You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
Cluster munitions are weapons that open in mid-air and disperse smaller submunitions—anywhere from a few dozen to hundreds—into an area. They can be delivered by aircraft or from ground systems such as artillery, rockets, and missiles. Cluster munitions are valued militarily because one munition can kill or destroy many targets within its impact area, and fewer weapons systems are needed to deliver fewer munitions to attack multiple targets. Cluster munitions also permit a smaller force to engage a larger adversary and are considered by some an "economy of force" weapon. Many cluster munitions rely on simple mechanical fuzes that arm the submunition based on its rate of spin and explode on impact or after a time delay. A newer generation of sensor-fuzed submunitions is being introduced by a number of nations to improve the munitions' and submunitions' accuracy and to reduce the large number of residual unexploded submunitions. These sensor-fuzed submunitions are designed to sense and destroy vehicles without creating an extensive hazard area of unexploded submunitions. Cluster bombs were first used in World War II, and inclusive of their debut, cluster munitions have been used in at least 21 states by at least 13 different countries. Cluster munitions were used extensively in Southeast Asia by the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) estimates that in Laos alone, 9 million to 27 million unexploded submunitions remained after the conflict, resulting in over 10,000 civilian casualties to date. Cluster munitions were used by the Soviets in Afghanistan, by the British in the Falklands, by the Coalition in the Gulf War, and by the warring factions in Yugoslavia. In Kosovo and Yugoslavia in 1999, NATO forces dropped 1,765 cluster bombs containing approximately 295,000 submunitions. From 2001 through 2002, the United States dropped 1,228 cluster bombs containing 248,056 submunitions in Afghanistan, and U.S. and British forces used almost 13,000 cluster munitions containing an estimated 1.8 million to 2 million submunitions during the first three weeks of combat in Iraq in 2003. Senior U.S. government officials have stated that the United States has not used cluster munitions since 2003, during the intervention in Iraq. It is widely believed that confusion over U.S. cluster submunitions (BLU-97/B) that were the same color and size as air-dropped humanitarian food packets played a major role in the U.S. decision to suspend cluster munitions use in Afghanistan but not before using them in Iraq. In 2006, Israeli use of cluster munitions against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon resulted in widespread international criticism. Israel was said to have fired significant quantities of cluster munitions—primarily during the last 3 days of the 34-day war after a U.N. cease-fire deal had been agreed to —resulting in almost 1 million unexploded cluster bomblets to which the U.N. attributed 14 deaths during the conflict. Reports maintain that Hezbollah fired about 113 "cluster rockets" at northern Israel and, in turn, Israel's use of cluster munitions supposedly affected 26% of southern Lebanon's arable land and contaminated about 13 square miles with unexploded submunitions. One report states that there was a failure rate of upward of 70% of Israel's cluster weapons. The fundamental criticisms of cluster munitions are that they disperse large numbers of submunitions imprecisely over an extended area, that they frequently fail to detonate and are difficult to detect, and that submunitions can remain explosive hazards for decades. Civilian casualties are primarily caused by munitions being fired into areas where soldiers and civilians are intermixed, inaccurate cluster munitions landing in populated areas, or civilians traversing areas where cluster munitions have been employed but failed to explode. Two technical characteristics of submunitions—failure rate and lack of a self-destruct capability—have received a great deal of attention. There appear to be significant discrepancies among failure rate estimates. Some manufacturers claim a submunition failure rate of 2% to 5%, whereas mine clearance specialists have frequently reported failure rates of 10% to 30%. A number of factors influence submunition reliability. These include delivery technique, age of the submunition, air temperature, landing in soft or muddy ground, getting caught in trees and vegetation, and submunitions being damaged after dispersal, or landing in such a manner that their impact fuzes fail to initiate. Submunitions lacking a self-destruct capability—referred to as "dumb" munitions—are of particular concern because they can remain a hazard for decades, thereby increasing the potential for civilian casualties. Some nations are developing "smart" or sensor-fuzed weapons with greater reliability and a variety of self-destruct mechanisms intended to address the residual hazard of submunitions. Experts maintain that self-destruct features reduce—but do not eliminate—the unexploded ordnance problem caused by cluster munitions and that the advantage gained by using "smart" cluster munitions is negated when high-failure rate and/or "dumb" cluster munitions are used in the same area. For some nations, replacing "dumb" and high-failure rate cluster munitions may not be an option—China, Russia, and the Republic of Korea maintain that they cannot afford to replace all current submunitions with "smart" submunitions. In an effort to restrict or ban specific types of weapons used in armed conflicts, 51 states negotiated the CCW in 1980. When the treaty entered into force in December 1983, it applied only to incendiary weapons, mines and booby-traps, and weapons intended to cause casualties through very small fragments. Since then, some states-parties have added provisions through additional protocols to address other types of weapons. Acting in accordance with the recommendation of a group of experts established during the 2006 CCW review conference, states-parties to the convention decided in 2007 to "negotiate a proposal to address urgently the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions." Negotiations took place in 2008 and 2009, but the parties have not reached agreement on a new proposal. The experts group continued negotiations in 2011 "informed by" a Draft Protocol on Cluster Munitions. However, the CCW states-parties were unable to reach agreement on a protocol during their November 2011 review conference. Described as "frustrated with the CCW process," a number of CCW members—led by Norway—initiated negotiations in 2007 outside of the CCW to ban cluster munitions. On May 30, 2008, they reached an agreement to ban cluster munitions. The United States, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt, India, and Pakistan did not participate in the talks or sign the agreement. During the Signing Conference in Oslo on December 3-4, 2008, 94 states signed the convention and 4 of the signatories ratified the convention at the same time. China, Russia, and the United States did not sign the convention, but France, Germany, and the United Kingdom were among the 18 NATO members to do so. The convention was to enter into force six months after the deposit of the 30 th ratification. The United Nations received the 30 th ratification on February 16, 2010, and the convention entered into force on August 1, 2010. As of January 2, 2019, 105 states were party to the convention. The Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), inter alia, bans the use of cluster munitions, as well as their development, production, acquisition, transfer, and stockpiling. The convention does not prohibit cluster munitions that can detect and engage a single target or explosive submunitions equipped with an electronic self-destruction or self-deactivating feature —an exemption that seemingly permits sensor-fuzed or "smart" cluster submunitions. U.S. officials were concerned that early versions of the CCM would prevent military forces from non-states-parties from providing humanitarian and peacekeeping support and significantly affect NATO military operations, but the version signed May 30, 2008, does permit states-parties to engage in military cooperation and operations with non-states-parties (Article 21, Paragraph 3). Then-Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs Stephen Mull stated in May 2008 that the United States relies on cluster munitions "as an important part of our own defense strategy," and that Washington's preferred alternative to a ban is "to pursue technological fixes that will make sure that these weapons are no longer viable once the conflict is over." U.S. officials note that Cluster munitions are available for use by every combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory, they are integral to every Army or Marine maneuver element and in some cases constitute up to 50 percent of tactical indirect fire support. U.S. forces simply can not fight by design or by doctrine without holding out at least the possibility of using cluster munitions. The United States also maintains that using cluster munitions reduces the number of aircraft and artillery systems needed to support military operations, and that if cluster munitions were eliminated, significantly more money would need to be spent on new weapons systems, ammunition, and logistical resources. Officials further suggest that if cluster munitions were eliminated, most militaries would increase their use of massed artillery and rocket barrages, which would likely increase destruction of key infrastructure. Then-Department of State Legal Adviser Harold Koh stated November 9, 2009, that the United States has determined that its "national security interests cannot be fully ensured consistent with the terms" of the CCM. The Barack Obama Administration announced on November 25, 2011, that the United States would continue to implement the DOD policy on cluster munitions issued June 19, 2008, which recognized the need to minimize harm to civilians and infrastructure but also reaffirmed that "cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility." The central directive in the Pentagon's policy was the unwaiverable requirement that cluster munitions used after 2018 must leave less than 1% of unexploded submunitions on the battlefield. Prior to that deadline, U.S. use of cluster munitions that did not meet this criterion required combatant commander approval. On November 30, 2017, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a revised policy on cluster munitions. The memorandum describing the policy noted that [c]luster munitions provide the Joint Force with an effective and necessary capability to engage area targets, including massed formations of enemy forces, individual targets dispersed over a defined area, targets whose precise location are not known, and time-sensitive or moving targets. Cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility, as they provide distinct advantages against a range of threats in the operating environment. Additionally, the use of cluster munitions may result in less collateral damage than the collateral damage that results from use of unitary munitions alone. Since the inception of the 2008 policy, in the midst of extended combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have witnessed important changes in the global security environment and experienced several years of budgets that under-invested in replacement systems and the modernization of the Joint Force more broadly. Our adversaries and our potential adversaries have developed advanced capabilities and operational approaches specifically designed to limit our ability to project power. Both Shanahan and Admiral Harry Harris Jr. have also argued that sustaining the current U.S. cluster munitions arsenal is necessary to prepare for a potential conflict with North Korea. The revised policy reverses the 2008 policy that established an unwaiverable requirement that cluster munitions used after 2018 must leave less than 1% of unexploded submunitions on the battlefield. Combatant commanders can use cluster munitions that do not meet the 1% or less unexploded submunitions standard in extreme situations to meet immediate warfighting demands. Furthermore, the new policy does not establish a deadline to replace cluster munitions exceeding the 1% rate, and these munitions will be removed only after new munitions that meet the 1% or less unexploded submunitions standard are fielded in sufficient quantities to meet combatant commander requirements. However, the new DOD policy stipulates that the department "will only procure cluster munitions containing submunitions or submunition warheads" meeting the 2008 UXO requirement or possessing "advanced features to minimize the risks posed by unexploded submunitions." Specifically, DOD's revised policy stipulates the following: Continuing or beginning with their respective FY2019 budgets, the military departments will program for capabilities to replace cluster munitions currently in active inventories that do not meet the above-described standards for procuring new cluster munitions. The department's annual Program and Budget Review will be used to assess the sufficiency of the replacement efforts. The department's operational planners should plan for the availability of cluster munitions. The approval authority to employ cluster munitions that do not meet the standards prescribed by this policy for procuring new cluster munitions, however, rests with the combatant commanders. In accordance with their existing authorities, commanders may use cluster munitions that meet the standards prescribed by this policy for procuring new cluster munitions. The military departments and combatant commands, in keeping with U.S. legal obligations under CCW Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War and consistent with past practices, will continue to record and retain information on the use of cluster munitions and provide relevant information to facilitate the removal or destruction of unexploded submunitions. The military departments and combatant commands will maintain sufficient inventories and a robust stockpile surveillance program to ensure operational quality and reliability of cluster munitions. In extremis, to meet immediate warfighting demand, combatant commanders may accept transfers of cluster munitions that do not meet the above-described cluster-munition procurement standards. Cluster munitions that do not meet the standards prescribed by this policy for procuring new cluster munitions will be removed from active inventories and demilitarized after their capabilities have been replaced by sufficient quantities of munitions that meet the standards in this policy. The department will not transfer cluster munitions except as provided for under U.S. law. The operational use of cluster munitions that include Anti-Personnel Landmines (APL) submunitions shall comply with presidential policy. Furthermore, the Deputy Secretary of Defense Expect(s) the Department to achieve the goals in this policy as rapidly as industry can support. Combatant Commanders will continue to ensure that the employment of cluster munitions is consistent with the law of war and applicable international agreements in order to minimize their harmful effects on civilian populations and infrastructure. In developing a new generation of cluster munitions less dangerous to civilians, DOD will need to determine whether such a high level of performance is achievable under both controlled laboratory conditions and real-world conditions. Factors such as delivery technique, landing in soft or muddy ground, getting caught in trees and vegetation, and submunitions being damaged after dispersal or landing could result in an appreciable number of dud submunitions, even if they have a self-deactivation feature. DOD and the services have been and are currently involved in efforts to reduce cluster munitions failure rates. The Army's Alternative Warhead Program (AWP) is intended to assess and recommend new technologies to reduce or eliminate cluster munitions failure rates. The AWP program is viewed as particularly relevant, as the Pentagon estimates that "upward of 80 percent of U.S. cluster munitions reside in the Army artillery stockpile." In December 2008, the Army decided to cease procurement of a Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) warhead—the Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM) warhead—because its submunitions had a dud rate up to 5%. The Air Force has also acquired cluster munitions that comply with the less than 1% failure rate—the CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) and the CBU-105 WCMD/SFW. While DOD's new 2017 cluster munitions policy calls for DOD to continue its efforts to meet the 1% or less unexploded submunitions standard "as rapidly as industry can support," it is not yet known how this policy will affect the aforementioned programs or how it could result in the establishment of new programs. It may be argued that even with advances in "sensor-fuzed" type submunitions that seek out and destroy certain targets, cluster munitions are still essentially an indiscriminate area weapon in an era where precision weapons are increasingly becoming the military norm. In Operation Desert Storm in 1991, only about 10% of ordnance used were precision-guided, but by the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003, "the ratio of 'smart' to dumb weapons was nearly reversed." Since then, this trend toward greater precision has continued, if not accelerated with the development of precision rocket, artillery, mortar munitions, and smaller precision aerial bombs designed to reduce collateral damage. Given current and predicted future precision weaponry trends, cluster munitions might be losing their military relevance—much as chemical weapons did between World War I and World War II. According to the State Department, the U.S. military suspended its use of cluster munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003. For subsequent military operations, where cluster munitions would otherwise have been the weapon of choice, Congress might review what types of weapons were substituted in place of cluster munitions and how effective they were in achieving the desired tactical results. Also worth considering are effects-based weapons systems and operations, which seek to achieve the same or similar effect against a potential target without applying a "kinetic solution" such as a cluster munition. Such insights could prove valuable in analyzing U.S. policy options on the future of cluster munitions. DOD's November 2017 revised policy on cluster munitions potentially raises a number of issues for possible congressional consideration. With limits on cluster munition use after 2018 rescinded, how does this affect combatant commanders' operational plans in their respective theaters? Does this mean a lesser degree of military risk because combatant commanders can employ cluster munitions to meet warfighting demands, possibly translating into fewer forces needed to achieve the same result when the 2008 policy was in effect? Despite DOD emphasis on achieving a 1% or less unexploded submunitions standard "as rapidly as industry can support," will DOD funding restrictions slow or stall programs previously intended to replace those systems that exceeded 1% because there no longer is an urgent operational need to replace those systems? In a similar manner, will defense industry view this as a renewed opportunity to develop systems with a 1% or less unexploded submunitions standard or take a more sanguine view that since DOD is no longer time constrained to develop and field 1% or less weapons that funding these programs will be less of a priority and, therefore, an unprofitable venture? Another possible issue for consideration is how this U.S. policy reversal on the military use of cluster munitions will be perceived by the international community and how this might affect future U.S. and international military treaty initiatives. Consolidated Appropriations Acts The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 ( P.L. 111-117 ), which the President signed into law December 16, 2009, prohibits the provision of military assistance for cluster munitions, the issuing of defense export licenses for cluster munitions, or the sale or transfer of cluster munitions or cluster munitions technology unless "the submunitions of the cluster munitions, after arming, do not result in more than 1 percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments." Moreover, any agreement "applicable to the assistance, transfer, or sale of such cluster munitions or cluster munitions technology" must specify that the munitions "will only be used against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians." Subsequent appropriations laws have included similar provisions; the most recent is the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ), which the President signed into law on February 15, 2019. 

 

 Report 2:
Major disaster declarations can trigger a variety of federal response and recovery programs for government and nongovernmental entities, households, and individuals. FEMA’s Office of Response and Recovery manages the PA grant program, providing funds to states, territorial governments, local government agencies, Indian tribes, authorized tribal organizations, and certain private nonprofit organizations in response to presidentially declared disaster declarations to repair damaged public infrastructure such as roads, schools, and bridges. Figure 1 shows the total amount of PA funds obligated by county from January 2009 through February 2017 for federal disaster declarations. To implement the PA program, FEMA’s staff includes a mix of temporary, reservist, and permanent employees under two authorities, the Stafford Act and Title 5. Reservists make up the largest share of the PA workforce, which consisted of 1,852 employees––1,041 reservists, 634 full-time equivalents, and 177 temporary Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees––as of June 2017, according to PA officials. Figure 2 summarizes the key characteristics for each type of employee. After a disaster, FEMA sends PA program staff to the affected area to work with state and local officials to assess the damage prior to a disaster declaration. FEMA officials establish a temporary Joint Field Office (JFO) to house staff who will manage response and recovery functions after a declared disaster (including operations, emergency response and support teams, planning, administration, finance, and logistics). Once the President has declared a disaster, PA staff work with grant applicants to help them document damages, identify eligible costs and work, and prepare requests for PA grant funds by developing project proposals. These proposals may include proposals for hazard mitigation if the hazard mitigation work is related to the repair of damaged facilities, referred to as permanent work projects. Immediate emergency measures, such as debris removal, are not eligible for hazard mitigation. Officials then review and obtain approval of the projects prior to FEMA obligating funds to state grantees. Figure 3 describes the process used to develop, review, and obligate PA projects. In addition to rebuilding and restoring infrastructure to its predisaster state, the PA program can be used to fund hazard mitigation measures that will reduce future risk to the infrastructure in conjunction with the repair of disaster-damaged facilities. There is no preset limit to the amount of PA funds a community may receive; however, PA hazard mitigation measures must be determined to be cost effective. Some examples of hazard mitigation measures that FEMA has predetermined to be cost effective, if they meet certain requirements, include installing shut-off valves on underground pipelines so that damaged sections can be isolated during or following a disaster; securing a roof using straps, clips, or other anchoring systems in locations subject to high winds; and installing shutters on windows or replacing glass with impact-resistant material. Applicants can also propose mitigation measures that are separate from the damaged portions of a facility, such as constructing floodwalls around damaged facilities to avoid future flooding. FEMA evaluates these proposals, considering how the proposed measure protects damaged portions of a facility and whether the measure is reasonable based on the extent of the damage, and determines eligibility on a case-by-case basis. FEMA’s Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) deploys a cadre of mitigation staff to help coordinate and implement hazard mitigation activities during disaster recovery, including PA hazard mitigation. A primary task of these staff is to identify and assess opportunities to incorporate hazard mitigation into PA projects. Generally, if an applicant seeks to incorporate hazard mitigation measures into a PA project, FIMA’s hazard mitigation staff develop a hazard mitigation proposal. We, the DHS OIG, and others have reported past challenges with FEMA’s management of the PA program related to workforce management, information sharing, and hazard mitigation. For example, we reported in 2008 that the PA program had a shortage of experienced and knowledgeable staff, relied on temporary rotating staff, and provided limited training to their workforce, which impaired PA program delivery and delayed recovery efforts after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We found that staff turnover, coupled with information sharing challenges, delayed projects when applicants had to provide the same information each time FEMA assigned new staff and that poorly trained staff provided incomplete and inaccurate information during their initial meetings with applicants or made inaccurate eligibility determinations, which also caused processing delays. We recommended that FEMA strengthen continuity among staff involved in administering the PA program by developing protocols to improve information and document sharing among FEMA staff. In response, in 2013 FEMA instituted a PA Consistency Initiative, which included hiring new managers for FEMA regional offices, stakeholder training on PA program administration, and using a newly developed internal website to allow staff to post and share information to address continuity and knowledge sharing concerns during disaster operations. FEMA also developed the Public Assistance Program Delivery Transition Standard Operating Procedure to facilitate the transfer of responsibility for PA program activities during cases of staff turnover during recovery operations. Despite FEMA’s efforts to implement our recommendations, the DHS-OIG, in 2016, found continuing challenges after Hurricane Sandy with workforce levels, skills, and performance of reservists, who make up the majority of the PA workforce. Regarding information sharing, in 2008, we also identified difficulties sharing documents among federal, state, and local participants in the PA process and difficulties tracking the status of projects. We recommended that FEMA improve information sharing within the PA process by identifying and disseminating practices that facilitate more effective communication among federal, state, and local entities. In response, FEMA proceeded with the implementation of a grant tracking and management system, called EMMIE, which was used previously in 2007. However, in subsequent years we found weaknesses in how FEMA developed the system and the DHS-OIG found that information sharing problems similar to the ones identified in our 2008 report persisted. Regarding hazard mitigation, we reported in 2015 that state and local officials experienced challenges in using PA hazard mitigation during the Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts because PA officials did not consistently prioritize hazard mitigation, and in some cases discouraged mitigation projects during the PA grant application process, among other challenges. We recommended that FEMA assess the challenges state and local officials reported, including the extent to which they can be addressed, and implement corrective actions, as needed. In response to our recommendation, FEMA developed a corrective action plan that included actions and milestones for reviewing, updating, and implementing PA hazard mitigation policy. FEMA also identified the PA new delivery model as a solution for some of the challenges state and local officials reported. Previously, the OIG also reported that PA program officials did not consistently identify eligible PA hazard mitigation projects, and that PA officials did not prioritize the identification of PA hazard mitigation opportunities at the onset of recovery efforts after the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. See appendix I for a summary of findings and the status of our past recommendations on challenges with workforce management, information sharing, and hazard mitigation related to the PA program since our last review in December 2008. FEMA’s own internal reviews and outreach efforts have also identified similar challenges. For example, at FEMA’s request the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of the PA program in 2011. The institute’s report outlined 3 key findings and 23 recommendations relating to the PA preaward process. For example, the report found that FEMA could enhance training programs to develop a skilled and experienced workforce; utilize technology and employ web-based tools to support centralized processing, transparency, and efficient decision making; and identify and address potential special considerations, such as hazard mitigation proposals, as early as possible in the preaward process to improve consistency. In 2014, PA program officials analyzed the PA grant process and used input from agency staff and officials involved in various aspects of the program to identify potential improvements. The resulting Public Assistance Program Realignment report found that challenges in workforce management, information sharing, and hazard mitigation continued, and included recommendations for improvement. For example, the report concluded that a shortage of qualified staff, high turnover, unclear organizational responsibilities, and inconsistent training were long-standing and continuing challenges that impaired the PA pre-award process. In addition, from January 2015 to April 2015, FEMA conducted extensive outreach with more than 260 stakeholders across FEMA headquarters, all 10 regions, 43 states, and 4 tribal nations to discuss challenges in the PA program and opportunities for improvement. For example, stakeholders identified challenges with ineffective information collection during the preaward process and suggested identifying special considerations, such as hazard mitigation, earlier in the PA process as an idea for improvement. In response, FEMA began redesigning the PA preaward process to operationalize the results of its 2014 report and address areas for improvement identified through its outreach efforts. FEMA awarded a contract for program support to help PA officials implement a redesigned PA program in 2015. This included a new process to develop and review grant applications, and obligate PA funds to states affected by disasters; new positions, such as a new program delivery manager who is the single point of contact throughout the grant application process; a new Consolidated Resource Center (CRC) to support field operations by supplementing project development, validation, and review of proposed PA project applications; and a new information system to maintain and share PA grant application documents. As part of the new process, PA program officials identified the need to ensure that staff emphasize special considerations, such as hazard mitigation, earlier in the process. Taken together, these efforts represent FEMA’s “new delivery model” for awarding PA program grants. Enhancements in the PA program under the new delivery model are presented in figure 4. Regarding the new delivery model process, FEMA introduced several changes to enhance outreach to applicants during the “exploratory call”— the first contact between FEMA and local officials—and during the first in- person meeting, called the “recovery scoping meeting.” FEMA also revised decision points during the process, when program officials can request more information from applicants, and applicants can review and approve the completion of project development steps. FEMA also incorporated special considerations, such as hazard mitigation, earlier in the new process during the exploratory calls and recovery scoping meetings. The changes and enhancements to the PA grant award process in the new delivery model are presented in figure 5. The new process divides proposed PA projects based on complexity and type of work into three categories—100 percent completed, standard, and specialized—that PA staff manage to expedite review or assign skilled staff to technical projects as needed. If the applicant has already completed work following a disaster, such as debris removal, it is considered “100 percent completed” and JFO staff collect the necessary documents and provide the information to the CRC staff who complete the development of project applications, validate the information, and complete all necessary reviews. Projects that require repairs and further assistance from PA program staff at the JFO include “standard” and “specialized” projects, which include a site inspection to document damages, before the JFO staff provide the information to the CRC. Further, PA program officials assign PA staff based on their skills and experience to standard projects, which are less technically complex to develop, and specialized projects, which are more technically complex and costly. We discuss the new workforce positions FEMA developed for JFOs and CRCs, the new information system FEMA developed to maintain and share PA grant documents with applicants, and FEMA’s efforts to incorporate hazard mitigation into PA projects later in this report. Since 2015, FEMA has invested almost $9 million to redesign the PA program through the reengineering and implementation of the new delivery model, including about $4.7 million for contract support for implementation, and $4 million for acquisition of the new information system. FEMA tested the new delivery model in a series of selected disasters, using a continuous process improvement approach to assess and improve the process, workforce changes, and information system requirements, prior to implementing the new model for all future disasters. For example, FEMA first tested the new process in Iowa in July 2015 and, in February 2016, PA program officials expanded their test to include all of the new staff positions. In October 2016, PA program officials added the new information system to achieve a comprehensive implementation of all of the elements of the new delivery model for the agency’s response to Hurricane Matthew in Georgia, two additional disasters in Georgia in January 2017, and in Missouri, North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, and two disasters in New Hampshire from June through August 2017. The timeline for PA’s implementation of the new delivery model is shown in figure 6. According to program officials, FEMA planned to implement the new model for all future disasters beginning in January 2018. However, historic disaster activity during the 2017 hurricane season accelerated full implementation. As a result, on September 12, 2017, FEMA officials announced that, unless officials determined it would be infeasible in an individual disaster, the program would use the new delivery model in all future disasters. According to FEMA’s 2014 PA Program Realignment report and other program documents, PA officials designed the new delivery model to respond to persistent workforce management challenges related to identifying the required number of staff and needed skills and training, among other things, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the PA preaward process. To address these challenges, PA program officials centralized much of the responsibility for processing PA projects in the CRCs, created additional new positions with specialized roles and responsibilities in JFOs, and established training and mentoring programs to help build the new staffs’ skills. In 2016, PA program officials centralized some of the project activities that otherwise were being carried out at individual JFOs at FEMA’s first new CRC in Denton, Texas. Officials did so by establishing 18 new positions, many of which directly correlated with positions that FEMA deployed to individual JFOs in the legacy PA delivery model. According to PA officials, centralizing positions will improve standardization in project processing, and result in a higher quality work product. As part of the new delivery model, PA program officials created a new hazard mitigation liaison position for PA program staff at the CRC that did not previously exist at individual JFOs. The other new positions that PA program officials either created or centralized at the CRC included two specialized positions responsible for costing and validating PA projects. Previously, the PA project specialist deployed to the JFO would complete these tasks and others; however, the consistency of project development varied across the regions and disasters. In contrast, CRC staff are full-time employees who receive training to specialize in completing standardized project development steps for PA projects from multiple disasters on an ongoing basis. Program officials anticipate that centralizing new specialized staff at the CRCs will also reduce PA administrative costs and staffing levels at the JFOs. For example, staff at the CRCs, such as the new hazard mitigation liaisons and insurance and costing specialists, could support project development for multiple disasters and regions simultaneously, whereas PA previously needed to deploy staff to each JFO to fulfill these roles. In addition, once JFOs operating under the new model send projects to the CRCs for processing and review, FEMA can more rapidly close its JFOs, reducing associated administrative costs. For example, following Hurricane Matthew, FEMA credited the new delivery model, in part, with its ability to close the JFO in Georgia sooner than several other JFOs in neighboring states not involved in the implementation of the new delivery model. PA program officials created new positions with more specialized roles and responsibilities to help PA staff at JFOs provide more consistency in the project development process and guidance to applicants. Program officials split the broad responsibilities previously managed at the JFOs by PA crew leaders and project specialists, into two new, specialized positions—the program delivery manager and site inspector. The program delivery manager serves as the applicant’s single point-of-contact throughout the preaward process, manages communication with the applicant, and oversees document collection. All three PA grant applicants we spoke to following Hurricane Matthew in Georgia greatly appreciated the knowledge and assistance provided by their program delivery managers. Site inspectors are responsible for conducting the site inspection to document all disaster-related damages; determining the applicant’s plans for recovery, coordinating with other specialists, and verifying the information collected with the applicant. Officials expect deployed staff at JFOs can complete the fieldwork faster and provide greater continuity of service to applicants. Further, program officials believe that specializing roles will enable them to provide more targeted training, and improve employee satisfaction. Site inspection, hazard mitigation, and environmental and historic preservation specialists, along with a new Public Assistance program mentor, conduct a site inspection with the applicant to document damages to a historic cemetery in Savannah, Georgia, following Hurricane Matthew in 2016. PA program officials designed new training and mentoring programs for the new positions at the CRCs and JFOs and used a continuous feedback process to update and improve the training, position guides, and task books throughout the implementation of the new delivery model, according to PA officials. According to a June 2017 update of the PA Cadre Training Plan, training for the new model has five major focuses: required training and skills for position qualification; on-site refresher training; mentor training; regional-based state, local, tribal, and territorial training; and training on the new information system. Specifically, officials developed six new training courses, and identified which are required for each position under the new delivery model. For example, a program delivery manager at the JFO is required to complete both the program delivery manager and site inspector specialist courses. As of June 2017, PA program officials had provided at least one new model training course to 93 percent of their cadre (including program delivery manager training to 366 individuals and site inspector training to 1,172 individuals) and planned to provide 28 additional courses through September 2017 to the PA cadre. According to regional and CRC officials, the training courses and mentoring from experienced staff helped maximize new staff’s capabilities in the new process. Throughout the third implementation of the new delivery model, JFO and CRC staff, as well as regional PA staff, stakeholders, and applicants, identified staff skills and training as a key area that needed more attention for full implementation of the new delivery model. Our work and FEMA’s after-action reports from the third test in Georgia identified problems with site inspector skills, which affected the timeliness and accuracy of projects. Specialists and managers at the CRC noted that poorly trained site inspectors did not consistently provide the necessary information from the field, which resulted in delays for the CRC staff to process projects, and after-action reports also identified challenges with site inspector skills. According to a PA applicant in Georgia, the inconsistency of skills and experience of their site inspector resulted in the need to conduct a “do-over” site inspection on one of the applicant’s projects, causing delays. PA staff and state officials attribute much of the site inspectors’ skill gaps to their lack of training and experience in the program. According to PA Region officials, providing timely training will be a resource-intensive challenge for implementing the new delivery model for all future disasters. For example, it can be difficult to train reservists before FEMA deploys them to disasters, and many of the program’s experienced reservists have retired or resigned, resulting in few mentors for the program and a high need to provide training to inexperienced and newly hired staff. PA officials and stakeholders also emphasized the need for FEMA to provide additional training for state and local officials to build capacity and support the goals of the new delivery model. For example, according to JFO officials at the third implementation, the new delivery model increases responsibilities for applicants, who will require more applicant training than FEMA currently provides. According to state officials, applicant capabilities vary, and FEMA should provide training to state and local officials on the new delivery model and the information system before a disaster. Skill gaps among applicants could result in inconsistent implementation of the new process, according to PA staff and stakeholders, and PA staff said that training was important to prevent applicants from reverting back to the legacy PA grant application process. To support full implementation of the new delivery model for all disasters, PA program officials have updated training courses for PA staff and applicants, and planned additional training to address these challenges and other lessons learned through the test implementation. For example, PA officials told us they updated the site inspector training program in May 2017 and scheduled a new site inspector training session in August 2017 to include more hands-on training to help address the skill gaps identified for site inspectors. PA officials created a new training course for FEMA’s regional offices, in part to enable regional PA staff to provide new delivery model training to state and local officials. PA officials also planned to develop a self-paced, online course for state and local officials by the end of 2017. PA officials have not fully assessed the workforce needed for JFO field operations, CRC staff, or FIMA’s hazard mitigation staff to support implementation of the new delivery model for all future disasters. PA program officials developed an initial assessment of the total number of staff needed in the field and the CRCs in 2016 to estimate cost savings associated with consolidating and specializing positions at the CRCs and deploying fewer staff to JFOs. However, the assessment did not identify the number of staff required to fill specific positions, including program delivery managers and hazard mitigation specialists, needed to support the new delivery model for full implementation. In reviewing the test implementations of the new delivery model, we found that inadequate staffing levels at the JFOs and CRCs, and with FIMA’s hazard mitigation staff, affected staffs’ ability to achieve the goals of the new delivery model. Staff levels at the JFO. We identified challenges with having the right number of program delivery managers and site inspection specialists to achieve program goals for customer satisfaction, efficiency, and quality in test implementations of the new delivery model. For example, in the second test implementation of the new delivery model in Oregon in 2016, PA did not deploy enough program delivery managers to the disaster, which resulted in unmanageable caseloads for program delivery managers, according to state and PA officials. PA program officials assigned program delivery managers an average caseload of 12 PA applicants, which was more than they could effectively manage, according to PA staff, and program officials aim for a caseload of 8 to 10 applicants. According to state officials, local officials reported they did not always receive the support they needed from program delivery managers who managed caseloads consisting of dozens of projects at multiple sites for each applicant during the Oregon implementation. As a result of overwhelmed program delivery managers, local officials faced challenges understanding their responsibilities, such as recognizing when they needed to provide information for the project development to proceed, according to state officials. PA staff involved with the third test implementation in Georgia in 2016 and 2017 said there were not enough site inspectors or program delivery managers to fully manage the workload at the JFO. Because of the specialization of roles, projects could not move forward when there were not enough staff to execute the next step in the process. For example, PA staff at the JFO said program delivery managers completed recovery scoping meetings rapidly, but faced a bottleneck in scheduling site inspections because there were more applicants awaiting site inspections than could be fulfilled by the number of site inspection specialists available. Staff levels at the CRC. Staff at the CRC reported challenges with staffing levels during the Oregon and Georgia test implementations, and expressed concerns about when PA officials will staff the CRCs to support full implementation of the new model for all disasters. During the Oregon test implementation, a CRC specialist said there were not enough technical specialists to manage the workload and, as a result, PA program officials had to redeploy site inspectors from their JFO field operations to the CRC to complete costing estimates. During the third test in Georgia, quality assurance specialists said that their workload resulted in added stress trying to complete the work in time while adhering to quality standards. According to CRC specialists in Denton, Texas, PA officials had not determined required staff levels for full implementation, but agreed that workload was too high and program officials needed to determine the appropriate staff levels for each CRC to support full implementation. PA officials were still evaluating CRC processing times and workload management from the Oregon and Georgia test implementations to determine staffing needs, according to PA officials. Further, PA program officials plan to establish a second CRC in Winchester, Virginia, before the end of 2017, but have not determined the number of additional permanent full-time staff needed to support the CRCs for full implementation of the new delivery model. Staff levels for the hazard mitigation specialists. PA officials have not identified the number of hazard mitigation specialists in FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre needed for full implementation of the new delivery model. According to JFO staff, current hazard mitigation staff levels are insufficient to provide the desired in-person participation of hazard mitigation staff on all recovery scoping meetings to share information on hazard mitigation with applicants and help them identify potential mitigation opportunities. A PA program official said officials missed opportunities to pursue hazard mitigation during the test implementation after Hurricane Matthew in Georgia due to lack of hazard mitigation specialists. In addition, for the test implementation in Oregon, there were not enough hazard mitigation specialists to cover all site inspections and implement their new delivery model responsibilities, according to FEMA’s after-action reports. The absence of hazard mitigation specialists in the early stages of PA project development may cause delays in officials’ identifying hazard mitigation opportunities, according to a FIMA official. PA program officials said they did not work with FIMA to determine the appropriate levels of hazard mitigation staff under the new delivery model because they were refining the new process, but as of June 2017 were working with FIMA to do so. One of the key implementation activities in our Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide includes addressing workforce management issues. Specifically, this includes identifying how many and which employees will be affected by the position changes and retraining. Further, our prior work has found that high-performing organizations identify their current and future workforce needs—including the appropriate number and deployment of staff across the organization— and address workforce gaps, to improve the contribution of critical skills and competencies needed for mission success. According to a PA program official, their initial workforce assessment was not comprehensive because they were still collecting data required to make informed decisions. PA officials agreed that updating their workforce assessments prior to full implementation could be helpful, and acknowledged that program officials needed to be more proactive applying the lessons learned as they pivot from testing to full implementation of the new delivery model in 2018. FEMA also conducts a standard agency wide workforce structure review every 2 to 3 years, which helps officials determine the appropriate disaster workforce levels. As of June 2017, PA officials were working with other offices within FEMA to expedite the agency-wide assessment of the PA and FIMA hazard mitigation cadres, but did not know when they would complete the assessment. PA officials also acknowledged that they faced an aggressive schedule to complete various planned activities for workforce management, training, and other efforts, in support of full implementation, and that they may not be able to complete all efforts as thoroughly as they would like in order to expedite the transition of the PA program to the new delivery model. The gaps in PA workforce assessment in the JFOs, CRCs, and for FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre present a risk that PA program managers will not have a sufficient workforce to support the goals of the new delivery model. In addition, the timing and implementation of the hiring and training activities for new PA program staff could take multiple months, and program officials will need to know what staff levels are necessary for full implementation of the new delivery model to inform resource decisions for the program in coordination with other agency offices. According to PA program officials, workforce assessment efforts have been delayed as a result of disaster response and recovery efforts related to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Completing a workforce assessment will help program officials identify gaps in their workforce and skills, which could help PA program officials minimize the effects of long- standing workforce staffing and training challenges on the PA program delivery and inform full implementation for all disasters. costs. For example, EMMIE does not collect information on all of the preaward activities that are part of the PA grant application process. As a result, PA program officials said they, and applicants, must use ad hoc reports and personal tracking documents to manage and monitor the progress of grant applications. PA officials added that EMMIE is not user- friendly and applicants often struggle to access the system. In response to these ongoing challenges, PA program officials developed FAC-Trax— a separate information system from EMMIE—with new capabilities designed to improve transparency, efficiency, and management of the PA program. Specifically, FAC-Trax allows FEMA staff (PA Grants Manager) and applicants (PA Grants Portal), to review, manage, and track current PA project status and documentation. For example, applicants can use FAC- Trax to submit requests for public assistance, upload required project documentation, approve grant application items, and send and receive notifications on grant progress and activities. In addition, the FAC-Trax system includes standardized forms, as well as required fields and tasks that PA program staff and applicants must complete before moving on to the next steps in the PA preaward process. According to PA officials, these capabilities increase transparency, encourage greater applicant involvement, and enhance collaboration and communication between FEMA and grant applicants, to improve efficiency in processing and awarding grant applications and enhance the quality of project development. Further, PA officials said that FAC-Trax could reduce challenges associated with staff turnover during the project development process because the system stores and maintains applicant information and project documentation, making it easier for transitioning staff to assist an applicant. They also said they use FAC-Trax to gather and analyze data that supports management of the PA process, including measuring the timeliness of the grant application process. For example, during the test implementation of the new delivery model in Georgia following Hurricane Matthew, officials were able to document that, on average, program delivery managers took 5 days to conduct the exploratory call and 14 days to hold the recovery scoping meeting with applicants, and CRC officials took 33 days to develop and review grant proposals. Managers use this data to assess staffing needs and identify bottlenecks in the PA process, according to PA officials. FAC-Trax is critical to the new PA delivery model and will be a primary means of sharing grant application documents, tracking ongoing PA projects, and ensuring that FEMA staff and applicants follow PA grant policies and procedures. Given the importance of developing and testing this new information sharing system, we evaluated its development against four key IT management controls—(1) project planning; (2) risk management; (3) requirements development; and (4) systems testing and integration. When implemented effectively, these controls provide assurance that IT systems will be delivered within cost and schedule and meet the capabilities needed by its users. We found that FEMA’s development of FAC-Trax fully satisfied best practices for project planning and risk management, but additional steps are needed to fully satisfy the areas of requirements development and systems testing and integration, as discussed below. See appendix II for the full assessment of each IT management control. PA program officials fully satisfied all five practices in the project planning control area, according to our assessment. Key project planning practices are (1) establishing and maintaining the program’s acquisition strategy, (2) developing and maintaining the overall project plan and obtaining commitment from relevant stakeholders, (3) developing and maintaining the program’s cost estimate, (4) establishing and maintaining the program’s schedule estimate, and (5) identifying the necessary knowledge and skills needed to carry out the program. To address the first and second practices, program officials established detailed plans that describe the acquisition strategy and objectives, the program’s scope, and its framework for using an Agile software development approach, among other key actions. Agile is a method of software development that utilizes an iterative process and constantly improves software based on user needs and feedback. Program officials also developed a plan detailing the program’s approach to deploy and maintain FAC-Trax and established stakeholder groups and an integrated product team to support and oversee the development of FAC-Trax. To address the third and fourth practices, they developed and maintained a master schedule of all implementation tasks and milestones through project completion, and developed a life-cycle cost estimate of over $19 million. Additionally, FAC-Trax’s acquisition performance baseline describes the system’s minimum acceptable and desired baselines for performance, schedule, and cost. Lastly, in regards to the fifth practice, program officials identified the knowledge and skills needed to carry out the program in the FAC-Trax Request for Proposal and FAC-Trax Capability Development Plan. PA program officials fully satisfied all four practices in the risk management control area, according to our assessment. Key risk management practices are (1) identifying risks, threats, and vulnerabilities that could negatively affect work efforts, (2) evaluating and categorizing each identified risk using defined risk categories and parameters, (3) developing risk mitigation plans for selected risks, and (4) monitoring the status of each risk periodically and implementing the risk mitigation plan as appropriate. To address the first and second practices, program officials identified key risks that could negatively affect FAC-Trax in a “risk register”—an online site used to track risks, issues, and mitigating actions. As of May 2017, officials had identified 13 risks in the risk register—four open and nine closed—and evaluated and categorized the identified risks based on the probability of occurrence and scope, schedule, and cost impacts. For example, program officials reported that two of its open risks have a “medium” risk rating—meaning the risk has the potential to slightly affect project cost, schedule, or performance. To address the third and fourth practices, program officials developed and documented risk mitigation plans for all identified risks. For example, program officials planned to mitigate the risk of limited engagement of subject matter experts by identifying and engaging with appropriate experts through workshops, and monitoring the capability development process to identify any issues that may cause project delays. In addition, PA program officials documented the responsible officials, reevaluation date, and risk status, among other things, for each risk in the register, and reviewed and updated risks during weekly and monthly program reviews with stakeholders throughout FEMA. PA program officials fully satisfied four out of five practices in the requirements development control area, according to our assessment. Key requirements development practices are (1) eliciting stakeholder needs, expectations, and constraints, and transforming them into prioritized customer requirements; (2) developing and reviewing operational concepts and scenarios to refine and discover requirements; (3) analyzing requirements to ensure that they are complete, feasible, and verifiable; (4) analyzing requirements to balance stakeholder needs and constraints; and (5) testing and validating the system as it is being developed. To address the first and second practices, program officials developed a requirements management plan outlining how officials capture, assess, and plan for FAC-Trax enhancements, and established a change control process to review, prioritize, and verify user requests for changes to the system and feedback. As of May 2017, the PA program office received 734 change requests related to FAC-Trax, of which program officials completed 420 changes and planned to address an additional 277 entries. Program officials also developed a functional requirements document outlining the high-level requirements for FAC- Trax and detailed operational concepts and scenarios for each phase of the preaward process in the system’s concept of operations. To address the fourth practice, program officials created a standard template to analyze and document the user needs and acceptance criteria for planned system capabilities in March 2017. In addition, PA program officials identified risks and dependencies for recommended changes to FAC-Trax, and balanced the cost and priority of system enhancements as part of the change control process. Lastly, regarding the fifth practice, program officials tested and evaluated FAC-Trax during development, which included validating system enhancements through user acceptance testing. However, program officials did not fully address the third practice— analyzing requirements to ensure they are complete, feasible, and verifiable—because they did not ensure detailed user requirements were necessary and sufficient by tracking them back to higher-level requirements. For example, although program officials reviewed change requests for completeness and followed up with users to verify requirements, officials did not track system enhancements, made in response to detailed user requirements (e.g., allowing users to search PA projects by project number), back to the high-level requirements (e.g., storing data and information provided by the applicant) identified in the FAC-Trax functional requirements document and performance work statement. Officials did not track system enhancements back to high-level requirements because they did not have a complete understanding of basic user needs and system requirements at the beginning of the FAC- Trax effort, according to the PA program manager. A PA official also said the change control process was a way to identify the basic capabilities FAC-Trax needed to have and that tracking enhancements back to high- level requirements could have made the change control process more difficult to manage, and reduced user participation if, for example, users needed to understand how their change requests related to high-level requirements. However, program officials could have tracked enhancements back to high-level requirements themselves using the change control process without putting any additional burden on users. Despite not having a complete understanding of user needs and system requirements at the beginning of the FAC-Trax effort, analyzing whether users’ change requests satisfy higher-level requirements identified in key design and planning documents would have provided officials with a basis for more detailed and precise requirements throughout project development and helped them better manage the project, according to IT management controls. Further, according to the PMBOK® Guide, tracking or measuring system capabilities against approved requirements is a key process for managing a project’s scope, measuring project completion, and ensuring the project meets user needs and expectations. Program officials acknowledged the importance of tracking system enhancements back to documented system requirements. Ensuring that FAC-Trax meets user needs and expectations is especially important because the information system is key to the success of the new delivery model, according to PA officials. By analyzing progress made on documented, high-level requirements, a step that reflects a key IT management control for requirements development, the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC-Trax will provide functionality that meets user needs and expectations. PA program officials did not fully satisfy either of the two practices in the systems testing and integration control area, according to our assessment. Key systems testing and integration practices are (1) developing test plans and test cases, which include a description of the overall approach for system testing, the set of tasks necessary to prepare for and perform testing, the roles and responsibilities for individuals or groups responsible for testing, and criteria to determine whether the system has passed or failed testing; and (2) developing a systems integration plan to identify all systems to be integrated, describe how integration problems are to be documented and resolved, define roles and responsibilities of all relevant participants, and establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step. In regards to the first practice, PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor established a test plan that identifies the method and strategy to perform testing, including the necessary tasks, such as responding to user feedback and testing errors, and incorporating necessary resolutions into future work, testing parameters, and the roles and responsibilities of the individuals responsible for testing. However, program officials have not developed system testing criteria to evaluate FAC-Trax, which would align with the practice described above of using criteria to determine whether the system has passed or failed testing. A key feature of Agile software development is the “definition of done”—a set of clear, comprehensive, and objective criteria, that the government should use to evaluate software after each iteration of development. PA program officials said they did not establish a definition of done because officials initially managing the FAC-Trax effort lacked familiarity with system development in the Agile environment. Officials acknowledged the importance of establishing a definition of done and said they are planning to develop one, but have not identified how or when to incorporate it into the development process. According to the TechFAR—the government’s handbook for procuring digital services using Agile processes—the government and vendor should establish this definition after contract award at the beginning of each cycle of software development. By establishing criteria, such as a definition of done, to evaluate the system—a step that reflects a key IT management control for system testing and is an effective practice for applying Agile to software development—the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC- Trax is usable and responsive to specified requirements. In regards to the second practice, PA program officials developed a systems integration plan in June 2017 that identified the potential for integration of FAC-Trax with four FEMA systems, including EMMIE. In addition, program officials included a description of how staff should document integration problems and the resolution of problems in FAC- Trax development and test plans. However, the systems integration plan does not define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities or establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step for the four FEMA systems. PA officials said that system integration planning for FAC-Trax is in the early stages, but acknowledged the importance of these elements of system integration planning. Officials plan to define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities and develop the sequence and schedule for every integration step as they add new systems to the FAC-Trax development plan and obtain funding needed for their integration. Nonetheless, FEMA has used FAC-Trax for selected PA disasters since October 2016 and plans to use FAC-Trax for all future disasters. According to IT management controls, agencies should establish the systems integration plan early in the project and revise it to reflect evolving and emerging user needs. By ensuring that the FAC- Trax systems integration plan defines the roles and responsibilities of relevant participants for all integration relationships and establishes a sequence and schedule for every integration step, the PA program will have greater assurance that FAC-Trax functions properly with other systems and meets user needs. FEMA’s new delivery model enhances participation of hazard mitigation staff with the goal of identifying opportunities for mitigation earlier in the PA preaward process, according to PA officials. Two key changes related to hazard mitigation under the new model include (1) an emphasis on engaging with hazard mitigation specialists at the JFO earlier in the PA process and involving them in specific PA preaward activities and (2) the establishment of the PA program’s hazard mitigation liaison at the CRC. For example, position guides direct program delivery managers to coordinate with FIMA’s hazard mitigation specialists prior to recovery scoping meetings, and site inspectors to coordinate with hazard mitigation specialists prior to site inspections to discuss a PA grant applicant’s damages and any potential mitigation opportunities. PA program officials also developed guidance for conducting the exploratory call and the recovery scoping meeting with applicants, which include questions for PA staff to ask on the applicant’s interest in or plans for incorporating hazard mitigation into potential projects. In addition, a new hazard mitigation liaison at the CRC is responsible for reviewing PA projects for hazard mitigation opportunities and serving as a mitigation subject matter expert for the PA program. According to data provided by FEMA, PA grant applicants incorporated hazard mitigation into approximately 18 percent of permanent work projects for all disasters nationwide from 2012 to 2015. During test implementation of the new delivery model, state, PA, and FIMA officials all reported an increase in the number of hazard mitigation activities on PA permanent work projects. For example, state officials who participated in the second new model test in Oregon said that effective communication and coordination between PA and hazard mitigation staff resulted in applicants incorporating hazard mitigation into over 60 percent of permanent work projects. Furthermore, PA officials reported an increase in hazard mitigation during the third test implementation of the new model in Georgia following Hurricane Matthew, where approximately 16 percent of permanent work projects included mitigation, as of June 2017. This represents an increase compared to the PA program’s estimate for the proportion of projects that incorporate hazard mitigation among previous PA hurricane disasters in Georgia, which was about 3 percent, according to PA officials. While PA officials are trying to increase hazard mitigation through the new delivery model, not all disasters present the same number of opportunities to incorporate hazard mitigation. First, the PA program only incorporates hazard mitigation measures for permanent work projects, such as repairs to roads, bridges, and buildings. For example, as of June 2017, approximately 60 percent of the projects FEMA funded in Georgia for the third test implementation after Hurricane Matthew were for emergency work, which is not eligible for hazard mitigation measures. Second, the PA program only funds mitigation measures that officials determine to be cost-effective. In addition, we have previously reported on other factors that affect whether applicants incorporate hazard mitigation into PA projects, such as their capacity to manage and ability to fund hazard mitigation projects. National Planning for Hazard Mitigation In our 2015 report on disaster resilience following Hurricane Sandy, we noted that disaster affected areas have different threats and vulnerabilities, and local stakeholders make the ultimate determination whether or not to incorporate hazard mitigation into a project. Further, without a strategic approach to making disaster resilience investments, the federal government and its nonfederal partners may be unable to fully capitalize on opportunities for mitigation on the greatest known threats and hazards. We recommended that the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group develop an investment strategy to help ensure that federal funds expended to enhance disaster resilience achieve the goal of reducing the nation’s fiscal exposure because of climate change and the rise in the number of federal major disaster declarations as effectively and efficiently as possible. In response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plans to issue a final National Mitigation Investment Strategy in 2018. The goals of this strategy include increasing the effectiveness of investments in reducing disaster losses and increasing resilience, and improving coordination of disaster risk management among federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and private entities. Although the new model establishes hazard mitigation activities for PA and FIMA staff in the preaward process, it does not standardize and prioritize hazard mitigation planning at JFOs in the way FEMA has done with prior PA program policy. Specifically, FEMA’s 2007 PA program policy standardized planning for hazard mitigation across PA recovery efforts by stating that agency and state officials should issue a memorandum of understanding (MOU) early in the disaster, outlining how PA hazard mitigation will be addressed for the disaster, including what mitigation measures will be emphasized, and identifying applicable codes and standards, and any potential integration with other mitigation grant programs. However, PA program officials did not include guidance that standardizes planning for hazard mitigation, such as encouraging the use of an MOU, in FEMA’s 2010 PA program policy, the most recent update to the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide in April 2017, or the New Delivery Model Operations Manual. As a result, FIMA officials said FEMA and state officials do not consistently issue MOUs that outline how FEMA and the state plan to promote PA hazard mitigation during the recovery effort, explaining that the use of the MOU is based on the preferences and priorities of the FEMA officials involved. When not issuing an MOU, FIMA hazard mitigation staff and PA officials at the JFO meet to determine the extent which hazard mitigation staff interact directly with applicants regarding PA hazard mitigation during the recovery process, according to a FIMA official. Having a consistent approach to planning for and prioritizing hazard mitigation across all disasters is important for FEMA, given that FEMA experienced challenges consistently prioritizing and integrating hazard mitigation across PA recovery efforts, according to GAO and others. For example, in our 2015 report on resilience in the Hurricane Sandy recovery, we found that state and local officials experienced challenges maximizing disaster resilience in the recovery effort because PA officials did not consistently prioritize hazard mitigation during project development. According to FEMA’s National Mitigation Framework, planning is vital for mitigation efforts during disaster recovery, and federal, state, and local officials should establish procedures that emphasize a coordinated delivery of mitigation activities and capitalize on opportunities to reduce future disaster losses. Similarly, the Recovery Federal Interagency Operational Plan, which supports FEMA’s National Disaster Recovery Framework, identifies planning as a key task for identifying mitigation opportunities and integrating risk reduction considerations into decisions and investments during the recovery process. FIMA officials agreed that including the development of a formal plan, such as the historical 2007 PA program policy regarding the use of MOUs, for PA hazard mitigation in operations guidance would help program officials plan for and prioritize hazard mitigation. They noted that FIMA’s hazard mitigation field operations guide includes procedures for implementing proposed MOUs to achieve mitigation goals. PA program officials said that, in light of changes to the PA process under the new model and subsequent updates to program policies, the MOU policy from the 2007 PA program policy was outdated. But officials agreed that planning for and prioritizing hazard mitigation at the operational level is important and said they were examining additional ways to incorporate these activities early in the PA process. As FEMA continues to implement the new model, establishing procedures to standardize hazard mitigation planning for each disaster, as it did through prior policy, could improve the prioritization of hazard mitigation in PA recovery efforts and increase the effectiveness of mitigation for reducing disaster losses and increasing resilience. PA program officials developed performance objectives and measures for hazard mitigation in the new delivery model, but could add measures to better align performance assessment for the PA program with FEMA’s broader strategic goals for hazard mitigation. In its strategic plan for 2014–2018, FEMA established an agency-wide goal to increase the percentage of FEMA-funded disaster projects, such as those under the PA program, that provide mitigation above local, state, and federal building code requirements by 5 percentage points by the end of fiscal year 2018. For example, local building codes may require measures for new construction to mitigate against future damage. To align with FEMA’s strategic goal, PA officials would also need to measure the number of PA projects that included mitigation measures that bring any repaired infrastructure to a level above applicable building codes. However, under the new model, FEMA officials developed performance objectives (and associated measures) to increase the number of projects that include hazard mitigation by 5 percent, and increase the total dollars spent on hazard mitigation by 2 percent. While these measures could help to incentivize mitigation, they are not tied to building codes and do not include specific information that FEMA could use to continually assess the PA program’s contributions to meeting the agency’s strategic goal. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, agency management should design control activities, such as establishing and reviewing performance measures, to achieve the agency’s objectives. In addition, our work on leading public sector organizations has found that such organizations assess the extent to which their programs and activities contribute to meeting their mission and desired outcomes, and strive to establish clear hierarchies of performance goals and measures. A clear connection between performance measures and program offices helps to both reinforce accountability and ensure that, in their day-to-day activities, managers keep in mind the outcomes their organization is striving to achieve. FEMA’s ability to evaluate and report on PA hazard mitigation data is constrained, but officials are addressing this challenge through the development of data reporting and analytics capabilities for the PA program’s new information system, according to PA officials. PA program officials developed measures they could use to evaluate the new model during test implementation and compare new model performance to the legacy PA process, and agreed that aligning PA program hazard mitigation goals with FEMA’s agency-wide strategic goals would be helpful. As FEMA continues to develop and implement the new model, developing performance measures and objectives to better inform and support the agency’s broader strategic goals could help to ensure that FEMA capitalizes on hazard mitigation opportunities in PA recovery efforts. FEMA’s Public Assistance grant program is a complicated, multi-billion dollar program that is critical to helping state and local communities rebuild and recover after a major disaster. In recent years, FEMA has undertaken a major reengineering effort to make the PA preaward process simpler and more efficient for applicants and to address challenges encountered during recovery from past disasters. FEMA’s new delivery model represents a significant opportunity to strengthen the PA program and address these past challenges, and growing pains are to be expected when implementing any large reengineering effort. Further, FEMA officials work to implement these changes while supporting response and recovery following disasters, including the catastrophic flooding from Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 and widespread damages from Hurricanes Irma and Maria in September 2017. As such, it is critical that feedback obtained and lessons learned while testing the new model inform decisions and actions as FEMA proceeds with full implementation for all disasters, including the complex recovery efforts in the states and territories affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. FEMA has redesigned the PA delivery model to address various challenges related to workforce management, information sharing with state and local grantees, and incorporating hazard mitigation into PA projects. FEMA has developed new workforce processes, training, and positions to address past challenges, but completing a workforce assessment that identifies the number of staff needed will inform workforce management and resource allocation decisions to help FEMA ensure a more successful implementation. This is particularly important as FEMA is using the new model for the long-term recovery from the 2017 hurricanes, and FEMA faces capacity challenges as its workforce is stretched thin. Further, FEMA’s new FAC-Trax information sharing system provides FEMA and state and local applicants and grantees with better capabilities to address past challenges in managing and tracking PA projects. In developing FAC-Trax, FEMA implemented many of the key IT management controls that can help ensure that new IT systems are implemented effectively. However, additional steps are needed to fully satisfy the areas of requirements development and systems testing and integration. Finally, FEMA has taken some actions to better promote hazard mitigation as part of its new PA model. However, more consistent planning for hazard mitigation following a PA disaster and developing specific performance measures and objectives that better align with and support the agency’s broader strategic goals related to hazard mitigation could help to ensure that mitigation is incorporated into recovery efforts, which presents an opportunity to encourage disaster resilience and reduce federal fiscal exposure from recurring catastrophic natural disasters. We are making the following five recommendations to FEMA’s Assistant Administrator for Recovery: The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should complete a workforce staffing assessment that identifies the appropriate number of staff needed at joint field offices, Consolidated Resource Centers, and in FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre to implement the new delivery model nationwide. (Recommendation 1) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should establish controls for tracking FAC-Trax capabilities to the system’s functional and operational requirements to more fully satisfy requirements development controls and ensure that the new information system provides capabilities that meets users’ needs and expectations. (Recommendation 2) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery should establish system testing criteria, such as a “definition of done,” to assess FAC- Trax as it is developed; define the roles and responsibilities of all participants; and develop the sequence and schedule for integration of other systems with FAC-Trax to more fully satisfy systems testing and integration controls. (Recommendation 3) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery, in coordination with the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, should implement procedures to standardize planning for addressing PA hazard mitigation at the joint field offices, for example, by requiring FEMA and state officials to develop a memorandum of understanding outlining how they will prioritize and address hazard mitigation following a disaster as it did through prior policy. (Recommendation 4) The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Recovery, in coordination with the Associate Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, should develop performance measures and associated objectives for the new delivery model to better align with FEMA’s strategic goal for hazard mitigation in the recovery process. (Recommendation 5) We provided a draft of this report to DHS and FEMA for review and comment. DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III. In its comments, DHS concurred with our recommendations and described actions planned to address them. FEMA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. With regard to our first recommendation, that FEMA complete a workforce staffing assessment that identifies the number of staff needed at joint field offices, Consolidated Resource Centers, and FIMA’s hazard mitigation cadre, DHS stated that PA, in coordination with the Field Operations Directorate and FIMA, will continue to refine and evaluate staffing needs and update the cadre force structures under the new delivery model. DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 28, 2019. This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation. With regard to our second recommendation, that FEMA establish controls for tracking FAC-Trax capabilities to ensure the new information system meets users’ needs, DHS stated that Recovery program managers will update the FAC-Trax Requirements Management Plan and the FAC-Trax Release Plan to ensure the tracking and traceability of FAC-Trax functional and operational requirements. DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by January 31, 2018. This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation. With regard to our third recommendation, that FEMA establish systems testing criteria to assess the development of FAC-Trax; and define the roles and responsibilities, and sequence and schedule for system integration, DHS stated that Recovery program managers will update the FAC-Trax System Integration Plan to include integration with the Deployment Tracking System, Enterprise Data Warehouse, Preliminary Damage Assessment interface, and State Grants Management system interface. DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 29, 2018. This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation. With regard to our fourth recommendation, that FEMA implement procedures to standardize planning for addressing PA hazard mitigation at the JFO, DHS stated that PA will update current process documents or develop new documents to better incorporate mitigation into the operational planning phase of the new delivery model. DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by July 31, 2018. This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation. With regard to our fifth recommendation, that PA coordinate with FIMA to develop performance measures and associated objectives for the new delivery model that better align with FEMA’s strategic goals for hazard mitigation in the recovery process, DHS stated that PA will reconvene the PA-Mitigation working group to develop and refine PA related hazard mitigation performance measures. DHS estimated that this effort would be completed by June 29, 2018. This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and interested congressional committees. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or CurrieC@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. Appendix II: Assessment of Information Technology Management Controls for the FEMA Applicant Case Tracker (FAC-Trax) Table 2 shows details on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) program office’s implementation of key practices across four information technology (IT) management control areas for its new information system, the FEMA Applicant Case Tracker (FAC-Trax). PA developed FAC-Trax as a web-based project tracking and case management system to supplement the Emergency Management Mission Integrated Environment (EMMIE) and help resolve long-standing information sharing challenges. To determine the extent to which the FAC-Trax program office implemented IT management controls, we reviewed documentation from the FAC-Trax program and compared it to key management best practices, including the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Acquisition and Development, the Project Management Institute’s Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Standard for Software and System Test Documentation. We assessed the program as having fully implemented a practice if the agency provided evidence that it fully addressed the practice; partially implemented if the agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of the practice; and not implemented if the agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed the practice. Table 2. Public Assistance (PA) Program Office’s Implementation of Key Information Technology Management Controls for FAC-Trax PA program officials developed an acquisition plan for FAC-Trax identifying the capabilities the system is intended to deliver, the acquisition approach, and acquisition objectives. Additionally, program officials developed a capability development plan outlining a strategy for the program to obtain approval to acquire FAC-Trax. Lastly, program officials developed a systems engineering plan describing the program’s scope and its framework for using an Agile development approach, as well as a deployment, support, and maintenance plan for FAC-Trax. PA program officials developed an acquisition program baseline detailing FAC-Trax’s cost parameters and a life-cycle cost estimate for the system. As of May 2017, the life- cycle cost estimate for FAC-Trax through fiscal year (FY) 2023 is approximately $19.3 million. PA program officials updated the life-cycle cost estimate for FYs 2016 and 2017 after price negotiations with the FAC-Trax contractor, and will continue to update the estimate as annual budgets are approved, according to the Integrated Logistic Support Plan. The contracting officer’s representative for FAC-Trax performs a cost review at the end of each month, according to program officials. Furthermore, the contractor’s weekly status report includes information on the number of hours worked and the percent of contract value spent. Program officials also review program costs with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review. PA program officials developed an acquisition program baseline detailing FAC-Trax’s schedule parameters, as well as an integrated master schedule for the system. The integrated master schedule identifies tasks, major milestones, and task dependencies. The PA program manager reviews and updates the integrated master schedule on a weekly basis. Program officials also review FAC-Trax’s schedule with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review. PA program officials identified the knowledge and skills needed to carry out the program in FAC-Trax contract documentation and the capability development plan. Specifically, program officials included an attachment to the FAC-Trax contract listing the required labor categories and corresponding functional position descriptions. Program officials also described the role, position type, minimum grade, and minimum certification for required personnel resources for the acquisition, development, and implementation of FAC-Trax. PA program officials developed, reviewed, and maintained project planning documents and obtained commitment from relevant stakeholders. For example, program officials reviewed and updated the integrated master schedule and costs on a weekly and monthly basis, respectively. Further, program officials reviewed the status of project elements, such as the schedule, quality and technical issues, stakeholders, staffing, cost, and risks, with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review. PA program officials also established tactical, functional, and stakeholder groups, as well as an Integrated Product Team to support and oversee the development of FAC-Trax. FEMA’s Recovery Technology Programs Division (RTPD) has a division-level risk management plan that serves as guidance for all Recovery systems, including FAC- Trax. Program officials identified key risks that could negatively affect FAC-Trax work efforts in RTPD’s “risk register”—an online site used to track risks, issues, and mitigating actions for the division and each program office. Program officials also identified five technical, cost, and schedule risks in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan. Program officials included one of these risks in the risk register, while the remaining four were managed outside of the register. As of May 2017, program officials had identified 13 risks in its risk register—four open and nine closed. The four open risks were (1) limited subject matter expert engagement during requirements development, (2) vacancies in program management office support positions, (3) unresolved service level agreement support and funding issues, and (4) the loss of the authority to operate due to a Trusted Internet Connection that is not compliant with Department of Homeland Security security policy. Program officials evaluated and categorized the identified risks based on the probability of occurrence and scope, schedule, and cost impacts. These four points of measurement are used to calculate an overall risk score. The risk score helps program officials determine a risk’s risk rating—low, medium, or high. For example, program officials reported that two of its open risks have a “medium” risk rating—meaning the risk has the potential to slightly impact project cost, schedule, or performance. In addition, program officials detailed the risk category, probability, and impact for the five risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan. Program officials developed risk mitigation and contingency plans for each risk in the risk register. For example, program officials planned to mitigate the open risk concerning subject matter expert engagement, by identifying and engaging with appropriate subject matter experts through requirements development workshops scheduled in advance of the sprint they are to support, and monitoring the development of user stories to identify any issues that may cause delays. In addition, program officials described the risk management plan and responsible officials for the five risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan. PA program officials review and update program risks during a monthly program meeting. Program officials also review program risks with Office of Response and Recovery, PA, OCIO, and other program office stakeholders during a weekly program review. Furthermore, the FAC-Trax contractor provides a weekly status update which includes a section on identified risks. Program officials established re-evaluation dates and recorded updates, including any actions taken, for each risk in the risk register. In addition, program officials were able to provide updates on the four risks identified in the FAC-Trax acquisition plan and managed outside of the register. According to PA officials, these risks were addressed and closed by the approval of program planning documents, such as the mission needs statement, concept of operations, and operational requirements document, following the solutions engineering review, which demonstrates the readiness of the program to proceed with the procurement, in September 2016. Program officials established a requirements management plan outlining how it captures, assesses, and plans for FAC-Trax enhancements, and established a change control process to review, prioritize, and verify user requests for changes to the system and feedback. As of May 2017, the PA program office received 734 change requests related to FAC-Trax, of which program officials completed 420 changes and planned to address an additional 277 entries. PA program officials also facilitated workshops to gather requirements for specific user groups and obtained additional requirements for FAC-Trax through customer feedback on a temporary technology tool— an Access database referred to as the Public Assistance Recovery Information System—used to support an early stage of the new model implementation. Further, program officials developed a functional requirements document outlining the high-level functional and operational requirements for FAC-Trax. PA program officials developed a concept of operations for FAC-Trax detailing operating concepts and scenarios for each phase of the PA preaward process. Program officials also detailed the workflow, phases, business functions, and data inputs and outputs for the re-engineered PA process in FAC-Trax’s functional requirements document. In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to describe the process, tasks, and data inputs and outputs for specific system capabilities. As part of the change control process, PA program officials meet three times a week to discuss and prioritize change requests. Specifically, program officials review submissions to the change control form to ensure completeness, validate impacts and root cause, and research details for incoming requests. PA program officials also follow up with users to understand and verify requirements. In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to capture acceptance criteria for specific requirements. However, PA program officials do not track system enhancements back to the high-level requirements identified in FAC-Trax’s operational and functional requirements documentation and performance work statement. PA program officials identified system requirements and constraints in the FAC-Trax concept of operations and functional and operational requirements documents. Further, through its change control process, program officials collect suggestions, issues, and feedback on FAC-Trax and system enhancements from stakeholders, identify risks for change requests, and balance prioritized requirements and estimated level of efforts with projected costs prior to each sprint. In March 2017, program officials developed a standard template to analyze and document the urgency and need for specific requirements. PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor established a testing and evaluation plan for the system, developed acceptance criteria for user stories, and obtained feedback from users during and after testing. The testing process concludes with user acceptance testing (UAT). If a change request fails during UAT or a new requirement is discovered during development, the PA program will capture the failed request or new requirement in the product backlog for implementation in a future product release. Key practices Systems testing and integration Developing test plans and test cases PA program officials and the FAC-Trax contractor tested and evaluated the system during development. The FAC-Trax test plan identifies the method and strategy to perform the testing, including the necessary tasks, testing parameters, and the roles and responsibilities of the individuals responsible for testing. However, program officials did not develop system testing criteria to evaluate FAC-Trax. A key feature of Agile software development is the “definition of done”—a set of clear, comprehensive, and objective criteria, that the government should use to evaluate software after each iteration of development. PA program officials developed a systems integration plan in June 2017 that identifies potential integration of FAC-Trax and four FEMA systems, including the Emergency Management Mission Integrated Environment. Specifically, the plan includes data requirements and standards; descriptions of the four systems FEMA plans to integrate with FAC-Trax and the proposed relationship for each connection; and security and access management requirements. In addition, program officials included a description of how integration problems are to be documented and resolved in FAC-Trax development and test plans. However, the systems integration plan does not define roles and responsibilities of all participants for system integration activities or establish a sequence and schedule for every integration step for the four FEMA systems. ● Fully implemented: The agency provided evidence that it fully addressed this practice. ◐ Partially implemented: The agency provided evidence that it addressed some, but not all, portions of this practice. ◌ Not implemented: The agency did not provide any evidence that it addressed this practice. In addition to the contact named above, Chris Keisling (Assistant Director), Amanda R. Parker (Analyst-in-Charge), Mathew Bader, Allison Bawden, Anthony Bova, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Rianna Jansen, Justin Jaynes, Tracey King, Matthew T. Lowney, Heidi Nielson, Claire Peachey, Brenda Rabinowitz, Ryan Siegel, Martin Skorczynski, Niti Tandon, Walter K. Vance, James T. Williams, and Eric Winter made key contributions to this report.

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

Answer: Cluster munitions are air-dropped or ground-launched weapons that release a number of smaller submunitions intended to kill enemy personnel or destroy vehicles. Cluster munitions were developed in World War II and are part of many nations' weapons stockpiles. Cluster munitions have been used frequently in combat, including the early phases of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cluster munitions have been highly criticized internationally for causing a significant number of civilian deaths, and efforts have been undertaken to ban and regulate their use. The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to view cluster munitions as a military necessity but in 2008 instituted a policy to reduce the failure rate of cluster munitions to 1% or less after 2018. In November 2017, a new DOD policy was issued that essentially reversed the 2008 policy. Under the new policy, combatant commanders can use cluster munitions that do not meet the 1% or less unexploded submunitions standard in extreme situations to meet immediate warfighting demands. In addition, the new policy does not establish a deadline to replace cluster munitions exceeding the 1% rate and states that DOD "will retain cluster munitions currently in active inventories until the capabilities they provide are replaced with enhanced and more reliable munitions." Potential issues for Congress include cluster munitions in an era of precision weapons, other weapons in lieu of cluster munitions, and the potential impact of DOD's 2017 revised cluster munitions policy.