```
                                                                 
Homeland Security: Key Elements to Unify Efforts Are Underway but
Uncertainty Remains (07-JUN-02, GAO-02-610).			 
                                                                 
The issue of homeland security crosscuts numerous policy domains,
impinging on the expertise and resources of every level of	 
government, the private sector, and the international community. 
GAO found that although combating terrorism crossed		 
organizational boundaries, it did not sufficiently coordinate the
activities of the 40 federal entities involved, resulting in	 
duplication and gaps in coverage. The homeland security efforts  
of public and private entities do not yet represent a unified	 
approach, although key supporting elements for such an approach  
are emerging. Progress has been made in developing a framework to
support a more unified effort. Other remaining key elements--a	 
national strategy, establishment of public and private sector	 
partnerships, and the definition of key terms--are either not in 
place yet or are evolving. At the same time, key terms, such as  
''homeland security,'' have not officially defined; consequently,
certain organizational, management, and budgetary decisions	 
cannot currently be made across agencies. In the interim, the	 
potential exists for an uncoordinated approach to homeland	 
security that may lead to duplication of efforts or gaps in	 
coverage, misallocation of resources, and inadequate monitoring  
of expenditures.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-610 					        
    ACCNO:   A03519						        
  TITLE:     Homeland Security: Key Elements to Unify Efforts Are     
Underway but Uncertainty Remains				 
     DATE:   06/07/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Counterterrorism					 
	     Emergency preparedness				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     National defense operations			 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Terrorism						 
	     FEMA Federal Response Plan 			 
	     Operation Enduring Freedom 			 
	     Operation Noble Edge				 
	     FAA Air Marshal Program				 
	     DOJ Five-Year Interagency				 
	     Counterterrorism and Technology Crime		 
	     Plan						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-610
     
Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

June 2002 HOMELAND SECURITY

Key Elements to Unify Efforts Are Underway but Uncertainty Remains

GAO- 02- 610

Page i GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security Letter 1

Results in Brief 1 Background 3 A Unified Homeland Security Approach Is
Emerging 5 Conclusions 12 Recommendations 13 Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 14

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 16

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Justice 18

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 23

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 25

Appendix V Comments from the Customs Service 27

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 29

Related GAO Products 30 Contents

Page 1 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

June 7, 2002 Congressional Requesters The issue of homeland security
crosscuts numerous policy domains, impinging on the expertise and resources
of every level of government, the private sector, and the international
community. We have previously reported that while combating terrorism
crossed organizational boundaries, it did not sufficiently coordinate the
activities of the more than 40 federal entities involved, resulting in
duplication and gaps in coverage. 1 Effectively integrating homeland
security efforts will involve organizations at all levels of government and
in the private sector. Consequently, in response to requests in May and July
2001 from 8 members of Congress acting in their capacities as subcommittee
chairmen, ranking minority members, or other members of Congress, we
examined the extent to which homeland security efforts to date represent a
unified approach.

To determine the extent to which homeland security efforts are unified, we
reviewed documents and interviewed officials from 12 key federal agencies,
associations representing selected state and local government officials,
research organizations recognized for their work on terrorism or homeland
security or both, and selected associations representing corporations that
own key infrastructure. We also examined related crosscutting issues- our
work on combating terrorism, the year- 2000 (Y2K) challenge, and the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993- to identify key elements,
such as central leadership and a clearly defined strategy, that are critical
to unifying efforts and that could be instructive in developing homeland
security approaches. Further information on our scope and methodology
appears in appendix I.

The homeland security efforts of public and private entities do not yet
represent a unified approach, although key supporting elements for such an
approach are emerging. Due to uncertainty about national priorities, roles,
responsibilities, and funding, both public and private sector organizations
either embarked on their own initiatives without assurance

1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges
and Related Recommendations. GAO- 01- 822 (Washington, D. C.: September
2001).

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Results in Brief

Page 2 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

that these actions support the overall effort or are waiting for further
guidance before undertaking new initiatives of a substantial nature. For
example, some federal agencies such as the Coast Guard and the Customs
Service reallocated assets to contribute to homeland security efforts,
depleting resources for their other regular missions. State and local
governments want to know how they can contribute beyond their traditional
mission of managing the consequences of an incident.

 Progress has been made in developing a framework to support a more unified
effort. A key element- central leadership- was established by Executive
Order 13228, which created the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland
Security Council. Establishment of such an office was generally consistent
with a prior recommendation that we had made, although we had also
recommended that the office be institutionalized in law and that the head of
the office be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The
new office is to coordinate the homeland security efforts of federal, state,
and local governments and private sector entities.  Other remaining key
elements- a national strategy, establishment of

public and private sector partnerships, and the definition of key terms- are
either not in place yet or are evolving. The national strategy for homeland
security is being prepared by the Office of Homeland Security and is to
identify long- term, national priorities; objectives; performance measures;
and organizational responsibilities. Intergovernmental and public- private
sector relationships- which were key to the success of the Y2K effort- are
also emerging. For example, the President established the Homeland Security
Advisory Council with members selected from the private sector, academia,
professional service associations, state and local governments, and other
areas. However, there has not been enough time for these public- private
relationships to meld into a unified approach, and the national strategy,
which could guide these efforts, is still under development.  At the same
time, key terms, such as ?homeland security,? have not been

officially defined; consequently, certain organizational, management, and
budgetary decisions cannot currently be made consistently across agencies.

In the interim, the potential exists for an uncoordinated approach to
homeland security that may lead to duplication of efforts or gaps in
coverage, misallocation of resources, and inadequate monitoring of
expenditures.

Page 3 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Since the national strategy and public- private sector partnerships are
developing and actions are underway to address most key issues requiring
immediate attention, we are making no recommendations concerning these areas
at this time. However, during the time of our review, we could not determine
if the Office of Homeland Security planned to define ?homeland security.?
Consequently, we are recommending that (1) the term be defined and (2) that
the definition be included in the national strategy.

We provided a draft of this report to the Office of Homeland Security, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Customs Service, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Transportation, and the
Treasury. Only the Departments of Justice, Defense, and Health and Human
Services and the Customs Service provided written comments on a draft of
this report. The Department of Justice concurred with the recommendation to
define the term ?homeland security? and formalize it by including it in the
national strategy. In addition, the Departments of Justice, Defense, and
Health and Human Services provided technical comments that we incorporated
as appropriate.

The success of crosscutting, multi- organizational efforts depends on
certain key concepts to meld organizational efforts. These include central
leadership, an overarching strategy, effective partnerships, and common
definitions. These are critical elements that underpin the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 2 or were shown as critical in our
related work on combating terrorism efforts and the successful resolution of
Y2K computer problems. In March 2002, we testified about these elements in
terms of promoting partnerships in the development of a national strategy
for homeland security. 3

We have previously reported that the general tenets embraced by the Results
Act provide agencies with a systematic approach for managing programs. The
Results Act principles include clarifying missions, developing a strategy,
identifying goals and objectives, and establishing

2 P. L. 103- 62 (August 3, 1993). 3 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Homeland Security: Progress Made, More Direction and Partnership Sought.
GAO- 02- 490T (Washington, D. C.: March 2002). Background

Page 4 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

performance measures. When participants in a crosscutting program understand
how their missions contribute to a common strategy, they can develop goals
and objectives and implementation plans to reinforce each other?s efforts
and avoid duplicating or inadvertently obstructing them. Moreover, a
uniformly rigorous approach to assessing performance can enable the
Executive Branch and the Congress to identify programs that are not
operating as intended and target corrections as needed.

Our work on combating terrorism indicated that without central leadership
and an overarching strategy that identifies goals and objectives,
priorities, measurable outcomes, and state and local government roles, the
efforts of the more than 40 federal entities and numerous state and local
governments were fragmented. Specifically, we found that key interagency
functions in combating terrorism resided in several different organizations
and that this redundancy led to duplication of effort. We reported that
state and local officials have expressed concerns about duplication and
overlap among federal programs for training about weapons of mass
destruction and related matters. Some officials said that the number of
federal organizations involved created confusion concerning who was in
charge. As we noted in our September 2001 report on combating terrorism, a
representative of the International Association of Fire Chiefs testified
similarly that efforts would benefit greatly from an increased level of
coordination and accountability. Our work also showed that common
definitions promote effective agency and intergovernmental operations and
permit more accurate monitoring of expenditures at all levels of government.

Effective partnerships are also key in crosscutting efforts. In the Y2K
effort, for example, the issues involved went beyond the federal government
to state and local governments and to key economic sectors, such as
financial services, power distribution, and telecommunications. A failure in
any one area could have affected others, or critical services could have
been disrupted. Thus, the President?s Council on Year 2000 Conversion
established more than 25 working groups drawn from different economic
sectors and initiated numerous outreach activities to obtain the
perspectives of those involved on crosscutting issues, information sharing,
and the appropriate federal response.

Lastly, in March 2002, we testified on the need for a national strategy to
improve national preparedness and enhance partnerships among federal,

Page 5 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

state, and local governments to guard against terrorist attacks. 4 This
strategy should clarify the appropriate roles and responsibilities of
federal, state, and local entities and establish goals and performance
measures to guide the nation?s preparedness efforts.

Homeland security is a priority among public and private sector entities,
but their efforts are not fully unified. Federal agencies are undertaking
homeland security initiatives, but without the national strategy cannot know
how the initiatives will support overarching goals and other agencies. Some
state and local governments and private sector entities are waiting for
further guidance on national priorities, roles and responsibilities, and
funding before they take certain additional action. A key step toward a more
unified approach was achieved in October 2001 with Executive Order 13228,
when the President established a single focal point to coordinate efforts
against terrorism in the United States- the Office of Homeland Security. The
national strategy is under development, and partnerships among federal,
state, and local governments and the private sector are evolving. However,
the federal government does not yet have commonly accepted and authoritative
definitions for key terms, such as homeland security.

Public and private sector entities have been either pursuing their own
homeland security initiatives without assurance that these actions will
support the overall effort, or they have been waiting for further guidance
before undertaking certain new initiatives. For example, the U. S. Coast
Guard has realigned some resources to enhance port security, drawing them
from maritime safety, drug interdiction, and fisheries law enforcement. 5
Similarly, the Customs Service has used approximately 1,500 personnel since
September 11 in support of the Federal Aviation Administration?s Air Marshal
program and the Federal Bureau of Investigation?s Joint Terrorism Task
Forces; Customs Service aircraft and crews were assigned to assist the North
American Aerospace Defense Command; and the Customs Service also undertook
other initiatives to

4 U. S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental
Partnership in a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness,
GAO- 02- 547T (Washington, D. C.: March 22, 2002).

5 U. S. General Accounting Office, Coast Guard: Budget and Management
Challenges for 2003 and Beyond GAO- 02- 538T (Washington, D. C.: March 19,
2002). A Unified Homeland

Security Approach Is Emerging

Uncertainties Impair the Ability of the Public and Private Sectors to Unify
Efforts

Page 6 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

bolster homeland security. The Department of Defense has initiated two major
operations. Operation Enduring Freedom is a combat mission conducted
overseas in direct pursuit of terrorists and their supporters, while
Operation Noble Eagle concerns increased security required for the nation?s
homeland. To help accomplish these new efforts, the department has
recommended and been authorized to create a new unified command- the
Northern Command- to lead all of the department?s military homeland security
missions and activated almost 82,000 Reserve and National Guard service
members for participation in these operations. The Department of
Transportation in response to legislation established the Transportation
Security Administration and is in the process of hiring over 30,000 baggage
screeners at airports across the United States. In addition, the Department
of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, have received significant new funding to support its homeland
security programs. At the same time, officials from these agencies as well
as associations of state officials stated that they were waiting for the
Office of Homeland Security to provide a vision and strategy for homeland
security and to clarify additional organizational responsibilities. Certain
state officials said that they are uncertain about additional roles for
state and local governments as well as how they can proceed beyond their
traditional mission of managing the consequences of an incident or providing
for public health and safety.

Uncertainty about funding may also impede a unified approach to homeland
security. At the time of our report, officials representing state and local
governments as well as the private sector believed they were unable to
absorb new homeland security costs. The National Governor?s Association
estimated fiscal year 2002 state budget short falls of between $40 billion
and $50 billion, making it difficult for the states to take on new
initiatives without federal assistance. Similarly, representatives from
associations representing the banking, electrical energy, and transportation
sectors told us that member companies were concerned about the cost of
additional layers of security. For example, according to National Industrial
Transportation League officials, transport companies and their customers are
willing to adopt prudent security measures (such as increased security
checks in loading areas and security checks for carrier drivers), but are
concerned about the impact and cost of new regulations to enhance security
on their ability to conduct business. At the same time, the North American
Electric Reliability Council officials told us that utility companies need a
way to recoup expenses incurred in protecting facilities the federal
government deems critical to homeland security.

Page 7 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

As we have testified, our previous work on federal programs suggests that
the choice and design of policy tools have important consequences for
performance and accountability. 6 Governments have a variety of policy tools
including grants, regulations, tax incentives, and regional coordination and
partnerships to motivate or mandate other levels of government or the
private sector to address security concerns. Key to the national effort will
be determining the appropriate level of funding in order that policies and
tools can be designed and targeted to elicit a prompt, adequate, and
sustainable response while protecting against federal funding being used as
a substitute for state, local, or private sector funding that would have
occurred without federal assistance.

Inadequate intelligence and sensitive information sharing have also been
cited as impediments to participation in homeland security efforts.
Currently, no standard protocol exists for sharing intelligence and other
sensitive information among federal, state, and local officials.
Associations of state officials believe that intelligence sharing has been
insufficient to allow them to effectively meet their responsibilities.
According to a National Emergency Management Association official, both
state and local emergency management personnel have not received
intelligence information, hampering their ability to interdict terrorists
before they strike. According to this official, certain state and local
emergency management personnel, emergency management directors, and fire and
police chiefs hold security clearances granted by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; however, these clearances are not recognized by other
federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The National
Governors? Association agreed that inadequate intelligencesharing is a
problem between federal agencies and the states. The association explained
that most governors do not have security clearances and, therefore, do not
receive classified threat information, potentially undermining their ability
to use the National Guard to prevent an incident and hampering their
emergency preparedness capabilities to respond to an incident. On the other
hand, the Federal Bureau of Investigation believes that it has shared
information with state or local officials when appropriate. For example,
field offices in most states have a good relationship with the emergency
management community and have shared information under certain conditions.
At the same time, bureau officials

6 U. S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Enhancing
Partnerships Through a National Preparedness Strategy, GAO- 02- 549T
(Washington, D. C.: March 28, 2002).

Page 8 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

acknowledged that the perception that a problem exists could ultimately
undermine the desired unity of efforts among all levels of government. Even
federal agencies perceived that intelligence sharing was a problem. For
example, Department of Agriculture officials told us that they believe they
have not been receiving complete threat information, consequently hampering
their ability to manage associated risks.

Some homeland security initiatives to unify efforts are in place or under
development. At the same time, we could not confirm that another key
element, a definition of homeland security, was being addressed at the time
we collected data for our report. The President established the Office of
Homeland Security to serve as the focal point to coordinate the nation?s
efforts in combating terrorism within the United States. The office is
developing a national strategy and has begun to forge partnerships within
the interagency system, with state and local governments, and with the
private sector by establishing advisory councils comprised of government and
nongovernment representatives. However, implementing the national strategy
will be a challenge. The partnerships are not fully developed, and an
authoritative definition of homeland security does not exist.

In October 2001, the President established a single focal point to
coordinate efforts to combat terrorism in the United States- the Office of
Homeland Security. This action is generally consistent with prior
recommendations, including our own, to establish a single point in the
federal government with responsibility and authority for all critical
leadership and coordination functions to combat terrorism. 7 We had also
recommended that the office be institutionalized in law and that the head of
the office be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As
constituted, the office has broad responsibilities, including (1) working
with federal, state, and local governments as well as private entities to
develop a national strategy and to coordinate implementation of the
strategy; (2) overseeing prevention, crisis management, and consequence
management activities; (3) coordinating threat and intelligence

7 U. S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges
and Related Recommendations, GAO- 01- 822, (Washington, D. C.: September,
2001); Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, Phase III
Report of the U. S. Commission on National Security/ 21st Century, February
15, 2001; Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the
Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, October 31, 2001. Most Key Elements
of a

Unified Homeland Security Approach Are Developing

Central Leadership Established

Page 9 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

information; (4) reviewing governmentwide budgets for homeland security and
advising agencies and the Office of Management and Budget on appropriate
funding levels; and (5) coordinating critical infrastructure protection.

The Office of Homeland Security is collaborating with federal, state, and
local governments and private entities to develop a national strategy and
coordinate its implementation. The strategy is to be ?national? in scope,
including states, localities, and private- sector entities in addition to
federal agencies. It is to set overall priorities and goals for homeland
security and to establish performance measures to gauge progress. At the
federal level, the strategy is to be supported by a crosscutting federal
budget plan. The national strategy is to assist in integrating all elements
of the national effort by ensuring that missions, strategic goals,
priorities, roles, responsibilities, and tasks are understood and reinforced
across the public and private sectors. The office plans to deliver the
national strategy to the President in June 2002.

Officials at key federal agencies indicate that they expect the national
strategy to provide a vision for homeland security and prioritize and
validate organizational missions for homeland security. However, achieving
the support of all of the organizations involved in devising and
implementing the strategy is a daunting challenge because of their
specialized, sometimes multiple missions; distinctive organizational
cultures; and concerns about how forthcoming initiatives might affect
traditional roles and missions.

Partnerships are being established among federal, state, and local
governments, and private sector entities to promote a unified homeland
security approach. First, Executive Order 13228, which established the
Office of Homeland Security, also established a Homeland Security Council
made up of the President, Vice President, the Secretaries of the Treasury,
Defense, Health and Human Services, and Transportation, the Attorney
General, and the Directors of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence, the Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security, and other officers designated by the
President. Second, the President also established interagency forums to
consider policy issues affecting homeland security at the senior cabinet
level and sub- cabinet levels. Third, to coordinate the development and
implementation of homeland security policies, the Executive Order created
policy coordination committees for several The National Strategy Is

under Development Public and Private Sector Relationships Are Evolving

Page 10 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

functional areas of security, such as medical/ public health preparedness
and domestic threat response and incident management. These committees
provide policy analysis in homeland security and represent the day- to- day
mechanism for the coordination of homeland security policy among departments
and agencies throughout the federal government and with state and local
governments.

In addition, the President established a Homeland Security Advisory Council
with members selected from the private sector, academia, professional
service associations, federally funded research and development centers,
nongovernmental organizations, and state and local governments. The council
is advised by four committees representing (1) state and local officials;
(2) academia and policy research; (3) the private sector; and (4) local
emergency services, law enforcement, and public health/ hospitals. The
function of the Advisory Council includes advising the President through the
Assistant for Homeland Security on developing and implementing a national
strategy; improving coordination, cooperation, and communication among
federal, state, and local officials and private sector entities; and
advising on the feasibility and effectiveness of measures to detect, prepare
for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist
threats or attacks within the United States.

In terms of interagency partnerships, federal agencies in some program areas
have formal mechanisms to support collaboration, and other agencies report
improvement in communication and cooperation. For example, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency has coordinated the emergency response
capabilities of 26 federal agencies and the American Red Cross by developing
a comprehensive plan that establishes their primary and secondary disaster
relief responsibilities, known as the

Federal Response Plan. The plan establishes a process and structure for the
systematic and coordinated delivery of federal assistance to state and local
governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency. As another
example, the Department of Justice, as directed by Congress, developed the
Five- Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan. The plan,
issued in 1988, represents a substantial interagency effort.

After the events of September 11, officials from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Departments
of Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and the Treasury told us that their
relationships with other federal agencies have improved. For example, some
agencies reported increased contact with the intelligence community and
regular contact with the Office of Homeland Security.

Page 11 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Some agencies have indicated that they also provided a new or expanded level
of assistance to other agencies. For example, the Department of Agriculture
used its mobile testing labs to help test mail samples for anthrax; the
Department of Defense provided security to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration prior to and during the launch of the space shuttle and
to the Secret Service at such major sporting events as the Winter Olympics
in Utah and the Super Bowl in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 2002; and the
National Guard assisted with the security of commercial airports throughout
the United States.

Although the federal government can assign roles to federal agencies under a
national strategy, it may need to seek consensus on these roles with other
levels of government and the private sector. The President?s Homeland
Security Advisory Council is a step toward achieving that consensus.
However, state and local governments are seeking greater input in
policymaking. Although state and local governments seek direction from the
federal government, according to the National Governors? Association, they
oppose mandated participation and prefer broad guidelines or benchmarks.
Mandated approaches could stifle statelevel innovation and prevent states
from serving as testing grounds for new approaches to homeland security.

In terms of the private sector, partnerships between it and the public
sector are forming, but they are not yet developed to the level of those in
Y2K efforts, generally due to the emerging nature of homeland security.
Nonetheless, some progress has been made. For example, the North American
Electric Reliability Council has partnered with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Energy to establish threat levels that
they share with utility companies as threats change. Similarly, a Department
of Commerce task force is to identify opportunities to partner with private
sector entities to enhance security of critical infrastructure.

Commonly accepted definitions help provide assurance that organizational,
management, and budgetary decisions are made consistently across the
organizations involved in a crosscutting effort. For example, they help
guide agencies in organizing and allocating resources and can help promote
more effective agency and intergovernmental operations by facilitating
communication. A definition of homeland security can also help to enforce
budget discipline and support more accurate monitoring of homeland security
expenditures. The lack of a common definition has hampered the monitoring of
expenditures for other crosscutting programs. In our prior work, we reported
that the amounts of An Official,

Governmentwide Definition of Homeland Security Does Not Exist

Page 12 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

governmentwide terrorism- related funding and spending were uncertain
because, among other reasons, definitions of antiterrorism and
counterterrorism varied from agency to agency. 8 On the other hand, the
Department of Defense has a draft definition of its own to identify
departmental homeland security roles and missions and to support
organizational realignments, such as the April 2002 announcement of the
establishment of the Northern Command. The department has also required that
the services and other organizations use standard terminology when
communicating with each other and other federal agencies to ensure a common
understanding occurs. However, when the department commented on a draft of
this report, it stated that it continues to refine its definition. The
department?s comments are reprinted in their entirety in Appendix III.
Office of Management and Budget officials stated that they also crafted a
definition of homeland security to report how much money would be spent for
homeland security as shown in the president?s fiscal year 2003 budget. These
officials acknowledge that their definition is not authoritative and expect
the Office of Homeland Security to create a definition before the fiscal
year 2004 budget process begins. Officials at other key federal agencies
also expect the Office of Homeland Security to craft such a definition. In
the interim, the potential exists for an uncoordinated approach to homeland
security caused by duplication of efforts or gaps in coverage, misallocation
of resources, and inadequate monitoring of expenditures.

The Office of Homeland Security faces a task of daunting complexity in
unifying the capabilities of a multitude of federal, state, and local
governments and private organizations. As shown in our previous reports on
combating terrorism, duplication and gaps in coverage can occur when the
nation?s capabilities are not effectively integrated. Homeland security
efforts are not yet focused and coordinated. Some organizations are forging
ahead and creating homeland security programs without knowing how these
programs will integrate into a national plan while other organizations are
waiting for direction from the Office of Homeland Security. Since the Office
of Homeland Security plans to address the key issues needing immediate
attention- preparing a national strategy, clarifying roles and missions,
establishing performance measures, and

8 U. S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental
Partnership in a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness,
GAO- 02- 547T (Washington, D. C.: March 22, 2002) Conclusions

Page 13 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

setting priorities and goals, we are making no recommendations concerning
these issues at this time. However, commonly accepted or authoritative
definitions of fundamental concepts, such as homeland security, will also be
essential to integrate homeland security efforts effectively. Without this
degree of definition, communication between participants will lack clarity,
coordination of implementation plans will be more difficult, and targeting
of resources will be more uncertain.

We recommend that the President direct the Office of Homeland Security to

 develop a comprehensive, governmentwide definition of homeland security,
and  include the definition in the forthcoming national strategy.

We presented a draft of this report to the Office of Homeland Security; the
Environmental Protection Agency; the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Transportation, and
Treasury; the Customs Service; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Only the Departments of Justice, Defense, Health and Human Services and the
Customs Service provided written comments on a draft of this report.

The Department of Justice was concerned that the draft report did not
discuss several key aspects of its efforts related to ensuring homeland
security, noting in particular that we did not note the department?s role in
the development of the Five- Year Interagency Counterterrorism and
Technology Crime Plan. We agree that this plan is an important contribution
to homeland security, and we revised our text to recognize the department?s
efforts in developing the plan. The department?s comments and our evaluation
of the comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.

The Department of Defense stated that the draft portrayed the many
challenges facing the departments and agencies as they address homeland
security efforts. However, the department pointed out that its definition of
homeland security, developed for its own use, was still in draft at the time
of our report. We were aware of that and revised our report language to
clarify this point. We also incorporated technical corrections as
appropriate. Recommendations

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 14 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Customs Service provided
no overall comments but did provide letters in response to our request for
comments, which we have included in appendix IV and V, respectively. The
Department of Health and Human Services also provided technical comments,
which have been incorporated in the report, as appropriate.

We discuss our scope and methodology in detail in appendix I. As agreed with
the offices of our congressional requesters, unless they announce the
contents of the report earlier, we will not distribute it until 30 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
appropriate congressional committees. We will also send a copy to the
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security; the Secretaries of
Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services,
Transportation, and the Treasury; the Attorney General; the Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Administrators of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Environmental Protection Agency; and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others
upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report or wish to
discuss this matter further, please contact me at (202) 512- 6020. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Raymond J. Decker Director, Defense Capabilities

and Management Scope and

Methodology

Page 15 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

List of Congressional Requesters The Honorable Steve LaTourette Chairman The
Honorable Jerry F. Costello Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Economic
Development,

Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure House of Representatives

The Honorable Christopher Shays Chairman Subcommittee on National Security,

Veterans Affairs, and International Relations Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Mac Thornberry Chairman Department of Energy Reorganization

Special Oversight Panel Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives

The Honorable J. C. Watts, Jr. House of Representatives

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss House of Representatives

The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest House of Representatives

The Honorable Vic Snyder House of Representatives

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 16 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

To determine the extent to which homeland security efforts represent a
unified approach, we interviewed officials and obtained available documents
from the Office of Homeland Security, Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and
the Treasury. We selected these agencies based on their prominent role in
the U. S. Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations
Plan and the

Federal Response Plan. In addition, we talked to officials from the Office
of Management and Budget to discuss budgeting for homeland security. We
interviewed officials of the National Governors Association, the National
League of Cities, the National Emergency Management Association, the
American Red Cross, the Georgia Emergency Management Agency, Gilmore Panel,
1 the Hart- Rudman Commission, 2 the Rand Corporation, the ANSER Institute
of Homeland Security, the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
the American Bankers Association, the North American Electric Reliability
Council, the National Industrial Transportation League, and the Southern
Company. We also reviewed year- 2000 efforts, our related work on combating
terrorism, and

1 The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, also know as the Gilmore Panel,
assessed the capabilities for responding to terrorist incidents in the U. S.
homeland involving weapons of mass destruction. The panel examined the
response capabilities at the federal, state, and local levels, with a
particular emphasis on the latter two.

2 The United States Commission on National Security/ 21st Century, commonly
known as the Hart- Rudman Commission, published three reports, and examined
(1) the transformation emerging over the next quarter- century in the global
and domestic U. S. security environment; (2) U. S. security interests,
objectives, and strategy; and (3) the structures and processes of the U. S.
national security apparatus for 21st century relevancy. Appendix I: Scope
and Methodology

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 17 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Government Performance and Results Act reports we previously issued to
identify key elements that support a unified approach to addressing public
problems. We did not evaluate the Office of Homeland Security leadership or
its efforts to develop the national strategy because it was too early to
judge adequately its performance in these areas. Our selection methodology
does not permit projection nationwide.

We conducted our review from August 2001 through April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 18 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 19 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 20 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 21 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

The following are GAO?s comments on the Department of Justice?s letter dated
May 28, 2002.

The Department of Justice was concerned that we did not discuss several key
aspects of the department?s efforts related to homeland security.
Specifically, the department mentioned several plans and roles that it
believes should be mentioned in the report. We agree that the plans and
roles the department outlines are important and that they play a vital role
in homeland security. These plans and efforts along with the many other
plans and efforts of local, state and federal governments as well as the
private sector- will need to be integrated by the Office of Homeland
Security, in its efforts to develop a national homeland security strategy.

The department specifically mentions the Five- Year Interagency
Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan and said that we failed to state
that the plan represents a substantial interagency effort and is one
document that could serve as a basis for a national strategy- a statement
the department points out is contained in a prior GAO report, Combating
Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations

GAO- 01- 822 (Washington, D. C.: September 2001). However, in the same
report, we also state the plan lacks certain critical elements including a
focus on results- oriented outcomes. Moreover, because there is no national
strategy that includes all the necessary elements, the Office of Homeland
Security is developing an overarching national strategy, which will build on
the planning efforts of all participants.

The department also stated that we did not reference its role in domestic
preparedness. Domestic preparedness and the roles that all participants play
in it are important. However, domestic preparedness is only one element of
homeland security. As our report points out, our objective was to evaluate
the extent to which homeland security efforts to date represent a unified
approach. In developing the national strategy, the Office of Homeland
Security will address individual agency efforts including those involved in
domestic preparedness efforts.

The department also noted that we did not cite its efforts regarding the U.
S. Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan. To
the contrary, we are very aware of the overall importance of the plan and
used it as a basis for selecting the federal agencies that we interviewed.
This is discussed in appendix I- scope and methodology. GAO Comments

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice

Page 22 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

The department furthers cites our failure to acknowledge efforts to improve
intelligence sharing. Our objective was to evaluate the extent to which
homeland security efforts were unified, and in our discussions, intelligence
sharing was repeatedly mentioned as an obstacle to further integration.
Despite the department?s efforts to improve intelligence sharing as cited in
its letter, our work showed that there is a prevailing perception that it
continues to be a problem. We do mention, in the section on evolving public
and private sector relationships, the intelligence sharing efforts led by
the Office of Homeland Security to include the Homeland Security Council and
the policy coordination committees.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 23 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 24 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

The following are GAO?s comments on the Department of Defense?s letter. The
Department of Defense requested that we more clearly state that it continues
to define homeland defense and homeland security and its role in support of
homeland security. We agreed and incorporated this information in our report
section on the nonexistence of an official governmentwide definition of
homeland security. GAO Comments

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 25 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 26 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

The following are GAO?s comments on the Department of Health and Human
Services letter dated May 29, 2002.

The Department of Health and Human Services had no specific comments on the
draft report. However, the Department did provide several technical comments
that we incorporated as appropriate. GAO Comments

Appendix V: Comments from the Customs Service

Page 27 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Appendix V: Comments from the Customs Service

Appendix V: Comments from the Customs Service

Page 28 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

The following are GAO?s comments on the Customs? letter dated May 29, 2002.

The Customs Service had no specific comments on the draft report. GAO
Comments

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 29 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Brian J. Lepore (202) 512- 4523 In addition to the contact named above,
Lorelei St. James, Patricia SariSpear, Kimberly C. Seay, Matthew W.
Ullengren, William J. Rigazio, and Susan Woodward made key contributions to
this report. Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments

Related GAO Products Page 30 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Homeland Security: Responsibility and Accountability for Achieving National
Goals. (GAO- 02- 627T, April 11, 2002).

National Preparedness: Integration of Federal, State, Local, and Private
Sector Efforts Is Critical to an Effective National Strategy for Homeland
Security (GAO- 02- 621T, April 11, 2002).

Homeland Security: Progress Made, More Direction and Partnership Sought
(GAO- 02- 490T, March 12, 2002).

Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short- and Long-
Term National Needs (GAO- 02- 160T, November 7, 2001).

Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness Efforts
(GAO- 02- 208T, October 31, 2001).

Homeland Security: Need to Consider VA?s Role in Strengthening Federal
Preparedness (GAO- 02- 145T, October 15, 2001).

Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach

(GAO- 02- 150T, October 12, 2001).

Homeland Security: A Framework for Addressing the Nation?s Issues

(GAO- 01- 1158T, September 21, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Development of a
National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness (GAO- 02- 550T,
April 2, 2002).

Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships Through a National Prearedness
Strategy (GAO- 02- 549T, March 28, 2002).

Combating Terrorism: Critical Components of a National Strategy to Enhance
State and Local Preparedness (GAO- 02- 548T, March 25, 2002).

Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Partnership in a National Strategy to
Enhance State and Local Preparedness (GAO- 02- 547T), March 22, 2002).

Combating Terrorism: Key Aspects of a National Strategy to Enhance State and
Local Preparedness (GAO- 02- 473T, March 1, 2002). Related GAO Products

Homeland Security Combating Terrorism

Related GAO Products Page 31 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Combating Terrorism: Considerations For Investing Resources in Chemical and
Biological Preparedness (GAO- 01- 162T, October 17, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations (GAO-
01- 822, September 20, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD?s Antiterrorism Program
Implementation and Management (GAO- 01- 909, September 19, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: Comments on H. R. 525 to Create a President?s Council
on Domestic Preparedness (GAO- 01- 555T, May 9, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Options to Improve the Federal Response
(GAO- 01- 660T, April 24, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and National
Strategy (GAO- 01- 556T, March 27, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: FEMA Continues to Make Progress in Coordinating
Preparedness and Response (GAO- 01- 15, March 20, 2001).

Combating Terrorism: Federal Response Teams Provide Varied Capabilities:
Opportunities Remain to Improve Coordination (GAO- 01- 14, November 30,
2000).

Combating Terrorism: Need to Eliminate Duplicate Federal Weapons of Mass
Destruction Training (GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 64, March 21, 2000).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Threat of Chemical and Biological
Terrorism (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 50, October 20, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of
Chemical and Biological Attack (GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 163, September 7, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs

(GAO/ T- NSIAD- 99- 181, June 9, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Analysis of Potential Emergency Response Equipment and
Sustainment Costs (GAO- NSIAD- 99- 151, June 9, 1999).

Related GAO Products Page 32 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Combating Terrorism: Use of National Guard Response Teams Is Unclear (GAO/
NSIAD- 99- 110, May 21, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Federal Spending to Combat Terrorism
(GAO/ T- NSIAD/ GGD- 99- 107, March 11, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness Program
Focus and Efficiency (GAO- NSIAD- 99- 3, November 12, 1998).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on the Nunn- Lugar- Domenici Domestic
Preparedness Program (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 99- 16, October 2, 1998).

Combating Terrorism: Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and
Target Program Investments (GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 74, April 9, 1998).

Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better
Management and Coordination (GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 39, December 1, 1997).

Bioterrorism: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?s Role in
Public Health Protection (GAO- 02- 235T, November 15, 2001).

Bioterrorism: Review of Public Health and Medical Preparedness (GAO02- 149T,
October 10, 2001).

Bioterrorism: Public Health and Medical Preparedness (GAO- 02- 141T, October
10, 2001).

Bioterrorism: Coordination and Preparedness (GAO- 02- 129T, October 5,
2001).

Bioterrorism: Federal Research and Preparedness Activities (GAO- 01- 915,
September 28, 2001).

Chemical and Biological Defense: Improved Risk Assessments and Inventory
Management Are Needed (GAO- 01- 667, September 28, 2001).

West Nile Virus Outbreak: Lessons for Public Health Preparedness

(GAO/ HEHS- 00- 180, September 11, 2000).

Need for Comprehensive Threat and Risk Assessments of Chemical and
Biological Attacks (GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 163, September 7, 1999). Public Health

Related GAO Products Page 33 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Chemical and Biological Defense: Program Planning and Evaluation Should
Follow Results Act Framework (GAO/ NSIAD- 99- 159, August 16, 1999).

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Biological Terrorism and Public Health
Initiatives (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 99- 112, March 16, 1999).

Disaster Assistance: Improvement Needed in Disaster Declaration Criteria and
Eligibility Assurance Procedures (GAO- 01- 837, August 31, 2001).

FEMA and Army Must Be Proactive in Preparing States for Emergencies

(GAO- 01- 850, August 13, 2001).

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and
Addressing Major Management Challenges (GAO- 01- 832, July 9, 2001).

Results- Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies (GAO- 01- 1084SP,
August 2001).

Managing for Results: Federal Managers? Views on Key Management Issues Vary
Widely Across Agencies (GAO- 010592, May 2001).

Determining Performance and Accountability Challenges and High Risks (GAO-
01- 159SP, November 2000).

Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation
and Program Overlap (GAO/ AIMD- 97- 156, August 29, 1997).

Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal
Missions and Approaches (GAO/ T- AIMD- 95- 161, June 7, 1995).

Government Reorganization: Issues and Principals (GAO/ T- GGD/ AIMD95- 166,
May 17, 1995).

Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and
Performance Information (GAO/ GGD- 98- 137, June 22, 1998). Disaster
Assistance

Budget and Management

Grant Design

Related GAO Products Page 34 GAO- 02- 610 Homeland Security

Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go Further
(GAO/ AIMD- 97- 7, December 18, 1996).

Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions

(GAO/ AIMD- 95- 226, September 1, 1995).

(350089)

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

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***
```