Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

FEMA's Progress in Implementing the 
 


Remedial Action Management Program 
 


OIG-11-32 January 2011 
Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Security 

JAN 1 9 2011 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act 0/2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act 0/1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency's Remedial Action Management Program. It is based on interviews 

with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, 

and a review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all ofthose w 0 c ributed to the preparation of this report. .----­

att Jad cki 

Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Emergency Management Oversight 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1 
 


Background..........................................................................................................................2 
 


Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................4 
 


FEMA’s Implementation of the Remedial Action Management Program ....................4 
 


Recommendations..........................................................................................................9 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ..................................................................9 
 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope and Methodology........................................................11 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .......................................12 
 

Appendix C: Remedial Action Management Program Lessons Learned and Best 
 

Practices Process..................................................................................15 
 


Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report ........................................................16 
 


Appendix E: Report Distribution ..............................................................................17 
 


Abbreviations 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
 


OIG Office of Inspector General 
 

 

OIG
 
 Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Remedial 

Action Management Program is intended to: (1) identify 

operational and programmatic issues, lessons learned, and best 

practices encountered during federal disaster response and 

recovery operations and exercises; (2) manage the subsequent 

remediation of issues; and (3) distribute lessons learned and best 

practices. Our audit objective was to determine to what extent 

FEMA has implemented the Program to identify and distribute 

lessons learned and best practices to improve its incident 

management operations. 

FEMA needs to improve its implementation of the Remedial 

Action Management Program to identify lessons learned and best 

practices. Specifically, FEMA officials should: (1) conduct an 

after-action review for every disaster to identify lessons learned 

and best practices; and (2) develop instructions or examples on 

how to develop clear and concise lesson learned and best practice 

statements. 

Program officials distributed lessons learned and best practices to 

more personnel than what was required by program policy. 

However, distribution was still limited to the program’s database 

users, averaging 70 users. Program officials told us that those 

users served as organizational points of contact and disseminated 

the information to others. 

In May 2010, FEMA lost access to program data, including lessons 

learned and best practices, when the server which housed the 

program’s database failed. In November 2010, program officials 

informed us that they were able to recover all of the data; however, 

the software necessary to read the data has not been restored. 

Therefore, historical data on lessons learned and best practices that 

was contained in the program’s database is not available to all 

FEMA personnel. 

We are making six recommendations that, when implemented, 

should improve FEMA’s efforts to identify and distribute lessons 

learned and best practices. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 

Page 1
 
 

Background 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) launched 

the Remedial Action Management Program in July 2003. The 

program’s purpose is to: (1) identify operational and programmatic 

issues, lessons learned, and best practices encountered during 

federal disaster response and recovery operations and exercises; 

(2) manage the subsequent remediation of issues; and (3) distribute 

lessons learned and best practices. The Program defines an issue 

as a problem that negatively impacts FEMA’s ability to 

accomplish its mission or a systemic problem that cannot be 

resolved in the field and requires the attention of Program 

Managers or senior leadership to resolve. A lesson learned is a 

course of action that was either extremely successful or 

unsuccessful and should be shared with other FEMA personnel. A 

best practice is an innovative or unconventional course of action 

that proved particularly effective and should be repeated or 

considered under similar circumstances. It may also be a course of 

action that has met with repeated success.1 

 

The Remedial Action Management Program is housed in the 

National Preparedness Directorate, National Preparedness 

Assessment Division, Corrective Actions and Lessons Learned 

Branch. It is responsible for: 

•	 Developing policy and managing the Program; 

•	 Maintaining the program’s database, which houses issues, 

lessons learned, and best practices; 

•	 Monitoring the resolution of and reporting the status of 

issues; 

•	 Ensuring lessons learned and best practices are widely 

disseminated; and 

•	 Preparing, publishing, and distributing a monthly Remedial 

Action Management Program report with newly identified 

lessons learned and best practices, and the status of issues. 

It does not have oversight of the Regions’ program responsibilities. 

FEMA Regional Offices are responsible for coordinating and 

scheduling after-action reviews on site at operational venues with 

disaster response and recovery operations personnel at or near the 

conclusion of emergency or disaster operations to identify issues, 

1

 For the purposes of this audit, we limited the scope to focus only on lessons learned and smart practices. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 2
 
 
 

 

lessons learned, and best practices.2 The after-action review is 

considered the foundation of the Program, as it provides 

participants with a forum to candidly discuss their views. The 

Regions are also responsible for collecting and transmitting to 

FEMA Headquarters issues, lessons learned, and best practices 

identified in after-action reviews. Until May 2010, lessons learned 

and best practices identified in after-action reviews were entered 

into the program’s database to be distributed to database users. 

See Appendix C for a detailed description of the after-action 

review and distribution process. 

In May 2010, the Deputy Administrator for Protection and 

National Preparedness advised all FEMA employees to stop using 

the program’s database because it was housed on a server that was 

no longer being supported by FEMA, and it could cease operating.3 

As a replacement, FEMA integrated the functions of the Remedial 

Action Management Program’s database with the Corrective 

Action Program system. The system, which was launched in 2007, 

is a web-based application that enables users to prioritize, track, 

and analyze improvement plans developed from exercises and realworld events. Features of the system include improvement plan 

creation and maintenance, corrective action assignment and 

tracking, and reporting and analysis. For the Remedial Action 

Management Program, the newly integrated Corrective Action 

Program system will house data on issues, and FEMA personnel 

will be able to generate after action reports and improvement 

plans. FEMA began integrating the functionalities of the two 

systems in February 2009, and by July 2010, the new Corrective 

Action Program system was available to Remedial Action 

Management Program users. 

2

 During our review, program guidance referred to an “after-action review” as a “hotwash.” To be 

consistent with new program guidance, we have changed our terminology to “after-action review.” 3

 The server which housed the database failed in May 2010, a few days after employees were advised to 

stop using the database. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 

Page 3
 
Figure 1. Remedial Action Management Program Information Systems 

BEFORE Î AFTER 

Remedial Action Management Program Database Corrective Action Program System 

• Issues • Issues 

• Lessons Learned 

• Best Practices Lessons Learned Information Sharing System 

• Lessons Learned 

• Best Practices 

For lessons learned and best practices, program officials are 

advising regional personnel to use the Lessons Learned 

Information Sharing system. FEMA launched the Lessons 

Learned Information Sharing system in 2004. The system is an 

online library of lessons learned and best practices submitted by 

federal and state emergency response providers and homeland 

security officials. In November 2010, program officials stated that 

they have established a FEMA-only area in the Lessons Learned 

Information Sharing system for Remedial Action Management 

Program lessons learned and best practices. This area will be 

accessible to all FEMA personnel who obtain a user account for 

the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system. Program 

officials plan to conduct outreach for this new area, and they also 

plan to develop and disseminate a monthly newsletter tailored to 

FEMA personnel. 

Results of Audit 

FEMA’s Implementation of the Remedial Action Management 

Program 

FEMA needs to improve its implementation of the Remedial Action 

Management Program to identify lessons learned and best practices. 

Specifically, FEMA officials should conduct after-action reviews for 

every disaster to identify lessons learned and best practices. In addition, 

FEMA needs to prepare better instructions or examples on how to develop 

clear and concise lesson learned and best practice statements. Although 

program officials distributed lessons learned and best practices to more 

personnel than required by program policy, distribution was still limited. 

FEMA should expand the distribution to the significant number of 

additional employees who would benefit from this information. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 

Page 4
 
Furthermore, FEMA has lost access to program data, including lessons 

learned and best practices. Thus, FEMA should enhance its archiving 

procedures to prevent such incidents in the future. 

Identification of Lessons Learned and Best Practices 

FEMA officials do not always conduct after-action reviews to 

identify lessons learned and best practices. Program policy 

dictates that after-action reviews will be scheduled at or near the 

conclusion of emergency or disaster operations. The Team Leader, 

e.g., the Federal Coordinating Officer, the Regional Operations 

Center Director, etc., is responsible for coordinating and 

scheduling after-action reviews. However, FEMA officials stated 

that in some cases, Federal Coordinating Officers and Planning 

Section Chiefs have decided to hold informal discussions with 

personnel instead of conducting formal Remedial Action 

Management Program after-action reviews. In other cases, FEMA 

officials noted that the magnitude of the disaster and 

circumstances, such as budget, timing, and personnel, could affect 

whether a Team Leader chose to conduct an after-action review. 

FEMA officials largely conducted after-action reviews according 

to program policy. One exception we noted is in the appointment 

of after-action review facilitators. After-action review facilitators 

were not appointed according to a policy which prohibits 

facilitators from working in their own Regions or with their own 

Federal Coordinating Officers. For an after-action review we 

observed in July 2010, the facilitator was from the same FEMA 

Region where the disasters occurred. A regional official said 

facilitators from his Region conduct approximately 90% of the 

Region’s after action reviews. Program officials said that, due to a 

lack of travel funds, using facilitators from other Regions has been 

abandoned unless there is an extraordinary reason, such as a 

catastrophic incident. However, assigning a facilitator from a 

different Region is a programmatic requirement, and according to a 

FEMA Headquarters official, traveling to another Region to 

facilitate an after-action review is not an overwhelming financial 

burden. Thus, there is no financial reason that outweighs not 

following program policy. 

More than 20 individuals from FEMA and various federal and state 

agencies and departments participated in the July 2010 after-action 

review for several storm and flooding disasters in Region VIII. 

Participants identified and thoroughly discussed six lessons learned 

and seven best practices. Participants concluded that only one 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 5
 
 
 

 

 

 

lesson learned and four best 

practices had national 

significance and would be 

forwarded to FEMA 

Headquarters for review and 

distribution. 

FEMA officials stated that 

better instructions or examples 

on how to develop clear and 

concise lesson learned and 

best practice statements are 

needed because too much time 

is spent during the after-action 

review analyzing the 

statements and on 

“wordsmithing.” For example, 

at the July 2010 after-action 

review, a significant amount of 

time was spent discussing the 

lesson learned and best 

practice statements, and the 

group determined that two of 

the lessons learned were in 

fact issues. Better instructions 

and examples could speed the 

process. 

Lessons Learned and Best Practices 

& In order to open Disaster Recovery 

Centers within 24 hours of declaration, 

the Group Supervisor was deployed to 

the State Emergency Operations Center 

prior to the declaration. 

& When a shelter was opened, a mass 

care specialist was deployed to assist 

with the coordination of obtaining 

critical situational information in order 

to fill the gaps and ensure the health and 

safety of shelter residents. He/she 

worked closely with the American Red 

Cross and other agencies responsible for 

the operation of shelters, including the 

state and the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

& The State of North Dakota set up a 

weekly conference call to allow local 

officials the opportunity to ask questions 

directly of state and FEMA program 

leads. This call was highly effective at 

facilitating communication between 

local officials and disaster recovery 

program staff. 

Our review of lessons learned and best practices indicates that field 

personnel are identifying ways to improve future incident 

management operations (see text box). FEMA officials are also 

converting lessons learned and best practices into policy. One 

official said his Region has used information collected through the 

Program to “tweak” its policies and guidance. Officials also stated 

that lessons learned and best practices have been implemented in 

their Regions to improve FEMA’s incident management operations 

(see text box on next page). 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 6
 
 
 

Implementation of Lessons Learned and Best Practices 

& A regional official reported that a lesson learned from several 

disaster response operations was that FEMA should deploy Mobile 

Disaster Registration Centers earlier in a disaster or make those 

units ready to respond earlier. In several disasters, this lesson 

learned was applied, and Mobile Disaster Registration Centers 

deployed earlier or were ready to deploy earlier. As a result, 

FEMA was better able to register and assist disaster survivors in 

areas where there was a long-term and widespread lack of 

electricity. FEMA was also better able to assist disabled and less 

technologically savvy survivors. 

& A regional official reported that his Region adopted External 

Affairs best practices from another Region. 

Distribution of Lessons Learned and Best Practices 

Program officials have distributed lessons learned and best 

practices beyond what was required by program policy, but 

distribution was still relatively limited. According to the 

Program’s Database User Guide, once the Program Manager 

approves lessons learned and best practices, the database generates 

an e-mail notification with a link to the lesson learned or best 

practice to all Remedial Action Managers – the primary point of 

contact for program activities for a division, office, or Region. The 

Program Manager stated that she actually forwarded lessons 

learned and best practices to all database users, which at the height 

of its use averaged 70 users. FEMA has over 7,000 employees in 

Headquarters and the Regions and approximately 9,000 Disaster 

Assistance Employees. Many of these employees could benefit 

from a wider distribution of lessons learned and best practices. 

Lessons learned and best practices were further distributed by 

regional officials. Several regional officials said they forward 

lessons learned and best practices to Regional Administrators, 

Branch Chiefs, and Division Directors. One Region shares lessons 

learned and best practices at Regional Interagency Steering 

Committee meetings. A regional official said that lessons learned 

and best practices must be distributed in a more effective manner 

because “in the heat of battle” emergency personnel do not have 

the time to research previously identified lessons learned and best 

practices – he believes that they must be made a part of the training 

curriculum, or they will not be implemented. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 

Page 7
 
 

Program officials also initially followed policy regarding the 

distribution of Remedial Action Management Program reports to 

senior FEMA leadership. These monthly status reports included 

newly identified best practices and lessons learned and were posted 

on the FEMA intranet. However, program officials stated that in 

2007 a senior FEMA official made the decision to discontinue the 

monthly reports. According to regional officials, this decision sent 

a message to the Regions that the Remedial Action Management 

Program is not a priority, leading personnel to not take the 

Program seriously. Program officials stated that current senior 

FEMA leadership supports the Program, which is evidenced by the 

resources that have been dedicated to the new system. 

In May 2010, FEMA lost access to program data, including lessons 

learned and best practices, when the server which housed the 

program’s database failed. The Program Manager was working 

with FEMA’s Information Technology department to implement a 

data archiving plan. However, the plan was not implemented 

before the server failed. In November 2010, program officials 

informed us that they were able to recover all of the data; however, 

the software necessary to read the data has not been restored. 

Therefore, historical data on lessons learned and best practices are 

not available to all FEMA personnel. 

Conclusion 

By not effectively implementing the Remedial Action 

Management Program to identify and more fully distribute lessons 

learned and best practices, FEMA has missed opportunities to learn 

from the experiences of its personnel and improve its incident 

management operations. Specifically, FEMA officials have not 

conducted after-action reviews for every disaster to identify 

lessons learned and best practices. Furthermore, although program 

officials distributed lessons learned and best practices beyond what 

was required by program policy, they were not distributed to all 

response and recovery personnel or to senior leadership. Finally, 

FEMA lost access to program data when the server which housed 

the program’s database failed before data could be archived. 

Therefore, historical data on lessons learned and best practices are 

no longer available to all FEMA personnel. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 8
 
 
 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Director, National Preparedness 

Assessment Division: 

Recommendation #1: Enforce the Remedial Action Management 

Program’s policy to conduct after-action reviews for all disasters. 

Recommendation #2: Require that Division Directors appoint 

after-action review facilitators according to program policy. 

Recommendation #3: Develop instructions with examples on 

how to develop clear and concise lesson learned and best practice 

statements. 

Recommendation #4: Disseminate lessons learned and best 

practices more widely. 

Recommendation #5: Develop and implement a process for 

archiving Remedial Action Management Program data so that data 

loss does not recur. 

Recommendation #6: Develop and distribute a Remedial Action 

Management Program status report to senior FEMA leadership 

according to program policy. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Recommendation 1: FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis concurred with this recommendation. FEMA has drafted 

new program guidance on after-action reviews based on feedback 

from a working group that included Headquarters and regional 

personnel. 

We consider this recommendation resolved because steps are being 

taken to implement it; however, it will remain open until the new 

program guidance that details FEMA’s plan for implementing and 

enforcing the after-action review policy is finalized. 

Recommendation 2: FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis concurred with this recommendation. FEMA is revising 

its program guidance, recommending that a representative from 

outside the assigned component guide the data collection effort in 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 9
 
 
close coordination with a representative from within the 

component. 

We consider this recommendation resolved because steps are being 

taken to implement it; however, it will remain open until the new 

program guidance is finalized. 

Recommendation 3: FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis concurred with this recommendation. FEMA is 

developing instructions and plans to issue them in the second 

quarter of Fiscal Year 2011. 

We consider this recommendation resolved because steps are being 

taken to implement it; however, it will remain open until the 

instructions are finalized and issued. 

Recommendation 4: FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis concurred with this recommendation. FEMA is 

developing a monthly Lessons Learned Information Sharing 

system newsletter tailored for FEMA personnel. 

We consider this recommendation resolved because steps are being 

taken to implement it; however, it will remain open until the first 

newsletter is developed and disseminated. 

Recommendation 5: FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis concurred with this recommendation. FEMA reports that 

the newly integrated Corrective Action Program system and the 

Lessons Learned Information Sharing system are backed up daily 

and the servers are backed up weekly. These backups are routinely 

stored offsite. 

We consider this recommendation resolved and closed because it 

has been fully implemented. 

Recommendation 6: FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis concurred with this recommendation. FEMA has drafted 

new program guidance regarding status reports to senior FEMA 

leadership. 

We consider this recommendation resolved because steps are being 

taken to implement it; however, it will remain open until the new 

program guidance is finalized. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 10
 
 
 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The objective of our audit was to determine to what extent FEMA 

has implemented its Remedial Action Management Program and is 

identifying and distributing lessons learned and best practices to 

improve incident management operations. 

We conducted interviews with FEMA Headquarters and regional 

officials and examined documentation related to the Remedial 

Action Management Program, including the Program Manual, 

Facilitator Handbook, and Program Reports for specific disasters. 

We also observed an after-action review conducted in July 2010. 

We conducted this performance audit between May 2010 and 

August 2010 pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

upon our audit objectives. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 11
 
 
l.s.l,"""n-.o. at It__d S<nIriI~

<till ( Slr«t. $\\

\\......... 'll-~n

.~ E{aF MA

DEC J 7 2Il~

MEMORANDUM FOR: Matt Jadacki

Assistant Inspector G(:fl\T.I1

Office of Emergency Managcm(:flt (h'crsight

Office of InspccJ!lL..Genend

1l4{-" c7'""'-- - FROM: Da\"id J. Kaufman /

Director

Officc of Policy and Progrom An:tlysis

SUBJECf: Comments on OIG Draft Report, Ft:IlfA's Prognss in

/mp/e/JIelJ/ing the Remedial Action MOIwgemelrt Program

Thank you for the opportunity to n:view and comment on the Office of Inspector

General's (OIG's) subject draft audit report, As the Fl.-deral Emcrg(:fley Management

Agency (FEMA) works toward refining its progrnms, the OIG's ind1.1)(:ndl.'Ilt analysis of

program pcrfonnance greatly benefits our ability to continuously improve our activities.

Tl."thnieal comments have been provided under separate cover.

This OIG audit focused 011 the legacy Rellll,.-dial Action Management Program (RAMP)

in place between January 2004 and May 2010. At the time ofthis review. May 2010

through August 2010, FEMA was already in the process ofreviewing the program.

updating the policy and guidance, and consolidating the software with the COrTl."Ctive

Action Program (CAP) and the Lessons Leam.::d lnfonnlltion Shll1;nl> system (LLlS.gov).

That elTon began in February 2009 and is ongoing. FEMA has made progress in

implementing the newly combined RAMP/CAP system and has beell implementing some

ofthe recommendations contained in this report us the review moved forward.

On page I ofllle draft report, paragraph 3, please revise as follows, for lIccuraey:

"Program officials distribuled lessons learned and best pruetiees 10 the Program's

database users, whieh averaged aboul 70 USC1'S. Per program policy. those users served as

organizational poinls of contact and disseminated lhe inforn13tion 10 olhl,.'rS as

appropriate,"'

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 12
 
 
Page 2

On page 4, fint pal1IgJ1IPh, FEMA suggests that the draft be revised [() include the

following: "The program office reportS that outreach for the new FEMA channel within

LUS will be conducted as part ofthe launch ofthe new RAMP/CAP program directive

and manual. They will also develop and disseminate a monthly LUS.gov newsletter

tailored to FEMA personnel:'

On page 5, first paragraph, with respect to the discussion regarding using facilitators for

after-action reviews (or hotwashes as the draft report calls them), please delete that

paragraph and include the infonnation in our response to Recommendation 2 below.

FEMA concurs or conditionally concurs with the draft report's six recommendations.

For the two recommendations with which we conditionally concur, we provide suggested

revisions to the wording ofthe recommendation. FEMA believes adequate actions have

been taken to close Recommendations 2 and S.

The following are FEMA's comments reganling the six reoommendations contained in

the draft report:

RKOftlIDtlldatioll 'I: Enforce the Remedial Action Management Program's policy [()

00Dduct hotwashes for all disaslcn.

FEMA RtsPOIlH: FEMA conditionally concurs with this recommendation as cum:ntly

written. In order 10 fully concur, FEMA requests that the IG replace the term

'hotwashcs' with 'after-action reviews: Based on feedback from a FEMA working

group, which included headquarters and regional representatives., new draft program

guidance states that an aftcr-aetion review (vice hotwash) is required for every exercise

and real-world event managed or supponed by FEMA; the scope and content ofthe

review is scalable based on the scope and complexity ofthe event and reviews can be

combined as appropriate for an event series (e.g., an exercise series or multiple related

disasters occurring in a short time frame). The new draft program guidance emphasizes

the process; hotwashes have been redefined as short events to collect raw input and aftcraction conferences have been added (consistent with the Homeland Security Exercise and

Evaluation Program) as the primary mechanism to bring participants [()gether to review

observations, corrective actions, and lessons learned for the after-action report and

improvement plan.

RKOmmtndatioll #2: Require that Division Directors appoint hotwash facilitators

according [() program policy.

FEMA ResPOOH: FEMA COllCUrS with this recommendation. Based on fetdback from

• FEMA working group, which included headquartc:n and regional representatives, new

dnft program guidance removes the restriction on facilitators/data collectors working in

their home oomponenL The new draft guidance states:""o conduct an impartial data

collection effort, it is rccommcnded that. representative from outside ofthe assigned

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 13
 
 
Page 3

component guide the data collection effort in close coordination with a representative

from within the component, to provide the necessary local perspective."

FEMA asks that this recommendation be considered closed.

Recommendation #3: Develop instructions with examples on how to develop clear and

concise lesson learned and best practice statements.

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommendation. Efforts are underway to

develop and issue instructions, with a target date for completion in second quarter fiscal

year 201 1.

Recommendation #4: Disseminate lessons learned and best practices more widely.

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommendation. Efforts are underway to

develop and disseminate a monthly LUS.gov newsletter tailored for FEMA personnel,

with a target date for completion within 90 days ofissuance ofthe new FEMA

RAMP/CAP manual.

Recommendation #S: Develop and implement a process for archiving Remedial Action

Management Program data so that data loss does not recur.

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommendation. This issue has been

resolved. We have confirmed with IT support that the CAP and LLIS databases are

backed up every night and the servers are backed up weekly. We also have the ability to

implement a complete restoration of all systems within 72 hours in the case of

catastrophic disaster; backups are routinely stored ofTsite.

FEMA asks that this recommendation be considered closed.

Recommendation #6: Develop and distribute the monthly Remedial Action

Management Program status report to senior FEMA leadership according to program

policy.

FEMA Response: FEMA conditionally concurs with this recommendation as currently

written. In order to fully concur, FEMA requests that the OIG delete the word 'monthly.'

Based on feedback from a FEMA working group, it is important to provide meaningful

reports at the proper frequency; under the new RAMP/CAP, new draft program guidance

states that we will provide quarterly reports.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report and we look forward

to working with you on other issues as we both strive to improve FEMA.

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 14
 
 
 

Appendix C 

Remedial Action Management Program Lessons Learned and Best Practices 

Process 

Remedial Action Management Program Lessons Learned and Best Practices Process4 

Team Leader (e.g., Federal Coordinating Officer) schedules after-action review 

Ø

After-action review facilitator is appointed 

Ø

Lesson Learned/Best Practice Data Collection Forms are distributed to personnel 

Ø

Facilitator reviews completed forms 

Ø

Facilitator conducts after-action review 

Ø

Facilitator reviews and organizes lessons learned and best practices identified in after-action review 

Ø

Facilitator enters lessons learned and best practices into the program’s database 

Ø

Facilitator Supervisor reviews lessons learned and best practices 

Ø

 Facilitator Supervisor forwards lessons learned and best practices to Program Manager 

Ø

Program Manager reviews lessons learned and best practices 

Ø

Program Manager distributes lessons learned and best practices to Remedial Action Managers 

4

 This graphic is based on the Facilitator Handbook and original Remedial Action Management Program 

Manual and Database User Guide. FEMA is updating both to incorporate the business processes associated 

with the new database. 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 

Page 15
 
Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Amy Hall, Director, Preparedness and Operations Division, Office 

of Emergency Management Oversight 

Soraya Vega, Auditor-in-Charge, Preparedness and Operations 

Division, Office of Emergency Management Oversight 

Eric Hostelley, Program Analyst, Preparedness and Operations 

Division, Office of Emergency Management Oversight 

Ryan Hartong, Program Analyst, Preparedness and Operations 

Division, Office of Emergency Management Oversight 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 16
 
 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Administrator 

Assistant Administrator 

FEMA GAO/OIG Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

FEMA’s Progress in Implementing the Remedial Action Management Program 
 


Page 17
 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.