Background

The Council on Foreign Relations study sets the stage for rethinking the  federal role in assisting communities prepare for homeland security.   Although acknowledging that the nation’s preparedness has improved, the  Council’s report highlights some of the significant gaps in preparedness  including shortfalls in personnel, equipment, communications, and other  critical capabilities in local services.
The Council’s report attempts to fill a void by estimating unmet needs for  emergency responders. The Council’s 5-year estimate of approximately   $98 billion across all levels of government was developed in concert with  The Concord Coalition and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary  Assessments.  It was based on data made available by professional  associations and others in the areas of fire service, urban search and  rescue, hospital preparedness, public health, emergency 911 systems,  interoperable communications, emergency operations centers,  animal/agricultural emergency response, emergency medical services  systems, emergency management planning and coordination, and  emergency response regional exercises. However, the report clearly states  that it does not include estimates for certain costs such as overtime for  training and other estimated needs in several critical mission areas, such as  the needs of police forces, because national police organizations were  unable to provide the information.
The total estimate is characterized in the report as being very preliminary  and imprecise given the absence of comprehensive national preparedness  standards. As the report itself acknowledges, the analysis is intended to  foster national debate by focusing on the baseline of preparedness and  steps needed to promote higher levels of readiness.
The report performs a service in beginning an important dialogue on  defining standards to assess readiness and recommends the development  of a better framework and procedures to develop more precise estimates of  national requirements and needs. The report concludes that the basis for  funding decisions would be improved by agreement on a more detailed and  systematic methodology to determine national requirements grounded in  national standards defining emergency preparedness.
We at GAO have not evaluated the methodology used in the Council’s  report. However, we have issued a report evaluating needs assessments  performed by other agencies in the area of public infrastructure. That  report highlights best practices that may prove useful if used by the  Department of Homeland Security or other public or private entities in  analyzing homeland security preparedness needs in the future.  The  practices used by these agencies to estimate funding needs varied widely,  but we were able to benchmark their assessments against best practices  used by leading public and private organizations. They also reflect  requirements that the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget  have placed on federal agencies that are aimed at improving capital  decisionmaking practices.
Among these best practices for infrastructure, there are several that might  be considered useful and relevant when conducting homeland security  capability assessments.  For example, some agencies’ assessments focus  on resources needed to meet the underlying missions and performance  goals.  This type of results-oriented assessment is based on the actions  needed to attain specific outcomes, rather than being simply a compilation  of all unmet needs regardless of their contribution to underlying outcomes  and goals.  Assessments might also consider alternative approaches to  meeting needs for cost effectiveness such as reengineering existing  processes and improving collaboration with other governments and the  private sector.  Best-practice agencies use cost-benefit analysis to include  only those needs for which benefits exceed costs; in cases where   benefits  are difficult to quantify, assessments could include an analysis that  compares alternatives and recommends the most cost-effective (least-cost)  option for achieving the goal.  Some agencies also rank projects based on  established criteria such as cost-effectiveness, relative risk, and potential  contribution to program goals.  Finally, we found that best-practice  agencies have a process to independently review the quality of data used to  derive estimates.

	Fragmentation in Homeland Security Grants for First Responders

GAO’s work over the years has repeatedly shown that mission  fragmentation and program overlap are widespread in the federal  government and that crosscutting program efforts are not well  coordinated. As far back as 1975, GAO reported that many of the  fundamental problems in managing federal grants were the direct result of  the proliferation of federal assistance programs and the fragmentation of  responsibility among different federal departments and agencies.  While  we noted that the large number and variety of programs tended to ensure  that a program is available to meet a defined need, we found that  substantial problems occur when state and local governments attempt to  identify, obtain, and use the fragmented grants-in-aid system to meet their  needs. Such a proliferation of programs leads to administrative  complexities that can confuse state and local grant recipients. Like GAO,  Congress is aware of the challenges facing grantees in the world of federal  grants management. In 1999, it passed the Federal Financial Assistance  Management Improvement Act (P.L. 106-107), with the goal of improving  the effectiveness and performance of federal financial assistance  programs, simplify federal financial assistance application and reporting  requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the public.
The 108th Congress faces the challenge to redesign the nation’s homeland  security grant programs in light of the events of September 11, 2001 and the  establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  In so doing,  Congress must balance the needs of our state and local partners in their  call for both additional resources and more flexibility with the nation’s  goals of attaining the highest levels of preparedness.  At the same time, we  need to design and build in appropriate accountability and targeting  features to ensure that the funds provided have the best chance of  enhancing preparedness.
Funding increases for combating terrorism have been dramatic and reflect  the high priority that the administration and Congress place on this  mission.  As the Council’s report observes, continuing gaps in preparedness  may prompt additional funds to be provided. The critical national goals  underlying these funding increases bring a responsibility to ensure that this  large investment of taxpayer dollars is wisely applied.  We recently  reported on some of the management challenges that could stem from  increased funding and noted that these challenges—including grants  management—could impede the implementation of national strategies if  not effectively addressed.
GAO has testified before on the development of counter-terrorism  programs for state and local governments that were similar and potentially  duplicative.  Table 1 shows many of the different grant programs that can  be used by first responders to address the nation’s homeland security.  To  illustrate the level of fragmentation across homeland security programs,  we have shown in table 1 the significant features for selected major  assistance programs targeted to first responders.  As the table shows,  substantial differences exist in the types of recipients and the allocation  methods for grants addressing similar purposes.  For example, some grants  go directly to local first responders such as firefighters while at least one  goes to state emergency management agencies and another directly to state  fire marshals.  The allocation methods differ as well—some are formula  grants while the others involve discretionary decisions by federal agency  officials on a project basis.  Grant requirements differ as well—DHS’  Assistance to Firefighters Grant has a maintenance of effort requirement  (MOE) while the State Fire Training Systems Grant has no similar  requirement.
Table 2 shows that considerable potential overlap exists in the activities  that these programs support—for example, funding for training is provided  by most grants in the table and several provide for all four types of needs.
The fragmented delivery of federal assistance can complicate coordination  and integration of services and planning at state and local levels. Homeland  security is a complex mission requiring the coordinated participation of  many federal, state, and local government entities as well as the private  sector.  As the national strategy issued by the administration last summer  recognizes, preparing the nation to address the new threats from terrorism  calls for partnerships of many disparate actors at many levels in our  system.  Within local areas, for example, the failure of local emergency  communications systems to operate on an interoperable basis across  neighboring jurisdictions reflects coordination problems within local  regions. Local governments are starting to assess how to restructure  relationships along contiguous local entities to take advantage of  economies of scale, promote resource sharing, and improve coordination  on a regional basis. Our previous work suggests that the complex web of  federal grants used to allocate federal aid to different players at the state  and local level may continue to reinforce state and local fragmentation.
Some have observed that federal grant restrictions constrain the flexibility  state and local officials need to tailor multiple grants to address state and  local needs and priorities. For example, some local officials have testified  that rigid federal funding rules constrain their flexibility and cannot be  used to fund activities that meet their needs.  We have reported that overlap  and fragmentation among homeland assistance programs fosters  inefficiencies and concerns in first responder communities.  State and local  officials have repeatedly voiced frustration and confusion about the burdensome and inconsistent application processes among programs.  We  concluded that improved coordination at both federal and state and local  levels would be promoted by consolidating some of these first responder  assistance programs.

	Rationalizing the First Responder Grant System

Using grants as a policy tool, the federal government can engage and  involve other levels of government and the private sector in enhancing  homeland security while still having a say in recipients’ performance and  accountability.  The structure and design of these grants will play a vital  role in determining success and ensuring that scarce federal dollars are  used to achieve critical national goals.

		Consolidating Grants

Addressing the underlying fragmentation of grant programs remains a  challenge for our federal system in the homeland security area.  Several  alternatives have been pursued in the past to overcome problems fostered  by fragmentation in the federal aid structure. I will discuss three briefly  here – block grants, performance partnerships, and streamlining planning  and administrative requirements.
Block grants are one way Congress has chosen to consolidate related  programs.  Block grants currently are used to deliver assistance in such  areas as welfare reform, community development, social services, law  enforcement, public health, and education.  While such initiatives often  involved the consolidation of categorical grants, block grants also typically  devolve substantial authority for setting priorities to state or local  governments. Under block grants, state and local officials bear the primary  responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the planning, management,  and implementation of activities financed with federal grant funds.  Accordingly, block grant proposals generally call for Congress to make a  fundamental decision about where power and authority to make decisions  should rest in our federal system for a particular program area.
While block grants devolve authority for decisions, they can and have been  designed to facilitate some accountability for national goals and objectives.  Since federal funds are at stake, Congress typically wants to know how  federal funds are spent and what state and local governments have  accomplished. Indeed, the history of block grants suggests that the absence  of national accountability and reporting for results can either undermine  continued congressional support or prompt more prescriptive controls to  ensure that national objectives are being achieved.
Given the compelling national concerns and goals for homeland security,  Congress may conclude that the traditional devolution of responsibility  found in a pure block grant may not be the most appropriate approach.  Congress might instead choose a hybrid approach—what we might call a   “consolidated categorical” grant which would consolidate a number of  narrower categorical programs while retaining strong standards and  accountability for discrete federal performance goals.  State and local  governments can be provided greater flexibility in using federal funds in  exchange for more rigorous accountability for results.
One example of this model involves what became known as “performance  partnerships,” exemplified by the initiative of the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA).  Under this initiative, states may voluntarily  enter Performance Partnership Agreements with EPA regional offices  covering the major federal environmental grant programs. States can  propose to use grants more flexibly by shifting federal funds across  programs but they are held accountable for discrete or negotiated  measures of performance addressing EPA’s national performance goals.   This approach has allowed states to use federal funds more flexibly and  support innovative projects while increasing the focus on results and  effectiveness. However, in 1999 we reported that the initiative had been  hampered by an absence of baseline data against which environmental  improvements could be measured and the inherent difficulty in quantifying  certain results and linking them to program activities.
The challenge for developing performance partnerships for homeland  security grants will be daunting because the administration has yet to  develop clearly defined federal and national performance goals and  measures. We have reported that the initiatives outlined in the National  Strategy for Homeland Security often do not provide performance goals  and measures to assess and improve preparedness at the federal or  national levels.  The strategy generally describes overarching objectives  and priorities but not measurable outcomes.  The absence of such  measures and outcomes at the national level will undermine any effort to  establish performance based grant agreements with states. The Council on  Foreign Relations report recommends establishing clearly defined national  standards and guidelines in consultation with first responders and other  state and local officials.
Another alternative to overcome grant fragmentation is the simplification  and streamlining of administrative and planning requirements. In June  2003, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee passed a bill (S. 1245,  The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003) intended to better  coordinate and simplify homeland security grants. The bill would establish  an interagency committee to coordinate and streamline homeland security  grant programs by advising the Secretary of DHS on the multiple programs  administered by federal agencies. The interagency committee would  identify all redundant and duplicative requirements to the appropriate  committees of Congress and the agencies represented in the interagency  committee.  The bill also establishes a clearinghouse function within the  Office for State and Local Government Coordination for grant information  that would gather and disseminate information regarding successful state  and local homeland security programs and practices.  The bill seeks to  streamline the application process for federal assistance and to rationalize  and better coordinate the state and local planning requirements.  The bill  provides for a comprehensive state plan to address the broad range of  emergency preparedness functions currently funded from separate  programs with their own separate planning requirements.
A statewide plan can be used as a tool to promote coordination among  federal first responder programs that continue to exist as separate funding  streams. One option could be to require recipients of federal grants for  homeland security within each state to obtain review and comment by the  central state homeland security agency to attest to consistency with the  statewide plan.
Whatever approach is chosen, it is important that grants be designed to   (1) target the funds to states and localities with the greatest need,   (2) discourage the replacement of state and local funds with federal funds,  commonly referred to as “supplantation,” with a maintenance-of-effort  requirement that recipients maintain their level of previous funding, and   (3) strike a balance between accountability and flexibility.

		Targeting

As Congress goes forward to consider how to design a grant system to  promote a stronger federal, state, local and regional partnership to improve  homeland security, it faces some of the traditional dilemmas in federal  grant design.  One is targeting.  How do you concentrate funds in the places  with the highest risks?  A proclivity to spread money around, unfortunately,  may provide less additional net protection while actually placing additional  burdens on state and local governments.  Given the significant needs and  limited federal resources, it will be important to target to areas of greatest  need.  The formula for the distribution of any new grant could be based on  several considerations, including relative threats and vulnerabilities faced  by states and communities as well as the state or local government’s  capacity to respond to a disaster.  The Council on Foreign Relations report  recommends that Congress establish a system for allocating scarce  resources based on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities.  The  report goes on to say that the federal government should consider factors  such as population and population density, vulnerability assessments, and  the presence of critical infrastructure within each state as the basis for  fund distribution.
By comparing three of the grants listed in table 2, one can see differences in  the way funds have been allocated thus far.  For example, under the State  Homeland Security Grant Program allocations are determined by using a  base amount of .75 percent of the total allocation to each state (including  the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) and .25 percent of the total to the  territories.  The balance of the funds goes to recipients on a population- share basis.  In contrast, the Urban Area Security Initiative funds are  distributed according to a formula from the Department of Homeland  Security as being a combination of weighted factors including current  threat estimates, critical assets within the urban area, population and  population density—the results of which are ranked and used to calculate  the proportional allocation of resources.  For Byrne Grants, each  participant state receives a base amount of $500,000 or .25 percent of the  amount available for the program, whichever is greater, with the remaining  funds allocated to each state based on the state’s relative share of the total  U.S. population.

		Supplantation and Sustainability

A second dilemma in federal grant design involves preventing fiscal  substitution or supplantation.  In earlier work, we found that substitution is  to be expected in any grant and, on average, every additional federal grant  dollar results in about 60 cents of supplantion. We found that  supplantation is particularly likely for block grants supporting areas with  prior state and local involvement. However, our work on the Temporary  Assistance to Needy Families block grant found that a strong maintenance  of effort provision can limit states’ ability to supplant since recipients can  be penalized for not meeting a maintenance of effort requirement.
It seems obvious to say that grant recipients should maintain the effort they  were making prior to receiving the grant and use the grant to add to, rather  than replace, their own contribution.  However, since September 11, 2001,  many local jurisdictions have taken it upon themselves to take the initiative  to dramatically increase their own-source funding in an effort to enhance  security.  Should the federal grant system now penalize them by locking in  their increased spending levels and at the same time reward state and local  governments that have taken a “wait and see” attitude concerning  enhancing security?   This is one of the design dilemmas that Congress will  need to address to ensure that scarce federal resources in fact are used to  promote increased capability.
A third challenge is sustainability.  Local governments think of  sustainability as keeping the federal spigot permanently turned on.  They  may argue that the urgent needs they face will drive out the important  needs of enhanced homeland security without continued federal aid.   However, from a broader, national perspective there is an expectation that  the responsibility for sustaining homeland security responsibility would at  least be shared by all levels of government since state, local, and regional  governments receive benefits from these grants in addition to the national  benefit of improving homeland security.
Several options can be considered to further shared fiscal responsibility.  A  state and local match could be considered to reflect both the benefits  received by state and local taxpayers from preparedness as well as to  encourage the kind of discipline and responsibility that can be elicited  when a government’s own funds are at stake.  An additional option—the  “seed money” approach—could be to lower the federal match over time to  encourage ownership, support, and long term sustainability at the state and  local level for funded activities. However, at their best grants can stimulate  state and local governments to enhance their preparedness to address the  unique threats posed by terrorism.  Ideally, grants should stimulate higher  levels of preparedness and avoid simply subsidizing local functions that are  traditionally state or local responsibilities.  The literature on  intergovernmental management suggests that federal money can succeed  in institutionalizing a commitment to aided goals and purposes over time  within states and communities, as professional administrators and clients  of these programs take root and gain influence within local political  circles.

		Accountability and Flexibility

Ultimately, the sustainability of government funding can be promoted by  accountability provisions that provide clear and transparent information on  results achieved from the intergovernmental partnership. At the federal  level, experience with block grants shows that grant programs are  sustainable if they are accompanied by sufficient performance and  accountability information on national outcomes to enable them to  compete for funding in the congressional appropriations process.  Accountability can be performance and results oriented to provide focus  on national goals across state and local governments while providing for  greater flexibility for those governments in deciding how best to meet  those goals.
Last summer, the Administration released a national strategy for homeland  security that placed emphasis on security as a shared national  responsibility involving close cooperation among all levels of government.   We noted at the time that the national strategy’s initiatives often did not  provide a baseline set of performance goals and measures for homeland  security.  Then and now—over a year later—the nation does not have a  comprehensive set of performance goals and measures against which to  assess and upon which to improve prevention efforts, vulnerability  reduction, and responsiveness to damage and recovery needs at all levels  of government.  We still hold that given the need for a highly integrated  approach to the homeland security challenge, national performance goals  and measures for strategy initiatives that involve both federal and  nonfederal actors may best be developed in a collaborative way involving  all levels of government and the private sector.  At this point, there are few  national or federal performance standards that can be defined, given the  differences among states and lack of understanding of what levels of  preparedness are appropriate given a jurisdiction’s risk factors.  The  Council on Foreign Relations recommended that national standards be  established by federal agencies in such areas as training, communications,  and response equipment, in consultation with intergovernmental partners.
Communications is an example of an area for which standards have not yet  been developed, but various emergency managers and other first  responders have highlighted that standards are needed.  State and local  government officials often report that there are deficiencies in their  communications capabilities, including the lack of interoperable systems.   The national strategy recognizes that it is crucial for response personnel to  have and use equipment, systems, and procedures that allow them to  communicate.  Therefore, the strategy calls for a national communication  plan to establish protocols (who needs to talk to whom), processes, and  national standards for technology acquisition.

		Need for Integrated Approaches from State and Local Partners

Just as the federal government needs to rationalize its grant system for first  responders, state and local governments are also challenged to streamline  and better coordinate their efforts.  As pointed out in the recent report  from the Century Foundation, ultimately the nation’s homeland defense  will be critically dependent on the ability of state and local governments to  act to overcome barriers to coordination and integration. The scale of  homeland security threat spills over conventional boundaries of political  jurisdictions and agencies. Effective response calls on local governments  to reach across boundaries to obtain support and cooperation throughout  an entire region or state.
Promoting partnerships among key players within each state and even  across states is vital to addressing the challenge. States and local  governments need to work together to reduce and eliminate barriers to  achieving this coordination and regional integration.   The federal  government is, of course, a key player in promoting effective preparedness  and can offer state and local governments assistance beyond grant funds in  such areas as risk management and intelligence sharing.  The Office for  State and Local Government Coordination has been established within  DHS to facilitate close coordination with state and local first responders,  emergency services and governments. In turn, state and local governments  have much to offer in terms of knowledge of local vulnerabilities and  resources, such as local law enforcement personnel, available to respond  to threats in their communities.
Local officials emphasized the importance of regional coordination.  Regional resources, such as equipment and expertise, are essential because  of proximity, which allows for quick deployment, and experience in  working within the region. Large-scale or labor-intensive incidents quickly  deplete a given locality’s supply of trained responders. Some cities have  spread training and equipment to neighboring municipal areas so that their  mutual aid partners can help. We found in our work last year that to  facilitate emergency planning and coordination among cities in  metropolitan areas officials have joined together to create task forces,  terrorism working groups, advisory committees and Mayors’ caucuses.   Cities and counties have used mutual aid agreements to share emergency  resources in their metropolitan areas.  These agreements may include fire,  police, emergency medical services, and hospitals and may be formal or  informal.  These partnerships afford economies of scale across a region. In  events that require a quick response, such as a chemical attack, regional  agreements take on greater importance because many local officials do not  think that federal and state resources can arrive in sufficient time to help.
Forging regional arrangements for coordination is not an easy process at  the local level. The federal government may be able to provide incentives  through the grant system to encourage regional planning and coordination  for homeland security. Transportation planning offers one potential model  for federal influence that could be considered. Under federal law,  Metropolitan Planning Organizations are established to develop regionally  based transportation plans from which, generally, projects that are to be  federally funded must be selected.

	Conclusion

Improving the partnership among federal and nonfederal officials is vital to  achieving important national goals.  The task facing the nation is daunting  and federal grants will be a central vehicle to improve and sustain  preparedness in communities throughout the nation.  While funding  increases for combating terrorism have been dramatic, the Council’s report  reflects concerns that many have about the adequacy of current grant  programs to address the homeland security needs.
Ultimately, the “bottom line” question is:  What impact will the grant system  have in protecting the nation and its communities against terrorism?  At  this time, it is difficult to know since we do not have clearly defined  national standards or criteria defining existing or desired levels of  preparedness across the country. Our grant structure is not well suited to  provide assurance that scarce federal funds are in fact enhancing the  nation’s preparedness in the places most at risk. There is a fundamental  need to rethink the structure and design of assistance programs, to  streamline and simplify programs, improve targeting, and enhance  accountability for results.  Federal, state, and local governments alike have  a stake in improving the grant system to reduce burden and tensions and  promote the level of security that can only be achieved through effective  partnerships. The sustainability and continued support for homeland  security initiatives will rest in no small part on our ability to demonstrate to  the public that scarce public funds are in fact improving security in the  most effective and efficient manner.
This concludes my prepared statement.  I would be pleased to answer any  questions you or the members of the subcommittee may have at this time.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The challenges posed in strengthening homeland security exceed the capacity and authority of any one level of government. Protecting the nation calls for a truly integrated approach bringing together the resources of all levels of government. The Council on Foreign Relations study--Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared--states that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the United States must prepare based on the assumption that terrorists will strike again. Although it acknowledges the nation's preparedness has improved, the Council's report highlights gaps in preparedness including shortfalls in personnel, equipment, communications, and other critical capabilities. Given the many needs and high stakes, it is critical that the design of federal grants be geared to fund the highest priority projects with the greatest potential impact for improving homeland security. This testimony discusses possible ways in which the grant system for first responders might be reformed.

What GAO Found

The federal grant system for first responders is highly fragmented, which can complicate coordination and integration of services and planning at state and local levels. In light of the events of September 11, 2001 and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, the 108th Congress faces the challenge of redesigning the homeland security grant system. In so doing, Congress must balance the needs of our state and local partners in their call for both additional resources and more flexibility with the nation's goals of attaining the highest levels of preparedness. Given scarce federal resources, appropriate accountability and targeting features need to be designed into grants to ensure that the funds provided have the best chance of enhancing preparedness. Addressing the underlying fragmentation of grant programs remains a challenge for our federal system in the homeland security area. Several alternatives might be employed to overcome problems fostered by fragmentation in the federal aid structure, including consolidating grant programs through block grants, establishing performance partnerships, and streamlining planning and administrative requirements. Grant programs might be consolidated using a block grant approach, in which state and local officials bear the primary responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the planning, management, and implementation of activities financed with federal grant funds. While block grants devolve authority for decisions, they can be designed to facilitate accountability for national goals and objectives. Congress could also choose to take a more hybrid approach that would consolidate a number of narrowly focused categorical programs while retaining strong standards and accountability for discrete federal performance goals. One example of this model involves establishing performance partnerships, exemplified by the initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency in which states may voluntarily enter into performance agreements with the agency's regional offices covering the major federal environmental grant programs. Another option would be to simplify and streamline planning and administrative requirements for the grant programs. Whatever approach is chosen, it is important that grants be designed to target funds to states and localities with the greatest need, discourage the replacement of state and local funds with federal funds, and strike the appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility.