FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Progress and Continuing 

Challenges in National 

Preparedness Efforts

Statement of Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security 

and Justice

Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency 

Management, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 3:00 p.m ET

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

GAO-16-560T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-560T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Federal 

Spending Oversight and Emergency 

Management, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

April 12, 2016

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY

Progress and Continuing Challenges in National 

Preparedness Efforts

Why GAO Did This Study

Following the federal response to 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the PostKatrina Act was enacted in 2006, 

requiring FEMA to establish a 

national preparedness system and 

assess the nation’s overall 

preparedness. To implement the 

system, FEMA issued the National 

Response Framework, which 

identifies 14 emergency support 

functions that serve as the federal 

government’s primary coordinating 

structure for providing response 

capabilities. From fiscal years 2002 

through 2015, DHS awarded over 

$40 billion for preparedness grant 

programs to enhance the capabilities 

of state and local governments to 

respond to emergencies and 

disasters. 

This statement addresses (1) 

FEMA’s progress in strengthening 

federal preparedness efforts and (2) 

FEMA’s efforts to manage 

preparedness grants. This statement 

is based on prior reports GAO issued 

from March 2011 through February

2016 and selected updates on efforts 

to improve coordination in March 

2016. To conduct prior work and 

updates, GAO analyzed relevant 

FEMA data and documentation and 

interviewed relevant officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made several 

recommendations in its prior reports 

designed to address the challenges 

discussed in this statement. FEMA has 

taken actions to address some but not 

all of these recommendations.

What GAO Found

GAO’s recent work highlights both the progress and challenges in the 

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA) efforts to strengthen federal preparedness. 

• In December 2014, GAO reported that the federal departments responsible 

for coordinating emergency support functions (ESF) in preparation for 

national disaster response carry out their responsibilities in various ways, but 

efforts to assess ESF preparedness could be enhanced. GAO recommended 

that FEMA coordinate and collaborate with other federal departments and 

agencies to issue guidance to ESF coordinators on minimum standards for 

demonstrating ESF preparedness. FEMA concurred, and in June 2015, 

consistent with our recommendation, issued such guidance.

• GAO found in December 2014 that federal departments that participate in 

national-level exercises monitor the status of their corrective actions but do 

not report this information to DHS or FEMA, nor does DHS or FEMA 

comprehensively collect this information. GAO recommended that FEMA

coordinate and collaborate with interagency partners to collect information 

and regularly report to the Secretary on the status of its planned actions. 

FEMA concurred, and in October 2015 reported taking steps to address this

recommendation; however, work remains. 

GAO’s work on FEMA’s preparedness grant management highlights challenges 

in coordination and challenges in establishing a framework to assess capabilities. 

• In February 2016, GAO found that coordination challenges between FEMA 

headquarters and regional staff in managing preparedness grants continue to 

create inefficiencies. GAO recommended that FEMA develop a plan with 

timeframes, goals, metrics and milestones on how it will resolve longstanding 

challenges with its grants management model, which divides responsibilities 

between regional and headquarters staff. FEMA did not concur with this 

recommendation. However, we continue to believe that FEMA would benefit 

from a more strategic approach to resolve longstanding challenges 

associated with the existing hybrid model.

• In February 2012, GAO identified coordination challenges among four FEMA 

grant programs that share similar goals and fund similar projects, which

contribute to the risk of duplication among the programs. GAO recommended 

that FEMA take steps, as it develops its new Non-Disaster Grant 

Management System, to collect project information with sufficient detail to 

identify potential duplication among the grant programs. In March 2016, 

FEMA reported taking steps to address the recommendation but has been 

delayed in implementing the new grant management system. 

• In March 2011, GAO reported the need for FEMA to establish a framework

for assessing capabilities to prioritize grant funding. As of March 2016, FEMA 

does not have clear and quantifiable performance measures that provide 

such a framework and we concluded that until FEMA develops such 

requirements and measures it is unclear what capability gaps currently exist 

and what level of federal resources will be needed to close such gaps.

View GAO-16-560T. For more information, 

contact Chris P. Currie at (404) 679-1875 or 

curriec@gao.gov.
Letter

Page 1 GAO-16-560T 

Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Baldwin, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) efforts to develop and 

implement national preparedness policies, structures, and grant 

programs. FEMA—a component of the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)—has broad responsibilities for coordinating federal preparedness 

efforts and supporting and assessing state and local capabilities through 

preparedness grants. Our work over the last five years has focused on 

FEMA’s efforts to coordinate federal interagency preparedness and 

manage and assess the impact of FEMA’s preparedness grants on state 

and local preparedness. As described in more detail below, our 

recommendations have identified additional steps FEMA can take to 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these efforts, including 

enhancing coordination and providing guidance on preparedness. FEMA 

has taken actions to address some of these recommendations, but more 

fully addressing all of the recommendations could lead to additional 

savings, better services to the public, improved program performance and 

accountability, and, ultimately, a better prepared nation.

Following the federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the PostKatrina Act was enacted in October 2006.1 The act enhanced FEMA’s 

responsibilities and autonomy within DHS, and required FEMA to 

establish a national preparedness system and assess the nation’s overall 

preparedness, among other things. In addition, Presidential Policy 

Directive 8 on National Preparedness assigns DHS responsibility for 

coordinating preparedness efforts among federal executive branch 

departments and agencies and directs the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to develop a national preparedness goal and design a national 

 1

The Post-Katrina Act was enacted as Title VI of the Department of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355 (2006). 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-560T 

preparedness system to address the greatest risks to the nation.2 As an 

implementing guidance for this national preparedness system, FEMA 

issued the latest version of the National Response Framework (NRF) in 

May 2013.3 The NRF identifies 14 emergency support functions (ESF) 

that serve as the federal government’s primary coordinating structure for 

building, sustaining, and delivering response capabilities. Each ESF 

comprises a federal department or agency that has been designated as 

the ESF coordinator, along with a number of primary and support 

agencies.4 For example, the Environmental Protection Agency is the 

coordinating agency for the Oil and Hazardous Materials Response ESF. 

According to the NRF, the Secretary is to ensure that overall federal 

preparedness actions are unified, complete, and synchronized to prevent 

unfilled gaps or seams in the federal government’s efforts.

FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), provides preparedness 

grants to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as 

transportation authorities, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector, 

to improve the nation’s readiness in preventing, protecting against,

responding to, recovering from and mitigating terrorist attacks, major 

disasters and other emergencies. From fiscal years 2002 through 2015, 

DHS awarded over $40 billion to a variety of DHS preparedness grant 

programs to enhance the capabilities of state, local, tribal, and territorial 

grant recipients to carry out the above activities related to terrorist attacks 

and other disasters. In February 2016, DHS announced the availability of 

 2

Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness updated and replaced the 

former Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 on the same topic, which identified the 

same responsibility for the Secretary of Homeland Security. The White House, 

Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 

2011). The National Preparedness Goal, issued in September 2011, defines the core 

capabilities necessary for emergency response to specific types of incidents, including 

acts of terrorism and natural disasters. The National Preparedness System was issued in 

November 2011 and is intended to guide activities to achieve the national preparedness 

goal. Specifically, it provides guidance on the planning, organization, equipment, training, 

and exercises needed to develop and maintain domestic emergency response 

capabilities.

3

DHS, National Response Framework (Washington, D.C.: May 2013). 

4

According to the NRF, ESF primary agencies have significant authorities, roles, 

resources, and capabilities for a particular function within an ESF, and ESF support 

agencies have specific capabilities or resources that support primary agencies in 

executing the mission of the ESF. 
Page 3 GAO-16-560T 

10 preparedness grant programs totaling more than $1.6 billion for fiscal 

year 2016.5

My testimony today covers our prior work on FEMA preparedness efforts 

from March 2011 to February 2016 and selected updates conducted in 

March 2016. This statement specifically addresses 1) FEMA’s progress 

in strengthening federal preparedness efforts and collaborating with 

interagency partners and 2) FEMA’s efforts to manage preparedness 

grants.

To conduct this prior work, we reviewed relevant presidential directives, 

laws, regulations, policies, strategic plans, and key program documents; 

and interviewed federal, state, and local officials, among others. More 

detailed information on our scope and methodology can be found in each 

of the reports cited throughout this statement. To update our work, we 

interviewed relevant FEMA officials to obtain updates on recent progress 

on efforts to improve coordination among preparedness grant programs.

The work upon which this testimony is based was conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 5

Preparedness Grant Program Allocations for Fiscal Year 2016 include Emergency 

Management Performance Grants, Homeland Security Grant Program (comprised of the 

State Homeland Security Program, Urban Area Security Initiative and Operation 

Stonegarden), Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program, Nonprofit Security Grant 

Program, Intercity Passenger Rail - Amtrak Program, Port Security Grant Program, Transit 

Security Grant Program, and the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program. 
Page 4 GAO-16-560T 

At the federal level, FEMA has made progress in issuing guidance on 

what the minimum expectations are for ESF preparedness, and officials 

also reported they plan to continue enhancing their tracking of corrective 

actions in response to exercises and real-world incidents. For example, in 

December 2014, we found that the departments responsible for 

coordinating federal emergency support functions in preparation for 

national disaster response carry out their responsibilities in various ways, 

but that the Secretary of Homeland Security's ability to assess ESF 

preparedness could be enhanced.6 Specifically, we found that ESF 

coordinators conduct a range of coordination, planning, and capability 

assessment activities and all 10 ESF coordinators across the five 

departments in our review reported coordinating with stakeholders and 

developing at least one ESF planning document.7 However, we also 

found that FEMA, in its role as chair of the ESF Leadership Group, had 

not issued guidance to ESF coordinators detailing expectations for the 

minimum standards for activities and product deliverables necessary to 

demonstrate ESF preparedness. In the absence of such guidance, we 

 6

GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Interagency 

Assessments and Accountability for Closing Capability Gaps, GAO-15-20 [Reissued on 

Dec. 9, 2015], (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2014).

7

The following ESFs were included in our review because they are coordinated by one of 

the five departments: DOD–Public Works and Engineering; DOE–Energy; HHS–Public 

Health and Medical Services; DHS–Communications; Information and Planning; Mass 

Care, Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing, and Human Services; Logistics; 

Search and Rescue; and External Affairs; and DOJ–Public Safety and Security. 

FEMA Has Made 

Progress in 

Strengthening 

Federal 

Preparedness Efforts 

and Has Collaborated 

Effectively with 

Interagency Partners 

on Logistics

FEMA Issued Guidance on 

Expectations for ESF 

Preparedness but Could

Enhance Tracking of 

Corrective Actions
Page 5 GAO-16-560T 

found that ESF coordinators were inconsistently carrying out their 

emergency response preparedness activities, and we concluded that 

providing this guidance on expectations for ESF coordinators would better 

enable DHS and FEMA to assess the status of ESF response 

preparedness.

We recommended that FEMA—in coordination and collaboration with 

other federal departments and agencies through the ESF Leadership 

Group—issue guidance that details minimum expectations on how ESF 

coordinators are to demonstrate (1) that coordination with ESF primary 

and support agencies is sufficient, (2) that planning and preparedness 

activities are appropriate, and (3) whether required capabilities are 

available to effectively and efficiently respond to a disaster. FEMA 

concurred with our recommendation, and in June 2015 issued the 

recommended guidance for ESF coordinators. According to the FEMA 

officials, the established metrics set standardized performance targets 

and preparedness actions across the ESFs. Specifically, the ESF 

Leadership Group developed and approved metrics for coordination, 

planning, and capabilities assessment. For example, (1) coordination 

metrics state that each ESF coordinator organizes one routine national 

meeting and maintains an updated ESF contact list for all primary and 

support agencies, among other actions; (2) planning metrics state that 

each ESF coordinator routinely updates ESF-level plans with relevant 

lessons learned and corrective actions and reviews them, among other 

actions; and (3) capabilities assessment metrics state that each ESF 

coordinator maintains a resource list and capabilities inventory for the 

ESF and that agencies maintain a list of corrective actions from 

exercises, real-world incidents, and other assessments for tracking and 

implementation. We believe the metrics and reporting on these metrics 

provide an opportunity to better measure preparedness efforts by 

assessing if ESF coordination and planning are sufficient and whether 

required ESF capabilities are available for disaster response. 

We also found in December 2014 that federal departments that 

participated in national-level exercises monitor the status of their 

corrective actions; however, they do not report this information to DHS or 

FEMA, nor does DHS or FEMA comprehensively collect this information 

from the departments. As a result, DHS and FEMA cannot provide a 

comprehensive picture of the status of national preparedness in its 

reporting, as called for by Presidential Policy Directive 8. We 

recommended that FEMA—in coordination and collaboration with the 

National Security Council Staff and other federal departments and 

agencies—collect information on and regularly report to the Secretary the 

status of federal interagency implementation of corrective actions 
Page 6 GAO-16-560T 

identified through national-level exercises and following real-world 

incidents, specifically major disasters. FEMA has taken some steps to 

address this recommendation, though it has not yet fully addressed it. 

Specifically, in October 2015, FEMA reported that the agency provides to 

the Secretary its National Exercise Program End-of-Cycle Report which 

now describes the status of interagency corrective actions from nationallevel exercises. FEMA also reported that the Hurricane Sandy Project 

Management Office, which FEMA manages, issues quarterly progress 

reports on milestone completion from recommendations reported by the 

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. FEMA’s National Exercise 

Program End-of-Cycle Report contains useful information on the status of 

federal interagency implementation of corrective actions for those 

exercises. However, FEMA’s progress reports related to Hurricane Sandy 

do not fully address our recommendation that FEMA issue regular reports 

to the Secretary on the status of corrective actions from real-world 

incidents, specifically major disasters. While FEMA is tracking 

recommended actions reported by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task 

Force, that tracking is limited to one specific real-world incident, rather 

than a comprehensive means of tracking the status and resolution of 

federal interagency disaster response issues associated with major 

disasters. According to FEMA officials, they are working to identify a 

structure and scope for such tracking and reporting that will be acceptable 

and feasible for implementation across the multiple federal agencies. We 

will continue to monitor FEMA’s efforts to enhance its tracking and 

reporting of corrective actions from real-world incidents.

We have also found that FEMA has collaborated effectively with its 

federal interagency partners in the area of logistics support and 

preparedness for disasters. Specifically, in September 2015, we 

assessed FEMA’s interagency efforts in the area of national logistics 

support for disasters and reported that FEMA has taken actions described 

in the Logistics Annex to the NRF for ESF #7 Logistics Management and 

Resource Support (ESF 7), to work with its federal partners in a manner 

that reflects leading practices for interagency collaboration.8 For example, 

we found that FEMA’s Logistics Management Directorate has facilitated 

meetings and established interagency agreements with ESF 7 partners 

such as the Department of Defense and the General Services 

 8

GAO, Emergency Management: FEMA Collaborates Effectively with Logistics Partners 

but Could Strengthen Implementation of Its Capabilities Assessment Tool, GAO-15-781

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2015).

FEMA Collaborates 

Effectively with 

Interagency Partners on 

Logistics
Page 7 GAO-16-560T 

Administration, and identified needed quantities of disaster response 

commodities, such as food, water, and blankets. 

We found that these actions reflected ESF 7 guidance to establish 

collaborative relationships and interagency agreements to leverage 

federal partners’ capabilities to support disaster response efforts. 

Additionally, FEMA defined desired outcomes and measures to monitor 

the progress and success of federal ESF 7 collaborative efforts. For 

example, FEMA tracks the percentage of disaster response commodities 

delivered by agreed-upon dates, and that are available through FEMA 

and its ESF 7 partners. As a result of these actions, FEMA’s work with its 

federal partners reflects leading practices for interagency collaboration—

such as identifying a lead agency and shared responsibilities, and 

defining outcomes to measure success—and should help FEMA’s 

Logistics Management Directorate demonstrate preparedness to meet 

ESF 7 functions.

In February 2016, we reported that FEMA has taken some steps, but has 

not fully addressed longstanding preparedness grant management 

coordination challenges between its headquarters and regional offices.9

We found that for several preparedness grant programs, FEMA 

headquarters staff in GPD and regions share management and 

monitoring responsibilities. Assessments by GPD and others since 2009 

have recommended that regional offices, rather than headquarters 

offices, be responsible for managing and monitoring preparedness grants 

 9

GAO, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Strengthening Regional Coordination 

Could Enhance Preparedness Efforts, GAO-16-38 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2016).

Continuing 

Coordination and 

Assessment 

Challenges Limit the 

Effectiveness of 

FEMA’s Grant 

Management

FEMA Has Not Resolved 

Coordination Challenges 

in Managing 

Preparedness Grants
Page 8 GAO-16-560T 

to avoid confusion and duplication, and to strengthen coordination with 

state and local grantees. In July 2011, we found that GPD had efforts 

underway to regionalize grant management responsibilities and improve 

coordination of preparedness grants, and that these efforts were 

consistent with internal control standards.10 On the basis of the results of 

our review of GPD’s plans and efforts to regionalize grant management 

functions, we did not make recommendations at that time. However, GPD 

officials reported that in 2012 it changed course and decided to continue 

sharing grant management between headquarters and regions, referred 

to as a hybrid grant management structure, because, among other things, 

estimates that the costs of regionalization would be greater than the 

annual savings FEMA identified in an earlier study and FEMA 

management’s belief that risks associated with the change, such as 

inconsistent program implementation across the regions, outweighed the 

potential benefits. GPD officials said that, since then, they have taken 

steps to address coordination challenges associated with this hybrid grant 

management structure. However, we found in February 2016 that these 

challenges continue. For example, states and FEMA regional officials told 

us that FEMA headquarters and regions did not always coordinate their

monitoring visits which can be disruptive to the state emergency 

management agency’s day-to-day operations. FEMA regional officials 

also reported that headquarters and regions sometimes provided 

inconsistent guidance to grantees. Further, while GPD officials identified 

some steps they plan to take to address the challenges, we found that 

GPD lacks a plan with time frames and goals for addressing them. 

We recommended that FEMA develop a plan with time frames, goals, 

metrics, and milestones detailing how GPD intends to resolve 

longstanding challenges associated with its existing hybrid grants 

management model, which divides responsibilities between regional and 

headquarters staff. FEMA did not concur with our recommendation, 

stating that it disagreed with our characterization of longstanding 

challenges in managing preparedness grants. As we stated in the report, 

multiple assessments dating back to 2009 have reported challenges with 

 10GAO, FEMA Has Made Progress in Managing Regionalization of Preparedness Grants, 

GAO-11-732R (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2011). We reported, for example, that FEMA 

established a task force as an oversight and evaluation mechanism and developed an 

implementation plan, which includes a phased approach to piloting and delegating specific 

grants administration functions for preparedness grants to the regions and delineates an 

approach, including roles and responsibilities, for key implementation activities such as 

training and communications.
Page 9 GAO-16-560T 

the hybrid model that splits management of preparedness grants between 

FEMA’s headquarters and regional offices. As also noted in our report, 

officials from four FEMA regional offices and officials from three states 

within those regions provided various examples of a lack of coordination 

between headquarters and regional staff in managing preparedness 

grants, including instances that took place in 2014 and as recently as 

September 2015. Based on our review of the past assessments and the 

audit work we performed, we believe that these challenges are 

longstanding. We continue to believe that FEMA would benefit from a 

more strategic approach, including a plan, with time frames, goals, 

metrics, and milestones that details how officials intend to resolve 

longstanding challenges associated with the existing hybrid model.

FEMA has faced delays in addressing the need for improved coordination 

among grant programs identified in our prior work. Specifically, we found 

in February 2012 that multiple factors contribute to the risk of duplication 

among four FEMA preparedness grant programs—the State Homeland 

Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, Port Security Grant 

Program, and Transit Security Grant Program.11 Specifically, these 

programs share similar goals, fund similar projects, and provide funds in 

the same geographic regions. Further, we found that DHS’s ability to 

track grant funding, specific funding recipients, and funding purposes 

varies among the programs, giving FEMA less visibility over some grant 

programs. Also, DHS’s award process for some programs bases 

decisions on high-level, rather than specific, project information. Although 

our analysis identified no cases of duplication among a sample of grant 

projects, the above factors collectively put FEMA at risk of funding 

duplicative projects. As a result, in 2012, we included these challenges in 

our annual report on duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in federal 

programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives. FEMA has not yet taken 

action to fully address our concerns.

12

We recommended in February 2012 that FEMA take steps, as it develops 

its new grant system called the Non-Disaster Grants Management 

 11GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Needs Better Project Information and Coordination 

among Four Overlapping Grant Programs, GAO-12-303 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 

2012).

12GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

FEMA Has Faced Delays 

in Improving Coordination 

among Preparedness 

Grant Programs 
Page 10 GAO-16-560T 

System (ND Grants), to collect project information with the level of detail 

needed to better position the agency to identify any potential unnecessary 

duplication within and across the four grant programs, weighing any 

additional costs of collecting these data. In December 2012, FEMA 

officials reported that the agency intended to start collecting and 

analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal year 2014, using the 

new ND Grants system. However, as of March 2016, FEMA has not yet 

finalized specific data requirements and has not fully established the 

system. The implementation of the ND Grants system had been delayed, 

but FEMA stated in March 2016 that it plans to use the system to accept 

more detailed project-level grant applications in fiscal year 2017. Due to 

the delays to the new grants system, GPD has developed an alternative 

solution to try to capture more robust project-level data, such as project 

budget data, from grantees during the application phase of the grant 

process. Specifically, GPD officials reported that GPD is modifying an 

existing data system to be able to capture these data when grantees 

apply for grant funding. According to GPD, collecting the project-level 

data will allow GPD to have much greater detail on how grantees plan to 

utilize funding at a project level and enable GPD to utilize this information 

to evaluate grant applications and minimize duplication. However, FEMA 

reported that, even with this proposed solution, grant management 

officials will not be able to cross-check for redundant projects across all 

preparedness grant programs until project-based applications are 

deployed in the new grants system, since some applications currently do 

not have sufficient detail for coordinated review of projects. In addition, 

GPD officials reported that the Transit Security and Port Security Grant 

programs will not be included as part of this interim solution, but will be 

included when project-based applications and reporting are established in 

the new grants system. Given these continued challenges and delays in 

implementing the ND Grants system, our recommendation has not been 

addressed, and we are continuing to monitor FEMA’s efforts to implement 

the new grants system to collect more detailed project-level information 

on grant applications. 
Page 11 GAO-16-560T 

In the area of performance assessment, we reported in June 2013 on 

limitations in FEMA’s ability to validate the performance data it collects.13

Specifically, we found that two of FEMA’s preparedness grant 

programs—Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) and 

Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) programs—collect performance 

information through a variety of reporting mechanisms but face 

challenges identifying outcomes at the agency level. These reporting 

mechanisms collect performance data used by FEMA regional offices and 

headquarters for different purposes. For example, headquarters focuses 

on the development of future program priorities and on reporting progress 

toward the National Preparedness Goal, while regions use program 

information to monitor primary grant recipients. DHS developed agency 

priority goals that reflect agency-wide, near-term priorities. According to 

FEMA officials, the EMPG and AFG programs have an indirect link to a 

DHS agency priority goal, as well as the National Preparedness Goal, 

because they support states' level of preparedness for disasters. 

According to FEMA officials, neither program has a standardized tool with 

which to validate the performance data that are self-reported by 

recipients; additionally, the regions are inconsistent in their approaches to 

verifying program performance data. We concluded that the absence of a 

formal established validation and verification procedure, which is directed 

by the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular No. A-11, could lead 

to the collection of erroneous performance data. 

We recommended that FEMA ensure that there are consistent 

procedures in place at the program office and regional level to promote 

verification and validation of grant performance data that allow the agency 

to attest to the reliability of EMPG and AFG grant data used for reporting 

progress toward goals. DHS concurred with our recommendation and 

stated that FEMA would explore effective and affordable ways to verify 

and validate EMPG and AFG grant performance data. In April 2015, 

FEMA officials reported that FEMA was in the process of developing the 

data verification and validation checks of EMPG grantee performance 

reporting. For example, according to FEMA officials, they have revised 

reporting templates and uniform table definitions to make it easier for 

grantees to submit accurate, complete, and consistent information on 

programmatic activities such as the completion of training and exercise 

requirements. However, these processes have not yet been fully 

 13GAO, Grants Performance: Justice and FEMA Collect Performance Data for Selected 

Grants, but Action Needed to Validate FEMA Performance Data, GAO-13-552

(Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2013).

FEMA Faces Challenges 

in Validating Grant 

Performance Data and 

Establishing a Framework 

to Assess Capabilities and 

Inform Grant Priorities
Page 12 GAO-16-560T 

implemented, and FEMA officials have not yet provided similar tools and 

checklists for the AFG program.

We also reported in March 2011 the need for FEMA to improve its 

oversight of preparedness grants by establishing a framework, including 

measurable performance objectives, for assessing urban area, state, 

territory, and tribal capabilities to identify gaps and prioritize 

investments.14 Specifically, we recommended that FEMA complete a 

national preparedness assessment of capability gaps at each level based 

on tiered, capability-specific performance objectives to enable 

prioritization of grant funding. With such an assessment, FEMA could 

identify the potential costs for establishing and maintaining capabilities at 

each level and determine what capabilities federal agencies should 

provide. We reported in March 2013 that FEMA has made some progress 

in assessing its preparedness capabilities, but continued to face 

challenges developing a national preparedness system that could assist 

FEMA in prioritizing preparedness grant funding.15 For example, in March 

2012, FEMA issued the first National Preparedness Report, which 

describes progress made to build, sustain, and deliver capabilities. In 

April 2012, FEMA issued guidance on developing Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA) to facilitate the selfassessments of regional, state, and local capabilities. FEMA requires

state, territory, tribal, and urban area governments receiving homeland 

security funding to annually complete THIRAs and use the results to 

determine the resources required to achieve the capability targets they 

set for their jurisdiction. However, we found in March 2013 that FEMA 

faced challenges that may reduce the usefulness of these efforts. For 

example, the National Preparedness Report noted that while many 

programs exist to build and sustain preparedness capabilities, challenges 

remain in measuring their progress over time. According to the report, in 

many cases, measures do not yet exist to gauge the performance of 

these programs, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Further, while FEMA 

officials stated that the THIRA process is intended to develop a set of 

national capability performance requirements and measures, as of March 

2016 such requirements and measures have not yet been developed. We 

 14GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save 

Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).

15GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress in Improving Grant 

Management and Assessing Capabilities, but Challenges Remain, GAO-13-456T

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2013).
Page 13 GAO-16-560T 

concluded that until FEMA develops clear and quantifiable capability 

requirements and performance measures that provide a framework for 

assessing its capability gaps, it is unclear what capability gaps currently 

exist and what level of federal resources will be needed to close such 

gaps. We plan to continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to develop capability 

requirements and performance measures, and to assess its capability 

gaps to inform grant funding priorities.

Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Baldwin, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions you may have. 

For questions about this statement, please contact Chris Currie at (404) 

679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 

include Chris Keisling (Assistant Director), Carissa Bryant, Tracey King, 

David Alexander, and Ashley Rawson.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Strengthening Regional 

Coordination Could Enhance Preparedness Efforts. GAO-16-38.

Washington, D.C.: February 4, 2016. 

Emergency Management: FEMA Has Made Progress since Hurricanes 

Katrina and Sandy, but Challenges Remain. GAO-16-90T. Washington, 

D.C.: October 22, 2015.

Emergency Management: FEMA Collaborates Effectively with Logistics 

Partners but Could Strengthen Implementation of Its Capabilities 

Assessment Tool. GAO-15-781. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2015.

Emergency Preparedness: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Interagency 

Assessments and Accountability for Closing Capability Gaps. GAO-15-20.

[Reissued on December 9, 2015]. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2014.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Opportunities to Achieve 

Efficiencies and Strengthen Operations. GAO-14-687T. Washington, 

D.C.: July 24, 2014. 

National Preparedness: Actions Taken by FEMA to Implement Select 

Provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 

2006. GAO-14-99R. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2013. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

Related GAO 

products
Page 14 GAO-16-560T 

National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Additional Steps 

Are Needed to Improve Grant Management and Assess Capabilities. 

GAO-13-637T. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2013. 

Grants Performance: Justice and FEMA Collect Performance Data for 

Selected Grants, but Action Needed to Validate FEMA Performance Data. 

GAO-13-552. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2013.

Managing Preparedness Grants and Assessing National Capabilities: 

Continuing Challenges Impede FEMA's Progress. GAO-12-526T.

Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2012.

Homeland Security: DHS Needs Better Project Information and 

Coordination among Four Overlapping Grant Programs. GAO-12-303. 

Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-12-

342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

Port Security Grant Program: Risk Model, Grant Management, and 

Effectiveness Measures Could Be Strengthened. GAO-12-47.

Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2011. 

FEMA Has Made Progress in Managing Regionalization of Preparedness 

Grants. GAO-11-732R. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2011. 

Measuring Disaster Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Limited Progress in 

Assessing National Capabilities. GAO-11-260T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 17, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, 

D.C.: March 1, 2011.

FEMA Has Made Limited Progress in Efforts to Develop and Implement a 

System to Assess National Preparedness Capabilities. GAO-11-51R.

Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2010.

Urban Area Security Initiative: FEMA Lacks Measures to Assess How 

Regional Collaboration Efforts Build Preparedness Capabilities. GAO-09-

651. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2009.
Page 15 GAO-16-560T 

Transit Security Grant Program: DHS Allocates Grants Based on Risk, 

but Its Risk Methodology, Management Controls, and Grant Oversight 

Can Be Strengthened.

GAO-09-491. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2009. 

National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to 

Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts.

GAO-09-369. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2009. 

Homeland Security: DHS Improved its Risk-Based Grant Programs' 

Allocation and Management Methods, But Measuring Programs' Impact 

on National Capabilities Remains a Challenge.

GAO-08-488T. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2008.

Homeland Security: DHS' Efforts to Enhance First Responders' AllHazards Capabilities Continue to Evolve. GAO-05-652. Washington, 

D.C.: July 11, 2005.

Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant Programs 

Has Improved, but Challenges Remain. GAO-05-121. Washington, D.C.: 

February 2, 2005.

(100754)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

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

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.