignment processes 
and procedures and develop recommendations for the management of 
mission assignments, according to the OIG. Most recently, we 
reported[Footnote 22] on mission assignments for emergency transit 
assistance and recommended that DHS draft prescripted mission 
assignments for public transportation services to provide a frame of 
reference for FEMA, FTA, and state transportation departments in 
developing mission assignments after future disasters. DHS agreed to 
take our recommendation under consideration. 

DHS Still Developing Ways to Define and Measure Federal Agencies' 
Capabilities: 

DHS issued an update to the national goal for preparedness in National 
Preparedness Guidelines in September 2007 to establish both readiness 
metrics to measure progress, and a system for assessing the nation's 
overall preparedness and response capabilities. However, DHS has not 
yet completed efforts to implement the system and has not yet developed 
a complete inventory of all federal response capabilities. According to 
the September 2007 Guidelines, DHS was still establishing a process to 
measure the nation's overall preparedness based on the Target 
Capabilities List (TCL), which accompanies the Guidelines. Our ongoing 
work on national preparedness and the national exercise program is 
reviewing DHS's plans and schedules for completing this process. 

In the Guidelines, the description for each capability includes a 
definition, outcome, preparedness and performance activities, tasks, 
and measures and metrics that are quantitative or qualitative levels 
against which achievement of a task or capability outcome can be 
assessed. According to the Guidelines, they describe how much, how 
well, and/or how quickly an action should be performed and are 
typically expressed in a way that can be observed during an exercise or 
real event. The measures and metrics are not standards, but serve as 
guides for planning, training, and exercise activities. However, the 
Guidelines do not direct development of capabilities to address 
national priorities to federal agencies. For example, for the national 
priority to "Strengthen Interoperable and Operable Communications 
Capabilities" the Guidelines state that interoperable and operable 
communications capabilities are developed to target levels in the 
states, tribal areas, territories, and designated urban areas that are 
consistent with measures and metrics established in the TCL; federal 
agencies' interoperability is not addressed. 

Prior disasters and emergencies, as well as State and Urban Area 
Homeland Security Strategies and status reports on interoperable 
communications, have shown persistent shortfalls in achieving 
communications interoperability. [Footnote 23] These shortfalls 
demonstrate a need for a national framework fostering the 
identification of communications requirements and definition of 
technical standards. State and local authorities, working in 
partnership with DHS, need to establish statewide interoperable 
communications plans and a national interoperability baseline to assess 
the current state of communications interoperability. Achieving 
interoperable communications and creating effective mechanisms for 
sharing information are long-term projects that require Federal 
leadership and a collaborative approach to planning that involves all 
levels of government as well as the private sector. In April 2007, we 
reported[Footnote 24] that DHS's SAFECOM program intended to strengthen 
interoperable public safety communications at all levels of government 
had made limited progress in and had not addressed interoperability 
with federal agencies, a critical element to interoperable 
communications required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004.[Footnote 25] We concluded that the SAFECOM 
program has had a limited impact on improving communications 
interoperability among federal, state, and local agencies. The 
program's limited effectiveness can be linked to poor program 
management practices, such as the lack of a plan for improving 
interoperability across all levels of government, and inadequate 
performance measures to fully gauge the effectiveness of its tools and 
assistance. We recommended, among other things, that DHS develop and 
implement a program plan for SAFECOM that includes goals focused on 
improving interoperability among all levels of government. DHS agreed 
with the intent of the recommendation and stated that the Department 
was working to develop a program plan. 

DHS had also not yet developed a complete inventory of federal 
capabilities, as we reported in August 2007,[Footnote 26] in assessing 
the extent to which DHS has met a variety of mission and management 
expectations. As a result, earlier this year Senate Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committee sent letters requesting information 
from 15 agencies with responsibilities under the National Response 
Framework to respond in the event of a nuclear or radiological 
incident. The committee asked for information on a variety of issues-- 
for example, about evacuation, medical care, intelligence, forensics, 
and tracking fallout--to assess agencies' current capabilities and 
responsibilities in the event of a nuclear attack. Other federal 
agencies also need this information from DHS; in reviewing the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) coordination with DHS, we reported in 
April 2008 that DOD's Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has difficulty 
identifying requirements for capabilities it may need in part because 
NORTHCOM does not have more detailed information from DHS on the 
specific requirements or capabilities needed from the military in the 
event of a disaster. 

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 
questions that your or other members of the subcommittee may have at 
this time. 

Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements: 

For further information about this statement, please contact William O. 
Jenkins Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, on (202) 
512-8777 or [email protected]. In addition to the contact named above 
the following individuals from GAO's Homeland Security and Justice Team 
also made major contributors to this testimony: Chris Keisling, 
Assistant Director; John Vocino, Analyst-in-Charge, and Adam Vogt, 
Communications Analyst. 

[End of testimony] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See reports: A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the House 
Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for And 
Response to Hurricane Katrina (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2006), U.S. 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 
2006), White House Homeland Security Council The Federal Response to 
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2006), 
Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General A 
Performance Review of FEMA's Disaster Management Activities in Response 
to Hurricane Katrina, OIG-06-32 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2006). 

[2] GAO, Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and 
Accountability Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation's 
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-618], (Washington, D.C., Sept. 
2, 2006). 

[3] The Post-Katrina Act was enacted as Title VI of the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120 
Stat. 1355 (2006). 

[4] GAO, First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications 
Interoperability, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
301] (Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2007). 

[5] GAO, Status of Implementation of GAO Recommendations on Evacuation 
of Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations and Patients and Residents 
of Health Care Facilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-544R] (Washington, D.C. Apr. 1, 2008). 

[6] GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to Ensure 
Clearer Leadership Roles and an Effective National Strategy, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-781] (Washington, 
D.C.: Aug. 14, 2007). 

[7] GAO, Homeland Defense U.S. Northern Command Has Made Progress but 
Needs to Address Force Allocation, Readiness Tracking Gaps, and Other 
Issues, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-251] 
(Washington, D.C., Feb. 16, 2008), Homeland Defense: Steps Have Been 
Taken to Improve U.S. Northern Command's Coordination with States and 
the National Guard Bureau, but Gaps Remain. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-252] (Washington, D.C., April 
16, 2008), and Homeland Security: Enhanced National Guard Readiness for 
Civil Support Missions May Depend on DOD's Implementation of the 2008 
National Defense Authorization Act. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-311] (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2008). 

[8] The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and HSPD 5 required DHS to 
develop a comprehensive National Incident Management System (NIMS) and 
a comprehensive National Response Plan. Homeland Security Presidential 
Directive-8 (HSPD-8) of December 17, 2003 directed the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to develop a national domestic all-hazards 
preparedness goal. 

[9] The TCL is a comprehensive catalog of capabilities to perform 
homeland security missions, including performance measures and metrics 
for common tasks. The 37 capabilities referenced in the Guidelines span 
the full spectrum of homeland security missions. While the listing does 
not yet encompass every function that must be accomplished to prevent, 
protect against, respond to, or recover from a major event, it 
nonetheless offers a comprehensive starting point for planning. 

[10] White House Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for 
Homeland Security (Washington, D.C., Jul. 16, 2002). 

[11] GAO Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on 
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454] (Washington, D.C.: August 
17, 2007). 

[12] If and when any one of the following four conditions applies: (1) 
a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has 
requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State 
and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been 
requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (3) more than 
one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in 
responding to the incident; or (4) the Secretary has been directed to 
assume responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the 
President. 

[13] 6 U.S.C. 313(b)(1). 

[14] GAO Homeland Security: Preparing for and Responding to Disasters. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-395T] (Washington, 
D.C. Mar 9, 2007). 

[15] The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and HSPD 5 required DHS to 
develop a comprehensive National Incident Management System (NIMS) and 
a comprehensive National Response Plan. Homeland Security Presidential 
Directive-8 (HSPD-8) of December 17, 2003 directed the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to develop a national domestic all-hazards 
preparedness goal. 

[16] GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to Ensure 
Clearer Federal Leadership Roles and an Effective National Strategy, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-781] (Washington, 
D.C.: Aug 14, 2007). 

[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-618]. 

[18] GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation 
Assistance for Health Facilities Should be Addressed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-826] (Washington, D.C.: July 
20, 2006) and Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed 
to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-44] (Washington, 
D.C.: Dec. 22, 2006). 

[19] GAO, Status of Implementation of GAO Recommendations on Evacuation 
of Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations and Patients and Residents 
of Health Care Facilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-544R] (Washington, D.C., Apr.1, 2008). 

[20] Under the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, primary 
authority for the National Disaster Medical System was transferred from 
DHS to HHS in January 2007. HHS and DHS are collaborating to implement 
this recommendation. 

[21] GAO, Disaster Relief: Governmentwide Framework Needed to Collect 
and Consolidate Information to Report on Billions in Federal Funding 
for the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-834] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2006). 

[22] GAO, Emergency Transit Assistance: Federal Funding for Recent 
Disasters, and Options for the Future, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-243] (Washington, D.C., Feb. 
15, 2008). 

[23] According to the National Preparedness Guidelines, communications 
interoperability is the ability of public safety agencies (including 
police, fire, EMS, etc.) and service agencies (including public works, 
transportation, hospitals, etc.) to talk within and across agencies and 
jurisdictions via radio and associated communications systems; exchange 
voice, data, and/or video with one another on demand; and do so in real 
time, when needed, and when authorized. 

[24] GAO, First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications 
Interoperability, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
301] (Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2007). 

[25] Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 
No. 108-458, section 7303, 118 Stat. 3638, 3843-44, Dec. 17, 2004. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by 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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***