Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

May 2004 HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Management of First 

Responder Grants in 

the National Capital 

Region Reflects the 

Need for Coordinated 

Planning and 

Performance Goals 

GAO-04-433 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-433.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William O. 

Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512-8757 or 

jenkinswo@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-433, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

May 2004

HOMELAND SECURITY

Management of First Responder Grants in 

the National Capital Region Reflects the 

Need for Coordinated Planning and 

Performance Goals 

In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, grant programs administered by the 

Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Justice 

awarded about $340 million to eight NCR jurisdictions to enhance 

emergency preparedness. Of this total, the Office for National Capital Region 

Coordination (ONCRC) targeted all of the $60.5 million Urban Area Security 

Initiative funds for projects designed to benefit NCR as a whole. However, 

there was no coordinated regionwide plan for spending the remaining funds 

(about $279.5 million). Local jurisdictions determined the spending priorities 

for these funds and reported using them for emergency communications and 

personal protective equipment and other purchases. 

NCR faces several challenges in organizing and implementing efficient and 

effective regional preparedness programs, including the lack of a 

coordinated strategic plan for enhancing NCR preparedness, performance 

standards, and a reliable, central source of data on funds available and the 

purposes for which they were spent. 

Without these basic elements, it is difficult to assess first responder 

capacities, identify first responder funding priorities for NCR, and evaluate 

the effectiveness of the use of federal funds in enhancing first responder 

capacities and preparedness in a way that maximizes their effectiveness in 

improving homeland security. 

National Capital Region Jurisdictions 

Loudoun County

Prince William

County

Fairfax County

Montgomery County

Prince George's

County

Source: National Capital Planning Commission.

Arlington

County

District of

Columbia

Virginia Maryland

City of Alexandria

Since the tragic events of 

September 11, 2001, the National 

Capital Region (NCR), comprising 

jurisdictions including the District 

of Columbia and surrounding 

jurisdictions in Maryland and 

Virginia, has been recognized as a 

significant potential target for 

terrorism. GAO was asked to 

report on (1) what federal funds 

have been allocated to NCR 

jurisdictions for emergency 

preparedness; (2) what challenges 

exist within NCR to organizing and 

implementing efficient and 

effective regional preparedness 

programs; (3) what gaps, if any, 

remain in the emergency 

preparedness of NCR; and (4) what 

has been the role of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) in NCR to date. 

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of DHS (1) work with 

local NCR jurisdictions to develop 

a coordinated strategic plan to 

establish capacity enhancement 

goals and priorities; (2) monitor the 

plan’s implementation; and 

(3) identify and address gaps in 

emergency preparedness and 

evaluate the effectiveness of 

expenditures by conducting 

assessments based on established 

standards and guidelines. 

DHS and the ONCRC Senior Policy 

Group generally agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations and noted that a 

new governance structure, adopted 

in February 2004, should 

accomplish essential coordination. 
Page i GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Multiple Grants Support a Wide Variety of Uses, Including 

Equipment, Training and Exercises, Planning, and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness 13

Challenges to Effective Grants Management Include Lack of 

Standards, Planning, and Data 23

Assessing the Remaining Gaps in NCR is Difficult without 

Guidance, Reliable Data, or Analysis 34

DHS and ONCRC Appear to Have Had a Limited Role in Promoting 

Regional Coordination in NCR 35

Conclusions 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 37

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 40 

Appendix II NCR Jurisdictions’ Arrangements to Respond to 

Public Safety Emergencies 42 

Regional Bodies Facilitate Coordination Efforts in Other Areas 42

Mutual Aid Agreements Are in Place within NCR 43

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 45 

Appendix IV Comments from the National Capital Region’s Senior 

Policy Group 47 

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 53 

GAO Contacts 53

Staff Acknowledgments 53

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Tables 

Table 1: Characteristics of National Capital Region Jurisdictions 12

Table 2: Selected Emergency Preparedness Funding Sources to 

NCR Jurisdictions in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 14

Table 3: Uses of Selected Homeland Security Grant Programs 17

Table 4: Major Items Funded by NCR Jurisdictions from Fiscal 

Year 2002 DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation 20

Table 5: Uses of NCR Urban Area Security Initiative Funds 22

Figure 

Figure 1: National Capital Region Jurisdictions 10

Abbreviations 

CapWIN Capital Wireless Integrated Network 

CERT Citizens Emergency Response Training 

CFDA Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

DOD Department of Defense 

EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant Program 

FEMA DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency 

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

MEMA Maryland Emergency Management Agency 

NCR National Capital Region 

NVRC Northern Virginia Regional Commission 

ODP DHS’s Office for Domestic Preparedness 

ONCRC DHS’s Office of National Capital Region Coordination 

RECP Regional Emergency Coordination Plan 

RICCS Regional Incident Communication and Coordination 

 System 

UASI Urban Area Security Initiative 

VDEM Virginia Department of Emergency Management 

WashCOG Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments 

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction 
Page iii GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

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. 
Page 1 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

May 28, 2004 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Washington, D.C., area, 

known as the National Capital Region (NCR), has been recognized as a 

high-threat area for terrorism.1

 The complexity of the region, composed of 

jurisdictions including the nation’s capital and surrounding areas in the 

states of Maryland and Virginia, and a range of potential targets, presents 

significant challenges to coordinating and developing effective homeland 

security programs. In recognition of the region’s status as a significant 

potential target, a substantial amount of federal funding was provided to 

NCR in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to enhance the region’s ability to 

prepare for and respond to emergencies, including terrorist attacks. 

Federal funding has also been provided to other high-threat urban areas 

around the nation, and at your request, our work in NCR will be followed 

by a review of coordination practices in several other urban regions 

around the nation. 

In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established to 

consolidate the resources of 22 federal agencies for dealing in a 

multifaceted and comprehensive manner with domestic preparedness, 

including coordinating with other levels of government, planning 

programs, and assessing their effectiveness. These responsibilities include 

oversight of the grant-making process to promote effective domestic 

preparedness programs. Appropriations to DHS and agencies in the 

Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services for domestic 

preparedness programs for state and local governments totaled nearly 

 1

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, §882 (2002)) incorporates the following 

definition of the National Capital Region from 10 U.S.C. 2674 (f)(2). It is a geographic area 

that consists of the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in 

Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties and the City of 

Alexandria in Virginia; and all cities and other units of government within the geographic 

areas of such district, counties, and city. We focused on the eight largest jurisdictions. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

$13.9 billion in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. These grants include funding to 

NCR, which received special focus with the creation of the Office for 

National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) in statute as part of the 

new department. ONCRC was established to oversee and coordinate 

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

authorities. ONCRC’s statutory responsibilities also include assessing 

needs, providing information and support, and facilitating access to 

federal domestic preparedness grants and related programs. To assist in 

accomplishing its mission, ONCRC developed a governance structure to 

receive input from state and local authorities through a Senior Policy 

Group composed of representatives designated by the Governors of 

Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. 

You asked us to examine preparedness efforts in NCR, with an emphasis 

on the use of funds, what has been done recently to better position the 

area to address potential threats, and what continuing problems exist in 

organizing and implementing efficient regional programs. This report 

addresses the following questions: 

• What federal funds have been allocated to local jurisdictions in the NCR 

for emergency preparedness, for what specific purposes, and from what 

sources? 

• What challenges exist within NCR to organizing and implementing 

efficient and effective regional preparedness programs? 

• What gaps, if any, remain in the emergency preparedness of NCR? 

• What has been DHS’s role to date in enhancing the preparedness of NCR 

through such actions as coordinating the use of federal emergency 

preparedness grants, assessing preparedness, providing guidance, 

targeting funds to enhance preparedness, and monitoring the use of those 

funds? 

To respond to the questions, we met with and obtained documentation on 

grant awards and spending plans from officials of DHS, the Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Governments, ONCRC Senior Policy Group, state 

emergency management agencies, and first responder officials from NCR 

jurisdictions. We identified 25 emergency preparedness programs that 

provided funding to NCR, and we selected 16 of them for our detailed 

review. These 16 grants were selected to cover a range of programs 

including the largest funding sources; grants provided for general 

purposes, such as equipment and training; and grants provided for specific 
Page 3 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

purposes, such as fire prevention and bioterrorism. We collected and 

analyzed grant data from federal, state, and local sources. We also 

reviewed relevant reports, studies, and guidelines on homeland security 

and domestic preparedness. We conducted our review from June 

2003 through February 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. See appendix I for more details on our 

scope and methodology. 

In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NCR received a total of about $340 million 

from 16 grants administered by the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Health and Human Services, and Justice. These grants were awarded to 

state and local emergency management, law enforcement, fire 

departments, and other emergency response agencies in the National 

Capital Region to enhance their ability to prepare for and respond to 

emergencies, including terrorist incidents. Within NCR, two funding 

sources—the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriation (almost $230 million) and the Urban Area 

Security Initiative (UASI) ($60.5 million)—accounted for 85 percent of the 

homeland security grant funds awarded. These two sources were used for 

similar purposes. Funds from the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense 

Emergency Supplemental went directly to local jurisdictions that had 

discretion to use it for their own priorities and needs. NCR jurisdictions 

reported they used these funds to purchase a range of equipment, supplies, 

training, and technical assistance services. The major expenditures 

reported were mostly for communications systems, including an 

interoperable radio system, and other types of equipment, such as 

equipment for emergency operations centers, bomb squad materials, bomb 

squad and command vehicles, and a mass casualty and disaster unit. 

ONCRC developed a plan for the use of funds from UASI, the purpose of 

which was to enhance security in large urban areas. The plan for these 

funds identified activities that would benefit the region as a whole, 

including equipment ($26.5 million), planning ($12.4 million), the costs of 

higher threat alert levels ($10.6 million), training ($5.2 million), exercises 

($4 million), and administrative costs ($1.8 million). 

ONCRC and NCR face at least three interrelated challenges in managing 

federal funds in a way that maximizes the increase in first responder 

capacities and preparedness while also minimizing inefficiency and 

unnecessary duplication of expenditures. First, and most fundamental, is 

the lack of preparedness standards that could be used to assess existing 

first responder capacities, identify gaps in those capacities, and measure 

progress in achieving specific performance goals. Such standards would 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

include functional standards for equipment, such as personal protection 

suits; performance standards, such as the number of persons per hour that 

could be decontaminated after a chemical attack; and perhaps best 

practice benchmarks. DHS administered the Office for Domestic 

Preparedness (ODP) Assessment to NCR jurisdictions in the summer of 

2003. However, the lack of performance standards makes it difficult to use 

the results of the assessment to identify the most critical gaps in 

capacities. Since the NCR jurisdictions completed their ODP assessments, 

DHS has taken steps to address this challenge by adopting its first set of 

functional standards for protective equipment and making reference to 

establishing a system of national standards in its recently released 

strategic plan. 

Second, there is no coordinated regionwide plan for establishing first 

responder performance goals, needs, and priorities and assessing the 

benefits of expenditures to enhance first responder capabilities. Prior to 

September 11, there were some efforts to develop regional emergency 

response planning and coordination, such as mutual aid agreements 

among neighboring jurisdictions. Since that time, the Washington Council 

of Governments (WashCOG) has developed one of the first regional 

emergency coordination plans and a communications notification system 

for NCR. However, no such NCR-wide coordination methods have been 

developed for guiding the spending of federal grant dollars and assessing 

their effects on enhancing first responder capacities and preparedness. 

Individual jurisdictions and their emergency response agencies have 

determined how the majority ($279.5 million) of the approximately 

$340 million in federal grant funds will be spent. The one exception is the 

funding for UASI ($60.5 million). ONCRC has focused its initial 

coordination efforts on developing a regional plan for the use of UASI 

funds for projects to benefit NCR as a whole. 

Third, there is no readily available, reliable source of information on the 

amount of first responder federal grant funds available to each NCR 

jurisdiction, the budget plans and criteria used to determine spending 

priorities, and actual expenditures. While the NCR jurisdictions are 

required to submit separate reports on each grant to the administering 

federal agency, ONCRC has not obtained or consolidated this information 

to develop a comprehensive source of information for NCR on grants 

received, plans and priorities for spending those funds, and actual 

expenditures. Generally, spending decisions were made on a grant-bygrant basis and were largely in response to first responder and emergency 

management officials’ requests for specific expenditures. Without 
Page 5 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

consistently available, reliable data, it is difficult to verify the results of 

ODP’s assessment and establish a baseline that could then be used to 

develop plans to address outstanding needs. 

During our review, we also could identify no reliable data on preparedness 

gaps in NCR, which of those gaps were most important, and the status of 

efforts to close those gaps. This is because the baseline data needed to 

assess those gaps had not been fully developed or made available on a 

NCR-wide basis, and ONCRC does not have information on how local 

jurisdictions have used federal grant monies to enhance their capacity and 

preparedness. Consequently, it is difficult for us or ONCRC to determine 

what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency response capacities and 

preparedness within NCR. Were these data available, the lack of standards 

against which to evaluate them would make it difficult to assess gaps. The 

ODP assessment did, however, collect information on regional security 

risks and needs for the NCR jurisdictions. ONCRC based spending 

decisions for UASI funds on the results of the assessment, with the funds 

used only for regional needs. On the other hand, officials in several NCR 

jurisdictions said that they have not received any feedback on the results 

of the assessment for their individual jurisdictions. It is not clear how the 

regional assessment and UASI spending plan links to the use of other 

grants for local jurisdictions and the gaps the jurisdictions’ spending is 

designed to address. 

To date, DHS and ONCRC appear to have had a limited role in assessing 

and analyzing first responder needs in NCR and developing a coordinated 

effort to address those needs through the use of federal grant funds. 

Without an NCR baseline on emergency preparedness, a plan for 

prioritizing expenditures and assessing their benefits, and reliable 

information on funds available and spent on first responder needs in NCR, 

it is difficult for ONCRC to fulfill its statutory responsibility to oversee and 

coordinate federal programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for 

state, local, and regional authorities in NCR. Some officials within NCR 

generally believed that additional DHS guidance also is needed on likely 

emergency scenarios for which to prepare and how to prepare for them. In 

meetings with us, the former Director of ONCRC acknowledged that the 

office could consider coordinating expenditures for federal grants other 

than the UASI grant. He also said that consistent records and a central 

source of information on NCR emergency responder grants would assist 

ONCRC in fulfilling its responsibilities. 

Because of the importance of preparing NCR and other high-risk areas to 

meet considerable homeland security challenges, we are recommending 
Page 6 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

that the Secretary of DHS (1) work with NCR jurisdictions to develop a 

coordinated strategic plan to establish first responder enhancement goals 

and priorities that can be used to guide the use of federal emergency 

preparedness funds; (2) monitor the plan’s implementation to ensure 

funds are used in a way that promotes effective expenditures that are not 

unnecessarily duplicative; and (3) identify and address gaps in emergency 

preparedness and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures in meeting 

those needs by adapting standards and preparedness guidelines based on 

likely scenarios for NCR and conducting assessments based on them. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of DHS and to NCR’s 

Senior Policy Group for comment. DHS and the Senior Policy Group 

generally agreed with our recommendations, but also stated that NCR 

jurisdictions had worked cooperatively together to identify opportunities 

for synergies and lay a foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the 

report. DHS and the Senior Policy Group also agreed that there is a need 

to continue to improve preparedness by developing more specific and 

improved preparedness standards, clearer performance goals, and an 

improved method for tracking regional initiatives. DHS noted that a new 

governance structure, adopted in February 2004, should accomplish 

essential regionwide coordination. 

Since September 11, 2001, there has been broad acknowledgment by the 

federal government, state and local governments, and a range of 

independent research organizations of the need for a coordinated 

intergovernmental approach to allocating the nation’s resources to 

address the threat of terrorism and improve our security. This coordinated 

approach includes developing national guidelines and standards and 

monitoring and assessing preparedness against those standards to 

effectively manage risk. The National Strategy for Homeland Security 

(National Strategy), released in 2002 following the proposal for DHS, 

emphasized a shared national responsibility for security involving close 

cooperation among all levels of government and acknowledged the 

complexity of developing a coordinated approach within our federal 

system of government and among a broad range of organizations and 

institutions involved in homeland security. The national strategy 

highlighted the challenge of developing complementary systems that avoid 

unintended duplication and increase collaboration and coordination so 

that public and private resources are better aligned for homeland security. 

The national strategy established a framework for this approach by 

identifying critical mission areas with intergovernmental initiatives in each 

area. For example, the strategy identified such initiatives as modifying 

federal grant requirements and consolidating funding sources to state and 

Background 
Page 7 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

local governments. The strategy further recognized the importance of 

assessing the capability of state and local governments, developing plans, 

and establishing standards and performance measures to achieve national 

preparedness goals. 

Recent reports by independent research organizations have highlighted 

the same issues of the need for intergovernmental coordination, planning, 

and assessment. For example, the fifth annual report of the Advisory Panel 

to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving 

Weapons of Mass Destruction2

 (the Gilmore Commission) also emphasizes 

the importance of a comprehensive, collaborative approach to improve the 

nation’s preparedness. The report states that there is a need for a 

coordinated system for the development, delivery, and administration of 

programs that engage a broad range of stakeholders. The Gilmore 

Commission notes that preparedness for combating terrorism requires 

measurable demonstrated capacity by communities, states, and the private 

sector to respond to threats with well-planned, well-coordinated, and 

effective efforts by all participants. The Gilmore Commission recommends 

a comprehensive process for establishing training and exercise standards 

for responders that includes state and local response organizations on an 

ongoing basis. The National Academy of Public Administration’s recent 

panel report3

 also notes the importance of coordinated and integrated 

efforts at all levels of government and in the private sector to develop a 

national approach to homeland security. Regarding assessment, the report 

recommends establishing national standards in selected areas and 

developing impact and outcome measures for those standards. 

The creation of DHS was an initial step toward reorganizing the federal 

government to respond to some of the intergovernmental challenges 

identified in the national strategy. 4 The reorganization consolidated 

22 agencies with responsibility for domestic preparedness functions to, 

among other things, enhance the ability of the nation’s police, fire, and 

 2

The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving 

Weapons of Mass Destruction, The Fifth Annual Report to the President and the Congress, 

Forging America’s New Normalcy: Securing our Homeland, Protecting Our Liberty 

(Arlington, VA.: Dec. 15, 2003). 

3

National Academy of Public Administration, Advancing the Management of Homeland 

Security: Managing Intergovernmental Relations for Homeland Security (Washington, 

D.C.: February 2004). 

4

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P. L. 107-296 (2002)). 
Page 8 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

other first responders to respond to terrorism and other emergencies 

through grants. Many aspects of DHS’s success depend on its maintaining 

and enhancing working relationships within the intergovernmental system 

as the department relies on state and local governments to accomplish its 

mission. The Homeland Security Act contains provisions intended to 

foster coordination among levels of government, such as the creation of 

the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and ONCRC. 

The Homeland Security Act established ONCRC within DHS to oversee 

and coordinate federal programs for, and relationships with, state, local, 

and regional authorities in the National Capital Region.5

 Pursuant to the 

act, ONCRC’s responsibilities include 

• coordinating the activities of DHS relating to NCR, including cooperating 

with the Office for State and Local Government Coordination; 

• assessing and advocating for resources needed by state, local, and regional 

authorities in NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland; 

• providing state, local, and regional authorities in NCR with regular 

information, research, and technical support to assist the efforts of state, 

local, and regional authorities in NCR in securing the homeland; 

• developing a process for receiving meaningful input from state, local, and 

regional authorities and the private sector in NCR to assist in the 

development of the federal government’s homeland security plans and 

activities; 

• coordinating with federal agencies in NCR on terrorism preparedness to 

ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution of 

the federal role in domestic preparedness activities; 

• coordinating with federal, state, 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; and 

• serving as a liaison between the federal government and state, local, and 

regional authorities, and private sector entities in NCR to facilitate access 

to federal grants and other programs. 

 5

P.L. 107-296 §882. 
Page 9 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

The act also requires ONCRC to submit an annual report to Congress that 

includes 

• the identification of resources required to fully implement homeland 

security efforts in NCR, 

• an assessment of the progress made by NCR in implementing homeland 

security efforts in NCR, and 

• recommendations to Congress regarding the additional resources needed 

to fully implement homeland security efforts in NCR. 

The first ONCRC Director served from March to November 2003, and the 

Secretary of DHS appointed a new Director on April 30, 2004. The ONCRC 

has a small staff including full-time and contract employees and staff on 

detail to the office. 
Page 10 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Figure 1: National Capital Region Jurisdictions 

NCR is a complex multijurisdictional area comprising the District of 

Columbia and surrounding counties and cities in the states of Maryland 

and Virginia and is home to the federal government, many national 

landmarks, and military installations. Coordination within this region 

Loudoun County

Prince William

County

Fairfax County

Montgomery County

Prince George's

County

Source: National Capital Planning Commission.

Arlington

County

District of

Columbia

City of Alexandria

Virginia

Maryland
Page 11 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

presents the challenge of working with eight NCR jurisdictions that vary in 

size, political organization, and experience with managing emergencies. 

The largest municipality in the region is the District of Columbia, with a 

population of about 572,000. However, the region also includes large 

counties, such as Montgomery County, Maryland, with a total population 

of about 873,000, incorporating 19 municipalities, and Fairfax County, 

Virginia, the most populous jurisdiction (about 984,000), which is 

composed of nine districts. NCR also includes smaller jurisdictions, such 

as Loudoun County and the City of Alexandria, each with a population 

below 200,000. The region has significant experience with emergencies, 

including natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards, 

and terrorist incidents such as the attacks of September 11, and 

subsequent events, and the sniper incidents of the fall of 2002. For more 

details on the characteristics of the individual jurisdictions, see table 1. 
Page 12 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Table 1: Characteristics of National Capital Region Jurisdictions 

Locality 

Jurisdictional 

structure/ 

characteristics 

Population 

(2000 Census) Budget 

Maryland 

Montgomery County County has 19 

municipalities and an 

elected county 

executive and county 

council 

873,341 $3.1 billion 

 (FY 2004 

Adopted) 

Prince George’s 

County 

County has 27 

municipalities and an 

elected county council 

and county executive 

801,515 $1.8 billion 

(FY 2004 

Adopted) 

District of Columbia City council, city 

administrator, and 

mayor 

572,059 $1.8 billion 

(FY 2004 

Adopted) 

Virginia 

Alexandria City Elected mayor and city 

council and appointed 

city manager 

128,283 $479.2 million 

(FY 2004 

Adopted) 

Arlington County Elected county board 

and appointed county 

manager 

189,453 $805.3 million 

(FY 2004 

Adopted) 

Fairfax County County has 9 districts; 

an elected board of 

supervisors, and an 

appointed county 

executive 

984,366 $2.6 billion 

(FY 2004 

Adopted) 

Loudoun County County has 8 districts 

containing 7 towns, an 

elected board of 

supervisors, and an 

appointed county 

administrator 

169,599 $799.2 million 

(FY 2004 

Adopted) 

Prince William County County has 4 towns 

and 2 independent 

cities, an elected board 

of supervisors, and an 

appointed county 

executive 

280,813 $1.3 billion 

(FY 2004 

Adopted) 

Source: Prepared by GAO from jurisdictions’ data. 
Page 13 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Congress provided billions of dollars in 

grants to state and local governments to enhance the ability of the nation’s 

first responders to prevent and respond to terrorism events. We reviewed 

16 of the funding sources available for use by first responders and 

emergency managers that were targeted for improving preparedness for 

terrorism and other emergencies. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, these grant 

programs, administered by DHS, Health and Human Services (HHS), and 

Justice awarded about $340 million to the District of Columbia, Maryland, 

Virginia, and state and local emergency management, law enforcement, 

fire departments, and other emergency response agencies in NCR.6

 

Table 2 shows the individual grant awards to the jurisdictions. The funding 

sources we reviewed include a range of grants that can be used for broad 

purposes, such as ODP’s State Homeland Security Grant Program and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Management 

Performance Grant, as well as more targeted grants for specific disciplines 

such as FEMA’s Assistance to Firefighters Grant and HHS’s Bioterrorism 

Preparedness Grants. 

 6

The $340 million includes the $60.5 million for UASI that is allocated to NCR for 

regionwide projects. 

Multiple Grants 

Support a Wide 

Variety of Uses, 

Including Equipment, 

Training and 

Exercises, Planning, 

and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness 
Page 14 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Table 2: Selected Emergency Preparedness Funding Sources to NCR Jurisdictions in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 

Dollars in thousands 

Agency Grant title with CFDAa number 

District of 

Columbia

Montgomery 

County

Prince George’s 

County

DHS (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters (83.554) $221 $251 $147

DHS (FEMA) Citizen Corps (83.564) 35 2 2

DHS (FEMA) Community Emergency Response Teams (83.565) 148 14 9

DHS (FEMA) Emergency Management Performance Grant (83.552) 2,195 305 159

DHS (FEMA) Emergency Operations Center Assessment (83.563) 50 0 0

DHS (FEMA) Interoperable Communications Equipment Grant (83.566) 0 0 0

DHS (FEMA) State and Local All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning 

Grant (83.562) 198 0 0

DHS (ODP) State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support Program 

(16.007) 2,747 467 354

DHS (ODP) State and Local Domestic Preparedness Training Program 

(16.008) 0 0 0

DHS (ODP) State and Local Domestic Preparedness Exercise Support 

Program (16.009) 0 44 0

DHS (ODP) State and Local Domestic Preparedness Technical Assistance 

(16.010) 0 0 0

DHS (ODP) State Homeland Security Grant Program Phases I and II (16.007) 17,916 1,214 1,279

DHS (ODP) Urban Area Security Initiative Phases I and II (16.011)b 60,491 0 0

DHS (BJAc) DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (16.580) 168,952 8,551 7,855

HHS Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness (93.003) 722 0 0

HHS Public Health Preparedness and Response for Bioterrorism 

(93.283) 12,705 617 530

Total $266,380 $11,465 $10,335
Page 15 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

 

Alexandria City Arlington County Fairfax County Loudoun County

Prince William 

County 

Total by funding 

source

$47 0 $170 0 $469 $1,305

0 $5 5 0 0 49

14 35 20 0 0 240

10 53 0 $30 47 2,799

0 0 0 0 0 50

0 0 0 0 0 0

29 0 186 0 57 470

88 119 372 109 115 4,371

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 44

0 0 0 0 

0

516 581 2,735 528 828 25,597

0 0 0 0 0 60,491

8,021 16,000 12,000 4,300 4,300 229,979

0 0 0 0 0 722

0 0 0 0 0 13,852

$8,725 $16,793 $15,488 $4,967 $5,816 $339,969

Source: GAO analysis of NCR data. 

a

Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

b

The District of Columbia is the recipient of the UASI funds for projects to benefit NCR as a whole. 

c

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

While some of these grants are targeted to different recipients, many of 

them can be used to fund similar projects and purposes. For example, 

there are multiple grants that can be used to fund equipment, training, and 

exercises. We have previously reported the fragmented delivery of federal 

assistance can complicate coordination and integration of services and 
Page 16 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

planning at state and local levels.7 Multiple fragmented grant programs can 

create a confusing and administratively burdensome process for state and 

local officials seeking to use federal resources for homeland security 

needs. In addition, many of these grant programs have separate 

administrative requirements such as applications and different funding 

and reporting requirements. 

In fiscal year 2004, in an effort to reduce the multiplicity of separate 

funding sources and to allow greater flexibility in the use of grants, several 

ODP State and Local Domestic Preparedness grants, which were targeted 

for separate purposes such as equipment, training, and exercises, were 

consolidated into a single funding source and renamed the State 

Homeland Security Grant Program.8

 In addition, four FEMA grants (Citizen 

Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, Emergency Operations 

Centers, and State and Local All-Hazards Emergency Operations Planning) 

now have a joint application process; the same program office at FEMA 

administers these grants. Overall, NCR jurisdictions used the 16 funding 

sources we reviewed to address a wide variety of emergency preparedness 

activities such as (1) purchasing equipment and supplies; (2) training first 

responders; (3) planning, conducting, and evaluating exercises; 

(4) planning and administration; and (5) providing technical assistance. 

Table 3 shows the eligible uses for each of the 16 grants. 

 7

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Assistance: Grant System Continues to Be 

Highly Fragmented, GAO-03-718T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2003). 

8

The grants that were consolidated into the State Homeland Security Grant Program 

include the State and Local Domestic Preparedness Training Program, State and Local 

Domestic Preparedness Exercise Support Program, and State Domestic Preparedness 

Equipment Support Program. 
Page 17 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Table 3: Uses of Selected Homeland Security Grant Programs 

Agency 

Grant title with CFDA 

number Grant objectives 

Equipment 

and/or 

supplies Training Exercises 

Planning 

and/or 

administration

Technical 

assistance 

DHS 

(FEMA) 

Assistance to Firefighters 

Grant (83.554) 

Grants made directly to 

fire departments to equip 

and train fire fighters and 

emergency medical 

technicians 

• • • • 

DHS 

(FEMA) 

Citizen Corps (83.564) Grants to supplement and 

assist state and local 

efforts to expand Citizen 

Corps 

• • • 

DHS 

(FEMA) 

Community Emergency 

Response Teams 

(83.565) 

Assist state and local 

efforts to start or expand 

community and 

emergency response 

teams 

• • • 

DHS 

(FEMA) 

Emergency Management 

Performance Grant 

(83.552) 

Grants to states to 

develop comprehensive 

emergency management 

plans 

• • • 

DHS 

(FEMA) 

Emergency Operations 

Centersa (83.563) 

Grants to states to 

develop emergency 

operations centers 

 • 

DHS 

(FEMA) 

Interoperable 

Communications 

Equipment (83.566) 

Funding to jurisdictions for 

demonstration projects 

that explore uses of 

equipment and 

technologies to increase 

interoperability among fire, 

law enforcement, and 

emergency medical 

services 

• • •

DHS 

(FEMA) 

State and Local AllHazards Emergency 

Operations Planning 

(83.562) 

Grants to states to 

encourage the 

development of all-hazard 

emergency plans 

 • 

DHS 

(ODP) 

State Domestic 

Preparedness Equipment 

Support Program 

(16.007) 

Grants to states to 

develop and implement a 

statewide domestic 

preparedness strategy 

• • • 

DHS 

(ODP) 

State and Local 

Domestic Preparedness 

Training Program 

(16.008) 

Grants to state and local 

governments to enhance 

capacity to respond to 

weapons of mass 

destruction (WMD) 

terrorism 

• 
Page 18 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Agency 

Grant title with CFDA 

number Grant objectives 

Equipment 

and/or 

supplies Training Exercises 

Planning 

and/or 

administration

Technical 

assistance 

DHS 

(ODP) 

State and Local 

Domestic Preparedness 

Exercise Support 

(16.009) 

Grants to state and local 

governments to plan and 

conduct domestic 

preparedness exercises 

 • • •

DHS 

(ODP) 

State and Local 

Domestic Preparedness 

Technical Assistance 

(16.010) 

Grant to state and local 

governments to develop, 

plan, and implement a 

program for WMD 

 • •

DHS 

(ODP) 

State Homeland Security 

Grant Program, Phases I 

and II (16.007) 

Grants to states and local 

governments to purchase 

equipment and mitigate 

costs of enhanced security

• • • • •

DHS 

(ODP) 

Urban Area Security 

Initiative, Phases I and II 

(16.011) 

Designed to enhance the 

ability of first responders 

and public safety officials 

to secure urban area’s 

critical infrastructure and 

respond to potential acts 

of terrorism 

• • • • •

DOJ 

(BJA) 

Fiscal Year 2002 

Department of Defense 

Emergency 

Supplemental 

Appropriation (16.580) 

Direct funding to NCR 

jurisdictions 

• • • • •

HHS Bioterrorism Hospital 

Preparedness (93.003) 

Cooperative agreementa

with health departments of 

all states, the District of 

Columbia, the 3 largest 

municipalities, and other 

entities 

• • • • • 

HHS Public Health 

Preparedness and 

Response for 

Bioterrorism (93.283) 

Cooperative agreement 

with health departments of 

all states, the District of 

Columbia, the 3 largest 

municipalities, and other 

entities 

• • • • • 

Source: GAO analysis of CFDA and Congressional Research Service data. 

a

A cooperative agreement is used as a mechanism to provide financial support when substantial 

interaction is expected between the executive agency and a state, local government, or other 

recipient carrying out the funded activity. 
Page 19 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Of the $340 million awarded for the 16 funding sources, the two largest 

funding sources—which collectively provided about $290.5 million 

(85 percent) in federal funding to NCR—were the Fiscal Year 2002 

Department of Defense (DOD) Emergency Supplemental Appropriation9

and the Fiscal Year 2003 Urban Area Security Initiative. Both of these 

sources fund a range of purposes and activities such as equipment 

purchases, including communications systems; training and exercises; 

technical assistance; and planning. 

The Fiscal Year 2002 DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, which 

was provided in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, provided 

approximately $230 million to enhance emergency preparedness. 

Individual NCR jurisdictions independently decided how to use these 

dollars and used them to fund a wide array of purchases to support first 

responders and emergency management agencies. Our review of the 

budgets for this appropriation submitted by NCR jurisdictions showed that 

many of these grant funds were budgeted for communications equipment 

and other equipment and supplies. Table 4 provides examples of major 

projects funded by each jurisdiction with these funds. 

 9

Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery From 

and Response To Terrorist Attacks On The United States Act, 2002, P.L. 107-117 (2002). 

This appropriation provided funds to NCR jurisdictions through Byrne Discretionary grants 

under the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs within the Office of 

Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. 

Two Largest Funding 

Sources Supported a 

Range of Efforts 
Page 20 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Table 4: Major Items Funded by NCR Jurisdictions from Fiscal Year 2002 DOD Emergency Supplemental Appropriation 

Dollars in thousands 

NCR locality Amount Grant categories Major uses of grant dollars 

District of 

Columbia 

$168,952 Communications equipment, 

personnel/contracts 

Wireless interoperability project ($45,494) 

 Equipment and supplies, 

personnel/contracts 

Increased security at facilities including public schools and the 

emergency management agency ($25,536) 

 Equipment and supplies, contracts Emergency traffic management, including upgrading traffic 

light controllers ($14,000) and video traffic monitoring system 

($4,700) 

 Equipment and supplies, 

personnel/contracts 

Chemical and biological weapons preparedness ($10,355) 

Maryland 

Montgomery 

County 

8,551 Equipment and supplies Command vehicle ($350) 

 Equipment and supplies Police command bus ($310) 

 Equipment and supplies Bomb squad vehicle ($300) 

 Communications equipment Special audio visual display ($410) 

 Communications equipment Communications console ($202) 

Prince George’s 

County 

7,855 Personnel Unanticipated overtime costs and emergency response 

events. Other personnel costs include participation in disaster 

preparedness training and exercises ($4,424) 

 Equipment and supplies 9 ambulances ($1,188) 

 Planning and administration Fire/emergency medical services record management system 

to record, track, and analyze data collected based on specific 

parameters or requests by management to assist the Fire 

Chief in staffing levels, response times, and other resource 

allocation issues ($525) 

Virginia 

City of 

Alexandria 

8,021 Communications equipment Tactical computers ($535) 

 Equipment and supplies Aerial platform ladder truck ($625) 

 Radio communication digital equipment encryption capability 

($482) 

Arlington 

Countya

16,000 Communications equipment Portable and mobile radios, command vehicles, upgrade 

records management system 

Fairfax County 12,000 Communications Radio expansion project ($5,798) 

 Equipment and supplies Emergency operations center upgrade ($922) 

 Mass casualty and disaster unit ($500) 

Loudoun County 4,300 Communications Trailers ($100) 

 Equipment and Supplies Ladder truck ($325) 
Page 21 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Dollars in thousands 

NCR locality Amount Grant categories Major uses of grant dollars 

 Bomb squad materials and supplies ($125) 

Prince William 

County 

4,300 Communications equipment Command bus replacement ($580) 

 Equipment and supplies Alternate command vehicles ($200) 

 Personal protection equipment and training ($1,000) 

Grand Total $229,979 

Source: GAO analysis of budgets and expenditures provided by NCR jurisdictions. 

Note: The Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriation provided 

direct funding to NCR jurisdictions through the Byrne Discretionary grant under the State and Local 

Law Enforcement Assistance Programs within the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice 

Programs. 

a

Arlington, Virginia, did not provide supporting budget documentation for the specific expenditures 

from this appropriation. 

In 2003, DHS announced a new source of funding targeted to large urban 

areas under UASI to enhance the ability of metropolitan areas to prepare 

for and respond to threats or incidents of terrorism. This initiative 

included a total of $60.5 million to NCR,10 which was one of seven 

metropolitan areas included in the initial round of funding.11 The cities 

were chosen by applying a formula based on a combination of factors, 

including population density, critical infrastructure, and 

threat/vulnerability assessment. UASI’s strategy for NCR includes plans to 

fund 21 individual lines of effort for the region in the areas of planning, 

training, exercises, and equipment. In addition, funds are provided for 

administration and planning and to reimburse localities for changing levels 

of homeland security threat alerts. Table 5 summarizes the planned use of 

the UASI funds. 

 10Two appropriations provided funds used for the UASI initiatives. Departments of 

Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2003, P.L. 108-7 (2003); and Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, 

P.L. 108-11 (2003). 

11Other cities included Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and 

Seattle. Subsequently, a second round of funding was announced to include 23 additional 

metropolitan areas and additional funding for the original seven regions, including NCR. 

UASI Targets Regionwide 

Preparedness Needs 
Page 22 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Table 5: Uses of NCR Urban Area Security Initiative Funds 

Project Description Cost

Planning 

Planning support Contract with WashCOG to provide secretariat support to NCR planning efforts 

Communication protocol Contract for the development of communications protocols, including business rules 

and training and testing programs 

Nonprofit coordination Contract with Nonprofit Roundtable (with Red Cross buy-in) to coordinate nonprofit 

organization roles in emergencies including: who would be providing what; how 

support would be delivered; identify resource requirements, etc. 

Regional connectivity study Contract for a study of a regional Emergency Operations Center (EOC), including 

location, staffing, connectivity, etc. 

Critical infrastructure protection 

oversight 

Contract to manage and coordinate Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) activities in 

NCR to include completing an analysis of each Critical Infrastructure (CI) sector 

Private sector assessment Support the development of an assessment tool that private sector within NCR can 

use to determine their vulnerabilities 

Preparedness for schools Contract to provide materials to schools for education on preparedness 

Citizen education Contract for a comprehensive and complete citizen education campaign for the region 

designed to reach all citizens and communicate emergency preparedness information

Address special needs Engage special needs populations to discuss and address preparedness, response, 

and recovery issues faced by citizens with special needs 

Other Planning Priorities Support other Senior Policy Group (SPG) planning priorities 

Subtotal planning $12,388,570

Training 

Public information officer/media 

training 

Develop regular training program/dialogue for regional Public Information Officers 

(PIOs) and local media to help them protect themselves and communicate effectively 

during an emergency 

Local emergency responder 

training 

Manage local emergency responder training program for NCR 

Subtotal training $5,150,000

Exercise 

Full-scale exercise Conduct a Topoff-2-like full-scale exercise in NCR with a series of three to four 

planning seminars leading up to an exercise that engages the entire region 

Regional exercises Support regional exercises by jurisdiction and by discipline 

Subtotal exercises $4,000,000

Equipment 

Responder equipment Develop regional quartermaster capability to augment jurisdictional equipment 

Syndromic surveillance Complete NCR node of “ESSENCE II” bio-surveillance program 

Public health and hospital 

capacity 

Purchase equipment to support hospital surge capacity for NCR 
Page 23 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Project Description Cost

Citizen notification and family 

reunification 

Provide “Roam Secure/Reverse 911” service and weather radios as appropriate to 

ensure communication with NCR citizenry. Provide family reunification software to 

area shelters to assist in uniting families that are separated during incidents 

Communication hardware Purchase required communication equipment (including radio cache) to establish an 

immediate interoperable communications capability (voice and data) for NCR 

Air tracking Purchase equipment to track emergency response aircraft to deconflict their flights 

during periods of emergency 

Prevention Support NCR prevention activities 

Subtotal equipment $26,535,093

Total $48,073,663

Grant administration 3 percent to support the grants administration requirements $1,814,725

Reimbursement 25 percent set aside from UASI II to reimburse jurisdictions for costs associated with 

Homeland Security Advisory System changes. (Note: This only applies to the $42 

million of UASI II funds) 

$10,602,463

Total $60,490,851

Source: ONCRC data. 

Effectively managing first responder federal grant funds requires the 

ability to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of 

public funds. As with other major policy areas, demonstrating the results 

of homeland security efforts includes developing and implementing 

strategies, establishing baselines, developing and implementing 

performance goals and data quality standards, collecting reliable data, 

analyzing the data, assessing the results, and taking action based on the 

results. This strategic approach to homeland security includes identifying 

threats and managing risks, aligning resources to address them, and 

assessing progress in preparing for those threats and risks. Without a NCR 

baseline on emergency preparedness, a plan for prioritizing expenditures 

and assessing their benefits, and reliable information on funds available 

and spent on first responder needs in NCR, it is difficult for ONCRC to 

fulfill its statutory responsibility to oversee and coordinate federal 

programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for state, local, and 

regional authorities in NCR. 

Regarding first responders, the purpose of these efforts is to be able to 

address three basic, but difficult, questions: “For what types of threats and 

emergencies should first responders be prepared?” “What is required—

coordination, equipment, training, etc.—to be prepared for these threats 

and emergencies?” “How do first responders know that they have met 

their preparedness goals?” 

Challenges to 

Effective Grants 

Management Include 

Lack of Standards, 

Planning, and Data 
Page 24 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

NCR is an example of the difficulties of answering the second and third 

questions in particular. ONCRC and its jurisdictions face three interrelated 

challenges that limit their ability to jointly manage federal funds in a way 

that demonstrates increased first responder capacities and preparedness 

while minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of 

expenditures. First and most fundamental are the lack of preparedness 

standards and a baseline assessment of existing NCR-wide first responder 

capacities that is linked to those standards. 

As in other areas of the nation generally, NCR does not have a set of 

accepted benchmarks (best practices) and performance goals that could 

be used to identify desired goals and determine whether first responders 

have the ability to respond to threats and emergencies with well-planned, 

well-coordinated, and effective efforts that involve police, fire, emergency 

medical, public health, and other personnel from multiple jurisdictions. 

The Gilmore Commission’s most recent report noted that there is a 

continuing problem of a lack of clear guidance from the federal level about 

the definition and objectives of preparedness, a process to implement 

those objectives, and how states and localities will be evaluated in meeting 

those objectives. The report states the need for a coordinated system for 

the development, delivery, and administration of programs that engages a 

broad range of stakeholders. 

Over the past few years, some state and local officials and independent 

research organizations have expressed an interest in some type of 

performance standards or goals that could be used as guidelines for 

measuring the quality and level of first responder preparedness, including 

key gaps. However, in discussing “standards” for first responders, it is 

useful to distinguish between three different types of measures that are 

often lumped together in the discussion of standards. 

Functional standards generally set up to measure such things as 

functionality, quantity, weight, and extent and in the context of first 

responders generally apply to equipment. Examples include the number of 

gallons of water per minute that a fire truck can deliver or the ability of a 

biohazard suit to filter out specific pathogens, such as anthrax. 

Benchmarks are products, services, or work processes that are generally 

recognized as representing best practices for the purposes of 

organizational improvement. An example might be joint training of fire and 

police for biohazard response—a means of achieving a specific 

performance goal for responding to biohazard threats and incidents. 

Performance Goals for 

First Responders Needed 

to Assess Spending 

Benefits 
Page 25 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Performance goals are measurable objectives against which actual 

achievement may be compared. An example might be the number of 

persons per hour who could be decontaminated after a chemical attack. 

Realistic training exercises could then be used to test the ability to meet 

that objective. 

Homeland security standards should include both functional standards 

and performance goals. In February 2004, DHS adopted its first set of 

functional standards for protective equipment. The eight standards, 

previously developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), are 

intended to provide minimum requirements for equipment. These 

standards include NIOSH standards for three main categories of chemical, 

biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) respiratory protection 

equipment and five NFPA standards for protective suits and clothing to be 

used in responding to chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. 

Performance and readiness standards are more complicated and difficult 

to develop than functional standards. In a large, diverse nation, not all 

regions of the nation require exactly the same level of preparedness 

because, for example, not all areas of the nation face the same types and 

levels of risks and, thus, first responder challenges. For example, first 

responder performance goals and needs are likely to be different in New 

York City and Hudson, New York. Thus, different levels of performance 

goals may be needed for different types and levels of risk. 

Recently, the administration has focused more attention on the 

development of homeland security standards, including the more difficult 

performance goals or standards. For example, DHS’s recently issued 

strategic plan12 makes reference to establishing, implementing, and 

evaluating capabilities through a system of national standards. Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive 8 (December 2003) requires the 

development of a national preparedness goal to include readiness metrics 

and a system for assessing the nation’s overall preparedness by the fiscal 

year 2006 budget submission. 

 12U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Securing Our Homeland, Strategic Plan 2004 

(Washington, D.C.: February 2004). 
Page 26 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

The lack of benchmarks and performance goals may contribute to 

difficulties in meeting the second challenge in NCR—developing a 

coordinated regionwide plan for determining how to spend federal funds 

received and assess the benefit of that spending. A strategic plan for the 

use of homeland security funds—whether in NCR or elsewhere—should 

be based on established priorities, goals, and measures and align spending 

plans with those priorities and goals. At the time of our review, such a 

strategic plan had yet to be developed. Although ONCRC had developed a 

regional spending plan for the UASI grants, this plan was not part of a 

broader coordinated plan for spending federal grant funds and developing 

first responder capacity and preparedness in NCR. The former ONCRC 

Director said that ONCRC and the Senior Policy Group could have a 

greater role in overseeing the use of other homeland security funds in the 

future. 

There is no established process or means for regularly and reliably 

collecting and reporting data on the amount of federal funds available to 

first responders in each of NCR’s eight jurisdictions, the planned and 

actual use of those funds, and the criteria used to determine how the funds 

would be spent. Reliable data are needed to establish accountability, 

analyze gaps, and assess progress toward meeting established 

performance goals. Credible data should also be used to develop and 

revise plans and to set goals during the planning process. Were these data 

available, the lack of standards against which to evaluate the data would 

make it difficult to assess gaps. 

It should be noted that the fragmented nature of the multiple federal 

grants available to first responders—some awarded to states, some to 

localities, some directly to first responder agencies—may make it more 

difficult to collect and maintain regionwide data on the grant funds 

received and the use of those funds in NCR. Our previous work suggests 

that this fragmentation in federal grants may reinforce state and local 

fragmentation and can also make it more difficult to coordinate and use 

those multiple sources of funds to achieve specific objectives.13 

 13See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to 

Better Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 2003).

Coordinated NCR-wide 

Plan Needed to Guide First 

Responder Spending 

Consistent Data on 

Funding and Spending 

Needed to Establish 

Accountability 
Page 27 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

NCR jurisdictions completed the Office for Domestic Preparedness State 

Homeland Security Assessment (ODP assessment) in the summer of 

2003. At the time of our review, NCR jurisdictions said that they had not 

received any feedback from ODP or ONCRC on the review of those 

assessments. Preparedness expectations should be established based on 

likely threat and risk scenarios and an analysis of the gap between current 

and needed capabilities based on national guidelines. In keeping with the 

requirement of the Homeland Security Act that DHS conduct an 

assessment of threats and state and local response capabilities, risks, and 

needs with regard to terrorist incidents, DHS developed the ODP State 

Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Program.14 The ODP 

assessment was aligned with the six critical mission areas in the National 

Strategy for Homeland Security,15 and generally followed the structure of a 

risk management approach. The assessment used the same scenarios for 

all jurisdictions nationwide, allowing ODP to compare different 

jurisdictions using the same set of facts and assumptions. Of course, the 

scenarios used may not be equally applicable to all jurisdictions 

nationwide. 

The assessment collected data in three major areas: risk, capability, and 

needs related to terrorism prevention. The risk assessment portion 

includes threat and vulnerability assessments. The capability assessment 

includes discipline-specific tasks for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 

events. The needs assessment portion covers five functional areas of 

planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises. Supporting 

materials and worksheets on a threat profile, capability to respond to 

specific WMD, an equipment inventory, and training needs are provided to 

assist local jurisdictions in completing the assessment. 

A feedback loop is a key part of a risk management process. It involves 

evaluating the assessment results to inform decision making and establish 

priorities; it is not clear how the results of the assessment were used to 

complete this process for NCR. ONCRC did not present any formal 

 14The State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Program is a refined version of the 

assessment that was established in fiscal year 1999 for the State and Local Domestic 

Preparedness Programs. The assessment was intended to allow state and local jurisdictions 

to update their earlier data to consider post-September 11, concerns, as well as to identify 

progress on the priorities outlined in their initial homeland security strategies. 

15The six critical mission areas are Intelligence and Warning; Border and Transportation 

Security, Domestic Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets, 

Defending Against Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency Preparedness and Response. 

DHS Efforts to Assess 

First Responder Needs Did 

Not Include Feedback to 

NCR Jurisdictions 
Page 28 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

analysis of the gap in capabilities identified by the assessment, and several 

NCR jurisdictions said they did not receive any feedback on the results of 

the assessment for their individual jurisdictions. The former ONCRC 

Director said that the results of the assessment for each of the NCR 

jurisdictions were combined to establish priorities and develop the 

strategy for the use of the UASI funds, but he did not provide any 

information on how the individual assessments were combined or the 

methodology used to analyze the assessment results. While the former 

Director said the results of the assessment were used to develop the plan 

for the use of the UASI funds within NCR, he said that they were not 

applied beyond that one funding source to establish priorities for the use 

of other federal grants. 

While the NCR jurisdictions had emergency coordination practices and 

procedures, such as mutual aid agreements, in place long before 

September 11,2001,16 the terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax events 

in NCR highlighted the need for better coordination and communication 

within the region. As a result, WashCOG developed a regional emergency 

coordination plan (RECP) to facilitate coordination and communication 

for regional incidents or emergencies. While this new plan and the related 

procedures represent efforts to improve coordination, more 

comprehensive planning would include a coordinated regional approach 

for the use of federal homeland security funds. 

NCR is one of the first regions in the country to prepare a regional 

emergency coordination plan. The plan is intended to provide structure 

through which the NCR jurisdictions can collaborate on planning, 

communication, information sharing, and coordination activities before, 

during, and after a regional emergency. RECP, which is based on FEMA’s 

Federal Response Plan, identifies 15 specific regional emergency support 

functions, including transportation, hazardous materials, and law 

enforcement. The Regional Incident Communication and Coordination 

System (RICCS), which is included in the WashCOG plan, provides a 

system for WashCOG members, the state of Maryland, the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, the federal government, public agencies, and others to 

collaborate in planning, communicating, sharing information, and 

coordinating activities before, during, and after a regional incident or 

emergency. RICCS relies on multiple means of communication, including 

 16Appendix II of this report describes some of these regional coordination practices. 

Some Regional Planning 

Efforts Exist but Do Not 

Include Coordination for 

Funding 
Page 29 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

conference calling, secure Web sites, and wireless communications. The 

system has been used on several occasions to notify local officials of such 

events as a demonstration in downtown Washington, D.C., and the 

October 2002 sniper incidents. For example, RICCS allowed regional 

school systems to coordinate with one another regarding closure policies 

during the sniper events. 

Our work in NCR found that no regional coordination methods have been 

developed for planning for the use of 15 of the 16 funding sources we 

reviewed. While the region has experience with working together for 

regional emergency preparedness and response, NCR officials told us that 

they have not worked together to develop plans and coordinate 

expenditures for the use of federal funds. Most NCR jurisdictions did not 

have a formal overall plan for the use of these funds within their individual 

jurisdictions. In addition, while the grant recipients are required to report 

to the administering federal agencies on each individual grant, DHS and 

ONCRC have not implemented a process to collect and analyze the 

information reported for NCR as a whole. The one exception to this lack 

of coordination is UASI, for which ONCRC developed a regional plan for 

the use of the funds. Internal control standards support developing 

documentation, such as plans, to assist in controlling management 

operations and making decisions.17 Without this type of documentation, it 

is difficult for ONCRC to monitor the overall use of funds within NCR and 

to evaluate their effectiveness and plan for future use of grant funds. While 

some NCR and ONCRC officials said that there was a need for DHS and 

the NCR jurisdictions to establish controls over how emergency 

preparedness grant funds are used in the region, they did not indicate any 

plans to do so. 

Within NCR, planning for the use of federal emergency and homeland 

security grant funds is generally informal and is done separately by each of 

the NCR jurisdictions. Most of the jurisdictions told us that they have 

undocumented or informal plans for the uses of the federal grant monies 

for emergency preparedness activities. Only two jurisdictions have formal 

written plans that indicate how the jurisdiction would use its federal 

homeland security grants. NCR states and local jurisdictions had various 

budgets for uses of emergency preparedness grant funds they received 

 17See U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-0021.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Planning and Budgeting of 

Federal Grant Funds Is 

Not Coordinated among 

the NCR Jurisdictions 
Page 30 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2003. However, they did not 

coordinate with one another in defining their emergency preparedness 

needs, in developing their budgets, or in using the federal grant funds to 

avoid unnecessary duplication of equipment and other resources within 

the region. In general, budgeting for the use of federal emergency 

preparedness grants was done on a grant-by-grant basis within each 

jurisdiction and is largely based on requests from first responder and 

emergency management officials. Budgets indicate how the individual 

jurisdictions intend to spend funds from a specific grant but do not 

indicate whether those budgets are based on any strategic plan or set of 

priorities. 

One Maryland county developed an overall plan for the use of federal 

homeland security and emergency preparedness grants. The July 1, 

2003, homeland security strategy outlined the priorities for the county in 

using federal emergency preparedness grant funds. However, it did not 

specify grants or amounts for each of the initiatives. The priorities for such 

funding were focused on equipping and training its first responders; 

conducting exercises and drills for its government employees; training 

other essential and critical government workers, as well as the citizens and 

residents of the county; working vigorously to implement 

recommendations from its Homeland Security Task Force; and solidifying 

the county’s relationships with other federal, state, and regional homeland 

security entities. 

While officials from other NCR jurisdictions do not have a formal plan, 

some have established a process for reviewing proposals for the use of the 

homeland security grants. For example, one Northern Virginia jurisdiction 

recently adopted a planning process in which its Emergency Management 

Coordination Committee, composed of the county’s senior management 

team, solicits budget proposals from first responder and emergency 

management agencies for potential grant funds. This committee then 

makes funding recommendations based upon a review of these proposals 

and their funding priorities for the county. Officials from other 

jurisdictions described similar processes for developing budget proposals, 

but they have not developed longer-term or comprehensive strategic plans. 

To determine how the NCR jurisdictions used the funds, we reviewed the 

use of funds of the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Supplemental 

Appropriation, which was the largest source of funding for the period of 

our review. Each NCR jurisdiction used those funds to buy emergency 

equipment for first responders. However, officials said they did not 

coordinate on planning for these expenditures with the other NCR 
Page 31 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

jurisdictions. For example, five of the eight NCR jurisdictions planned to 

either purchase or upgrade their command vehicles. One of the 

jurisdictions allocated $310,000 for a police command bus and $350,000 for 

a fire and rescue command bus; a neighboring jurisdiction allocated 

$350,000 for a mobile command unit for its fire department; another 

jurisdiction allocated $500,000 for a police command vehicle replacement; 

a nearby jurisdiction allocated $149,000 to upgrade its incident command 

vehicle; and its neighboring jurisdiction allocated $200,000 to modify and 

upgrade its mobile command van. In another example, four nearby 

jurisdictions allocated grant funds on hazardous response vehicles or 

hazardous materials supplies that reflected costs of $155,289 for one 

jurisdiction’s rapid hazmat unit, $355,000 for a neighboring jurisdiction’s 

hazardous materials response vehicle, $550,000 for a jurisdiction’s fire and 

rescue hazmat unit vehicle, and $115,246 for a jurisdiction’s hazardous 

materials supplies. While such purchases might not be duplicative, 

discussions among neighboring jurisdictions could have facilitated a plan 

and determined whether these purchases were necessary or whether the 

equipment purchased could be shared among the jurisdictions, thereby 

freeing up grant dollars for other needed, equipment to create greater 

combined capacity within the region. Maximizing the use of resources 

entails avoiding unnecessary duplication wherever possible. This requires 

some discussion and general agreement on priorities, roles, and 

responsibilities among the jurisdictions. Some NCR and ONCRC officials 

said they believed the NCR jurisdictions could plan better to share 

resources and work to prevent redundancy while avoiding gaps in 

inventory. 

During our review, NCR jurisdictions and federal grantor agencies could 

not consistently provide data on the 16 grants and funding sources within 

the scope of our study, such as award amounts, budgets, and financial 

records. The individual jurisdictions and ONCRC did not have systems in 

place to identify and account for all federal grants that can be used to 

enhance domestic preparedness in NCR and elsewhere. The lack of 

consistently available budget data for all emergency preparedness and 

homeland security grants limits the ability to analyze and assess the 

impact of federal funding and to make management decisions to ensure 

the effective use of federal grant dollars. 

Data on Grants to NCR 

Jurisdictions Were Not 

Consistently Available 
Page 32 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

There is no central source within each jurisdiction or at the federal level to 

identify all of the emergency preparedness grants that have been allocated 

to NCR. At the local level, such information is needed to meet legislative 

and regulatory reporting requirements for federal grant expenditures of 

$300,000 or more.18 In addition, each grant has specific reporting 

requirements, such as quarterly financial status reports, semiannual 

program progress reports, and related performance information to comply 

with the Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62). 

Moreover, federal grant financial system guidelines require that federal 

agencies implement systems that include complete, accurate, and prompt 

generation and maintenance of financial records and transactions. Those 

federal system requirements also require timely and efficient access to 

complete and accurate information, without extraneous material, to 

internal and external parties that require that information.19 We asked 

ONCRC, the Virginia and Maryland emergency management agencies, and 

the eight NCR jurisdictions for data on the emergency preparedness grants 

allocated in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. ONCRC could not provide a 

complete list of grants allocated to the NCR as a whole, and the state 

emergency management agencies did not provide complete lists of grants 

for NCR jurisdictions within their respective states. For example, the 

Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) provided data on the 

federal grants for Montgomery and Prince George’s counties that were 

allocated through the state. MEMA is not required to oversee grants not 

allocated through the state and, therefore, it did not provide grant data on 

all of the federal grants provided to the two counties. Similarly, the 

Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) did not provide 

data on all of the grants to the jurisdictions in Virginia. We compiled grant 

data for the NCR jurisdictions by combining information received from the 

NCR jurisdictions and the state emergency management agencies. This 

involved contacting several different budget officials at the NCR 

jurisdictions and at the state level. 

The availability of emergency preparedness grant data at the local level 

also varied by NCR jurisdiction, and complete data were not readily 

 18Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-156 (1996)). Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A-133, as revised June 27, 2003. For fiscal years ending after December 31, 

2003, the requirements apply to federal grant expenditures of $500,000 or more. 

19Joint Financial Management Improvement Program Federal Financial Management 

System Requirements: Grant Financial System Requirements (JFMIP-SR-00-3, June 

2000). 

No Central Source Exists 

for Data on Emergency 

Preparedness Grants and 

Information Varies by 

Jurisdiction 
Page 33 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

available. After repeated requests for the grant awards, budgets, and plans 

over a period of 7 months, NCR jurisdictions or the State emergency 

management agencies provided us with the grant amounts awarded to 

them during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Some jurisdictions provided 

documentation on amounts awarded, but did not provide supporting 

budget detail for individual grants to substantiate the amounts awarded. 

Regarding budgets, we obtained a range of information from the NCR 

jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions provided budget documentation on all the 

federal grants that were allocated to them; others provided budget 

documentation on some of their grants; and two did not provide any grant 

budget documentation. This lack of supporting documentation indicates a 

lack of financial controls that should be in place to provide accurate and 

timely data on federal grants. 

Guidance on financial management practices20 notes that to effectively 

evaluate government programs and spending, Congress and other decision 

makers must have timely, accurate, and reliable financial information on 

program cost and performance. Moreover, the Comptroller General’s 

standards for internal control state that “program managers need both 

operational and financial data to determine whether they are meeting their 

agencies’ strategic and annual performance plans and meeting their goals 

for accountability for effective and efficient use of resources.” These 

standards stress the importance of this information to make operating 

decisions, monitor performance, and allocate resources and that 

“pertinent information is identified, captured, and distributed to the right 

people in sufficient detail, in the right form, and at the appropriate time to 

enable them to carry out their duties and responsibilities efficiently and 

effectively.” Having this information could help NCR officials make 

informed decisions about the use of grant funds in a timely manner. 

 20See U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Creating Value through WorldClass Financial Management, GAO/AIMD-00-134 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2000). 
Page 34 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Without national standards, guidance on likely scenarios for which to be 

prepared, plans, and reliable data, NCR officials assess their gaps in 

preparedness based on their own judgment. The lack of standards and 

consistently available data makes it difficult for the NCR officials to use 

the results of DHS’s ODP assessment to identify the most critical gaps in 

capacities and to verify the results of the assessment and establish a 

baseline that could then be used to develop plans to address outstanding 

needs. Consequently, it is difficult for us or ONCRC to determine what 

gaps, if any, remain in the emergency response capacities and 

preparedness within the NCR. Each jurisdiction provided us with 

information on their perceived gaps and specific needs for improving 

emergency preparedness. However, there is no consistent method for 

identifying these gaps among jurisdictions within NCR. Some officials 

from NCR jurisdictions said that in the absence of a set of national 

standards, they use the standards and accreditation guidelines for 

disciplines such as police, fire, hazardous materials, and emergency 

management in assessing their individual needs. While these standards 

may provide some general guidance, some NCR officials said that they 

need more specific guidance from DHS, including information about 

threats, guidance on how to set priorities, and standards. Some of the 

jurisdictions reported that they have conducted their own assessments of 

need based on their knowledge of threat and risk. Officials from other 

jurisdictions said they have used FEMA’s Local Capability Assessment for 

Readiness or the hazardous materials assessment to identify areas for 

improvement.21 

Several jurisdictions told us that they identify remaining gaps based on 

requests from emergency responder agencies. Other jurisdictions said that 

they have established emergency management councils or task forces to 

review their preparedness needs and begin to develop a more strategic 

plan for funding those needs. Officials of most NCR jurisdictions 

commonly identified the need for more comprehensive and redundant 

communications systems and upgraded emergency operations centers. 

Some officials of NCR jurisdictions also expressed an interest in training 

exercises for the region as a whole to practice joint response among the 

Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions and the District of Columbia. 

 21FEMA’s Local Capability Assessment for Readiness is a self-assessment tool that local 

jurisdictions can use to identify emergency management program strengths and areas 

needing improvement. The tool encourages collaborative discussions among state, local, 

and state emergency management agencies and allows emergency managers to evaluate 

the status of their partnerships with other jurisdictions. 

Assessing the 

Remaining Gaps in 

NCR is Difficult 

without Guidance, 

Reliable Data, or 

Analysis 
Page 35 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

DHS and ONCRC appear to have played a limited role in fostering a 

coordinated approach to the use of federal domestic preparedness funds 

in NCR. According to the former ONCRC Director, ONCRC has focused its 

initial coordination efforts on the development of a strategy for the use of 

the UASI funds of $60.5 million in NCR. However, ONCRC efforts to date 

have not addressed about $279.5 million in other federal domestic 

preparedness funding that we reviewed. According to officials from one 

NCR jurisdiction, they would like additional support and guidance from 

DHS on setting priorities for the use of federal funds. 

One of ONCRC’s primary responsibilities is to oversee and coordinate 

federal programs and domestic preparedness initiatives for state, local, 

and regional authorities in NCR and to cooperate with and integrate the 

efforts of elected officials of NCR. ONCRC established a governance 

structure to receive input from state and local authorities through a Senior 

Policy Group composed of representatives designated by the Governors of 

Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of Washington, D.C. The Senior 

Policy Group developed the UASI strategy to fund a range of projects that 

would enhance regional capabilities to improve preparedness and reduce 

the vulnerability of NCR to terrorist attacks. (See table 5.) According to 

ONCRC’s former Director, the strategy for UASI was an attempt to force a 

new paradigm, by developing a regional plan for the use of the funds, with 

input from outside organizations in addition to representatives from the 

local jurisdictions. The plan for the $60.5 million allocated funds for 

projects, including planning, training, equipment, and exercises to benefit 

the region as a whole, as opposed to allocating funds to meet the 

individual needs of each NCR jurisdiction separately. The former Director 

said that funding allocations to these regional projects were based on a 

summary of the results of the assessment that was completed by each 

NCR jurisdiction. 

Officials from NCR state and local jurisdictions expressed mixed opinions 

on the effectiveness of ONCRC. Officials from a Virginia jurisdiction 

expressed a need for more guidance on how to set priorities and allocate 

federal domestic preparedness funding. District of Columbia officials said 

ONCRC has done a good job of coordination and has been very supportive, 

given its small staff and the newness of the office. Some noted that 

ONCRC’s role is still evolving. For example, some officials in one 

jurisdiction said that ONCRC’s long-term mission has not yet been 

finalized and ONCRC is still in the process of establishing its role within 

NCR. The officials believe that ONCRC has significant potential for leading 

DHS and ONCRC 

Appear to Have Had a 

Limited Role in 

Promoting Regional 

Coordination in NCR 

ONCRC Has Focused on 

Planning for UASI Funding 

NCR Jurisdictions 

Expressed Mixed Views on 

ONCRC’s Effectiveness 
Page 36 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

and coordinating homeland security efforts in the region. They 

recommended that ONCRC become a routine part of regional governance 

and provide guidance to local governments, focus resources, and enhance 

the ability of localities to work together to implement homeland security 

strategies. The officials noted that ONCRC’s efforts were motivated 

primarily by the leadership of the Director and had not become routine. 

We discussed NCR officials’ views with the former ONCRC Director. He 

acknowledged that ONCRC’s initial efforts to coordinate the use of federal 

grant funds in NCR concentrated on implementing UASI. He said that 

UASI presented an improvement over previous funding allocations in NCR 

by allocating funds on a regional basis—rather than jurisdictional 

perceptions—that considered the results of an assessment of NCR 

preparedness levels and requirements. The Director said that ONCRC 

could consider coordinating for other federal programs in addition to 

UASI, but he did not indicate any concrete plans to do so. 

The nation’s ongoing vulnerability to terrorist attacks after September 

11, 2001, is magnified in NCR because it is the location of critical 

government infrastructure, national and international institutions, and 

significant landmarks. In addition to NCR, there are several other highthreat urban areas that share similar vulnerabilities, and improving 

homeland security is a concern for the entire nation. The challenges faced 

in NCR a lack of performance standards; baseline information on 

preparedness and threat and risk scenarios, plans based on those tools, 

and reliable data to report on the status of initiativesare fundamental 

obstacles in achieving desired levels of preparedness. Furthermore, NCR’s 

complex structure requires working with individual political jurisdictions 

with varying experience in managing homeland security funds and 

responding to emergencies. This adds to the challenge of developing and 

implementing a coordinated plan for enhancing first responder capacity. 

Effective regional and local management of the large amounts of available 

homeland security funding is an important element in improving our 

national preparedness. However, it is difficult for regional coordinators 

and local jurisdictions to avoid duplication and inefficiency in the 

procurement of goods and services without a knowledge of all the grants 

that can be leveraged to fight the terror threat; without centralized, 

standard records to account for the use of those grants; and without a 

coordinated regional plan for using those funds. It is also difficult to target 

funding in a way that ensures it is used for goods and services that 

enhance preparedness and response without current threat information or 

Conclusions 
Page 37 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

scenarios and standards that reflect performance goals for preparedness 

and response. The approach taken in planning for the use of the UASI 

funds, with its emphasis on regional allocations, is a step toward improved 

coordination that could provide a more rational and effective method for 

enhancing emergency preparedness within NCR. In addition, DHS’s 

recently released strategic plan and the endorsement of standards for 

equipment represent steps toward addressing some of the challenges 

noted in this report. However, more needs to be done to develop plans, 

monitor the use of funds, and assess against goals and standards to 

evaluate progress toward improved homeland security. 

To help ensure that emergency preparedness grants and associated funds 

are managed in a way that maximizes their effectiveness, we recommend 

that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security take the 

following three actions in order to fulfill the department’s statutory 

responsibilities in the NCR: 

• work with the NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to 

establish goals and priorities for enhancing first responder capacities that 

can be used to guide the use of federal emergency preparedness funds; 

• monitor the plan’s implementation to ensure that funds are used in a way 

that promotes effective expenditures that are not unnecessarily 

duplicative; and 

• identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness and evaluate the 

effectiveness of expenditures in meeting those needs by adapting 

standards and preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios for NCR 

and conducting assessments based on them. 

On April 29, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of 

DHS and to ONCRC’s Senior Policy Group for comment. On May 19, 

2004, we received comments from DHS’s GAO/OIG Liaison and the Senior 

Policy Group that are reprinted in appendix III and IV, respectively. 

DHS and the Senior Policy Group generally agreed with our 

recommendations but also stated that NCR jurisdictions had worked 

cooperatively together to identify opportunities for synergies and lay a 

foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the report. DHS and the 

Senior Policy Group also agreed that there is a need to continue to 

improve preparedness by developing more specific and improved 

preparedness standards, clearer performance goals, and an improved 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 38 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

method for tracking regional initiatives. In addition, DHS identified the 

following concerns: 

• DHS stated that the report demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding 

regarding homeland security grant programs in NCR and the oversight role 

and responsibilities of ONCRC. DHS stated that GAO fails to distinguish 

between funds provided to specific jurisdictions for local priorities and 

enhancements and funds intended to address regional needs. We disagree. 

The responsibilities of ONCRC are outlined in the Homeland Security Act 

and on page 8 of this report. These include activities such as coordinating 

with federal, state, and regional agencies and the private sector to ensure 

adequate planning and execution of domestic preparedness activities 

among these agencies and entities, and assessing and advocating for 

resources that state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR need to 

implement efforts to secure the homeland. The responsibilities further 

require an annual report to Congress that identifies resources required to 

implement homeland security efforts in NCR, assesses progress made in 

implementing these efforts, and makes recommendations regarding 

additional resources needed. In order to fulfill this mandate, ONCRC 

needs information on how all grant monies have been used, not just those 

designated specifically for regional purposes, information on how those 

expenditures have enhanced first responder capacity in the region, and an 

ability to coordinate all federal domestic preparedness funding sources to 

NCR. 

• DHS noted that our report recognizes the importance of a coordinated 

regionwide plan for establishing first responder goals, needs, and priorities 

and assessing the benefits of all expenditures to enhance first responder 

capabilities, and our review found that no such coordination methods have 

been developed. DHS stated that this task is accomplished by the formal 

NCR Review and Recommendation Process, adopted on February 4, 2004, 

which ensures coordination of resources among all jurisdictions within 

NCR. DHS provided us information on this process at our exit conference 

on April 15, 2004. DHS explained that the Review and Recommendation 

Process was developed for the UASI program, and ONCRC and NCR 

officials are in the process of extending it to additional federal programs. 

While this process could be used to facilitate the development of a 

regional plan in the future, the process has not included a review of how 

federal grants have already been used or the development of a coordinated 

regional plan for establishing needs and priorities and assessing benefits 

of all federal domestic preparedness programs. 
Page 39 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Finally, the comments noted a correction to our draft regarding the 

establishment of the Senior Policy Group, and we have revised the report 

accordingly. 

As agreed with your office, unless you release this report earlier, we will 

not distribute it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we 

will send copies to relevant congressional committees and subcommittees, 

to the Secretary of Homeland Security, to members of the NCR Senior 

Policy Group, and to other interested parties. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available 

at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it further, 

please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Patricia A. Dalton, Director, 

(202) 512-6737. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 40 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

We met with and obtained documentation from officials of the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and the Office for Domestic Preparedness; the Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Governments (WashCOG); the homeland security 

advisers and officials from the emergency management agencies for the 

District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; and first responder officials 

from the National Capital Region (NCR) jurisdictions, including the 

District of Columbia; the city of Alexandria; and the counties of Arlington, 

Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William in Virginia; and Montgomery and 

Prince Georges counties in Maryland. 

To determine what federal funds have been provided to local jurisdictions 

for emergency preparedness, for what specific purposes, and from what 

sources, we met with officials from the DHS’s Office for National Capital 

Region Coordination (ONCRC), ONCRC’s Senior Policy Group, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), homeland security advisers for 

the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, and first responders from 

eight jurisdictions within NCR—the District of Columbia; the city of 

Alexandria; and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Montgomery, 

and Prince George’s counties. We identified 25 emergency preparedness 

programs that provided funding to NCR, and we selected 16 for our 

detailed review. These 16 programs were selected to cover a range of 

programs, including the largest funding sources; grants provided for 

general purposes such as equipment and training; and grants provided for 

specific purposes, such as fire prevention and bioterrorism. We obtained 

and reviewed the emergency preparedness grant data for the period of 

October 2001 through September 30, 2003, including grant awards, 

budgets, and detailed plans for purchases, such as equipment and supplies, 

communications, and training and exercises. To the extent possible, we 

independently verified the data we received on funds available and the 

planned and actual use of those funds by comparing federal, state, and 

local data sources. Our review revealed the lack of consistent data 

reported by the jurisdictions in the region and the lack of a central source 

for such data. For example, NCR state and local jurisdictions vary in their 

ability to provide budget information on the emergency preparedness and 

homeland security grants they received. Also, DHS and ONCRC do not 

have systems in place to account for all federal homeland security and 

emergency preparedness grants covering their respective jurisdictions. 

To determine the regional coordination practices and remaining 

challenges to implementing regional preparedness programs in NCR, we 

met with officials from WashCOG, DHS, Virginia, Maryland, and local NCR 

jurisdictions. Oral and documentary evidence obtained from these officials 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 41 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

has provided us with an overall perspective on the status of coordination 

for homeland security within the region and remaining challenges to 

implementing effective homeland security measures in NCR. We also 

talked with officials about regional programs that have been successfully 

implemented in NCR. 

To determine the gaps that exist in emergency preparedness in NCR, we 

obtained oral and documentary information from officials of the 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; DHS; the District of 

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia emergency management agencies; 

homeland security advisers; and local first responders. Our discussions 

with these officials provide their views of the state of preparedness in 

NCR. We also obtained information from these officials regarding their 

plans to address those emergency preparedness gaps. In addition, we 

reviewed relevant reports, studies, and guidelines to provide context for 

assessing preparedness. However, there are no uniform standards or 

criteria by which to measure gaps, and self-reported information from 

local jurisdictions may not be objective. 

To determine DHS’s role in enhancing the preparedness of NCR through 

coordinating the use of federal emergency preparedness grants, assessing 

preparedness, providing guidance, targeting funds to enhance 

preparedness, and monitoring the use of those funds, we met with DHS, as 

well as with state homeland security advisers, state emergency 

management officials, and local first responders. We obtained and 

analyzed verbal and documentary evidence on the ODP assessment 

completed by the NCR jurisdictions, and how that assessment was used, 

as well as other actions DHS had taken to facilitate homeland security 

coordination within NCR. 

Finally, we contacted the District of Columbia Auditor, the Maryland 

Office of Legislative Audits, and the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and 

Review Commission to inform them of our review and determine if the 

agencies had related past or ongoing work. None of the agencies had 

conducted or planned to conduct reviews of emergency preparedness or 

homeland security in the NCR. 

We conducted our review from June 2003 to February 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions’ 

Arrangements to Respond to Public Safety 

Emergencies 

Page 42 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

NCR jurisdictions over the years have implemented various mechanisms 

to ensure planned and coordinated interjurisdictional approaches to the 

activities of first responders and other public safety professionals. These 

efforts involve the activities of regional planning and coordinating bodies, 

such as the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

(WashCOG), the regional metropolitan planning organization, and mutual 

assistance agreements between the first responders of neighboring NCR 

jurisdictions. 

Planning and coordinating bodies have existed in NCR for many years. 

WashCOG is a regional entity that includes all the jurisdictions within the 

region. Other planning and coordinating organizations exist in both 

Maryland and Virginia. 

WashCOG is a nonprofit association representing local governments in the 

District of Columbia, suburban Maryland, and Northern Virginia. Founded 

in 1957, WashCOG is supported by financial contributions from its 

19 participating local governments, federal and state grants and contracts, 

and donations from foundations and the private sector. WashCOG’s 

members are the governing officials from local NCR governments, plus 

area delegation members from Maryland and Virginia legislatures, the U. S. 

Senate, and the House of Representatives. According to WashCOG, the 

council provides a focus for action and develops regional responses to 

such issues as the environment, affordable housing, economic 

development, health and family concerns, human services, population 

growth, public safety, and transportation. The full membership, acting 

through its board of directors, sets WashCOG policies. The National 

Capital Region Preparedness Council is an advisory body that makes 

policy recommendations to the board of directors and makes procedural 

and other recommendations to various regional agencies with emergency 

preparedness responsibilities or operational response authority. The 

council also oversees the regional emergency coordination plan. 

Other regional coordinating bodies exist in the National Capital Region, 

including the Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC), the 

Maryland Terrorism Forum, and the Maryland Emergency Management 

Assistance Compact. NVRC is one of the 21 planning district commissions 

in Virginia. A 42-member board of commissioners composed of elected 

officials and citizen representatives all appointed by 14 member localities 

establishes NVRC’s programs and policies. The commission is supported 

by annual contributions from its member local governments, by 

appropriations of the Virginia General Assembly, and by grants from 

Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions’ 

Arrangements to Respond to Public Safety 

Emergencies 

Regional Bodies 

Facilitate 

Coordination Efforts 

in Other Areas 
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions’ 

Arrangements to Respond to Public Safety 

Emergencies 

Page 43 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

federal and state governments and private foundations. According to a 

NVRC official, the commission established an emergency management 

council to coordinate programs, funding issues, and equipment needs. The 

emergency management council is composed of local chief administrative 

officers, fire chiefs, police chiefs, and public works managers. 

In 1998, the Governor of Maryland established the Maryland Terrorism 

Forum to prepare the state to respond to acts of terrorism, especially 

those involving weapons of mass destruction. The forum also serves as the 

key means of integrating all services within federal, state, and local 

entities as well as key private organizations. The forum’s executive 

committee, composed of agency directors and cabinet members, provides 

policy guidance and recommendations to the steering committee; which 

addresses policy concerns. According to Maryland Emergency 

Management Agency (MEMA) officials, the forum’s first focus was on 

planning in terms of equipment interoperability; evacuation planning; and 

commonality of standards, procedures, and vocabulary. The forum is in 

the process of hiring a full-time planner for preparedness assessment and 

strategic planning for the region. 

The terrorist attacks in New York City and on the Pentagon on September 

11, 2001, security preparations during the World Bank demonstrations, and 

the sniper incidents in the summer and fall of 2002 highlighted the need for 

enhanced mutual cooperation and aid in responding to emergencies. 

Several NCR jurisdiction public safety officials told us that mutual aid 

agreements have worked well and are examples of regional programs that 

have been successfully implemented in NCR. Mutual aid agreements 

provide a structure for assistance and for sharing resources among 

jurisdictions in preparing for and responding to emergencies and disasters. 

Because individual jurisdictions may not have all the resources they need 

to acquire equipment and respond to all types of emergencies and 

disasters, these agreements allow for resources to be regionally 

distributed and quickly deployed. These agreements provide opportunities 

for state and local governments to share services, personnel, supplies, and 

equipment. Mutual aid agreements can be both formal and informal and 

provide cooperative planning, training, and exercises in preparation for 

emergencies and disasters. 

For over 40 years, jurisdictions in the National Capital Region have been 

supporting one another through mutual aid agreements. According to a 

WashCOG official, the agency has brokered and facilitated most of these 

agreements and acts as an informal secretariat for mutual aid issues. 

Mutual Aid 

Agreements Are in 

Place within NCR 
Appendix II: NCR Jurisdictions’ 

Arrangements to Respond to Public Safety 

Emergencies 

Page 44 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

According to WashCOG, there are currently 21 mutual aid agreements in 

force among one or more of the 18 member jurisdictions, covering one or 

more issues. These can be as broad as a police services support agreement 

among 12 jurisdictions and as restricted as a two-party agreement relating 

to control over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. In September 2001, for 

example, WashCOG member jurisdictions developed planning guidance 

for health system response to a bioterrorism event in NCR. The purpose of 

this guidance is to strengthen the health care response systems allowing 

them to, among other things, improve early recognition and provide mass 

care. According to WashCOG, the planning guidance was developed 

through the cooperative effort of more than 225 individuals representing 

key government and private elements with NCR that would likely be 

involved should such an event occur. 

The Maryland Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a mutual 

aid compact established to help Maryland’s local jurisdictions support one 

another with their resources during emergencies and disasters and 

facilitate efficient operational procedures. The compact establishes 

partnerships among local jurisdictions so that resources can be requested 

and provided in response to emergencies and disasters. In addition to 

helping local governments and their emergency response agencies develop 

risk management decisions, the compact provides a framework that will 

increase accessibility for maximum compensation in federally declared 

disasters. The compact, established by legislation in June 2002, is modeled 

after the Emergency Management Assistance Compact with 48 states and 

two U.S. territories participating in interstate mutual aid. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 45 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 46 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region’s Senior Policy Group 

Page 47 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

Appendix IV: Comments from the National 

Capital Region’s Senior Policy Group 
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region’s Senior Policy Group 

Page 48 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region’s Senior Policy Group 

Page 49 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region’s Senior Policy Group 

Page 50 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region’s Senior Policy Group 

Page 51 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 
Appendix IV: Comments from the National Capital Region’s Senior Policy Group 

Page 52 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 53 GAO-04-433 Homeland Security 

William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director (202) 512-8757 

Patricia A. Dalton, Director, (202) 512-6737 

In addition to those mentioned above, Ernie Hazera and Amelia Shachoy 

(Strategic Issues) and Wendy Johnson, Jack Bagnulo, David Brown, 

R. Rochelle Burns (Homeland Security and Justice) made key 

contributions to this report. 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440221) 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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

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

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs