GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

EMERGENCY 

PREPAREDNESS 

FEMA Faces 

Challenges Integrating 

Community 

Preparedness 

Programs into Its 

Strategic Approach 

January 2010 

GAO-10-193 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2010

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 

FEMA Faces Challenges Integrating Community 

Preparedness Programs into Its Strategic Approach 

Highlights of GAO-10-193, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Individuals can reduce their need 

for first responder assistance by 

preparing for a disaster. By law, the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) in the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) is to 

develop a National Preparedness 

System (NPS) that includes 

community preparedness 

programs. These programs 

account for less than 0.5 percent of 

FEMA’s budget. They include the 

Citizen Corps Program (CCP) and 

partner programs, e.g., Fire Corps, 

which provide volunteers to assist 

first responders. FEMA’s Ready 

Campaign promotes preparedness 

through mass media. GAO was 

asked to review federal efforts to 

promote community preparedness. 

GAO was asked to address (1) 

challenges, if any, FEMA faces in 

measuring the performance of 

CCP, its partner programs, and the 

Ready Campaign, and (2) actions, if 

any, FEMA has taken to develop a 

strategy to encompass how these 

programs are to operate within the 

context of the NPS. GAO analyzed 

documents on preparedness plans 

and strategies and compared 

reported performance data with 

observations during 12 site visits, 

selected primarily on the basis of 

major disasters. While not 

projectable, the results add insight. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FEMA 

examine ways to verify local CCP 

and partner programs’ data, and 

develop timelines and milestones 

for completing preparedness 

strategies. DHS concurred with 

these recommendations. 

FEMA faces challenges measuring performance for CCP, its partner programs, 

and the Ready Campaign because (1) it relies on states to verify data for local 

program units and (2) it is unable to control the distribution of the Ready 

Campaign messages or measure whether the messages are changing the 

behavior of individuals. GAO’s past work showed the importance of ensuring 

that program data are of sufficient quality to document performance and 

support decision making. FEMA includes the number of local volunteer 

organizations registered nationwide as its principal performance measure for 

community preparedness, but does not verify that registration data are 

accurate. For example, 5 of the 17 registered Citizen Corps councils GAO 

contacted were not active as councils. FEMA relies on state officials to verify 

the accuracy of the data, and does not have staff or processes for this 

purpose. FEMA officials agreed that the data are inaccurate, and have plans to 

improve the registration process, but this process is not designed to ensure 

accurate data because states will continue to be responsible for verifying the 

accuracy of data. FEMA counts requests for literature, Web site hits, and the 

number of television and radio announcements made to gauge performance of 

the Ready Campaign, but it does not control when information is accessed or 

viewed. Also, changes in behavior can be the result of a variety of factors, 

including campaigns sponsored by other organizations. GAO’s past work 

stated that agencies should measure performance based on accurate, clear, 

and reliable data that are clearly linked to program goals, but also recognized 

that programs like the Ready Campaign may need to rely on substitute 

measures that it uses such as Web site hits. GAO recognizes that FEMA is 

challenged measuring the performance of CCP, partner programs, and the 

Ready Campaign, but examining the feasibility of approaches to verify data on 

CCP and its partner programs could position FEMA to begin to (1) explore 

why programs that no longer exist were disbanded and (2) develop possible 

strategies for reconstituting local programs or developing new ones. 

FEMA’s challenges in measuring the performance of community preparedness 

programs are compounded because it has not developed a strategy to show 

how its community preparedness programs and the Ready Campaign are to 

operate within the context of the NPS. In April and October 2009, GAO 

reported that FEMA’s National Preparedness Directorate (NPD), responsible 

for community preparedness, had not developed a strategic plan; rather it 

used an operating plan, which lacked key elements of an effective national 

strategy, such as how to gauge progress. GAO recommended that NPD 

develop a strategic plan that contains these key elements. FEMA agreed and 

reported that it is taking actions to strengthen strategic planning. While 

officials said an NPD strategic plan and a community preparedness strategy 

are being developed, NPD has not developed timelines with milestone dates 

for completing these strategies. By doing so, consistent with standard 

management practices for implementing programs, FEMA would be better 

positioned to show progress and provide insights into how these plans can be 

used as building blocks for the national preparedness strategy. 

View GAO-10-193 or key components.

For more information, contact William O. 

Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8777 or 

jenkinswo@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-193 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 7 

FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring the Performance of Its 

Community Preparedness Efforts and the Ready Campaign 9 

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 16 

Conclusions 20 

Agency Comments 22 

Appendix I Homeland Security Grant Program Funding for 

Community Preparedness, 2004 through 2008 25 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27 

 

Table 

Table 1: Homeland Security Grant Program Funding for 

Community Preparedness Projects 2004 through 2008 26 

Figure 

Figure 1: Value of Media Donated in 2008 to Distribute Ready 

Campaign Message 14 

 Community Preparedness 
Abbreviations 

Ad Council National Advertising Council 

CCP Citizen Corps Program 

CERT Community Emergency Response Team 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

HSPD-8 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 

MRC Medical Reserve Corps 

NPD National Preparedness Directorate 

Post-Katrina Act Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 

 of 2006 

PSA Public Service Announcement 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
Page 1 GAO-10-193 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

January 29, 2010 

Congressional Requesters 

The public plays an important role in national emergency preparedness.1

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 having a household 

emergency plan.2

 According to Citizen Corps national surveys for 2003 and 

2007, about half (50 and 53 percent, respectively) of U.S. households had 

disaster supplies in their homes, and fewer had supplies set aside in their 

1

Individuals, the public, and community are used interchangeably in this report when 

discussing preparedness for nongovernmental 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. 

2

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizen Preparedness Review: A Review of 

Citizen Preparedness Research, Fall Update (Washington D.C.: 2007). 

 Community Preparedness 
 

car or workplaces.3 Those who responded that they are personally 

prepared may have taken some of the actions recommended, such as 

having water set aside but not having extra batteries for their flashlights. 

In 2003, 58 percent, and in 2007, 42 percent, of survey respondents 

reported having a household emergency plan. Although it is unrealistic to 

expect first responders to assist everyone in a disaster, 37 percent of those 

surveyed in 2007 said that the primary reason they were unprepared was 

because they believed emergency personnel would help them in the event 

of a disaster. Also, the 2003 and 2007 Citizen Corps surveys reported that 

62 and 57 percent of respondents, respectively, said that they expected to 

rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (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 promote preparedness to 

individuals, families, and businesses.4

 Citizen Corps is designed to 

 

3

DHS, 2003 Citizen Corps Survey of U.S. Households: Final Survey Report, (Washington, 

D.C.: 2003), and FEMA, Personal Preparedness in America: Findings From the (2007) 

Citizen Corps National Survey (Washington, D.C.: June 2009). FEMA conducted national 

household surveys in 2003, 2007, and 2009. We included 2009 survey results in our October 

1, 2009, testimony providing preliminary observations on FEMA’s efforts to promote 

community preparedness (see GAO, Emergency Management: Preliminary Observations 

on FEMA’s Community Preparedness Programs Related to the National Preparedness 

System, GAO-10-105T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2009). Subsequently, FEMA officials 

notified us on October 30, 2009, that they omitted California in their original 2009 national 

survey sample. FEMA officials have corrected their estimates for 2009 based on data 

collected from large California urban areas. However, the new estimate may not be 

reflective of the national population. Our October 1, 2009 testimony also mischaracterized 

one aspect of FEMA’s 2009 survey data. Specifically, we stated that 56 percent of the 

respondents said that they did not have an emergency supply kit when, in fact, FEMA’s 

data showed that 56 percent of the respondents had kits. In December 2009, we revised 

GAO-10-105T to replace data from FEMA’s 2009 survey with data from the Citizen Corps 

2007 National Survey and to correct our error regarding respondents’ possession of 

emergency supply kits. We did not include the results of FEMA’s 2009 survey in the revised 

version of the testimony or in this report because of the corrections made by FEMA. 

However, FEMA’s 2009 survey results are similar to results reported in the earlier surveys, 

indicating that Americans could be better prepared. 

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. 

Page 2 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

promote collaboration between local government and community leaders 

via local Citizen Corps Councils. Individual councils are to promote 

preparedness activities and to encourage volunteering with federal

sponsored programs that support first responders, referred to as Citi

Corps partner programs. According to FEMA officials, individual Co

activities may include outreach and localized preparedness education, 

training, and exercises. Citizen Corps promotes five partner programs, two 

of which are funded by FEMA—the Community Emergency Response 

Team (CERT) and Fire Corps.

ly 

zen 

uncil 

 

5

 According to FEMA officials, Citizen Corps 

also encourages Councils to work with the 27 national affiliate 

organizations with which FEMA has official agreements, including the 

American Red Cross, National Safety Council, Meals on Wheels, Civil Air 

Patrol, and the American Association of Community Colleges. 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 dedicated to operating community preparedness 

programs and $2.1 million was for the Ready Campaign. 

FEMA’s Citizen Corps and partner program officials encourage state, local, 

regional, and tribal governments and private and nonprofit communitybased 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 

“grass roots” organizations that provide volunteer opportunities in their 

respective communities. Citizen Corps Councils and CERT programs are 

registered and approved online and are potentially eligible to apply for 

federal grant funding through the state to support their programs.6

According to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data, 

approximately $269 million in FEMA homeland security grants (including 

5

The Fire Corps program is administered by the National Volunteer Fire Council for FEMA. 

The 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. 

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, and other 

partner programs; 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. 

Page 3 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

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. 

 

7

GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to Complete and 

Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts, GAO-09-369 (Washington, D.C.: 

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. 

Page 4 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

In this context, you requested that we review FEMA efforts to promote 

community preparedness. On October 1, 2009, we testified before the 

Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and 

Response, House Committee on Homeland Security, to provide our 

preliminary observations.9

 This report supplements our testimony and 

provides the final results of our work to address (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. 

To address what challenges, if any, FEMA faces in measuring the 

performance of Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready 

Campaign, we reviewed applicable laws, guidance, and reports on 

community preparedness. We also interviewed FEMA officials, including 

officials representing Citizen Corps, CERT, Fire Corps, and the Ready 

Campaign at DHS headquarters in Washington D.C. to gain an 

understanding of these programs and how they operate. In addition, we 

analyzed Citizen Corps documents, including Citizen Corps and CERT 

registration guidance, and data on the number of registered Citizen Corps 

Councils and partner programs to determine how FEMA measures the 

performance of its programs. We reviewed documents pertinent to the 

collection of these data and discussed the processes FEMA has in place to 

ensure the accuracy of the registration data. We had questions about the 

reliability of these data, as discussed later in this report. We also 

interviewed officials at selected registered Citizen Corps Councils and 

partner programs during our site visits to 12 selected locations in five 

states—California, Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas—and verified 

whether local registered units were active. We selected four of these states 

because they had the highest number of major disaster declarations since 

1953. We also visited Nevada to observe a full-scale exercise with CERT 

participation and interviewed selected officials in Nevada. In total, we 

conducted 41 interviews covering 53 organizations in the 5 states.10 The 

results from our interviews in the 5 states are not generalizable, but 

provide insights into the operations of local Citizen Corps and partner 

 

9

GAO-10-105T. 

10This included 17 Citizen Corps Councils, 12 CERTs, 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. 

Page 5 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

programs. Once we completed our site visits, we compared FEMA’s 

performance measures for Citizen Corps and its partner programs with 

criteria from our past work on best practices for measuring performance.11

We also used the performance measurement criteria discussed in our past 

work to assess the Ready Campaign’s efforts to measure its performance. 

Finally, we analyzed data from the 2008 Ready Campaign national tracking 

survey and National Advertising Council’s (Ad Council) 2008 data on 

media time donated to the Ready Campaign. To determine the reliability of 

the Ready Campaign’s tracking survey and donated media data, we 

reviewed documents and interviewed Ready Campaign officials and Ad 

Council officials to discuss their process for ensuring data accuracy. We 

determined that the tracking survey and donated media data were 

sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report. 

To address 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, we reviewed pertinent laws, guidance, and reports on strategic 

planning. We also reviewed and analyzed DHS’s and FEMA’s strategic 

plans for fiscal years 2008 through 2013, and the National Preparedness 

Directorate’s 2009 operating plan and compared these documents with 

criteria in our past work that discusses the six characteristics of an 

effective national strategy.12 In addition, we interviewed cognizant FEMA 

officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss their efforts to develop a strategy 

 

11GAO-09-369; GAO, Results-Oriented Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA 

and Interior Could Promote Greater Use of Performance Information GAO-09-676 

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

Preparedness Need to Be Addressed, GAO-09-909T (Washington, D.C.: 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, D.C.: June 25, 2008); Combating Terrorism: 

Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, 

GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004); Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further 

Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 

22, 2002); Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve 

Usefulness to Decisionmakers GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999); 

Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation of Agency 

Performance Information, GAO/GGD-99-139 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1999); Agencies’ 

Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate 

Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18 (Washington, D.C.: February 

1998); and Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996). 

12GAO-04-408T and GAO-09-369. 

Page 6 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

for integrating Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready 

Campaign into the National Preparedness System. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to January 2010 

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. 

Responsibility for helping to prepare members of the community for all 

hazards is shared by federal, state, local, and tribal entities, and 

nongovernmental organizations. At the federal level, FEMA is responsible 

for developing national strategies, policies, and guidelines related to 

emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. To achieve the goals of 

a national strategy, however, requires a close relationship with nonfederal 

partners, based on the premise that resilient communities—those that can 

quickly recover from a disaster—begin with prepared individuals and 

depend on the leadership and engagement of local government and other 

community members. According to DHS, emergency management 

agencies at the jurisdiction level are to develop preparedness plans for 

their localities that are consistent with plans at the state and federal levels. 

States submit requests for federal Homeland Security funding for state, 

local, and regional projects, including projects related to community 

preparedness. 

Background 

FEMA is required under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act)13 to establish a 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 Program guidance, the program is to bring together 

community and government leaders, including first responders, nonprofit 

organizations, and other community stakeholders as a Citizen Corps 

 

13The 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). 

Page 7 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

Council to collaborate in involving community members in emergency 

preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. Councils and 

partner programs register online to be included in the national program 

registries. The Community Preparedness Division also supports the efforts 

of non-DHS federal “partner programs,” such as the Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Medical Reserve Corps, which promote 

preparedness and the use of volunteers to support first responders.14 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. According to FEMA officials, training is conducted by local 

government, typically the fire or police department, which also organizes 

and supports teams of the trained volunteers in neighborhoods, the 

workplace, and high schools. 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 is also responsible for a related program, the Ready Campaign, 

which works in partnership with the Ad Council, an organization that 

creates public service announcements (PSA), with the goals of raising 

public awareness about 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 Web 

sites (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 

PSAs.15 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. 

 

14Citizen Corps also works with affiliates—nonprofits and federal departments which offer 

communities resources to help advance Citizen Corps goals, such as the American Red 

Cross, and U.S. Department of Education. 

15See http://www.ready.gov/america/about/psa.html for an example of a Ready Campaign 

PSA. 

Page 8 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

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. 

FEMA Faces 

Challenges Measuring 

the Performance of Its 

Community 

Preparedness Efforts 

and the Ready 

Campaign 

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 for community 

preparedness. 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.16 FEMA programs report the number of local 

units registered nationwide as a principal performance measure, but 

FEMA does not verify that the registration data for Citizen Corps Councils, 

CERT, or Fire Corps volunteer organizations are accurate. Our work 

showed that the number of active units reported may differ from the 

number that actually exists. For example, as of September 2009 we found 

the following. 

• 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, of the 17 

organizations registered as councils that we contacted during our site 

visits, 12 were active and 5 were not active as councils. 

 

16GAO-03-143 and GAO/GGD-99-139. 

Page 9 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

• The CERT program reported having 3,354 registered CERTs. Of the 12 

registered CERTs we visited, 11 reported that they were actively 

engaged in CERT activities, such as drills and emergency preparedness 

outreach, or had assisted in an emergency or disaster. The 12th 

registered CERT was no longer active. 

State officials in two of the four states we visited also said that the data on 

the number of registered programs might not be accurate.17 A state official 

responsible for the Citizen Corps Council and CERT programs in one 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 Web site. Officials in another state said that the 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 uncertain 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 nationwide. 

Although changes 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, a FEMA official 

responsible for the Citizen Corps program acknowledged that the current 

program registration lists need to be verified to determine whether they 

are accurate. The official said that FEMA has plans for improving the 

accuracy of the data as part of a new online registration process for 

Citizen Corps Councils and CERTs in 2010, which would involve 

reregistering local programs with the goal of reactivating inactive 

programs, although it is likely that some inactive programs would be 

removed from FEMA’s registries.18 However, it is possible that registration 

data could continue to be inaccurate because, according to a FEMA 

 

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. 

18 FEMA is not responsible for the registration of local Fire Corps units. According to the 

Fire Corps program Acting Director at the National Volunteer Fire Council, a state 

advocacy program initiated in 2007 may help identify inactive Fire Corps programs as well 

as promote the program. As of September 2009, there were 53 advocates in 31 states. 

Page 10 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

official, the Citizen Corps program does not have the authority to require 

all local units to update information, particularly councils or CERTs that 

do not receive federal funding. Furthermore, FEMA officials explained 

that the Homeland Security Grant Program guidance designates state 

officials as responsible for approving initial council and CERT 

registrations and ensuring that the data are updated as needed and said 

that under the new registration process, state officials will continue to be 

responsible for ensuring that data are updated as needed.19 A Citizen Corps 

official told us that the Community Preparedness Division does not 

monitor whether states are regularly updating local unit registration 

information as they do not have the staff or processes in place to monitor 

states’ efforts and the Division would look to regional staff to work with 

state officials. The official said that FEMA is considering the possibility of 

providing contract support to states that request assistance in contacting 

local programs as part of the re-registration effort. 

A key FEMA official told us that they recently drafted a new strategic 

approach and are considering developing and using outcome measures 

that are focused on the achievements of Citizen Corps programs as well as 

the number of programs, as is currently measured. Outcome measures are 

important because a registered program being active is only a first step in 

measuring whether local programs are meeting intended program goals. 

However, our review of the draft showed that it does not state what 

actions FEMA intends to take to ensure that registrations are accurate and 

remain up-to-date. Therefore, FEMA does not have reasonable assurance 

that its data about the number of registrations for local Citizen Corps 

programs are accurate, which may affect its ability to measure the results 

of those programs. By developing an approach to ensure the accuracy of 

local Citizen Corps program data, FEMA managers and others would be 

better positioned to understand why Citizen Corps programs that no 

longer exist were disbanded, possible strategies for reconstituting or 

creating new programs, and a foundation for developing outcome 

measures that gauge whether local programs are achieving goals 

associated with enhancing community preparedness. 

 

19 The Community Preparedness Division Director said that the division proposed changes 

to the grant guidance that would explicitly require states to maintain the accuracy of the 

list as part of the grant agreement. However, because the final guidance has not been 

issued it is unknown whether these proposals have been included. 

Page 11 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

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 

• more than 99 million “hits” on its Web site, 

• more than 12 million pieces of Ready Campaign literature requested or 

downloaded, and 

• 43,660 calls to the toll-free numbers. 

The Ready Campaign relies on these measures because it faces two 

different challenges in determining whether its efforts are influencing 

individuals to be more prepared. First, the Ready Campaign is not 

positioned to control 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. 

The Ready Campaign 

Faces Challenges 

Measuring Performance 

Because It Is Not 

Positioned to Control the 

Distribution of Its 

Preparedness Message and 

Measure Whether Its 

Message Affects Individual 

Behavior 

With regard to the Ready Campaign’s ability to control the distribution of 

its message, our past work has shown that it is important for agencies to 

measure their performance based on clear and reliable data that are linked 

to program goals, but also recognizes that agencies whose programs rely 

on others to deliver services, like the Ready Campaign, may need to use 

substitute measures—such as counts of Web site hits and the number of 

television announcements—which are not linked to outcomes.20 According 

to FEMA’s Acting Director for the Ready Campaign, the program budget of 

$2.5 million for 2010 limits the extent to which they could produce 

advertisements and purchase commercial space for their placement. The 

PSAs developed by the Ad Council cannot be used for purchased media 

placement; rather, the Ready Campaign relies on donations of various 

sources of media.21 As a result, the Ready Campaign does not control 

what, when, or where Ready Campaign materials are placed when the 

media are 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. On the basis of 

a review of Ad Council data, the Ready Campaign’s PSAs in 2008 were 

aired about 5 percent or less of the time by English language and Span

language television stations during prime time (8:00 pm to 10:59 p.m.), and 

ish 

 

20GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69. 

21The Acting Director said that because the Ad Council PSAs are created and distributed as 

public services, they cannot be used for commercial placement as part of their agreement 

with the Ad Council. 

Page 12 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

about 25 percent of the PSAs were aired from 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. 

Similarly, about 47 percent of English language radio and about 27 perc

of Spanish language radio spots were aired from midnight to 6:00 a.m. 

FEMA officials said because new material is more appealing to PSA 

directors, they expect better placement with the new PSAs released i

September 2009. In November 2009, a FEMA official told us that the n

PSAs had been released, but information was not yet available to show 

whether the new material had received b

ent 

n 

ew 

etter placement. 

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, 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 phone book yellow pages. Figure 1 shows the value of 

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

message during 2008. 

Page 13 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

Figure 1: Value of Media Donated in 2008 to Distribute Ready Campaign Message 

3%

Other media $1.6

Yellow pages $22.8

4%

Interactive media $1.7

16%

Outdoor and transit $7.4

4%

Spanish radio $2.0

English radio $8.1

3%

Cable television $1.5

3%

Broadcast television $1.5

17%

50%

Source: GAO analysis of Ad Council data.

Dollars in millions

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 concerning vulnerability to 

disaster, geographic location, or income.22 One factor in establishing 

whether the Ready Campaign is changing behavior requires 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, the Ad Council’s 2008 survey found the 

following 

 

22FEMA, Citizen Preparedness Review: A Review of Citizen Preparedness Research (Fall 

2007). 

Page 14 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

• When asked if they had heard of a Web site 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 Web site. 

• 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 the Ready 

Campaign’s advertising were significantly more likely than those who had 

not seen it 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 previous Citizen Corps surveys showed, the degree 

to which individuals are prepared may be less than indicated because 

preparedness drops substantially when more detailed questions about 

specific supplies are asked.23

 

23Similarly, 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. 

Page 15 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

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 fiscal years 2008 through 

2013 to “ensure preparedness” envisions empowering Americans to take 

individual and community actions before and after disasters strike. 

Similarly, FEMA’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2008 through 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, but does not 

establish a time frame for completion of the component plans. FEMA’s 

Strategic Plan states that the components’ strategic plans are to focus on 

identifying outcomes and measuring performance. 

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 

NPD has not clearly articulated goals for FEMA’s community 

preparedness programs or developed 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 of resources needed to reach strategy goals.24 In April 2009, 

we reported that NPD had not developed a strategic plan that defined 

program roles and responsibilities, integration and coordination 

processes, and goals and performance measures for its programs.25 We 

reported that instead of a strategic plan, NPD officials stated that they 

used an annual operating plan and Post-Katrina Act provisions to guide 

NPD’s efforts. The 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 did not describe desired outcomes. 

 

24GAO-04-408T and GAO-09-369. 

25GAO-09-369. 

Page 16 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

In late September 2009, NPD provided us a spreadsheet that was linked to 

the NPD operating plan which outlined more detailed information on 

NPD’s goals and objectives, such as supporting objectives, the responsible 

NPD division, and projected completion dates.26 However the spreadsheet 

lacked details about key issues, and did not include all of the elements of 

an effective national strategy. For example, one of NPD’s operating plan 

objectives—called a supporting goal in FEMA’s spreadsheet—for the 

Community Preparedness Division is to increase “the number of functions 

that CERTs will be able to perform effectively during emergency 

response,” but neither the plan nor the spreadsheet provide details, such 

as the functions CERTs currently perform, what additional functions they 

could perform, and what it means to be effective. The spreadsheet 

elaborates on this supporting goal with a “supporting objective” to 

“develop 12 new CERT supplemental training modules that promote 

advanced individual and team skills” and a completion date of September 

30, 2009. FEMA officials said that 6 of the 12 modules were completed as 

of September 30, 2009, and that the spreadsheet should have identified the 

effort as ongoing because developing the planning modules was to be 

completed over a 4-year period ending in 2011.27 The operating plan, 

spreadsheet, and FEMA officials provided no time frame for when the 

training is expected to be implemented at the local level to increase the 

function of individual CERTs, nor did they discuss performance measures 

and targets for gauging changes in the effectiveness of CERTs, or how 

local training will be coordinated or delivered. NPD’s operating plan and 

spreadsheet also did not include other key elements of an effective 

national strategy, such as how NPD will measure progress in meeting 

defined goals and objectives and the potential costs and types of 

investments needed to implement community preparedness programs. 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 

 

26NPD provided the spreadsheet on September 29, 2009, 2 days before we testified on our 

preliminary observations on FEMA’s efforts to promote community preparedness. 

(GAO-10-105T; Oct. 1, 2009). As a result, we did not have time to assess the document and 

include our review of it in our statement. 

27In November 2009, FEMA officials told us that the spreadsheet should have stated that the 

supporting objective was ongoing, with three modules due each of the 4 years beginning in 

2008 and ending in 2011. 

Page 17 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

goals, objectives, and how progress in achieving them will be measured. 

DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it is making 

progress in this area and in fully implementing the recommendation. NPD 

officials stated in September 2009 that DHS, FEMA, and NPD, in 

coordination with national security staff, were discussing the development 

of a preparedness and implementation strategy within the context of 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (National Preparedness) 

(HSPD-8).28 They said that community and individual preparedness were 

key elements of those discussions. At that time, NPD officials did not state 

when the strategy would be completed; thus, it is not clear to what extent 

the strategy 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 for the Community Preparedness and Participation 

capability. They said that they expect to issue a draft for public comment 

in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. Also, in testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and 

Response, Committee on Homeland Security, on October 1, 2009, the NPD 

Deputy Administrator said that, in recognition of the preliminary 

observations raised in our testimony, NPD is reformulating the NPD 

operating plan as a strategic plan. He said that once complete, the strategic 

plan is intended to integrate Community Preparedness, specifically the 

efforts of Citizen Corps, its partner programs and affiliates, and the Ready 

Campaign. However, he said he was not prepared to provide a time frame 

as to when the strategic plan would be completed. The NPD Deputy 

Administrator agreed to consult with the Subcommittee staff and other 

stakeholders as NPD develops the draft strategic plan. 

The FEMA official leading the development of the NPD strategic plan told 

us that NPD had begun to develop a strategic plan, but it had not 

developed a timeline with milestone dates for completing it because NPD 

is waiting to coordinate the plan’s development with the revision of HSPD-

 

28Homeland 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. 

Page 18 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

8 and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.29 He said NPD would be 

better able to establish a timeline and milestones for completing the NPD 

strategic plan once these other documents were revised; but he was 

uncertain about when these documents would be completed.30 He also 

stated that NPD had developed a draft strategic approach for community 

preparedness in response to a request by the Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and 

Response, Committee on Homeland Security, during the October 1, 2009 

hearing. He said that NPD intends to use this strategic approach as a 

vehicle for discussing community preparedness within the context of 

NPD’s overall strategy. He told us that, as with the draft strategic plan, 

NPD had not established a timeline with milestone dates for completing 

the Community Preparedness strategy. 

On December 2, 2009, FEMA provided a copy of the draft community 

preparedness strategic approach that it prepared for the Subcommittee. 

FEMA’s draft represents an important first step because it partially 

satisfies the elements of an effective national strategy. Specifically, the 

draft strategic approach broadly discusses why FEMA produced it, the 

process by which it was developed, and FEMA’s overall community 

preparedness vision. The draft also outlines goals and subordinate goals 

and discusses the outcomes FEMA expects in achieving them. However, 

the draft strategic approach lacks key elements of an effective national 

strategy because, among other things, it does not discuss how progress 

will be measured in achieving these goals; the roles and responsibilities of 

the organizations responsible for implementing the strategy, and 

mechanisms for coordinating their efforts; and the cost of implementation, 

including the source and types of resources needed and where those 

investments and resources should be targeted. FEMA’s draft did not 

identify a timeline and milestones for completing the strategy. 

The Ready Campaign is also working to develop its strategic direction. 

According to the FEMA Director of External Affairs, the Ready 

 

29The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, according to the DHS Web site, is a 

congressionally mandated, top-to-bottom review by the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

guide the department for the next 4 years and inform the nation’s homeland security 

policies, programs, and missions. The requirement to conduct the Quadrennial Homeland 

Security Review is contained in section 2401 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 543-46. 

30The DHS Web site indicates that the Secretary was to provide her conclusions from the 

quadrennial review to Congress in a final report by December 31, 2009. 

Page 19 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

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.31 As of September 2009, the plan was still being 

developed and no date had been set for completion. The Ready Campaign 

Director said in November 2009 that the plan is not expected to be done 

before the end of the year, but was not aware of a timeline and milestones 

for its completion. The Director also said that the Ready Campaign was 

included in the draft community preparedness strategy. 

We recognize that HSPD-8 and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review 

are instrumental in articulating the overall national preparedness strategy 

and FEMA’s strategic approach, and that NPD’s plan and community 

preparedness strategies, including the Ready Campaign, are components 

of efforts to revise these initiatives. Standard practices for project 

management established by the Project Management Institute state that 

managing a project involves, among other things, developing a timeline 

with milestone dates to identify points throughout the project to reassess 

efforts under way to determine whether project changes are necessary.32

By developing plans with timelines and milestones for completing the NPD 

and community preparedness strategies, FEMA will be better positioned to 

provide a more complete picture of NPD’s approach for developing and 

completing these documents. They also would provide FEMA managers 

and other decision makers with insights into (1) NPD’s overall progress in 

completing these strategies, (2) a basis for determining what, if any, 

additional actions need to be taken, and (3) the extent to which these 

strategies can be used as building blocks for the national preparedness 

strategy and FEMA’s strategic approach. 

Hurricane Katrina was one of the most devastating natural disasters in our 

nation’s history and will have long-standing effects for years. By their 

nature, catastrophic events involve casualties, damage, or disruption that 

will likely overwhelm state and local responders. Americans who are 

prepared as individuals for disasters, and as trained volunteers, can help to 

Conclusions 

 

31 FEMA officials said that two additional staff positions for the Ready Campaign are 

expected to be filled by March 2010. 

32 The Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management. 

Page 20 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

mitigate the impact of disasters in their local communities, yet the 

previous FEMA surveys indicate that many Americans are still not 

prepared. The majority of those responding to the surveys said they plan 

to rely on assistance from first responders during a major disaster. 

While FEMA identifies community preparedness as an important part of its 

national preparedness strategy, FEMA lacks accurate performance 

information on its community preparedness programs that would enable it 

to determine whether these programs are operating in the communities in 

which they have been established. We recognize that FEMA’s Citizen 

Corps Program and partner programs have relatively small budgets and 

staff, and that program officials are aware of inaccuracies in the data and 

are considering options to improve information on local programs, such as 

re-registering existing programs. However, it is unclear whether these 

measures will be enough to provide FEMA the assurance it needs that 

local programs that are registered continue to operate. By having accurate 

data, FEMA managers and other decision makers would be better 

positioned to measure progress establishing and maintaining these 

programs nationwide and in local communities. This would also provide 

FEMA managers the basis for exploring (1) why programs that no longer 

exist were disbanded, and (2) possible strategies for reconstituting local 

programs or developing new ones. Accurate data would also provide a 

foundation for developing outcome measures that gauge whether local 

programs are achieving goals associated with enhancing community 

preparedness. 

Challenges in measuring the performance of these programs stem in part 

from FEMA lacking an overall strategy for achieving community 

preparedness or defining how these efforts align with the larger National 

Preparedness System, particularly how Citizen Corps, its partner 

programs, and the Ready Campaign fit within the strategy. Defining 

program roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms; identifying 

performance measures to gauge results; and ensuring the resources 

needed to achieve program goals would be part of an effective strategy. 

FEMA has agreed such a strategy is needed and has started to develop 

strategies for NPD and Community Preparedness, including the Ready 

Campaign, but has no timeframes or milestone dates for developing and 

completing them. By having a plan with time frames and milestone dates 

for completing the NPD strategic plan and its community preparedness 

strategy, FEMA managers and other decision makers would be better 

equipped to track NPD’s progress. Moreover, they would have a basis to 

determine what, if any, additional actions are needed to enhance NPD’s 

overall preparedness strategy and community preparedness and insights 

Page 21 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

into the extent to which these plans can be used as building blocks for the 

national preparedness strategy and FEMA’s strategic approach. 

To better ensure that national community preparedness efforts are 

effective and completed in a timely fashion, we recommend that the 

Administrator of FEMA take the following two actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• examine the feasibility of developing various approaches for ensuring the 

accuracy of registration data of local Citizen Corps Councils and partner 

programs, and 

• develop plans including timelines and milestone dates for completing and 

implementing (1) NPD’s strategic plan and (2) its Community 

Preparedness Strategic Approach, including details on how Citizen Corps, 

partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to operate within the 

context of the National Preparedness System. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of 

Homeland Security. The department declined to provide official written 

comments to include in our report. However, in an e-mail received January 

19, 2010, the DHS liaison stated that DHS concurred with our 

recommendations. FEMA provided written technical comments, which 

were incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of Homeland Security, appropriate congressional committees, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 22 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777 or email at jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 

William O. Jenkins, Jr

listed in appendix II. 

stice Issues 

. 

Director, Homeland Security and Ju

Page 23 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
 

List of Requesters 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson 

Chairman 

Committee on Homeland Security 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Henry Cuellar 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism 

Committee on Homeland Security 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Laura A. Richardson 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, 

Preparedness, and Response 

Committee on Homeland Security 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection 

Committee on Homeland Security 

House of Representatives 

Page 24 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
Appendix I: Homeland Security Grant 

Program Funding for Community Appendix I: Homeland Security Grant Preparedness, 2004 through 2008 

Program Funding for Community 

Preparedness, 2004 through 2008 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 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 year’s grant allocation to each state (including the 

District of Columbia and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and 0.25 percent 

of the total allocation for each U.S. Territory, with the balance of funding 

being distributed on a population basis. 

For other DHS homeland security grants, states prepare 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 Program 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, such as a 

Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) or Fire Corps. 

Table 1 summarizes the approximately $269 million in DHS grants that 

were identified by grantees as supporting community preparedness 

projects from 2004 through 2008. Our selection of projects for inclusion in 

this summary relied on DHS data on grantees who identified their project 

as one of three predefined project types that are, according to FEMA 

officials, relevant for community preparedness, or were projects funded 

with a Citizen Corps Program grant. Not all grantees may have used these 

project-type descriptions, so the amount below is an approximation. We 

worked with grant officials to identify the most appropriate grant selection 

criteria. To determine the reliability of these DHS grant data, we reviewed 

pertinent DHS documents, such as the Grant Reporting Tool User’s 

Manual and interviewed DHS officials about their process for compiling 

these data. We determined that the grant data we used were sufficiently 

reliable for purposes of this report. 

Page 25 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness 
Appendix I: Homeland Security Grant 

Program Funding for Community 

Preparedness, 2004 through 2008 

Table 1: Homeland Security Grant Program Funding for Community Preparedness Projects 2004 through 2008 

Year Citizen Corps 

Urban Area 

Security 

Initiative 

(UASI)a

State 

Homeland 

Security Grant

Emergency 

Management 

Performance 

Grant

Law 

Enforcement 

Terrorism 

Prevention 

Program 

Other 

Homeland 

Security 

Grantsb 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 2004 through 2008. 

Note: Homeland Security Grant projects were included in this summary that 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 2004 grants, and the Law 

Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant in 2008 was not available for community preparedness 

purposes). 

a

Includes UASI and UASI transit and non-profit grants. 

b

Includes grants for Transit Security programs, Metropolitan Medical Response System, Buffer Zone 

Protection, Intercity Passenger Rail Security, Interoperable Emergency Communications, Non-Profit 

Security, and Regional Catastrophic Preparedness. 

Page 26 GAO-10-193 Community Preparedness
Appendix II: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 27 GAO-10-193 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

William O. Jenkins, Jr., (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, John Mortin, Assistant Director, 

and Monica Kelly, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Carla 

Brown, Qahira El’Amin, Lara Kaskie, Amanda Miller, Cristina RuggieroMendoza, and Janet Temko made significant contributions to the report. 

 Community Preparedness 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440837) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper