prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by WIOA, authorizes a number of grant programs to support employment and independent living for persons with disabilities, including the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program  This program is the primary federal government effort to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and obtain employment  An individual who is deemed eligible works with state VR agency staff to prepare an individualized plan for employment, which describes the employment goal and the specific services needed to achieve that goal  Education’s Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) awards funds to state VR agencies through the program to help individuals with disabilities engage in gainful employment  States must provide a 21 3 percent nonfederal match of these funds  In fiscal year 2016, total program funds for VR—including state match funds—were $3 81 billion  States, territories, and the District of Columbia generally designate a single agency to administer the program, although, depending on state law, states may designate more than one agency  Twenty-three states have two separate agencies, one that exclusively serves blind and visually impaired individuals (known as agencies for the blind) and another that serves individuals who are not blind or visually impaired (known as general agencies)  Twenty-seven states, the District of Columbia, and the five territories have a single combined agency that serves both blind and visually impaired individuals and individuals with other types of impairments (known as combined agencies)  In total, there are 79 state VR agencies  In 2014, WIOA amended the Rehabilitation Act to require state VR agencies to provide students with disabilities with pre-employment transition services  According to information Education provided with its regulations, WIOA emphasized the provision of services to students with disabilities to ensure that they have meaningful opportunities to receive training and other supports and services they need to achieve employment outcomes  WIOA requires states to make pre-employment transition services available statewide to all students with disabilities in need of such services, who are eligible or potentially eligible, regardless of whether a student has submitted an application for services from a state VR agency  In this context, students with disabilities include those with an individualized education program (IEP) for special education services through the school system, those receiving an accommodation for their disability, and others  In information provided with the regulations, Education stated that state VR agencies should work closely with school systems and others to identify these students  WIOA requires each state to reserve at least 15 percent of a state’s VR allotment for a fiscal year for pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities  If a state cannot use or match all of its VR funding, it relinquishes funds to the federal government and the state’s total award amount is then reduced  However, the state must still reserve 15 percent of what it did not relinquish for the provision of pre- employment transition services  WIOA established required activities under pre-employment transition services that states must make available to students with disabilities  Education has provided states with additional information about each of the activities (see table 1)  After making the required pre-employment transition services available, if a state has funding remaining, WIOA lists nine other “authorized” activities that a state may implement  For example, in providing the authorized activities, states may, among other things, provide training to local VR and educational service providers; coordinate transition services with local educational agencies; and disseminate information about innovative, effective, and efficient approaches to achieve the goals (see appendix II for a full listing of authorized activities)  Education’s guidance indicates that such authorized activities should improve the transition of students with disabilities from school to postsecondary education or an employment outcome and support the arrangement or provision of the required activities  WIOA also requires local offices of state VR agencies to conduct coordination responsibilities, which includes coordinating with state and local educational agencies to ensure the provision of pre-employment transition services  These can be conducted concurrently with the “required” activities, and states can use the reserved funds for them  Examples of coordination responsibilities that local offices of state VR agencies must undertake are attending meetings, when invited, about IEPs; and working with the local public workforce system and employers to develop work opportunities for students with disabilities  In support of this coordination and in recognition that VR and educational agencies both offer transition services to students, WIOA requires that VR agencies establish or update their interagency agreements with states educational agencies  Interagency agreements between the state VR and educational agencies are intended to describe the steps each agency will take to implement pre-employment transition services and determine the roles and responsibilities of each agency, including financial responsibilities and procedures for identifying students in need of pre- employment transition services  Following the passage of WIOA, Education, through its Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), issued regulations and guidance to implement pre-employment transition services requirements (see fig  1)  Education also provided technical assistance to state VR agencies through webinars, conference calls, and presentations at conferences  For example, Education presented information to state officials in a series of webinars about the new programmatic and financial processes and procedures related to pre-employment transition services just after the final regulations were issued in 2016  In addition, Education funded technical assistance centers to help state VR agencies and their partners answer questions and provide training about WIOA  Two of these centers are the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center (WINTAC) and the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT)  Each center focuses its efforts on a specific set of issues: WINTAC on helping state VR agencies implement WIOA requirements, including pre- employment transition services; and NTACT on helping state VR and educational agencies improve outcomes for students receiving transition services  RSA is to conduct periodic monitoring visits to assess state VR agencies’ implementation of the VR program, including pre-employment transition services  RSA is to monitor states for compliance with the administrative, financial, and performance requirements of the program, as well as identify technical assistance needs at individual state VR agencies  According to Education officials, RSA plans to follow a 5-year monitoring cycle that began in fiscal year 2017 and will generally include monitoring visits to 10 states per year through fiscal year 2021  In fiscal year 2017, Education visited 14 VR agencies in 10 states, and in fiscal year 2018, Education plans to visit 15 VR agencies in 12 states  Most state VR agencies that responded to our survey reported expanding services for students with disabilities since WIOA’s enactment in July 2014 by either serving more students through pre-employment transition services or by initiating new or additional services  Most state VR agencies that responded to our survey reported that they provided the five required activities to more students with disabilities since WIOA’s enactment (see fig  2)  State VR agencies indicated in their survey responses that they had previously provided and continue to provide transition services to students who apply and are eligible for the VR program, and many of the activities were not entirely new to state VR agencies  Most agencies that responded to our survey reported providing each of the required activities to students with disabilities before the enactment of WIOA, while fewer reported initiating these services since enactment (see fig  3)  Of the five required activities, instruction in self-advocacy saw the biggest expansion during this time  In information provided with the regulations, Education described instruction in self-advocacy as, for example, classroom lessons in which students learn about their rights, responsibilities, and how to request accommodations or services and supports needed during transition  In written comments on our survey, 10 state VR agencies reported partnering with other organizations, such as universities or centers for independent living, to provide instruction in self- advocacy  One agency reported on our survey that it offers peer mentoring as an additional component of self-advocacy services, and another reported providing self-advocacy and mentoring for deaf-blind students by deaf-blind adults  In October 2016, based on views of an expert panel that we convened on autism spectrum disorders and transitioning youth, we reported that it is critically important that all transitioning youth, regardless of their level of disability, be given the opportunity to state their own preferences to the extent of their capabilities to reach their maximum independence  State VR agencies reported developing additional programming as a result of WIOA’s enactment, including expanding programs for more students, adding new opportunities and experiences, and creating new partnerships  Officials from all four of the state VR agencies we interviewed said they had programs in place prior to WIOA that offered activities similar to pre-employment transition services, but they have since expanded these services or created additional programs for students with disabilities  For example, an official we interviewed from the Idaho Division of Vocational Rehabilitation said the agency had previously worked to enroll students in the VR program prior to graduation, but has since begun developing new programming and instruction aimed at serving larger groups and providing other services, such as a paid work experience  An official from Maryland’s Division of Rehabilitation Services said many of the services they previously offered were during school hours, and students had limited access to these services if they wanted to stay in class  The agency has since added services after school and during the summer, such as opportunities for students to meet with employers, according to Maryland officials  Officials from the Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services, said that while the agency had previously provided work-based learning experiences, it has since expanded the number of spots available for students in an existing program and created a new work-based learning program that is a collaboration between school districts, a community rehabilitation partner, and businesses  Providing new services with specific requirements to an expanded population has been a significant change, according to officials in one of the state VR agencies we interviewed and in all three of our discussion groups  For example, officials from Maryland’s Division of Rehabilitation Services said that, while they provided all five required activities before WIOA, they now provide the activities to a younger population and make the activities available statewide  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups said that providing pre-employment transition services allows them to provide these services to more students with disabilities or at an earlier age, which will likely have positive effects on students’ transition from school to work  For example, officials in one discussion group noted that the provision of pre-employment transition services is increasing awareness, enhancing services, and increasing the likelihood that VR program outcomes will improve  In another discussion group, officials said their agencies had already seen benefits from pre- employment transition services and the services have raised students’ expectations for the types of jobs they might obtain  While 32 of the state VR agencies responding to our survey reported that they had identified all potentially eligible students, another 37 reported that they were currently in the process of identifying these students  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups and who we interviewed in two of four state VR agencies said they have had challenges finding the population eligible for services  In written comments on our survey, one agency reported that while statewide information on students was not readily available, officials worked with the state educational agency to identify potentially eligible students, including more than 137,000 students with an IEP and an estimated 13,000 additional students that do not have an IEP  We previously reported on the difficulties state VR officials faced in obtaining data they could use to identify other youth with disabilities  Compared to combined and general agencies, more agencies for the blind reported in our survey that they did not provide the five required activities to more students with disabilities, and officials in some of these agencies said they can serve a much smaller population  For example, 57 percent (12 of 21) of agencies for the blind reported providing job exploration counseling to more students, compared to 83 percent (25 of 30) of combined agencies and 91 percent (20 of 22) of general agencies since WIOA enactment  Similarly, 67 percent (14 of 21) of agencies for the blind reported providing work-based learning experiences to more students, compared to 83 percent (25 of 30) for combined agencies and 86 percent (19 of 22) for general agencies  Officials in some of these agencies for the blind and from the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB) told us in interviews that agencies for the blind have far fewer potentially eligible students they could serve compared to other types of agencies  For example, officials we interviewed with Idaho’s Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired said that Idaho has only 40 students being provided pre-employment transition services  In contrast, the Idaho Division of Vocational Rehabilitation reportedly provided at least one pre-employment transition service to approximately 700 students in a one-year period  The ability of agencies for the blind to serve more students may also be restricted because they are not able to provide pre-employment transition services to younger students in some cases, according to officials with NCSAB and Idaho’s Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired  NCSAB officials told us that state VR agencies have traditionally provided VR services to youth who are blind or visually impaired at younger ages compared to general agencies that serve youth with other types of disabilities  The ages at which students may be provided pre-employment transition services varied by agency, based on responses to our survey, but the most common age range reported across all types of agencies was 14 to 21 years old  According to Education officials, as a result of WIOA, two agencies in the same state must agree on a common age range during which students can be provided pre-employment transition services  Most agencies in states with two VR agencies responding to our survey (35 of 44) reported agreeing on an age range for receiving pre- employment transition services  NCSAB officials said that in some cases agencies for the blind have had to raise the minimum age at which they would begin providing services to students  Officials with Idaho’s Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired, for example, said they would prefer to begin services at younger ages because their agency has the resources to do so  However, officials with Idaho’s Division of Vocational Rehabilitation said they do not have the resources to provide pre-employment transition services to the relatively large number of students with disabilities at a younger age  State VR agencies reported taking a range of actions to build their administrative capacity to implement pre-employment transition services  These actions included building staff capacity and expanding contracts with services providers  Building staff capacity  Most state VR agencies reported building staff capacity to facilitate and carry out the requirements of pre- employment transition services by: Establishing a new specialist position  More than half (45 of 74) of VR agencies reported in our survey establishing at least one new transition specialist position specifically for pre-employment transition services  For example, the Idaho Division of Vocational Rehabilitation reported establishing this position and officials told us that they hired a specialist who was previously the transition coordinator for the state’s educational agency  In written comments on our survey, a respondent from another state commented that their agency has hired 20 pre-employment transition services specialists to provide the five required activities  Officials we interviewed from Maryland’s Division of Rehabilitation Services said they added six salaried positions dedicated to providing pre-employment transition services  Another agency responding to our survey reported dedicating a supervisor and 15 percent of their counselors exclusively to this purpose  Training staff  All 74 state VR agencies reported providing training on pre-employment transition services to their staff  For example, in written comments, one agency reported developing training tools for its counselors, such as answers to frequently asked questions, posting guidance on its intranet, and having WINTAC provide training  Expanding contracts and agreements with service providers  In addition to being provided by state VR agency staff, pre-employment services can be offered through a variety of methods and service providers, and many state VR agencies reported entering into new or additional contracts with service providers or expanding contracts with existing providers  Pre-employment transition services can be provided directly by state VR agency staff or through agreements with third parties, such as community rehabilitation programs, independent living agencies, public colleges and universities, and school districts  In our survey, 62 of 74 agencies reported entering into new or additional contracts with third-party providers to provide pre- employment transition services  Officials we interviewed from three of four state VR agencies said they either established or expanded existing contracts and agreements  For example, officials from the Illinois Department of Human Service, Division of Rehabilitation Services told us that after the enactment of WIOA, they expanded arrangements with independent living centers and initiated a new program that provides students with work experiences  Agencies reported several examples of approaches using third parties: establishing contracts with community rehabilitation programs to partnering with independent living agencies to work with youth on entering into provider agreements with local workforce centers to assist with providing job preparation and a paid work experience, developing programs with public colleges and universities focused on financial literacy and self-advocacy, and contracting with individual school districts to deliver services in the school environment  Twenty-one of 56 states (50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia) reported using the full amount of grant funds they reserved for pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities for fiscal year 2016, according to the most recent full year of data available from Education (see fig  4)  In aggregate, states reportedly expended approximately $357 million out of the approximately $465 million reserved (about $108 million less than the target) for fiscal year 2016  For fiscal year 2015, states reportedly expended approximately $324 million on pre-employment transition services out of the approximately $453 million reserved for that purpose (about $130 million less than the target)  Results from our 2017 survey of state VR agencies revealed similar trends: Fewer than half the 74 agencies reported that they used at least 15 percent of their VR grant allotment each year  Thirty-two of the 74 agencies responding to our survey reported using the minimum required 15 percent of federal VR grant funds reserved for the provision of pre- employment transition services for fiscal years 2016 and 2017  For fiscal year 2015, 25 agencies reported using the required 15 percent minimum reserved funds  Officials we interviewed in two of four state VR agencies and officials in all three discussion groups explained that some of the services they generally provided to participants in the VR program are not allowable for the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  These expenditures included transportation, tuition, and others associated with individualized services  For example, officials in Maryland’s Division of Rehabilitation Services told us that transportation costs for students to get to the place where the services are provided are not covered  VR agency officials in two of our discussion groups told us that assistive technology, such as hearing aids, could not be paid for with the 15 percent of funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  In another group, participants said that some expenditures, such as tuition or for the services of a job coach to help students with the most significant disabilities, could not be paid with reserved funds  In information provided with the regulations, Education stated that it does not have the statutory authority to allow these expenditures to be paid for with the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services and these services must be paid with other VR funds  When it promulgated its final regulations, Education noted that state VR agencies would experience challenges in using their funds because many of the services provided to students with disabilities prior to WIOA’s enactment would not qualify as pre-employment transition services  Education reviewed past expenditures for a subset of students and estimated that 82 percent of state VR agencies’ reported purchases for those students would not meet the statutory definition of pre-employment services under WIOA  Education concluded that states would have to reach a larger number of students with disabilities in order to meet the spending requirement and that state VR agencies would need to develop and implement aggressive strategies to expend these funds in these initial years of implementation  According to WINTAC officials, state VR agency officials are commonly unclear about what kinds of activities they can provide using the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  For instance, they said that states must make required activities (e g  work-based learning experiences and self-advocacy) available to all students with disabilities before providing authorized activities (e g  model projects, partnerships), in accordance with WIOA  However, state officials have commonly interpreted that to mean that all students must actually receive the required activities before the agency can begin providing other activities, according to WINTAC officials  WINTAC officials explained that states may have been conducting authorized or coordination activities without knowing these activities could be paid for with the reserved funds  None of the state VR agency officials we interviewed said they had yet moved beyond providing required activities to providing authorized activities  Officials from two of the agencies we interviewed told us they were in the process of planning authorized activities  For example, officials with the Idaho Division of Vocational Rehabilitation said they were completing an assessment of their needs, which would help them plan authorized activities  Officials we interviewed from the other two agencies—the Idaho Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Illinois Division of Rehabilitation Services—said they did not have the resources to provide authorized activities or were unsure about how to properly transition from required to authorized activities under the current guidance  Education communicated with states on broad requirements but provided little detailed information directly to states on the allowable use of funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  Education provided information when it promulgated final regulations, in grant award notifications, on its website, and in presentations at conferences  In each of these formats, Education described activities on which states could not spend funds, but provided little detailed information on what expenditures are allowed  Regulations: Education’s final regulations restate many provisions in WIOA, including the prohibition on using any of the reserved funds for administrative costs  In responding to comments it received on its proposed regulations, Education provided examples of services that commenters requested would be considered pre-employment transition services, such as, postsecondary education, on-the-job supports, job coaching, travel expenses, and uniforms  In information provided with the regulations, Education explained that it had no statutory authority to expand or limit the pre-employment transition services listed in WIOA  Education stated that a state VR agency can allocate costs associated with staff time spent providing pre- employment transition services, including an employee’s salary and fringe benefits, to the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  However, Education did not provide additional information on what specific types of expenditures states were permitted to spend funds on in providing pre-employment transition services as required by WIOA  Grant award notification: The notification that accompanies each state’s VR grant award lists the three sets of activities for which the reserved money can be used: required, authorized, and coordination; it lists each of the activities as they are listed in WIOA  It also discusses the prohibition on using any of the reserved funds for administrative costs  It does not list or describe what specific expenditures the reserved funds can be used for to undertake each of the listed activities  Education’s website: A list of frequently asked questions on Education’s website outlines the requirements of WIOA and explains that the reserved funds must only be used to provide pre-employment transition services as listed in WIOA  Similar to the regulations, the website explains that the total costs of an employee’s salary and fringe benefits may be allocated to the reserved funds if that employee is providing only pre-employment transition services to students with disabilities but does not include additional detail for any other expenditures  Presentation materials: In one set of presentation materials, Education provided an example of a potential allowable expenditure for one of the required activities, work-based learning  It did not include information on allowable expenditures for the other four required activities, or any of the nine authorized activities  In another set of presentation materials, Education provided examples of services for each of the five required pre-employment transition services activities  According to Education officials, these examples would be allowable expenditures  Education, however, provided the most detailed information through WINTAC  WINTAC’s website provided answers to some specific questions on the use of funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  In one set of frequently asked questions, WINTAC included a list of 28 questions with detailed answers, including what specific expenditures may be charged to the reserved funds  For example, based upon guidance issued by RSA, the website explains that reserved funds may be used to pay for auxiliary aids and services, such as interpreters, if they are directly related to one of the five required pre-employment transition services activities  However, the reserved funds may not be used to pay for the costs of foreign language interpreters because they are not an auxiliary aid or serve that is required due to the individual’s disability  WINTAC’s website also included answers provided by Education on 13 other frequently asked questions  Information included that reserved funds cannot be used to pay for the cost of an assessment to determine whether a student met the definition of a student with a disability; they can be used to pay for items required by an employer for work-based learning activities  Some state VR agencies we surveyed and those that participated in one of our three discussion groups said they would like more detailed information directly from Education  Seven survey respondents reported that they would like Education to provide answers to their specific questions  In one discussion group, participants noted that when states approach WINTAC with a new question, the technical assistance center sometimes needs to obtain the answer from Education  This process can be inefficient at times  In addition, the answer may not be broadly shared with all the states, limiting its benefit, whereas information issued directly from Education could help communicate the answer more efficiently and broadly  One survey respondent reported, for example, that guidance varied by source—training, Education’s RSA staff, or technical assistance center websites—and said that Education should provide all state VR agencies with the same information at the same time  According to standards for federal internal control, management should communicate externally through reporting lines so that external parties can help the entity achieve its objectives and address related risks  Management should also periodically evaluate its methods of communication so it has the appropriate tools to communicate quality information throughout and outside of the entity on a timely basis  Education officials said that during fiscal years 2015 and 2016, states were unclear about allowable expenditures using reserved funds, and that they plan to clarify guidance as they learn about the issues from states during their monitoring  According to Education officials, they respond to issues that need clarification and provide answers to questions as part of formal monitoring visits or through other communications with state agencies  Education officials said they expect to complete a round of monitoring visits to all states by the end of fiscal year 2021  However, an Education official said they have no timeframe for providing further information on allowable costs to states  With better information on timeframes for when this information will be provided, states would be able to better plan their use of the remaining funds reserved for pre- employment transition services  Most state VR agencies (61 of 74) that responded to our survey reported providing training on pre-employment transition services along with their state’s educational agency since WIOA’s enactment in 2014  Joint training may help coordination between state VR and educational agencies, as state VR officials participating in our discussion groups said that some educators were not familiar with pre-employment transition services  Similarly, an official we interviewed from Idaho’s state educational agency said it was common in the past for teachers and VR counselors not to know one another  Joint trainings provided to VR staff and teachers have improved these relationships, and teachers can invite VR counselors to students’ IEP meetings, the official said  Joint training includes staff presentations at conferences and participation in other training sessions  For example, officials we interviewed from the Idaho Division of Vocational Rehabilitation said their transition coordinator has given presentations to education directors around the state about changes resulting from WIOA and how the inclusion of pre-employment transition services can affect special education for the school districts  In written comments on our survey, one agency reported that it co-sponsors an annual conference with VR, special education, developmental services, and other public and private entities  During this conference, they plan how to improve services for students with disabilities  About one-third of state VR agencies (23 of 74) reported issuing joint guidance with their state’s educational agency, a recommended practice according to WINTAC  The other two-thirds of survey respondents reported that joint guidance was either in progress (27 of 74) or that they had not issued such guidance (23 of 74)  Joint guidance can include written policies and procedures that are created by and provided to state VR and educational agency staff  For example, in written comments on our survey, one agency reported developing written policies and guidance for transition counselors that the state educational agency endorses and provides to special education staff  In Maryland, VR and special education officials told us that they issued guidance through jointly created materials on pre-employment transition services  Less than half the state VR agencies that responded to our survey (34 of 74) reported updating their interagency agreement with their state’s educational agency, which is intended to facilitate collaboration and coordination on delivery of pre-employment transition services  The majority of agencies reported that their agreement is either in progress (37 of 74) or not yet updated (3 of 74)  These required agreements outline how VR agencies and schools will plan and coordinate service provision, provide for each agency’s responsibilities, including financial responsibilities, and provide for student outreach procedures, among other things  Discussion group participants and CSAVR representatives emphasized the value of completing their interagency agreements with the state educational agency


Report 2:  In one group, officials whose agencies had completed their agreements said they are essential for state VR agencies to provide services in schools  Participants in another discussion group explained that once they have a state-level agreement in place, they can discuss what services school districts need for students and then determine how to provide those services  According to state educational agency officials we interviewed, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements are similar to requirements for pre-employment transition services, and they need to coordinate with VR officials at both the state and local levels to agree on each agency’s assigned tasks and expectations  These officials said state VR and educational agencies should coordinate funding to make services available where they are needed and to complement each other’s transition efforts  Illinois’s agreement, for example, specifies that the state educational agency is responsible for providing outreach, guidance, and coordination to local educational agencies regarding the provision of pre-employment transition services  According to the agreement, Illinois’s VR agency is responsible for providing pre-employment transition services, both directly and through cooperative agreements with local educational agencies, and for providing written information to the state educational agency regarding services available to students with disabilities  Officials we interviewed with CSAVR said state VR agencies that have made progress in developing their interagency agreements with state educational agencies tend to be more successful in implementing pre-employment transition services  According to Education officials, Education provides guidance and technical assistance on interagency agreements to states as part of Education’s monitoring or when asked by states  Education officials said they provide technical assistance during periodic monitoring visits, which are currently limited to about 10 states per year from fiscal years 2017- 2021; by helping state VR agencies develop policies and procedures; and by making sure pre-employment transition services are coordinated with the state educational agency and through interagency agreements  According to Education officials, there is no statutory provision authorizing Education to identify states that have not updated their interagency agreement  Education officials said they do not collect information from state VR agencies on the status of these agreements except when they conduct monitoring visits in specific states  In addition, Education officials said that when monitoring, they may meet with state educational agency partners to help them understand the new components of pre- employment transition services in an agreement, or they may refer the state agencies to WINTAC or NTACT resources  Providing assistance during monitoring may be helpful for some states  However, given that less than half of state VR agencies we surveyed reported updating and finalizing their agreements and Education officials say they will take another three years to complete this round of monitoring, additional action by Education may be needed to raise awareness among the remaining states about the importance of these agreements to help states coordinate services to students with disabilities  Additional action could include, for example, conducting earlier state outreach or monitoring to assess state progress on finalizing the interagency agreements and offering technical assistance when appropriate  However, Education officials said there is no requirement that state educational agencies provide pre-employment transition services to meet their obligations to IDEA-eligible students with disabilities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  As a result, WINTAC and participants in our discussion groups explained that it can be difficult to get state educational agencies to work with state VR agencies to update interagency agreements  Education officials said that WIOA requires state VR agencies to update these interagency agreements to include pre- employment transition services but they do not track their completion because states are not required to report when the agreements are finalized  Moreover, Education officials said they have heard from states that some reasons that interagency agreements are not specifically updated are that the agreements are written broadly enough so that they can remain in effect when there are additional changes to the law, the details of actual practices are rarely reflected in the high level of an interagency agreement, and that modifications to agreements are time- consuming and would not result in changes to the interagency coordination practice  Without an updated agreement between the state VR and educational agencies, efforts to collaborate on pre-employment transition services may be hindered  Officials with the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) told us that some of the state agencies for which they provided in-depth technical assistance were not working closely together  Officials from two of the three state educational agencies we interviewed said they viewed pre-employment transition services as primarily the responsibility of the VR agency  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups said they have experienced coordination challenges, including difficulty determining each agency’s responsibilities for providing pre-employment transition services, obtaining data needed to identify and provide services to students, and determining which agency will pay for which services, among other challenges  Interagency agreements can help to address these types of issues  Federal internal controls recommend that management communicate with and obtain information to identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving defined objectives, such as those that can arise from new laws and regulations  Moreover, we found in prior work that it is important to establish ways to operate across agency boundaries, with measures such as developing common terminology and fostering open lines of communication  A lack of collaboration between state VR and educational agencies increases the risk that some students will not successfully transition from school to post-school activities  In addition, our prior work has identified lack of collaboration among and between federal agencies and state and local governments as a challenge to effective grant implementation  Interagency agreements are intended to serve as a mechanism related to collaboration practices, which include defining a common outcome, establishing joint strategies, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities of each agency  By taking additional steps, such as discussing the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements, Education would help raise awareness about the importance of the agreements and be better positioned to help states efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  Most state VR agencies (63 of 74) that responded to our survey reported that additional assistance with identifying best practices would be useful to their agencies  Similarly, state VR officials in all three of our discussion groups spoke to the need for Education to develop and disseminate best practices to help states, for example, comply with program requirements  WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices on pre-employment transition services  Best practices may also help states address the challenges they reported facing in implementing and administering pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, such as (1) coordinating with state educational agencies, (2) using VR resources more efficiently and effectively to help states balance providing pre-employment services with the full VR program, and (3) collecting data on services provided, and (4) updating data tracking systems  Coordinating service delivery with state educational agencies  Over half (41 of 74) of state VR agencies reported in our survey that additional assistance on coordinating with state educational agencies would be useful for them  Similarly, officials from all three state educational agencies we interviewed said they would like additional assistance on interagency collaboration  Officials with NTACT told us that some of the state agencies for which they provided in-depth technical assistance were not working closely together  Officials from two of the three state educational agencies we interviewed said they viewed pre-employment transition services as primarily the responsibility of the VR agency  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups said they have experienced coordination challenges, including difficulty determining each agency’s responsibilities for providing pre-employment transition services, obtaining data needed to identify and provide services to students, and determining which agency will pay for which services, among other challenges  An official we interviewed from the Idaho Department of Education said it would be helpful to have more clearly defined roles, obligations, and means of sharing data between the state-level agencies  In written responses to our survey, one respondent said having examples of highly successful collaborations between a state educational agency and state VR agencies would be helpful  According to Education’s guidance, a student’s transition from school to post-school activities is a shared responsibility and coordination and collaboration between the state VR and educational agencies is essential  However, according to information Education provided with the regulations, while some have sought clarification and additional guidance in this area, Education determined that decisions on agencies’ responsibilities must be made at the state level to allow states maximum flexibility allowed under the law  In the absence of more specific guidelines for how state agencies should collaborate, best practices from other states could provide helpful examples  Balancing pre-employment transition services with VR services  Several state VR agencies in both our written survey responses and in discussion groups noted that by increasing services mandated for pre-employment transition services for students, they have had to reduce VR services to adults, which has made it difficult to balance the two programs  In issuing its final regulations, Education acknowledged that reserving funds would decrease amounts available for the full VR program, resulting in a transfer of benefits from individuals historically served by VR to students with disabilities in need of transition services  According to state VR directors with the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB), agencies for the blind have had to restrict VR services while also not being able to use all of the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities because VR services cannot be paid with reserved funds  Most state VR agencies that completed our survey (50 of 74) reported that balancing pre-employment transition services with other vocational rehabilitation services was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult during federal fiscal year 2017  Collecting data  Data collection was one of the top challenges identified by state VR agencies in our survey, with 48 of 74 reporting that collecting data on the provision of pre-employment transition services was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult during fiscal year 2017  Prior to WIOA, agencies collected and reported data only on individuals who had applied and enrolled in the VR program  For pre-employment transition services, agencies now collect data on who provided and received each of the five required activities, including for individuals who have not submitted a VR application  State VR officials in two of our three discussion groups said that they have experienced challenges collecting sensitive information (such as social security numbers) for minors and collecting data on individuals for group services  Officials in one of the three discussion groups also said that these problems are particularly significant when trying to collect information on potentially eligible students for whom they do not have open VR cases  These students could include all those with an IEP and those that receive accommodations in school based on their disability, among others  Updating data tracking systems  Updating data systems was also one of the top challenges reported in our survey, and was cited as an additional administrative burden by state VR officials in our discussion groups  Specifically, 53 of 74 state VR agencies reported that it was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult to update tracking systems to collect and report financial and service data on pre-employment transition services during fiscal year 2017  According to a state VR agency official we interviewed, updating that state’s tracking system is difficult because data collected on pre-employment transition services—such as the type of service provider and how the service was provided—do not fit well into a case management system designed for the full VR program  Updating these tracking systems also created an additional administrative burden for VR agency staff, according to officials from all three discussion groups and three of the four state agencies that we interviewed  Officials in two of our three discussion groups said that they have one or more full-time staff members doing only administrative tasks or that they have had to hire additional staff to handle data tracking  Education officials said that they plan to document and share best practices with states; however, they said the agency does not have a final written plan for managing these efforts because plans are still under discussion in light of inquiries received  Education officials said they are collecting information on state VR agencies’ practices through monitoring and they are sharing this information with WINTAC—information that could be useful for sharing best practices across states—but a comprehensive summary of states’ efforts will not be available until after Education officials conduct monitoring visits of all states by the end of fiscal year 2021  In addition, in a 2015 technical assistance circular, Education recommended that state VR agencies consult with other federal, state, and local agencies to identify best practices for providing pre-employment transition services to students and youth with a variety of disabilities  Education officials also said that they are looking for opportunities, such as webinars and conferences, to share information with states  However, Education does not have set timeframes and has not detailed the specific steps and activities for fully leveraging knowledge to address common challenges, or for finalizing and disseminating best practices  By doing so, Education would be better positioned to provide best practices information to state VR agencies to better serve students with disabilities who are transitioning from high school  Pre-employment transition services are designed to help students with disabilities begin to identify career interests and move from high school to post-secondary education or employment  Using federal funding, state VR agencies reported that they have generally enhanced their services and staff capacity and begun to coordinate with state educational agencies  As a result, state VR agencies generally reported serving an increased number of students  However, most states reported they have not used all the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services or updated interagency agreements between state VR and educational agencies  Education has developed multiple forms of guidance and made presentations, either directly or through its technical assistance centers  Education officials said they plan to issue additional guidance as needed  However, without clear timeframes for the issuance of this guidance, states do not know when information will become available to help them make decisions on allowable expenditures for pre-employment transition services  As a result, opportunities may be missed to identify and serve all students who might be eligible, and unserved students could continue to face difficulties preparing for a future of meaningful post-secondary education or employment  In addition, agreements between state VR and educational agencies can help facilitate the effective coordination of and financial responsibility for services  Finally, WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices for implementing pre-employment transition services  Developing a written plan with specific timeframes would help Education provide states with information on best practices, such as balancing service delivery between pre-employment transition services and other VR services and collecting data that other states may have successfully addressed  We are making the following three recommendations to Education: The Secretary of Education should establish timeframes for providing states with additional information on allowable expenditures of funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Education should take additional steps to provide states assistance on updating and finalizing their interagency agreements with state educational agencies to include pre-employment transition services  These steps could include, for example, accelerating their efforts to discuss the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Education should develop a written plan with specific timeframes and activities for identifying and disseminating best practices that address, as appropriate, implementation challenges for pre- employment transition services, such as those identified in this report  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment  Education’s written comments are reproduced in appendix III  Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into our report where appropriate  Education concurred with recommendation 1 and disagreed with recommendations 2 and 3 in the draft report  With regard to recommendation 1, Education stated that it agreed and will establish projected timeframes for providing states with additional information on allowable expenditures for the provision of pre- employment transition services  Education also stated that it intends to provide states with additional information in at least two forums before the end of calendar year 2018 and to review and analyze previous guidance provided to states on allowable expenditures  With regard to the draft report’s recommendation 2, which called for Education to identify states that have not updated and finalized their interagency agreements to include pre-employment transition services, Education stated that it disagreed, in large part, because there is no statutory provision authorizing the agency to identify such states  However, Education is taking some steps as part of its ongoing monitoring of the VR program to provide assistance to states that have not updated their interagency agreements, which is consistent with the intention of our recommendation, but more could be done  Education stated that it will continue to offer and provide technical assistance if it becomes known through the onsite monitoring of the VR program or through other means that states have not updated their interagency agreements between VR agencies and state educational agencies  It also noted that the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and its Office of Special Education Programs will provide information related to sources of technical assistance, as appropriate, to VR agencies and state educational agencies  While these steps may be helpful, given the number of states that have not updated and finalized their agreements and the length of time Education officials say they will take to complete this round of monitoring where Education asks state VR agencies about these agreements, additional action by Education may be needed to help states more efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  Education also wrote that while the Rehabilitation Act requires an interagency agreement, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not contain a parallel requirement for state and local educational agencies with respect to the provision of pre-employment transition services or the incorporation of such discussion into the interagency agreement  In light of these differing requirements, as we state in our report, stakeholders with whom we spoke indicated it can be difficult to get state educational agencies to work with state VR agencies to update interagency agreements  Therefore, it is all the more important for Education to take additional action to engage with VR agencies regarding interagency agreements and to work closely with VR agencies as Education becomes aware of states that have not updated their agreements  Education suggested a modified recommendation that removed reference to Education identifying states that have not updated and finalized their agreements  We modified the recommendation and the report to address Education’s concerns about its authority to identify states  By taking additional steps, such as discussing the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements, Education would help raise awareness about the importance of the interagency agreements and be better positioned to help states efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  With regard to recommendation 3, Education stated that it disagreed because it is premature to develop a timeline for the dissemination of best practices  Education stated that the identification of “best” practices, meaning those that are clearly supported by a body of evidence derived from valid and reliable research findings, is still emerging as states implement the requirements  Education suggested a modified recommendation that included planning for the dissemination of best practices identified by states as they become available  Education stated in its comments that as RSA identifies best practices through its monitoring and technical assistance activities, it will, in collaboration with its Office of Special Education Programs, consider when and how best to disseminate this information to state VR and educational agencies  With regard to including specific timeframes and activities in a written plan, by detailing the specific steps Education is taking and plans to take along with the amount of time it expects them to take, Education would be better positioned to complete those steps in a timely manner and meet the statutory requirement that Education highlight best state practices and support state agencies  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Education  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Elizabeth H  Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  The objectives of this report are to examine (1) the steps states have reported taking to implement pre-employment transition services, and (2) the implementation challenges, if any, states reported facing, and how the Department of Education (Education) has addressed them  To address these objectives, we reviewed federal laws and regulations, and Education’s guidance and technical assistance documents, including circulars, policy directives, and transition guides  We also reviewed expenditure data reported by state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to Education for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the most recent full years of data available  To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed Education officials about their collection of the data and their opinion of the data’s quality, completeness, and accuracy  We also electronically tested the data for any obvious errors  We determined that the data were reliable for the purposes of our review  We interviewed representatives from the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind  In addition, we interviewed officials from Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Office of Special Education Programs, and the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center and National Technical Assistance Center on Transition—two technical assistance centers funded by Education  To address both of the objectives, we conducted a survey of all 79 state VR agencies from October through December 2017  Seventy-four of the 79 agencies (94 percent) responded  The survey questionnaire included open-ended and closed-ended questions about agencies’ efforts to train staff, update interagency agreements, expand services to students with disabilities, and other issues  We took steps to minimize the potential errors that may be introduced by the practical difficulties of conducting any survey  Because we selected the entire population of VR agencies for our survey, our estimates are not subject to sampling error  We conducted pretests of the draft questionnaire with three agencies in the population and made revisions to reduce the possibility of measurement error from differences in how questions were interpreted and the sources of information available to respondents  We reviewed state officials’ submitted survey responses and conducted follow-up, as necessary, to determine that their responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report  A second independent analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses we performed to minimize the likelihood of errors in data processing  We made multiple follow-up attempts during the survey with agencies that had not yet responded  The five agencies that did not respond had smaller values, on average, on three characteristics related to size, than those that did respond  The nonrespondents tended to be smaller than respondent agencies  The sums totals for each of these three characteristics across the five nonresponding agencies comprised less than 1 percent of the totals for the population, suggesting a lower possibility of material error in our results from nonresponse  For more in-depth information on both of the objectives, we conducted interviews and held discussion groups  We conducted interviews with officials in Idaho, Illinois, and Maryland  For each state, we interviewed state VR officials and state educational agency officials  We selected these states for variety using the following criteria: size of the special education population (large, medium, and small); state agency organization, for example, whether the VR agency was organized under the state’s educational or other department; and whether the state had a second agency for serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired  We convened three discussion groups with state VR agency directors or their designated officials, with a total of 39 participants from 29 separate agencies (10 to 12 agencies represented per discussion group)  These discussion groups took place during a conference of state VR directors in November 2017 in Greenville, South Carolina  To select participants, we worked with the conference organizer, CSAVR, to send invitations for our discussion groups to all conference attendees  We additionally included a question in our survey asking respondents whether they would like to participate in discussion groups at the conference, and contacted those who responded affirmatively via phone and email  We moderated each discussion to keep participants focused on the specified issues within discussion timeframes  To assess Education’s efforts to address state VR agencies’ challenges in providing pre-employment transition services, we applied standards for internal control in the federal government  Specifically, we applied principle 15 related to communicating with external parties  In addition, regarding Education’s assistance to state VR agencies’ efforts to update interagency agreements with state educational agencies, we also applied key considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms that we have previously identified  We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  Elizabeth H  Curda, (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, Sara Schibanoff Kelly (Assistant Director), Paul Schearf (Analyst-In-Charge), Matthew Rabe, and Paul Wright made key contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Kristy Kennedy, Sheila R  McCoy, Thomas James, Jessica Orr, Sam Portnow, Carl Ramirez, Monica Savoy, Kate Van Gelder, Adam Wendel, and James Whitcomb  Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: States and Local Areas Report Progress in Meeting Youth Program Requirements  GAO-18-475  Washington, D C : June 15, 2018  Supplemental Security Income: SSA Could Strengthen Its Efforts to Encourage Employment for Transition-Age Youth  GAO-17-485  Washington, D C : May 17, 2017  Youth with Autism: Federal Agencies Should Take Additional Action to Support Transition-Age Youth  GAO-17-352  Washington, D C : May 4, 2017  Youth with Autism: Roundtable Views of Services Needed During the Transition into Adulthood  GAO-17-109  Washington, D C : October 18, 2016  Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School  GAO-12-594  Washington, D C : July 12, 2012 

ground_truth: Each year, millions of Americans call 911 for help during emergencies. However, the nation's legacy 911 system relies on aging infrastructure that is not designed to accommodate modern communications technologies. As a result, states and localities are upgrading to NG911, which offers improved capabilities, such as the ability to process images, audio files, and video. While deploying NG911 is the responsibility of state and local entities, federal agencies also support implementation, led by NHTSA's National 911 Program, which facilitates collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 stakeholders. GAO was asked to review NG911 implementation nationwide. This report examines: (1) state and local progress and challenges in implementing NG911 and (2) federal actions to address challenges and planned next steps. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and federal agency reports and plans. GAO also analyzed NHTSA's survey data on state 911 implementation for calendar year 2015, the most recent year for which data were available, and interviewed federal officials, state and local officials from nine states (selected to represent different regions and various phases of NG911 implementation), and officials from industry and advocacy groups. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National 911 Program's most recent national survey on Next Generation 911 (NG911) implementation indicated that about half of states were in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015, but that state and local progress varied. Specifically, 10 states reported that all 911 authorities in their state processed calls using NG911 systems; however, 18 states reported having no state or local NG911 transition plans in place—which may indicate these states were in the early phases of planning for the transition to NG911 or had not yet begun. GAO spoke with state and local 911 officials in 9 states, which were in various phases of implementing NG911, and found that none of the 9 selected states were accepting images, audio files, or video. State and local 911 officials identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911. Such challenges are related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance. For example, officials in 3 states said that the current funding they collect from telephone service subscribers may not be sufficient to support NG911's transition costs while simultaneously funding the operation of existing 911 systems. Federal agencies—including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have responsibilities to support NG911 implementation, such as through coordinating activities and administering grants, and are taking actions to assist state and local entities in addressing challenges to NG911's implementation. Such actions include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders to explore emerging NG911 issues. For example, as the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, NHTSA's National 911 Program is developing resources on NG911 topics, such as federal funding and governance structures. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to facilitate the state and local transition to NG911, the program lacks specific performance goals and measures to assess its progress. Without such goals and measures, it is not clear to what extent the program is effectively achieving its mission. In 2018, the National 911 Program plans to establish an interagency initiative tasked with creating a National NG911 Roadmap. This roadmap is intended to identify next steps for the federal government in supporting the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system. While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a list of national-level tasks as part of its roadmap initiative, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out these tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap's objectives. Collaborating with the appropriate federal agencies to determine federal roles and responsibilities to carry out the roadmap's national-level tasks could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve those tasks. Furthermore, developing an implementation plan that details how the roadmap's tasks will be achieved would place the National 911 Program in a better position to effectively lead interagency efforts to implement NG911 nationwide. GAO recommends that NHTSA's National 911 Program develop performance goals and measures and, for the National NG911 Roadmap, determine agencies' roles and responsibilities and develop an implementation plan. NHTSA agreed with GAO's recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: As we have previously reported, 911 services have evolved from basic 911—which provided Americans with a universally recognized emergency number—to Enhanced 911 which also routes calls to the appropriate call center and provides information about the caller’s location and a call back number  NG911 represents the next evolution in 911 services by using IP-based technology to deliver and process 911 traffic  Under NG911, call centers will continue to receive voice calls and location information, but will also be able to accommodate emergency communications from the range of technologies in use today  In addition, NG911 systems provide call centers with enhanced capabilities to route and transfer calls and data, which could improve call centers’ abilities to handle overflow calls and increase information sharing with first responders  Generally speaking, 911 communications begin when a caller dials 911 using a landline, wireless, or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system  Once a 911 caller places an emergency call, a communications provider receives and routes the call to the appropriate call center, along with the caller’s phone number and location (i e , street address for a landline caller, approximate geographic location for a wireless caller, and the subscriber’s address for VoIP)  Calls and data may be routed to 911 call centers using legacy methods (i e , routing calls across traditional telephone networks) or NG911 methods (i e , routing calls and other data through IP-networks)  Once the call reaches a call center, trained call takers and dispatchers determine the nature of the emergency and dispatch first responders, typically using a variety of equipment and systems, including call handling systems, mapping programs, and computer aided dispatch  Figure 1 illustrates the 911 communications and dispatch process  As illustrated in figure 1, NG911 systems use IP-networks capable of carrying voice plus large amounts of data  These emergency-services networks are typically deployed at the state or regional level with multiple call centers connecting to the network  However, the existence of an IP- network alone does not constitute an NG911 system  As defined by standards developed by the emergency communications community, an NG911 system should have the capability to, among other things: provide a secure environment for emergency communications; acquire and integrate additional data for routing and answering calls; process all types of emergency calls, including multimedia messages; transfer calls with added data to other call centers or first responders  While NG911 systems must possess certain capabilities, it is important to note that states and localities may make decisions about which capabilities they intend to use to best meet their needs  In addition, states and localities have the authority to make decisions about what NG911 equipment, systems, and vendors to use; thus, the configurations of these systems vary  According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, the transition to NG911 may require a variety of technical and operational changes to current 911 systems and processes  For example, technical changes can include upgrades to networks or installing new hardware or software in 911 call centers  Operational changes can include the need for additional training or the development of new policies and procedures (e g , new procedures for processing or storing multimedia)  These technical and operational changes may also have effects on 911 funding and state and local governance structures, which we will discuss in more detail later in this report  According to an FCC advisory body that examined NG911 systems architecture in 2016, while NG911 systems are implemented in a variety of ways at the state or local level, NG911 implementation can occur gradually and in phases  According to this model, NG911 implementation occurs on a continuum that begins with legacy 911 systems and ends with a fully deployed NG911 national end-state where all individual 911 call centers nationwide would be connected  The NG911 implementation model identifies activities that take place as part of the NG911 transition, many of which occur concurrently, such as: planning (e g , conducting feasibility studies, preparing databases, establishing governance models); acquiring, testing, and implementing NG911 system elements (e g , establishing an emergency-services IP-network, location-based call routing, processing multimedia); connecting call centers within a jurisdiction (i e , jurisdictional end- state in which all call centers are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures); and connecting NG911 systems nationwide (i e , national end-state in which all call centers in the nation are fully NG911 operational, supported by agreements, policies, and procedures)  In addition, because 911 services provide an essential function, the implementation of NG911 generally involves using both the legacy system and the NG911 system simultaneously for a period of time, according to the FCC advisory body, to ensure 911 services are not disrupted as new system elements are tested and implemented  Deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of 911 authorities at the state and local level  As we have previously reported, all 50 states and the District of Columbia collect—or have authorized local entities to collect—funding for 911 from telephone service subscribers, and methods within each state for collecting funds vary  FCC, as required by statute, reports to Congress annually on the states’ collection and distribution of 911 fees and charges  There are approximately 6,000 call centers nationwide that process 911 calls, often at the county or city level, and these centers can vary greatly in size and technical sophistication  The state and local governance structures that oversee 911 operations also vary by location  For example, we previously reported that some states collect fees or charges for 911 and administer a statewide 911 program  Other states authorize local entities to collect fees or charges for 911 and administer 911 programs at the local level  Still other states use a combination of these approaches  According to a panel of experts convened by the National 911 Program, historically, 911 authority has been coordinated and maintained locally with no requirement to coordinate with other jurisdictions  However, the transition to NG911 enables connection of 911 systems  Thus, as previously mentioned, the NG911 transition may require technological and operational changes, as well as changes to 911 policies and governance responsibilities for states and localities  While deploying and operating 911 is the responsibility of entities at the state and local level, federal agencies—including NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS—have responsibilities to support state and local implementation, including through facilitating coordination of activities among 911 stakeholders and administering federal grants, for example: NHTSA houses the National 911 Program as part of its Office of Emergency Medical Services (Office of EMS) to provide national leadership and coordination for the NG911 transition throughout the United States, as previously mentioned  According to NHTSA, the fiscal year 2017 budget for the National 911 Program was $2 74 million  Among other activities, which we will discuss later in this report, the National 911 Program surveys states on progress implementing NG911 and reports this survey data annually  FCC issues orders and regulations for 911 service providers on topics relevant to NG911, such as 911 reliability, location accuracy, and text- to-911  FCC also sponsors advisory bodies comprised of government and industry experts that study relevant topics and provide recommendations related to NG911, such as the Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture and the Communications, Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council  While there are no federally mandated time frames for implementing NG911, the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012 requires specific actions of some federal agencies as outlined in table 1, below  In addition, according to the National 911 Program, as states and localities continue to implement NG911, and begin to explore interconnection with other states’ 911 systems, federal agencies may need to take steps to help ensure state NG911 networks are interoperable and connected  We will discuss actions taken by federal agencies to assist states and localities to implement NG911 later in this report  According to NHTSA’s most recent national survey, state and local progress implementing NG911 varies, and about half of all states reported being in some phase of transition to NG911 in 2015  While a few states are well into statewide implementation, NHTSA officials told us that no state had completely implemented all NG911 functions  Additionally, as of the fall of 2017, none of the selected states we spoke with were processing multimedia—such as images or audio/video recordings—through their 911 systems due to concerns related to privacy, liability, and the ability to store and manage these types of data, among other things  The national survey data, based on responses from 45 states, measured the extent to which NG911 planning and acquisition of NG911 equipment and services were occurring, and the extent to which basic NG911 functions were operational at the state and local levels in 2015  Planning: This measure includes state and local NG911 plans for governance, funding, system components, and operations  In this context, system components refer to an emergency services IP-based network, NG911 software, system and information security, and databases, among other things, according to NHTSA’s survey  In total, 25 of 45 states reported having a state or at least one local NG911 plan in place; conversely, 18 states reported having no NG911 plan in place at either the state or local level—which may indicate they are in the early stages of planning for the NG911 transition or have not yet begun the transition to NG911  Acquisition: These measures identify states or local entities that have defined their NG911 needs and awarded contracts, and then installed and tested acquired NG911 components and services  Twenty-four states reported awarding at least one contract at the state or local level for NG911 components and services  Twenty-three states reported having installed and tested NG911 components and services at either the state or local level  NG911 services: This is a measure of 911 authorities that have some basic, functioning NG911 infrastructure in place  In total, 21 states reported having some level of basic NG911 services in place at the state or local level  Of these 21 states, 10 reported that all 911 authorities within the state were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls  Another 7 of these states reported that 25 percent or less of their state’s 911 authorities were using NG911 technology to process emergency calls  Federal officials, industry stakeholders, and state and local 911 officials we interviewed from nine states identified a number of challenges to implementing NG911, including challenges related to funding, evolving technology and operations, and governance  Funding: State and local officials in four of nine selected states identified insufficient funding as one of the challenges they face in implementing NG911  Additionally, FCC, NHTSA, and industry reports noted that state and local financing strategies are generally insufficient to fully implement NG911  Specifically, these reports note that the need to provide new capital for NG911 implementation while simultaneously funding legacy operational costs during the transition can strain state and local funding  Limited funding: Officials in three states told us that their current funding may not be able to support the upfront costs of infrastructure and equipment acquisitions associated with the transition to NG911  Further, officials said they will need to simultaneously fund both the new NG911 and legacy 911 systems currently in operation until the NG911 systems are fully operational  To address these challenges, a Minnesota official told us about how the state leveraged economies of scale to reduce overall costs through cost sharing between multiple call centers and of call centers consolidating operations from 114 to 104 call centers  Additionally, a Virginia official told us that to cover the upfront costs of transitioning to NG911, the state plans to borrow from the state treasury and then repay the treasury with future-year fee collections  Fee diversion: Diversion of fees intended for 911 costs to non-911 activities may affect a state’s or locality’s ability to cover NG911 transition costs and necessitate identifying alternative funding sources  The FCC’s 2016 annual report on 911 fees indicates that for calendar year 2015, all but two of the states that responded to FCC’s 911 fee survey affirmed that their state or jurisdiction collects fees from phone users to support or implement 911 services  State and local authorities also determine how these 911 fees can be used  FCC’s report also indicated that eight states and Puerto Rico reported diverting a total of more than $220 million (or approximately 8 4 percent) of 911 fees collected to non-911 purposes  Some of these diverted funds were directed to other public safety programs, and others were diverted to either non-public safety or unspecified purposes  According to one state official, had it not been for 911 fees being diverted to non-911 purposes, funding would have been sufficient to cover the NG911 transition without having to go to the state legislature for additional funding  However, officials in the other eight selected states told us that either fee diversion was not an issue in their state or that the diversion of funds had not affected their state’s ability to implement NG911  Evolving technology and operations: Officials in eight states told us that the retirement of legacy infrastructure and the transition to IP-based systems introduces new technical and operational challenges for call centers and states, as well as for equipment and service providers  Interoperability: Officials in three selected states mentioned that connecting to neighboring networks—whether within or between states—could pose challenges  For example, officials mentioned that states and localities may have obtained different equipment, software applications, or service providers – all of which can make interconnections difficult  Officials in Maine and New Hampshire told us that differences in service providers can also be a challenge to seamlessly connecting to neighboring systems  In an instance where two states (Minnesota and North Dakota) have worked to connect their 911 systems, both states used the same service provider, which officials said allowed for fewer barriers to connection  Cyber risks: Officials in three states told us that the transition from a traditional system that only transmits voice traffic to an IP-based system that transmits voice and data traffic has significantly increased the risk of a cyber-attack  This can be a challenge because managing cyber risks is a new and evolving role for state and local 911 authorities  Approaching the transition to NG911 without managing these risks could result in disrupted or disabled call center operations and ultimately a delayed response to an emergency situation  Multimedia: Officials in three states mentioned potential implementation challenges related to accepting and processing multimedia such as audio recordings, images, and videos  More specifically, one official said they did not have procedures to manage or store these multimedia files once received  In addition, another official raised privacy and liability concerns  Call routing: One of the core services of an NG911 system is the ability to have calls routed to the appropriate call center based on a wireless caller’s physical location, instead of the location of the cellular tower that receives and transmits the call  An FCC-sponsored working group reported that there are several options for achieving this and each option has unique positive and negative aspects  One challenge officials in two states noted was that rather than a single, nationwide approach to routing these calls, state and local 911 authorities would need to work individually with the wireless carriers to determine how to best implement location-based call routing  Governance: FCC has noted that transitioning to NG911 will likely result in new roles and levels of coordination between state 911 authorities, local 911 authorities, 911 call centers, and 911 service providers  Further, relationships among authorities at the state and local level may change as states work to interconnect NG911 systems  State and local officials noted that these types of governance challenges can apply in a variety of situations, including within or between states  Evolving roles: As previously mentioned, 911 governance structures vary among states  These varying governance structures may pose different challenges  For example, some states have a centralized structure in which a single government agency is responsible for statewide 911 system’s administration and policy  Officials in two states told us that although they faced challenges transitioning to NG911, their states’ centralized 911 structure eased the transition in their states because there was uniformity in policy and technology, among other things, coming from a single statewide authority  In other states, 911 systems are primarily a local responsibility and organized with decentralized authorities and resources  In these instances, there may be specific challenges related to transitioning to an interconnected NG911 system  Such challenges may include the need for increased levels of coordination among numerous jurisdictions with potentially disparate organizational structures, levels of funding, and priorities  An official also noted that there are governance challenges related to connecting states and evolving relationships between 911 authorities and service providers  Informing decision makers: One of the challenges identified by officials in two states is differing levels of experience and understanding by state and local officials as to what NG911 priorities should be for timely implementation  To help with this understanding, the federal government is making efforts to educate state and local authorities on how to facilitate policymaker understanding as well as provide regular updates to stakeholders on recent NG911 developments  We discuss some of these efforts later in this report  While state and local entities have the primary responsibility for implementing NG911 technology and services, federal agencies are taking actions to assist state and local 911 entities to address NG911 implementation challenges  Actions taken include developing resources, offering technical assistance, and convening stakeholders  More specifically, we identified selected activities that were taken by NHTSA, NTIA, FCC, and DHS that address some of the funding, technology, and governance challenges raised by state and local 911 stakeholders, for example: Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and NTIA, in consultation with FCC and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems  According to NHTSA officials, the cost study will present a nationwide view, rather than a state-by-state view, on the progress of NG911 implementation and its associated costs  Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services  In September 2017, NHTSA and NTIA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking outlining implementing regulations for the grant program  NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018  Technology standards: The National 911 Program issued an annual guide in 2017 that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services  The guide provides a list of standards that have been recently updated and an analysis that identifies whether existing standards fully address NG911 processes and protocols  Cybersecurity guides: DHS issued a guide in 2016 that identified cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies  According to DHS officials, the National 911 Program provided input on this guide  In addition, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call-centers’ architecture issued a report in 2016 that provided a cybersecurity self-assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies  Governance plans: To address challenges related to the evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program issued a guide in 2016 that provided practices for states to consider when interconnecting NG911 networks, and DHS issued a guide in 2015 for emergency communications officials for establishing, assessing, and updating their governance structures  In addition, an FCC advisory body issued a report in 2016 that identified NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911  In addition to federal agency efforts to assist the state and local 911 community, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap  As part of this initiative, the National 911 Program plans to convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify tasks that need to be completed at the national level by the federal government and other public and private-sector organizations to support the creation of a national, interconnected NG911 system  Additional details regarding this planned activity are described in further detail later in this report  For additional information on federal actions to address state and local NG911 challenges, see appendix II  As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 activities, the National 911 Program has taken a variety of actions to assist the state and local 911 community, in collaboration with other federal agencies  However, the program lacks goals and performance measures to assess whether these activities are achieving desired results  National 911 Program officials stated that they initiate program activities based on feedback received from the 911 community  In addition, officials said the program’s activities fall within the tasks established in the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012  However, the National 911 Program does not have a means to assess its progress toward meeting its responsibilities established in the 2012 Act  National 911 Program officials said the Office of EMS—the office within NHTSA in which the program is housed—has a strategic plan, but it is outdated and does not contain specific goals or performance measures related to 911 or NG911 implementation  Officials said the Office of EMS has held preliminary discussions to begin updating its strategic plan by January 2019 and plans to include goals and performance measures related to 911 and NG911 services  Office of EMS officials told us the Office of EMS strategic plan will be jointly developed with the National 911 Program  However the Office of EMS had not yet developed a draft strategic plan during the time of our review  Federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in order to achieve desired results  According to these standards, an entity determines its mission, establishes specific measurable objectives, and formulates plans to achieve its objectives  These standards state that management sets objectives in order to meet the entity’s mission, strategic plan, and goals and requirements of applicable laws and regulations  In addition, our work on leading practices for managing for results indicated that an agency’s strategic goals should also explain what results are expected from the agency and when to expect those results  Further, these goals form a basis for an entity to identify strategies to fulfill its mission and improve its operations to support the achievement of that mission  As the lead entity for coordinating federal NG911 efforts, the National 911 Program faces a complex and challenging task of assisting the 911 community while the nation’s 911 systems undergo a major transformation  However, without specific goals and related performance measures, the National 911 Program is unable to assess how well its activities are achieving results in relation to its responsibilities identified in the 2012 Act  As the National 911 Program and the Office of EMS consider creating a strategic plan, ensuring that the plan includes specific goals and related measures for the National 911 Program would help officials better understand whether the program’s activities are effectively assisting states and localities in transitioning to a fully integrated national NG911 system, and help identify any programmatic changes that might be needed  As previously mentioned, the National 911 Program is in the early stages of establishing an interagency initiative to create a National NG911 Roadmap  This initiative will convene the 911 stakeholder community to identify national-level tasks that need to be completed by federal agencies and other organizations to realize a national, interconnected NG911 system  According to the National 911 Program, a list of the national-level tasks needed to advance NG911 implementation nationwide has not been created to date  In addition, state officials we spoke with said there are certain issues related to interoperability and cybersecurity that federal agencies need to address before states can connect their respective state NG911 systems  To address these issues, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued a request for proposal (RFP) in August 2017 for managing the roadmap development process and awarded a contract in September 2017  While the National 911 Program is taking steps to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, the program does not have a plan to identify: (1) roles or responsibilities for federal entities to carry out national-level tasks or (2) how the program plans to achieve the roadmap’s objectives  NHTSA’s NG911 roadmap RFP specifies that by identifying a list of national-level tasks that are developed and adopted by the 911 stakeholder community, the roadmap could serve as a blueprint to carry out these tasks and thereby ensure the interoperability of the nation’s NG911 system  However, the National 911 Program does not have plans for the entities participating in the development of the roadmap to be assigned roles and responsibilities for executing the roadmap’s national- level tasks  National 911 Program officials told us the National 911 Program does not plan to assign roles and responsibilities because NHTSA does not have the authority to require or assign tasks for other entities  Additionally, program officials view the simultaneous identification of tasks and assignments of responsibility for those tasks as a risk to facilitating a candid and productive discussion with entities participating in the roadmap initiative  However, officials stated it may be appropriate for agencies participating in the roadmap initiative to perform specific tasks after the roadmap is finalized  We have previously examined interagency collaborative mechanisms and identified certain key issues for federal agencies to consider when using these mechanisms to achieve results  Our prior work has found that following leading collaboration practices, such as clarifying roles and responsibilities of agencies engaged in collaboration, can enhance and sustain collaboration among agencies and provide an understanding of who will do what in support of meeting the aims of the collaborative group  As stated above, the RFP specifies that a roadmap developed by and adopted by 911 stakeholders could serve as a blueprint to carry out the roadmap’s tasks  Securing the commitment of agencies to assigned roles could help organize the collaborative group’s joint and individual efforts and thereby better facilitate decision making  As we have previously found, a lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in an interagency effort—such as the execution of the roadmap’s tasks—may limit agencies’ abilities to effectively achieve shared objectives  Given the complexity of the task and the number of agencies that could be involved, following selected leading collaboration practices for the roadmap initiative—particularly with regard to collaborating with roadmap stakeholders to clarify their roles and responsibilities (whether during the creation of the task list or afterwards)—could reduce barriers to agencies effectively working together to achieve the national-level tasks  While clarifying the roles and responsibilities of roadmap stakeholders for the execution of the roadmap’s tasks is an important collaborative step, the National 911 Program has additional responsibilities as the lead entity for the initiative  However, National 911 Program officials are unable to clearly articulate how the program will proceed following the completion of the roadmap  National 911 Program officials said without knowing the contents of the roadmap, it would be premature to specify how the roadmap’s national-level tasks would be completed  Officials stated that once the roadmap is completed, possible next steps may include identification of timelines, deadlines, and a mechanism for tracking progress, among other things, but officials stated that these steps are not required in the roadmap RFP  As stated above, federal internal control standards call for management to clearly define objectives in specific terms  According to these standards, management defines what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  Without a clear plan for how the National 911 Program would take next steps to support the implementation of the roadmap’s objectives and tasks, the National 911 Program may not be prepared to take effective action once the roadmap is completed  We have previously found that having an implementation plan can assist agencies to better focus and prioritize goals and objectives, and align planned activities  Once the roadmap is completed, developing an implementation plan that details what is to be achieved and how it will be accomplished will place the National 911 Program in a better position moving forward to support the completion of the national-level tasks  The current 911 system is undergoing a historic transition  With no federal requirement that states transition to NG911 services, federal leadership is critical to addressing interoperability challenges and promoting the goal of an interconnected national system  As the lead federal entity for fostering coordination and collaboration among federal, state, and local 911 authorities, the National 911 Program plays a critical role in coordinating NG911 implementation efforts to improve the nation’s 911 services  However, this program—in collaboration with other federal agencies— faces a complex and challenging task to help move approximately 6,000 independent 911 call centers toward an interconnected national NG911 system  In addition, given that the NG911 transition is still in its early stages and is an ongoing effort, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of various federal actions to assist states and localities in the transition  In light of these challenges, without specific goals and related measures to assess effectiveness, the National 911 Program may be hindered in determining whether it is making progress towards its stated mission  Through the roadmap initiative, the National 911 Program has taken important first steps in identifying the need for actions at the national level, in order to fully realize the desired end-state of a national, interconnected NG911 system  However, while identifying needed next steps is essential, equally important to the collaborative effort’s success is (1) defining and agreeing on the roles and responsibilities of the entities best suited to undertake these actions, and (2) developing plans for how the National 911 Program will support implementation to achieve the roadmap’s objectives  If taken, these actions could help further NG911 implementation nationwide and help the National 911 Program and federal agencies in assisting states and localities to improve these lifesaving services  We are making the following three recommendations to the Administrator of NHTSA regarding the National 911 Program: develop specific program goals and performance measures related to NG911 implementation  (Recommendation 1) in collaboration with the appropriate federal agencies, determine roles and responsibilities of federal agencies participating in the National NG911 Roadmap initiative in order to carry out the national-level tasks over which each agency has jurisdiction  (Recommendation 2) develop an implementation plan to support the completion of the National NG911 Roadmap’s national-level tasks  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, and Homeland Security and FCC for their review and comment  In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Department of Transportation agreed with the recommendations  The Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  The Department of Commerce and FCC had no comments  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Managing Director of the FCC, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Our objectives were to examine (1) progress states and localities are making to implement Next Generation 911 (NG911) and the challenges they have faced and (2) how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps  To describe state and local progress in implementing NG911 and background information on fee collection and costs, we analyzed select survey data elements from the 2016 National 911 Progress Report and the Eighth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges, maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) respectively  More specifically, we analyzed the most recent state-provided data (from calendar year 2015) related to the planning and implementation of NG911 at the state and local levels, as well as NG911 cost and 911-related revenue data  We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing relevant documents and discussing data elements with staff responsible for collecting and analyzing the data  We also conducted our own testing to check the consistency of the data  We found the data from both sources to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes to describe states’ progress in implementing NG911 and provide background on 911 fee collection and costs  While these data provide the best nationwide picture of NG911 implementation and fee collection, and are reliable for our purposes, there are some limitations on how the data can be used  Since we did not validate the state-reported responses, our findings based on these data are limited to what states reported  Additionally, regarding the 2016 National 911 Progress Report data, there are limitations to (1) making comparisons between states because states have different approaches to implementing NG911 and (2) ascertaining year-over-year progress because reporting is voluntary and states’ response rates can vary year to year  To describe implementation challenges that states and local authorities may be encountering, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 10 states as case studies, based upon a variety of factors, including reported progress in implementing NG911, statewide planning and coordination, reported number of annual 911 calls, whether states diverted 911 fees to other uses, and variation in geographic location  We selected these states, in part, based on their responses to the two aforementioned surveys  Based on the aforementioned criteria, we selected the following states to include as case studies: California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia  We reviewed documents and interviewed state officials from all of these states except Nevada about NG911 implementation progress, challenges, federal actions, and any additional assistance needed  We contacted 911 officials in Nevada but did not receive responses  We also interviewed local officials in four of the selected states  While not generalizable to all states, the information obtained from our case studies provides examples of broader issues faced by states and localities in managing the NG911 transition  To determine how federal agencies have addressed state and local implementation challenges and planned next steps, we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and documentation of federal agency actions and plans, and our prior reports  We also interviewed officials from federal agencies, including NHTSA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), FCC, and the U S  Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about federal actions taken and plans for next steps  To understand planning activities undertaken by NHTSA’s National 911 Program, and its planned project to develop a National NG911 Roadmap, we reviewed the National 911 Program’s internal planning documents, the program’s request for proposal to develop a national roadmap, the program’s written responses to our questions, and interviewed National 911 Program officials  In addition, we interviewed officials from national associations representing emergency-response- technology companies, wireless and wireline phone carriers, emergency- communications entities, and groups representing deaf and hard-of- hearing consumers to gain their perspectives on federal actions taken and next steps  We assessed the National 911 Program’s strategic- planning activities against leading practices for performance management found in our prior work on strategic planning and goal setting and federal internal control standards  We assessed the National 911 Program’s planned activities for the national roadmap project against federal internal control standards and selected key practices to enhance interagency collaboration identified in our prior work  We conducted our work from January 2017 to January 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  Description of challenge State and local funding may not be sufficient to support costs associated with transitioning to NG911 equipment and infrastructure  Transitioning from legacy infrastructure to Internet Protocol-based systems presents technical and operational challenges such as interoperability and cybersecurity risks  Federal actions Grant resources: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National 911 Program issued on its website a list clarifying which of the fiscal year 2016 emergency-communications grants may be used for NG911 services  Program officials said they developed this list in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  Cost study: NHTSA’s National 911 Program and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and DHS, plan to issue a study of the range of costs for 911 call centers and service providers to implement NG911 systems and on the nationwide progress of implementing NG911 services  Grant program: NHTSA and NTIA are preparing to jointly administer a $115 million grant program to improve 911 services, including the adoption and operation of NG911 services  NHTSA and NTIA expect to award the grants in 2018  Funding mechanisms: An advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report in 2016 that identified common costs and funding mechanisms for 911 officials to consider  The report also introduced a 911 funding sustainment model designed for use by 911 officials to calculate their financial needs to support a transition to NG911 implementation  Guides on technology standards and procurement practices: In 2017, NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued an annual guide on emergency- communications technology standards that stressed the importance of using open technology standards for NG911 services  The National 911 Program issued another guide in 2016 that provides information on procuring goods and services related to NG911 such as practices for call centers to consider when developing their request for proposals and contracts  Examining emerging technology issues: In 2017, FCC tasked a public- private advisory council to recommend how FCC can promote the NG911 transition, enhance the reliability of NG911, and mitigate the threat of 911 outages  Prior to that tasking, the FCC advisory council issued a report in 2016 that explored location-based routing issues and discussed transition considerations from legacy 911 to NG911  NG911 cybersecurity guide and technical assistance: DHS, with input from NHTSA’s National 911 Program according to DHS officials, issued a guide in 2016 that identifies cybersecurity risks for NG911 and risk mitigation strategies  In addition, DHS provides NG911 technical assistance for states seeking assistance with strategic planning and technology integration  In a separate effort, an advisory body tasked by FCC to examine 911 call center architecture issued a report in 2016 that provides a cybersecurity self- assessment tool for call centers and guidance on cybersecurity strategies  Description of challenge States may face a range of challenges related to evolving roles for state and local 911 authorities that could hinder NG911 implementation  Federal actions Guides on state and legislative planning: NHTSA’s National 911 Program issued guides on state 911 planning and legislative issues to consider for NG911 and awarded a contract in September 2017 to update those guides  In 2016, the National 911 Program issued a guidebased on the experiences of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota that identifies practices to consider for states interconnecting NG911 networks across state lines  Exploring NG911 governance implementation issues: In 2016, an advisory body tasked by FCC issued a report that identifies NG911 governance approaches, issues, and recommendations for states, localities, and call centers to consider when planning for the deployment of NG911  In 2013, FCC also issued a report that details recommendations to Congress for transitioning from legacy 911 to NG911 networks  Guide on emergency communications governance structures: In 2015, DHS and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators issued a guide that provides characteristics of effective governance approaches and best practices for officials to establish, assess, and update their governance structures  In addition to the contact named above, Andrew Huddleston (Assistant Director), Jean Cook (Analyst in Charge), Camilo Flores, Steven Rabinowitz, Malika Rice, Kelly L  Rubin, Michael Sweet, Hai Tran, Marika Van Laan, and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: This report describes and analyzes annual appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2019  It compares the enacted FY2018 appropriations for DHS, the Donald J  Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request, and the appropriations measures developed and considered by Congress in response to it  This report identifies additional informational resources, reports, and products on DHS appropriations that provide context for the discussion, and it provides a list of Congressional Research Service (CRS) policy experts with whom clients may consult on specific topics  The suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations tracks legislative action and congressional issues related to DHS appropriations, with particular attention paid to discretionary funding amounts  These reports do not provide in-depth analysis of specific issues related to mandatory funding—such as retirement pay—nor do they systematically follow other legislation related to the authorizing or amending of DHS programs, activities, or fee revenues  Discussion of appropriations legislation involves a variety of specialized budgetary concepts  The Appendix to this report explains several of these concepts, including budget authority, obligations, outlays, discretionary and mandatory spending, offsetting collections, allocations, and adjustments to the discretionary spending caps under the Budget Control Act (BCA; P L  112-25 )  A more complete discussion of those terms and the appropriations process in general can be found in CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction , coordinated by James V  Saturno, and the Government Accountability Office's A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process   All amounts contained in the suite of CRS reports on homeland security appropriations represent budget authority  For precision in percentages and totals, all calculations in these reports used unrounded data, which are presented in each report's tables  However, amounts in narrative discussions are rounded to the nearest million (or 10 million, in the case of numbers larger than 1 billion), unless noted otherwise  Data used in this report for FY2018 amounts are derived from the explanatory statement accompanying P L  115-141 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017—Division F of which is the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018  The explanatory statement also includes data on FY2018 supplemental appropriations for DHS enacted prior to the development of the consolidated appropriations act for FY2018  Data for the FY2019 requested levels and enacted levels are drawn from H Rept  116-9 , the explanatory statement accompanying P L  116-6   Data on the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation are drawn from S Rept  115-283 , and data for the House Appropriations Committee recommendation are drawn from H Rept  115-948   Scoring methodology is consistent across this report, relying on data provided by the Appropriations Committees that has been developed with Congressional Budget Office (CBO) methodology  CRS does not attempt to compare this data with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data because technical scoring differences do not allow precise comparisons  This section provides an overview of the process of enactment of appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY2019, from the Administration's initial request, through committee action in the House and Senate, continuing appropriations (and their lapse), and enactment of the consolidated appropriations bill that contained DHS annual appropriation  On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration released its budget request for FY2019  The enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P L  115-123 ) three days before had established discretionary spending limits for FY2018 and FY2019, replacing the limits prescribed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P L  112-25 )  The Administration chose to submit an addendum to their request in a letter accompanying the formal request documentation, which included additional requests for resources for DHS and several other departments and agencies  The Trump Administration requested $47 43 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for DHS for FY2019, as part of an overall budget that the Office of Management and Budget estimated to be $74 88 billion (including fees, trust funds, and other funding that is not annually appropriated or does not score against discretionary budget limits)  The request amounted to a $0 29 billion (0 6%) decrease from the $47 72 billion in annual appropriations enacted for FY2018 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P L  115-141 , Division F)  The Trump Administration also requested discretionary funding for DHS components that does not count against discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act (BCA; P L  112-25 ) and is not reflected in the above totals  The Administration requested an additional $6 65 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in disaster relief funding, as defined by the BCA, and in the budget request for the Department of Defense, $165 million in Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terror designated funding (OCO), to be transferred to the Coast Guard  On June 21, 2018, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out S  3109 , the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, accompanied by S Rept  115-283   Committee-reported S  3109 included $48 33 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2019  This was $901 million (1 9%) above the level requested by the Administration, and $611 million (1 3%) above the enacted level for FY2018  The Senate committee-reported bill also included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, and $163 million in OCO-designated funding directly for the Coast Guard, as had been done in FY2018, rather than as a transfer, as had been requested by the Administration  This bill was never taken up for action on the Senate floor  On July 26, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee marked up H R  6776 , its version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019  H Rept  115-948 was filed September 12, 2018  Committee-reported H R  6776 included $51 44 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority  The House committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, but unlike S  3109 , did not include the OCO funding for the Coast Guard  This bill did not see action on the House floor  As some of the annual appropriations for FY2019 remained unfinished, a consolidated appropriations bill that included a continuing resolution was passed by Congress and signed into law on September 28, 2018, as P L  115-245   The continuing resolution (Division C) continued funding for DHS at a rate of operations equal to that of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018, with some exceptions  The continuing resolution was extended through December 21, 2018, at which point it expired, and annual appropriations for DHS lapsed, resulting in a partial shutdown of DHS for 35 days  Continuing appropriations were restored at the FY2018 rate of operations with the enactment of P L  116-4 on January 25, 2019  On February 14, 2019, the House took up H J Res  31 , a consolidated appropriations bill that included eight annual appropriations bills  Division A, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, included $49 41 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, $1 69 billion (3 5%) more than had been provided for FY2018, and $2 04 billion more than had been requested by the Administration in February 2018  In addition to that total, the bill included $12 billion designated for the costs of major disasters—$5 35 billion (80 4%) more than had been requested, and the requested $165 million in OCO funding appropriated for the Coast Guard operating budget, rather than a transfer from the Navy  The bill passed the House by a vote of 300-128, and the Senate that same day by a vote of 83-16  The President signed it into law the next day  Generally, the homeland security appropriations bill includes all annual appropriations provided for DHS, allocating resources to every departmental component  Discretionary appropriations provide roughly two-thirds to three-fourths of the annual funding for DHS operations, depending how one accounts for disaster relief spending and funding for overseas contingency operations  The remainder of the budget is a mix of fee revenues, trust funds, and mandatory spending  Appropriations measures for DHS typically have been organized into five titles  The first four are thematic groupings of components, while the fifth provides general direction to the department, and sometimes includes provisions providing additional budget authority  Prior to the FY2017 act, the legislative language of many appropriations included directions to components or specific conditions on how the budget authority it provided could be used  Similarly, general provisions provided directions or conditions to one or more components  In the FY2017 act, a number of these provisions within appropriations and component-specific general provisions were grouped at the ends of the titles where their targeted components are funded, and identified as "administrative provisions " This practice has continued in subsequent years  When DHS was established in 2003, components of other agencies were brought together over a matter of months, in the midst of ongoing budget cycles  Rather than developing a new structure of appropriations for the entire department, Congress and the Administration continued to provide resources through existing account structures when possible  At the direction of Congress, in 2014 DHS began to work on a new Common Appropriations Structure (CAS), which would standardize the format of DHS appropriations across components  In an interim report in 2015, DHS noted that operating with "over 70 different appropriations and over 100 Programs, Projects, and Activities     has contributed to a lack of transparency, inhibited comparisons between programs, and complicated spending decisions and other managerial decision-making " After several years of work and negotiations with Congress, DHS made its first budget request in the CAS for FY2017, and implemented it while operating under the continuing resolutions funding the department in October 2016  For FY2017 and FY2018, all DHS components requested appropriations under the CAS except for the Coast Guard, due to constraints of its financial management system  For FY2019, all the components' requests generally conformed to the CAS  A visual representation of the FY2019 requested funding in this new structure follows in Figure 1   On the left, CAS appropriations categories are listed next to a black bar representing the total FY2018 funding levels requested for DHS for each category  A catch-all "other" category is included for budget authority associated with the legislation that does not fit the CAS categories  Colored lines flow to the DHS components listed on the right, showing how the amount of funding for each appropriations category is distributed across DHS components  Wider lines indicate greater funding levels, so it is possible to understand how components may be funded differently  For example, while Customs and Border Protection (CBP) gets most of its funding from Operations and Support appropriations, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives most of its discretionary funding from the Disaster Relief Fund appropriation  The following sections present textual and tabular comparisons among FY2018 enacted appropriations, FY2019 requested appropriations, the FY2019 appropriations bills developed by the appropriations committees, and the final enacted annual appropriation in Division A of the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P L  116-6 )  The structure of the appropriations reflects the organization outlined in the detail table of the explanatory statement accompanying the act ( H Rept  116-9 )  The tables summarize enacted appropriations for FY2018, and those requested by the Administration, and proposed in appropriations committee-developed legislation under development for FY2019  Only the formal request for FY2019 annual appropriations is reflected in the "Request" column  The tables include data on enacted annual and supplemental appropriations  Instances where appropriations are provided for a title's components in other parts of the bill (such as in general provisions or by transfer) are shown separately  Supplemental appropriations provided with an emergency designation for a given component in FY2018 are displayed after the subtotal of annual appropriations  Following the methodology used by the appropriations committees, totals of "appropriations" do not include resources provided by transfer or under adjustments to discretionary spending limits (i e , for emergency requirements, overseas contingency operations for the Coast Guard or the cost of major disasters under the Stafford Act for the Federal Emergency Management Agency)  Amounts covered by adjustments are included with discretionary appropriations in a separate total for "discretionary funding " A subtotal for each component of total estimated budgetary resources that would be available under the legislation and from other sources (such as fees, mandatory spending, and trust funds) for the given fiscal year is also provided at the end of each component section  Totals at the bottom of each table indicate the total net discretionary appropriation for the title on its own, the total net discretionary funding from the annual appropriations bill and any supplemental appropriations (when such were provided), and the projected total estimated budgetary resources for each phase in the appropriations process shown in the table  Title I, Departmental Management and Operations, the smallest of the component-specific titles, contains appropriations for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the Management Directorate, Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)  For FY2018, these components received $1 36 billion in net discretionary funding through the appropriations process, including $25 million in FY2018 supplemental appropriations  The Trump Administration requested $1 60 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title  In addition, $24 million was requested as a transfer from the FY2019 appropriation for the Disaster Relief Fund to the OIG  Not including the transfer, the appropriations request was $241 million (17 7%) more than the amount provided for FY2018  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $1 47 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $137 million (8 6%) less than requested by the Trump Administration and $103 million (7 6%) more than the amount provided for FY2018  S  3109 included $72 million in discretionary budget authority drawn from unobligated prior-year balances from the DRF, but did not include the proposed transfer of FY2019 DRF resources to the OIG  As a result, the gross budgetary resources provided to components funded in Title I was $89 million (5 5%) less than the request, and $176 million (12 9%) more than provided in FY2018  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $1 48 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $119 million (7 4%) less than requested by the Trump Administration and $122 million (8 9%) more than the amount provided for FY2018  H R  6776 , like the Senate committee-reported bill, did not include the proposed transfer of FY2019 DRF resources to the OIG  As a result, the gross budgetary resources provided to components funded in Title I were $143 million (8 8%) less than the request, and $122 million (8 9%) more than provided in FY2018  P L  116-6 included a total of $1 88 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This included $51 million in a general provision for financial systems modernization, controlled by the management directorate  The total was $513 million (37 7%) more than was provided in FY2018, and $248 million (15 2%) more than was requested by the Administration, if one included the Administration's proposed transfer of $24 million from the Disaster Relief Fund to the Office of the Inspector General  Table 1 shows these comparisons in greater detail  As resources were requested or provided for the Management Directorate and Office of the Inspector General in some cases from outside Title I, separate lines are included for each of those components showing a total for what is provided solely within Title I, then the individual items funded outside the title, followed by the total annual appropriation for the components  Title II, Security, Enforcement, and Investigations, contains appropriations for U S  Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard (USCG), and the U S  Secret Service (USSS)  Title II funding represents the majority of DHS's budget, comprising roughly three-quarters of the funding appropriated annually for the department  For FY2018, these components received $39 52 billion in net discretionary funding, as part of $47 13 billion in projected total budget authority  This included $1 06 billion in supplemental appropriations  The Trump Administration formally requested $38 41 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a total budget request for these components of $47 08 billion for FY2019  The funding request was $45 million (0 1%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations  Again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations, the total resources proposed for FY2019 was $1 01 billion (2 2%) more than projected for FY2018  The Administration reportedly sought additional funding in this title for construction of border barriers, above the formally requested level  In January 2019, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to congressional leaders officially seeking an additional $4 1 billion  Those amounts are not included in these comparative calculations or in the table below  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $38 68 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $271 million (0 7%) more than formally requested by the Trump Administration and $227 million (0 6%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations  The total budgetary resources projected under S  3109 were $614 million (1 3%) less than the Administration's request (largely due to rejection of a proposed TSA fee increase), but $391 million (0 8%) more than projected for FY2018, again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $41 28 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $2 87 billion (7 5%) more than formally requested by the Trump Administration and $2 82 billion (7 3%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations  The total budgetary resources projected under H R  6776 were $2 08 billion (4 4%) more than formally requested by the Administration and $3 12 billion (6 8%) more than projected for FY2018, again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations  H R  6776 would have provided $2 59 billion (6 7%) more than S  3019 , largely due to the House Appropriations Committee recommending $3 35 billion more than its Senate counterpart for CBP's Border Security Assets and Infrastructure activity  P L  116-6 included $40 00 billion in net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  The enacted annual appropriations were $1 59 billion (4 1%) more than requested, and $486 million (1 2%) more than the amount provided in FY2018  Setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding, FY2019 enacted net discretionary funding exceeded FY2018 levels by $1 55 billion (4 0%)  The total budgetary resources projected for components funded in this title were $47 82 billion, $704 million (1 5%) more than was formally requested by the Administration, and $1 75 billion (3 8%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside the FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 2 shows these comparisons in greater detail  Title III, Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, contains appropriations for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  It is the second largest of the component-specific titles  For FY2018, these components received $7 22 billion in net discretionary appropriations and $7 37 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief through the annual appropriations process  In addition to that annual funding, $58 23 billion was provided for FEMA in emergency supplemental appropriations in FY2018  Incorporating all these elements, the total net discretionary funding level for all Title III components was $72 61 billion for FY2018  The Trump Administration requested $6 19 billion in FY2019 net discretionary appropriations for components included in this title, and $6 65 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief as part of a total net discretionary funding level for these components of $12 84 billion for FY2019  Setting aside the $58 23 billion in FY2018 supplemental appropriations, the appropriations request was $1 54 billion (10 7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018 in net discretionary funding  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $13 54 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $694 million (5 4%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $847 million (5 9%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected would be $718 million (3 8%) more than the Administration's request, but $1 29 billion (6 2%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The Senate committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6 65 billion, and offset $228 million in its Federal Assistance appropriation from unobligated DRF balances  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $13 70 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $861 million (6 7%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $681 million (4 7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected would be $885 million (4 7%) more than the Administration's request, but $1 13 billion (5 4%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The House committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6 65 billion  P L  116-6 included $18 27 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  The enacted discretionary funding level was $5 43 billion (42 3%) more than requested, and $3 89 billion (27 1%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside the historically high level of supplemental appropriations  The total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 was $5 46 billion (29 0%) more than was requested, and $3 44 billion (16 5%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 3 shows these comparisons in greater detail  As some annually appropriated resources were provided for FEMA from outside Title III in FY2018, a separate line is included for FEMA showing a total for what is provided solely within Title III, then the non-Title III appropriation, followed by the total annual appropriation for FEMA  Title IV, Research and Development, Training, and Services, the second smallest of the component-specific titles, contains appropriations for the U S  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)  In FY2018, these components received $1 57 billion in net discretionary funding, as part of a projected total budget of $5 92 billion  This included $10 million in supplemental appropriations for FLETC  The Trump Administration requested $1 53 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $6 11 billion for FY2018  The funding request was $36 million (2 3%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental appropriations, although the overall budget request was $201 million (3 3%) higher than the annual budget projected for FY2018 (again, setting aside supplemental funding)  This is due to changes in anticipated fee collections for USCIS and reorganization of most of the Office of Health Affairs and DNDO into the new CWMD component reflected in the request  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $1 53 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6 23 billion  This was $115 million (7 5%) more than requested, and $79 million (5 0%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected under S  3109 would have been $115 million (1 9%) more than the Administration's request, and $316 million (5 3%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $1 64 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6 21 billion  This was $97 million (6 3%) more than requested, and $60 million (3 9%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected under H R  6776 would have been $97 million (1 6%) more than the Administration's request, and $297 million (5 0%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  P L  116-6 included $1 62 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  Enacted FY2019 appropriations were $199 million (3 3%) more than was requested by the Administration, and $163 million (10 4%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 are $199 million (3 3%) more than were requested by the Administration, and $400 million (6 8%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 4 shows these comparisons in greater detail  As noted above, the fifth title of the FY2019 DHS appropriations act contains general provisions, the impact of which may reach across the entire department, affect multiple components, or focus on a single activity  Rescissions of prior-year appropriations—cancellations of budget authority that reduce the net funding level in the bill—are found in this title  For FY2018, Division F of P L  115-141 included $489 million in rescissions  For FY2019, the Administration proposed rescinding $300 million in prior-year funding from the DRF  S  3109 included $137 million in rescissions from other appropriations, but specifically directed the $300 million the Administration had proposed rescinding from the DRF to other activities within DHS  H R  6776 did not include any rescissions, although an amendment from Representative Palazzo was passed in full committee markup on a voice vote redirecting unobligated balances from the Science and Technology Directorate to the Coast Guard  Division A of P L  116-6 included $303 million in rescissions, and a provision directing that $300 million of DRF unobligated balances be used to offset new DRF appropriations  In FY2018, funding was also included in Title V for the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and a grant program for Presidential Residence Protection costs, which are reflected in the tables for Title I and Title III, respectively, as those titles fund the components that manage these resources  For FY2019, Title V of S  3109 only funded the Financial Systems Modernization initiative, and Title V of H R  6776 only funded Presidential Residence Protection costs  Title V of P L  116-6 , Division A, included funding for both the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and Presidential Residence Protection costs  The detail table in the back of H Rept  115-948 also notes the discretionary cost of several policy changes in H R  6776   Four amendments adopted in House Appropriations Committee markup resulted in a net $13 million increase in the score of the bill, which is reflected in the detail table, but not in the tables of this report  No such costs are reflected in the detail table of H Rept  116-9   For additional perspectives on FY2019 DHS appropriations, see the following: CRS Report R44604, Trends in the Timing and Size of DHS Appropriations: In Brief ; CRS Report R44052, DHS Budget v  DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet ; and CRS Report R45262, Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2019: In Brief   Congressional clients also may wish to consult CRS's experts directly  The following table lists CRS analysts and specialists who have expertise in policy areas linked to DHS appropriations  Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays Federal government spending involves a multistep process that begins with the enactment of budget authority by Congress  Federal agencies then obligate funds from enacted budget authority to pay for their activities  Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays  Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend  The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority enacted by Congress  Budget authority also may be indefinite in amount, as when Congress enacts language providing "such sums as may be necessary" to complete a project or purpose  Budget authority may be available on a one-year, multiyear, or no-year basis  One-year budget authority is available for obligation only during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year are no longer available for spending  Multiyear budget authority specifies a range of time during which funds may be obligated for spending, and no-year budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time  Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year—which create a legal requirement for the government to pay  Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year  Because multiyear and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year  Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year, especially with certain contracts  In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury  Discretionary funded agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts  Discretionary and Mandatory Spending Gross budget authority , or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending  Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts  The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual appropriations acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes appropriations for entitlements  Mandatory spending , also known as direct spending , consists of budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than appropriations acts and is typically not appropriated each year  Some mandatory entitlement programs, however, must be appropriated each year and are included in appropriations acts  Within DHS, Coast Guard retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending  Offsetting Collections Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as collection of a fee  These funds are not considered federal revenue  Instead, they are counted as negative outlays  DHS net discretionary budget authority , or the total funds appropriated by Congress each year, is composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary spending  Some collections offset a portion of an agency's discretionary budget authority  Other collections offset an agency's mandatory spending  These mandatory spending elements are typically entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility  The DHS budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard retired pay accounts (pensions)  Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations, and others are funded by annual appropriations  Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation and, as such, is not annually appropriated  In contrast, Coast Guard retirement pay is annually appropriated  In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds  These funds are not appropriated by Congress  They are available for obligation and included in the President's budget to calculate the gross budget authority  302(a) and 302(b) Allocations In general practice, the maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through a two-stage congressional budget process  In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget  Subsequently, these totals are allocated among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the conference report on the budget resolution  These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations   They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills  In the second stage of the process, the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the appropriations bills  These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations   These allocations must add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of order  The 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year by the respective appropriations committee issuing a report delineating the revised suballocations as the various appropriations bills progress toward final enactment  No subcommittee allocations are developed for conference reports or enacted appropriations bills  Table A-1 shows comparable figures for the 302(b) allocation for FY2018, based on the adjusted net discretionary budget authority included in Division F of P L  115-141 , the President's request for FY2019, and the House and Senate subcommittee allocations for the Homeland Security appropriations bills for FY2019  The Budget Control Act, Discretionary Spending Caps, and Adjustments The Budget Control Act established enforceable discretionary limits, or caps, for defense and nondefense spending for each fiscal year from FY2012 through FY2021  Subsequent legislation, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, amended those caps  Most of the budget for DHS is considered nondefense spending  In addition, the Budget Control Act allows for adjustments that would raise the statutory caps to cover funding for overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror, emergency spending, and, to a limited extent, disaster relief and appropriations for continuing disability reviews and control of health care fraud and abuse  Three of the four justifications outlined in the Budget Control Act for adjusting the caps on discretionary budget authority have played a role in DHS's appropriations process  Two of these—emergency spending and overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror—are not limited  The third justification—disaster relief—is limited  Under the Budget Control Act, the allowable adjustment for disaster relief was determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), using the following formula until FY2019: Limit on disaster relief cap adjustment for the fiscal year = Rolling average of the disaster relief spending over the last ten fiscal years (throwing out the high and low years) + the unused amount of the potential adjustment for disaster relief from the previous fiscal year  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 amended the above formula, increasing the allowable size of the adjustment by adding 5% of the amount of emergency-designated funding for major disasters under the Stafford Act, calculated by OMB as $6 296 billion  The act also extended the availability of unused adjustment capacity  In August 2018, OMB released a sequestration update report for FY2019 that provided a preview estimate of the allowable adjustment for FY2019 of $14 965 billion —the second-largest allowable adjustment for disaster relief in the history of the mechanism  $12 billion of that adjustment was exercised in P L  116-6 , Division A, in appropriations for the Disaster Relief Fund  No other annual appropriations used the disaster relief adjustment for FY2019  

ground_truth: This report provides an overview and analysis of FY2019 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The primary focus of this report is on congressional direction and funding provided to DHS through the appropriations process. It includes an Appendix with definitions of key budget terms used throughout the suite of Congressional Research Service reports on homeland security appropriations. It also directs the reader to other reports providing context for specific component appropriations. As part of an overall DHS budget that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated to be $74.88 billion, the Trump Administration requested $47.43 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority through the appropriations process for DHS for FY2018. The request amounted to a $0.29 billion (0.6%) decrease from the $47.72 billion in annual appropriations enacted for FY2018 through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, Division F). The Administration also requested discretionary funding for DHS components that does not count against discretionary spending limits and is not reflected in the adjusted net discretionary budget authority total. The Administration requested an additional $6.65 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in disaster relief funding, as defined by the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25; BCA), and in the budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD), $165 million in Overseas Contingency Operations designated funding (OCO) from the Operations and Maintenance budget of the U.S. Navy. On June 21, 2018, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 3109, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, accompanied by S.Rept. 115-283. Committee-reported S. 3109 included $48.33 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority for FY2019. This was $901 million (1.9%) above the level requested by the Administration, and $611 million (1.3%) above the enacted level for FY2018. The Senate committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, and included the OCO funding in an appropriation to the Coast Guard, rather than as a transfer from the U.S. Navy. On July 26, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee marked up H.R. 6776, its version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019. H.Rept. 115-948 was filed September 12, 2018. Committee-reported H.R. 6776 included $51.44 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority. The House committee-reported bill included the Administration-requested levels for disaster relief funding, but unlike S. 3109, did not include the OCO funding for the Coast Guard. As some of the annual appropriations for FY2019 remained unfinished, a consolidated appropriations bill that included a continuing resolution was passed by Congress and signed into law on September 28, 2018. The resolution, which covered DHS along with several other departments and agencies, continued funding at a rate of operations equal to FY2018 with some exceptions. This continuing resolution was extended through December 21, 2018, after which point annual appropriations lapsed. A partial government shutdown ensued for 35 days until continuing appropriations were resumed January 25, 2019, by P.L. 116-5. P.L. 116-6, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, was passed by Congress on February 14, 2019, and signed into law the following day. Division A of the act included the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, which included $49.41 billion in adjusted net discretionary budget authority, $12 billion designated for the costs of major disasters, and $165 million in OCO funding for the Coast Guard. This report will be updated in the event of FY2019 supplemental appropriations actions.