United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, the 

Federal Workforce, and the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Assessment of the National 

Capital Region Strategic 

Plan 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, September 28, 2006 

 

GAO-06-1096T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 28, 2006

HOMELAND SECURITY

Assessment of the National Capital 

Highlights of GAO-06-1096T, a testimony Region Strategic Plan 

before the Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

Among other things, the Office of

National Capital Region

Coordination is to coordinate 

efforts within the National Capital 

Region (NCR) to ensure execution 

of domestic preparedness 

activities. In our May 2004 report

and June 2004 testimony before the 

House Government Reform

Committee, GAO recommended 

that the NCR develop a strategic

plan to establish and monitor the 

achievement of regional goals and 

priorities for emergency 

preparedness and response. GAO 

subsequently testified on the status 

of the NCR's strategic planning 

efforts before the Subcommittee on

Oversight of Government

Management, the Federal

Workforce, and the District of

Columbia in July 2005 and March 

2006. The Subcommittee asked 

GAO to provide comments on the 

NCR’s strategic plan, which the

NCR partners approved in

September 2006.

In this testimony, GAO discusses 

its assessment of the recently 

completed NCR homeland security

strategic plan and the extent to 

which the new plan includes 

desirable strategic plan 

characteristics and how the

substance of the plan might be 

further strengthened when the plan 

is reviewed and possibly revised.

What GAO Recommends

GAO includes no new 

recommendations in this 

testimony. 

A coordinated strategic plan to establish and monitor the achievement of 

regional goals and priorities is fundamental to implementing a coordinated 

approach to enhancing emergency preparedness and response capacities in 

the NCR. In March 2006, GAO observed that the NCR's strategic plan could 

benefit from addressing all six characteristics GAO considers to be desirable 

for a regional homeland security strategy. These characteristics were used to 

evaluate the final plan. These include, for example, goals, subordinate 

objectives, activities, and performance measures; resources, investments, 

and risk management; and organizational roles, responsibilities, and 

coordination. 

The NCR approved its strategic plan in September 2006. The NCR homeland 

security strategic plan includes all six characteristics we consider desirable 

for a regional homeland security strategy. To illustrate, the plan includes 

regional priorities and presents the rationale for the goals and related 

objectives and initiatives. This includes information on how the plan 

addresses national priorities and targeted capabilities from the National 

Preparedness Goal, an Emergency Management Accreditation Program 

assessment of local and regional preparedness and emergency management 

capabilities against recognized national standards, and DHS’s Nationwide 

Plan Review of emergency plans. The plan structure is more streamlined, 

containing an overview, core plan, and detailed appendix with information 

on factors such as risks, costs, and roles and responsibilities. 

However, the substance of the information within these six characteristics 

could be improved to guide decision makers. Two examples: (1) the plan 

does not reflect a comprehensive risk assessment for the region, which, 

when completed, may result in changes in some of the priorities in the 

current plan; and (2) although the NCR plan defines objectives as being key, 

measurable milestones for reaching each goal, many objectives include 

language such as “strengthen,” “enhance,” “increase,” “improve,” and 

“expand” rather than more specific performance measures and targets. 

Several of our observations regarding potential plan substance are the same

as those we provided in our March 2006 testimony. 

The NCR has made considerable progress in developing its first strategic 

plan. Although GAO has noted some remaining limitations and areas of 

potential improvement, the NCR strategic plan provides the basic foundation 

for regional preparedness, including what is needed in case of a catastrophic 

event. Now, the challenge is ensuring that initiatives to implement the goals

and objectives are funded, completed, and appropriately assessed to 

determine if they have achieved the NCR’s strategic goals while continually 

monitoring the plan's implementation to determine what adjustments are 

needed for continuing improvement. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1096T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William 

Jenkins, Jr., 202-512-8757, 

jenkinswo@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the National 

Capital Region’s (NRC) September 2006 homeland security strategic plan.1

A well-defined, comprehensive homeland security strategic plan for the 

NCR is essential for assuring that the region is prepared for the risks it 

faces, whether those risks are from nature or human action. We reported

on NCR strategic planning, among other issues, in May 2004 and 

September 2004, testified before the House Committee on Government 

Reform in June 2004, and testified before your Committee in July 2005 and 

March 2006.2 In 2004 and 2005, we recommended that the Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security work with the NCR jurisdictions to 

develop a coordinated strategic plan to establish goals and priorities to 

enhance first responder capacities that can be used to guide the use of 

federal emergency preparedness funds—a recommendation that the 

department agreed to implement. 

In March 2006, I commented on the status of the NCR strategic planning

and again emphasized that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security should work with the NCR jurisdictions to quickly complete a 

coordinated strategic plan. To improve the plan’s effectiveness as it was 

being developed, we provided six characteristics we considered to be 

desirable for a regional homeland security strategy. These characteristics 

included (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; (2) problem definition and

risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate activities, and performance 

measures; (4) resources, investments, and risk management; (5) 

organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) integration 

and implementation. 

 1

The National Capital Region is composed of the District of Columbia and nearby 

jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia. 

2

GAO, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the National

Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Goals, 

GAO-04-433 (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004); Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning 

and Standards Needed to Better Manage First Responder Grants in the National Capital

Region, GAO-04-904T (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004); Homeland Security: Effective

Regional Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness, GAO-04-1009 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2004); Homeland Security: Managing First Responder Grants

to Enhance Emergency Preparedness in the National Capital Region, GAO-05-889T 

(Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005); and Homeland Security: The Status of Strategic 

Planning in the National Capital Region, GAO-06-559T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2006).

Page 1 GAO-06-1096T 
Today, my statement provides our assessment of the recently completed 

NCR homeland security strategic plan and the extent to which the new 

plan includes the six characteristics and how the substance of the plan 

might be further strengthened when the plan is reviewed and possibly 

revised. We did our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

The September 2006 NCR homeland security strategic plan includes the 

six characteristics we consider to be desirable for a regional homeland 

security strategy. To illustrate, the plan includes regional priorities and 

presents the rationale for the goals and related objectives and initiatives.

This includes information on how the plan addresses national priorities 

and targeted capabilities from the National Preparedness Goal,3

 an 

Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) 4

 assessment of 

local and regional preparedness and emergency management capabilities 

against recognized national standards, and DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review

of emergency plans.5

 The plan structure is more streamlined, containing an

overview, core plan, and detailed appendix with information on factors 

such as risks, costs, and roles and responsibilities. 

Summary 

However, the substance of the information within these six characteristics

could be improved to guide decision makers. Additional information could 

be provided regarding the type, nature, scope, or timing of planned goals, 

objectives, and initiatives; performance expectations and measures; 

designation of priority initiatives to meet regional risk and needed 

capabilities; lead organizations for initiative implementation; resources 

 3

According to DHS, the National Preparedness Goal establishes a vision for preparedness,

identifies target capabilities, provides a description of each capability, and presents 

guidance on the levels of capability that federal, state, local, and tribal entities will be 

expected to develop and maintain. 

4

The EMAP is a voluntary assessment and accreditation process for state/territorial, tribal, 

and local government emergency management programs. Among other things, EMAP is

intended to provide a structure for identifying areas in need of improvement and a 

methodology for strategic planning and justification of resources. EMAP uses national 

emergency management standards along with peer assessment teams to evaluate a 

program’s activities. These standards are based on the National Fire Protection Association 

1600 standard covering functional areas such as program management and hazard 

identification and risk assessment. 

5

The Nationwide Plan Review reviewed and assessed the status of catastrophic and 

evacuation planning in all states and 75 of the nation’s largest urban areas. It also reviewed 

emergency operations plans for the nation’s major cities. 

Page 2 GAO-06-1096T 
and investments; and operational commitment. Two examples: (1) the plan 

does not reflect a comprehensive risk assessment for the region, which, 

when completed, may alter some of the priorities in the current plan; and 

(2) although the NCR plan defines objectives as being key, measurable 

milestones for reaching each goal, many objectives include language such

as “strengthen,” “enhance,” “increase,” “improve,” and “expand.” Several

of our observations regarding potential plan substance are the same as 

those we provided in our March 2006 testimony. 

The Homeland Security Act established the Office of National Capital 

Region Coordination within the Department of Homeland Security.6

 The 

ONCRC is responsible for overseeing and coordinating federal programs 

for and relationships with state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR 

and for assessing and advocating for the resources needed by state, local, 

and regional authorities in the NCR to implement efforts to secure the 

homeland. One of the ONCRC mandates is to coordinate with federal, 

state, local, and regional agencies and the private sector in NCR on 

terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate planning, information sharing, 

training, and execution of domestic preparedness activities among these 

agencies and entities. 

Background 

In our earlier work, we reported that the ONCRC and the NCR faced 

interrelated challenges in managing federal funds in a way that maximizes 

the increase in first responder capacities and preparedness while 

minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of expenditures. One 

of these challenges included a coordinated regionwide plan for 

establishing first responder performance goals, needs, and priorities, and 

assessing the benefits of expenditures in enhancing first responder 

capabilities. 

All states and urban areas are to align existing preparedness strategies 

within the National Preparedness Goal’s eight national priorities.7

 An 

 6

6 U.S.C. 462.

7

Those priorities are (1) implement the National Incident Management System and National 

Response Plan; (2) expand regional collaboration; (3) implement the interim National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan; (4) strengthen information-sharing and collaboration

capabilities; (5) strengthen interoperable communications capabilities; (6) strengthen

chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear, and explosive detection, response, and 

decontamination capabilities; (7) strengthen medical surge and mass prophylaxis 

capabilities; and (8) review emergency operations plans and the status of catastrophic 

planning. 

Page 3 GAO-06-1096T 
overarching national priority for the National Preparedness Goal is the 

embracing of regional approaches to building, sustaining, and sharing 

capabilities at all levels of government. DHS required states and urban 

areas, including the NCR, to assess their preparedness needs by reviewing 

their existing programs and capabilities and using those findings to 

develop a plan and formal investment justification outlining major 

statewide, sub-state, or interstate initiatives for which they will seek 

federal funding under the Homeland Security Grant Program. The target 

capabilities are intended to serve as a benchmark against which states, 

regions, and localities can measure their own capabilities. According to 

DHS, the funding initiatives are to focus efforts on how to build and 

sustain programs and capabilities within and across state boundaries 

while aligning with the National Preparedness Goal and national priorities. 

In fiscal year 2006 DHS funding guidance, regional collaboration included

specific implementation benchmarks. These benchmarks included 

(1) formalizing mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities and 

states to share equipment, personnel, and facilities during emergencies; 

(2) conducting exercises of the execution of mutual aid agreements to 

identify the challenges and familiarize officials with resources that are 

available in the region; and (3) coordinating homeland security 

preparedness assistance expenditures and planning efforts on a regional 

basis to avoid duplicative or inconsistent investments. 

In earlier work on effective regional coordination for emergency 

preparedness, we defined regional coordination as the use of

governmental resources in a complementary way toward goals and 

objectives that are mutually agreed upon by various stakeholders in a 

region.8

 In later work for this Committee on federal agency collaboration, 

we defined collaboration in a similar manner, defining it as any joint 

activity by two or more organizations intended to produce more public 

value than could be produced when the organizations act alone.9

Successful coordination or collaboration occurs not only vertically among 

federal, state, and local governments, but also across jurisdictions within 

regions. In the coordination or collaborative effort, strategic plans can be

effective tools to focus resources and efforts to address problems through 

features such as goals and objectives that are measurable and quantifiable. 

 8

GAO-04-1009. 

9

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Sustain Collaboration 

among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

Page 4 GAO-06-1096T 
By specifying goals and objectives, plans can also give planners and 

decision makers a structure for allocating funding to those goals and 

objectives. A well-defined, comprehensive homeland security strategic 

plan for the NCR is essential for assuring that the region is prepared for 

the risks it faces. 

In advance of our March 2006 testimony, Office of the National Capital 

Region Coordination officials provided us with several documents that 

they said when taken as a whole constituted the basic elements of NCR’s 

strategic plan, such as a November 2005 document containing information 

on NCR strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives and February and March 

2006 documents related to homeland security grant program funding. In 

our testimony, we outlined desirable characteristics for a strategic plan 

based on past work.10 The desirable characteristics, adjusted for a regional 

strategy, are

• Purpose, scope, and methodology that address why the strategy was 

produced, the scope of its coverage, and the process by which it was 

developed. 

• Problem definition and risk assessment that address the particular 

regional problems and threats the strategy is directed towards. 

• Goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures 

that address what the strategy is trying to achieve, steps to achieve

those results, as well as the priorities, milestones, and performance 

measures to gauge results. 

• Resources, investments, and risk management that address what the 

strategy will cost, the sources and types of resources and investments 

needed, and where resources and investments should be targeted by 

balancing risk reductions and costs. 

• Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination that address 

who will be implementing the strategy, what their roles will be 

compared to those of others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate 

their efforts. 

• Integration and implementation that address how a regional strategy 

relates to other strategies’ goals, objectives and activities, and to state 

and local governments within their region and their plans to implement 

the strategy.

 10GAO. Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004). 

Page 5 GAO-06-1096T 
The plan’s structure contains the six characteristics and related elements 

that we identified in earlier work as desirable in a national strategy that

would also be useful for a regional approach to homeland security 

strategic planning. Instead of the multiple documents provided in advance 

of our March 2006 testimony, the plan is now one document with three 

parts—an overview, a core plan, and appendices with more detailed 

information. The core plan includes information on purpose, scope, and 

methodology; goals and objectives; problem definition and risk 

assessment; implementation and sustainment of the strategic plan, 

including organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and 

alignment with other strategies and planning efforts. The appendix 

document provides extensive information on initiatives, including 

priorities, rationale, key tasks and programs, estimates of costs and cost 

assumptions, types of resources and investments, time frame, the lead

organization responsible for each initiative, and performance assessment 

information, including measures, baselines, and targets. The plan will be 

reviewed and updated on a 3-year cycle. 

However, the substance of the information within several of the six 

characteristics could be further strengthened as the plan is reviewed and 

revised to enable the NCR jurisdictions set clear priorities and sustain 

their collaborative efforts. As I will point out, several of our observations 

regarding improvements are the same as those we provided in our March 

2006 testimony. 

The NCR Strategic 

Plan Contains 

Desirable 

Characteristics, but 

Additional 

Information Could be 

Provided 

Plan Purpose, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The first desirable characteristic is purpose, scope, and methodology—

addressing why the strategy was produced, the scope of its coverage, and

the process by which it was developed. Elements of this characteristic 

include, for example, what major functions, mission areas, or activities it 

covers; principles or theories that guided its development; and the process 

to produce the strategy.

The plan includes a section on purpose, scope, and methodology. For 

example, according to the strategic plan document, the plan is intended to 

provide a framework and guidance for programming, budgeting, and 

execution of homeland security programs in the NCR over the next 3 years 

and serve as the basis for planning for the next 5 years. Scope information 

discusses regionwide mission areas and initiatives and notes that the 

strategic plan is not an operational plan and is not a replacement for local 

and state emergency operations plan. Its purpose is not to be an 

investment plan and, therefore, does not allocate funding to any initiatives 

Page 6 GAO-06-1096T 
or change the funding, budgeting, and resource allocation processes for 

individual funding sources. 

The plan describes its development by the NCR Partners—a group 

consisting of the NCR’s local, state, regional, and federal entities; citizen 

community groups; private-sector organizations; non-profit organizations; 

and non-governmental organizations. The plan describes the consensusbased process guided by the NCR’s Homeland Security Senior Policy 

Group (SPG). 

Problem Definition and 

Risk Assessment 

The second desirable characteristic is problem definition and risk 

assessment—addressing the particular regional problems and threats the 

strategy is directed toward. Elements of this characteristic include, for 

example, a discussion or definition of problems, their causes, and 

operating environment, and risk assessment, including an analysis of 

threats and vulnerabilities. 

The plan describes the approach used to identify threats, vulnerabilities, 

and consequences of the risks facing the region. The plan focuses 

attention and resources on initiatives that address the highest risks for the 

region. The document states that numerous gap and shortfall analyses, 

conducted by the NCR’s homeland security senior leaders and 

independent analysts, helped define the plan’s four goals. Further, it is 

stated that each state jurisdiction also completed an extensive hazard 

analysis. 

Risk- and Capabilities-Based 

Approach 

Although the plan states that a combined risk- and capabilities-based 

approach was used, it also recognizes the need for a more formal, in-depth 

risk assessment based on a common framework and includes a major 

priority initiative to meet this need.11 The plan states that over the past few

years, several vulnerability assessments have been completed for the NCR 

and its member institutions, but our assessment of the plan indicates that 

information from past assessments may not have been fully utilized. 

According to the plan, one initiative calls for the development of a NCR 

risk assessment methodology and a regionwide threat analysis, leveraging

assessments and analyses to date conducted by the states, local 

 11According to the National Preparedness Goal, a capability provides the means to 

accomplish one or more tasks under specific conditions and to specific performance

standards. A capability may be delivered with any combination of properly planned,

organized, equipped, trained, and exercised personnel that achieves the intended outcome. 

Page 7 GAO-06-1096T 
jurisdictions, and federal partners. Another initiative is to create a high 

priority list of recommended critical infrastructure protective actions 

based on security assessment findings already completed and shared with 

the NCR. 

It is unfortunate that the strategic plan’s goals do not yet reflect the 

completion and maintenance of a comprehensive, integrated risk 

assessment for the region. We noted in our March 2006 testimony that in

the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the creation

of the ONCRC in 2003, we would have expected that the vast majority of 

risk assessment work should have been completed. An ongoing risk 

assessment methodology should be in place to identify emerging risks. 

Until the new risk assessment is completed, the plan states the NCR is 

utilizing a compilation of regional gaps in capabilities, some the same as 

those identified in the EMAP assessment, considered alongside threat and 

impact factors, in developing strategic plan goals, objectives and 

prioritization of initiatives. These regional capability gaps included 

(1) standardized alert notification procedures; (2) regional mitigation plan; 

(3) regionwide strategic communications plan; (4) public information 

dissemination during all phases of emergencies; (5) inclusion of the 

private sector information in planning; (6) public–private coordination; 

(7) analysis of threats, vulnerabilities and consequences; (8) resource 

management and prioritization; (9) understanding of long-term recovery 

issues; (10) special needs considerations for response and recovery; 

(11) mass care; and (12) infrastructure. 

Capability Development 

The document states that the plan addresses the EMAP assessment 

recommendations and 54 of the 58 EMAP national standards. In addition, 

the National Preparedness Goal’s 37 capabilities that federal, state, local, 

and tribal entities must achieve to perform critical tasks for homeland 

security missions served as a target in developing the plan’s initiatives. In

the plan, each regional initiative rationale identifies whether it addresses a 

national capability from the national target capabilities list, an EMAP 

standard, and/or an identified regional gap. Further, the plan states that it 

addresses all of the Nationwide Plan Review’s overall emergency and

catastrophic planning conclusions for all states and urban areas. in the 

nation. Other sources of information for the strategic planning included 

the National Capital Region Program and Capability Enhancement Plan, 

the Nationwide Plan Review, and the National Preparedness Goal and 

related target capabilities. 

Page 8 GAO-06-1096T 
We are encouraged that the NCR plan emphasizes enhancing capabilities 

consistent with currently known regional capability shortfalls and others 

based on a variety of information sources. It is clear that a great deal of 

work has gone into identifying needed capabilities as part of the planning

approach. 

In revising the plan, NCR officials might consider two observations. First, 

although the plan recognized the importance of the Nationwide Plan 

Review’s specific phase 2 findings for the NCR emergency plans and the 

status of catastrophic and evacuation planning, it did not reflect specific 

NCR findings. As you know, the review was conducted in response to the 

shortfalls in preparedness identified during Hurricane Katrina. A brief 

scorecard presenting Review NCR findings provided to us said that, 

overall, the DHS review found the NCR plan’s adequacy, feasibility, and 

acceptability not sufficient to meet the requirements of a catastrophic 

incident. While the assessment found the NCR’s resource management 

annex and communications annex sufficient to meet the requirements of a 

catastrophic incident, others were only partially sufficient or not 

sufficient, including the basic plan, direction and control annex, warning 

annex, emergency public information annex, evacuation annex, mass care 

annex, and the health and medical annex. 

According to NCR officials, the assessment tools of the Review and the 

EMAP assessment were flawed because they focus on a single jurisdiction, 

not a multi-jurisdictional approach. In addition, the assessments assume 

that the entity under review is an operational jurisdiction which the NCR 

is not. NCR officials told us they found the reviews of limited usefulness 

because of this flaw. The officials said NCR states have individual state 

plan reviews that are more valid. However, they said the NCR addressed 

findings they thought were appropriate and useful and did focus on the 

national findings, which are included in the NCR strategic plan. If the plan

was to include all sources of capability gaps, to guide problem definition 

and risk assessment, NCR officials should consider if it would be useful to 

describe the specific Review’s findings for the NCR that the officials did 

accept, and align plan objectives and specific initiatives to those accepted 

findings. 

Also, instead of referencing preparedness capabilities from different 

sources, it might be more useful for the plan to have one set of capabilities 

for action. This would integrate all sources of necessary capabilities (and 

their varying definitions) into a common set on which the region agrees, 

whether the source of the needed capability is national goal directives, 

assessment standards, or individual regional gap analysis. This integration 

Page 9 GAO-06-1096T 
might also include remarks on the progress in developing a capability. 

While all of the capabilities may be important, it is unclear from the plan 

those capabilities are fully or partially developed and those that remain to 

be developed. Milestones and the priority designations at the initiative 

level provide an indication of progress, but it is difficult for the reader to 

understand what is the complete picture of the status of individual 

capability implementation. 

Goals, Subordinate 

Objectives, Activities, and 

Performance Measures 

The third desirable characteristic is goals, subordinate objectives, 

activities, and performance measures—addressing what the strategy is 

trying to achieve, steps to achieve those results, as well as the priorities, 

milestones, and performance measures to gauge results. Elements of this 

characteristic include, for example, a hierarchy of strategic goals and 

subordinate objectives and priorities, milestones, and outcome-related 

performance measures. 

The NCR homeland security strategic plan includes the region’s four longterm homeland security strategic goals and related objectives for the next 

3 to 5 years. Specific initiatives are described for each objective, with cost 

estimates and performance measures for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.12

The NCR’s strategic plan vision, mission, goals, and objectives are shown 

in table 1. According to the document, each goal has equal standing. 

 12One milestone is targeted for completion for December 2010, but appears to be beyond 

the scope of the initiative where it appears, based on the initiative’s description. 

Page 10 GAO-06-1096T 
Table 1: NCR Homeland Security Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives

Vision Mission

Working together towards a safe and secure

National Capital Region

Build and sustain an integrated effort to prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond 

to, and recover from “all-hazards” threats or events 

Goals Objectives for each goal 

Planning and Decisionmaking: A collaborative 

culture for planning, decision-making and 

implementation across the NCR 

Strengthen the regional approach to homeland security planning and decision-making

Establish an NCR-wide process to identify and close gaps using public and private 

resources 

Enhance oversight of and accountability for the management of investments and 

capabilities 

Community Engagement: An informed and 

prepared community of those who live, work, 

and visit within the region, engaged in the 

safety and security of the NCR 

Increase public preparedness through education campaigns and emergency 

messaging before, during, and after emergencies 

Strengthen the partnerships and communications among the NCR’s public, civic, 

private, and NGO stakeholders 

Prevention and Protection: An enduring 

capability to protect the NCR by preventing or 

mitigating “all-hazards” threats or events 

Develop and maintain common regional standards for planning, equipping, training, 

operating, and exercising 

Strengthen the exchange and analysis of information across disciplines for improved 

situational awareness 

Employ a performance- and risk-based approach to critical infrastructure protection 

across the NCR 

RESPONSE AND RECOVERY: A sustained 

capacity to respond to and recover from “allhazards” events across the NCR 

Develop and implement integrated response and recovery plans, policies, and 

standards 

Strengthen all components of an integrated regionwide response and recovery 

capability 

Improve and expand effective resource sharing systems and standards 

Identify and close gaps in long-term recovery capabilities 

Source: NCR Homeland Security Strategic Plan.

The four NCR strategic goals are defined as broadly stated long-term 

outcomes that, if reached, collectively enable the NCR jurisdictions to 

realize the NCR’s vision. The objectives in the strategic plan are defined as 

key, measurable milestones along the path toward reaching each goal. 

Similar to performance goals under the Government Performance and 

Results Act,13 the objectives should be based on the strategic goals and 

help to determine the achievement of strategic goals. For future plan 

assessments, NCR officials might consider developing strategic 

performance expectations where substantive action is needed and 

describe the full set of objectives needed to achieve planned goals. 

Strategic Goals and Objectives 

 13P.L. 103-62. 

Page 11 GAO-06-1096T 
The plan describes an evolution of the strategic plan beginning with 

consensus building for close to a year (August 2004 to June 2005), 

initiative development for several months (June 2005 to November 2005), 

and program management and implementation for another 7 months 

(January 2006 to July 2006). However, Goal 1—covering planning and 

decisionmaking—has objectives to strengthen regional planning and 

decisionmaking, establish a process to identify and close preparedness 

gaps, and enhance oversight and accountability. It is unclear why these 

efforts over this amount of time have not produced well-established 

planning and decision-making processes and responsibilities. NCR 

officials should assess if future plans might focus on the remaining three 

goals that emphasize preparedness, prevention, protection, response, and 

recovery. 

Further, the plan states that the 12 objectives presented in the plan are 

essential, but not necessarily sufficient to attain these goals. This raises 

the question of what is missing and what is the potential impact of the

missing elements on achieving the plan’s goals. The plan states that 

additional objectives will emerge to take the place of those already 

accomplished, but provides no further details of what might be sufficient

now to meet the plan’s goal. While any strategic plan is considered a 

“living” document, at the point of its initial issuance or revision, it should

strive to be as complete as possible, particularly when the objectives are 

considered milestones toward the accomplishment of each goal. 

In addition to the plan’s goals and objectives, initiatives to achieve the 

objectives complete the core of the NCR strategic plan. The plan identifies 

30 initiatives, with 14 prioritized based on their alignment with and 

support of national priorities, DHS target capabilities, and regional gaps. 

The 14 priority initiatives, according to the plan, are to be considered first 

in line for implementation and funding, with the other initiatives 

considered secondary in terms of execution. In our March 2006 testimony, 

we noted that any future NCR strategic plan should include a review of 

initiatives to determine if the initiatives will fully meet the results expected 

of the objectives. The initiatives appear overall to reflect the objectives’

general intent. 

Steps to Achieve Results 

However, NCR officials might consider clarifying the plan’s distinction 

between priority and non-priority initiatives in achieving the objectives. 

For example, goal 1 has four of its six initiatives labeled as priorities. 

These include initiatives such as developing and periodically updating the 

strategic plan and related processes and establishing regional oversight 

and accountability. The initiative under this goal to develop an investment 

Page 12 GAO-06-1096T 
life-cycle planning approach to ensure infrastructure and resources are 

available to support multi-year operational capabilities was seen as a 

secondary initiative. The plan does not present a rationale for making this 

a secondary initiative when it can be argued that a functioning life-cycle 

investment process is essential to identifying and managing the resources 

needed to sustain key preparedness and response capabilities, once 

established.

The NCR strategic plan contains a measure for each goal, measure(s) for 

each objective, and an initiative performance assessment consisting of a 

measure (performance indicator), current baseline performance, and 

performance targets. For example, the measure for goal 1 (planning and 

decisionmaking) is support for NCR plans and decisions among NCR 

partners and stakeholders, measured by a survey. The first objective’s 

(strengthen the regional approach to planning and decision making) 

measures include (1) stakeholder satisfaction with the strategic plan as 

determined by survey and (2) NCR Partners’ satisfaction with program 

plans as determined by survey. One initiative’s (developing and updating 

the plan and related processes) measure under this objective is the time to 

develop and adopt a strategic plan with the baseline performance of 

2 years and a target to be adopted by September 2006. 

Performance Measures 

The NCR plan defines objectives as being key, measurable milestones 

along the path toward reaching each goal. Many objectives include 

language such as “strengthen,” “enhance,” “increase,” “improve,” and 

“expand.” These objective statements have their own measures to define 

performance. For example, one current objective is “strengthen the 

exchange and analysis of information across disciplines for improved 

situational awareness.” Its measure is “participants’ after-the-fact informed 

ratings of their situational awareness during test and real events.” 

In our March testimony, we only addressed measurement at the initiative

level. With three levels of measurement—goal, objective, and initiative, the 

NCR might further refine the measures for full measurement coverage and 

yet not duplicate measurement. For example, the goal 1 measure is 

virtually the same as the measures for objective 1.1 under the goal. 

The other two objectives’ measures address implementation of 

countermeasures and satisfied performance commitments, which do not 

appear to be measured by the goal measure. 

Further, measurement at the initiative level is very important as these 

serve as the means to achieve the objectives and, in turn, the strategic 

goals. In our March testimony, we stated that a NCR strategic plan could

Page 13 GAO-06-1096T 
more fully measure initiative expectations by improving performance 

measures and targets. The performance measures should readily lend 

themselves to actual quantitative or qualitative measurement through a 

tabulation, a calculation, a recording of activity or effort, or an assessment 

of results that is compared to an intended purpose. In our work on results 

management practices, we have found that leading organizations said they

used a diversity of performance comparisons, depending on the goal, to 

set performance targets. The comparisons included (1) predefined 

performance specifications, (2) future performance levels or changes in 

levels to be achieved at a later date, (3) best practice benchmarks from 

other organizations, and (4) program implementation milestones. 

Our earlier testimony also stated that a strategic plan could be improved 

by (1) expanding the use of outcome measures and targets in the plan to 

reflect the results of its activities and (2) limiting the use of other types of 

measures. The NCR strategic plan uses a variety of measures and 

comparisons at the initiative level, and I see this as a valuable approach for 

future strategic plans. The current strategic plan also has emphasized 

outcome measures. The NCR might consider reviewing the many output 

measures that remain, such as “regional emergency messaging tests per 

year,” “number of registered volunteers,” and “average hours of training 

per volunteer” to see if they might become more outcome-oriented. 

While the new NCR strategic plan has markedly improved its initiative 

measures over those presented in documents in advance of the final plan, 

further attention may be warranted. For example, a few measures are not 

clearly defined or will be difficult to measure, such as “improvement in 

performance- and risk-based assessment results,” “utilization rates for 

collaboration and information-sharing systems,” and “proportion of 

desired information exchanges occurring.” In addition, some measures do 

not assess the initiative. For example, one initiative is to “design and 

conduct a risk-based threat analysis to identify gaps in regional 

preparedness.” The measure is “[Chief Administrative Officers Committee] 

rating on the usefulness of threat analysis in decision-making.” This 

measure is essentially a general satisfaction survey. Two measures for the 

initiative for establishing a regional oversight and accountability function 

with appropriate tools and resources for performance accountability are 

“utilization rates for collaboration and information-sharing systems” and 

“Partners’ awareness of NCR activity status.” Neither of these two 

measures directly assess establishing an oversight and accountability 

system. 

Page 14 GAO-06-1096T 
In March, we said that a future NCR strategic plan could also be 

strengthened by including more complete time frames for initiative 

accomplishment, including specific milestones and having time frames 

matching the initiative. The new strategic plan has identified milestones 

for all key tasks and programs under each initiative, as well as overall 

timeframe within the strategic planning cycle. The specification of the 

milestone information helps the reader to better understand the 

sequencing of actions. 

Milestones 

However, NCR officials may want to review the distribution of the 

milestones. The strategic plan’s implementation time frame is for the 

period fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2009. However, the strategic plan’s 

initiatives are heavily weighted for completion by the end of fiscal year 

2007.

14 Based on the milestone dates provided in the plan, 18 of the 

30 initiatives are planned to be complete by that time and another 9 by the 

end of fiscal year 2008. A few initiatives appear to be close to completion 

based on completed milestones or those that will soon be completed. 

Their inclusion may reflect a desire to record accomplishments to date. 

For example, initiative milestones for objective 1 under goal 1 (planning 

and decisionmaking) reflect actions to be taken before September 2006 

when the new plan was approved. 

Resources, Investments, 

and Risk Management 

The fourth desirable characteristic is resources, investments, and risk 

management—addressing what the strategy will cost, the sources and 

types of resources and investments needed, and where resources and 

investments should be targeted by balancing risk reductions and costs. 

Examples of elements for this characteristic include resources and 

investments associated with the strategy, sources of resources, and risk 

management principles.

In March, we testified that a future NCR strategic plan could provide fuller 

information on the resources and investments associated with each 

initiative. More specific cost information by initiative, such as funded and

unfunded grant information, would facilitate decision making in 

comparing trade-offs as options are considered.

 14We did not verify the accuracy of the milestones included in the plan document. Some

milestone sequencing would indicate some dates are not accurate. 

Page 15 GAO-06-1096T 
As mentioned earlier, the NCR strategic plan includes costs for each 

initiative. Cost estimates are stated in a rough order of magnitude, 

providing an estimate of the scale range of cost to inform the launch of 

individual initiative operational planning. The costs of the initiatives range 

from over $100 million to nearly $150 million, with some initiative cost 

data still in development. Data are also provided on resource investment 

and projects for each initiative. The plan states that funding source 

identification, investment justification, and allocation decisions will be 

made as a part of the implementation planning process. Funding source 

analysis and allocation is not part of the NCR strategic planning effort. 

Building and sustaining the needed capabilities in the NCR will require the 

effective use of federal, state, and local funds. Identifying resource and 

investment information, including types and sources of resources—at least 

at a high level—would better define how initiatives will be funded and 

when. In the absence of such information, it is difficult to judge if the 

30 initiatives, including those considered priorities, are likely to be 

implemented within the planned time frames. This is particularly 

important as the plan notes that due to recent action by the administration 

in allocating Urban Area Strategic Initiative fiscal year 2006 funds for the 

NCR ($46.5 million, rather than the requested $188 million), when and to

what extent the NCR can implement the initiatives remains uncertain. The

UASI funding decision was made several months prior to the approval of 

the strategic plan. Therefore, the plan should recognize that if the plan’s 

initiatives are to be implemented on schedule, especially those with 

milestones in the coming year, NCR jurisdictions will need to contribute 

more than originally anticipated toward their completion. 

Organizational Roles, 

Responsibilities, and 

Coordination 

The fifth desirable characteristic is organizational roles, responsibilities, 

and coordination—addressing who will be implementing the strategy, 

what their roles will be compared to others, and mechanisms for them to 

coordinate their efforts. Examples of elements for this characteristic 

include lead, support, and partner roles and responsibilities; an 

accountability and oversight framework; and specific processes for 

coordination and collaboration. 

Our March testimony noted that any future NCR strategic plan could 

expand on organizational roles, responsibilities, coordination, and 

integration and implementation plans. Organizational roles, 

responsibilities, and coordination for each initiative would clarify 

accountability and leadership for completion of the initiative. I also said 

the plan might include information on how the plan will be integrated with

Page 16 GAO-06-1096T 
the strategic plans of NCR jurisdictions and that of the ONCRC and plans 

to implement the regional strategy. 

The new plan’s description of organizational roles, responsibilities, and 

coordination provides detailed information concerning NCR governance. 

The plan states that at the strategic level, NCR Partners review 

assessments of regional capabilities and develop a long-term homeland 

security strategy for enhancing prioritized capabilities. Additional 

overarching guidance, such as budget and policy documents, is also issued 

at this level to facilitate activities at the levels below. Regional priorities 

are formulated at the strategic level through an iterative process of 

consensus-building among representatives from the key stakeholders of 

the NCR, represented by three key governance groups: the Senior Policy 

Group (SPG), representing state-level interests; the Chief Administrative 

Officers Committee (CAO), representing local government level interests;

and the Regional Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC), representing 

broader NCR stakeholder interests. 

NCR Governance 

The plan states SPG membership consists of senior officials from 

Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and DHS and the Director for 

the ONCRC. The group exercises oversight of the implementation and 

funding process and determines priority actions for both increasing 

regional preparedness and response capabilities and reducing vulnerability 

to terrorist attacks. According to the plan, the SPG ensures full integration 

of NCR activities by providing final approval for programs within the NCR 

as well all projects within a program. The SPG oversees directors of the 

regional working groups in guiding the execution of their work on 

approved homeland security initiatives, programs, and projects. The SPG,

it is said, is ultimately accountable for the impact of the work at the 

program level of the NCR. The Chief Administrative Officers are city and 

county-level administrators who serve on the CAO Committee on 

Homeland Security. They work in partnership with the SPG members on

all strategic matters, operating more as a single unit. The CAO Committee, 

along with the SPG members, served as key architects of the strategic 

plan. 

The plan describes the Regional Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC) 

as an advisory body established by the Metropolitan Washington Council

of Government (MWCOG) Board of Directors and includes a broad array 

of representatives from each of the NCR’s stakeholder categories. 

According to the plan, the EPC makes policy, procedural, and other 

recommendations to the MWCOG Board or through the MWCOG Board to 

various regional agencies with emergency preparedness responsibilities or 

Page 17 GAO-06-1096T 
operational response authority. In addition, the plan notes representatives 

of the private sector have a critical advisory role in the region’s strategic 

planning process. The private sector is represented on the Regional 

Emergency Preparedness Council, Regional Emergency Support Function 

Committees, and Regional Program Working Groups. 

One element of the characteristic regarding roles, responsibilities, and 

coordination we recommended for a strategic plan is specifying who has 

lead, support, and partner roles and responsibilities. In the plan, a lead 

organization is identified for each initiative. According to the plan, the 

initiative leads are responsible for the definition, development, and 

enhancement of the initiatives. They are to provide oversight for the 

performance of the initiative against the goals and objectives.

Lead Organizations 

In our view, the lead organizations are extremely important to the success 

of the strategic plan. However, the leads for the 30 initiatives are dispersed 

across multiple organizations, many of which are emergency support 

function groups, regional working groups, or the NCR’s Homeland 

Security Grants and Program Office. It is not clear if these organizations 

have the authority, resources, or mechanisms to carry out all of their roles, 

responsibilities, and coordination duties in implementing the plan. For 

example, the plan describes the regional working groups as consisting of 

practitioners, policymakers, and representatives from both the civic and 

private sectors who have many duties, including filling gaps not covered

by any of the existing regional emergency support functions. The Grants 

and Program Office manages grant performance, provides staff support for 

various working groups, and manages NCR processes relating to 

implementation and grant deadlines. These organizations may not be able

to establish policies, procedures, and other means to direct initiative 

implementation. As the strategic plan is implemented, it may be useful for 

the NCR to carefully assess initiative leadership and make adjustments as 

necessary to ensure implementation of the plan. 

Integration and 

Implementation 

The final desirable characteristic is integration and implementation—

addressing how a regional strategy relates to other strategies’ goals, 

objectives, and activities, and to state and local governments within their 

region and their plans to implement the strategy. Examples of elements 

include, for example, horizontal and vertical integration; details on 

specific federal, state, local or private strategies and plans; and 

implementation guidance. 

Page 18 GAO-06-1096T 
The document states that the strategic plan is but one part of a family of 

plans at the strategic, programmatic, budget, and operational levels 

existing within the NCR. The plan is intended to align jurisdictional 

strategy planning efforts with national efforts and provide a mechanism 

for NCR Partner input and guidance into jurisdiction programmatic and 

budgetary planning processes. The plan is intended to identify common 

goals, objectives, and initiatives implemented over the 3 to 5 years of the 

plan. One initiative is designed to align and integrate response plans 

across the jurisdictions, with emphasis on continuity of government, 

operations, and evacuation. 

The plan document states that the plan does not (1) dictate how the NCR 

should spend its homeland security funds and (2) address operational 

level issues or require operational plans at the regional level. Although the 

plan does not directly affect the jurisdictional and emergency function 

operational plans (e.g., local hazard mitigation plans, emergency response) 

or address operational level issues, the plan is intended to influence 

specific capabilities resourced by the jurisdictions that support 

operational plans. According to the plan, detailed operational plans, where 

necessary, will be updated by initiative leads as the strategic initiatives are 

implemented. 

The plan also states that the state homeland security investments made in 

the jurisdictions comprising the NCR must take into account their own 

regional considerations. The plan itself notes that the priorities for 

preparedness in the homeland security plans for Virginia, Maryland, and

the District of Columbia reflect unique assessments of the threats and 

vulnerabilities across each jurisdiction and have varying strategic plan 

priorities. The annual review of the strategic plan is timed to correspond 

with the federal, Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia budget 

cycles, which should, according to the plan, facilitate the acquisition of 

funding for initiative projects. As the plan is implemented, the jurisdictions 

should, according to the plan, be able to determine their level of 

contribution and commitment to the achievement of the plan’s goals and 

initiatives. The plan describes the commitment of District of Columbia, 

Virginia, and Maryland officials to a collaborative approach in eight 

Page 19 GAO-06-1096T 
specific areas, which the plan states are addressed by at least one of the 

NCR strategic plan goals.15

For all initiatives, the plan document notes that the Emergency

Preparedness Council will convene a quarterly performance review. In 

these sessions, each initiative lead will present the performance results of 

their initiative. Initiative leads will present their results compared with the 

pre-defined targets; analysis of results, trends, and root causes; and 

recommended actions to maximize performance. The Emergency

Preparedness Council will discuss this information, make decisions, and 

issue direction to improve project performance as necessary. While an

initiative is in the implementation stage, the review session is to serve as a 

project management aid, reviewing schedule and budget status versus 

milestones and exercising implementation management actions. When a 

plan initiative is completed, the document states its review will transition 

to an outcome-oriented performance discussion. 

One of the plan’s initiatives is to establish a regional oversight and 

accountability function with appropriate tools and resources for 

performance transparency. According to the milestones, NCR entities will 

report against the measures in January 2007 and performance reviews will 

be in March 2007. 

As we testified in March, implementation of regional initiatives not 

covered by Homeland Security Grant Program funding likely would 

require NCR jurisdictions acting individually or in combination with 

others. If the plan is intended to align regional with state and local efforts

through identification of common goals, objectives, and initiatives 

implemented by the jurisdictions over the 3 to 5 years of the plan, it is 

critical that jurisdictional plans reflect the regional goals, objectives, and

initiatives. Although the plan notes that the District of Columbia, Virginia,

and Maryland have a commitment to the eight critical areas previously 

mentioned, it is not known what the actual commitment is to all of the 

goals, objectives, and initiatives in the NCR plan. 

Our work to date has not included an assessment of individual 

jurisdictional commitment or planned efforts to implement the NCR 

 15The eight areas are (1) decisionmaking, (2) information sharing, (3) infrastructure

protection, (4) public health and safety, (5) mutual aid agreements, (6) joint “virtual” 

information center, (7) citizen corps programs, and (8) coordinated training exercises. 

Page 20 GAO-06-1096T 
strategic plan goals, objectives, and initiatives to determine if unfunded 

initiatives, particularly those considered priority initiatives, might be 

addressed by one or more of the NCR jurisdictions. While the NCR 

strategic plan might guide or influence implementation of the initiatives, 

there is no guarantee state and local plans and related investments will 

respond to the initiatives. Even if the NCR jurisdictions initially commit to 

the plan’s initiatives, with performance monitored by the Emergency

Preparedness Council, there is no vehicle or central responsible 

organization with the authority to ensure implementation. Further work 

would be required to determine to what extent, if any, the NCR initiatives 

are addressed in other federal funding applications or individual NCR 

jurisdictional homeland security initiatives. 

A major organizational and functional challenge noted in the plan is that 

the NCR is not organized as an operational entity and does not have the 

authority to execute operations as an independent body. The NCR’s 

authority only exists, the plan notes, to the extent the member 

jurisdictions are willing to extend decision-making rights to the NCR. 

Under the plan, the SPG is to exercise oversight of the implementation and 

funding process and determine priority actions and the EPC is to do 

quarterly performance reviews. 

However, if regional collaboration and building capabilities in line with the 

NCR goals are to become a reality, operational commitment is necessary. 

As I stated earlier, the Office of National Capital Region Coordination was 

created as a means of coordinating emergency preparedness and response 

efforts across the region. The ONCRC is to oversee and coordinate federal 

programs for and relationships with NCR state, local, and regional 

authorities. One ONCRC mandate is to coordinate with NCR federal, state,

local, and regional agencies and the private sector on terrorism 

preparedness to ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training,

and execution of domestic preparedness activities among these agencies

and entities. A challenge for the ONCRC is to work with the NCR 

jurisdictions to provide effective oversight, accountability, and overall 

leadership and management of the various NCR governance entities such

as the Senior Policy Group and Emergency Preparedness Council to 

continually assess the strategic plan’s implementation and steps needed to

keep implementation on track. 

Page 21 GAO-06-1096T 
In addition, the Department of Homeland Security beyond the ONCRC has 

a role to play. As we noted in our work on regional coordination, the 

federal government can encourage regional coordination through its grant 

programs.16 As DHS emphasizes regional coordination and capability 

building through implementation of the National Preparedness Goal, it can 

provide additional oversight to determine if regional strategic plans have

specific and measurable goals and that resources are aligned to the goals. 

As I stated when last before this Committee, there is no more important 

element in results-oriented management than the effort of strategic 

planning. Strategic planning defines what an organization seeks to 

accomplish, identifies strategies it will use to achieve desired results, and 

then determines success in reaching results-oriented goals and achieving 

objectives. 

Concluding 

Observations 

The NCR has made considerable progress in developing its first strategic 

plan. Although we have noted some remaining limitations and areas of 

potential improvement, the NCR strategic plan provides the basic 

foundation for regional preparedness, including what is in case of a 

catastrophic event. Now, the challenge is ensuring that initiatives to 

implement the goals and objectives are funded, completed, and 

appropriately assessed to determine if they have achieved the NCR’s 

strategic goals while continually monitor the plan’s implementation to 

determine what adjustments are needed for continuing improvement. 

- - - - - 

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

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have. 

 16GAO-04-1009. 

Page 22 GAO-06-1096T 
For questions regarding this testimony, please contact William O. Jenkins, 

Jr. at (202) 512-8757, email jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this testimony. Sharon L. Caudle also made key contributions 

to this testimony. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 23 GAO-06-1096T (440546) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
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, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER