U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–849 PDF 2010

PREPAREDNESS: 

PART I AND II 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 1 AND 27, 2009 

Serial No. 111–38 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

VACANCY

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, 

AND RESPONSE 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

VACANCY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

MICHAEL T. MCCaul, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (ex officio) 

MICHAEL STROUD, Acting Staff Director 

RYAN CALDWELL, Clerk 

AMANDA HALPERN, Minority Subcommittee Lead 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, 

Preparedness, and Response: 

Oral Statement, October 1, 2009 ........................................................................ 1 

Oral Statement, October 27, 2009 ...................................................................... 59 

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response: 

Oral Statement, October 1, 2009 ........................................................................ 5 

Oral Statement, October 27, 2009 ...................................................................... 65 

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California: 

Prepared Statement, October 27, 2009 .............................................................. 66 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2009 

Mr. Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, National Preparedness, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

Mr. William ‘‘Bill’’ O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, 

Government Accountability Office: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Ms. Wendy L. Smith, Assistant City Manager, McAllen, Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 

Ms. Suzanne C. DeFrancis, Chief Public Affairs Officer, American Red Cross: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009 

Mr. Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, National Preparedness, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 69 

Ms. Kathy B. Crandall, Director, Office of Homeland Security & Justice 

Programs, Columbus Urban Area, Franklin County Board of Commissioners, Franklin County, Ohio: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 71 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 72 

Mr. David Maxwell, Director & Homeland Security Advisor, Arkansas Department of Emergency Management: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 76 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 77 
Page

IV 

FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, 

Preparedness, and Response: 

Post, http://incaseofemergencyblog.com .............................................................. 3 

Statement of the National Governors Association ............................................ 61 

Statement of the National Emergency Management Association .................... 64 

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response: 

Statement of Marc Pearl, President & CEO, Homeland Security and Business Defense Council ........................................................................................ 6 

Letter to Administrator Fugate .......................................................................... 82 

Letter to Secretary Napolitano ........................................................................... 84 

APPENDICES 

OCTOBER 1, 2009 

Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Timothy W. Manning .......... 47 

Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for William ‘‘Bill’’ O. Jenkins, 

Jr. .......................................................................................................................... 55 

Questions Submitted From Hon. Dina Titus for William ‘‘Bill’’ O. Jenkins, 

Jr. .......................................................................................................................... 57 

Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Wendy L. Smith ................... 58 

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Timothy W. Manning .......... 101 

Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Kathy B. Crandall ............... 105 
(1) 

PREPAREDNESS: PART I 

STATE OF CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY 

PREPAREDNESS 

Thursday, October 1, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar [Chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cuellar, Thompson, Pascrell, Rogers, 

and Olson. 

Mr. CUELLAR [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order. The 

subcommittee meeting today is to receive testimony regarding preparedness, the state of citizen and community preparedness. 

Good morning. On behalf of the Members of the subcommittee, 

let me welcome our four witnesses that we have here today. 

We are especially pleased to have with us for the first time 

FEMA’s new deputy administrator for National preparedness, Tim 

Manning. Mr. Manning comes to FEMA with an impressive background in homeland security, having most recently served as New 

Mexico’s director of homeland security and emergency management. 

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Manning, on your confirmation as deputy administrator. This subcommittee looks forward to 

working with you to strengthen FEMA and prepare the Nation for 

any type of disaster. 

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Bill Jenkins, 

director of homeland security and justice at the Government Accountability Office. 

Traveling the furthest, I guess, from my district, Ms. Wendy 

Smith, an assistant city manager for McAllen, Texas. Thank you, 

Ms. Smith, for taking this time to come to Washington to discuss 

the steps that the city of McAllen has taken to promote community 

preparedness. 

I would also like to welcome Ms. Suzanne DeFrancis, chief public 

affairs officer for the American Red Cross. Thank you for being 

here. 

Again, thank you to all the four witnesses that are here today. 
2 

Today’s hearing kicks off a series of hearings this subcommittee 

will conduct on National preparedness. Our focus this morning is 

on the state of the citizen community preparedness. We want to 

better understand FEMA’s initiatives for promoting individual 

readiness. 

As you know, a recent FEMA survey reveals that we have a long 

way to go in preparing individuals for an emergency. While slightly 

more than half of the survey’s respondents have set aside supplies 

in case of a disaster, only 44 percent reported having an emergency 

household plan. Just 38 percent reported a familiarity with their 

local resources of public safety information. 

Concerning to us, also, is that despite FEMA’s best efforts to 

boost community preparedness since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, 

citizen awareness on the importance of preparing is virtually unchanged for the last 2 years. We must close these gaps. 

I recognize that it is not FEMA’s job alone to do so. Other partners are involved, also, and emergency preparedness is a shared responsibility, and we all must do our part to make sure we are 

ready when disaster strikes. But FEMA must develop a clearer vision how it intends to enhance the role of public as the first line 

of disaster preparedness and response. 

FEMA runs a couple of programs that focuses on individual readiness. The first is the Citizen Corps program, which is a Bush administration initiative designed to foster volunteer activities that 

make communities better prepared to respond to any emergency. 

The second is the Ready Campaign. Ready is a public service initiative geared toward educating and empowering Americans to become prepared for a disaster. GAO has been evaluating both the 

Citizen Corps and Ready for this subcommittee since last year. 

We are concerned that GAO’s preliminary review suggests that 

FEMA does not have a strategic plan or performance measure. As 

you know, this committee, the Ranking Member, myself, and other 

Members of the committee have pushed hard for strategic planning 

and, of course, for performance measures to make sure that we can 

tell, you know, what is a result, whether it is failure or success, 

and so we can get an idea as to what direction we are heading to. 

GAO has also been unable to determine who exactly at FEMA is 

in charge of the Ready campaign and how Ready is integrated into 

other citizens’ preparedness programs. 

I am eager to learn from Mr. Manning if he agrees with the 

GAO’s observation and, more importantly, what his plans are for 

the Citizen Corps and Ready, as well as individual preparedness 

more generally. 

We can’t talk about individual preparedness without having our 

communities at the table. I look forward getting from Ms. Smith 

and Ms. DeFrancis a perspective on the steps that their organizations have taken to foster citizens’ preparedness. I would also like 

to hear from them what they think FEMA’s role should be in promoting individual preparedness and what that partnership should 

look like. 

So with that, let me again thank our witnesses for their participation in today’s witnesses hearing. I look forward to hearing your 

testimony and working with you to ensure that FEMA has a clear 
3 

vision for strengthening citizen and community preparedness of 

that. 

Without objection, I would like to introduce the following article, 

‘‘Ideas to Improve America’s Emergency Preparedness for the 

Record,’’ and it is so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR

Posted on http://incaseofemergencyblog.com 

ON SEPT 11, SOME IDEAS TO IMPROVE AMERICANS’ EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS &

ENGAGEMENT

SEPTEMBER 11, 2009

On the anniversary of 9/11, I wanted to repost some proposals to help raise citizen 

preparedness. DHS Secretary Napolitano has said that public readiness is a priority 

and the Department has begun the process of engaging Americans in their own 

homeland security. The ideas below come largely from discussions I have had with 

people involved in all aspects of the issue, my own experiences as a parent and 

CERT member in New York City, as well as from the input I have received from 

readers since the inception of my blog. As always, I welcome your thoughts and suggestions: 

Create Citizen Preparedness Task Force.—The lack of progress to date on public 

readiness and engagement underscores the need to develop new ways of approaching the issue. DHS Secretary Napolitano should create a Citizen Preparedness Outreach Task Force to assess the current state of public readiness and work on developing new approaches. At present, there is no clear social education analog. In fact, 

in its recent report, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism recommended the Administration make citizen engagement a priority. But Chairman Bob Graham told me that the ‘‘WMD Commission’’ did not did not [sic] find anything suitable it could recommend and that something new has to be developed. 

Better Define What It Means To Be ‘‘Prepared’’.—A recent American Red Cross 

survey indicated that 93% of Americans are not prepared for disasters. The truth 

is that no one can be fully prepared, but there is a need to offer the public a clearer 

definition—including a minimum level—of preparedness. That would not only include storing tangible supplies (ie. at least 3 days of food & water) but also knowledge about potential threats that every American should know. That doesn’t mean 

overwhelming people with too much information, but making sure they are at least 

familiar with some basics. (For example, the first time citizens hear about a ‘‘dirty 

bomb’’ from government officials should not be in the moments after one has been 

exploded.) 

Support & Report on State/Local Preparedness Efforts.—Provide adequate seed 

money for State and local government to bolster civilian preparedness programs and 

link the grants to performance. Encourage authorities to report publicly on their 

level of citizen preparedness and create metrics for better measuring civilian readiness. Find interested governors to take on leadership roles and create pilot models 

in their States. Expand support of disaster volunteer opportunities including Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) and other community programs, which 

serve as catalysts for organizing local efforts. There is a need to employ both ‘‘bottom/up’’ and ‘‘top/down’’ approaches to disaster preparedness combining State, local, 

and community leadership and citizen involvement with Federal commitment and 

focus. Ensure that Government authorities can competently respond to disasters but 

also more strongly emphasize the need for the public and local communities to be 

prepared and self-reliant, particularly in the first 72 hours after a disaster. 

Highlight & Spread Models From Around United States & Other Countries.— 

There is a need to help promote and implement best practices from communities 

around the U.S. and draw, where applicable, from British and Israeli experiences. 

One model may be the United Kingdom’s National Risk Register, which sets out 

publicly the government’s assessment of the likelihood and potential impact of a 

range of different public health, natural, and terrorist risks. It is designed to increase awareness of the kinds of risks the U.K. faces, and encourage individuals and 

organizations to think about their own preparedness. The Register also includes details of what the Government and first responders are doing to prepare for those 

emergencies and the role of citizens in those plans. 
4 

Offer Small Carrots.—Encourage States to create tax-free periods for consumers 

to purchase preparedness supplies. Provide a tax write-off for citizens to buy preparedness-related products as a way to promote participation and to signal governmental commitment. Also, consider targeting assistance to citizens who cannot afford to prepare. The bottom line is that in most instances to change social behavior 

there needs to be some incentives involved. 

Bring in Business to Help Market Preparedness.—Design and roll out a full service 

preparedness marketing campaign with help from the private sector. Galvanize 

business to take on disaster preparedness in the same way they have with disaster 

response, most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (i.e. big box stores, 

packaged goods manufacturers, bottled water companies, wireless industry). In addition, work with private sector to alleviate existing obstacles to personal preparedness (i.e. work with health care industry to allow for extra prescription medicine in 

advance of a disaster.) 

Involve the Children.—Put more emphasis on educating young people on preparedness by piggybacking on other related school-based social education efforts, 

most prominently fire safety. The challenge is both the decentralization of the Nation’s education system and the already high cirricula demands on teachers. Yet, an 

effective fire education program was implemented in the schools beginning in the 

1970’s, and there would seem to be a perfect fit to integrate a preparedness module 

into that existing program. The Federal Government should work with State and 

local officials as well as fire and education officials to determine how best to accomplish that objective. 

Embrace and Accelerate Preparedness 2.0—There is a need to better inform the 

public on the potential on 21st century personal technology to prepare for and respond to 21st century emergencies. We must make Americans more aware of the 

capabilities of the technology at their fingertips (i.e. wireless devices, social networking sites) and integrate it into disaster planning and response. The public’s new 

ability to access and distribute information offers both an opportunity and a challenge to government authorities. As a start, every governmental preparedness web 

site should add a cell phone and an extra battery (or other power source) to the 

basic components of their recommended disaster supply kit. Many private companies are working on applications for citizen emergency communications. Those business efforts need to be integrated with official alerts (i.e. the new iteration of the 

Emergency Alert System) and unofficial citizen-based social media (as well as the 

news media). Both the content and distribution channels of emergency communications are changing and new models need to be developed. 

‘‘See And Say’’ Some More.—Build Upon The Initial Success of ‘‘Say Something, 

See Something’’-type citizen information campaigns by providing the public with 

more specific guidance on how to assist law enforcement and, without giving away 

sources and methods, offering more feedback on the information they have provided. 

Law enforcement officials are concerned about societal complacency almost 8 years 

since 9/11, but have not determined how to communicate to the public a more candid—yet calm and balanced—picture of the threat and how they can best help. 

Expanded Emergency Drilling Opportunities to Public.—Increase opportunities for 

citizens to participate in disaster drills, which would help people focus on the issue 

and work through the key questions everyone should ask before a disaster (i.e. How 

will you get information and communicate with your family? Do you know the emergency plan of your children’s school?) Most every top homeland security/emergency 

management official I have interviewed has told me that broader public disaster exercises would be helpful in a number of ways, but there has not been a concerted 

effort to expand drilling opportunities to the public. 

Establish an Official Preparedness Day.—Create a National Preparedness Day to 

focus public attention before disasters, including briefing citizens, conducting drills, 

and filling emergency kits. A helpful model is Japan’s Disaster Prevention Day held 

on the anniversary of the catastrophic 1923 Tokyo earthquake. 

Create Citizen Preparedness Office/Spokesperson.—Consider establishing a National citizen preparedness office or a high profile spokesperson to highlight and 

help coordinate efforts around the U.S. and ensure citizen preparedness remains a 

priority. Work with American Red Cross to create an effective advocate for the general public on emergency preparedness in the same way disabled and pet groups 

have done for the disaster needs of their communities over the past several years. 

Bundle Citizen Preparedness Proposals Together into ‘‘Citizen Preparedness Initiative’’.—For too long, well meaning public preparedness efforts have gotton lost or 

have been ignored by the public. That’s in large part that they have not been packaged and presented as being specifically directed to citizens. But if the government 

would assemble these small disparate proposals listed above into an overall citizen 

preparedness package it would have a better chance of getting attention and gaining 
5 

some traction. Ultimately, making inroads on citizen preparedness is less a matter 

of money than it is of focus and attention. 

Mr. CUELLAR. At this time, I would like to recognize my Ranking 

Member, hard-working Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

To each of the witnesses, I really appreciate you making the time 

and putting the effort into preparing for this hearing. It is extremely helpful to us, so thank you for being here. 

This hearing, as the Chairman said, is being held to look at how 

prepared Americans are to deal with a major disaster. We all know 

that individual preparedness, community preparedness, and business preparedness are extremely important in saving lives and 

property if and when a natural disaster or terrorist attack occurs. 

We made some important strides over the last several years to 

enhance community preparedness, but more work remains. According to the 2009 National preparedness survey, many individuals 

still don’t have disaster supply kits or know their community’s 

evacuation plans. 

Further, the latest terrorist plots that were foiled in recent 

weeks, the tsunami that hit American Samoa this week, as well as 

the flash flooding in many Southern States, including Georgia and 

my home State of Alabama are just some reminders of the on-going 

risks we face and the importance of being prepared for all types of 

events. 

Fortunately, we have not seen a major hurricane hit the United 

States yet this season, but that doesn’t mean Americans living on 

the gulf and other regions can become complacent. When it comes 

to emergency preparedness or emergency readiness, America’s first 

responders are our front lines to protect our communities. I want 

to take this opportunity to thank first responders for their heroic 

work that they do and also thank the countless people who volunteer to help during a catastrophic event. 

We all appreciate the dedicated service of our capable and courageous emergency responders, but we have to remember that these 

responders make up less than 1 percent of the total U.S. population. That means individual citizens, communities, and businesses have to develop their own capabilities and conduct their own 

planning activities in order to share the responsibility of preparedness. 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here, particularly 

the American Red Cross, who continues to be an invaluable partner 

in preparedness through its many outreach activities and preparedness initiatives. 

Also, I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to 

insert into the record a statement from the Homeland Security and 

Defense Business Council which highlights the important role of 

businesses in disaster preparedness. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 
6 

STATEMENT OF MARC PEARL, PRESIDENT & CEO, HOMELAND SECURITY AND DEFENSE

BUSINESS COUNCIL

OCTOBER 1, 2009

Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, and all of the Members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record 

on behalf of the Homeland Security & Defense Business Council regarding our initiatives and mission to develop a ‘‘culture of preparedness’’ among business leaders. 

The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council is a non-profit, non-partisan 

organization of world-class businesses engaged in homeland security solutions development and implementation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; other 

Federal agencies; State, local, and Tribal governments, as well as on a global scale. 

Since its inception in 2004, the Council has focused a great deal of attention on 

working to develop a better understanding of the private sector’s role and responsibility as the ‘‘3rd leg of the stool’’ in preparedness—those legs being the Government, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. Only if each ‘‘leg’’ is 

holding up its responsibilities will we achieve true preparedness and be in a much 

stronger position to protect our facilities, networks, and people. As the private sector’s leading voice in homeland security, the Council facilitates, educates, and stimulates business leaders and their organizations to actively engage in preparedness 

with their employees and customers, and for their facilities and networks by 

leveraging the private sector’s resources, experience, and leadership through best 

practices, peer-to-peer exchange, and mentoring within the business community. 

Since 2007, in partnership with the American Red Cross of the National Capital 

Area, the Council has annually hosted the ‘‘Partners in Preparedness Symposium’’ 

during National Preparedness Month to help educate and encourage small, medium, 

and large businesses to embrace emergency preparedness and prepare their companies for all hazards. The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council’s members 

have served as mentors and role models for other businesses that do not necessarily 

have the financial or personnel resources available to them for complicated, extensive business continuity planning. Additionally, this year, as a way to encourage 

even higher-level corporate involvement, the Council launched the ‘‘CEO Summit at 

Partners in Preparedness.’’ In cooperation with the Young President’s Organization 

of the DC/Baltimore Chapter, the Greater Washington Board of Trade and the D.C. 

Chamber of Commerce, CEOs, and presidents from the region gathered for an executive training to consider both an H1N1 flu resurgence and a concurrent cyber incident. This dual program has been met with such enthusiasm and support that we 

are working to take it ‘‘beyond the Beltway.’’ Other major metropolitan areas around 

the country; smaller suburban communities, such as those outside of San Antonio, 

and, just as essentially, rural communities such as Talladega, Alabama must be encouraged to incorporate this type of program for their businesses. There is no question that there also can be a ‘‘ripple effect’’ whereby businesses that actively engage 

in a preparedness program will have a great influence on their employees, their relatives, and the organization’s customers—further building the relationships, understanding and cooperation necessary for a resilient Nation from the ground up with 

top-level business owners’ support. 

Additionally, each attendee at this year’s Preparedness Symposium was provided 

an ‘‘Emergency Response Toolkit’’ with practical and tactical information on how to 

get their organization prepared. In addition to a complete overview, the Toolkit provided two important components developed in cooperation with the Council towards 

business preparedness that we believe can be easily incorporated in any organization—small, medium, and large: Operation CAPA (Commit, Assess, Prepare and 

Act) and a Cyber Security Checklist. I have attached detailed information on both 

of these programs to my statement. It is our hope that businesses will commit to 

either these or other initiatives—such as the soon-to-be-launched American Red 

Cross ReadyRating.com program. 

The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council very much appreciates the 

subcommittee allowing us an opportunity to submit our comments. But most of all, 

we applaud you for holding this hearing and for putting a major spotlight on this 

important issue. Preparedness cannot be motivated by a sign in front of a store or 

an ad in the media, but only when our business, community, first responder, and 

Government leaders take an active role—together—in committing the time, energy, 

and resources needed to assuring that all the ‘‘legs’’ are coordinating efforts, are 

fully aware of and fulfilling their individual and collective roles and responsibilities. 

We stand ready to work with Government and NGOs—serving as a conduit to the 

business community—to help assure that our Nation is resilient to any form of ca-
7 

tastrophe, and begins to truly and effectively achieve an overall ‘‘Culture of Preparedness’’ in our Nation. 

ATTACHMENT 

OPERATION CAPA 

The mission of ‘‘Operation CAPA: Commit, Assess, Prepare, Act’’ is particularly 

designed to help small-medium businesses enhance their state of preparedness and 

lead them toward resiliency. The objective of this effort is to partner with target 

businesses to commit, assess, plan, and act to prepare their company, employees, 

and communities for all hazards. 

Operation CAPA urges business to: 

• Commit.—Leaders and employees must commit to getting their business better 

prepared. It requires a sustained effort and constant reinforcement of leadership commitment. There is plenty of free information available on the internet 

to help guide the business executive and his/her team from the development 

through the implementation of a plan, no matter how big or small. DHS has 

also established an excellent site to aid businesses at www.ready.gov, and the 

Small Business Administration has a disaster preparedness web site that provides a substantial amount of information at: www.sba.gov/services/ 

disasterassistance/disasterpreparedness/index.html. 

• Assess.—Understanding the threats, vulnerabilities, and impact to one’s business will help focus resources on planning for and responding to both foreseeable and unforeseeable events. Many organizations are unaware of the multitude of threats and risks in their businesses and community. They may know 

about the natural threats (e.g., severe weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.), 

but don’t often know about their neighbors, for example, whether the business 

next door has hazardous/explosive chemicals, or the single power substation 

that is reaching capacity and will soon be causing power disruptions. Business 

leaders can work with their local fire department and emergency manager to 

understand the risks they may face. It’s beneficial, if not absolutely essential, 

to both sides to meet ahead of time to get the appropriate data that will help 

you develop a workable plan. 

• Plan.—Keep it simple and ‘‘user friendly.’’ In larger companies, planning is usually a separate component with a substantial amount of effort involved; however, for the simplified Operation CAPA methodology, the planning element 

should include documenting the organization’s response and recovery plan and 

working with the community to understand the expectations about how other 

business are preparing. The business may find areas where there is a competition for resources, or where there are opportunities to collaborate and provide 

mutual aid. For example, the readiness quotient at www.whatsyourrq.org is a 

free assessment that highlights areas that are often overlooked, and can be an 

excellent first step on the path to preparedness. Checklists and sample plans 

are also available at www.ready.gov. 

• Act.—Business survival depends on an organization’s ability to act—to be able 

to absorb the hit (resilience); and keep operating at least at minimal levels 

while normal operations are restored. Commitment alone will not get a business 

prepared—it also requires action. Businesses should start by taking their readiness quotient assessment and going to www.ready.gov to get free checklists, 

sample plans and templates. Then, they must reach out to their local first responder community in government and at organizations like the American Red 

Cross, as well as other businesses in the community to develop partnerships 

that will make their facility, their employees, their families, their neighbors, 

and the overarching community better prepared. 
8 

CYBER SECURITY QUESTIONS FOR MANAGERS

The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council has developed in cooperation 

with Scott Borg, Director and Chief Economist of the U.S. Cyberconsequences Unit, 

a ‘‘Cyber Security Checklist.’’ It is a broad outline of questions business entities 

must ask themselves in the event of an attack to protect their internal systems, 

their customer information, and their IT infrastructure. The questions are broad, 

and refer companies back to the U.S. Cyberconsequences Unit’s more comprehensive 

look at the components of cyber infrastructure. 

This series of questions was developed specifically for the Partners in Preparedness Toolkit as a guide for senior managers to assess their cyber vulnerabilities. The 

Council has found that although most preparedness guides are awash in information for a ‘‘structural attack’’ or an event with ‘‘structural damage,’’ such as an explosion, a flood, or fire, there was a dearth of practical information included to consider in a cyber attack—whether initiated by terrorist organizations or criminals. 

Our Checklist provides a ‘‘step one’’ approach for small to medium companies and 

refers them to a more comprehensive checklist available from the U.S. 

Cyberconsequences Unit at http://www.usccu.us/documents/US-CCU 

Security20Check%20List%202007.pdf that provides guidance for an in-depth assessment of numerous categories of information systems components such as: Hardware, 

software, networks, automation, humans, and suppliers. The extent of each individual assessment depends on the company’s dependence on its cyber resources to 

operate. 

QUESTIONS SENIOR MANAGERS SHOULD ASK IN THE EVENT OF A SIGNIFICANT CYBER

ATTACK

SCOTT BORG, DIRECTOR AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, U.S. CYBER CONSEQUENCES UNIT

Developed for the Partners in Preparedness Toolkit 

This is provided as a guide for senior managers to assess their cyber 

vulnerabilities. The comprehensive checklist provides guidance for an in-depth assessment of numerous categories of information systems components such as: Hardware, software, networks, automation, humans, and suppliers. The extent of each 

individual assessment will depend on the company’s dependence on its cyber resources to operate. 

I. What is the current status of the attack? 

(1) Which of our systems have been affected? 

(2) Are any personnel or equipment in physical jeopardy? 

(3) To what extent has the malware been identified and quarantined or contained? 

(4) Is the active part of the attack on-going, or is it apparently over? 

(5) Should we be shutting down certain of our operations to avoid further damage? 

(6) What are the level of skill and apparent intentions of the attackers? 

(7) How confident are we that the reports on our screens and in our e-mail are 

not being spoofed? 

(8) What other cyber attack might be used as a follow-on from the first, to make 

things worse or to exploit our state of disarray? 

II. What are the business effects of the attack? 

(1) What activities of our organization, if any, were interrupted? 

What else depended on those activities? 

(2) What activities, if any, were corrupted, so that the organization was producing defective outputs or delivering products or information to the wrong people? 

What customers or other third parties are likely to have been damaged by 

this activity? 

(3) What operations, if any, were discredited, so that people will be reluctant 

or unwilling to make use of them? 

What has been the probable damage, so far, to our reputation and customer 

relationships? 

(4) What activities of our organization, if any, have been seriously undermined, 

because the confidentiality or exclusivity of information necessary to carry them 

out has been lost? 

What operations will need to be shut down for an extended period? 

III. What sort of notifications about the possible effects of the cyber attacks need 

to be provided to those outside the organization? 

(1) Who outside the organization is significantly affected? 
9 

(2) What statements and information in the notifications would do the most to 

convince skeptical outsiders that the organization still deserves their trust? 

(3) What is the fastest way to communicate the notifications that will gain proper attention, but not cause misunderstandings or panic? 

IV. What is the next best alternative for each of the activities that can no longer 

be carried out normally? 

(1) What measures are necessary to assure the continuing coordination of responses to the crisis? 

(2) What steps are necessary to get alternative activities into operation? 

(3) What is the plan for transitioning from the alternative operations back to 

normal ones? 

(4) What special financial arrangements might be necessary to assure continuity 

of operations? 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much. Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under the committee rules, opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

At this time, again, I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Tim Manning, who serves as the 

Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness at the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

As I said a few minutes ago, we also have Mr. Bill Jenkins, and, 

of course, Wendy Smith, and Suzanne DeFrancis. I want to welcome all of you again here and thank you for your testimony. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

in the record. I will now ask Mr. Manning to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY W. MANNING, DEPUTY 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MANNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, distinguished Members of the subcommittee, good morning. Thank you for allowing 

me to be here this morning. I am Tim Manning, Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Before I begin my remarks on community preparedness, if I may, 

I would like to mention that, on behalf of FEMA and the entire 

emergency management community, our hearts go out to all of 

those affected by the tsunami and earthquakes in the Pacific, as 

well as the flooding in the American South. 

Our National response coordination center has been activated 

since the first earthquake 2 days ago, and we will continue to move 

teams, equipment, and supplies into the affected area, and we have 

been updating you all as the event has gone on, and we will continue to do so until we have completed rescue and recovery efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, throughout the history of emergency management 

planning, considerations for the individual and community preparedness have been inadequate. Since September 11, 2001, and 

the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the United 

States has invested tens of billions of dollars in bolstering Government’s preparedness, while paying comparatively little attention to 

the personal and community preparedness. 

Secretary Napolitano, Administrator Fugate and I believe that 

much more attention needs to be paid to these efforts. We know 
10 

and have seen that personal, family, and community preparedness 

can have tremendous impact in mitigating the effects of an emergency. Simple steps taken by individuals to provide for the needs 

of their families and their neighbors in an emergency can dramatically improve the readiness and resiliency of the American people 

in the face of a disaster. 

Encouraging as many Americans as possible to take steps necessary to ensure their own well-being will ultimately free Government resources to address those most in need during a crisis. In 

order to advance this simple goal, we must both engage with the 

public directly and collaborate with civil leaders at the local level 

to promote local efforts to increase personal preparedness. 

As a former community organizer with deep belief in the power 

of active citizenship, President Obama has made it clear that 

transparent and collaborative government, grassroots activism, and 

volunteer and community service are key priorities for his administration. The leadership at FEMA and DHS is equally committed to 

increasing our collaboration with State and local governments, 

NGOs, and the private sector. 

Under President Obama and Secretary Napolitano’s leadership, 

we are reaching out to an unprecedented range of new DHS stakeholders to bolster our Nation’s community preparedness and resilience. 

As Secretary Napolitano said before the Council on Foreign Relations in July, for too long we have treated the public as a liability 

to be protected rather than an asset in our Nation’s collective security. We need a culture of collective responsibility, a culture where 

every individual understands his or her role. 

The foundation of the current efforts towards community preparedness and resilience is the cultivation of an effort and an effective organizational structure and a process at the local level to foster this collaboration between Government and civil leaders from 

all sectors, and then leverage this structure to reach everyone in 

a community. 

While we believe a whole-of-agency effort is required, the Citizen 

Corps program has been one of the Department’s key efforts towards this end. Building on historic approaches to citizen preparedness, our strategy moving forward will be based on the following 

tenets: Government must collaborate with civic leaders. Local implementation is essential. National support must both include consistent policy and guidance and the tools and resources adaptable 

for local use. 

To achieve these goals, FEMA works with State and local partners to establish effective partnerships at the local level. This is to 

foster a collaborative process between local government and civic 

leaders from all sectors and develop goals and strategies for resilience tailored to specific community vulnerabilities. 

FEMA will continue to work with these community leaders and 

support their efforts to increase individual and community preparedness and resilience. To assist in getting the message out, 

Ready is FEMA’s National awareness campaign and, in partnership with the Ad Council, designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to all emergencies. The goal of the 
11 

campaign is to get the public involved and ultimately to increase 

the level of basic preparedness across the Nation. 

Ready—and its Spanish-language version, Listo—ask individuals 

to take simple steps, such as getting a supply kit, making a family 

plan, and obtaining information about the different types of emergencies that could occur in their particular community. 

The Ad Council has declared Ready one of the most successful 

campaigns in its more than 60-year history. Ready Business is an 

extension for the private sector, and the Ready campaign that focuses on children, Ready Kids, functions as an effective tool to help 

parents and teachers educate children of all ages. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, in conclusion, Secretary 

Napolitano and FEMA Administrator Fugate and I are committed 

to advancing the Nation’s preparedness. Through working current 

National partners and expanding our partnerships and enhancing 

tools and resources available to local communities, enhancing education, training, and exercises for the public, promoting volunteer 

service opportunities, identifying ways to assess and quantify our 

progress, working with the FEMA regions, and supporting open, 

honest and forthcoming communications with community leaders 

and the public, we feel we can advance these goals. 

Communicating the importance of personal and community preparedness is a cornerstone of our strategy moving forward. With 

the continued support of Congress, we believe that considerable 

progress is within reach. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Manning follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY W. MANNING

OCTOBER 1, 2009 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers and other distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee, I am Timothy Manning and I serve as Deputy Administrator for 

National Preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It 

is a privilege to appear before you today on behalf of FEMA and the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). We appreciate your interest in and continued support 

for emergency management and, in particular, for the critical importance of personal and community preparedness. 

Throughout the history of emergency management planning, considerations for individual and community preparedness have been inadequate. From the 1930s, when 

disaster response was ad hoc and largely focused on the repair of damaged infrastructure, through the present day, the importance of individual and community 

preparedness has often been given insufficient consideration. In fact, since September 11, 2001 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the 

United States has invested tens of billions of dollars in bolstering Government’s preparedness, while paying comparatively little attention to personal and community 

preparedness. 

Yet we know—and have—seen that personal, family, and community preparedness can have a tremendous impact in mitigating the effects of an emergency. Just 

as all politics are local, as former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill said, all disasters are local—they impact individuals, families, and communities. Simple steps 

taken by individuals to provide for the needs of their families and their neighbors 

in an emergency can dramatically improve the readiness and resiliency of the American people in the face of a disaster. Encouraging as many Americans as possible 

to take the steps necessary to ensure their own well being will ultimately free Government resources to address those most in need during a crisis. 
12 

In order to advance this simple goal, we must engage and collaborate with civic 

leaders at the local level to promote local efforts to increase personal preparedness. 

As a former community organizer with a deep belief in the power of active citizenship, President Obama has made it clear that transparent and collaborative government, grassroots activism, and volunteer and community service are key priorities 

for his administration. The leadership at FEMA and DHS is equally committed to 

increasing our collaboration with State and local governments, NGOs, and the private sector, and under President Obama and Secretary Napolitano’s leadership, we 

are reaching out to an unprecedented range of new DHS stakeholders to bolster our 

Nation’s community preparedness and resilience. 

While we will ensure that Federal assets and resources are in a state of constant 

readiness and that FEMA is prepared to serve as an effective coordinator during 

a Presidentially-declared emergency or disaster, FEMA will approach community 

preparedness from the bottom up and ensure that Federal-level policies, guidance, 

tools, and resources support and facilitate local implementation. Preparedness is 

achieved and maintained through a continuous cycle of planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective action. This is true for 

an individual, a family, an organization, a community, and the Nation. FEMA will 

engage the public and community leaders more fully in all stages of the preparedness cycle to strengthen our National readiness and resilience. 

Finally, I would like to highlight both Secretary Napolitano’s and Administrator 

Fugate’s repeated emphasis on the importance of personal and community preparedness. 

As Secretary Napolitano said before the Council of Foreign Relations in July, ‘‘For 

too long we’ve treated the public as a liability to be protected rather than an asset 

in our Nation’s collective security . . . We need a culture of collective responsibility, a culture where every individual understands his or her role.’’ 

Our Department’s senior leadership is actively engaged in raising public awareness on this critical issue, and we will continue to drive this message to even more 

Americans in meetings, speeches and interviews across the country. 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Effective emergency management and emergency response requires that community leaders participate in developing community emergency response plans, conduct 

localized outreach and education to the public, promote training, participate in exercises, encourage volunteerism, and of course, should the worst happen, form an integral part of the response. The foundation of the current National strategy on community preparedness and resilience is to cultivate an effective organizational structure and process at the local level to foster this collaboration between Government 

and civic leaders from all sectors, and then leverage this structure to reach everyone 

in the community. Citizen Corps has been one of the Department’s key efforts toward this end. 

Building on historic approaches to citizen preparedness, our strategy moving forward will be based on the following tenets: Government must collaborate with civic 

leaders, local implementation is essential, and National support must include both 

consistent policy and guidance and tools and resources adaptable for local use. 

To achieve these goals, FEMA works with State and local partners to establish 

effective partnerships at the local level. This is to foster a collaborative process between local government and civic leaders from all sectors and develop goals and 

strategies for resilience tailored to specific community vulnerabilities. FEMA will 

continue to work with these community leaders and support their efforts to increase 

individual and community preparedness and resilience. 

The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program is an exceptionally 

well-tested and successful citizen training and volunteer program. CERT builds on 

the commonsense acknowledgment that community members are the first to respond to assist others who need help during emergencies. Having grown from 244 

local programs in 2002 to 3,221 today, an estimated 600,000 individuals have taken 

the CERT basic training. The success of CERT is rooted in the program’s clarity of 

training, hands-on practical delivery, and connection to local emergency services, 

most commonly emergency management and the fire service. Building on the successful basic training, there are several additional training materials in development including Animal Response, CERT Emergency Communications, Traffic and 

Crowd Management, and CERT Team Leadership. 

Within the National Preparedness Directorate, I have directed my staff to develop 

a more comprehensive approach to local empowerment and to be mindful of the importance of more inclusive non-governmental participation. Whether we are working 

on Comprehensive Planning Guides for local use, providing technical assistance and 
13 

funding for catastrophic planning, developing National level exercises, utilizing the 

National Incident Management System, or increasing private sector preparedness 

through the Private Sector Prep Program, we must recalibrate our focus to better 

include and engage all sectors of the community. 

Under the direction of Administrator Fugate, work across the agency also has 

been redirected to adapt emergency management practices to the special needs of 

particular populations in local communities. The Administrator has established an 

internal Children’s Working Group to ensure that all aspects of FEMA’s planning 

and operations address the needs of children. The Working Group will also work 

closely with the National Commission on Children and Disasters to collaborate with 

leaders in the field and re-calibrate plans and protocols to ensure adequate considerations for the needs of children. Similarly, Administrator Fugate has appointed a 

Disabilities Coordinator to examine policies and guidance surrounding appropriate 

considerations for these critical stakeholders and partners. 

Last, the Grants Programs Directorate supports community preparedness through 

the Homeland Security Grant Program, and we are encouraging States and urban 

areas to use this funding to ensure not only that Government responders are adequately equipped and trained, but also to focus on community preparedness and 

greater participation from non-governmental sectors. 

RESEARCH-BASED APPROACH

Our renewed emphasis on civic responsibility and community engagement will be 

research-based, flexible, and adaptive. In August 2009, FEMA released a major 

study (available at www.citizencorps.gov) on Personal Preparedness in America, a 

National study of over 3,000 households. Results from this study may have important implications for the development of more effective communication and outreach 

strategies to achieve greater levels of preparedness and participation. 

In addition to this primary research, FEMA also reviews and analyzes other party 

research on personal, business, school, and community preparedness; this database 

currently includes over 100 surveys conducted since September 11, 2001. We also 

publish Citizen Preparedness Reviews to assimilate current preparedness research 

and modeling, including a Personal Behavior Change Model, which provides a theoretical basis for evaluating the motivations for and barriers to personal preparedness. Having been tested through the household survey and focus groups, this model 

is being revised and will assist in developing effective social marketing tools for personal preparedness. Working through the Target Capabilities process and with our 

colleagues in the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, we also facilitate the 

connection between researchers and practitioners through working groups and 

roundtable meetings to ensure research is applicable and useful at the local level. 

BUILDING NATIONAL AWARENESS

Ready is FEMA’s National public service campaign, in partnership with the Ad 

Council, designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond 

to all emergencies, including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks. The 

goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and ultimately to increase the 

level of basic preparedness across the Nation. 

Ready and its Spanish language version, Listo, ask individuals to take simple 

steps such as getting an emergency supply kit, making a family emergency plan, 

obtaining information about the different types of emergencies that could occur and 

the appropriate responses to each one, and getting involved in community efforts 

that promote neighbor-to-neighbor preparedness. 

The Ad Council has declared Ready one of the most successful campaigns in its 

more than 60-year history. Since its launch, the campaign has generated more than 

$775.9 million in donated media support. As of Sept. 1, 2009, www.ready.gov has 

received 33 million unique visitors; the toll-free numbers have received more than 

390,000 calls; and more than 39.6 million Ready materials have been requested or 

downloaded from the Web site. 

Ready Business is an extension of the Ready Campaign that focuses on business 

preparedness, helping owners and managers of small- to medium-sized businesses 

prepare their employees, operations, and assets in the event of an emergency. The 

campaign’s messages are being delivered through www.ready.gov, brochures, radio, 

print, and internet public service advertisements and key partnerships. 

Ready Kids is a tool to help parents and teachers educate children ages 8–12 

about emergencies and how they can help get their families prepared. The program 

includes: A family-friendly website (www.ready.gov/kids); in-school materials developed by Scholastic Inc.; Ready Classroom, an on-line educational curriculum program developed in partnership with Discovery Education; as well as a multimedia 
14 

toolkit targeted to pre-school-aged children and their families developed in partnership with Sesame Workshop. 

DHS/FEMA has also developed tailored preparedness information for specific 

Americans. DHS/FEMA, American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States have jointly created materials (available at 

www.Ready.gov) that highlight the key steps pet owners should take to prepare 

themselves and their animals. DHS/FEMA, AARP, the American Red Cross, the National Organization on Disability and the National Fire Protection Association also 

have created emergency information for seniors and Americans with disabilities and 

special needs. Materials developed for these specific Americans include brochures 

and instructional videos available at www.ready.gov. 

DHS/FEMA also highlights public emergency preparedness through National Preparedness Month (NPM), a Nation-wide effort held each September to encourage 

Americans to take simple steps to prepare for emergencies in their homes, businesses, and schools. In 2009, the Ready Campaign is being joined by more than 

2,400 NPM Coalition Members to educate individuals, families, and communities on 

the importance of emergency preparedness. This year, the Ready Campaign is helping Americans understand that preparedness goes beyond fire alarms, smoke detectors, dead-bolt locks, and extra food in the pantry, seeking to change perceptions 

about emergency preparedness and help Americans understand what it truly means 

to be ‘‘Ready.’’ 

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS

In August, FEMA hosted the four-day National Conference on Community Preparedness: The Power of Citizen Corps. Participants included 750 National partners, 

State and local emergency management, fire and law enforcement, public health and 

emergency medical services, academics, advocacy groups, voluntary organizations, 

and members of the public, bringing together a uniquely diverse group of community preparedness activists. Participants represented all 50 States, U.S. territories, 

and Tribes. Leadership from DHS and FEMA addressed the conference to underscore the importance of local activism and implementation to achieve community resilience and to renew support for local Citizen Corps Councils and Programs. 

With nearly 100 presentations and workshops, the conference provided participants innovative approaches to all facets of community preparedness and resilience, 

including information on collaborative planning, youth engagement, preparedness 

for individuals with functional needs, pets and animal issues, and preparedness in 

economic hard times. Presenters included the seminal Citizen Corps programs: 

CERT; Fire Corps; Neighborhood Watch Program (NWP) Program; Medical Reserve 

Corps (MRC) Program and Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS); and the National 

Emergency Technology (NET) Guard pilot program. In addition, numerous Citizen 

Corps Affiliates participated: Meals on Wheels, E 9–1–1 Institute, Home Safety 

Council, American Association of Community Colleges; State and local practitioners 

and elected leaders; and experts from the fields of public health, disabilities, children’s issues, and rural development. 

During the conference, FEMA released the research report, ‘‘Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey,’’ and the 

Citizen Corps Volunteer Liability Guide, providing an in-depth overview of legal 

issues and approaches to address liability for emergency volunteers. The National 

Council on Disability also released its latest 500-page report on emergency management and people with disabilities, ‘‘Effective Emergency Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People with Disabilities,’’ and provided an interactive session with representatives from the Department of Justice on emergency 

management under Title II of the Americans with Disability Act. Also announced 

were the availability of a toolkit on Preparing Communities for Disaster, developed 

for the President’s United We Serve initiative, and a revised on-line registration 

process for Citizen Corps Councils and CERT programs. 

CONCLUSION

Secretary Napolitano, FEMA Administrator Fugate and I are committed to advancing our Nation’s preparedness. Increasing individual and community preparedness and resiliency is a FEMA priority; it is also a National priority and I will make 

it a personal priority during my tenure. To support local communities in this challenge, FEMA has begun to strengthen internal coordination to ensure that we provide tools and resources from across the agency more effectively. Specific actions will 

include: 
15 

• Ensuring FEMA and DHS policies and guidance include appropriate language 

to support citizen and community preparedness and resiliency; • Working with current National partners and expanding our partnerships to enhance the tools and resources available to local communities; • Enhancing education, training, and exercises for the public and making them 

more accessible to everyone; • Promoting volunteer service opportunities to support community safety and resilience; • Developing tools and technical assistance for areas where none already exist or 

where existing tools need enhancement; • Continue conducting research on individual, business, and community preparedness and analyzing the research of others; • Identifying ways to assess and quantify our progress; • Working with the FEMA regions to support our State, Tribal, and local partners; and • Supporting open communications with community leaders and with the public. 

Communicating the importance of personal and community preparedness is a cornerstone of our strategy moving forward, and with the continued support of Congress, we believe that considerable progress is within reach. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, for allowing me to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Manning, thank you again very much. 

Mr. Jenkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ O. JENKINS, JR., DIRECTOR, 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. JENKINS. Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, Representative Olson, thank you for the opportunity to be here today 

to discuss our work on Federal efforts to encourage community preparedness for all types of emergencies, natural or manmade. 

Community preparedness is an integral part of National disaster 

preparedness. To the extent that individuals and families are prepared for the types of risks their communities face, they can increase their chances of survival, protect their families, and reduce 

the demands on first responders in the first critical 48 to 72 hours 

following a disaster. 

Research shows that Americans could be better prepared for disasters. The 2009 Citizen Corps National survey estimated that 

about 56 percent of U.S. households did not have disaster supplies 

in their home. Even fewer had supplies set aside in their car or 

workplace. Of even greater concern, 61 percent responded they expected to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours after 

a disaster. 

As we reported in April of this year, FEMA faces a major challenge in developing an all-hazards National preparedness system 

that requires consultation and coordination with a wide variety of 

stakeholders, including communities, State and local governments, 

nonprofit, and for-profit organizations. 

But locally—but doing this requires a clear vision and a statement of desired measurable outcomes in how FEMA plans to 

achieve those outcomes in coordination with its many partners. 

FEMA’s measures of community preparedness, such as the number 

of established Citizen Corps councils, do not provide information on 

activities undertaken and the contribution of those activities to desired outcomes. 

FEMA’s challenges measuring the performance of its community 

preparedness efforts are compounded by the lack of a strategy that 
16 

defines how its community preparedness programs and efforts, including its grants for community preparedness projects, are to operate within the context of the National preparedness system. 

FEMA has not yet articulated a clear vision for its community preparedness efforts and the specific contributions they should make 

to the National preparedness system. 

In April, we recommended that FEMA develop a preparedness 

strategy that included measurable goals, objectives, and identified 

how FEMA would measure its progress in meeting those goals and 

objectives. Although FEMA officials say that they are working on 

a preparedness strategy that includes community preparedness, 

FEMA has not yet set a date for completion, and it is not clear how 

community preparedness will be incorporated into that strategy. 

The answer to whether FEMA is spending too little, too much, 

or just the right amount of money on community preparedness cannot be answered until FEMA defines what it expects of community 

preparedness efforts. FEMA can then assess the resources needed 

to achieve the desired results. 

DHS has been working on preparedness metrics, called target capabilities, for 5 years, and we reported on those efforts in 2005. We 

recognize that including stakeholders in this effort is both important and takes time. Specific metrics for these compatibilities is 

still a work in—these capabilities is still a work in progress. 

One of the eight National priorities in this effort is ‘‘strengthening, planning, and community citizen preparedness capabilities.’’ 

FEMA recognizes that, given the diversity of the Nation’s population and the different risks communities face, there can be no 

one-size-fits-all approach to community preparedness. FEMA has 

already drafted different sets of materials for the disabled seniors 

and kids, for example. 

But it is not only the message, but the messenger that affects 

public response to messages encouraging preparedness. It is simply 

a fact that Government is not always seen as a credible messenger. 

It is not clear how FEMA plans to evaluate what works, what 

doesn’t for different audiences and different means of delivering its 

preparedness message. In developing its community preparedness 

strategy, FEMA needs to consider what it controls—which is the 

content of its message that it develops—what it influences—for example, its partners at the State and local level—and what is largely beyond its control, for example, the media used and timing of 

public service announcements on behalf of the Ready campaign. 

We recognize that those working in community preparedness 

within FEMA and at the State and local level care deeply about 

their mission. The success of their efforts will require a coordinated, focused effort over time that builds for designed and measurable outcomes. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or other Members of the subcommittee 

may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:] 
17 

1 Individuals, the public, and community are used interchangeably in this testimony when discussing preparedness for nongovernment community members. The terms encompass both citizens and noncitizens. Community nonprofit and private businesses are part of community preparedness, but were not within the scope of our work. 2Department of Homeland Security, Personal Preparedness in America: Findings From the 

2009 Citizen Corps National Survey (Washington, DC: August, 2009). 3Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizen Preparedness Review: A Review of Citizen 

Preparedness Research, Fall Update (Washington, DC: 2007). For example, National Center for 

Disaster Preparedness National surveys estimated the percentage of the population with an 

emergency plan was 43 percent in 2005, 45 percent in 2006, and 43 percent in 2007. 4 According to FEMA officials, FEMA also encourages public preparedness through speaking 

engagements, the media, and social networking tools that were beyond the scope of our review. 

Regarding the Ready Campaign we focused on its efforts for individual and family preparedness. 

The Ready Campaign’s Business and Kid Campaign were not within the scope of our review. 5The Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of the Surgeon General within the 

Office of Public Health and Science administers a third partner program, the Medical Reserve 

Corps (MRC). Also, the Department of Justice sponsors two other partner programs—Volunteers 

in Police Service and Neighborhood Watch. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ O. JENKINS, JR. 

OCTOBER 1, 2010

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to participate in today’s hearing to discuss Federal efforts to encourage community 

involvement in preparing for all-hazard emergencies.1 The public plays an important role in National emergency preparedness. By preparing their families and property before an event, individuals can often reduce a disaster’s impact on them and 

their need for first responder assistance, particularly in the first 72 hours following 

a disaster. For example, having at least a 72-hour supply of food and drinking water 

on hand can both sustain the individual and family in a disaster’s aftermath and 

reduce the immediate demands for food and water delivered by first responders 

whose priority may be search and rescue. They can also potentially support first responders as trained volunteers, since the average person will likely be the first on 

the scene of a disaster. However, research shows that Americans could be better 

prepared for disasters, particularly based on two key indicators—the degree to 

which people report having disaster supplies set aside and have a household emergency plan. A 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey estimated that over half (56 percent) of U.S. households did not have disaster supplies in their homes, and even 

fewer had supplies set aside in their car or workplaces.2 Even those who responded 

that they are personally prepared may have only taken some of the actions recommended, such as having water set aside but not having extra batteries for their 

flashlights. Fewer than half (44 percent) of the 2009 survey respondents reported 

having a household disaster plan, a level consistent with the results of past surveys.3 Although it is unrealistic to expect first responders to assist everyone in a 

disaster, 30 percent of those surveyed said that the primary reason they were unprepared was because they believed emergency personnel would help them in the 

event of a disaster. Also, 61 percent expected to rely on emergency responders in 

the first 72 hours following a disaster. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) administrator and leaders in the emergency management community are 

encouraging citizens to take actions to become more involved in preparing themselves and their communities, not only to mitigate the effects of a disaster, but to 

decrease their reliance on the Federal Government for goods and services during a 

catastrophic event and allow governments at all levels to target resources where 

they are most needed. 

FEMA encourages public preparedness through the Community Preparedness Division’s Citizen Corps program, which is designed to bring together Government and 

community leaders to involve citizens in all-hazards emergency preparedness and 

resilience, and the Ready Campaign, which makes literature and mass media content available to spread the preparedness message to individuals, families, and businesses.4 Citizen Corps is designed to promote the collaboration between local government and community leaders via local Citizen Corps councils. Individual councils 

are to promote preparedness activities and to encourage volunteering with Federally 

sponsored programs that support first responders, referred to as Citizen Corps partner programs. Citizen Corps promotes five partner programs, two of which are supported by FEMA—the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and Fire 

Corps.5 The operating budgets for community preparedness programs currently represent less than one-half of 1 percent of FEMA’s total budget. In fiscal year 2009, 

FEMA’s overall budget was about $7.9 billion, of which about $5.8 million was dedi-
18 

6 Under FEMA’s Homeland Security Grant Program, States, territories, urban areas, and 

transportation authorities are eligible for FEMA grants to bolster National preparedness capabilities and protect critical infrastructure. These grants can be used to establish and sustain Citizen Corps councils; purchase equipment for CERTs, Fire Corps, or MRC; and support planning 

or training efforts. Local community preparedness organizations can also receive funding from 

State, local, or Tribal governments or private and nonprofit community-based preparedness organizations. 7GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts, GAO–09–369 (Washington, DC: Apr. 30, 2009). 8 A key part of the system involves the development of quantifiable standards and metrics— 

called target capabilities, defined as the level of capability needed to prevent, respond to, and 

recover from natural and man-made disasters—that can be used to assess existing capability 

levels compared with target capability levels. 

cated to operating community preparedness programs and $2.1 million was for the 

Ready Campaign. 

FEMA’s National program office officials encourage State, local, regional, and 

Tribal governments and private and nonprofit community-based organizations to establish and sustain local Citizen Corps councils and partner programs, partly 

through Federal funding for local efforts. Local Citizen Corps councils, CERTs, and 

Fire Corps all are considered ‘‘grassroots’’ organizations that use volunteers to operate programs in their respective communities. Citizen Corps councils and CERT programs are registered via the internet and are potentially eligible to apply for Federal grant funding through the State to support their program.6 According to De- partment of Homeland Security (DHS) data, approximately $269 million in FEMA 

homeland security grants (including grants for Citizen Corps councils, CERT, and 

Fire Corps) were awarded for community preparedness projects from fiscal years 

2004 through 2008. In fiscal year 2008, funding for community preparedness grants 

represented about 1.9 percent of the total FEMA grant funding. Specifically, in fiscal year 2008, approximately $56 million went to community preparedness projects, 

out of more than $3 billion awarded in DHS grants to strengthen prevention, protection, response, and recovery capabilities at all levels of government. Appendix I provides additional information on DHS grants awarded for community preparedness 

purposes from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. 

In April 2009 we issued a report that discussed, among other things, the National 

preparedness system—a continuous cycle of: (1) Establishing policy and doctrine, (2) 

planning and allocating resources, (3) conducting training and exercises to gather 

lessons learned, and (4) assessing and reporting on the training and exercises to 

evaluate preparedness, including identifying any gaps in capabilities.7 Assessments 

and reports resulting from the National preparedness system are to be used to inform decision-makers on what improvements are needed and how to target finite resources to improve preparedness for disasters.8 Our report recognized that developing and integrating the elements of the National preparedness system is a challenge for FEMA, and more specifically the National Preparedness Directorate 

(NPD), the FEMA component responsible for carrying out the key elements of the 

National preparedness system, in coordination with other Federal, State, local, Tribal, nonprofit, and private sector organizations. We reported that the size and complexity of the Nation’s preparedness activities and the number of organizations involved—both public and private—pose a significant challenge to FEMA as it leads 

the Nation’s efforts to develop and sustain a National preparedness system. We further stated that, to develop an effective system, FEMA is to coordinate and partner 

with a broad range of stakeholders. As part of the Nation’s preparedness system, 

the status of citizen and community preparedness can affect the demands on first 

responders in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. 

As requested, today I will discuss our preliminary observations on: (1) What challenges, if any, FEMA faces in measuring the performance of Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign, and (2) what actions, if any, FEMA has 

taken to develop a strategy to encompass how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, 

and the Ready Campaign are to operate within the context of the National preparedness system. My comments are based on our on-going review of Citizen Corps, 

its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign requested by the Chairman of the 

Committee on Homeland Security, the Chairwoman of its Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, and the Chairman of this subcommittee. The final results of this review will be issued in a report later this year. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed documentation, such as FEMA’s strategic 

plan for 2008–2013, and interviewed officials at DHS’s headquarters in Washington, 

DC, and at 12 selected locations in five States—California, Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas. We selected these States based on the frequency of declared natural disasters. In total, we conducted 41 interviews covering 53 organizations in the 
19 

9This included 17 Citizen Corps councils, 12 CERT, 5 Fire Corps programs, and officials representing 19 other preparedness and emergency management organizations, such as local emergency managers and State officials in four of the five States we visited. 10GAO–09–369 and GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO–04–408T (Washington, DC: February 3, 2004). 11GAO–09–369; GAO–04–408T; GAO, Results-Oriented Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote Greater Use of Performance Information GAO–09– 

676; (Washington, DC: Aug. 17, 2009); Influenza Pandemic: Gaps in Pandemic Planning and 

Preparedness Need to Be Addressed, GAO–09–909T (Washington, DC: July 29, 2009); Information-Sharing Environment: Definition of the Results to Be Achieved in Improving Terrorism-Related Information Sharing Is Needed to Guide Implementation and Assess Progress GAO–08–492 

(Washington, DC: June 25, 2008); Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics 

in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO–04–408T (Washington, DC: Feb. 3, 2004); Tax 

Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, 

GAO–03–143 (Washington, DC: Nov. 22, 2002); Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers GAO/GGD/AIMD–99–69 (Washington, DC: 

Feb. 26, 1999); Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation of Agency 

Performance Information, GAO/GGD–99139 (Washington, DC: July 30, 1999); Agencies’ Annual 

Performance Plans Under the Reform Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD–10.1.18 (Washington, DC: February 1998); and Executive Guide: 

Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD–96–118 

(Washington, DC: June 1, 1996). 

five States.9 The results from our interviews are not generalizable; however, they 

provide insights into the operations of local Citizen Corps and partner programs as 

well as their efforts to use Ready Campaign material to promote individual preparedness. We also analyzed FEMA’s strategic plan and NPD’s 2009 Operating Plan 

and compared these documents with criteria in our past work that discusses the six 

characteristics of an effective National strategy.10 In addition we reviewed and analyzed data on the number of registered Citizen Corps and its partner programs to 

determine how FEMA measures the performance of its programs and compared 

FEMA’s data with the results of our work in the five States with criteria discussing 

best practices for performance measurement.11 Furthermore, we obtained and analyzed data on homeland security grants awarded from fiscal years 2004 through 

2008. To determine the reliability of DHS grant data and data on the activities of 

FEMA Citizen Corps and partner programs, we interviewed DHS officials about 

their procedures for ensuring the accuracy of performance data and compared DHS’s 

processes for compiling data on local community preparedness units with our past 

work on agency performance measurement. With regard to the Ready Campaign’s 

tracking survey and data on donated media, we reviewed documents and interviewed Ready Campaign officials and Ad Council officials to discuss their process 

for ensuring data accuracy. We determined that these data were reliable for the 

purposes of this review. 

We are conducting this performance audit from February 2008 through October 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

In summary, FEMA faces challenges measuring performance for Citizen Corps, 

partner programs, and the Ready Campaign because: (1) It relies on States to verify 

that data for its principal performance measure—the registered number of established volunteer organizations across the country—are accurate and does not have 

a process for monitoring State validation efforts, and (2) although the Ready Campaign controls the content of its message, it is not positioned to control the distribution of its message or measure whether its message is changing the behavior of individuals. FEMA officials said that FEMA expects to use a new, 2010 registration 

process to collect more comprehensive data on membership and council activities. 

Among other things, FEMA counts requests for literature, website hits, and the 

number of television announcements made to gauge performance for the Ready 

Campaign, but FEMA does not control when its message is viewed in various media 

because it relies on donated media, such as time to air television and radio announcements. Because changes in individuals’ behavior can be the result of a variety of factors, including preparedness campaigns sponsored by other organizations, 

it is difficult to measure the Ready Campaign’s effect on changes in individuals’ preparedness behavior. FEMA’s challenges in measuring the performance of citizen preparedness programs are compounded by the fact that it has not developed a strategy 

to encompass how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign 

are to operate within the context of the National preparedness system. In April 

2009, we recommended that NPD develop a strategic plan to implement the Na-
20 

12The Post-Katrina Act was enacted as title VI of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109–295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1394–1463 (2006). 13 Citizen Corps also identifies program ‘‘affiliates’’ that may be available to help advance Citizen Corps’s goals, such as the American Red Cross and Home Safety Council. 14See http://www.ready.gov/america/about/psa.html for an example of a Ready Campaign 

PSA. 

tional preparedness system that contains such key elements as goals, objectives, and 

how progress in achieving them will be measured. FEMA agreed and reported that 

it is taking actions to strengthen strategic planning. FEMA stated that it is reviewing implementation plans and policy documents, such as the National Preparedness 

Guidelines, and that community preparedness is a key element being considered in 

this process. FEMA has not yet set a date for completion of the National preparedness system strategy, and the extent to which Citizen Corps, its partner programs, 

or the Ready Campaign will be included when the strategy is complete is not clear. 

We will continue to assess FEMA’s efforts to measure the performance of the community preparedness programs and develop a strategy for integrating them into the 

National preparedness system as part of our on-going work. FEMA provided technical comments on a draft of this testimony, which we discussed with FEMA officials and incorporated as appropriate. 

BACKGROUND

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina 

Act) 12 required that FEMA establish the National preparedness system to ensure 

that the Nation has the ability to prepare for and respond to disasters of all types, 

whether natural or man-made, including terrorist attacks. The Community Preparedness Division is responsible for leading activities related to community preparedness, including management of the Citizen Corps program. According to fiscal 

year 2008 Homeland Security Grant Guidance, the program is to bring together 

community and Government leaders, including first responders, nonprofit organizations, and other community stakeholders. Serving as a Citizen Corps council, Government and non-Government stakeholders are to collaborate in involving community members in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. Councils and partner programs register on-line to be included in the National program registries. The Division also supports the efforts of non-DHS Federal 

‘‘partner programs,’’ such as the Medical Reserve Corps, that promote preparedness 

and the use of volunteers to support first responders.13 The CERT program’s mission is to educate and train people in basic disaster preparedness and response 

skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, and disaster medical operations, 

using a Nationally developed, standardized training curriculum. Trained individuals 

can be recruited to participate on neighborhood, business, or Government teams to 

assist first responders. The mission of the Fire Corps program is to increase the capacity of fire and emergency medical service departments through the use of volunteers in nonoperational roles and activities, including administrative, public outreach, fire safety, and emergency preparedness education. 

FEMA also is responsible for a related program, the Ready Campaign, which 

works in partnership with the Ad Council, an organization that creates public service messages, with the goals of raising public awareness regarding the need for 

emergency preparedness, motivating individuals to take steps toward preparedness, 

and ultimately increasing the level of National preparedness. The program makes 

preparedness information available to the public through its English and Spanish 

websites (www.ready.gov and www.listo.gov), through printed material that can be 

ordered from the program or via toll-free phone lines, and through public service 

announcements (PSA).14 The Ready Campaign message calls for individuals, families, and businesses to: (1) Get emergency supply kits, (2) make emergency plans, 

and (3) stay informed about emergencies and appropriate responses to those emergencies. 

FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring Performance of Citizen Corps Programs and the 

Ready Campaign 

FEMA faces challenges in measuring the performance of local community preparedness efforts because it lacks accurate information on those efforts. FEMA is 

also confronted with challenges in measuring performance for the Ready Campaign 

because the Ready Campaign is not positioned to control the placement of its preparedness messages or measure whether its message is changing the behavior of individuals. 
21 

15GAO–03–143. 16GAO/GGD–96–118. 17We interviewed State officials in four of the five States we visited—California, Florida, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. We did not interview State officials in Nevada. Our Nevada site visit 

interviews were related to observing exercises with CERT participation. 

FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring Performance of Community Preparedness 

Efforts Because It Lacks Accurate Information on Local Programs 

According to FEMA officials, FEMA promotes citizen preparedness and volunteerism by encouraging collaboration and the creation of community Citizen 

Corps, CERT, and Fire Corps programs. FEMA includes the number of Citizen 

Corps councils, CERTs, and Fire Corps established across the country as its principal performance measure. However, FEMA faces challenges ensuring that the information needed to measure the number of established, active units is accurate. In 

our past work we reported on the importance of ensuring that program data are of 

sufficient quality to document performance and support decision-making.15 Although 

not a measure under the Government Performance Result Act, FEMA programs report the number of local units registered as a principal performance measure; however, our work showed that the number of active units reported may differ from the 

number that actually exist.16 For example, as of September 2009: • Citizen Corps reported having 2,409 registered Citizen Corps councils Nationwide that encompass jurisdictions where approximately 79 percent of the U.S. 

population resides. However, 12 of the 17 registered councils we contacted during our site visits were active and 5 were not. • The CERT program reported having 3,354 registered CERTs. Of the 12 registered CERTs we visited, 11 were actively engaged in CERT activities, such as 

drills, exercises, and emergency preparedness outreach, or had been deployed 

to assist in an emergency or disaster situation, although 1 had members that 

had not been trained. One registered CERT was no longer active. 

State officials in two of the four States also said that the data on number of registered programs might not be accurate.17 One State official responsible for the Citizen Corps council and CERT programs in the State estimated that as little as 20 

percent of the registered councils were active, and the State subsequently removed 

more than half of its 40 councils from the National website. Officials in the other 

State said that the National database is not accurate and they have begun to send 

e-mails to or call local councils to verify the accuracy of registrations in their State. 

These officials said that they plan to follow up with those councils that do not respond, but they were not yet certain what they planned to do if the councils were 

no longer active. These results raise questions about the accuracy of FEMA’s data 

on the number of councils across the Nation, and the accuracy of FEMA’s measure 

that registered councils cover 79 percent of the population Nation-wide. 

Some change in the number of active local programs can be expected, based on 

factors including changes in Government leadership, voluntary participation by civic 

leaders, and financial support. FEMA officials told us that the Homeland Security 

Grant Program guidance designates State officials as responsible for approving initial council and CERT registrations and ensure that the data are updated as needed. According to FEMA officials, however, in practice this may not occur. Community Preparedness Division officials said that they do not monitor whether States 

are regularly updating local unit registration information. 

FEMA officials said that FEMA plans to adopt a new on-line registration process 

for Citizen Corps councils and CERTs in 2010, which will likely result in some programs being removed from FEMA’s registries. They said that FEMA expects to use 

the new registration process to collect more comprehensive data on membership and 

council activities. According to FEMA officials, updating initial registration information will continue to be the responsibility of State officials. The Citizen Corps Director noted that the Citizen Corps program does not have the ability to require all 

local units to update information, particularly councils or CERTS that receive no 

Federal funding. According to the Fire Corps program Acting Director, a State advocacy program initiated in 2007 may help identify inactive programs as well as promote the Fire Corps program. As of September 2009, there were 53 advocates in 

31 States. We will continue to assess this issue as part of our on-going work. 

The Ready Campaign Faces Challenges Measuring Performance Because It Is 

Not Positioned to Control the Distribution of Its Preparedness Messages 

and Measure Whether Its Message Effects Individual Behavior 

Currently, the Ready Campaign measures its performance based on measures 

such as materials distributed or PSAs shown. For example, according to a DHS official, in fiscal year 2008, the Ready Campaign had: 
22 

18GAO/GGD/AIMD–99–69. 

• more than 99 million ‘‘hits’’ on its website; • more than 12 million pieces of Ready Campaign literature requested or 

downloaded; and, • 43,660 calls to the toll-free call numbers. 

The Ready Campaign relies on these measures because it faces two different challenges determining whether its efforts are influencing individuals to be more prepared. First, the Ready Campaign is not positioned to control the when or where 

its preparedness message is viewed. Second, the Ready Campaign is not positioned 

to measure whether its message is changing the behavior of individuals. 

With regard to the Ready Campaign’s ability to control the distribution of its message, our prior work has shown that agencies whose programs rely on others to deliver services face challenges in targeting and measuring results in meeting ultimate goals, and when this occurs, agencies can use intermediate measures to gauge 

program activities.18 However, according to FEMA’s Acting Director for the Ready 

Campaign, funds are not available for the Ready Campaign to purchase radio and 

television time to air its PSAs; rather, the Ready Campaign relies on donations of 

various sources of media. As a result, the Ready Campaign does not control what, 

when, or where Ready Campaign materials are placed when the media is donated. 

For example, what PSA is shown and the slots (e.g., a specific channel at a specific 

time) that are donated by television, radio, and other media companies are not 

under the Ready Campaign’s control, and these are not always prime viewing or listening spots. Based on Ad Council data, the Ready Campaign’s PSAs in 2008 were 

aired about 5 percent or less of the time by English and Spanish television stations 

during prime time (8:00 pm to 10:59 p.m.), and about 25 percent of the PSAs were 

aired from 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Similarly, about 47 percent of English radio and 

about 27 percent of Spanish radio spots were aired from midnight to 6:00 a.m. 

FEMA officials said that with the release of its September 2009 PSAs, they expect 

increased placement during hours where there are more viewers and listeners. 

Just as the Ready Campaign has no control over the time PSAs are aired, it does 

not control the type of media (e.g., radio and television) donated. Based on Ad Council data on the dollar value of media donated to show Ready Campaign materials 

(the value of the donated media is generally based on what it would cost the Ready 

Campaign if the media space were purchased), much of the value from donated 

media is based on space donated in the yellow pages. Figure 1 shows the value of 

various types of media donated to the Ready Campaign to distribute its message 

during 2008. 
23 

19FEMA, Citizen Preparedness Review: A Review of Citizen Preparedness Research, Fall 2007. 20Similarly, public knowledge of the Ready Campaign may be less than indicated, based on 

the 2007 Citizen Corps survey. For example, the 2007 survey asked respondents about familiarity with Federal preparedness programs and estimated that 16 percent of respondents had 

heard about Ready.gov. However when asked to describe the program, only 2 percent of respondents reported that they had a firm understanding of the program. 

The Ready Campaign also faces a challenge determining the extent to which it 

contributes to individuals taking action to become more prepared—the program’s 

goal. Measuring the Ready Campaign’s progress toward its goal is problematic because it can be difficult to isolate the specific effect of exposure to Ready Campaign 

materials on an individual’s level of emergency preparedness. Research indicates 

that there may be a number of factors that are involved in an individual taking action to become prepared, such as his or her beliefs as to vulnerability to disaster, 

geographic location, or income.19 A basic question in establishing whether the Ready 

Campaign is changing behavior is, first, determining the extent to which the Ready 

Campaign’s message has been received by the general population. The Ad Council 

conducts an annual survey to determine public awareness of the Ready Campaign, 

among other things. For example, in the Ad Council’s 2008 survey: 

• When asked if they had heard of a website called Ready.gov that provides information about steps to take to prepare in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, 21 percent of those surveyed said that they were aware of the 

Ready.gov website. 

• When asked a similar question about television, radio, and print PSAs, 37 percent of those surveyed said that they have seen or heard at least one Ready 

Campaign PSA. 

Another factor is isolating the Ready Campaign’s message from other preparedness messages that individuals might have received. The Ad Council’s 2008 survey 

found that 30 percent of those surveyed identified the American Red Cross as the 

primary source of emergency preparedness information; 11 percent identified the Ad 

Council. 

While the Ad Council survey may give a general indication as to the population’s 

familiarity with the Ready Campaign, it does not provide a measure of preparedness 

actions taken based on the Ready Campaign’s promotion, that is, a clear link from 

the program to achieving program goals. The Ad Council reported that those who 

were aware of Ready Campaign’s advertising were significantly more likely to say 

that they had taken steps to prepare for disaster, but acknowledged that the Ready 

Campaign could not claim full credit for the differences. Further, as the 2009 Citizen Corps survey showed, the degree to which individuals are prepared may be less 

than indicated because preparedness drops substantially when more detailed questions about supplies are asked.20 We will continue to assess FEMA’s efforts to measure the performance of the Ready Campaign as part of our on-going work. 

FEMA HAS NOT DEVELOPED A STRATEGY ENCOMPASSING HOW CITIZEN CORPS, ITS PARTNER PROGRAMS, AND THE READY CAMPAIGN ARE TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CONTEXT

OF THE NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS SYSTEM

While DHS’s and FEMA’s strategic plans have incorporated efforts to promote 

community preparedness, FEMA has not developed a strategy encompassing how 

Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to operate within 

the context of the National preparedness system. An objective in DHS’s Strategic 

Plan for 2008–2013 to ‘‘Ensure Preparedness’’ envisions empowering Americans to 

take individual and community actions before and after disasters strike. Similarly, 

FEMA’s Strategic Plan for 2008–2013 envisions a strategy to ‘‘Lead the Nation’s efforts for greater personal and community responsibility for preparedness through 

public education and awareness, and community engagement and planning, including outreach to vulnerable populations.’’ FEMA’s Strategic Plan delegates to the 

agency’s components the responsibility for developing their own strategic plans, 

which are to include goals, objectives, and strategies. FEMA’s Strategic Plan states 

that the components’ strategic plans are to focus on identifying outcomes and measuring performance. 

NPD has not clearly articulated goals for FEMA’s community preparedness programs or a strategy to show how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the 

Ready Campaign are to achieve those goals within the context of the National preparedness system. In our past work, we reported that desirable characteristics of 

an effective National strategy include articulating the strategy’s purpose and goals; 

followed by subordinate objectives and specific activities to achieve results; and defining organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination, including a discussion 
24 

21GAO–04–408T and GAO–09–369. 22GAO–09–369. 23 NPD’s other objectives relate to enhancing preparedness capabilities, strengthening partnerships, conducting emergency preparedness research, integrating community preparedness into 

grant guidance, holding a National conference, ensuring local implementation of the NET Guard 

Pilot Program, and developing a National strategy to collaborate with law enforcement partners. 24GAO–09–369. 25 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8—National Preparedness (Dec. 17, 2003). In December 2003, the President issued guidance that called on the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to carry out and coordinate preparedness activities with public, private, and nonprofit organizations involved in such activities. 

of resources needed to reach strategy goals.21 In April 2009, we reported that NPD 

had not developed a strategic plan that defines program roles and responsibilities, 

integration and coordination processes, and goals and performance measures for its 

programs.22 We reported that instead of a strategic plan, NPD officials stated that 

they used a draft annual operating plan and Post-Katrina Act provisions to guide 

NPD’s efforts. The draft operating plan identifies NPD goals and NPD subcomponents responsible for carrying out segments of the operating plan, including eight 

objectives identified for the Division under NPD’s goal to ‘‘enhance the preparedness 

of individuals, families, and special needs populations through awareness planning 

and training.’’ NPD’s objectives for meeting this goal do not describe desired outcomes. 

For example, one of NPD’s objectives for the Community Preparedness Division 

is to increase ‘‘the number of functions that CERTs will be able to perform effectively during emergency response,’’ but the plan does not describe how many and 

what type of functions CERTs currently perform, what additional functions they 

could perform, and what it means to be effective.23 NPD’s draft operating plan also 

does not include other key elements of an effective National strategy, such as how 

it will measure progress in meeting its goals and objectives; the roles and responsibilities of those who will be implementing specific programs within the Community Preparedness Division, such as Citizen Corps or Fire Corps; or potential costs 

and types of resources and investments needed to meet goals and objectives needed 

to implement civilian preparedness programs.24 As a result, NPD is unable to provide a picture of priorities or how adjustments might be made in view of resource 

constraints. 

In our April 2009 report we recommended that NPD take a more strategic approach to implementing the National preparedness system to include the development of a strategic plan that contains such key elements as goals, objectives, and 

how progress in achieving them will be measured. DHS concurred with our recommendation and, in commenting on our report, stated that it reported making 

progress in this area and is continuing to work to fully implement the recommendation. NPD officials stated in September 2009 that DHS, FEMA, and NPD, in coordination with National security staff, were discussing Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive 8 (National Preparedness), including the development of a preparedness 

strategy and an implementation strategy.25 They said that community and individual preparedness were key elements of those discussions. However, NPD officials 

did not state when the strategy will be completed; thus, it is not clear to what extent it will integrate Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign. 

NPD officials stated that work is under way on revising the target capabilities, 

which are to include specific outcomes, measures, and resources. NPD officials said 

that the draft for public comment is expected to be issued in fiscal year 2010. 

The Ready Campaign is also working to enhance its strategic direction. According 

to the FEMA Director of External Affairs, the Ready Campaign’s strategy is being 

revised to reflect the transition of the program from DHS’s Office of Public Affairs 

to FEMA’s Office of External Affairs, and the new FEMA Director’s approach to preparedness. Program officials said that the Ready Campaign will have increased access to staff and resources and is to be guided by a FEMA-wide strategic plan for 

external communications. As of September 2009 the plan was still being developed 

and no date has been set for completion. We will continue to monitor this issue as 

well FEMA’s effort to develop a strategy encompassing how Citizen Corps and its 

partner programs are to operate within the context of the National preparedness 

system. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the subommittee may have. 
25 

APPENDIX I.—HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY

PREPAREDNESS, 2004 THROUGH 2008 

Department of Homeland Security support for local community preparedness activities is provided through homeland security grants, specifically the Citizen Corps 

grant program, but community preparedness activities are also eligible for support 

under other homeland security grants. Citizen Corps grants are awarded to States 

based on a formula of 0.75 percent of the total amount available to each State (including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and 0.25 

percent of the total amount available for each U.S. territory, with the balance of 

funding being distributed on a population basis. 

For other DHS homeland security grants, a State prepares a request for funding, 

which can include support for the State’s community preparedness efforts, as allowed under the guidance for a particular grant. For example, the 2009 Homeland 

Security Grant Guidance lists ‘‘Conducting public education and outreach campaigns, including promoting individual, family, and business emergency preparedness’’ as an allowable cost for State homeland security grants. Grant funding can 

be used to support Citizen Corps, Citizen Corps partner programs, or other State 

community preparedness priorities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 

(FEMA) grant reporting database does not categorize grants in a way that allows 

identification of the amount of funding going to a particular community preparedness program. 

Table 1 summarizes the approximately $269 million in DHS grants that were 

identified by grantees as supporting community preparedness projects from fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008. The amount is an approximation because of limitations 

in identifying grants for such projects. Our selection of projects for inclusion relied 

on grantees identifying their projects under one of three predefined project types 

that FEMA officials said are relevant for community preparedness or were projects 

funded with a Citizen Corps program grant. Not all grantees may have used these 

descriptions. We worked with grant officials to identify the most appropriate grant 

selection criteria. 
26 

TABLE 1: 2004–2008 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS PROJECTS 

Year Citizen Corps 

Urban Area 

Security Initiative 

(UASI) 1

State Homeland 

Security 

Emergency 

Management Performance Grant 

Law Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Grant Other Homeland Security Grants 2 Total 

2004 $33,955,176 $8,306,020 $7,735,800 ............................. $1,093,911 ............................... $51,090,907 2005 13,485,705 8,687,292 11,775,517 $595,825 248,988 $414,329 35,207,655 2006 19,205,985 16,345,381 15,074,053 6,545,092 969,561 2,028,071 60,168,142 2007 14,549,998 23,608,893 15,754,809 1,026,336 6,705,907 4,895,079 66,541,022 2008 14,572,500 13,498,514 16,640,267 8,620,774 0 2,645,852 55,977,906 

Total 95,769,364 70,446,099 66,980,446 16,788,026 9,018,367 9,983,331 268,985,634 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA grant reporting data for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. Notes: Homeland Security grant projects included in this summary met at least one of the following four criteria: Indicated the project was to establish or enhance (1) citizen or volunteer initiatives; (2) citizen awareness of emergency preparedness, prevention, and response measures; (3) Citizen Corps councils; or (4) 

was supported by the Citizen Corps program grant. For years with a zero value, a particular grant may not have been part of the Homeland Security grant package (e.g., the Emergency Management Performance Grant was not part of the 2004 grants package, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant in 2008 was not available for community preparedness purposes). 

1 Includes UASI and UASI transit and nonprofit grants. The UASI grant program provides Federal assistance to high-risk urban areas to: (1) Address unique 

planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs and (2) assist them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, prepare for, and respond to threats or acts of terrorism. 

2 Includes grants for transit security programs, Metropolitan Medical Response System, Intercity Passenger Rail Security, Interoperable Emergency Communications, Non-Profit Security, Regional Catastrophic Preparedness, and Buffer Zone Protection. The Buffer Zone Protection Program supports the implementation 

of preventive and protective measures outside the perimeter of selected critical infrastructure and key resource (CI/KR) sites throughout the United States. The program provides grant funding to jurisdictions to purchase equipment to extend the zone of protection around CI/KR facilities, expand preparedness capabilities, and enhance the security of surrounding communities. 
27 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Jenkins, again, thank you again for your testimony. 

At this time, Ms. Smith, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WENDY L. SMITH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, 

MC ALLEN, TEXAS 

Ms. SMITH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

committee. It is my pleasure to speak to you today about community preparedness, particularly with regard to the Citizen Corps 

program and its affiliates. 

My name is Wendy Smith, and I am an assistant city manager 

and an assistant emergency management coordinator in McAllen, 

Texas, a border community of 130,000, located in a three-county region of 1.2 million residents. 

McAllen’s CERT team is one of seven Citizen Corps teams in the 

region. Annually, we train almost 50 new volunteers in three classes. The objective of the Citizen Corps program is to have better 

trained—and therefore, safer—volunteers to assist their neighbors, 

co-workers and churches in case of emergency. 

During a disaster, well-meaning but often untrained good Samaritans turn out to help. All too frequently, they hinder the efforts of our first responders. Emergency services may be diverted 

to provide impromptu training for these spontaneous volunteers. 

This scenario is the reason that programs such as Citizen Corps 

are vitally important community preparedness tools. 

We know not everyone will be ready, so regionally we strive to 

have a total of 500 trained CERT volunteers to deploy wherever 

they are needed at any given time. Right now, we have approximately 165, many of whom assisted in the EOC during Hurricane 

Dolly in 2008. 

In our jurisdiction, we have waiting lists for CERT participants 

and a shortage of trainers from the various local governments. All 

of the participating local governments provide in-kind the cost of 

trainers, facilities, equipment, and administrative coordination of 

the classes. Seven Citizen Corps teams and their affiliates in our 

region are supported by a Federal grant of less than $20,000. 

I would like to ask for more funding for these programs, but I 

know that is not feasible at this time. Instead, I submit this recommended change utilizing existing funding. Consider removing 

categorical funding restrictions within the grant for promotional 

items, equipment, and training. For example, McAllen no longer 

has a need to promote the CERT team since there is a waiting list 

of volunteers. 

However, 15 percent of the grant is allocated to promotional and 

educational materials. That funding is better utilized for equipment and training, such as CPR classes not currently offered, and 

is enough to allow the city to train an additional team. This added 

flexibility helps us move toward our common goal of training and, 

more importantly, retaining volunteers. 

The first 72 hours of a disaster is the most critical time, but it 

is also the time that emergency responders are overwhelmed with 

calls for service. At no other time is it more important to have your 

citizens trained to help themselves and each other. 
28 

While these volunteers are not intended to replace first responders, they provide immediate assistance when traditional emergency 

services cannot meet the demand. Your support of the Citizen 

Corps program is greatly appreciated by local governments such as 

ours that continually work to prepare our residents to help themselves and each other during disasters. 

Thank you for your time and attention today. I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WENDY L. SMITH

OCTOBER 1, 2009 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. It is my pleasure 

to speak to you today about community preparedness, particularly with regard to 

the Citizen Corps program and its affiliates. 

My name is Wendy L. Smith, and I serve as an Assistant City Manager and Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator in McAllen, Texas, a border community of 130,000, located in a Council of Governments service area of 1.2 million residents. 

McAllen has an active CERT team which is one of seven Citizen Corps affiliate 

programs in our three county region. Annually we train almost 50 new volunteers 

in three classes. The objective of the Citizen Corps program is to have better 

trained—and therefore safer—volunteers to assist their neighbors, co-workers, and 

churches in case of emergency. We are fortunate in our community, as in yours, to 

have individuals who are willing to help those who cannot help themselves during 

natural or man-made disasters. Whether it be flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, or 

earthquakes, we are lucky to have citizen volunteers who heed the call to service. 

Though well-intentioned, these volunteers are frequently untrained, and therefore 

may actually hinder the efforts of our first responders. Emergency services may be 

diverted to provide impromptu training for these spontaneous volunteers. This scenario is the reason that programs such as Citizen Corps are vitally important community preparedness tools. 

The Citizen Corps website states that the CERT program seeks to double the 

number of participants over the next 2 years, with over 400,000 individuals completing the training. FEMA should be commended for this ambitious goal. Regionally we strive to have a total of 500 trained CERT volunteers to deploy wherever 

they are needed at any given time. In our jurisdiction we have waiting lists for 

CERT participants and a shortage of trainers from the various local governments. 

All of the participating local governments provide in-kind the cost of trainers, facilities, equipment, and administrative coordination of the classes. Seven Citizen Corps 

teams and their affiliates in our region are supported by a Federal grant of less 

than $20,000. 

While I would like to come here today asking for more funding for Citizen Corps 

programs across the Nation, as a Government employee I realize that resources are 

finite. As such, I submit this recommended change utilizing existing funding. Remove categorical funding restrictions within the grant (for promotional items, equipment, and training). For example, McAllen no longer has a need to promote the 

CERT team, as there is a waiting list of volunteers. However, 15% of the grant is 

allocated to promotional and educational materials. That funding is better utilized 

for equipment and training, such as CPR classes not currently offered, and is 

enough to allow the city to train an additional team. This added flexibility helps us 

move toward our common goal of training and retaining volunteers. 

Citizen Corps cultivates and sustains the spirit of volunteerism that has long been 

a source of pride in our communities. While these volunteers are not intended to 

replace first responders, they provide immediate assistance when traditional emergency services cannot meet the demand. Your support of the Citizen Corps program 

is greatly appreciated by local governments such as ours that continually work to 

prepare our residents to help themselves and each other during disasters. Thank 

you for your time and attention today. I am happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Ms. Smith, for your testimony. 

At this time, we will recognize Ms. DeFrancis. 
29 

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE C. DE FRANCIS, CHIEF PUBLIC 

AFFAIRS OFFICER, AMERICAN RED CROSS 

Ms. DEFRANCIS. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, and Ranking 

Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the committee. 

Thank you for inviting me here today on behalf of the American 

Red Cross and for drawing the public’s attention to this very important topic of preparedness. As Mr. Rogers said, incidents in recent weeks—from the arrest of suspected terrorists in the United 

States, deadly flooding in Georgia and other southeastern States, 

earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons in the Pacific, school districts 

closed from H1N1—reminds that disasters and other emergencies 

are all too real and all of us must be prepared and get our families, 

neighbors, communities, and country prepared. 

At the American Red Cross, our mission has been to help prevent, prepare for, and respond to disasters, and we have been doing 

it for more than a century. But as important as our work is in responding after disaster strikes, nothing is as important as what we 

do before a disaster strikes. The old saying holds true: An ounce 

of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 

Research shows that a dollar spent on prevention can save about $4 in response. That is a significant return on investment and one 

our Nation should not fail to make. Preparedness saves lives and 

livelihoods. 

We also have an obligation to promote preparedness not just to 

those who can afford it, but to those at-risk populations—the elderly, disabled, and poor—who are the most vulnerable. 

A Red Cross survey this summer showed that while 89 percent 

of the public agree it is important to be prepared, far fewer are actually taking the steps necessary. As Mr. Cuellar noted, they may 

be taking some of the steps, but they are not really what we would 

call prepared. The level of public preparedness remains far too low, 

and at the Red Cross we are not satisfied. 

People mostly don’t prepare because they don’t think it will happen to them. Interestingly, though, our polls show that more than 

50 percent of people have actually had loss of power and utilities, 

had to evacuate, had to offer first aid to someone near them, so 

these everyday emergencies really do happen to people. 

People prepare, though, when they think something will happen 

to them. That is why we are seeing a relatively high level of preparedness around H1N1. Overwhelming majorities report they are 

taking steps to cover their cough and wash their hands, and 62 

percent plan on being vaccinated. 

So at the Red Cross, we are continually working to find new and 

better strategies to reach the public. Each day, an estimated 50,000 

people receive Red Cross training classes and preparedness education presentations. One I would like to highlight is in New Orleans, where we started what we called a pillowcase project. Children 

were given pillowcases which they could decorate and stuff with 

the favorite things they would like to take with them if they needed to evacuate, in the sense of an emergency. 

We know this project works because when Hurricane Gustav 

headed up the same area hit by Katrina, kids showed up in our 

shelters, and they had their pillowcases, and they were filled with 

supplies, so that is progress. 
30 

Another effective way to reach people is through the workplace. 

Studies have shown that 1 of every 4 small businesses that are 

forced to close because of a disaster never reopen. That is why the 

American Red Cross developed a web-based, self-assessment tool 

that makes preparedness easy for businesses of all sizes. It is 

called the Ready Rating program, and membership is free. 

Businesses score themselves annually and maintain their membership by developing and implementing emergency response 

plans, giving preparedness information to their employees, and improving their overall score just a little bit every year. 

Ready Rating was the brainchild of business owners in St. Louis 

and received backing from Anheuser-Busch, and now we want to 

expand it to 16 more cities. We thank Congressman Cao of this 

committee for signing on as a member in southeast Louisiana. 

As I mentioned, the Red Cross is very focused on educating the 

public about H1N1. We have developed and distributed countless 

information sheets, some of which are at the table here today. Our 

Philadelphia chapter distributed over 285,000 handouts at 570 

Wawa stores. We use social media to post messages on YouTube, 

Facebook, and Twitter. Red Cross youth are conducting outreach at 

schools and colleges. 

In addition to educating the public, during a flu outbreak, the 

American Red Cross remains committed to its core services of 

maintaining a safe blood supply and providing disaster relief to 

those in need. Our goal is to build a culture of preparedness 

throughout our Nation, but no single organization can do it alone. 

This week, Secretary Janet Napolitano came to the American 

Red Cross to deliver an important speech on preparedness. She 

summoned all of us to a grassroots effort to better prepare our communities, and the American Red Cross heartily applauds her for 

this and supports her call to action. 

We are also grateful for this committee. We commend you, Mr. 

Cuellar, for introducing H.R. 1, the Citizen and Community Preparedness Act, and we will work with you to pass that. We are 

pleased so many Members of the committee co-sponsored the resolution on National Preparedness Month, introduced by Representative Yvette Clarke. 

Finally, the Red Cross is also partnering with many faith-based 

and community groups to promote preparedness. By partnering 

with people like the more than 25,000 members of the West Angeles Church of God in Christ in Los Angeles, we can multiply our 

efforts and really build that grassroots movement Secretary Napolitano envisions. 

Working together as a Nation, we are confident we can build a 

society in which every individual, every family, every business, 

every school, every faith-based and civic organization is prepared. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. DeFrancis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE C. DEFRANCIS

OCTOBER 1, 2009 

Good Morning Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee. My name is Suzy DeFrancis, and I am the chief public affairs officer of the American Red Cross. Today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘State of Cit-
31 

izen and Community Preparedness’’ is a very important issue for the Red Cross and 

the Nation. We commend the Subcommittee on Emergency, Communications, Preparedness and Response for drawing the public’s attention to it at this hearing. 

The timing of your hearing could not be more relevant. In addition to the fact that 

September is National Preparedness Month, we have unfortunately been reminded 

in the last 2 weeks of why preparedness matters. We have seen the arrest in the 

United States of a suspect in what is being called the most serious terrorist plot 

since 9/11. We have seen deadly flooding in Georgia and other Southeastern States, 

and earthquakes and tsunamis in the Pacific. We have seen school districts closed, 

one in Huntsville, Texas, athletic events cancelled, and sadly more deaths from the 

H1N1 virus. 

With these incidents as a backdrop, we are reminded that the threat of disasters 

and other emergencies is very real today and requires us all to remain diligent in 

our efforts to be prepared and to get our families, neighbors, communities, and country prepared. 

VALUE OF PREPAREDNESS

At the American Red Cross, our mission is to help people prevent, prepare for, 

and respond to disasters and other emergencies. We have been doing this work for 

more than a century. As you know, we are chartered by the Congress to perform 

our mission, and we have specific responsibilities under ESF 6 of the National Response Framework. We shelter, feed, and counsel victims of disasters at home and 

abroad; collect and distribute nearly half of the Nation’s blood supply; teach preparedness and lifesaving skills; and we support military members and families 

through emergency communications. So whether it is a hurricane or heart attack, 

a call for blood or a call for help, the Red Cross is there around the corner, around 

the Nation, and around the world. 

Each year, the American Red Cross responds to more than 70,000 disasters in 

communities Nation-wide from a single family house or apartment fire, to a largescale disaster like a hurricane. But whether it is a small- or large-scale disaster, 

every disaster is an intensely personal tragedy for the people involved. That’s why 

we want everyone to make a personal commitment to preparedness. 

Being prepared can help you protect your family and loved ones in a disaster. It 

can help you respond effectively until help arrives. It can save lives. It can also save 

livelihoods by helping individuals and businesses get back on their feet faster. At 

the American Red Cross, we do important work in providing relief after a disaster 

strikes. But nothing is as important as what we do before disaster strikes. The old 

saying is right: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 

The investments we make in preparedness today have the potential to save countless lives and resources in the future. A study done in 2005 by the Multi-hazard 

Mitigation Council found: ‘‘On average, every dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation (actions to reduce disaster losses) provides the Nation with about $4 in future 

benefits.’’ So if $1 spent on prevention can save $4 in response, that is a significant 

return on investment and one our Nation should not fail to make. 

Moreover, research also shows that those with the least suffer the most when disaster strikes. Most people who come to Red Cross shelters are people who have nowhere else to go and no money to pay for a motel room or other shelter. So we have 

an obligation as a society to make sure that we are promoting preparedness not just 

to those who can afford it, but to those at-risk populations—the elderly, disabled, 

and poor—who are most vulnerable. 

POLLING ON PREPAREDNESS

Even though 89 percent of the public believe it is important to be prepared—far 

fewer are actually taking the steps necessary to prepare, according to a Red Cross 

survey conducted in late July and early August. In many cases, they don’t know 

what to do or they think it takes too much time. 

That’s why the Red Cross has worked with our Federal partners at FEMA and 

DHS to send one consistent message about the 3 simple steps you can take to keep 

your loved ones safer: Get a Kit, Make a Plan, and Be Informed. 

Our recent survey showed 80 percent of Americans had taken at least one key 

preparedness step, for example: 

• 47% have assembled an emergency kit; 

• 45% have chosen an out-of-town contact; 

• 24% have practiced their emergency plan. 

But only 12 percent of Americans are reasonably prepared for a disaster, as recommended by the Red Cross. 
32 

So clearly the level of public preparedness remains very low, and we are not satisfied with the progress that has been made to date. We need to continue to find new 

and better strategies to reach the public with this message. We also need to have 

some fun. We launched a ‘‘Do More than Cross Your Fingers’’ campaign this year 

to promote preparedness with Jamie Lee Curtis as our celebrity spokesperson. She 

sent out an email about how she includes chocolate and dental floss in her preparedness kit—and it was one of the most-opened emails we have sent out. 

One perception we need to change is that people think preparedness only applies 

to large-scale disasters and they don’t think those will happen to them, or if they 

do, they think Government will bail them out. But the fact is that disruptive emergencies strike far more often than people realize. 

For example, our Red Cross survey showed that more than 50 percent of Americans have experienced at least one of the following emergencies: 

• Losing Utilities for at least three days; 

• Evacuating their home; 

• Providing first aid to others. 

These are the ‘‘everyday emergencies’’ that everyone should prepare for. 

We also know that people prepare to the degree they think a threat is imminent. 

That’s why we are seeing a relatively high degree of preparedness about the HINI 

flu. 

A recent poll conducted by the American Red Cross on H1N1 flu found an overwhelming majority of the public were taking steps against the virus: 

• 78% are taking or planning to take extra measures to cover their coughs and 

sneezes with a tissue; 

• 76% are taking or planning to take extra measures to wash their hands more 

carefully. 

The media took notice of the fact that women are more likely to take protective 

actions, with 84 percent making an extra effort to cover coughs and sneezes (versus 

71 percent for men) and 81 percent washing their hands more carefully and more 

often (compared to 71 percent for men). 

The survey also found that 62 percent of those surveyed plan on being vaccinated 

against the new flu virus and nearly half of those surveyed (46 percent) plan on 

assembling a 2-week supply of food, water, and medicine in the event they or someone in their family becomes sick and needs to stay home for extended periods of 

time. 

RED CROSS ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE PREPAREDNESS

At the Red Cross, we are continually working on new and better ways to promote 

preparedness. 

Each day, an estimated 50,000 people receive Red Cross training classes and preparedness education presentations. Our website is full of links to preparedness information, and people can take many of these courses on-line. Numerous preparedness materials are also available in multiple languages aimed at different segments 

of the population. 

For example, we have found that school children are very good at getting their 

parents to prepare, and we reach more than 1 million school children every year 

with our Masters of Disaster curriculum. We also have a Mother’s Guide to Preparedness. You might be interested to know that according to some research, the 

most trusted and effective messengers on preparedness—even among adults—are 

their mothers. 

The bulk of Red Cross programs and services are delivered through a vibrant network of 700 chapters located across the country. Chapters are able to tailor National 

programs to meet the diverse needs of their specific communities. They partner in 

their communities with local businesses, schools, emergency management, public 

health departments, and Citizen Corps Councils. 

I would like to highlight how local Red Cross chapters, many in your districts, 

are working with partners in their communities to become better prepared. 

• The city of Laredo, Texas is a hub of preparedness. The National Red Cross 

uses Laredo to pre-position support for hurricane evacuation and response, and 

the Laredo Red Cross branch and San Antonio Chapter work with the city to 

support the Hurricane Hub Shelters as part of the State Evacuation Plan. 

• In Alabama, the Red Cross has worked with the Governor’s Office of Faithbased Initiatives to use community colleges as shelters when evacuation of the 

Gulf Coast is mandated, and we trained staff at the colleges in shelter operations. Masters of Disaster CDs, purchased with a grant from ALFA Insurance 

Co., have been distributed to every elementary school in a seven-county area 

over a 5-year period. 
33 

• In Mississippi, we have more than 1,600 disaster-trained volunteers prepared 

to respond. Red Cross chapters across the State held shelter-management training sessions this year with the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) and 

have also worked with NAACP and HOPE Worldwide to train more volunteers. 

As a result, while there is still room for growth, diversity across the Mississippi 

volunteer base is rising. In addition, the Red Cross prepares by pre-positioning 

supplies in Mississippi, including 11 preloaded kitchen support trailers, a 

30,000-square-foot headquarters/warehouse, and a fixed site Disaster Response 

Communications Network to enable connectivity between the National Red 

Cross Disaster Operations Center and local service delivery sites. 

• In Louisiana, every one of the 4,000 families who worked with Red Cross caseworkers to plan their recovery from Katrina also developed a family evacuation 

and preparedness plan. Our ‘‘pillowcase project,’’ which started in New Orleans, 

gives children pillowcases with evacuation checklists that they can fill with everything from stuffed animals to a favorite book. Hundreds of kids in grades 

K–8 already have them and more will get the pillowcases and training this 

year. We know these projects have been a success because when Hurricane Gustav headed up the same area hit by Katrina, kids showed up in shelters with 

pillowcases and more people reported knowing where they needed to go and 

how to get there—that’s progress! 

In addition to these on-going preparedness efforts, I would like to focus today on 

two new initiatives: A program we just launched called Ready Rating, and our efforts to prepare the public for the H1N1 virus. 

Partnering with Businesses: Ready Rating Program 

One of the key recommendations from the 9/11 Commission was a call for improved private sector preparedness for a disaster, with creation of standards that 

would enable companies to voluntarily improve their readiness. 

Studies have shown that one of every four small businesses that are forced to 

close because of a disaster never re-opens. But while 94 percent of small business 

owners told the Red Cross in a survey they worry about the potential for a disaster 

to disrupt their operations, many businesses do not know exactly what they should 

do, or worry they cannot afford the time or resources to take the actions necessary. 

That’s why the American Red Cross has developed a first-of-its-kind program, 

called Ready Rating, which costs nothing but enables companies, schools, and organizations to self-assess their readiness for emergencies or disasters of all kinds and 

take steps to become better prepared. It makes preparedness simple and doable. 

The Red Cross Ready Rating program offers free memberships to businesses and 

schools, which can use an on-line checklist that measures their current preparedness efforts. Ready Rating members score themselves annually with the checklist, 

and they maintain their membership by developing and implementing an emergency 

response plan, giving preparedness information to employees and students, and improving their overall score each year. 

From a company’s perspective, being prepared for emergencies is good business. 

Being prepared will enhance productivity by reducing the amount of time that employees are unable to work and will enable companies to minimize losses. And 

there’s no question that better preparedness by schools and businesses helps the entire community respond and recover. 

Ready Rating first began as a project of the American Red Cross of Greater St. 

Louis, where it now has nearly 150 members, including major businesses, schools, 

and organizations of all sizes. Anheuser-Busch is the founding sponsor and first 

member of the Ready Rating program in St. Louis, and is supporting the expansion 

of the program to 16 more cities. 

The Red Cross is rolling out Ready Rating this month in New Orleans, Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Raleigh, NC, and Chicago, with eight additional cities to be added early next year. We’d like to commend 

and thank Congressman Cao for signing on as a charter member of the Ready Rating program, helping to underscore the importance of preparedness in Southeast 

Louisiana. 

Meetings about this new readiness program are also being held with groups such 

as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. 

Al Martinez-Fonts, a Fellow at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the former 

Assistant Secretary for the Private Sector Office of DHS has praised the program 

saying: ‘‘Businesses have been looking for a program that gives them an easy, 

achievable path to preparedness, and Ready Rating gives companies of all sizes the 

roadmap to readiness.’’ 
34 

As mentioned earlier, this is also a program that schools have embraced, and the 

Department of Education has commended the Red Cross for launching it and recognizes the important benefits it provides to schools. 

Preparing for H1N1 

Today the American Red Cross’ current focus is preparedness for the H1N1 virus. 

As you know, this is a potentially serious health issue for families, schools, and 

businesses across the country and the world and serves as a reminder of the importance of preparedness and contingency planning. The Federal Government estimates 

that as many as 40 percent of the country’s population could become ill with the 

flu this fall and winter. 

The American Red Cross plays an important role in educating the public on H1N1 

preparedness. 

We have developed an extensive section on our website with fact sheets, widgets, 

videos, and games for children that urge the public to follow basic public health 

steps to help prevent the spread of the flu such as frequent hand washing, covering 

your mouth or nose when you cough or sneeze either with a tissue or with your 

elbow; minimizing contact with people who are sick as much as possible; and getting 

a flu shot for both seasonal flu and H1N1. We also have information on how to care 

for a loved one at home. 

We have developed and distributed countless number of tear sheets that can be 

posted on bulletin boards in schools or offices. Our Philadelphia chapter distributed 

over 285,000 handouts at 570 Wawa stores. 

We are using the social media space to post videos and messages about H1N1 on 

YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Our Red Cross clubs are conducting outreach at 

schools and colleges. 

And we are holding public meetings with other community partners to educate 

people about the virus and how they can stay healthy. Red Cross chapters stand 

ready in local communities to provide appropriate support and meet community 

needs. 

In addition to educating the public, during a flu outbreak the Red Cross remains 

committed to its core services of maintaining a safe blood supply and providing disaster relief to those in need. The Red Cross has developed pandemic flu plans for 

sheltering operations, enabling us to continue to provide vital shelter to people in 

need while also safeguarding the health of shelter residents and workers. 

CREATING A CULTURE OF PREPAREDNESS

The goal is to build a ‘‘culture of preparedness’’ throughout our Nation that helps 

families communities become safer and more prepared when disasters strike. No 

single organization, whether it is the Government or the American Red Cross, can 

do this alone, but working together as a Nation, we can. 

Department of Homeland Security 

We are grateful for the close working relationship the Red Cross has developed 

with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate. Our 

President and CEO Gail McGovern has been side-by-side Secretary Napolitano at 

a number of public events promoting preparedness, and we have worked with Administrator Fugate many times before when he was Director of the Florida Division 

of Emergency Management. 

As recently as this week, the Secretary came to the American Red Cross to deliver 

a major speech on Readiness and Resilience. The Secretary shared her belief that 

preparedness is a shared responsibility and summoned all of us to a grassroots effort to better prepare our communities for any kind of emergency. The American 

Red Cross appreciates her leadership on this issue and heartily backs her call to 

action. We would also note that not only does Secretary Napolitano preach preparedness, she practices it. 

Just last month she invited the Red Cross to train her and her entire senior staff 

in CPR/AED. 

United States Congress 

We are also grateful for the United States Congress, which through the bipartisan 

leadership of this subcommittee and the full committee has also enhanced this culture of preparedness. Again, we want to thank you for holding this important hearing and would like to commend you, Mr. Cuellar, for introducing H.R. 5890 in the 

110th Congress. This bipartisan bill, ‘‘the Citizen and Community Preparedness Act 

of 2008,’’ would establish a community preparedness division within the Department 

of Homeland Security as well as create a Citizen Corps Program, in which the Secretary of Homeland Security would convene a meeting to bring key Government offi-
35 

cials and stakeholders together to coordinate efforts around preparedness, planning, 

mitigation, response, and recovery for acts of terrorism and natural disasters. The 

American Red Cross supported this measure last Congress and, should the bill be 

reintroduced in the 111th Congress, we look forward to working with Representative 

Cuellar and Rogers and all the Members of this subcommittee to pass this important bill. 

Partners in Preparedness 

As we have learned in recent years, there can be disasters of such magnitude that 

American Red Cross systems may not be adequate to meet the needs. Therefore, additional community partners must be developed to help with those challenges. 

At the Red Cross, we work with many nonprofit partners who have expertise in 

disaster response, such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, LDS Church, and 

the Southern Baptist Convention. But we are also reaching out to other organizations who have not been traditionally involved in disasters. We work with them to 

develop and train volunteers, identify and staff shelters, and expand our ability to 

collect blood, especially in diverse communities. 

Current examples of these key relationships include: 

• A partnership with West Angeles Church of God in Christ, Los Angeles, California (more than 25,000 members); 

• A partnership with First African Methodist Church, Los Angeles, California 

(more than 19,000 members); 

• A partnership with Calvary Chapel Church, Chino, California (more than 

10,000 members); 

• A developing partnership with the Houston, Texas faith community spearheaded by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (12 key faith leaders from various denominations). 

By reaching out to new groups, we can multiply the number of people who are 

prepared and will encourage others to be prepared. This is how we build the type 

of grassroots movement Secretary Napolitano envisions. 

CONCLUSION

Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for allowing the American Red Cross to share with you 

our vision and showcase some of our outreach efforts as we continue to work toward 

fostering a culture of preparedness in our Nation. We look forward to the opportunity of further partnering with the United States Congress, other branches of government, the faith-based community and other civic groups, non-profits and for-profits in carrying out this life saving preparedness message. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much, Ms. DeFrancis. Appreciate 

the work that the Red Cross does. Thank you. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses. I would like to remind 

each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the 

panel. 

I also would like to recognize the Chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for being here, Chairman Thompson. 

At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

You know, yesterday, I was talking to a gentleman named John 

D. Solomon. Actually, he is in the back over there. We went over 

several things. In fact the handout that I got into the record, I 

would ask each of you all to get a copy before you leave, because 

he talks about very insightful different things that I think we 

ought to be doing for this initiative that we are trying to complete. 

But one of the things that got my attention was when he asked, 

what does it mean to be prepared? Because we are all saying we 

have got to get citizens prepared, we have got to get communities 

prepared. 

Mr. Manning, just real quickly. I am going to go down the line 

just real quickly. What does it mean to you, being prepared? 
36 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, that is a great point. I see the 

kind of two sides to that answer. One fundamentally for the individual, for the family is that they have taken those steps to prevent 

an event from becoming a disaster for that family, something as 

simple as having discussed where they can meet if they get separated, simple, simple things that they can do that may even be 

more simple and before gathering a kit and supplies, things so that 

they understand what to do, they have thought about emergencies 

before they happen. 

Then from the community preparedness side, the other side is 

gathering communities together to help each other and help their 

neighbors, things where we encourage and provide the tools necessary to community organizations to help their communities before Government can get in to provide that extra assistance. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. 

Mr. Jenkins, what do you think the minimal level of preparedness should be? 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, I agree with what Mr. Manning said. I mean, 

basically, absolutely knowing what risk that your area faces is not 

the same across the country, so what are the specific risks that I 

might face and what are the potential consequences for my family 

of that? Therefore, what are the steps that I can take in urging 

them to reduce the impact on my family of that? It is going to vary 

across the country though as to what that is. 

I also agree with Mr. Cuellar—you know, doing things to help 

your neighbors. I live in a co-op of 100 units, but we have a number 

of elderly people that live in my building. So we have a—everybody 

in the building has been assigned basically a buddy to one of those 

people to help them. Some of them have limited mobility in the 

case of a disaster and—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. 

Ms. Smith. 

Ms. SMITH. Of course, we focus on individual readiness, as was 

mentioned by the previous two witnesses. In addition, we look at 

our regional assets. Now, whether it be equipment or talents—for 

instance, McAllen has a hazardous materials team that is available 

regionally in the event that we are needed. 

We also have a catalogue of all of our—equipment that we can 

use and deploy regionally. Then we get together regularly to train 

to do preparedness events, including a fair that we call Dare to 

Prepare that was really geared towards lower socioeconomic levels 

to make sure that we are reaching across all parts of our population. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. 

Ms. DeFrancis. 

Ms. DEFRANCIS. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. 

We at the Red Cross go by three simple messages, and actually 

we adapted them from FEMA’s, because we felt it was important 

to have coordinated messaging to the public so that everybody is 

on the same page saying the same thing. Basically, we say you are 

prepared when you get a kid, you make a plan, and you stay informed. 

Those three actions we find are important to continue to talk 

about with the public because it takes a long time to penetrate. We 
37 

notice during disasters that we have a spike in on-line sales at our 

store for preparedness kits, so we know people are beginning to get 

that message, but it is important that we reinforce it again and 

again, and we need it to be simple. 

The other thing I would say is, yes, as we have talked about in 

communities—and certainly, the Red Cross is a part of forums on 

communities’ preparedness—but we need to somehow break the attitude that disasters and emergencies won’t happen to me and that, 

you know, if they do, someone else will take care of it. I think we 

need to work really hard to be able—to break that attitude if we 

are going to be a prepared Nation. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. I guess, you know, before you do anything, 

you have got to have a definition of the key word here. It is preparedness. That is important. Knowing where we need to go is— 

you know, what—I mean, what we are trying to do is important. 

Mr. Manning, what is—I know you are new in this, but what is 

your vision of what we ought to do to have citizens, communities, 

prepare? Where is FEMA going from here? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, as you no doubt know and have indicated in your opening remarks that community and individual 

preparedness is a paramount importance to the administration, to 

Secretary Napolitano, Administrator Fugate, and I. 

Where we bring the agency forward on individual preparedness 

is, we have been taking really a whole-of-agency approach that it 

is not just a community preparedness division within the National 

Preparedness Directorate. It is not an organizational chart solution 

to the problem. It is something—it is bringing the entire resources 

of the agency to bear on this problem. 

I see that there are two different ways we can approach this. 

What I hope to bring to my efforts is both focusing on the enhancement of individual resilience, providing the tools and information 

necessary to the individual and the family, to take those steps that 

will help prepare them, that will help them withstand severe 

events, be it something as simple as a power outage or as severe 

as a tsunami or an earthquake or a flood. 

At the same time, we continue our engagement with Citizen 

Corps with community leaders, with civic leaders throughout the 

country to bring together the partnership of State, local, and Federal Government with the community and civic organizations to 

reach the individuals, to identify those that are willing and able to 

volunteer their time to help their communities, give them an avenue to do so, and bring those resources to bear, amplify the efforts 

of Government in helping to protect and respond to the needs of 

their neighbors. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me—my time is up, but let me just ask you 

this. Do you all have a strategic plan? Have you seen it? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, the National Preparedness Directorate has an operating plan which we use as a strategic plan. It 

is not titled as such. However, in recognition of concerns raised by 

the GAO in a previous study, we are reformulating that as a strategic plan for a preparedness system and will be bringing the community preparedness initiatives inside that strategic plan going 

forward. 
38 

Mr. CUELLAR. Yes, my—I am a big believer in performance measures. I would like to see for you all to develop a—the vision, the 

goals, the objectives, and what you are going to measure, so we 

know if we are measuring success or failure. How long would it 

take you to get that done? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know that I can give a real 

answer to that question at this time. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Will you work with the committee? I would ask 

you to work with Ms. Smith, DeFrancis, Mr. Jenkins, and ask you 

to put some—I know you have got to go through your channels 

there, but I would ask you to work with a committee, also, because, 

again, if an agency or a department doesn’t have a strategic plan, 

it is like a boat not knowing if we are steering to the left or right. 

I would like for you to work with the committee and, I mean, 

closely to see the strategic plan, the vision, the goals, the objectives, the performance measures, and what we are going to measure on that. I don’t want to measure activity. I want to measure 

results. That is very important, because anybody—usually the biggest mistake when people measure—put—measures, they measure 

activity. I am more interested in measuring for results on that, 

okay? 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUELLAR. I would like for you to make sure you all share 

cards and work together and get some ideas from some of our partners here. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 

5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up on Mr. Manning’s opening statement. When 

you made reference to FEMA’s outreach to stakeholders, could you 

elaborate more on that outreach? 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, sir. Administrator Fugate and I both came 

from having been State directors of emergency management and 

understand implicitly the need and the importance of working together, working collaboratively with everybody involved. 

Emergency management is inherently an intergovernmental, 

interdepartmental, community-wide initiative and effort. Specifically, the part of the—my title is deputy administrator for National 

preparedness, and it is not Federal preparedness, and it is not 

FEMA’s preparedness. It is National preparedness. We cannot accomplish that without working closely—just as closely with our 

partners in the States and local communities, be it the city and 

municipal governments, or the civic leaders throughout the country. 

We can’t accomplish that task without working with them as 

closely as we do with our own partners within FEMA and the Department and the Federal interagency. 

Mr. ROGERS. As a part of that, I represent a very rural Congressional district, a poor, rural Congressional district. Most of my first 

responders are volunteers, volunteer firefighters or rescue squads, 

and my guess is that is probably pretty much the norm throughout 

America in most rural cities. 

Does FEMA have in a particular initiative to network with those 

volunteer units? 
39 

Mr. MANNING. I believe we do. We have a number of initiatives 

and a number of efforts where we work through stakeholder organizations, largely at the Federal level, through things—organizations such as the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National 

Emergency Management Association, International Association of 

Emergency Managers, that get to those communities. 

But specific to your point about volunteer firefighters, while we 

work closely with representatives with stakeholder organizations at 

this level, what we try to do is encourage and work through our 

partners at the State and local level to engage at those levels. 

I have a personal stake in that, having been a volunteer firefighter myself. I understand the limitations and concerns where 

the—in my experience, Government pushes out new training opportunities, but they’re only offered between 8:00 and 5:00 on a weekday when everybody is in work. So it is incumbent on us to find 

ways to provide the information, training, and resources to those 

that have chosen to dedicate their lives towards public service 

while earning their livelihoods in a different manner. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have been urging the Center for Domestic Preparedness to—you know, they have got that ability to take that 

training on the road, to expand the number of teams and the 

trucks that they have, this tractor-trailer—because what you are 

talking about, most of these first responders are working somewhere near volunteers. The only way they are going to get this 

training is if you can bring it to them on the weekends, typically, 

or in the evenings. 

I would address Mr. Jenkins’ question. He said that FEMA has 

got to decide what they expect. Before you are going to be able to 

achieve your goals, you have got to set those goals. Do you anticipate having a determination in any time in the near future as to 

what you are expecting to achieve, what your goals will be, so that 

GAO can then measure whether or not you have achieved them? 

Mr. MANNING. I believe we do. I believe we are engaged in adapting our existing doctrinal ideas in operating plans into a strategic 

plan with goals and objectives, identifying actual outcome-driven 

performance metrics that we can actually see whether or not we 

have achieved what we are trying to achieve. 

One of the comments we have heard often is that one of the 

things we have measured in Citizen Corps, for example, is the 

number of Citizen Corps councils that have developed around the 

country, which is, to the Chairman’s point, often about activity, 

rather than outcome. 

However, at that time, our goal at that point was the proliferation of avenues with which to reach communities, so that was an 

appropriate measure. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is disappointing, though, from my perspective 

that you may not have shared the previous administrator’s goals 

and objectives, but that FEMA should have in place, maybe before 

you and Administrator Fugate arrive, these goals and standards 

and metrics that GAO could come in and say that the organization 

is meeting those. 

So it is really kind of disappointing to find out that there aren’t 

any that are being held out already. We have had a lot of disasters 
40 

already. I will say, you know, in the last few years, FEMA has just 

done a great job of being ready for these incidents. 

Ms. DeFrancis, you talked about Anheuser-Busch helping with 

some preparedness initiatives. How much do you work with local 

businesses, particularly smaller businesses, to make sure that they 

are aware of what they need to do to be prepared for a disaster? 

Ms. DEFRANCIS. Well, Mr. Rogers, that is what this program is 

aimed at primarily, to work with smaller businesses who don’t 

have the time or resources to develop an elaborate COOP plan and 

instead give them a way to self-assess and to measure themselves 

and to do it on a web-based tool that is very easy for them to do. 

We hope to really expand this out, as I said, at about 16 different 

cities, but we will also be looking for companies like AnheuserBusch to help support that, because we need the resources behind 

that to do it. 

But we know that small businesses are very eager, obviously, to 

take care of their employees. Their employees are like family to 

them. But they worry, particularly if they are ones with just 10 

people, that they don’t have somebody they can dedicate as the preparedness officer, but we have tried to make it really simple. 

Also, things that we produce—like these tear sheets I mentioned, 

those are very handy for small businesses to put up in their, you 

know, vending room or whatever. We work with small businesses 

a lot to try to get the message out, because we find that getting 

the message out through the workplace is a very effective tool of 

reaching people and families. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. At this time, the Chair would like to recognize 

other Members for questions they may wish to ask the witnesses. 

In accordance with our committee rules and practice, I would like 

to recognize Members who were present at the start of the hearing, 

based on seniority of the subcommittee, alternate between Majority 

and Minority. Those Members coming in later will be recognized in 

the order of their arrival. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the Chairman of the full committee, Chairman Thompson. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having the hearing, and I welcome the witnesses to the 

subcommittee. 

Welcome, Mr. Manning. You come very highly recommended, and 

people sing your praises. 

Mr. Jenkins has produced a document listing some concerns 

about preparedness in a number of things. Have you had an opportunity to respond back to the report? Are you in the process of 

doing? If you do, can you share with the committee some of that? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity to 

see the full report. We have seen some of the draft conclusions and 

have provided the GAO with our answers and comments back and 

look forward to its publication in finality so I can get a full look 

at it. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So is there anything in the report that strikes 

you? 
41 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I can’t say I fundamentally disagree with anything that was in the report. I think that there are 

very good points that are made. As far as identifying achievable 

outcomes and a strategic vision for how we are engaging with communities and individuals and the furtherance of preparedness. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So your testimony to the committee is that, 

under your direction, you will make sure that the shortcomings 

identified in the GAO report will be satisfied? 

Mr. MANNING. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity—it hasn’t been finalized or published yet. I haven’t seen the 

entire report, so I am not aware of the full breadth of the recommendations included in the report. But of what I am aware and 

what has been discussed so far in the hearing this morning, I am 

in agreement and will take action to resolve. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, the point that strikes me most is GAO’s 

comment that FEMA still lacks an overall strategy for citizen and 

community preparedness. That is the issue. 

I am saying that if that is, in fact, irrefutable, are you prepared 

to move the ball to resolve that issue? 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Ms. DeFrancis, some of us were directly involved in Katrina. 

Since the Red Cross is the only organization that is Federally chartered to address this issue, one of the concerns we heard is that 

the Red Cross did not reach out into the broader community and 

involved stakeholders. 

For instance, in the South at the time of Katrina, there was one 

organization that the Red Cross had an agreement with called the 

Southern Baptist Convention. As you know, so much of what we 

heard during Katrina is that wasn’t good enough. 

Can you share the Red Cross’s work since Katrina to resolve that 

issue? 

Ms. DEFRANCIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We learned one large lesson in Katrina, which is the Red Cross 

can’t do it all in a disaster of that magnitude and size, and that 

we need to reach out to partner organizations to help us do that. 

So since that time, we have worked to expand our partnerships in 

a number of areas. You know, in Mississippi, we have been working with the AME Church, with the NAACP, with HOPE Worldwide to train more, shelter administrators to make sure that they 

can get their congregations trained. 

This is the multiplying effect that is—we are only going to be 

successful when we do that. As you know, Warren Miller in your 

State has done a great job with helping us reach out. 

We have now more than 150 MOUs with other groups and organizations to work with us. Of course, those are only as good as how 

they are operational. We are continuing to work on that. But we 

feel that we have made an excellent effort to expand our reach into 

different communities and to really try to become a more diverse 

organization. 

The Red Cross doesn’t have to run every shelter. We can give 

training, and the church or organization can run that shelter just 

as well as we can, as long as we are there to support them. 

So thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Chairman. 
42 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. The reason I did is in response to 

something the Ranking Member said. Those of us who live in rural 

communities many times get overlooked and, from a preparedness 

standpoint, much of the training and other things that is offered 

Mr. Manning is at the convenience of the trainer, rather than the 

trainee. 

So I am concerned that we prepare the model so that it can be 

most effective. If the cooperation and coordination between the 

agencies worked, then we are as a citizen and as a Nation better 

prepared. But I would suggest to you, in light of the GAO study, 

that there is significant work to be done and would suggest, Mr. 

Chair, that either a follow-up hearing or some way of measuring 

what is being done, I appreciate Ms. DeFrancis’ comment about the 

MOUs are only as good as what you do with them. 

Because the last time we had testimony before the committee, 

staff did a sampling of organizations who had executed MOUs, and 

that was as far as the process had gone. So I would hope that, 

when staff do the next call around, the results will be better. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Olson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of your busy 

schedules to come and help enlighten us on the challenges we have 

going forward. I have a couple of questions. I would like to start 

out with Ms. DeFrancis. 

I have been struck by your comments about how the percentages 

of people who don’t have a preparedness kit and some of the challenges we face there. How can we start to address the gaps in preparedness that have been identified in this National survey? 

For example, we know less than half the individuals actually 

have a preparedness kit set aside in their homes. As you mentioned 

there is sort of the mentality that it won’t happen to me. 

In my district of Texas, we have sort of a corollary to that mentality, because one of our biggest challenges is hurricanes. We 

know they are coming. So people tend to have this mentality that, 

‘‘I will just get what I need as the storm is coming in,’’ which as 

we know tends to create long lines. The Home Depots, the Best 

Buys are just sold out, the grocery stores, that kind of thing. 

So I am just wondering if you have any indications or just kind 

of give us your thoughts on a strategy we could use for increasing 

the percentage over the next few years, working together. 

Ms. DEFRANCIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Olson. 

Certainly, it is a very tough assignment, because, as you say, 

there is complacency and people wait until the last minute. In 

order to change behavior like that, it is going to take a lot of time 

and a lot of effort and a lot of resources, frankly, to really get people to pay attention, just like when we put in anti-smoking campaigns or anti-obesity campaigns. It takes a long time to change behavior. 

One thing we think is very important is that the messages be 

simple and that they be coordinated across all of our groups and 

agencies so we are not sending conflicting messages and we are 

saying the same thing and repeating it time and time again, which 
43 

is important. We think we need multiple messengers, as was referenced. It can’t just come from the Government, can’t just come 

from the Red Cross. 

In fact, some research I have seen says that the person people 

listen to most on preparedness, whether they are adults or not, is 

their mothers. So we have to reach mothers. We have a mothers’ 

guide for preparedness, as well. 

I think children are very effective in sending the message home 

to their parents. We run a Masters of Disasters program. I know 

in Mr. Rogers’ statement, they have distributed a number of CDs 

and curriculum on masters of disaster. That teaches kids to be prepared, and they carry that message home. 

Sometimes I think we are going to have to have a little fun with 

this message, because, you know, preparedness can seem a little 

like eating your vegetables, but, I mean, we sent out an e-mail this 

year from Jamie Lee Curtis, who was our celebrity spokesperson on 

preparedness, and she told people that she was going to put in her 

preparedness kit chocolate and dental floss. Well, we got more people responding to that e-mail and opening that e-mail because it 

had a little humor to it. 

So it is tough. It is going to take more resources. Certainly, we 

thank this committee. We know that there is a lot of money that 

does go out to local and State entities to do this kind of work. We 

have been talking with your staff about ways that nonprofits could 

help access those funds more directly for the work that we do. 

But I think it is great that the Secretary of DHS has summoned 

us to this. I think it is great that everybody is here talking about 

it so we can, you know, really get behind a good program. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you for that answer. I know we here on the 

committee look forward to working with all of you all in the Department to get this program even better than it is right now. 

Question for Ms. Smith. What challenges have you faced there in 

McAllen in getting the Citizen Corps program up and running in 

the committee? What challenges have you faced maintaining an active council, once you get it up and running? Again, I think you 

said you had seven teams funded with $20,000? 

Ms. SMITH. McAllen has one team. Regionally, we have seven. 

We have a very active program within our own city and regionally. 

The cog is about—is embarking on nine new classes with primarily 

church organizations. We have a waiting list. Our trouble is primarily with trainers. 

We use our own staff right now, which we are happy to do, but 

sometimes that is a challenge. We think, also, a better way to engage people would be to make those people who have gone through 

this sort of program trained in order to teach. 

There is a train the trainer program. Again, going back to the 

number of hours in the day and when that is done, we have a challenge, also, of making that happen within the time that the volunteer has available nights and weekends. 

We also try to keep the volunteers engaged in between—natural 

disasters primarily is what we work on. So we involve them in our 

preparedness campaigns and our fairs. We meet with them at least 

2 or 3 times a year and just let them know that, you know, we do 
44 

appreciate their volunteer service and we want to keep them engaged in the process. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you for that answer. 

I see that I am out of time. Thank you again for what you do. 

That is one of the fastest-growing parts of our State, and I appreciate all you do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

At this time, I will recognize, for 5 minutes, Mr. Pascrell, from 

the great State of New Jersey. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman—I look to what our Chairman and 

the nature of his questions—and I am glad he referred to Katrina, 

which is still a traumatic experience for this country, because it 

really was a mirror to the underbelly of the United States of America, phantom people who didn’t exist in our minds, as we do the 

business of the Congress, for sure. 

It was like an onion. One layer at a time, each day being—cover 

of which being peeled off, getting towards the center and never getting to the center. 

There was a book that just came out 4 months ago, which was 

for at least 3 weeks on the best-seller list. It was a novel. It was 

Zitoun—Z-i-t-o-u-n—about the experience of a particular family 

during Katrina and how, through that family, we failed in response. We do not need a Katrina to tell us how we have failed. 

Unfortunately, it just was a mirror to our failures. 

So, Mr. Manning, we can all agree on this panel that we have 

a long way to go before we can feel comfortable that the American 

people are equipped and capable of dealing with a large-scale disaster. What I am particularly concerned about is the state of preparedness in different parts of America. 

I come from a district that is centered on a dense urban area, 

is then surrounded by sprawling suburbs, goes all the way out to 

waterways, that consistently cause mass flooding in a number of 

residential areas. It is probably ethnically, culturally probably one 

of the top five diverse districts in the country. 

Each of these environments present a different challenge, in 

terms of preparedness, and that is only in one district. I wonder 

how we deal with the different challenges we face throughout this 

Nation. What I would like to know from you is: How does FEMA 

train through its programs for these different environments we 

have to confront? Are we simply giving the same lesson everywhere, or do we have a real targeted strategy? 

Mr. Manning. 

Mr. MANNING. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell. 

That is exactly, I think, the—you hit on the head one of our 

shortcomings in the way we have—we as a Nation have been undertaking community preparedness for a very long time. We do 

have National efforts where we use consistent messaging and consistent plans and programs, because we do know that consistency 

is useful, consistency is what is required to get people to recognize 

and take in a message. 

But that said, the specific actions that are recommended are as 

heterogeneous as the diversity of our Nation. It is understanding 

with specific threats faced by a community, by a neighborhood, by 
45 

a city or township, by understanding the specific threats that face 

a household, that is required before you know what steps to take 

to mitigate those threats. 

What we have tried to do over the years is engaging local communities, providing the resources and tools to the local communities to help them more specifically deal with the threats facing 

those communities so that we don’t have a particular one set of recommendations that we at the Federal level try to enforce around 

the country and try to give the tools to local communities. 

Ready, for example, as the campaign, includes a diverse number 

of recommendations, diverse set of tools to apply to various conditions. We try to encourage local governments to take those and 

adapt them. 

My experience, for example, in the rural New Mexico mountains 

is that some of the messaging, some of the tools that were provided 

me as a community member that were geared towards hurricane 

preparedness were less helpful, for example, than something that 

was geared more towards wildfires or severe weather. 

So we have to take that into account, of course, in our messaging. 

We have to recognize the socioeconomic diversity of our populations 

and include in our messaging things that further preparedness beyond, essentially, the acquisition of material, recognizing that, 

while we say—and it is absolutely critical to have a kit and a plan 

and supplies and be prepared, that there are families, there are 

households that simply may not know where they are getting dinner tonight, much less 3-day’s-worth of food and water. We have 

to acknowledge that, recognize that, and find solutions in ways to 

help those households and those communities, as well. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you very much for your answer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell, for your questions. 

Mr. Manning, I am going to ask you in about 2 weeks to come 

back to us, give us—even if it is a rough draft of a strategic plan. 

I would ask you to contact Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Smith and Ms. 

DeFrancis. They are not going to write it for you, but they—I 

would like to get some input from them. 

Now, when you were in New Mexico—I know I did my dissertation on performance-based budgets, and I recall that New Mexico 

does have strategic planning. Am I correct on that? 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. You had one at your former job, didn’t you? 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. So here is a great opportunity. There is 

really not much in place. I think this is a great opportunity to mold 

this into, I think, something, you know, using your past experience 

at the state level. 

Again, I would ask you to come back. I will ask the committee 

to get you back here so we can follow up on this. So I really—even 

if it is a rough draft, but I think the rough draft is better than 

nothing at all. But, you know, you have got a lot of experience at 

the State level, and I remember New Mexico does have a plan from 

what I recall. 

I don’t have any questions. 

Mr. Rogers, do you have anything? 
46 

Mr. ROGERS. I have a comment. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay, comment. I recognize Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to tell Ms. DeFrancis, your organization did a great 

job in my district in February of this year when we had a tornado 

touch down below Oliver. Just the community was very pleased 

with how Red Cross reacted and helped us. Thank you very much 

for that. 

Ms. DEFRANCIS. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. We appreciate that. Our 

volunteers in your State are the ones that deserve the credit for 

that. 

I also want to—just to follow up with your question, when you 

asked about working with small businesses, I should have mentioned that we have met with the Chamber of Commerce. We have 

met with the National Federation of Independent Business. That is 

at the National level, and we hope to push that down through our 

chapters at a local level. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. We are going to go ahead and conclude, but 

let me—again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. 

Ms. DeFrancis, I appreciate what the Red Cross does. 

Ms. Smith, I appreciate what you all do in McAllen, in south 

Texas, Mr. Jenkins, of course, GAO, and, Mr. Manning, I think you 

have got a wonderful job and I think a great opportunity to really 

shape it the way you think it should be done, so we look forward 

to working with you. 

We are going to follow up. You know, I am so interested in bringing in technology, but there are so many pieces of new technology 

that is available out there, and a lot of ideas, you know, the ideas 

that you brought up—the pillowcase, I think that is pretty neat. 

The code red, I think, that you all have in McAllen and other ideas, 

there are a lot of ideas. 

I guess the whole thing is, how do we put all of this together? 

So we will set up another meeting. I really want to follow up on 

this. 

So I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and the 

Members for the questions. The Members of the subcommittee 

might have additional questions for the witnesses. We ask you to 

respond as soon as you can to those questions in writing. 

Hearing no further business, this hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR FOR TIMOTHY W. MANNING

Question 1. The 2009 FEMA Preparedness Survey found that 81 percent of respondents believe that prior planning would help them handle a natural disaster. 

But just 60 percent believe prior planning would help them respond to an act of terrorism. How can FEMA address the perception that preparing for a terrorist attack 

is not as valuable or effective as preparing for a natural disaster? 

Answer. The 2009 FEMA Preparedness Survey results indicated that individuals’ 

confidence in their ability to respond to a disaster and the perception that preparing 

would make a difference (response efficacy) varies significantly by disaster type. 

Outreach, social marketing, and risk communication strategies should take into account that motivators and barriers to undertaking preparedness activities are different for different types of hazards. Since perceptions of susceptibility were key 

predictors for natural disasters, hazardous materials accidents, and disease outbreaks, outreach efforts should specifically educate people about their susceptibility 

to these types of disasters. FEMA continues to work on honing its various messaging initiatives. 

For terrorist-related threats, communication strategies that seek to increase preparedness must address individuals’ lack of familiarity with these types of threat 

and the appropriate response measures as well as low levels of perceived response 

efficacy. Strategies should educate individuals in basic understanding of and preparedness measures for explosions, dirty bombs, improvised nuclear devices, and release of chemical agents, emphasizing the effectiveness of advance preparation and 

skill building in helping to make a difference in even the most severe emergencies. 

Because practicing response protocols is critical for effective execution, greater emphasis is needed on drills and exercises for these less well understood hazards conducted at the community level, through social networks including households and 

neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faith communities. 

In May 2010 FEMA, in partnership with the State of Nevada, will hold National 

Level Exercise 2010 based on the detonation of an improvised nuclear devise. This 

exercise provides a platform from which public messaging can dispel the Cold War 

perceptions of a nuclear threat and provide an accurate picture of today’s terrorist 

landscape. Information on realistic ways to survive such an attack could help dispel 

the perception that there is nothing that can be done to prepare for a terrorist attack. 

Question 2. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 moved 

the majority of the preparedness functions for acts of terrorism and natural hazards 

to FEMA. In addition, the 2007 National Preparedness Guidelines listed citizen preparedness as a National priority. Yet GAO’s testimony suggests that FEMA still 

lacks an overall strategy for citizen and community preparedness. Do you agree 

with GAO’s conclusion? Why or why not? 

Answer. Improving personal and community preparedness is an inherently complex challenge requiring individual behavioral change and significant organizational 

and community cultural change. The strategy for achieving these changes must include partnerships and shared responsibility across our society in both Government 

and nongovernmental organizations. Determining causal correlations is also problematic. Nonetheless, FEMA is implementing a National strategy coordinated with 

partners and a multi-pronged approach to assess impact. 

First, FEMA’s National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) is leading an agencywide approach to developing an integrated National strategy and performance 

metrics to assess community preparedness. This approach identifies preparedness 

objectives in four areas: (1) Integrating community preparedness and resilience in 

all Government policy and guidance to support local implementation; (2) establishing effective National partnerships and supporting local collaboration among all 

sectors through all phases of emergency management; (3) identifying and developing 
48 

tools and resources for local implementation; (4) developing comprehensive research 

agenda and ensuring all strategies are research-based and evaluated for effectiveness. This strategy builds on continuing work such as the National Preparedness 

Guideline and the Common Target Capability for Community Preparedness and 

Participation, the Nation-wide network of State, Tribal, and local Citizen Corps 

Councils and volunteer programs, and research. FEMA’s Community Preparedness 

Division conducts primary research through National household surveys, evaluates 

research conducted by others, develops behavior change models, and solicits input 

from leading researchers in the field to develop new tools and to improve the identification of valid metrics for preparedness and indicators for community resiliency. 

As part of the continuing work to improve quantitative and qualitative information 

and support for local preparedness, FEMA will be launching two web-based efforts 

in 2010. FEMA will launch a new on-line registration tool for local Citizen Corps 

Councils and CERT Programs to provide better data collection on local partnerships 

and to increase our understanding of local activity. FEMA also will be expanding 

the collection of good stories from around the country to capture best practices and 

concrete successes. 

Question 3. Does FEMA’s National Preparedness Directorate have a strategic plan 

in place? If not, when and how do you intend to develop a strategic plan for the 

directorate? 

Answer. FEMA/NPD currently has an Operating Plan, which is updated annually 

and outlines priority goals, objectives, and performance measures for the implementation of Post-Katrina Emergency Management Act-directed and other key preparedness initiatives (i.e., National Exercise Program, community preparedness, 

Comprehensive Assessment System, etc.). The Operating Plan aligns with FEMA’s 

current Strategy. 

The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is concluding, and a review of Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD–8 recently began, which will significantly 

influence NPD’s approach to the development and content of a Directorate Strategy. 

Question 4. What are the challenges to getting citizens prepared for a disaster and 

how can FEMA, working with its partners, take steps to address these challenges? 

To what extent do social groups, such as neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, 

and faith communities, motivate people to become prepared? How can the emergency management community better leverage these groups to improve individual 

readiness? 

Answer. One of the primary challenges to getting citizens prepared is their high 

expectation for help from emergency responders in the event of a disaster. FEMA 

is working with its partners, including emergency management and responders, to 

create and disseminate messages that emphasize the importance of self-reliance and 

convey a more realistic understanding of emergency response capacity. Messaging 

speaks to a shared responsibility and stresses that everyone has a role to play in 

preparedness and response. Both the Secretary of DHS and FEMA’s Administrator 

are providing a strong National voice on this message. 

Research indicates that individuals also expect to rely heavily on their social networks for information and support during critical times of their lives. The 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey findings indicate that the majority of individuals (70%) 

expected to rely on their household members in the event of a disaster and a little 

less than half (49%) expected to rely on others in their neighborhood. In 2009, 3 

in 10 individuals (34%) reported talking about getting prepared with others in their 

community. This data confirms that it is vital to involve social networks in promoting and motivating individual and community preparedness. Local emergency 

management should partner with local community leaders when creating or revising 

any community preparedness and response plans. These partnerships will ensure 

various constituent needs are addressed in the planning process and throughout the 

disaster cycle. Engaging trusted leaders to participate in the process and assist with 

disseminating important information will also ensure improved understanding of 

shared responsibility, an increase in individual readiness, and greater compliance 

with preparedness directives. 

Question 5. How do you envision the Ready Campaign complementing State and 

local emergency awareness efforts? 

Answer. Citizen preparedness requires a team effort to effect the culture change 

that will move individuals and communities towards greater preparedness, and the 

Ready campaign is only one part of that team. The role State and local officials and 

emergency awareness efforts play in building citizen preparedness and engaging individuals is critical. 

The Ready Campaign and the Advertising Council have designed their public 

service advertising (PSAs) in a format that is easy to localize. This means State and 
49 

local governments can ‘‘tag’’ the Ready PSAs with their logo and URL to direct residents to their own local emergency preparedness websites. The Ad Council can assist governments in localizing the PSAs and securing local donated media commitments. This allows these partners access to top-notch, strategically-driven creative 

advertising, based on National consumer research for a very minimal cost. Approximately 17 cities, States, and territories as well as two military branches have localized the Ready Campaign over the past 3 years. The Ready Campaign will continue 

to work with State and local governments on localizing these PSAs. 

The Ready Campaign will also continue to provide unique partnership opportunities to State and local emergency efforts. One example of such a partnership is with 

Discovery Education that reaches K–8 classrooms across the country. ‘‘Ready Classroom’’ provides elementary and middle school teachers with resources to integrate 

natural disaster preparedness information into their curriculum. The program is an 

extension of Ready Kids. 

The Ready Campaign will continue to provide tools and materials (i.e., PSAs, publications, National Preparedness Month, Minor League Baseball and Resolve to be 

Ready toolkits, etc.) to State and local emergency efforts, many of which are connected to or compliment local and State Citizen Corps Council efforts to further leverage efforts of others. According to the 2008 State Homeland Security Directors 

Survey conducted by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 

(NGA Center), ‘‘Approximately 90 percent of respondents reported using at least 

some of the Ready Campaign’s tools and resources. More specifically, 83 percent of 

survey participants employ the Ready Campaign’s family emergency plan and 75 

percent use the emergency supply kit.’’ 

Question 6. The FEMA 2009 Preparedness Survey found a direct relationship be- tween income and preparedness. Households making more than $50,000 annually 

were much more likely than less affluent households to have taken steps to prepare 

for a disaster. Given that this gap revealed itself during Hurricane Katrina, what 

steps can FEMA and the emergency management communities take to ensure individuals at all income levels are taking the steps necessary to prepare for a disaster? 

Answer. FEMA has been conducting research on the status of disaster awareness 

and emergency preparedness in socially and economically disadvantaged households 

and communities through the Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Program. 

FEMA will send a final report to Congress by the end of the year to summarize the 

research with the goal to design and implement demonstration projects to improve 

awareness and preparedness in these households and communities. Early findings 

indicate the importance of local outreach to engage and prepare this population segment. Engaging leaders from these communities on local Citizen Corps Councils will 

be a critical element of this approach. 

In addition, institutionalizing preparedness education, training, and drills in the 

workplace, schools, and other social networks will ensure reaching a greater crosssection of the public. Based on the 2009 Citizen Corps Survey, of the respondents 

who reported taking preparedness training within the past 2 years, 49% indicated 

they took the training because it was mandatory for their job or school. In response 

to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, FEMA is also developing training to strengthen and extend mass care and emergency assistance to 

meet the critical needs of less affluent households under Emergency Support Function 6. 

Question 7. FEMA’s 2009 Preparedness Survey found that the high expectation 

of help from first responders within the first 72 hours of a disaster is a big reason 

why not enough people are preparing for a disaster. How can FEMA and emergency 

managers at all levels of government, as well as its partners like the Red Cross, 

begin to change this expectation? 

Answer. FEMA research from the 2009 Citizen Corps Survey on Community Preparedness found 30 percent of individuals indicated that a primary reason they had 

not prepared was because they believed that emergency personnel would help them 

in the event of a disaster. Further, 61 percent of participants indicated they expected to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster. 

FEMA, emergency managers, and partners, need to develop messaging that emphasize the need for all to share in the responsibility of their health and safety in 

a disaster, particularly in large-scale events, and that emergency responders will 

not be able to reach those impacted immediately. FEMA, in coordination with State 

and local government and non-governmental partners, will continue to work together to provide information directly and to the media on what services individuals 

can realistically expect in the first 72 hours and offer guidance on how individuals 

can prepare for an event given the likely capacity of emergency personnel to respond. This effort will go hand-in-hand with outreach on local threats, community 

emergency protocols, local alerts and warnings, and information on classes and 
50 

training offered in the local area or on-line. As previously referenced, the Secretary 

and administrator’s emphasis on shared responsibility contributes the National 

voice to this critical message. 

Question 8. The FEMA 2009 Preparedness Survey report indicates a low rate of 

individual participation in evacuation and shelter-in-place drills. How are Citizen 

Corps and the Ready Campaign geared toward improving participation in drills and 

exercises? 

Answer. The FEMA Citizen Corps National Survey found only 4 in 10 individuals 

has participated in a workplace evacuation drill, and fewer than 3 in 10 (27 percent) 

participated in a workplace shelter in place drill. These numbers drop dramatically 

when talking about home-based drills. Only 14 percent of individuals Nationally 

participated in a home evacuation drill and 1 in 10 in a home shelter-in-place drill. 

Of the 91 percent who had a household plan, 26 percent had practiced home evacuation and 19 percent practiced sheltering in place. 

Citizen Corps is geared towards improving participation in drills and exercises 

both as an advocate and as a provider of tools for local use. The membership of Citizen Corps Councils across the country provides an effective outreach network to 

convey the importance of experiential learning through training and drills at the 

local level. Local Citizen Corps Council educational outreach includes local businesses and employers, schools and educational organizations, nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups and neighborhood groups and homeowners associations. In 

coordination with local emergency management, public health, law enforcement, and 

fire services, expanding drills and exercises through these local businesses and community organizations is a critical strategy for increasing drills and exercises for individuals and families. 

Additionally, Citizen Corps works with partner programs such as Neighborhood 

Watch and Community Emergency Response Teams to build on their core missions 

to include emergency preparedness and family and neighborhood planning, drills, 

and exercises. 

Question 9. The FEMA 2009 Preparedness Survey found that men reported greater levels of preparedness and confidence in their abilities to handle an emergency 

situation than women. How can FEMA and the emergency management community 

address this gender gap? 

Answer. To be effective, preparedness outreach needs to address the specific 

motivators and barriers for the targeted audience. FEMA’s research and the research community are beginning to assess a more refined profile of these attributes 

for a range of demographic profiles. This will enable us to develop more precise 

strategies for reaching women as well as other critical population segments. 

While our research finds that men have greater levels of confidence in their ability to handle different disasters, they are less likely to report needing help in an 

evacuation. Men are significantly more likely to have supplies in their workplace. 

There were no significant differences relative to having supplies at home, having a 

family plan, or participating in drills. Women on the other hand are more likely to 

hold attitudes that our research shows support preparedness; for example they feel 

that preparation will help them handle a natural disaster and will look to rely on 

household members and people in their neighborhood. As we look to identify 

motivators to preparedness planning we believe that women are a critical target audience for our work. Since women also tend to be very involved in community networks such as schools and faith-based organizations, increased partnership for education and training through these organizations and trusted leaders is a promising 

strategy. 

Question 10. The Citizen Corps program was initiated by President Bush after 

September 11 and has not been authorized by Congress. What changes, if any, do 

you intend to make to the program? 

Will FEMA continue to operate the Citizen Corps grant program under the Homeland Security Grant Program? Why or why not? 

Answer. The Citizen Corps program is a component of community preparedness. 

Community preparedness continues to be a National priority as communities, families, and individuals are impacted daily by natural and man-made disasters. Over 

time Americans have come to depend on local-level responders when faced with an 

emergency. The new message, and eventual cultural shift, is one that redirects the 

preparedness focus towards enhanced personal preparedness through the community and ultimately, through each individual that will drive a societal response. This 

shift will highlight certain principles such as preparedness is really very much 

about personal safety as a more familiar term and activity. Many Americans understand the concepts, message, and goals of personal safety and that familiarity and 

the connection back to personal preparedness may lead to a more clear understanding of the role they play in personal preparedness. 
51 

This approach diverges from an overriding emphasis in the past on organizational 

preparedness to one focused on prepared citizens and the deep reserve of community 

power they represent. 

Question 11. For the last several years, the administration has requested, and Congress has approved, a $15 million budget for Citizen Corps. How much of this 

funding has been used for grants to localities versus Citizen Corps program activities within FEMA? With Citizen Corps being one of the main tools FEMA has to 

increase the level of preparedness in communities, is the program funded adequately to perform this task? 

Are there other FEMA grants that States and localities can use to foster individual preparedness? If so, how much funding has historically been used for citizen 

preparedness programs? 

Answer. The entire Citizen Corps Program (CCP) appropriation is distributed as 

grants through the Homeland Security grant program. In addition, because citizen 

and community preparedness is integral to National preparedness, funding from 

multiple FEMA homeland security grants is available for State and local jurisdictions to achieve this mission. Ten of the fourteen homeland security grant programs 

allow recipients to use the funding to support individual and community preparedness, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program. 

Although there is not a single grant project category that can be used for tracking 

grant funding for citizen and community preparedness, an estimate could be determined by reviewing projects that were funded to establish or enhance: (1) Citizen 

Corps Council, Partner, and Affiliate activities, (2) citizen preparedness outreach 

and education, (3) citizen training and exercises, or (4) volunteer initiatives. 

From 2004 to 2008, the Department’s Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) has provided over $268 million in support to State and local government community 

preparedness efforts. Of this amount, approximately $35 million has been directed 

by the Department to support Citizen Corps activities. The remaining $263 million 

has been provided at the discretion of States and localities from their broader HSGP 

awards. 

Question 12. On the Citizen Corps program’s website and in much of its literature, 

the claim is made that thousands of Citizen Corps councils exist, providing coverage 

for 79 percent of America’s population. How does FEMA know whether it has an 

accurate number of councils recorded, and therefore, an accurate calculation of the 

percent of Americans that are ‘‘covered’’ by registered councils? 

What are the mechanisms or processes by which FEMA stays informed to the 

number of Citizen Corps councils and their activities? 

Answer. The Homeland Security grant program guidance designates State officials with the responsibility to maintain the information on the Citizen Corps National website for Citizen Corps Councils and CERT Programs within their State. 

When the new online registration process is launched in 2010, FEMA will work with 

the States to reconfirm Council data. The population served calculation is based on 

the Council or CERT programs self-defined jurisdictions cross referenced to 2000 

census data. 

Each FEMA region has a community preparedness staff person or contract personnel assigned the job of providing technical assistance and guidance to Citizen 

Corps Councils and partner programs. To stay informed of Citizen Corps Council activities, the FEMA Regions maintain routine contact with the State Citizen Corps 

Program Managers, and hold regular conference calls and meetings. Additionally, 

local communities are encouraged to send information directly to the National program office via email at citizencorps@dhs.gov. The Lessons Learned Information 

Sharing website also includes a community preparedness portfolio of good stories 

and best practices. In 2009 FEMA announced the first National Citizen Corps 

Achievement Awards which drew over 100 submissions from Citizen Corps Councils 

around the country demonstrating exceptional achievements in community preparedness. 

Question 13. The Fire Corps program is one of the Citizen Corps’ partner programs and is operated by the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC). What services do the NVFC offer to FEMA in managing Fire Corps? 

What are the goals of the Fire Corps program nationally, and how does FEMA 

determine whether the goals are being met? 

Answer. The NVFC administers all facets of the Fire Corps program from providing the staff necessary to operate the program including managing the budget 

and creating resources and tools to help departments implement the program. Some 

examples of tools and resources NVFC has created are Department Fire Corps 

Starter Kit, Fire Corps Liability Guide, and Fire Corps Toolkit for Citizen Corps 

Councils. 
52 

Additionally, NVFC provides marketing and communications services for the program and works with Fire Corps’ many partners such as the International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Fire Service Training Association, our fellow program partners (VIPS, CERT, etc.) and more. NVFC maintains a database of registered Fire Corps programs, the Fire Corps State Advocate Network, manages 1– 

800–FIRE–LINE which connects volunteers with Fire Corps, and maintains the Fire 

Corps website. NVFC also provides a vital connection to the fire service and 49 

State fire associations through its own membership network. 

The Fire Corps Program goal is to increase the number of Fire Corps programs 

to build capacity for fire and emergency service departments of all types (career, volunteer, and combination) by providing the citizen support. Fire Corps works to 

achieve this goal by creating resources and educating departments on successful implementation of the program. Fire Corps numbers (of registered programs) are regularly reported to FEMA as well as progress reports on other program initiatives. 

Fire Corps currently has 933 programs Nation-wide (as of 10/26/09). 

Question 14. Are you confident that FEMA has an accurate count of the number 

of active Fire Corps chapters across the country? What processes do you have in 

place to ensure that National Volunteer Fire Council’s directory of local and active 

chapters is accurate? 

Answer. FEMA has an accurate count of all registered Fire Corps programs, including new start-up programs and established citizen volunteer programs. As is the 

case with all of the Partner Programs, there are occasionally programs that register 

that may then become inactive due to staff turnover or other challenges at the local 

level. Fire Corps is working to identify inactive programs through the State Advocate Network; the network are individuals representing Fire Corps at the State level 

reaching out to local programs to identify those that are active and notifying the 

National Citizens Corps office of those that are inactive. The National Citizen Corps 

office then reaches out to programs believed to be inactive to confirm their status 

and assess whether they should remain in the database. The NVFC also sends out 

periodic reminders to update program profiles in an effort to maintain the most accurate records possible. 

Question 15. The Community Emergency Response Teams or CERT teams—is one 

of Citizen Corps partner programs. What are the goals of CERT teams Nationally, 

and how does FEMA determine whether the goals are being met? 

Answer. The goals of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program 

are to institutionalize the role of community members as civilian responders during 

widespread emergencies and to create an additional response asset for local emergency response agencies. Assessing our success in achieving these goals is difficult. 

However, the rapid growth in the number of local jurisdictions that have established 

CERT programs, an average of 17% annually since 2004, as well as the successful 

introduction of CERT training in businesses, high schools, and on college campuses 

indicates that both goals are being met. Currently, there are 3,374 registered CERT 

programs Nation-wide (as of 10/26/09). In addition, the National CERT Program office established a process in July 2008 for local jurisdictions to submit reports on 

their use of local CERTs during emergencies. On average, eight activations of local 

Teams in actual local emergencies across the country are reported each month. 

Question 16. The administration requested just $2.5 million for the Ready Campaign, which seems to be a low amount for a National public awareness campaign. 

What is the basis for the administration’s budget request and does it provide FEMA 

with the resources necessary to meet the goals of the Ready Campaign? 

Answer. The campaign has historically requested between $2 and $4 million. The 

higher levels of funding were in the early years of the campaign to fund the startup of ready.gov, as well as the Ready Business and Ready Kids campaigns. Now 

that those efforts have been established, Ready is able to continue its efforts with 

a $2.5 million budget and leverages support from being a part of the Office of External Affairs as citizen preparedness messages are underscored across all FEMA communications and outreach efforts. This level of funding has allowed the Campaign 

to successfully reach millions of Americans through many different opportunities including public service advertising (PSAs), collateral materials, public and private 

sector partnerships, National Preparedness Month, and other outreach efforts. Specifically, the campaign is able to utilize the strong relationships with its State and 

local partners to promote its message. More than 15 territories, States, and localities have localized the National campaign and PSAs for their local efforts. In addition, through our work with the Advertising Council, the campaign has been able 

to garner more than $823 million in donated media support. The campaign will continue to aggressively and creatively use the funds obligated by Congress. 

Question 17. Has FEMA evaluated—or have plans to evaluate—the impact of the 

H1N1 influenza pandemic on individual preparedness? 
53 

Answer. The FEMA National Citizen Corps Survey garners responses to four different types of disasters: Natural hazards, terrorist acts, hazardous materials accidents, and severe disease outbreaks. This allows us to analyze important differences 

in knowledge and attitudes relative to these different hazards both within each survey as well as over time. 

Because the 2009 Citizen Corps survey was being fielded during the H1N1 outbreak we were able to conduct an analysis of responses prior to the H1N1 outbreak 

and then in the initial weeks after the news coverage of H1N1 began. The data 

shows that individuals did perceive that a disease outbreak would be more likely 

in their community and that its impact would be more severe, especially for individuals with children living in the home. 

Unfortunately these perceptions did not translate into immediate behaviors of 

preparing supplies, creating family plans, or knowing community plans. We do note 

that in a question added after the H1N1 outbreak, while media was a primary 

source of information, individuals also received information on H1N1 from their social networks including workplaces (24%), schools/child care (21%), health care provider (19%), faith-based organizations (7%), and neighborhood associations (4%). 

We will continue to monitor the effect of H1N1 in our next fielding of the survey. 

We also have a database of surveys that are publicly available and will continue 

to assess findings from other surveys that support our work to increase individual 

and community preparedness. 

Question 18. How is FEMA utilizing social networking tools, such as Facebook 

and Twitter, to promote citizen preparedness? 

Answer. Community preparedness is integrated into FEMA’s overall social media 

strategy and usage. Specifically, FEMA’s Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter pages 

regularly contain preparedness messages as well as Citizen Corps and Ready Campaign information. In addition, the Ready Campaign has a preparedness widget and 

an email subscription service that has more than 35,500 subscribers. Both Ready 

and Citizen Corps maintain and regularly update Twitter accounts. The Ready 

Campaign has more than 4,800 followers and Citizen Corps has approximately 

1,000. Furthermore, the Community Preparedness Division provides personal and 

community preparedness information updates via two RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, three Citizen Corps widgets, and an email subscription service that currently has over 45,500 subscribers. The Community Preparedness Division continues to work with FEMA External Affairs to identify other means of social networking communication that can be used to further involve Citizen Corps Councils, 

partners, and affiliates, and the general population. Future development plans include free, on-line preparedness webinars and a Citizen Corps Blog and Discussion 

Forum. Preparedness publications will also be available to the public to read and 

download on Google Books. 

Question 19. Mr. Manning, could you please outline the steps that DHS, and 

FEMA specifically, are doing to work with the hospitality industry on preparedness 

issues? In Las Vegas, we have more than 450,000 hotel rooms, with the potential 

for hundreds of thousands of new visitors each day who are unfamiliar with the 

area and are likely to be unaware of the city’s emergency plans. What has FEMA 

done to work with these types of businesses to ensure that guests and staff are 

properly educated and prepared for emergencies? 

Does the administration believe that enough is currently being done in this area? 

What steps will the new administration take to improve this important partnership? 

Answer. Private industry is a key stakeholder in building a broader coalition for 

community preparedness and FEMA has encouraged the participation of local private sector representatives as Citizen Corps Council members from the program’s 

inception. Industries that serve out-of-towners have a particular responsibility to ensure staff and service recipients are trained in emergency response protocols. To 

capture local participation from representatives of these industries, the revised 

Council on-line registration tool will solicit information on participation from the following: Privately Owned Critical Infrastructure (e.g. power, transportation); Entertainment/Sports Venues; Shopping Centers/Malls; and Hotel/Tourism. 

Examples of local Citizen Corps efforts with these industries focus on Community 

Emergency Response Team (CERT) training: 

• Detroit, Michigan Citizen Corps and Corporate Security at Illitch Holdings implement the ‘‘Citizen Corps Special Event Program,’’ which supplies local sports 

and entertainment venues with trained volunteer security personnel who supplement professional security staff during special events. Citizen Corps volunteers assist professional security staffers in their preparedness and response operations, conduct security screenings, and act as street ambassadors. The program also provides CERT training to security managers and other professional 

staff at local stadiums. 
54 

• The District of Columbia’s Citizen Corps program and Amtrak joined forces to 

provide CERT awareness training to Amtrak employees throughout the National Capitol Region at Union Station. The DC Metro Transit Police Department’s Metro Citizen Corps program provides additional training to local residents who have completed the CERT basic training on Metro specific safety, including rail safety and emergency preparation and response and identification 

of terrorist activity. Participants tour the metro tunnels and learn how to safely 

cross over the electrified rail and open railcar doors in an emergency. • In the Virgin Islands, Citizen Corps partnered with local hotels to provide staff 

with CERT training. To date, 77 participants have completed the training, including 40 staff members of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. • In Guam, CERT classes are generally offered once a month, and Terlaje estimates that 500 to 600 Guam residents have received CERT training since 2003. 

Some classes have consisted entirely of employees of the island’s large hotel industry. • New York City Citizen Corps partnered with the National Park Service to provide CERT training for a group of 50 Ellis and Liberty Islands’ NPS employees, 

partners, and concession staff to ensure the safety of all employees and visitors 

to these iconic destinations. • FEMA will continue to emphasize the importance of Government collaboration 

with the private sector and to inject consideration for transient populations in 

emergency preparedness planning, outreach, training, and exercises. 

FEMA’s Private Sector Division within the Office of External Affairs has made it 

a priority to proactively educate and coordinate with private sector entities before 

and after disasters. The Division works to promote preparedness across all industries. It has not worked directly with the hotel industry on preparedness issues; 

however, it has worked with the American Hotel and Lodging Association, to provide important information during the response and recovery phases of past disasters. 

In addition, the Division continues to collaborate with DHS’ Private Sector Office, 

the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection and FEMA’s Ready Campaign, integrating each component’s existing relationships and capabilities into the Division’s 

National outreach efforts with stakeholders. 

The Division works with a number of National organization and associations with 

broad reach to deliver essential information to employees, members, and stakeholders of these entities. The Private Sector Division is increasing its focus on regular outreach to the private sector at large, using all tools available, including email alerts and weekly preparedness tips to over 18,000 subscribers (and growing), 

as well as postings to media sites, such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. The 

Division initiated a weekly Private Sector Preparedness tip during National Preparedness Month 2009, and distributes these tips through the means noted here. 

In addition, the FEMA Private Sector Web Portal provides information and resources such as good practices in public-private partnerships, weekly preparedness 

tips, training opportunities, planning and preparedness resources, information on 

how to do business with FEMA, information regarding policies and Presidential directives impacting private sector engagement in emergency management, and more 

(www.fema.gov/privatesector). 

The Division also brings together public and private organizations to share good 

practices and learn from each other. For example, the Division recently worked with 

other FEMA partners to develop a workshop on private sector and emergency management integration, which was conducted during the 2009 National Conference on 

Community Preparedness hosted by Citizen Corps. In June 2009, the Division 

hosted a private sector roundtable with incoming FEMA senior leadership and two 

dozen National trade associations, with the intent of providing a forum for raising 

questions and interests on both sides that would further public-private and collaboration on issues related to resilience. 

To reach the hotel and lodging industry, the Division can reach out through National associations like the American Hotel and Lodging Association, and works 

with the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection, Commercial Facilities Sector Specific Agency, and the DHS Private Sector Office. During Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, 

this proved an effective way to get information on a pilot transitional housing assistance program to hotel and motel managers, as well as to people seeking shelter. 

Looking forward, in 2010, the Division will be working more closely with DHS 

subject matter experts to deliver targeted information to different audiences, whether hotels or other venues. 

On October 15, 2009, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced new proposed standards for a 9/11 Act-required program, specifically, a voluntary, ‘‘Private Sector Preparedness Program,’’ designed to assist the 
55 

1GAO, Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-Oriented and Collaborative 

Culture in the Federal Government, GAO–09–1011T (Washington, DC: September 24, 2009) and 

Results-Oriented Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote Greater Use of Performance Information, GAO–09–676 (Washington, DC: August 17, 2009). 2Flood Mitigation Assistance, a program under the Mitigation Directorate, provides grant 

funds to assist States and communities implement metrics that reduce or eliminate the longterm risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable 

under the National Flood Insurance Program. 3GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions Could Lead to 

Better Results, GAO–06–1046 (Washington, DC: September 29, 2006). 4The five key strategies are: (1) Ensure mechanisms are of sufficient value to motivate desired 

behaviors, (2) periodically renegotiate and revise mechanisms and measures, (3) ensure appropriate measurement selection, (4) ensure grantor and grantee technical capacity, and (5) ensure 

phased implementation. 

private sector in improving its preparedness for disasters and emergencies. The goal 

of the PS–Prep program is to enhance operational resilience, business continuity 

management, and disaster and emergency management among participating private 

sector partners. As part of the implementation of the voluntary PS–Prep program, 

FEMA will work with the private sector and State and local emergency management to promote improved coordination and integration of emergency plans. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR FOR WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ O. JENKINS, JR. 

Question 1. Your testimony indicated that FEMA does not have performance 

metrics in place to gauge the impact of Citizen Corps grants on individual and community readiness. Has GAO, through other studies, found whether FEMA has performance metrics in place for other grant programs? If so, could FEMA use them 

as a model for creating metrics for Citizen Corps? 

Answer. In September 2009, we testified on the results of our 2007 survey of Federal managers, which showed that FEMA ranked 28th out of 29 agencies in the use 

of performance information when making management decisions.1 Several factors 

contributed to this low ranking, including inconsistent commitment of agency officials to use performance information and a weak alignment among agency, program, 

and individual goals. However, not all FEMA units ranked low. FEMA’s Mitigation 

Directorate was identified as a FEMA subcomponent that encouraged the use of performance information to plan and respond to events, and as a means to make improvements and achieve results.2 Mitigation Directorate officials attributed their 

emphasis on performance and accountability to a leader who encouraged it. For example, the Mitigation Directorate set an annual performance target (93 percent of 

communities adopting current flood rate maps within a certain time frame) and incorporated the target into State grant agreements and regional performance scorecards. Performance was frequently monitored and communicated, for example 

through weekly conference calls with regional staff. While the metrics (sometimes 

referred to as measures) for Citizen Corps would be different, the model for encouraging the use of performance information adopted by the Mitigation Directorate 

might provide insights. Overall FEMA has taken steps, such as developing training 

on performance measurement, to improve the quality and use of performance information; however, we reported that these efforts have been limited. 

While not specific to FEMA, our past work on Federal grants management may 

provide insights into the key strategies that could be useful in helping Citizen Corps 

design and implement grant performance accountability mechanisms, including program metrics, by which individuals or organizations are held accountable for meeting specific performance-related expectations.3 Specifically, our review of literature 

on grant design, interviews with experts, and our review of selected cases identified 

five key strategies to facilitate the effective selection, design, and implementation 

of grant performance accountability mechanisms.4 For example, one of the five key 

strategies—ensure mechanisms are of sufficient value to motivate behavior—entails 

ensuring that the grantor and grantee are clear on: (1) What a specific level of performance is worth to them, and (2) what it will cost to achieve that level of performance. Another strategy—ensuring appropriate measurement selection—entails ensuring that metrics represent performance that is within the grantee’s sphere of influence, can be reasonably achieved with the specified time frames, and tested over 

time to minimize unintended consequences or perverse incentives. In addition to 

these strategies, our report highlighted other factors critical to the success of designing and implementing grant performance accountability provisions, including the 

use of partnerships and collaboration and regular and effective oversight and feedback. We stated that these practices are often associated with high-performing orga-
56 

5GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to Compete and Integrate 

Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts, GAO–09–369 (Washington, DC: April 30, 2009). 6GAO, Actions Taken to Implement the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 

2006, GAO–09–59R (Washington, DC: November 21, 2008). For a description of the methodological and coordination challenges FEMA faces in developing a Comprehensive Assessment System, see GAO–09–369. 7The Post-Katrina Act was enacted as title VI of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109–295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1394–1463 (2006). 8GAO, Emergency Management: Preliminary Observations on FEMA’s Community Preparedness Programs Related to the National Preparedness System, GAO–10–105T (Washington, DC: 

October 1, 2009). 9GAO–09–676 

10GAO–10–105T. 11GAO–09–676. 12The other four grants transferred to the regions included the Emergency Management performance grant, Metropolitan Medical Response System program grant, Emergency Operations 

Center grant, and the Driver’s License Security grant program (formerly REAL ID). 

nizations and organizations that effectively used performance information to manage. 

In April 2009, we reported that FEMA has tried several methods of assessing preparedness and improvements in emergency preparedness that have been achieved 

through the use of Federal grants.5 However, we found that FEMA did not have an 

effective method for measuring the results achieved with Federal emergency preparedness grants or an integrated approach for developing such metrics.6 FEMA’s 

Administrator is required under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) to develop a comprehensive system (that is, the National Preparedness System) to assess, on an on-going basis, the Nation’s prevention 

capabilities and overall preparedness with clear and quantifiable performance 

metrics and outcomes.7 FEMA has work underway to develop National preparedness 

metrics that likely will include Citizen Corps metrics. Specifically, FEMA includes 

Community Preparedness and Participation as one of the 37 key target capabilities 

to be assessed in the National Preparedness System. FEMA officials said that a 

draft revision of the current version of this capability will be issued in the second 

quarter of fiscal year 2010 for public comment, and will include specific outcomes, 

metrics, and resources for implementation. The current version of this capability includes the number of local Citizen Corps Councils Nation-wide and the percent of 

the population served by a Citizen Corps Council as preparedness metrics. Based 

on our October 2009 testimony, the accuracy of these metrics could be improved, 

and they are not useful indicators of community preparedness.8

Question 2. FEMA Grants Directorate has told committee staff that the FEMA 

Regional Offices administer the Citizen Corps grant program. Yet FEMA’s Preparedness Directorate is responsible for the programmatic aspects of Citizen Corps. 

Was GAO able to determine clear lines of responsibility and coordination for Citizen 

Corps between FEMA Preparedness Directorate, FEMA Grants Directorate, and the 

FEMA regional offices? 

Answer. Our on-going work on FEMA’s challenges with regard to community preparedness was not designed to examine whether FEMA had established clear lines 

of responsibility and coordination for Citizen Corps, between FEMA’s National Preparedness Directorate, FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate and FEMA’s regional 

offices. However, coordination and clear lines of responsibility between these organizations may be difficult because, as we reported in August 2009, FEMA has not consistently aligned its agency goals with those of its components.9 Furthermore, in our 

October 2009 testimony, we reported that FEMA had not developed a strategic plan 

for implementing the National Preparedness System, or established how its community preparedness programs fit within the system.10 Aligning agency-wide goals and 

objectives and aligning performance metrics at each operating level with those goals 

and objectives is an effective management practice. FEMA has a strategic plan, but 

in our recent work FEMA officials acknowledged that the goals and metrics are at 

the agency level and that establishing performance goals at the regional or division 

level would help FEMA to cascade organizational goals down to the individual staff 

level.11

Responsibility for Homeland Security Grant Program administration and management was transferred from the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) to new Regional 

Grant Program Divisions based on a February 2008 FEMA memorandum outlining 

a Concept of Operations for Regional-National Preparedness. GPD Investment officers were responsible for managing grant programs until capabilities were developed in the regions, based on the memorandum. As of October 30, 2009, five grant 

programs had been transferred to the regions, including the Citizen Corps program 

grant in 2008, according to FEMA grant officials.12 The 2008 memorandum outlined 
57 

13The Community and Individual Preparedness priority is to execute programs in the region 

and support initiatives from headquarters or the region that promote comprehensive community 

preparedness, especially individual preparedness and accountability. 14 Regions are required to address the Deputy Administrator’s priorities but not all the Division priorities. Four of the 10 National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) Divisions included regional priorities in the memorandum. In addition to the Community Preparedness Division, the 

other three divisions established multiple priorities for the regions, covering areas such as exercises, training, and technological hazards. The 2009 guidance indicates a need to balance resources across various regional needs. 15GAO–10–105T. 

the relationship envisioned between the regions and FEMA headquarters as one in 

which the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) develops National policies, 

while FEMA regions are to implement and manage programs across Federal agencies, States, Tribes, local jurisdictions, non-governmental organizations, the private 

sector, and citizens. NPD issued Preparedness Priorities and Programmatic Guidance for the Regions in August 2009 establishing regional expectations and guidance 

for regions to use in preparing their regional annual program plans. One of the Deputy Administrator’s seven preparedness priorities outlined in the guidance is Community and Individual Preparedness.13 The Community Preparedness Division, had 

one priority—Citizen Corps and community preparedness.14 The regional plans were 

expected to be submitted by October 1 to cover the period of October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010. Our work did not include whether the plans were submitted. 

While not a focus of our review of the Citizen Corps program, we have several 

observations from our work related to coordination and lines of responsibility among 

the Preparedness Directorate, GPD, and FEMA Regional Offices that may be valuable as new relationships are being developed. • Citizen Corps program officials stated that they have worked with FEMA grant 

officials to establish grant guidance for the Citizen Corps grant program and 

other Homeland Security grants used for community preparedness purposes. 

GPD is to ensure that grant requirements are followed. For example, grant 

guidance requires Citizen Corps grant recipients to register their Citizen Corps 

Council on the website and to manage their program and contact information. 

This information is used by the Citizen Corps program officials as an indication 

of the program’s accomplishments. As our October 1, 2009 testimony indicated, 

the requirement to manage program information was not always met because 

we found registered Citizen Corps Councils that were not active.15

• Citizen Corps program officials also stated that it has been difficult to use 

grant-related data to obtain information for program management purposes. Officials indicated, and our work also reflected, that it is difficult to extract data 

from GPD’s database to specifically identify the amount of funding awarded for 

community preparedness purposes and how the funding was used. These officials also said they found Citizen Corps grant program data collected from 

FEMA’s on-site grant monitoring process to be difficult to analyze because the 

information is in narrative form and not easy to aggregate. Further, Citizen 

Corps officials said they were limited in the number of Citizen Corps questions 

that could be included for use by FEMA officials during their monitoring visits 

to grant recipients. Citizen Corps grant questions were included for on-site monitoring in 2007 and 2008. However GPD officials said that there are no Citizen 

Corps questions planned for 2009 grant monitoring because there is a limit on 

the questions that can be addressed during such visits and the Citizen Corps 

grants are relatively small. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE DINA TITUS FOR WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ O. JENKINS, JR. 

Question. What assessment work has GAO done to evaluate DHS and FEMA on 

their work with the private sector, specifically the hospitality industry? Is it GAO’s 

estimate that FEMA has done enough to build strong educational and operational 

relationships with the hospitality industry? If not, what steps would you recommend 

for FEMA? 

Answer. We have done very limited work with regard to the private sector and 

disaster assistance and recovery, including the hospitality industry, and we have not 

assessed FEMA’s efforts to build relationships with the industry. Thus, we are not 

positioned to recommend what steps FEMA could take to build these relationships. 

Hotels are one form of immediate post-disaster housing that FEMA has used in the 

past. Concerns over FEMA’s provision of temporary housing assistance following 

Hurricane Katrina led to the development of the National Disaster Housing Strategy, which is to address the mix of temporary housing options that could be used 

following a disaster. 
58 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLER FOR WENDY L. SMITH

Question 1. How is your Community Emergency Response Team—or CERT—effective in increasing the level of community emergency preparedness? How do you 

know? 

Answer. Many of our team members join for the specific purpose of coordinating 

emergency preparedness teams within their faith-based organizations, workplaces or 

neighborhoods. The City of McAllen’s team is remarkable in its diversity, with team 

members ranging from homemakers to professors to health professionals, representing various ethnicities and ages. Recruiting is done primarily by word of 

mouth by these trained participants. The effectiveness of the program is measured 

by the waiting lists for future classes. 

Question 2. What can FEMA do to help localities improve their community preparedness efforts? 

Answer. Additional funding is always welcome so that more volunteers can be 

trained. However, eliminating categorical restrictions within the grant, allowing 

more flexibility in the areas where funds are really needed, will also help local governments expand community preparedness efforts. 

Question 3. What are the challenges to getting citizens prepared for a disaster and 

how can FEMA, working with its partners, take steps to address these challenges? 

Answer. Complacency is a challenge, but we have found that introducing programs into the school system results in a greater impact on adults and children 

alike. This has worked particularly well with the City of McAllen’s recycling program. We have one of the highest recycling rates in the State, while at the same 

time growing a generation of environmental stewards. If children are conscious of 

the need for individual disaster preparedness, those around them will be as well. 

Question 4. To what extent do social groups, such as neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faith communities, motivate people to become prepared? How can 

the emergency management community better leverage these groups to improve individual readiness? 

Answer. Social groups, like the ones listed, are the primary method by which we 

recruit volunteers and communicate the message of community preparedness. These 

groups often have disaster response committees which are coordinated by CERTtrained volunteers. Targeted marketing through churches, schools, hospitals and 

other large employers improves individual readiness more efficiently than one-to-one 

contact. 

Question 5. How can the Ready Campaign best complement State and local emergency awareness efforts? 

Answer. The Ready Campaign is a useful tool for those citizens who already have 

an interest in emergency planning. Additional marketing and expanded local/State 

information within the site would aid State and local emergency awareness efforts. 
(59) 

PREPAREDNESS: PART II 

WHAT HAS $29 BILLION IN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS BOUGHT AND HOW DO WE 

KNOW? 

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar [Chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cuellar, Richardson, Cleaver, Titus, 

Thompson (ex officio), Rogers, and McCaul. 

Also present: Representative Kilroy. 

Mr. CUELLAR [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order. The 

subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony regarding ‘‘Preparedness, What Has the $29 Billion in Homeland Security Grants 

Bought, and How Do We Know?’’ 

Good morning and on behalf of the Members of the subcommittee, let me welcome our three witnesses that we have here 

today. In particular I note we have three Parliament members from 

the Republic of Austria. Are you still here? Yes. You are back 

there. If you all want to stand up, and we want to welcome you. 

I think you are up here with the State Department and looking at 

how we do things in Homeland Security, and we appreciate you all 

coming to visit us. So thank you very much. Welcome. 

The subcommittee is holding this hearing to receive testimony on 

FEMA’s initiative to measure the return on investment from the 

Homeland Security Grant Program. Congress has appropriated $29 

billion for homeland security grants since fiscal year 2002. This 

number does not include the $4.17 billion that Congress approved 

for fiscal year 2010. So when you add that amount, you are talking 

about way, $32, $33 billion in the last 7 years that we have had 

this part of the system. 

Congress and FEMA must know what the taxpayers have gotten 

for their money. We need to understand how much more prepared 

our communities are as a result of homeland security grants; that 

is, what are the results, what results are we trying to measure 

when we look at this? It is for this reason that Congress has directed FEMA to establish performance metrics that would allow 
60 

States and urban areas to demonstrate the capabilities they have 

built and sustained with Federal funding. 

FEMA calls its effort to measure the return on homeland grants 

the Cost-to-Capabilities Initiative, the C2C. FEMA describes the 

C2C as a tool that will allow States and urban areas to objectively 

measure the impact of homeland security grants on the preparedness levels. FEMA wants C2C to replace the current method of 

awarding homeland security grants by 2010. FEMA brought in 17 

States and cities this summer to test the C2C prototype. To better 

understand the C2C, the committee asked all participants to fill 

out a survey with their feedback on the project. I want to highlight 

a couple of the concerns with the C2C project that stakeholders 

identified for us. 

For example, the first one was that C2C is being sold as a tool 

that would objectively measure the capability gained or sustained 

for each homeland security dollar. But in reality, C2C remains entirely subjective. Grantees are simply asked to guess the impact of 

the grants on their preparedness levels. I thought C2C was supposed to get rid of that guesswork and look more at the results. 

The second concern that was brought up is that the C2C does not 

take into account the risk or the threat levels for a particular State 

or a city. Without taking into account risk, C2C cannot lead the effective distribution of homeland security grants. 

These are not the only flaws with the C2C that were brought up 

by the stakeholders, and they raise serious questions about whether FEMA will be ready to mandate C2C for homeland security 

grants next year. Texas, Mr. McCaul, our State, is currently testing 

the tool right now. I am eager to get their feedback because it 

seems that C2C may have too many flaws to make it worth the effort. 

I hope we can have a forward-leaning discussion today on C2C 

and the larger question of how FEMA is measuring preparedness. 

Joining us to wrestle with this issue is FEMA’s Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness, Mr. Tim Manning. Thank you for 

being here with us; good seeing you again. 

Mr. Manning, you inherited the C2C from your predecessor, and 

I would like for you to tell us whether Administrator Fugate and 

Secretary Napolitano intend moving forward with the C2C and, if 

so, how FEMA will correct its many weaknesses. Certainly I want 

to have a discussion on that because, as you know, I did do my dissertation on performance measures, and this is a little different 

from what I have seen. 

But joining Mr. Manning are two homeland security advisers 

who have tested the C2C tool. I am pleased to welcome Mr. David 

Maxwell, Director of Arkansas’ Department of Emergency Management, and thank you for being here. I would like to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Maxwell, for recently assuming the presidency of the National Emergency Management Association. So we 

look forward to your testimony. 

C2C is also intended for cities that are party of this urban area 

security initiative. I am pleased to also say that we have Ms. 

Crandall, who is a Director of Homeland Security for Franklin 

County in Ohio. Ms. Crandall, I want to thank you very much for 

being here with us today. 
61 

I want to thank all of you, Mr. Manning, Ms. Crandall, and Mr. 

Maxwell for being here. Measuring preparedness is a difficult task. 

I think if you look at the 50 living laboratories of the 50 States, 

we have gone through this already. The Federal Government is behind on performance measures, is behind on coming up with the 

measures. If anybody says that it is difficult we understand the 

definition of what results are to be difficult. But if you look at the 

different 50 States, you can certainly get a lot of ideas of what is 

out there so you can measure preparedness. 

Again, I hope this hearing will help us better understand how 

FEMA can successfully move forward on that. 

Before recognizing the Ranking Member, I need to mention that 

the Members of this subcommittee also are not very happy with 

FEMA’s new policy of limiting preparedness grants from being 

used to keep vital homeland security equipment operational. FEMA 

never briefed the committee on the policy before it was released, 

and I believe it clearly violates the 9/11 Act. 

I am glad that Ms. Kilroy, Representative Kilroy, identified this 

policy as one that would hurt her district, and she has introduced 

legislation to overturn FEMA’s policy, and I support the bill and 

I hope to advance it this fall. Hopefully FEMA could maybe take 

some action before we get to this point. I anticipate Members will 

have questions for our three witnesses about the policy and its impact on homeland security. 

I would ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record two 

statements. The first statement is a National Governors’ Association statement on C2C. The second is the National Emergency 

Management Association statement on Ms. Kilroy’s legislation that 

addresses FEMA’s policy on grant funding for maintenance 

projects. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION

The National Governors Association (NGA) wishes to thank Chairman Cuellar, 

Ranking Member Rogers, and other distinguished Members of the subcommittee for 

holding this hearing and allowing Governors the opportunity to participate in this 

important discussion regarding homeland security funding. 

The following statement will focus on three areas of importance to Governors and 

their homeland security advisors: (1) The importance of measuring homeland security capabilities; (2) the State role in managing and administering grant funds, including measuring, assessing and reporting State-wide capabilities; and (3) the importance of ensuring that capabilities are not only built and developed, but also 

maintained over time. 

MEASURING CAPABILITIES

Governors believe Federal funding provided to States should focus on developing 

or enhancing common core capabilities and support efforts to measure the effectiveness of grant funds in building and maintaining preparedness and response capabilities (see appendix A, NGA homeland security policy). As States and urban areas 

face varying threats and vulnerabilities and utilize different approaches to allocate 

homeland security resources, Federal leadership in providing tools and a common 

methodology to assess baseline capabilities is critical. 

To help address this issue, the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) at the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently conducted pilot programs in 

several States and urban areas to test the Cost-to-Capability (C2C) initiative. C2C 

attempts to measure the effectiveness of the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant program by 

asking grantees to utilize the National Planning Scenarios and the Target Capabilities List (TCL) to categorize projects. Grantees are then asked to assign capability 
62 

gains and sustainment percentages to the associated grant-funded projects. As envisioned and tested by GPD, C2C would be used to make recommendations for the 

award and use of grant funds in future years. 

C2C has the potential to reduce the evaluation and reporting burden placed on 

States. Currently, FEM’s National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and GPD require States to submit the same information using different processes to produce the 

same outcome. For instance, NPD requires information using different processes to 

produce the same outcome. For instance, NPD requires States to report on capabilities and investments through the State Preparedness Report. Similarly, GPD requires States and urban areas to submit detailed investment justifications, including information regarding capability development and resource needs, as part of the 

peer review process used to asses the effectiveness of grant applications. C2C or a 

similar initiative could be very helpful if it were used to bridge the gap between 

NPD and GPD by utilizing a single process to collect the necessary information to 

assess the effectiveness of grant programs. 

While C2C is well-intentioned, it will require significant modification and greater 

coordination among FEMA divisions in order to produce meaningful assessments. 

The following summarizes some of the feedback received from participants in the 

first of two pilot projects: 

• C2C’s reliance upon documents that are under on-going revision will make it difficult to assess capability development over time.—C2C relies on the TCL and 

National Planning Scenarios; however, both of these documents are currently 

being revised by FEMA. C2C would require States to assess the percentage of 

capability gain and sustainment against the existing TCLs to form a baseline, 

making it difficult if not impossible to demonstrate progress over time. 

• C2C does not provide sufficient guidance to grantees to assign value to 

projects.—The initiative requires grantees to assign percents of capability gain 

and sustainment to both the development of entire capabilities and to individual 

projects. Without the use of common benchmarks or metrics, which are not defined clearly in the current TCL, assessments would be entirely subjective making their use inappropriate to determine the allocation of future grant funds. 

Assessing State-wide capability gains/sustainment at the local project level is 

particularly challenging and may not be the best methodology. 

• C2C would be more effective if it incorporated consideration of specific threats 

facing States and urban areas and the resulting regional risk. In its current 

form, C2C relies upon the National Planning Scenarios that do not apply to all 

grantees in all areas and, therefore, have not been used by many grantees in 

their planning processes. One alternative would be to use existing State and 

urban area homeland security strategies that have been used for years to guide 

the grants process. These strategies have long been important in identifying priorities for enhancing local, regional, and State capabilities to prevent, protect 

against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 

other man-made events. Utilizing existing strategic plans of grantees would 

make C2C more practical and effective for all users. 

• C2C should be adjusted to allow for risk-based local allocations.—C2C assumes 

that all States allocate the 80 percent local share of grant funds based on a 

competitive process; however, there are several States that utilize a risk-based 

methodology to allocate the local share of the funds. In order to be fully utilized 

by all States, C2C must be adjusted to allow for the use of risk-based local allocations. 

• C2C does not differentiate between the State share (20 percent) of funds and the 

local share (80 percent) in producing investment options.—For instance, the optimal investment portfolio recommended by C2C may propose local projects for 

only 50 percent of the grant funds, which is not currently permissible under 

law. 

• C2C is not intuitive or user-friendly.—The current C2C prototype employs a 

complicated methodology with limited transparency on critical elements. For example, the prioritization of the Target Capabilities is done by ranking the National Planning Scenarios but the linkage between the two is not entirely clear. 

FEMA should work with State and local stakeholders to ensure the system is 

both intuitive and transparent. 

STATE ROLE IN MANAGING GRANT FUNDS

Federal funds provide critical support to State and local efforts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and man-made events. 

States play an important role in building, coordinating, managing, and assessing the 

use of such funds to support homeland security capabilities throughout the State. 
63 

As discussed above, States establish homeland security strategies and plans that 

are updated on an on-going basis. These strategies guide the use of Federal, State, 

and local funds to build and sustain critical capabilities such as interoperable emergency communications, hazardous materials response (HAZMAT), and critical infrastructure protection. The planning, administration, and oversight of Federal funds 

is an extremely important and labor intensive effort, given the numerous grant programs, open contracts, and significant amount of funds (Federal and State) currently being administered by States. 

Since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, Federal reporting requirements have increased. For instance, States are required to complete an 

annual State Preparedness Report in which they must self-assess current capability 

levels. This report is time-consuming to put together, and it must assess funding 

received from all preparedness grants. Participation in working groups and pilot 

programs such as C2C are also important but time-consuming. 

As these requirements have increased over time, the amount of grant funding 

States may use for management and administrative (M&A) purposes has been reduced from 5 percent to 3 percent for many of the major grant programs. Prior to 

fiscal year 2008, States were permitted to use up to 5 percent of grant funds for 

M&A purposes. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 

2007 (Pub. L. 110–53) limited M&A to only 3 percent of the grant award, which has 

put a strain on the ability of States to fulfill their management and oversight responsibilities and meet the increasing reporting requirements of the grant programs. The often short deadlines associated with the grant programs further exacerbate the challenges facing State Administrative Agencies and highlight the need for 

additional resources. 

Given the increased emphasis on accountability and to ensure the effective use 

of grant funding, allowing 5 cents of every dollar to support the planning, management, and oversight of the funds is a wise investment. Additionally, greater flexibility to ‘‘pool’’ M&A funds across different FEMA preparedness grant programs 

would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of State oversight activities. Currently, M&A from different grants must be discretely accounted for. This is onerous 

and puts personnel managing multiple grants in a difficult position trying to figure 

out how much time is spent on what grant and what grant year. This is even more 

challenging at the local, county, and municipal level where fewer people manage 

more grants. 

As the Federal Government and Congress consider changes to the grant programs 

and their affiliated requirements, Governors urge consideration for greater flexibility in the use of grant funds to meet such requirements. Restoring the ability to 

use up to 5 percent of funds for M&A will help ensure that grants are used as effectively as possible by providing proper oversight and coordination. It will also support critical planning and assessment activities (such as State participation in C2C 

or similar initiatives) that provide the basies for the on-going development, revision, 

and implementation of National homeland security priorities. 

SUSTAINMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CAPABILITIES

An additional concern to Governors is the ability to not only build homeland security capabilities but also to sustain them over time. May capabilities, such as interoperable communications, intelligence, and information sharing through fusion centers, and HAZMAT response, have been built using a combination of Federal, State, 

and local funds. While building these capabilities requires an infusion of funds, 

more moderate but consistent levels of funding are required to maintain necessary 

systems and equipment and ensure personnel receive proper training. Without sufficient flexibility in the homeland security grant programs to allow for the 

sustainment of capabilities, preparedness, and response capabilities that hve been 

identified as National priorities will be severely weakened or lost entirely. 

FEMA recently informed States that they may only use grant funds to pay for 

maintenance agreements, user fees, and other sustainment costs as long as the 

equipment was purchased with FEMA preparedness grant funding and the costs fall 

within the performance period of the grant that was used to purchase the equipment. This policy is inconsistent with past practice and will have a severe adverse 

effect on many States. 

As discussed in a letter sent by NGA to Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano 

(Appendix B), this policy is inconsistent with the stated goal of the Homeland Security Grant Program and will have the unintended consequence of reducing capabilities and wasting scarce resources. Without greater flexibility to use grant funds for 

sustainment purposes, many projects may be cancelled and equipment may need to 

be replaced well before its serviceable lifetime would otherwise end. For example, 
64 

information technology projects that support interoperable communications systems 

or intelligence fusion centers are dependent upon the maintenance of software 

agreements, technology upgrades and user fees throughout the life of the system. 

If grant funds from current and future years cannot be used to support these costs, 

it will have an immediate negative effect on these national homeland security priorities. As another example, level A HAZMAT response teams must maintain the ability to operate in hazardous environments. To do so requires that annual recalibration and preventative maintenance be performed on equipment monitoring and hazard prediction systems. 

Together, governments as all levels have invested billions of dollars over past several years to build capabilities to prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other man-made events. Governors urge the Federal 

Governement and Congress to revise the current FEMA policy on sustainment funding to ensure that the partnership among States and the Federal Government to 

build, support, and maintain homeland security and emergency management capabilities continues and the taxpayers dollars are used in the most cost effective manner. 

CONCLUSION

On behalf of the Nation’s Governors, thank you for the opportunity to provide 

comments on the important issue of homeland security funding. Homeland security 

is a joint responsibility involving State and local governments and their Federal 

partners. Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination is essential to protect the 

safety and security of the country. Thank you for your consideration of the State 

role in this partnership and the challenges and opportunities it creates. 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCATION

Chairman Cueller, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the subcommittee, 

as President of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record regarding H.R. 3837. 

NEMA represents the directors of emergency management in the 50 States, territories, and District of Columbia. The legislation introduced by Congresswoman Kilroy is in response to a recent ruling by the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) at 

the Federal Emergfency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding allowable 

sustainment costs in grant funding. 

The new policy clarification issued through FEMA–GPD has created a major impact on States’ ability to sustain homeland security and emergency management capabilities as grantees will no longer be able to pay for maintenance agreements, 

user fees, and other sustainment costs for equipment outside the performance period 

of the grant that was used to purchase the equipment. For nearly 10 years, State 

and local governments have invested billions of dollars in critical lifesaving equipment with Federal grant assistance. State and local governments are willing partners in sharing the cost burden in conjunction with Federal grants, but this recent 

ruling will cause an undue burden on many organizations across the country. 

As sensitive communications, detection, and other lifesaving equipment is purchased long-term maintenance and calibration contracts are often required to maintain a state of readiness and effectiveness. These sustainment costs have traditionally been an allowable expense under available grant funding, but this recent ruling 

has discountinued the policy. Should this policy not be reversed and the eligibility 

of these costs be called into question, States would be faced with an insurmountable 

challenge of maintaining this lifesaving equipment without the assistance of grant 

funds used to originally purchase the assets. 

Equipment purchases and maintenance are not the only aspects of emergency 

management suffering as a result of this policy. The grant guidance for the Urban 

Area Security Initiative (UASI) of 2008 states the UASI program is, ‘‘intended to 

assist participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection response and recovery’’ (p. 30). Utilizing multiple grants has allowed UASI regions to identify weaknesses, design solutions, and deploy regional 

systems through investments to local jurisdictions that collectively create a regional 

system or capability. Ther are several regional UASI initiatives that will be seriously jeopardized if UASI funds may no longer be used to sustain these efforts. 

While State and local governments are willing to share some of the burden with 

the Federal Government, the cost of this policy is well beyond the means of governments in this time of economic crisis. We do not, however, wish to see these grant 

programs become block grants for nothing more than maintenance and sustain-
65 

ability costs. NEMA has therefore requested Secretary Napolitano intervene to assist in overturning this policy as swiftly as possible. 

As for NEMA’s position on H.R. 3837, at this time the bill remains under consideration by the Homeland Security and Lgeislative Committees of NEMA and should 

there be recommended changes, we will submit those to the House Homeland Committee Staff accordingly. We agree with the legislation in principle, and have assisted with obtaining co-sponsors, but we are also carefully analyzing each aspect 

of the bill to ensure all the measures are appropriate. It is our hope this issue can 

be resolved administratively through FEMA, DHS, the Office of Management and 

Budget, and the administration prior to resorting to legislative opions. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee through this written 

statement. NEMA stands ready to work with committee staff to resolve this unfortunate situation as expeditiously as possible be it through legislative or administrative 

channels. 

Mr. CUELLAR. So with that let me again thank our witnesses for 

their participation. I look forward to hearing your testimony and 

working with you to ensure that we all are getting the best results 

for our homeland security dollars. 

The Chair now recognizes my friend the Ranking Member of the 

subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing and I want to thank the witnesses for taking time out 

of your busy schedules to be with us. I know you have other things 

you could be spending this time on. Being here is important, and 

I appreciate your preparing for this hearing and being here. 

As you heard the Chairman, this hearing is being held to examine how FEMA is meeting Congressional mandates to measure the 

Nation’s preparedness levels as well as to establish performance 

metrics for State and local homeland security grant programs. DHS 

grants are essentially increasing our Nation’s level of preparedness. 

We must ensure that these programs continue to receive robust 

funding. It is concerning that more than 8 years after September 

11, FEMA still cannot answer the question: How prepared are we? 

Since 2006, Congress has mandated FEMA to develop tools to answer this question and to assess the achievement and effectiveness 

of its grants programs. 

As a result of one such Congressional directive in 2008, FEMA 

launched the Cost-to-Capabilities Initiative. Unfortunately, this 

committee has learned from many States and localities that the 

new cost-to-capabilities tool is very subjective and is not user 

friendly and has not yet found a way to accurately measure preparedness. So I am interested in learning how FEMA plans to improve C2C. 

I am also interested in discussing the feedback and recommendations the agency received from the States and locals that participated in the first phase of C2C. 

I want to hear from the panel on how FEMA is harmonizing C2C 

with all the other preparedness benchmarks required by the Congress, including the target capabilities list, the comprehensive assessment system, and the State preparedness report. 

Finally, I want to underscore the importance of the Fire and 

SAFER Grants Programs in achieving preparedness capabilities as 

well. I am interested in learning how the effectiveness of these programs is being measured in coordination with other key homeland 

security programs. 
66 

The Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009 was recently 

marked up by the Science and Technology Committee, and this bill 

will likely be on the floor soon. As we were talking before this 

meeting, I sent a letter to Chairman Thompson stating my support 

for his request that this committee receive a sequential referral of 

that bill. This bill authorizes and makes significant changes in the 

Fire Grant Program. It is important that our committee and this 

subcommittee in particular assert its jurisdiction to provide key 

input on this bill before it is considered on the floor. 

With that, I want to thank our witnesses again for being here. 

I thank the Chairman for calling the hearing and yield back my 

time. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Other Members of the 

subcommittee are reminded that under the committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Hon. Richardson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LAURA RICHARDSON

OCTOBER 27, 2009

Mister Chairman, thank you for convening this very important hearing today focusing on the return on investment from homeland security grants. I know of your 

commitment to this issue. 

Thank you Mr. Manning, Ms. Crandall, and Mr. Maxwell for taking the time to 

be here today to discuss this important issue. It is an important duty of Congress 

to provide adequate funding so agencies like FEMA are able to carry out their mission. But it is equally important that we can account for those funds so the American public knows that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. Congress should take every opportunity to weed out waste in Government, especially 

in the current economic climate. 

The Cost to Capability (C2C) prototype is a tool established by FEMA to help 

States and urban areas evaluate the effectiveness of programs funded in whole or 

in part by homeland security grants. In this way, State and local governments will 

be armed with the information regarding what works and what does not, and the 

Federal Government will have empirical data which can be used to determine funding priorities. 

The 37th Congressional District of California, which I am privileged to represent, 

has a vital interest in ensuring that homeland security resources are used effectively. My district is located in Southern California, which is no stranger to natural 

disasters ranging from earthquakes to mudslides to wildfires. The 37th district is 

also home to many high-value terrorist targets, such as the Port of Long Beach. 

While I am happy to hear that FEMA is making an effort to measure the return 

on investment from homeland security grants using the C2C application, I am troubled by some of the concerns expressed by States and urban agencies, particularly 

those in the Los Angeles/Long Beach urban area in my home State of California. 

For example, it is my understanding that the Los Angeles/Long Beach urban area 

was one of the cities selected to participate in the first C2C pilot. The purpose of 

this pilot program was to test the C2C program measurement capabilities. After 

participating in the study, city officials identified a number of concerns about the 

prototype, all of which call into question its effectiveness as an analytic tool. These 

problems led the city of Los Angeles to conclude that the C2C prototype is inadequate as an accounting and reporting tool. 

Specifically, L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa identified the following concerns: 

1. The prototype does not include a methodology for evaluating capability enhancements and capability sustainment, which means that reports provided by 

the tool have little or no utility in assessing homeland security investments. 

2. The prototype tool does not account for local funding contributions (many 

States and localities invest significant amounts of their own funds) which has 

the effect of overstating the impact of Federal contributions. 

3. The prototype does not analyze how dollars spent on homeland security impact more than one target capability. 

4. Information entered is inconsistent in terms of the parties and jurisdictions 

participating, so the mixture of data results in inaccurate reports and analysis. 
67 

5. The prototype does not identify risk factors that should and do dictate how 

local homeland security funds are allocated. 

Mister Chairman, it is important that FEMA collects and reports reliable data so 

decisions can be made on the basis of sound and accurate factual information. 

Homeland security is too important for FEMA to rely on inaccurate reports on preparation levels produced from mixed and incomplete data. 

A good analytic tool is one that takes into account homeland security strategies 

already in place, such as in Los Angles and in California. A good analytic tool takes 

into account that resources should be invested in the places of the greatest need, 

and it would reliably and accurately identify where those places are. The potential 

costs are simply too great, not just in monies wasted, but in lives lost in the event 

of a public emergency for which we have not adequately prepared. 

I look forward to working with the committee and hearing from our panel of witnesses in how we can redevelop this tool to better identify those areas. Thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Again, to the panel of witnesses, the first witness 

will be Mr. Tim Manning, who serves as the Deputy Administrator 

for National Preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, and again thank you for being here. Of course our second 

witness is Ms. Kathy Crandall, Director of Homeland Security and 

Justice Programs for Franklin County in the State of Ohio, and of 

course the third and final witness is Mr. David Maxwell, Director 

of the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management and State 

Homeland Security Adviser. 

Again, we are happy that you are here. I hope you are happy, 

too. Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted in the record, and I will now ask Mr. Manning to summarize 

his statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY W. MANNING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MANNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cuellar, 

Ranking Member Rogers, Chairman Thompson, good morning, 

Members of the subcommittee, on behalf of Administrator Fugate, 

it is a privilege to be here this morning before you today to discuss 

our ability to identify and measure the benefits that are accrued 

from nearly a decade of homeland security spending. 

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

requires the implementation of a National comprehensive system to 

assess emergency management efforts. The PKEMRA states that 

preparedness must be expressed in terms of measurable capabilities that are aligned with definable inputs and the ability to perform specific tasks. 

Intuitively, we could answer the question ‘‘Are we better prepared?’’ with a ‘‘Yes.’’ We could validly point to the amount and 

type of equipment that has been purchased, the physical security 

improvements that have been made, and the planning, training improvements that have occurred and conclude that, yes, we are better prepared. However, intuitive conclusions are not good enough, 

and DHS and FEMA are committed to answering the questions of 

preparedness with a greater degree of accuracy. 

The many new programs enacted since September 11 have substantially contributed to the National preparedness but along the 

way have added significant new reporting requirements to our 
68 

* The document has been retained in committee files. 

stakeholders. In 2007, FEMA commissioned the analysis of Federal 

preparedness requirements in order to assess the impact of the 41 

preparedness programs and over 270 preparedness requirements 

on State emergency management and homeland security agencies. 

Published in fiscal year 2009, the analysis of State and local officials’ views on Federal preparedness requirements report outlines 

the views and recommendations of 20 States and urban areas and 

presents 75 different recommendations from State and local officials for improving the reporting process for Federal requirements. 

Many of the findings and recommendations focus on the need to reduce the volume of reporting requirements and develop a more efficient system for collecting data from State emergency management 

and homeland security agencies. 

In this past August, FEMA developed a reporting requirements 

working group consisting of representatives from all of the various 

FEMA offices and directorates and officials from State, local, and 

Tribal governments throughout the country. The goal of this working group is to make the collection of data from State, territorial, 

Tribal, local governments more efficient, transparent, and predictable but, more importantly, a more reliable indicator of the effectiveness of our policies. 

The working group will seek ways to enhance communications 

between FEMA and its partners in emergency management and 

homeland security agencies throughout the country. Enhancing the 

communications process will not only reduce duplication of existing 

requirements, but will also enhance the utility of preparedness 

data for all levels of government. 

Finally, the working group will provide realistic and measurable 

recommendations for data collection priorities. That is the future. 

But today FEMA has a number of existing approaches and measurement systems for preparedness. These include the Cost-of-Capabilities Initiative developed by FEMA’s Grants Program Directorate. 

C2C was designed as a multiyear effort to develop, test, and implement a method to better enable State and local and Federal 

Governments to strategically manage the portfolio of homeland security grant programs and optimize the impact of those grant dollars. In its initial phase, C2C conducted a ‘‘look back’’ and a ‘‘look 

forward’’ to determine the best measures of capability gained 

through the application of grant dollars that supported the National Strategy on Homeland Security, the National preparedness 

guidelines, and should look to support individual State homeland 

security strategies and priorities. 

The look back confirmed that neither GPD nor its predecessor offices at the Department had ever asked grantees to measure outcomes from grant dollars and therefore the existing data tell us 

very little about our return on investment or level of performance. 

FEMA’s GPD developed in an accomplishments report a summary 

of additional findings from fiscal years 2003 through 2007 in May 

of this year. This report lists the accomplishments of over $10 billion in homeland security grant spending, and with the committee’s 

permission I would like to enter it into the record.* 
69 

Another initiative underway to assess preparedness and response 

capability is FEMA’s Gap Analysis Program. GAP was designed to 

be a multiyear program that allows States to evaluate levels of preparedness through analysis of varying data sets. There are many 

other efforts underway, but I would like to use the balance of my 

time to underscore one final point. 

Establishing meaningful frameworks for the measurement of preparedness is a priority at FEMA, and we look forward to working 

with the committee and Congress toward a methodology that will 

inform future decision-making without placing undue burden on 

our partners in Tribal, State, and local governments. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, thank you for allowing 

me to be here today, and Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Manning follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY W. MANNING

Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, Members of the subcommittee, I am 

Timothy Manning, and I serve as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). On behalf of Administrator Fugate, it is a privilege 

to appear before you today to discuss our ability to identify and measure the benefits that have accrued from nearly a decade of homeland security spending. 

Mr. Chairman, since fiscal year 2002, the Department of Homeland Security’s 

(DHS) homeland security grant programs have provided more than $27 billion to 

State, local, Tribal, and territorial jurisdictions across the Nation. These funds are 

a direct investment in enhancing the Nation’s capability to prepare for, protect 

against, and respond to a full range of natural and man-made hazards. Given the 

size of this investment, it is critical for us as stewards of Federal dollars, to be returned. At the end of the day, we need to answer some very fundamental questions. 

The most fundamental of these is simply: ‘‘What have we bought?’’ Once we are able 

to answer this basic question, we should then be able to ask the more important 

one that logically follows, ‘‘Are we better prepared?’’ 

The Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) requires the implementation of a National, comprehensive system to asses emergency 

management efforts. PKEMRA states that preparedness must be expressed in terms 

of measurable capabilities that are aligned with definable inputs (e.g., people, training, and equipment) and the ability to perform specific tasks. Section 649 of 

PKEMRA requires the FEMA Administrator to ‘‘establish a specific tasks.’’ Section 

649 of PKEMRA requires the FEMA Administrator to ‘‘establish a comprehensive 

system to asses, on an on-going basis, the Nation’s prevention capabilities and overall preparedness, including operational readiness.’’ The law also requires annual 

Federal and State preparedness reports, including the results of a comprehensive 

and strategic assessment of capabilities and resources at all levels of government. 

Inituitively, we could answer the question ‘‘Are we better prepared?’’ with a ‘‘Yes.’’ 

We could validly point to the amount and type of equipment that has been purchased, the physical security improvements that have been made, and the planning 

and training improvements that have occurred, and conclude that we are better prepared. Our National, State, local, Tribal, and territorial efforts have certainly increased our interagency planning across the spectrum of preparedness. This is in 

itself an achievement that greatly improves our ability to act decisively in a crisis. 

However, intuitive conclusions are not good enough. DHS and FEMA are committed to answering questions of preparedness with a greater degree of accuracy. 

This is not to say that this is an easy task. ‘‘Are we prepared?’’ and ‘‘Are we better 

prepared?’’ are questions that we have wrestled with throughout the history of these 

grant programs. In the end, the answer to these questions will be found in rigorous 

analysis and the development of precise metrics which will enable us to connect dollars spent to results achieved and ultimately to improvements in preparedness. 

There are several efforts currently underway to measure our preparedness by 

identifying gaps in our preparedness and response capability and attempting to 

measure improvements supported by our multi-billion dollar National investments. 
70 

‘‘COST-TO-CAPABILITIES’’ (C2C)

One existing approach which has been underway for the last 18 months, and 

which we continue to evaluate, assess, and improve, is the ‘‘Cost-to-Capabilities’’ 

(C2C) initiative developed by FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). 

C2C resulted from GPD’s need to better inform itself as well as its stakeholders 

about the impact of grant dollars on both State and National preparedness. Beginning in early 2008, GPD took an extensive look at what has been done to date with 

preparedness grant dollars and, from that, developed the C2C Initiative. C2C was 

designed as a multi-year effort to develop, test, and implement a method to better 

enable local, State, Tribal, and Federal levels of governments to strategically manage the portfolio of homeland security grant programs and optimize the impact of 

those grant dollars on preparedness efforts. 

C2C’s objective is to identify the information and develop the tools needed to effectively manage GPD’s homeland security and preparedness grant programs. With the 

tools and measurements generated by the C2C initiative, we hope that grantees will 

be able to maximize their local preparedness investment strategies and align their 

grant dollars with the Nation’s homeland security priorities. The tools and measurements could lead to changes in the Nation’s homeland security strategy, translating 

into a clear prioritization of capabilities-based investments that all levels of government can use. C2C tools are meant to inform grantees’ use of inherently finite grant 

funding and better measure how grants increase the capability of States and local 

communities to respond to all-hazards. 

In its initial phase, C2C conducted a look back and a look forward to determine 

the best measures of capability gained through the application of grant dollars that 

supported the National Strategy on Homeland Security, the National Preparedness 

Guidelines and should support individual State homeland security strategy and priorities. The ‘‘look back’’ confirmed that GPD and its predecessor offices at the Department had never asked grantees to measure outcomes from grant dollars. Therefore, existing data tells us very little about our return on investment or our level 

of preparedness. GPD developed an Accomplishments Report; Summary of Initial 

Findings (fiscal year 2003–2007), in May of this year. This report identifies the uses 

and accomplishments of over $10 billion in Homeland Security grant funding. With 

the committee’s permission, i would like to enter this report into the hearing record. 

GAP ANALYSIS PROGRAM

Another major initiative underway to assess FEMA’s preparedness and response 

capability is FEMA’s Gap Analysis Program (GAP), which focuses on the performance of six distinct phases. These six phases are: (1) Selection of Disaster Scenario, 

(2) Estimation of Response Requirements, (3) Measurement of Baseline Preparedness, (4) Identification of Gaps, (5) Development and Implementation of Strategies, 

and (6) Evaluation and Application of Lessons Learned. These phases are driven by 

the Capabilities-Based Preparedness Process outlined in the DHS National Preparedness Guidelines (NPG) and are designed to provide emergency management 

agencies at all levels of government with greater situational awareness of response 

resources and capabilities. Like the NPG, GAP is an all-hazards, risk-based, and capabilities-driven program. 

Once data is collected, users can measure any scenario against the GAP data to 

generate additional response requirements and can apply multiple concurrent scenarios or scenarios in succession. GAP provides its greatest value, in this all-hazards functionality. States are encouraged to reference their Statewide Hazard Mitigation Plan is required by the Stafford Act in the development of a disaster scenario, which helps ensure the selected hazard has been prioritized through a process 

of hazard identification and risk assessment. GAP provides flexibility to States in 

the scenario development process to ensure the scenario is useful to States’ needs 

while still giving FEMA and other Federal partners a better understanding of potential requests from States. This flexibility has the added benefit of allowing better 

integration of GAP into existing efforts the States and Federal Government may already have planned or underway. 

In wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many new Federal programs were created to enhance the overall preparedness of our Nation by providing 

State, territory, local, Tribal, and territorial governments assistance in building and 

sustaining their capability to effectively prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate natural disaster and terrorist attacks. While these new initiatives have bolstered our Nation’s level of preparedness, they have also created 

new Federal requirements for State, territory, local, Tribal, and territorial emergency management and homeland security agencies. FEMA’s key partners in emer-
71 

gency management and homeland security report that the existing volume of requests for information is placing a significant strain on their resources. 

In 2007, FEMA commissioned the Analysis of Federal Preparedness Requirements 

in order to assess the impact of 41 preparedness programs and 275 preparedness 

requirements on State emergency management and homeland security agencies. 

Published in fiscal year 2009, the Analysis of State and Local Officials; Views on 

Federal Preparedness Requirements report outlines the views and recommendations 

from 20 States as well as the New York and Los Angeles Urban Areas and presents 

75 recommendations from State and local officials for improving the reporting process for Federal requirements. Many of the findings and recommendations focus on 

the need to reduce the volume of reporting requirements and to develop a more efficient system for collecting data from State emergency management and homeland 

security agencies. 

FEMA has engaged State, local, Tribal, and territorial government officials as 

well as representatives from the National Emergency Management Association and 

committed to seek opportunities to consolidate and reduce duplicative or similar reporting requirements. In March 2009, FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program Analysis was tasked by the Acting FEMA Administrator with leading an effort to identity ways to reduce the impact of FEMA’s information collection requirements on 

State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments while continuing to provide the information used to assist Federal decision-makers. This initiative engaged FEMA Offices and Directorates as well as officials representing State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments. 

On July 17, 2009, FEMA Administrator Graig Fugate issued a moratorium on 

new requests for information that require a response by, or action from any State, 

local, Tribal, and territorial government. In addition, Administrator Fugate directed 

a more thorough review of FEMA’s reporting requirements to include an assessment 

of the agency’s needs for information as identified by individual Offices and Directorates and information required by legislation such as the PKEMRA. 

This past August, FEMA developed the Reporting Requirements Working Group, 

consisting of representatives from FEMA Offices and Directorates and officials from 

State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments. The goal of this Working Group is 

to make the collection of data from State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments 

more efficient, transparent, and predictable. 

FEMA must better communicate its own information needs and understand the 

information needs of State, local, and Tribal governments. To achieve this goal, the 

working group has begun developing a calendar of all FEMA reporting requirements 

in order to provide recommendations for consolidating similar requests and identifying ways to better align its processes with the addition, the Working Group will 

seek ways to enhance communication between FEMA and its partners in emergency 

management and homeland security agencies throughout the country. Enhancing 

the communication process will not only reduce duplication of exiting requirements, 

but it will also help enhance the utility of preparedness data for all levels of government. Finally, the Working Group will provide realistic and measurable recommendations for data collection priorities. 

CONCLUSION

Continuing to establish a meaningful framework for the measurement of preparedness is a priority at FEMA, and we look forward to working with this committee and the Congress toward priority at FEMA, and we look forward to working 

with this committee and the Congress toward a methodology that will inform future 

decision-making without placing undue burden on our partners in Tribal, State, 

local, and territorial government. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers and Members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today. I am 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Manning, thank you very much. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Crandall to summarize her statement for 5 minutes. 
72 

STATEMENT OF KATHY B. CRANDALL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY & JUSTICE PROGRAMS, COLUMBUS 

URBAN AREA, FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO 

Ms. CRANDALL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

The Columbus urban area participated in a Cost-to-Capability 

Initiative. We were in the first group to test that program. I would 

like to say that C2C is a program that supports capability-based 

planning and decision-making process. It identifies a weighted 

score to prioritize investments and to maximize capability gained 

while validating sustainment cost and clearly indicating investments that would not be cost-efficient or maintain sustainability. 

The initiative does support the States and urban areas in maximizing the development, funding, and implementation of our preparedness projects. When utilized as a decision-making tool, C2C 

can give us a reduction in jurisdictional and disciplinary bias within our working groups. It evens that out. It gives us a defined return on investment unlike our narrative reporting has historically 

provided. It identifies geography-based gaps in preparedness, and 

we have never seen that outcome in our planning previously. It can 

collate multiple funding streams, including non-FEMA DHS funding streams to support a single project. 

There is a clear and concise corollary of tasks to development 

and sustainment by the target capabilities, and there is data-driven reporting that clearly conveys the level and cost of capabilities 

gained in sustainment. 

As with any assessment and evaluation tool, C2C can and should 

be modified in enhancement capabilities that are risk threat specific to each State and urban area. 

Our experience on the negative side of C2C was that they have 

used the National scenarios as the base for C2C. In doing that, 

each State and urban area’s specific analysis for threat risk and 

the strategies that we have built to address the threat risk are ignored. Instead, we are looking at the value base of the National 

scenarios toward the target capabilities. 

So we suggest that there is an assigned value to each target capability based on the individual State and urban area strategy, and 

that data collection supports a comprehensive strategy for moving 

forward based on historical progress and to provide a clear State 

and local position through collective and shared data for both capability gain and sustainment. 

We feel we need to integrate precision and performance reporting 

between the National Preparedness Directorate and the National 

Grants Directorate. If we do that, there is an elimination of the expensive and subjective peer review process. It would eliminate narrative-based investment justifications and the cost of that peer review process with the investment justifications, reduce reporting 

requirements through enhanced collaboration between GPD and 

NPD, and increase value through objective data-based reporting. 

We would also be able to reduce or eliminate the opinion-based 

guesswork assessment and evaluation of the State and local preparedness. 
73 

One of the largest pieces of C2C is how we are sustaining that 

which we build. GPD has consistently addressed building and sustaining capabilities in the grant guidance, planning, training, and 

exercising. The investment justification template actually addresses sustainment. What are you doing? How are you going to sustain 

what you are using money for in this project? 

With a long-term approach to sustaining capabilities developed 

by the investment, and having participated in peer review 2 of the 

last 3 years, I can say that most States and urban areas say that 

they are going to sustain these projects with Federal grant dollars 

from DHS. 

In Ohio, in the urban area, we have a State-wide informationsharing network that is connected through our State’s attorney 

general, and our smaller suburbs and jurisdictions cannot possibly 

afford the monthly air cards to keep that information-sharing system moving. For intelligence gathering, we are using rapid ID and 

automated license plate readers. Those too take monthly air cards 

from now until forever to be able to work, and we have to be able 

to sustain the equipment that we purchased and have that ongoing cost met by Federal funds. 

Interoperable communications is probably the largest user of 

sustainment dollars for the Columbus urban area in the State of 

Ohio. Shared systems, new towers, ACU 1,000 mobile bridges, mobile and portable radios that have to be repaired, batteries, et 

cetera. Then we have our CBRNE—the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive detection. The meters that we have 

purchased have to be calibrated. Their sensitivity is so extremely 

high, and that is an on-going maintenance cost as well as the PPE 

that has to be replaced every time OSHA or NIOSH changes the 

standards. That is on-going cost. Then we have technology and 

training, and each upgrade of technology takes seat licensing or 

you have to pay for the next upgrade of that software. Those are 

sustainment costs that we need. 

Billions of dollars have been expended Nation-wide to build capabilities to prepare and protect our critical infrastructure and key 

resources across this country. The National Association of Counties 

has stated that every county in the country will be negatively impacted if we do not use sustaining dollars to be able to support that 

which we have already built. Tens of millions have been spent in 

the Columbus urban area and throughout Ohio on equipment and 

training critical on building our priority target capabilities to 

strengthen our preparedness. 

Columbus urban area needs FEMA preparedness grant funding 

to support sustainment costs and requests that the policy of GPD 

be reversed. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Crandall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY B. CRANDALL

THE COST TO CAPABILITY (C2C) INITIATIVE

The Cost to Capability (C2C) program supports a capability-based planning and 

decision-making process. It identifies a weighted score to prioritize investments to 

maximize capability gain and validate sustainment costs while clearly indicating investments that would not be cost-efficient increasing or maintaining capability. The 
74 

C2C initiative supports the States and urban areas in maximizing the development, 

funding, and implementation of preparedness projects. C2C also supports programs 

to build, enhance, and sustain the target capabilities necessary for an effective state 

of preparedness. 

When utilized as a decision-making tool, the positive elements that C2C offers 

are: 

• Reduction in jurisdictional and disciplinary bias in Urban Area Working Group; 

• Defined Return on Investment (R.O.I.); 

• Clear target capability gains and cost of sustainment; 

• Identified geo-based gaps in preparedness; 

• Delivery of data-driven prioritized funding options with allowance for State and 

local override to meet evolving trends and conditions; 

• Collation of multiple funding streams (including non-FEMA/DHS) to support a 

single project; 

• Clear and concise corollary of tasks to the development and sustainment of target capabilities; 

• Data-driven reporting that clearly conveys level and cost of capability gain and 

sustainment. 

As with any assessment and evaluation tool, C2C can be modified and should be 

enhanced with system capabilities that are risk/threat specific to each State/urban 

area. The current underpinning of the C2C initiative is the National Scenarios. The 

National Scenarios provide a broad-based preparedness assessment country-wide: 

however, they do not prioritize target capabilities identified by the State/urban area 

as addressed in their respective strategies. The Grants Program Directorate (GPD) 

can refine the C2C system capabilities to reflect the respective user’s threat, risk, 

and need by incorporating the State/urban area strategy with assigned values as 

part of the base formula behind the program. Non-transparent algorithms that drive 

C2C must be supported by user selected priority target capability values based on 

the threat and risk identified by the State/urban area and not as identified by the 

National Scenarios. 

Suggested capabilities that a C2C enhancement must address include: 

• Assigned value to each target capability based on individual State/urban area 

strategy; 

• Data collection to support a comprehensive strategy for moving forward based 

on historical progress; 

• Ability to provide a clear State and local preparedness position through collective and shared data for capability gains and sustainment; 

• Integrated position and performance reporting to Grants Program Directorate 

(GPD) and National Preparedness Directorate. 

The Comprehensive Assessment System (CAS) developed and implemented by the 

National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) is intended to continually assess overall 

preparedness as required by Congress. Within the CAS is the State Preparedness 

Report (SPR). The SPR is to be completed by all States/urban areas as the foundation for C2C which is under the Grants Program Directorate (GPD) and contained 

within a separate system. Integration of assessment, evaluation, and reporting functions between NPD and GPD must be built into C2C to eliminate redundancy and 

greatly reduce ineffective time burdens placed on the grantees. Projected C2C system capabilities and enhancement can maximize State and local grantee’s time, reduce cost, and eliminate redundancy in reporting. 

Potential time/cost savings resulting from integration and implementation of C2C: 

• Elimination of expensive, subjective Peer Review process; 

• Elimination of the narrative based Investment Justifications; 

• Reduction in reporting requirements through enhanced NPD and GPD collaboration; 

• Increased value through objective data-based reporting; 

• Reduced and/or eliminated opinion-based (guesswork) assessment and evaluation of State and local preparedness. 

USE OF FEMA/DHS FUNDS FOR SUSTAINMENT COSTS

The clarification below was received in email form on September 22, 2009 by all 

States and urban area Points of Contact. In preparation to testify before the Congressional committee, I contacted the National Association of Counties (NACo) to ascertain their position on the sustainment issue. NACo is in full agreement that this 

FEMA/Grants Program Directorate (GPD) policy is contrary to past practice, phased 

planning, and implementation, and most importantly, to protecting the foundation 

of preparedness that we have built across the Nation. 
75 

GPD CLARIFICATION STATEMENT

Sent on behalf of C. Gary Rogers, Director, Grants Program Directorate/Grants Development & Administration Division 

Below is a clarification of the FEMA/Grant Programs Directorate policy regarding 

the use of preparedness grant funding for sustainment costs: 

‘‘Grantees may use FEMA preparedness grant funding to pay for maintenance 

agreements, user fees, and other sustainment costs as long as the equipment was 

purchased with FEMA preparedness grant funding and the sustainment costs fall 

within the performance period of the grant that was used to purchase the equipment. These sustainment costs are eligible under the equipment category unless the 

equipment is M&A related (grants management equipment). Grantees may not use 

future year preparedness grant funding to pay for additional agreements and user 

fees. These on-going sustainment costs are the responsibility of the grantee. For example, the purchase of 2-way devices to provide connectivity and interoperability between local and interagency organizations to coordinate CBRNE response operations 

is allowable. Grant funds may be used to cover only those services provided during 

the grant performance period in which the device was purchased. All on-going expenses after the performance period has expired may not be paid for with FEMA 

preparedness grant funding. Devices purchased for those individuals involved in coordinating response operations or for eligible planning activities are eligible under 

the ‘equipment’ category. If purchasing devices for those individuals involved with 

the grants management portion of these programs, then the costs are eligible under 

M&A. Please ensure that these costs do not supplant previously budgeted line 

items.’’ 

GPD has consistently addressed the building and sustaining of capabilities in 

grant guidance, planning, training, and exercising. The Investment Justification 

template includes a section specific to Sustainability and asks, ‘‘What is the longterm approach to sustaining the capabilities developed by this investment?’’ Having 

participated in Peer Review 2 of the past 3 years, I can testify that most States and 

urban areas answered the question stating that they would rely on Federal funding 

to continue to sustain the investment. 

Examples of State (Ohio) and Urban Area (Columbus) Projects Adversely Impacted 

• Information Sharing.—Ohio Law Enforcement Information Network: this Statewide system connects every law enforcement agency in the State with the 

State’s Attorney General’s Office. It requires monthly air cards for all users for 

connectivity through their respective wireless provider as well as maintenance 

agreements for the mobile data terminals. 

• Intelligence Gathering.—Rap ID (digital fingerprint identification scanners), 

Livescan (digital fingerprint entry system) and Automated License Plate Reader 

Technology: local, regional, and State-wide systems developed and implemented 

to capture data, shared with three F.B.I. databases and requiring maintenance 

agreements and monthly air cards for all users for connectivity through their 

respective wireless provider. Additionally, geospatial mapping capabilities at the 

primary State fusion center is under an annual maintenance contract agreement. This intelligence gathering is critical to the success of Ohio’s fusion centers. 

• Interoperable Communications.—Shared systems, new towers, ACU 1000 mobile 

bridges, mobile and portable radios, and communications vehicles have been 

purchased to ensure voice and data interoperability for incident command and 

control. Every piece of equipment requires on-going maintenance, user fees, licenses, upgrades to technology, and/or batteries. 

• Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Detection.—The meters and monitors required to detect CBRNE are extremely sensitive and must be tested and calibrated on an on-going basis to ensure reliability. Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) required by NFPA and OSHA is 

constantly being tested and upgraded to enhance the level of protection resulting in repair, replacement parts, and additional equipment being certified and 

recommended. 

• Technology & Training.—Each upgrade of technology and equipment requires 

users to be trained on that technology and/or equipment capability. In addition 

costs for seat licenses, user fees, software upgrades, program integration, and 

data storage are on-going capital expenditures. 

Columbus Urban Area Supports Sustainment Funding 

Billions of dollars have been expended Nation-wide to build capabilities to prepare 

and protect our critical infrastructure and key resources across the country. The Na-
76 

tional Association of Counties (NACo) has stated that every county in the country 

will be adversely affected by this policy. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent 

in the Columbus Urban Area and throughout the State of Ohio on equipment and 

training critical to building our priority target capabilities to strengthen our preparedness. The sustainment of these capabilities is an on-going cost that requires 

homeland security funding to support in full—or in part—augment State and local 

funds. The Columbus Urban Area needs FEMA preparedness grant funding to support sustainment costs and requests that the policy of GPD be reversed. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you again, Ms. Crandall, for your testimony. At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Maxwell to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MAXWELL, DIRECTOR & HOMELAND 

SECURITY ADVISOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Mr. MAXWELL. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member 

Rogers, Chairman Thompson, and the Members of this subcommittee, for your invitations today to talk about the FEMA Costto-Capability Pilot I. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the State of Arkansas. My staff 

participated in the C2C Pilot I in July here in Washington, DC. 

Our staff, after spending the week testing the program and providing feedback to the FEMA program staff, came back to the State 

to test the program using Arkansas-specific information from fiscal 

year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program. 

They found the concept of the tool innovative and a step in the 

right direction in regards to providing a connection between dollars 

spent toward homeland security goals and the capabilities that are 

produced as a result of these dollars. 

Arkansas, as a recipient of these funds, is committed to and supports building and measuring our capability. However, the tool that 

is not distinguished between actual dollars spent and its correlation to an actual increase or a decrease in the capability of the 

State or local jurisdiction. I am not comfortable with the tool being 

able to take so many factors into account and it results in an accurate reflection of our capability and preparedness levels. I am also 

concerned that the tool requires a subjective judgment of our base 

capabilities and, perhaps more importantly, how much an investment has increased a capability. 

As a State Director, I do not want this tool to be used as a ‘‘report card’’ to publish our preparedness efforts. The tool should be 

used as a macro-level planning piece to help determine the Nation’s 

preparedness levels. Arkansas is committed to the openness of our 

business practices, but the potential exists to highlight perceived 

potential weaknesses in our preparedness efforts, and this only 

gives terrorists an additional area to exploit. 

The C2C tool relies on the State preparedness report data, a 

ranking of the National preparedness planning scenarios, and the 

State’s assertion of its own capability as baseline data to determine 

a relationship between dollars spent and a capability gained. I am 

not convinced that this tool can accurately measure those disparate 

pieces of data. 

Much of the tool is dependent on subjective data determined solely by the States. The States’ preparedness report is a basis for 

much of the tool’s baseline data. While a great deal of effort goes 
77 

into producing an accurate SPR, without a detailed set of standards such as those used by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program, we cannot be assured that the tool correctly analyzes 

the data. Thus, the results of the C2C tool could produce an inaccurate picture of the State’s true capability level. 

Currently no standards exist to measure capability or 

sustainment gains in the C2C tool. 

Sustainment is another important issue, and with the addition of 

this tool, there becomes two definitions of sustainment used within 

the grant allocation process. Dollars used to sustain a capability 

are extremely difficult to measure. Dollars used to sustain current 

equipment can be measured. For the 10 years of the grant program, substantial investments have been made with the assistance 

from these Federal funds. 

Current equipment and future purchases are in jeopardy if funds 

cannot be used to sustain equipment beyond the initial grant performance period. 

Sustainment is an important part of the grant process. Investments, a core principle of the grant process, are the backbone of 

the equipment acquisition process for both the SAA and the subgrantees. If we truly want to be effective, efficient, and prudent 

with our grant dollars, we cannot be forced to purchase new replacement equipment solely because we are not allowed to expend 

grant dollars to sustain our equipment. 

As we study C2C further, we as an emergency management community must realize that no matter what tools we have at our disposal, the teams of people at the State and local level responsible 

for this program must be taken into account. This tool should always remain a decision support tool. 

I appreciate this committee’s attention to this matter. I also want 

to thank the full committee for its study of the C2C tool. FEMA 

has done good work, but the work is never done and major refinements are needed. We must continue to work to protect our cities, 

States, and our Nation. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Maxwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID MAXWELL

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

INTRODUCTION

Thank you Chairman Cuellar, Mr. Rogers (Ranking Member) and honorable Members of this subcommittee for your invitation to speak today on the FEMA Cost-toCapability Pilot I. I am David Maxwell, Director and Homeland Security Adviser for 

the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. I am testifying today on behalf of the State of Arkansas. My staff participated in the C2C Pilot I in July here 

in Washington, DC. 

COST-TO-CAPABILITY REVIEW

Members of my staff, as well as a staff member from the Arkansas Department 

of Information Systems, traveled to Washington to participate in the Pilot of the 

Cost-to-Capability project. After spending a week testing the program and providing 

feedback to the FEMA program staff, they came back to the State to test the program using Arkansas-specific information from the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 

2009 Homeland Security Grant Program. They found the concept of the tool innovative and a step in the right direction in regards to providing a clear connection between dollars spent towards homeland security goals and the capabilities that are 
78 

produced as a result of those dollars. Arkansas, as a recipient of these funds, is committed to and supports building and measuring our capability. However, the tool 

does not distinguish between actual dollars spent and its correlation to an actual 

increase or decrease on the capability of a State or local jurisdiction. I’m not comfortable with the tool being able to take so many factors into account and it result 

in an accurate reflection of our capability and preparedness levels. I am also concerned that the tool requires a subjective judgment of our base capabilities and perhaps more importantly how much an investment has increased a capability. As a 

State Director, I do not want this tool to be used as a ‘‘report card’’ to publish our 

preparedness efforts. This tool should be used as a macro-level planning piece to 

help determine the Nation’s preparedness levels. Arkansas is committed to the 

openness of our business practices but the potential exists to highlight perceived potential weaknesses in our preparedness efforts and this only gives terrorists an additional area to exploit. The C2C tool relies on State Preparedness Report data, a 

ranking of National Planning Scenarios and the State’s assertion of its own capability as the baseline data to determine a relationship between dollars spent and 

a capability gain. I am not convinced that this tool can accurately measure these 

disparate pieces of data. 

As I stated in my response to the House Committee on Homeland Security’s questions about this project, my hesitation and concern come from the calibration of the 

data used to determine a final capability score and portfolio ranking. 

Much of the tool is dependent on data determined solely by the States. The State 

Preparedness Report is the basis for much of the tool’s baseline data. While a great 

deal of effort goes into producing an accurate SPR, without a carefully detailed set 

of standards, such as those used by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) process, we cannot be assured that the tool correctly analyzes that 

data. Thus, the results of the C2C tool could produce an inaccurate picture of the 

State’s true capability level. Currently, no such standards exist to measure capability or sustainment gains in the C2C tool. 

The issue of sustainability also concerns me with regards to the C2C tool. After 

the SPR data is entered into the tool, one of the next steps is to assign a dollar 

figure to each project and Target Capability or Capabilities that are associated with 

that project. These dollar figures are assigned to gain capability or to sustain a capability. Without some objective measure, the States are using a ‘‘best guess’’ method to determine preparedness and capability levels as they assign these allocations. 

Arkansas currently awards its HSGP dollars on a population formula basis. When 

you distribute the volume of projects and Target Capabilities that these projects are 

associated with, it becomes almost impossible to determine that $1,500 of a $6 million award equals a .005% increase in the Interoperable Communications Target Capability. The user burden with this tool is extensive. 

The tool asks for two complete ‘‘percentage’’ gains. One determines the overall 

gain in capability. For example, a Fusion Center project may be rated by the C2C 

tool at a current 30% capability. The state then has to determine how much of an 

increase this project and its new funding gives the state. If the project only gives 

the state a 5% gain, the State then must determine the dollar amount associated 

with that 5% gain. 

To follow up with sustainment issues, with the addition of this tool, there become 

two definitions of sustainment used within the grant allocation process. Dollars used 

to sustain a capability are extremely difficult to measure. Dollars used to sustain 

current equipment can be measured. For the 10 years of the grant program, substantial investments have been made with assistance from these Federal grants. 

Current equipment and future purchases are in jeopardy if funds cannot be used 

to sustain equipment beyond the initial grant performance period. 

Sustainment is an important part of the grant process. Investments, a core principle of the grant application process, are the backbone of the equipment acquisition 

process for both the SAA and the sub-grantees. If we truly want to be effective, efficient, and prudent with our grant dollars, we cannot be forced to purchase new, replacement equipment solely because we are not allowed to spend money to keep our 

current equipment in working order. For example, Arkansas and our local jurisdictions have purchased expensive bomb-handling equipment. If we are not allowed to 

expend sustainment dollars out of future grant programs, the cost of maintenance 

would quickly exceed local budgets. This equipment is vital to the mission of the 

Homeland Security Grant Program. Sustainment is an issue that we care deeply 

about and more should be done to ensure that it is an allowable cost in each grant 

program and can be used on equipment purchased in any of the prior grant programs under the HSGP. 
79 

CONCLUSION

As we study C2C further, we—as an Emergency Response Community—must realize that no matter what tools we have at our disposal, the people responsible for 

this program must be taken into account. These teams of people at a State level 

are vital to continued success of this tool. Their judgments and experience help to 

shape this program. No tool will ever completely override this judgment and experience. As long as this program remains the State’s responsibility to execute and administer, deference should be given as to the allocation and distribution of the 

funds. This tool should always remain a ‘‘decision-support’’ tool. If it does, our State, 

as well as others, can continue to evaluate all relevant data to ensure we continue 

to fulfill the mission of the HSGP and continue protecting our States from future 

terrorist attacks. 

I appreciate this subcommittee’s attention to this matter. I also want to thank the 

full committee for its study of the C2C tool. FEMA has done good work, but the 

work is never done. We must continue to work to protect our cities and States and 

the Nation. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Maxwell, thank you very much. At this time 

without objection, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kilroy is authorized to sit for the purposes of questioning the witnesses during 

the hearing today. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. At this time, I also would like to recognize the 

Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, from the State of 

Mississippi. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a little late. I was detained at another meeting. 

I have heard the witnesses this morning, and I have been concerned about how much money we have, as an agency, spent on 

going toward grants and refining different programs. The C2C program that we have heard a lot of conversation about this morning 

continues to cause me significant concern. It has been around in 

one form or another for a little while. But Congress since 2006 has 

kind of nourished FEMA in this direction to come up with some 

measurement instrument, and it still appears to be a work in 

progress. 

I would hope that, Mr. Manning, you can help resolve that issue 

with us. We spend a good bit of money, as you know, trying to do 

what is right to help communities when they are in need, as well 

as going forward in the planning and preparation. 

One of the issues that I do want to address during the questionand-answer period is we gave communities significant moneys to 

buy equipment, and rightfully so. We told them going in that you 

can take this money and you can help keep it up and then in the 

middle of the stream we said, oh, by the way, we have changed our 

mind. Well, most States and localities can’t operate that fast. I 

think it puts those States and localities in very difficult positions. 

There are a lot of other things we could talk about. Mr. Chairman, you talked about that maintenance issue, also. That concerns 

a lot of us because when we go home we see these individuals in 

church, we see them in our various other affiliations, and they are 

very concerned about it. I am glad that Representative Kilroy has 

taken the lead in overturning this policy. Sometimes we have to do 

it at committee level when we can’t get the agency to do it. A lot 

of money we need to put it in, we need to work with our State and 

locals. We brought people to town. My own State, Mr. Maxwell, had 
80 

similar concerns about what you raised in your testimony. We need 

to involve people more before we just roll out these policies. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, as we go forward with the questions, I 

think you will see some of these issues brought out. I thank both 

of you gentlemen for pulling together this hearing. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would 

like to remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to 

question the panel, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Manning, I do understand you inherited this so we understand that fully. FEMA piloted the C2C project this summer with 

17 States, urban areas, and Tribal governments. I understand that 

the pilot participants identified a lot of weaknesses with the tool. 

Why did FEMA initiate a second pilot program this fall with 17 

additional stakeholders without changing the tool to reflect the 

first pilot? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. The 

initial phase of the field trials of the C2C system, the tool looked 

at 17 different jurisdictions. Midway through that analysis, there 

was a determination made by the Grants Program Directorate that 

the 17 jurisdictions that were being looked at didn’t fully account 

for the various sizes and complexities of the different jurisdictions 

that needed to be evaluated. So they selected an additional 17 to 

go through the trial. There was never an intent to change the system or to not change the system before going to the next phase of 

an analysis or to go live with it—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. I am sorry, Mr. Manning, so the 17 States and cities or areas did not fit what? Aren’t we trying to fit the tool to 

match the customer instead of trying to get the customer to match 

the tool? That is what it sounds like you all are doing. 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if that is how I made 

it sound. No. The intent, it is my understanding the Grants Program Directorate, GPD, wanted to bring in additional cities, additional information prior to making the changes to the interface. 

There were concerns recognized very early on with some of the 

methodology and most certainly the interface, the programming of 

how the tool worked, which is a lot of the early input, before the 

methodological concerns came up. The addition of an additional 17 

jurisdictions was simply to increase the amount of data available 

prior to the analysis and the large change to the system. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Did you take any of the input from those 17 

States, cities, counties, local folks, and make any adjustments to 

the tool? 

Mr. MANNING. Prior to the second phase? No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Isn’t that the purpose why you have a pilot program? 

Mr. MANNING. As it has been explained to me, that was the intent of adding the 17 was to get more data before making the substantial changes to the system prior to another phase of either piloting, testing, or rolling out. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Basic question. Title of the hearing today, ‘‘Preparedness: What Has the $29 Billion in Homeland Security Grants 

Bought, and How Do We Know?’’ Answer that question. 
81 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, the C2C is often looked at as simply the tool that is being tested in these first—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. Forget the C2C. Can you answer that question? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a first step towards answering that question in what is actually the first phase 

of the Cost to Capabilities Initiative, which is the look-back report 

that was provided in early May 2009, and that is a cataloging, 

going back, scrubbing all the records, of cataloging what was actually bought, what was actually exercised and what was actually 

done with the grant money from 2003 through 2007. 

Mr. CUELLAR. We have to account to the taxpayers. If somebody 

asked me in Austin, Texas, 6th Street, somewhere around there, 

they ask me, you all just spent $29 billion since 2002. What have 

you provided on the issue of preparedness? How do I respond to 

that question, besides saying well, we work in a C2C tool, on the 

fact that there is some reports. How do I answer that question? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I think it is, we have clearly improved our level of preparedness, we have clearly improved our 

ability to identify emerging terrorist threats and plots throughout 

the activities at the fusion centers and things that didn’t exist prior 

to these grant programs. There is demonstrable improvement over 

the last many years. Aside from what we have been able to catalog 

for the actual items, that equipment that responders use to respond to potential acts of terrorism and emergencies and disasters 

every day, and aside from being able to point to the training, the 

exercise, the net increases in the number of people who are trained 

and certified to be able to respond to weapons of mass destruction 

incidents, we have solid data to be able to point to. Beyond that, 

we have not historically done anywhere near as good a job at measuring what we have actually in a net respect gained over the last 

8 years. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me interrupt because my time is up. But let 

me just ask you. If I was to measure your performance, I am talking about the Agency’s performance or even State levels, I am sure 

that two States here, Ohio and Arkansas, have done this, basic 

questions to ask agencies in a budgeted program review, basic 

questions and you get the answers on this. What is your program’s 

or agency’s primary purpose? No. 1. What citizens are you trying 

to affect? What key results are expected from the use of the taxpayers funds? What key results are expected from the taxpayer 

funds? 

What are the key performance indicators that you use to track 

progress attaining results? What were the results in the most recent years? How do these results compare to your target? Have any 

of the results been unexpectedly good or unexpectedly poor? 

How do results compare to other benchmarks, and let’s say Ohio 

versus Arkansas or Texas whatever? If the targets were missed, 

why were those targets missed? What is the variants? What is currently being done to improve deficiencies? What actions does your 

new proposed budget include in improved results? How would the 

results change if your funding would be increased by 5 percent or 

decreased by 5 percent? 

So, questions, there are a couple other questions. Free advice. 

How much did you pay for your C2C? 
82 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have the answer to that. 

Mr. CUELLAR. You have got to have a general idea. I know you 

do. 

Mr. MANNING. I know it is somewhere in the $5 million range, 

as I understand. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Free advice for $5 million. I think we can do a little better and, Mr. Manning, I don’t mean to be harsh on you because you took over this, but I think sometimes it is better to not 

defend something that is not working. Just say we already invested 

$5 million, and we are trying to make it work, go from 17 localities 

to another 17 to find the right feedback on that. I can give you this 

for free and, in fact, without objection I will put this part of the 

record, the basic questions on that. But you can get the same measurements. Now there is a lot of work in getting that information. 

I understand that. But to spend $5 million on a tool, I would ask 

you to reconsider that. 

At this time I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 

his 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again I thank the 

witnesses. 

Mr. Manning, a little over a month ago, Ranking Member Gus 

Bilirakis and I sent a letter to Administrator Fugate and one to 

Secretary Napolitano that I would like to have admitted into the 

record if there is no objection—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. No objection. 

[The information follows:] 
83 
84 
85 
86 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. In which we were expressing opposition 

to ACORN receiving a million dollar fire grant. I represent a large, 

rural, poor Congressional district and $1 million goes a long way 

with all these volunteer fire departments. I understand you all 

stopped it. We haven’t received a formal response. But why was 

ACORN going to receive a fire grant? Can you tell us that? 

Mr. MANNING. Certainly, Congressman Rogers. The grants that 

ACORN received under the fire grant programs were awarded, 

were selected by a peer review panel of the Fire Service. There was 

a peer review panel empaneled by the Fire Service of members of 

the Fire Service to identify grant applications that would be effective. This particular part of the grant what ACORN’s proposal was, 

was fire protection activities in low-income areas, specifically installing smoke detectors in low-income areas, in inner cities. That 

was what the grant was for. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. I have another question. The 

FEMA policy interpretation on the use of grant funds such as they 

cannot be utilized to sustain equipment is very concerning to me. 

A striking example of how this may negatively impact homeland 
87 

security preparedness in response is the Securing Cities Initiative. 

In order to exist beyond 3 years, DHS has a strategic plan for the 

program States that homeland security grants funding could be leveraged to expand the capability as deemed useful by the region. 

This grants strategy is, in fact, frequently touted as the perfect solution for New York City to fund its vital homeland security program. 

My question is, how do you propose New York City maintain millions of dollars worth of radiological detection equipment if the administration is not requesting funds for it any more and suggesting 

that they apply to the grant program that would be rejected for 

that purpose under FEMA’s new policy? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Rogers, the policy, FEMA’s policy, GPD’s policy, on the limitations of expenditures for maintenance and 

sustainment, has been in place since the beginning of the grant, beginning of the grants. It has been a—while not well understood and 

not well explained over time, it has been in place in part of the 

grant programs. There are questions in the guidance every year 

about how does the jurisdiction intend to sustain the investment 

made under this year’s grants? 

There are no limitations on maintenance for sustainment within 

the grant cycle that the equipment is procured. So over a multiyear grant those activities are available under the grant funds. 

It has been GPD’s, it has been FEMA’s policy, DHS’s policy prior 

to it being in FEMA that the responsibility for the upkeep for taking on the maintenance tail of procurement be transferred to the 

grantee with the expiration of that particular grant cycle. What we 

did in the last, what FEMA did in the last few months, as I said, 

it was unclear. The guidance was unclear and vague over the 

years. There was repeated questions of us by grantees for clarification. FEMA issued this clarification of the existing policy, but in 

such a way, clear enough, that it appeared to be new to many 

grantees and has expressed a number of concerns, which while we 

had heard anecdotally prior, we are now hearing very explicit examples of where that is a concern. 

I can assure you that that issue is receiving the highest level of 

attention. We are looking at all the concerns that are being raised 

by the grantees. The explicit examples, as we heard in testimony 

this morning, are very helpful to allow us to examine our policy in 

depth and figure what is the best thing for the safety of the American public. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Ms. Crandall—— 

Ms. KILROY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROGERS. Sure. 

Ms. KILROY. I would invite the gentleman, which is concerned 

about the maintenance of the safety in New York City and other 

communities across our country, to consider cosponsoring legislation that would make this a requirement. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am, thank you. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Ms. Crandall, you mentioned earlier in your testimony how the lack of sustainment funds could affect your interoperability of your communication system. This is deviating a little 

bit from the subject matter of this hearing, but it piqued my inter-
88 

est. Are you finding that you have solved your challenges with 

interoperability within your system or not? 

Ms. CRANDALL. We have solved our problems in the Columbus 

urban area, yes, we have. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am so proud to here somebody has finally done 

that. That is the first person I have come before this committee to 

tell me that they have solved that. 

Mr. Maxwell, I want to note that you are the only person on this 

committee without an accent, and I am proud to have you here. 

What recommendations—in particular, you talked to about C2C— 

what specific recommendations do you have for FEMA that would 

improve the C2C Initiative? 

Mr. MAXWELL. I think with Mr. Manning’s help, we are working 

toward defining what is ‘‘preparedness.’’ We have talked around 

standards for preparedness for years and years and years, and I 

don’t think there is a common understanding of what is preparedness, what capabilities do we need. 

I think as we go forward, we have to define those things, establish some standards that are flexible enough to meet the needs of 

rural States and urban States, rural communities, urban communities. 

Mr. ROGERS. So it is just a definitional problem as far as you are 

concerned? 

Mr. MAXWELL. I think so. A lot of it is establishing those standards so we can clearly, across the board, identify what we have 

done and what we need to do. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. At this time I recognize 

the Chairman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. I have followed with great 

interest the questions that have been raised so far. 

Mr. Manning, you have inherited this responsibility. Have you 

and the Secretary, Mr. Fugate, whomever, had an opportunity to 

study this C2C program and determine whether it makes sense or 

we might need to do it like we have done all these other programs 

when there is some question as to their viability? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, we have looked closely at all of our 

initiatives. One of the very first things that Administrator Fugate 

did when he came on board was to issue a moratorium on new data 

calls essentially, new big initiatives that go out to our partners at 

the State and local, Tribal governments for new bits of information. 

We had by different counts, different numbers, but five major initiatives on par with C2C collecting data from our partners, grantees, and State, local, and Tribal governments. The C2C initiative, 

one of them, the first part with the look back was a very effective 

cataloging, I think, of what we have done to date. The next part 

was to be to look forward. Now at the same time we have another, 

a number of other initiatives looking at similar things, and as part 

of that moratorium the administrator directed me to establish this 

working group, on which Mr. Maxwell serves, to identify all the different things we are asking at the same time and what is the best 

way to do that, with the hope that in the future, we have an effective, we do exactly as you are describing, Mr. Chairman, of taking 

C2C and where it is similar to the GAP program, or the Com-
89 

prehensive Assessment System, or the NIMSCAST, or any others, 

and do it once so we have a methodologically sound data collection 

that results in outcomes, not simply outputs as the Chairman has 

pointed out in the past, and has the least amount of impact on our 

grantees as possible, allows them to get on with their work with 

preparing the Nation for emergencies and disasters. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, maybe I need to say when are you going 

to finish? I heard what you said. What I am really trying to get 

at is you are basically prepared to go forward with the program at 

this point? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to use it for making grant allocation decisions, as described previously. It is a good 

assessment system that we have to take, we have to take the input 

we have heard into account and make sure that system is correct 

before it goes—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. So what are you going to use it for? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, it was designed to assess the increase in capability. I think what we are planning to do is to take 

a close look at the results of the pilot. We have to look closely at 

the results of the entire—our evaluation of how well the system 

worked as well as the input taken from the partner governments 

that have worked with us, both the first and second half of the two 

gangs of 17 that helped us in that. 

We will use it in conjunction with our State preparedness reports, the other assessments systems, but ultimately, Mr. Chairman, to identify a unified single way of assessing what we are 

doing and do it correctly. It does nobody any good, Mr. Chairman, 

I think, to go forward with a program that has not been completely 

vetted and doesn’t have the support of the grantees, doesn’t necessarily meet the methodologic rigor that we require in order to 

make informed decisions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The term that the committee has been provided 

is that C2C will put meaningful measures in place that show how 

homeland security grants are used to enhance the Nation’s preparedness. 

Now if I just heard what you said is you are now going to modify 

that to do something else. 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I think the system, the C2C system, was designed specifically to look at capability increases. While 

there are certainly, as pointed out in the other witnesses’ testimony 

this morning very ably, there are problems with how it does that 

at the benchmark level, in the beginning. But, if we can solve some 

of those issues, it may measure the increases in capability effectively. However, it doesn’t take risk into account. It doesn’t take 

threat into account. So before we can use it or anything like it to 

make any kind of—it can inform our decision-making but it can’t 

be used to make funding allocation decisions until it is consistent 

with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I guess my point is if you keep moving the ball, 

can you imagine what our State and locals are going through with 

this? It is a real challenge. The committee was provided with this 

chart, which it looks good, like, you know, most charts we get presented. But when you start trying to put the realities of the how 

things get done, I can understand Mr. Maxwell’s concern about 
90 

definitions and some other things. I would suggest to you, sir, that 

you probably need to revisit, and I think this is a 3-week-old chart 

of this process. Some of the testimony that we heard today is a little inconsistent with what we hear, what we have on this chart. I 

would suggest that you probably have your people look at it again. 

I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would 

like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manning, I think 

I heard you correctly, you said that C2C does not take into account 

threat or risk levels. You know from the inception of this committee and when the Department was created, we have attempted 

to tie funding to the areas of greatest threat and risk. So to me 

that is disturbing. I know, Ms. Crandall, you said that C2C should 

be modified to take into account threat and risk. In your words you 

said it is ignored under the C2C. 

That is probably the biggest flaw, if you will, that I see in the 

system. I know you just sort of inherited this. But I would like to 

get comments from the two of you on that and how you can modify 

it and change it so that it is threat- and risk-based. 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. McCaul, I think whether or not we can modify 

this existing system to incorporate risk, I actually don’t have the 

answer to that. The purpose of the pilots is to see how effective this 

system may have been in measuring increases or potential increases in the capability to respond to essentially our policy-driven 

planning scenarios, the target capabilities list and the National 

planning scenarios. 

Incorporating threat and risk I believe is something that probably has to happen with the output of the C2C system. We think 

of risk as threat, vulnerability, and consequence. With the C2C 

being the increase in capability or another way to look at the vulnerability of a particular jurisdiction, invert that, it is something 

that can be used to inform our idea of risk and then make the 

funding decisions. That was probably as far as where we were able 

to go with the system. 

It is simply meant to measure the increase in capability that can 

be gained from the application of resources with grant dollars. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Ms. Crandall, what is your take on that? 

Ms. CRANDALL. I think we are looking at two different pieces 

here. At the FEMA-DHS level, they were looking at how to measure capability, gain, sustainment and the cost of it across the country. They based that on the National scenarios. 

The problem with that is that the National scenarios are not 

fully implemented or needed in every State and urban area. We 

have our own threat risk and need clearly identified and written 

in our strategy. When you try to nationally judge and evaluate 

something and you put up standards that don’t apply—prime example, when I did cost to capability for the Columbus urban area, 

improvised explosive device came out to be one of the lowest things 

we needed to worry about when in reality it is the top thing we 

worry about based on our assessment evaluation. Things that are 

prevalent in Arkansas and Texas we will never see in the State of 

Ohio. 
91 

So to build a target capability to be able to evacuate Columbus, 

Ohio, with 3 days’ warning is absurd because it will never happen 

to us. We don’t have hurricanes. So the problem comes into can 

C2C be formulated to come down to the threat risk of my urban 

area so that for me that cost to capability is what we need in Columbus and not what we see Nationally in a very broad-based program. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I think that is great advice to Mr. Manning. I 

think that this money in my view is not to be used to supplant 

State and local budgets so they can spend money elsewhere. It really should be designed based on the risk and the threat in the area 

and where can we direct the dollars throughout the country where 

they are most needed? This has really been a problem since the inception of this. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Also, it is so subjective. There is no objectivity to 

this at all. You just simply send the survey to the locals, and they 

fill out: Does this help you make you more prepared? Of course, 

you are going to say yes because they want to continue the flow 

of dollars to their jurisdiction. 

It seems to me that there needs to be something more objective 

in place to oversee how the dollars are spent; otherwise, we are 

going to be looking at duplicative spending and waste, fraud, and 

abuse. Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr. Manning? 

Mr. MANNING. Certainly, Congressman McCaul. I think you hit 

on what is probably the most difficult part of the methodological 

problems with the system as it was rolled out there. Everything is 

based on what is currently a fairly subjective ranking of your level 

of capability against one of the target capabilities. In order to have 

measurable data, in order to have useful data that is empirically 

sound across all of the jurisdictions, it has to be done the same way 

across every one of the jurisdictions. Currently, we would have 118 

different measurements for every one of those sliding scales. Until 

we can come up with a sound methodology for determining that 

based on capability in the beginning, we are going to have that 

problem. That is something that is certainly at the core of the concerns. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I agree with that. I see my time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much. At this time, I would like 

to recognize the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Nevada was selected as one of the 17 in the second phase of the 

pilot program. I wonder if you can tell me kind of why Nevada was 

chosen. I also would like to be updated on how it does in that pilot 

program. I will be talking to the people in Nevada as well. 

Then my second point, I would like to ask you about the urban 

areas security grants. My district in Las Vegas contains one of the 

most well-known unique tourist destinations in the world. We have 

people coming from all over the globe to visit there, and this also 

makes us, unfortunately, a target for terrorists. 

Yet, the current model for allocating those grants I don’t think 

takes into account some of those unique qualities of Las Vegas. For 

example, it doesn’t take into account the long-term impact, which 

is pretty unimaginable. Also, when you have formulas just based 
92 

on population, that doesn’t take into account the millions of tourists who are there who also have special needs. So I wonder if you 

could tell us what you are doing to improve those allocation metrics 

so that we can do a better job of giving out those grants. 

Mr. MANNING. Certainly. If I may start with the last question 

and work my way back. The current risk formula is being evaluated. We continually evaluate how we do all of our programs and 

policies, and we are looking at how we think of risk, how we think 

of threat, and how the grant distribution decisions are made. 

As to the tourist population, there is transient population, visitors, visitor data. Those data are used in the determination of population daytime, nighttime populations and numbers from various 

sources on tourists and visitors are brought into bear on those calculations. Whether they receive the right amount of ranking, that 

is something that we are examining and we will continue to examine. 

As to why Nevada was selected for the second round of the pilots 

on the cost capability assessment, that was Nevada is a good representative State of some of the unique attributes of the western 

United States. I come from New Mexico. We have very similar concerns there, the high density or high population centers surrounded 

by vast rural areas and small towns and communities. There are 

aspects to time and distance and geography in the western United 

States that don’t manifest in the eastern United States, especially 

in building capabilities, things like special response teams where a 

plainer view on the map they may look like you can get there in 

an hour, but in fact, it takes six to get around a mountain range. 

Things like that. So it was aspects, those types of aspects that were 

looked at trying to grow the number of 17 to make sure that they 

were a representative sampling of jurisdictions taken into account 

in the first round of analysis of the tool. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. Would you keep me updated on how Nevada is doing? Like I said, I will talk to the people in Nevada, too. 

Your reassessment of those metrics for the grants, will they be 

ready for the next cycle of allocations or not? 

Mr. MANNING. Ma’am, we will continue to evaluate these things, 

all of these systems and work through the administration and the 

Secretary. As we find, as we identify places for changes in policy, 

we will make those recommendations to the Secretary. I don’t have 

an answer directly to your question. 

Ms. TITUS. It is just on-going. It is not time-certain. 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Ms. Titus. At this time, we would like 

to recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Manning, is there maybe an unspoken assumption in the 

agency that an increase in spending directly correlates with an increase in capability? 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, sir. I think that the fundamental concept of 

how we were implementing these grant programs, they are inherently designed to increase capability. I think there is—yes, sir, 

there would be the presumption that as we implement new programs, there would be some measurable increase in capability. 
93 

However, we constantly strive to measure that effectiveness. 

Whether they are efficient and effective in increasing capability or 

preparedness is certainly the question and what we are trying to 

measure. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I think several other Members, I think Mr. 

McCaul mentioned the subjectivity here and you heard probably 

more than you want to hear today. But that is a very real and 

strong concern that I have. I have a list of all the agencies in my 

Congressional district in Missouri that would be impacted by this, 

and I have this weird belief that I was sent up here to protect our 

interests. So I am very concerned about that. But I guess—and I 

got here late. 

I am in a markup in Financial Services, so I apologize for being 

here late. But maybe the most significant question for me, and 

maybe the Chairman has already dealt with this, I don’t understand why there were no changes made prior to the implementation of the second pilot program. I think the Chairman requested 

that. 

Mr. MANNING. Congressman Cleaver, I think the simplest way to 

answer the question would be to consider it two halves of the same 

assessment. It wasn’t designed to be a phase one, make changes; 

phase two, to test the changes. It was going out with phase one 

and kind of adaptive methodology in the evaluation system. I think 

they went with phase one, their initial 17, realized that they 

weren’t collecting the data they needed to be able to make a valid 

assessment. They certainly were getting input. They were certainly 

collecting valuable information on the effectiveness of the programming, of the code, of the philosophy behind the system. But they 

wanted to measure against, as I was describing a minute ago, with 

other jurisdictions. Not simply to find jurisdictions that fit the tool 

better, but to find other jurisdictions that stressed the tool, that 

had different planning considerations behind the jurisdictions that 

maybe didn’t come into account with places like New York and 

California or Columbus. I think in my experience, too, granted, 

while I wasn’t involved in that decision-making, I always prefer 

more data than less data, and I think they were simply trying to 

get more information to be able to make decisions on how to 

change the tool before they moved forward. That is how I understand it. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I appreciate that. You know, I guess what happens 

if we say to our constituents that changes are going to be made, 

and then only to discover that they were not? I understand what 

happened. I am not sure that I have a high level of appreciation 

for not being told what was going on. I have—I mean, the Chairman was quite eloquent and capable of doing it, of dealing with 

this himself. It was just something that troubled me. 

Finally, let’s move back to this subjectivity, because subjectivity, 

and at least with regard to this program, depends a lot on who is 

inputting the data. Can you say something to me that would cause 

me to believe that the data inputter has something that would reduce the subjectivity? Or do we just understand this is going to be 

subjective, very subjective, and that is just the way it is and let’s 

move on? 
94 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Cleaver, I cannot. I think that is the biggest 

flaw to the system that has been identified. I recognize that as 

well, and—when I saw the system, and I think that is something 

that is being closely looked at. 

Now, Mr. Maxwell commented in his remarks about how do we 

measure. When we talk about are we prepared, we have to define 

preparedness. We have to decide against which, against what are 

we trying to prepare. So I am not sure that we will ever be able 

to get away from some degree of subjectivity. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I agree. Let me tell you my nightmare. I happen 

to believe in earmarks. I believe that that is the only thing that 

the Constitution says that Members of Congress are supposed to do 

is spend, spend the money. That is the only description of Congress 

in the Constitution. But I always have, and the reason I support 

it, because I have this nightmare that there is somebody down in 

the basement who has never gone west of the Mississippi River 

making decisions about Kansas City, Missouri. I just don’t feel 

comfortable with them, whether they are in the basement or upstairs, because—well, this—I will do this, I will do that. I understand that, unfortunately, God only created humans, so we don’t 

know what else we can deal with and there is going to be subjectivity there. But I would surely hope that there could be put in 

place something that would at least monitor the subjectivity or in 

some instances interfere with it if things go awry. Maybe there is 

nothing that we can do about it. 

I needed to express my concern about my own State, my own district with regard to—you know, I tell people I am from Kansas 

City, and they say, well, how are things in Kansas? I mean. So, 

and they don’t even know the difference. I was mayor, and people 

would say, are you mayor both of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas? I would say, yeah, just like the mayor of New 

York and the mayor of New York in Montreal. But people—I mean, 

I don’t want those people making decisions about my community 

and they have absolutely no understanding of it. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. At this time I would like 

to recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kilroy, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I appreciate 

the opportunity to join you this morning. As you know, I am very 

concerned about the FEMA’s new policy restricting preparedness 

grants for being used to maintain homeland security equipment. 

The clarification, Mr. Manning, that you discussed certainly does 

look like a reversal of course to those in the trenches. Someone who 

came from local government, came from county, I know very well 

how the planning for the use of the equipment and the cost of this 

equipment, and now complicated by lower funds available for local 

government in these economic times is a very major concern. The 

reversal, of course, right now certainly does need to have your 

highest attention as you said. I also want to make sure, though, 

that Congress restates its intent, because I believe that this policy 

violates Congressional intent. That is why I introduced legislation, 

H.R. 3837, the Sure Act, to make sure that the agency does recourse on this. I want to thank Chairman Cuellar and Chairman 

Thompson for cosponsoring this bill and for working with me on 
95 

this issue. I hope that it is something that the State and county 

organizations that are facing this issue takes to their bodies, such 

as the Emergency Management Association, look forward to working with you and hopefully getting your input. 

I am also concerned because, as you heard in questioning from 

Mr. Rogers and Ms. Crandall’s testimony, that Franklin County 

and its first responders, its local officials, its elected officials made 

interoperability and protecting the first responders our top priorities for usage of UASI grants and other funds that might be available for us. I would like to ask Ms. Crandall to elaborate on how 

the interoperability might be adversely affected should this policy 

remain in place. 

Ms. CRANDALL. Thank you. The interoperable communications, 

as I stated previously, is probably the largest investment that we 

have to sustain. There is a migration currently from analogue, 800 

megahertz to digital, 700 megahertz to improve and expand beyond 

Ohio and across the country the capability for interoperability. 

The equipment that we purchased with homeland security dollars and local dollars and justice dollars not only has to be maintained on a consistent basis to keep those towers up and running, 

but we also have to now migrate some of that equipment that we 

have spent tens of millions on from an analogue platform to a digital platform. The planning that went into interoperability in the 

Columbus urban area was over a 2-year period. We have used 50 

percent of homeland security funds since the beginning of homeland security grants to build that capability to reach the highest 

level of interoperability on the spectrum and the continuum that is 

put out by FEMA/DHS. 

If we can’t upgrade the towers, if we can’t flash upgrade radios, 

if we can’t continue to buy batteries and pay repair costs, if we 

can’t use the interoperability for data, which is the next step, and 

instead have to buy all new equipment to run parallel, the cost will 

be staggering in the duplicity for absolutely no reason. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you. It is always a major concern, and a concern that came about taking a look at the reports from some National incidents about where the vulnerabilities were we needed to 

address. But it was also local peer-to-peer discussions that allowed 

that to happen. 

I am also somewhat concerned that this C2C system now won’t 

allow for that unity of purpose to be able to be generated and also 

have that State and local input. 

So I would like to again ask Mr. Maxwell and Ms. Crandall 

about how your local communities see the assessment of your local 

threatened risk with the C2C system and obtaining unity among 

your very first responders. 

Ms. CRANDALL. For the Columbus urban area, the urban working 

group as we work through C2C we had to do the State preparedness report as an urban area because it is the base of C2C. We 

started there, and we started with the discussion of where is it 

going to take us if we are valuing preparedness for wildfires and 

hurricanes and issues that do not apply to the State of Ohio, let 

alone to the Columbus urban area. 

The frustration is great. National scenarios, again, very broadbased and perhaps Nationally most important. But to the Colum-
96 

bus urban area and the State of Ohio, we wrote a strategy after 

evaluating and assessing to tell us where our vulnerabilities were, 

to tell us the level of target capabilities we have that are critical 

to faith, and prepare for the threat and risks specific to us. C2C 

doesn’t allow for that at this time. 

Ms. KILROY. I would say, Mr. Manning, that I am concerned that 

the C2C is trying to be too much of a one-size-fits-all and too much 

Washington-based and, as Mr. Cleaver indicated, not taking in the 

concerns of local communities. We—if you refer back to our founding, it is one if by land, two if by sea. Well, we won’t have two if 

by sea in Franklin County and Union County and Madison County 

in Ohio, and but we do have real threats that should be monitored, 

should be assessed, and should have the most effective strategy to 

prepare for. Could you address the Nationalization of this process? 

Mr. MANNING. Certainly. Yes, ma’am. In the assessment of the 

level of capability, that is ultimately to the grantee, to the user. So 

in the case of Franklin County, the determination of the baseline, 

where are they against—and how capable are they against a particular capability. That determination is made by Franklin County. 

But where the problem lies, Mr. Cleaver is alluding to, and I believe that you are alluding to, as well as some of the foundational 

documents that aren’t part of C2C but on which C2C is built, and 

that is the target capabilities list, the National planning scenario, 

some of the doctrinal things that DHS has generated over the 

years. They presume—the target capabilities, for example, were a 

policy that was trying to establish baseline capabilities that need 

to be achieved in every community across the country. That was 

recognized pretty quickly to be unachievable; that the level of capability needed by Franklin County is not probably the same as needed by Luna County in New Mexico. 

So there is a new—there was a revision in process to try to base 

that on population. However, that doesn’t take into account the 

complexities of various jurisdictions that we have all I am sure experienced, again, as Mr. Cleaver is alluding to, from Kansas City. 

So we recognize that as well. These are all important things and 

that were identified. Ultimately the purpose of a pilot study to assess whether a new system will achieve its intended goals, in this 

case, measuring the level of capability, again, I think we have identified a number of significant shortfalls in the system that need to 

be addressed prior to it being used for anything other than a simple narrow look into the effectiveness of the grant program based 

on the assessed, the stated goals of a particular jurisdiction. 

Ms. KILROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Ms. Kilroy, thank you very much. At this time, I 

recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Richardson, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Manning, based upon what you have heard so far today, 

what would your recommendation to the Secretary and the administrator be? 

Mr. MANNING. Ms. Richardson, I believe the recommendation 

would be that the cost capabilities pilot, while we need to examine 

closely—continue the analysis of all the data collected, that the system as it currently stands is useful to assess a particular jurisdic-
97 

tion’s increase in capability over their stated beginning point, and 

beyond that can be used possibly to help inform grant decisionmaking, but not—it is not a system that can be used to solely make 

grant distribution decisions. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Have you seen the letter from the mayor in my 

area dated September 21 to the Secretary, mayor of Los Angeles, 

the second largest city in this Nation? Have you read this? 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So how, if you have read this, can you say this 

system was useful if the whole point of the pilot was to evaluate 

the system? 

Mr. MANNING. Ma’am, I don’t believe that the system—the concerns addressed in Mayor Villaraigosa’s letter are valid, are directly on point. They hit with all of the points we have discussed 

this morning, the fact that it doesn’t take risk into account, the fact 

that there are critical points in the methodology which are subjective. 

When I describe that I think that it is useful, I think it is not 

useful, it may not be a useful tool as originally intended, as piloted 

and reflected in the mayor’s letter. It may be useful in simply 

measuring the gain from one point to another as assessed by the 

jurisdiction, which is very different from being useful and making 

any kind of grant distribution allocations. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I just got through with flying 24 hours from 

Samoa, so I am going to apologize for my frankness. There is no 

such thing as being half pregnant. You are either pregnant or you 

are not. In my opinion, when you look at the second largest city 

in this Nation that participated in a pilot that says provided no 

guidance or value for assessing homeland security investments, are 

not based upon the methodology approach, and as a result, the 

project scores will be inconsistent or accurate, even though I am 

going through—there are seven points here. 

I don’t understand how you can say, well, it might be useful for 

this, it might be not useful for that. You know, the American public 

is spending hard-earned money that many people don’t have shoes 

on their feet, you know, don’t have jobs, we are spending money 

continuing to implement something that you know does not work. 

To me, in my opinion, that is the epitome of wasteful spending 

and the Government’s continued failure to listen and to adjust. We 

don’t need to continue what we know does not work. We should 

put—in my opinion, you should put your feet on the brakes and reevaluate and get something that does make sense and then continue your process. But to continue something with 17 other locations that you know doesn’t work, I mean, help me understand how 

you can, in your professional opinion, do that. 

Mr. MANNING. Yes, ma’am. I agree that there are significant 

problems with the methodology to use that system to cross-analyze 

multiple jurisdictions. Absolutely. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Isn’t that the point of what the tool is for? 

Mr. MANNING. The tool—yes, ma’am. That is why we are doing 

the pilot study, was to collect all of the problems with the system, 

to identify if there are problems. Which we have. We have received 

those same comments from many other jurisdictions that have gone 

through the pilot program. 
98 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So why are you continuing it? 

Mr. MANNING. We are continuing the pilot program. We are continuing to the conclusion of the pilot program and the analysis of 

all the data so we can make our final decision and make a recommendation through to the administrator and the Secretary. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. You don’t have a recommendation right now? 

Mr. MANNING. I am aware of all the concerns, but I don’t have— 

the pilots are not complete and we haven’t looked at all of the data. 

We certainly have heard the concerns and understand the concerns 

of Los Angeles and New York and Houston and other jurisdictions. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. You are familiar with the cost and the 

time and everything. How much does it cost to do this program? 

Mr. MANNING. Ma’am, I don’t have the information on a per jurisdiction basis or the pilot, the expected cost to completion. But I 

can collect that information and provide it to you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. My time has expired. What I would say to you, 

from my experience and from your testimony and what I have 

heard from my colleagues, I believe, as I said, this is a perfect example of Government waste and abuse and poor work. I would 

hope that, rather than us continuing down this road, that you 

would properly make some evaluations and stop. Then as you go 

forward and make true evaluations—and I can’t stress enough. If 

you come from a district which Secretary Napolitano has flown 

over it, where you have refineries and ports and airports and water 

treatment facilities and all that, if it is not working here, you are 

wasting our time. I have got to tell you, like I said, coming from 

countries and places America Samoa who really need our help and 

need FEMA to be active, I just think this is an embarrassment. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Mr. Manning, I don’t 

know if you noticed, there is a tsunami of concerns on this issue. 

Do you have anybody that liked this C2C? 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Besides the contractor. 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, I have not—to my knowledge, I 

have not received any letters in support. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Who is your customer, if I can use that term? 

Mr. MANNING. Absolutely. The customers are the grantees, the 

State and local governments and the American people. 

Mr. CUELLAR. So if your customers, along with the oversight 

committee, ourselves, are having concerns about this, I understand 

as you mentioned to Ms. Richardson you are going through the 

process to finish your pilot program. But I hope that you consider 

this. I still ask you to go back and just go back to the basics. If 

you go to mission performance, you have got to look at what is your 

mission, what is your goal, what is your strategy. As you develop 

the goals and the strategies of performance measures, you are 

going to come up with, I think Mr. Maxwell brought up, Mr. Rogers, is your definitional issues. It takes a long time. 

For example, as Mr. Rogers mentioned, what is preparedness? 

Who is going to define that? You are going to have a definitional 

issue there. So do you prepare that, or do you get in with the organizations and come up with what preparedness comes up? It might 
99 

* The information has been retained in committee files. 

be different what Ohio might want and what California might want 

or Texas might want or Arkansas, but you have got to develop at 

least some basic structures that fits under the definition of preparedness. I think if you don’t go back to the basics—and, again, 

we understand, Mr. Manning, you are in a difficult situation because you are picking up the baton where it was left. But I still 

ask you to go back, just go back to what I gave you this for free. 

I think it was—you mentioned $5 million when you answered my 

question before she got in. 

But out of curiosity, the committee, I am going to ask you to submit the information what the cost of the software was for this, and 

if you can provide that information. But I think what we are seeing 

here is the focus is using a software to substitute basically what 

we can do, that is, on the performance measures. What goes in is 

going to come out on that. I am not using those terms. I haven’t 

had 24 hours on the airplane, so I will be more a bit more diplomatic. But basically what is going in is going out on that. But I 

would say that—I mean, I would say you have just got to go back 

to the basics and don’t put your eggs on this tool, because I think 

everybody is saying we don’t like this tool. I think if you sat down 

and asked the association Mr. Maxwell is going to be the new 

president or is the president on, and say, okay, what should be our 

mission, what should be the indicators, what is the performance 

measures, what is the strategy, what is the goal, where do we have 

issues with definitions. 

I think if you do that you will save yourself $5 million plus, and 

I think you will save yourself a lot of headaches also. Mr. Manning, 

you are doing a good job. This is it, but I know on the strategic 

plan that we asked you, I think you are one of the first ones that 

has given us that information before anybody. It is a new leaf 

turned. I know you are in a difficult situation. But I want to ask 

you to seriously consider the tsunami of negativisms that you are 

getting in from the locals and from the oversight committee. 

Mr. Rogers? Anybody want to add anything else before we go? 

Mr. Cleaver, any Kansas City things? All right. Ms. Kilroy, thank 

you for the bill that you filed. I appreciate the leadership. 

At this time, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. 

Members on the subcommittee might have additional questions for 

the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to that as soon as you 

can. Ask you to do that. Also, members, I want to ask you, with 

your permission, without objection, the chart on how the CQC—if 

you haven’t seen that, I would ask that be made part of the record, 

but before that is made part of the record, I want to pass that on 

and have you hand that over to the clerk so you can get an idea.* 

We are making this very complicated, and I would ask you to really 

seriously consider modifying this to something that works a lot 

easier. 

Mr. Manning, I would love to sit down with your staff, whoever 

your persons are on performance, and ask you to sit down and we 

will give you some ideas, some suggestions. It is up to you. You are 

the Executive branch. But we would like to give you some sugges-
100 

tions. Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, and 

the hearings were concluded.] 
(101) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR FOR TIMOTHY W. MANNING

Question 1. Your testimony suggests that FEMA may choose not to integrate the 

Cost to Capability (C2C) tool into the fiscal year 2011 Homeland Security Grant 

Program (HSGP) as initially envisioned. Recognizing that the administrator inherited this program from his predecessor, what is FEMA’s time line for reviewing the 

two C2C pilot programs and making a decision on C2C’s future? 

Question 2. Please describe how FEMA intends to incorporate feedback from 

C2C’s two pilot programs into the final tool. 

Answer. FEMA has requested a rollup of all comments related to the first two 

C2C pilots from pilot participants. This information will be reviewed along with 

other evaluation and assessment efforts currently being conducted in FEMA. FEMA 

wants to ensure that State and local jurisdictions are only asked to provide data 

once (instead of multiple times) and that this data can be shared across all applicable programs in FEMA. 

We have received a number of useful suggestions relative to measuring the effectiveness of grant funds. We will determine a course forward based on all available 

data and ensure that our partners in Congress are briefed on our future course. 

Question 3. Why did FEMA choose to base the C2C tool on the National planning 

scenarios rather than target capabilities? Please explain how the C2C tool maps target capabilities to the National planning scenarios. 

Answer. The C2C prototype utilized the National planning scenarios in a simple 

approach to prioritize the target capabilities. The approach used both the scenarios 

and the target capabilities in a two-step process that resulted in a set of relative 

weights for all target capabilities. The process was adopted because of its intuitive 

nature and its ability to compensate for inconsistencies in the input data and still 

generate a consistent result. With the understanding that the current effort is a 

pilot of a prototype, it was assumed that the prioritization approach could change 

based on grantee input. The other parts of the prototype are independent of the 

prioritization approach, but require that the prioritization results in relative importance weights for the target capabilities. 

Question 4a. Please provide the following information for each of these programs: 

Cost to Capability pilot, Target Capabilities List, Comprehensive Assessment System, Federal Preparedness Report, Catastrophic Resource Report, and the State 

Preparedness Report: 

The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional authorization of the program; 

Question 4b. whether any of the work for the program has ever been or is currently being completed by a contractor; 

Question 4c. the contract number(s) for any and all work that has been or currently is being completed by a contractor; and, 

Question 4d. a breakdown of the number of Federal employees and number of contractors per project. 

Answer. 

Cost to Capability Pilot: 

1. The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional authorization of the 

program: $4.2M FY 2008, $2.7M FY 2009 (coverage through Sep 2010). 

2. Whether any of the work for the program has ever been or is currently being 

completed by a contractor: 

3. The contract number(s) for any and all work that has been or currently is 

being completed by a contractor: FY 2008 and FY 2009 contract: (TAD) GS– 

23F–9755H; Task Order #: HSHQVT–07–F–00015; Sep 2009 through present 

contract: (C2C) HSFEEM–09–F–0263 

4. A breakdown of the number of Federal employees and number of contractors 

per project: All FY 2008 work completed by 0.5 Federal FTE program director 
102 

and 21.5 contractor FTEs; all FY 2009 work through Aug 2009 completed by 

0.7 Federal FTEs (program director and systems advisor) and 13.5 contractor 

FTEs; as of Aug 2009, work split between 5.5 contractor FTE on new contract, 

13.75 contractor FTE on old contract for pilot report surge and short-term transition and 4.5 Federal FTE (full time director and staff). 

Target Capabilities List: 

1. The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional authorization of the 

program: 

2. Whether any of the work for the program has ever been or is currently being 

completed by a contractor: 

3. The contract number(s) for any and all work that has been or currently is 

being completed by a contractor: 

4. A breakdown of the number of Federal employees and number of contractors 

per project: 

In the on-going Target Capabilities List (TCL) Implementation project, the role 

of contract support is to provide the Program Office with management and administrative assistance, coordination support to participating Federal, State, and local 

subject matter experts, meeting facilitation, and research and analysis on policy 

guidance, standards and statutory requirements influencing capability development. 

The draft capabilities are the product of feedback from the Federal, State, and local 

subject matter experts to the Program Office. 

In fiscal year 2007, FEMA spent $863,000 on the development and finalization of 

Version 2.0 of the TCL through Contract #HSHQDC–07–F–00203 with 3 contractor 

FTEs and 4 Federal FTEs. The initiative to update the TCL in accordance with Section 646 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 began in 

fiscal year 2008, with FEMA spending approximately $1,780,000 on the TCL Implementation Project through Contract #GS–10F–0148J and #SP0700–03–D–1380– 

0151–06 SV TAT 06–25 and dedicated 2 federal FTEs to the effort with 10 FTE contractors provided support. In fiscal year 2009, FEMA spent approximately 

$1,900,000 on the TCL Implementation Project with Contract #HSFEHQ–08–A– 

1889 and #HSFEHQ–08–J–0005 dedicating 3.5 Federal FTEs and 10 contractor 

FTEs to the effort. 

Comprehensive Assessment System: 

Federal Preparedness Report: 

Catastrophic Resource Report: 

State Preparedness Report: 

1. The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional authorization of the 

program: 

2. Whether any of the work for the program has ever been or is currently being 

completed by a contractor: 

3. The contract number(s) for any and all work that has been or currently is 

being completed by a contractor: 

4. A breakdown of the number of Federal employees and number of contractors 

per project: 

In fiscal year 2008, FEMA spent approximately $6,800,000 on the Comprehensive 

Assessment System (CAS) and State Preparedness Report (SPR) through the following contracts. These efforts were overseen by approximately 2 Federal FTEs. Approximately $2,000,000 through Contract #N65236–03–D–7849 was applied to the 

initial organization of the CAS Working Group, data collection and support with 10 

contractor FTEs, and then an award of approximately $4,000,000 to Contract 

#GS23F8096H at the end of the year for analysis of SPR and CAS data. Analysis 

of catastrophic resources was included in this contract. Approximately $800,000 

from Contract #GS–10F–0184J supported the SPR analysis and the Federal Preparedness Report with approximately 5 contractor FTEs. 

In fiscal year 2009, FEMA spent approximately $7,000,000 on the SPR and the 

CAS through the following contracts. Contracts #HSHQDC–07–X–00245 and 

#HGS10F0374U for $3,100,000 provided support for development of the SPR Survey 

Tool with .5 Federal FTE and 21 contractor FTEs. The CAS was supported by Contract N65236–03–D–7849 for $1,650,000 overseen by 1 Federal FTE and approximately 7 contractor FTEs, and then supported by Contract #GS23F8096H for 

$2,500,000 awarded at the end of the fiscal year. 

Question 5. FEMA has stated its goal in revising the target capabilities list is to 

develop capabilities for three tiers of locations, based largely on population. How 

does FEMA plan to identify the critical capabilities—and tasks—for each of these 

tiers? How does it expect to validate them? What is the timeline for completing this 

review of the 37 target capabilities? 
103 

Answer. FEMA works closely with the lead departments, agencies, and offices 

with lead subject matter expertise in the development of each target capability. 

FEMA also leverages existing stakeholder working groups (e.g., NIMS Resource 

Typing Groups, National Advisory Council, the Interagency Board) to obtain subject 

matter experts to assist in their development. For each capability, a working group 

will be formed comprised of Federal, State, and local government representatives to 

define the risk factors, critical target outcomes, and resource elements for each capability. Workshops are hosted by the FEMA Regions inviting practitioners from 

their respective States and localities. 

To the greatest extent possible, existing policy, doctrine, and standards are used 

to form the basis for the TCL guidance. For example, the National Emergency Communications Plan provides goals for the ‘‘Communications’’ capability, the Baseline 

Capabilities for State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers provides goals for the 

‘‘Intelligence’’ capability, and the measures being developed by the Logistics Management Directorate for the new Logistics Capability Assessment Tool (LCAT) provide the goals for the ‘‘Critical Resource Logistics’’ capability. 

FEMA will soon create a Task Force comprised of State, Tribal, local, and Federal 

stakeholders to examine all aspect of preparedness grants, including benchmarking 

efforts such as the Target Capabilities List. We will be in a better position to plan 

our way forward according to timelines when we have received critical input from 

this Task Force. 

Question 6. To what extent, and how, is the gap analysis for hurricane preparedness useful for developing preparedness measures for the broader National preparedness system? 

Answer. Data collection is a critical component of effective planning which is the 

essential element of preparedness. The data collected thru GAP or any other effort 

is designed to identify potential shortfalls and vulnerabilities within local, State, 

and Federal capabilities as compared against requirements for key categories for 

specific disaster scenarios. By identifying these needs prior to the advent of a disaster, strategies for addressing the vulnerabilities can and should be developed. 

Question 7. What roles does the Emergency Management Accreditation Program 

play in assessing State disaster preparedness, including assessing the clarity of 

roles and responsibilities? What are its principal uses and limitations? 

Answer. The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) provides 

guidance, technical assistance, and evaluating the efficacy of State and Urban Area 

emergency management programs. EMAP is operated by the National Emergency 

Management Association. EMAP supports the emergency management community 

through its use of the standards development process among emergency management practitioners to determine the Emergency Management Standard, as well as 

to use a peer review process to evaluate emergency management program effectiveness. The Emergency Management Standard assists State and local jurisdictions in 

reviewing their emergency management programs. The Emergency Management 

Standard provides standards in context of Program Management and Program Elements and specifies programs, policies, or procedures. 

Through the use of peer reviews, States or Urban Areas are able to understand 

what program elements need to be created or improved. The collaborative process 

also fosters and promotes the sharing of lessons learned and best practices among 

communities. The limitation of the EMAP standard is that it is focused primarily 

on the programmatic aspect of emergency management and does not generally specify the level of capability to be built or maintained. As such, the EMAP standard 

should be used to compliment the guidance found in other standards and the TCL. 

FEMA is working directly with EMAP and NEMA to ensure connectivity among our 

efforts. 

Question 8. In developing preparedness metrics, in what ways does FEMA plan 

to use capabilities-based planning versus scenario-based analyses? What, in your 

view, are the benefits and limitations of each approach? 

Answer. The Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG)–101 ‘‘Developing and 

Maintaining State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Government Emergency Plans’’ 

(March 2009) outlines the three common approaches to developing plans to include: 

Scenario-, Function-, and Capabilities-based planning. CPG–101 further recognizes 

that most planners use a combination of these approaches. For example, a jurisdiction may develop an all-hazards emergency operations base plan that outlines activities and roles and responsibilities for the delivery of certain functions or capabilities, but use scenarios to test the planning assumptions and desired functions or capability levels. 

The current measures within the Target Capabilities List (TCL) are organized by 

capability—not scenario. However, since the targets or goals are intended to build 

capabilities to address large-scale, non-routine events, scenarios, and historical 
104 

events are often used to inform measure development. Thus, consistent with CPG– 

101, a hybrid approach is employed in measure development. 

The benefits of a capability-based process include not restricting the applicability 

of the measure to a limited set of scenarios. A capabilities-based approach ensures 

an all-hazards focus. However, the complementary use of scenarios and historical 

events are very useful to test and validate the appropriateness of the capability 

measures. Question 9. What are FEMA’s priorities in the next 12 and next 24 months for 

developing and implementing measures of preparedness? 

Answer. FEMA’s priorities include working closely with its stakeholders and partners to develop and refine the measures, as well as to update and modify them to 

ensure that they are useful, measurable, and applicable across the Nation. FEMA’s 

priorities also include updating its exercise evaluation, assessment, training development, and other efforts to closely align with the updated measures. 

Within the next 24 months, FEMA endeavors to build a more bottom-up approach 

to how a community uses and evaluates preparedness measures. FEMA is considering the feasibility of a local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force 

that may play a role in reviewing the current manner in which FEMA develops and 

uses preparedness measures, as well as how such measures are applied to evaluate 

and improve capabilities. 

Question 10. What are the most critical challenges that FEMA and its partners 

face in developing preparedness measures? What is FEMA’s plan for addressing 

these challenges and in what period of time? 

Answer. There are numerous challenges inherent in establishing measures for 

emergency management. First and foremost, any such measures must recognize 

that State and local governments—not the Federal Government—are primarily responsible for emergency management. Therefore, preparedness measures must be 

written in close collaboration with State and local government representatives in a 

manner that recognizes the different risks and needs that exist across the Nation. 

To address this challenge, FEMA will leverage the use of subject matter experts 

from State and local governments to assist in the development of measures from the 

very start. 

Another challenge to preparedness measure development is the fact that the departments and agencies with lead subject matter expertise and responsibility for the 

capability are often external to FEMA. For this reason, a great deal of coordination 

is necessary among Federal partners. 

FEMA is considering the feasibility of a Task Force to be comprised of local, State, 

Tribal, and Federal officials to examine preparedness efforts and measures that may 

be applied. Consultation with these stakeholders will allow FEMA to develop aggressive, yet realistic timelines for the implementation of effective preparedness 

measures. 

Question 11. We understand that FEMA this summer approved dozens of fiscal 

year 2009 homeland security grant projects that are intended to keep vital first responder equipment operational. Does FEMA intend to notify grantees/subgrantees 

that they may no longer use funding for these previously-approved projects given 

the 22 September 2009 policy announcement on maintenance projects? 

Answer. The September 22, 2009 email to States and locals was notification clarifying the existing policy regarding maintenance/sustainment to include maintenance, upgrades, repairs-replacement parts, and user fees. The use of funding for 

maintenance and sustainment has never been allowable other than during the period of performance of the grant under which the equipment was purchased. Once 

a grant’s period of performance ends, the grantee is responsible for maintaining 

equipment purchased with grant funds. Because we believed that grantees may not 

have been clear on the policy, the September 22 email was sent to all grantees. 

Based on a number of issues, FEMA reviewed the existing policy and revised the 

policy to allow grantees to use funds for maintenance and sustainment in active and 

future grant awards as of November 20, 2009. 

Question 12. The consequence of FEMA’s new policy is that grantees will be forced 

to discard perfectly usable equipment if they cannot afford to maintain it. Does it 

not then follow that grantees will have to use future homeland security grants to 

buy brand new equipment at a cost far greater than simply maintaining the equipment they currently have? 

Answer. Under FEMA’s previous policy, the grantee is responsible for maintaining 

equipment once the period of performance of the grant under which the equipment 

was purchased expires. However, working with DHS and the administration, FEMA 

conducted a careful review of this policy, and revised the existing policy on Friday, 

November 20. FEMA issued an Information Bulletin (#336) noting that effective immediately, the use of FEMA preparedness grant funds for maintenance contracts, 
105 

warranties, repair or replacement costs, upgrades, and user fees are allowable under 

all active and future grant awards, unless otherwise noted. However, the bulletin 

notes that routine upkeep is the responsibility of the grantee and may not be funded 

with preparedness grant funding, and that maintenance contracts and warranties 

are only an allowable expenditure for equipment purchased with FEMA preparedness grants. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR FOR KATHY B. CRANDALL

Question 1. How do Franklin County and the Columbus Urban Area Working 

Group (UAWG) measure its preparedness capabilities? What was the process for developing these performance measures? 

Answer. The Columbus Urban Area Working Group (UAWG) developed our strategy based on the Target Capabilities pertinent to our identified threat, risk, and 

need. Each capability has a respective impact area defined by need not geography. 

The UAWG performs an annual assessment and evaluation of the progress on meeting the goals of the strategy and modifies accordingly. The implementations step(s) 

to meet the objective for each goal is the performance measure. The metrics for each 

measure are in accordance with the Universal Tasks required under the respective 

Target capability. 

Question 2. Does Franklin County and the Columbus UAWG prepared for disasters using capabilities based planning, scenario-based planning, or both? What, in 

your view, are the benefits and limitations of each approach at the Federal level? 

Answer. The Columbus Urban Area utilizes capability and scenario-based planning. Local scenario-based planning is utilized specific to our Urban Area to identify 

the capabilities we need to build, enhance, and sustain. National scenarios are not 

used for planning purposes because they are too broad-based and fail to incorporate 

local threat, risk, and need. 

Capability-Based.—The benefit at the Federal level is a clear and refined picture 

of prevention, protection, response, and recovery capability and cost of capability at 

the local level. The limitation at the Federal level is clearly the unique individualized assessment and evaluation of each urban area is much more timely and costly 

to identify, track, and compare preparedness efforts across the Nation. 

Scenario-Based.—The benefit at the Federal level of using the National scenarios 

is that it reduces individualization and acts as a National equalizer to reduce the 

effort of measuring preparedness. The limitation at the Federal level is the lack of 

specificity to risk and threat in respective local/State jurisdictions presents a false 

state of preparedness. 

Question 3. To what extent has your agency been involved in FEMA’s Target Capabilities Implementation Project? Please describe, in your view, the strengths and 

weaknesses with this project. 

Answer. I am not aware of a specific ‘‘Target Capabilities Implementation’’ project. 

The National Framework identifies the Target Capabilities and we have been advised that those are under revision and update. GPD has completed the ‘‘Program 

Accomplishments Report’’ that assessed grant funds utilized to support Target Capabilities. These are the only two initiatives I am aware of in progress or undertaken recently and we did not participate in either project. 

Question 4. Approximately how much of your fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security 

Grant Program award were you intending to use to maintain previously purchased 

homeland security equipment? Had FEMA approved these investments prior to its 

September 22, 2009 policy announcement? Answer. Approximately $735,000 of the award was dedicated to maintenance and 

sustainment of previous investments. FEMA has reviewed the proposed fiscal year 

2009 investments through the Peer Review process and did not deny in whole or 

in part any investment. 

Question 5. FEMA has suggested that its maintenance policy was always in place 

but loosely enforced. Had FEMA ever previously prohibited your agency from maintaining homeland security equipment with subsequent preparedness grants? 

Answer. The Columbus urban area has experienced differing decisions from 

FEMA based on the GPD/NPD personnel answering the question or reviewing the 

proposed project. Situation specifics have dictated a FEMA response to prohibit use 

of funds more often than allowed. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN HENRY CUELLAR FOR DAVID MAXWELL

Question 1. Has Arkansas developed its own means of measuring current and future capability levels? If so, please describe the process for developing these measures. Are there lessons learned from your experience that would be beneficial for 

FEMA as they develop preparedness metrics? 
106 

Answer. Arkansas is in the initial phase of developing a capabilities assessment 

tool. This tool will focus on the equipment purchased with Homeland Security Grant 

Program. This tool will rely heavily on the Target Capabilities List that has been 

developed. Each piece of equipment has been identified as serving a specific TC. We 

will be working with a contractor to develop the methodology to achieve this analysis. 

Question 2. Does Arkansas prepare for disasters using capabilities-based planning, scenario-based planning, or both? What, in your view, are the benefits and 

limitations of each approach at the Federal level? 

Answer. Arkansas uses an all-hazards functional approach to planning with the 

format of our plan falling in line with the National Response Framework. Arkansas 

uses the principles in FEMA’s Comprehensive Planning Guidance documents in all 

planning efforts. I feel strongly that at least at the State and local levels the allhazards functional approach gives the best results. 

A limitation of capabilities-based planning is being unprepared for events beyond 

your current capability. A limitation of scenario-based planning is real events will 

rarely, if ever, match the chosen scenario(s). These types of plans will often stovepipe the planning effort. 

Whatever planning approach is utilized it is the planning process of getting all 

of the parties involved that is most important. We can develop great-looking/-sounding plans on paper but if the users of the plan have not been involved in the development the plan will most likely fail. 

Question 3. What have been the strengths and weaknesses of the State Preparedness Report? What recommendations, if any, would you make to FEMA on improving the SPR? 

Answer. 

Strengths of the SPR include: 

The report provides a single-source reporting mechanism for information to 

FEMA. The one-stop-shop approach prevents multiple reporting requirements from 

different parts of FEMA for basically the same information. 

The report gives an overall view of the program instead of fragmented or stovepiped pieces of information. 

Weaknesses of the SPR: 

The report has had at least 3 formats which makes consistency difficult at best. 

The newest format which has not been finalized and implemented as of today (11/ 

13/2009) streamlines the entries to numerical scores but does not define the numerical values so it is very subjective. 

The first iteration of the SPR was narrative and difficult to extract meaningful 

information. The second iteration was a spreadsheet and although simplified it was 

very difficult to compile each unique State’s capabilities and situations into a comprehensive National report. The fine line between being able to aggregate the State 

reports to develop a National report and leaving out each State’s unique capabilities 

is difficult to balance. 

Recommendations: 

Clearly define the numerical scores in the latest tool so States are compiling information in a consistent manner that can then be rolled up into a comprehensive National preparedness report. 

Question 4. To what extent has your agency been involved in FEMA’s Target Capabilities Implementation Project? Please describe, in your view, the strengths and 

weaknesses with this project, as applicable. 

Answer. ADEM Planning Branch Manager is a representative on the Planning 

Target Capability Working Group. The working group is in place to provide input 

from the user community that FEMA seeks as the Target Capabilities are updated. 

One of the main strengths of this project is providing standards for overall preparedness at various levels of government by breaking capabilities down into classes 

and specifying target capabilities for jurisdictions of different sizes. 

The Implementation Project’s weakest point may be in attempting to set measurable Target Outcomes. Not every capability is quantifiable. Target Capabilities are 

not currently used in our planning effort at either the State or Local level in Arkansas. We do not feel the TCLs are beneficial to the planning process. 

The ADEM Exercise Section Chief participated in a Target Capabilities List (TCL) 

Version 3.0 Capabilities Framework Workshop. A draft copy of the Weapons of Mass 

Destruction/Hazardous Materials TC was distributed for comment. The framework 

consisted of three matrices: 1. Performance classes; 2. Performance objectives; and 

3. Resource elements. 

1. Performance classes.—The classes are too broad. The recommendation was 

made to make the classes temporary so they can be used as a guide to measure 
107 

performance. In relation to Arkansas under the current performances, some 

counties will never meet the risk factors. Not all jurisdictions are affected by 

certain natural disasters. 

2. Performance Objectives.—In order to evaluate using the matrix outlining the 

performance objectives a user guide with more clarity of the text, and definitions of terms would be beneficial. Concern was expressed that limiting response to within a certain time frame is not realistic for some rural areas. 

3. Resource elements.—Designed to provide guidance for meeting target outcomes and metrics through capability-based planning. Tables were not userfriendly because they ignore the issue of mutual aid and make the assumption 

that resources are available when needed; they do not seem to link to training 

and ignore the stair-step approach used to respond to emergencies. More explanation of the resource elements and headings would be beneficial. The current 

TCL does not link planning, training, and exercise. The direction of the new 

TCL once completed will benefit jurisdictions measuring their capabilities. Arkansas has not conducted an exercise utilizing the new TCL. 

Question 5. Approximately how much of your fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security 

Grant Program award were you intending to use to maintain previously purchased 

homeland security equipment? Had FEMA approved these investments prior to its 

September 22, 2009 policy announcement? 

Answer. Arkansas does not budget a specific amount dedicated to sustainment. 

Arkansas awards its SHSGP dollars to 77 jurisdictions on a population basis. Each 

jurisdiction develops of a budget of anticipated expenditures. Each jurisdiction can 

determine the appropriate budget amount for sustainment expenses. They do not 

have a pre-determined budget allowance for sustainment expenses. 

Question 6. FEMA has suggested that its maintenance policy was always in place 

but loosely enforced. Had FEMA ever previously prohibited your agency from maintaining homeland security equipment with subsequent preparedness grants? 

Answer. FEMA has not previously disallowed any sustainment purchases made 

by sub-grantees. Sustainment has been a part of the submitted Investment Justifications during previous applications. 

Æ