GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-277479 

July 22, 1997

The Honorable Richard K. Armey

Majority Leader

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Subject: Results Act: Observations on the Federal Emergency Management

Agency’s Draft Strategic Plan

On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans

submitted by the cabinet departments and selected major agencies for

consultation with the Congress as required by the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). This report is our

response to that request concerning the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA).

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Specifically, you asked us to review FEMA’s draft plan and assess

(1) whether it fulfills the requirements of the Results Act and to provide

our views on its overall quality; (2) whether it reflects FEMA’s key statutory

authorities; (3) whether it reflects interagency coordination for

crosscutting programs, activities, or functions that are similar or

complementary to other federal agencies; (4) whether it addresses major

management problems we have previously identified; and (5) whether

FEMA had adequate data and information systems to provide sufficiently

reliable information for measuring results.

We obtained the June 24, 1997, draft strategic plan that FEMA provided to

congressional committees. It is important to recognize that FEMA’s final

Page 1 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

plan is not due to the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) until September 30, 1997. Furthermore, the Results Act anticipated

that perfecting the process may take several planning cycles and that the

final plan will continue to be refined as future planning cycles occur. Thus,

our comments reflect a “snapshot” of the agency’s plan at this time. We

recognize that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process and that

FEMA is continuing work to revise the draft with input from OMB,

congressional staff, and other stakeholders.

Our overall assessment of FEMA’s draft strategic plan was generally based

on our knowledge of FEMA’s operations and programs, our past reviews of

the agency, and other existing information available at the time of our

assessment. Specifically, the criteria we used to determine whether FEMA’s

draft strategic plan complied with the requirements of the Results Act

were the Results Act, as supplemented by OMB’s guidance on developing

these plans (Circular A-11, Part 2). To judge the overall quality of the plan

and its components, we used our May 1997 guidance for congressional

review of the plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.16). To determine whether the plan

contained information on interagency coordination and addressed

management problems previously identified by GAO and/or others and

whether FEMA had adequate systems in place to provide reliable

information on performance, we reviewed the reports on audits of FEMA’s

financial statements for fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the agency’s fiscal year

1996 Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) report, and the

agency’s plans for implementing the Government Management Reform

Act. We also relied on our general knowledge of FEMA’s operations and

programs, the results of our previous work, and reports from FEMA’s Office

of the Inspector General. In determining whether FEMA’s draft strategic

plan reflects major statutory responsibilities, we coordinated our review

with the Congressional Research Service and reviewed material in FEMA’s

1998 budget explanatory notes for an overview of the agency’s primary

functions and activities. Our work was performed in June and July 1997.

We obtained comments from FEMA on a draft of this report.

Background FEMA is an independent agency charged with helping states and localities

deal with natural disasters. FEMA’s programs and activities encompass all

four phases of emergency management: preparedness (developing and

maintaining the capability to respond to disasters), mitigation (reducing

the risk of loss of life and property from natural hazards), response

(providing immediate relief to disaster victims), and recovery (rebuilding

and restoring disaster-damaged communities). Prior to the establishment

Page 2 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

of FEMA in 1979, these functions were administered by various federal

agencies, including the departments of Defense, Housing and Urban

Development, and Commerce. FEMA’s budget is affected by the number and

scope of presidential disaster declarations. During the 1990s, the agency’s

disaster assistance obligations have averaged about $2 billion annually.

States and localities maintain primary responsibility for managing

emergencies. The principal federal authority for the provision of disaster

relief is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance

Act. Under this act, FEMA provides financial and technical assistance for

both predisaster activities (preparedness and mitigation) and postdisaster

activities (response and recovery). Postdisaster assistance may be

provided only if the President, at the request of a state governor, declares

that an emergency or disaster exists and that federal resources are

required to supplement state and local resources.

In 1993, FEMA initiated its first agencywide strategic planning effort. As part

of that effort, FEMA refocused its mission, comprehensively reviewed its

programs and structures, and initiated a major reorganization. In

April 1993, FEMA issued its mission statement and, in 1994, published its

first strategic plan. The June 1997 draft strategic plan includes revisions to

FEMA’s 1994 strategic plan.

The Results Act requires that an agency’s strategic plan contain the

following six critical elements: (1) a comprehensive mission statement;

(2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all major functions and

operations; (3) approaches (or strategies) and the various resources

needed to achieve the goals and objectives; (4) an identification of key

factors, which are external to the agency and beyond its control, that

could significantly affect the achievement of the strategic goals; (5) a

description of the relationship between the long-term goals and objectives

and annual performance goals; and (6) a description of how program

evaluations were used to establish or revise strategic goals and a schedule

for future program evaluations.

Results in Brief Overall, FEMA’s draft strategic plan indicates that the agency has made

good progress towards fulfilling the requirements of the Results Act. It

focuses on a few strategic goals that are generally results-oriented and

well-linked to a mission that reflects consideration of key statutory

provisions. The draft plan, however, is missing two of the six critical

elements required by the Results Act and OMB’s guidance: a relationship

Page 3 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

between general goals and annual performance goals and a description of

the role of program evaluations. The plan could be made more useful to

FEMA, the Congress, and other stakeholders by clarifying the linkage

among goals, objectives, and strategies and by making other changes to

better conform to the Results Act and OMB’s guidance. For example, while

the plan identifies some external factors that affect the agency’s ability to

achieve its goals, it does not link the external factors to particular goals or

describe how achieving the goals could be influenced by the factors.

Although FEMA’s draft strategic plan reflects consideration of the key

statutory provisions that authorize FEMA’s programs (such as the Stafford

Act), it does not explicitly reference the major legislation or executive

orders that serve as a basis for its mission statement, goals, and strategies.

The plan might benefit from explicit references to these authorities and

descriptions of how they relate to the agency’s goals and objectives.

FEMA’s draft plan clearly acknowledges that the nation’s emergency

management system is built on a partnership with states, localities, and

individuals. However, it does not reflect the significant role that other

federal agencies play in emergency management, particularly in helping

communities and individuals recover from the effects of disasters. It might

benefit by mentioning the external stakeholders, such as federal agencies

with related missions, and how FEMA coordinated with them in developing

its plan.

The plan does not specifically address certain management issues that we

and others have previously identified. For example, while the plan has a

goal of cost-efficiency, it does not fully address reducing program costs,

which have soared in recent years in the wake of several large-scale

disasters. Furthermore, FEMA’s draft plan does not directly address

financial and information management problems that could hinder the

achievement of its strategic goals and objectives. For example, significant

accounting and financial management deficiencies have precluded FEMA

from producing reliable financial data and statements for the Disaster

Relief Fund, which represents the bulk of the agency’s budget authority.

This situation, coupled with nonintegrated financial systems and

ineffective controls, has prevented FEMA from complying with the statutory

requirements to prepare agencywide financial statements and have them

independently audited.

FEMA’s capacity to provide reliable information on achieving its goals is

uncertain. The performance measures discussed in FEMA’s draft plan

Page 4 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

include approaches for long-term measurement processes that have not

yet been developed and/or propose to use baseline data that are not yet

available. While obtaining information for some performance measures

may be difficult, costly, or both, the plan does not discuss what resources

may be required to develop the proposed measurement processes and

data. Furthermore, FEMA’s financial and information management systems

may not have the capacity to generate sufficiently reliable information

needed to monitor progress towards its goals.

FEMA’s Strategic Plan

Could Better Meet the

Requirements of the

Results Act

Overall, FEMA’s draft strategic plan indicates that the agency has made

good progress towards fulfilling the requirements of the Results Act. It

focuses on a few strategic goals that are generally results-oriented and

well-linked to a mission that reflects consideration of key statutory

provisions. The draft plan, however, is missing two of the six critical

elements required by the Results Act and OMB’s guidance. While it

explicitly addresses three elements (mission statement, goals and

objectives, and strategies) and implicitly addresses a fourth element (key

external factors), the plan does not discuss the remaining two (the

relationship between general goals and annual performance goals and the

role of program evaluations). Furthermore, as discussed in the following

sections, the plan could be made more useful to FEMA, the Congress, and

other stakeholders by clarifying the linkage among the goals, the

objectives, and the strategies and by incorporating other changes to better

conform to the Results Act and OMB’s guidance.

Mission Statement FEMA’s draft strategic plan defines the agency’s mission as follows:

“Reduce the loss of life and property and protect our institutions from all

hazards by leading and supporting the Nation in a comprehensive,

risk-based emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness,

response, and recovery.” Overall, FEMA’s mission statement meets the

requirements established in the Results Act, which requires a

comprehensive mission statement summarizing an agency’s major

functions. FEMA’s mission statement explicitly refers to the four principal

phases of disaster management—mitigation, preparedness, response, and

recovery—which also encompass the agency’s major functions.

Furthermore, the mission statement specifically defines FEMA’s role as

supporting and leading rather than implementing emergency management

efforts. This role is consistent with the federal policy that places primary

responsibility for managing emergencies on states and localities.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

Strategic Goals and

Objectives

The Results Act requires that each agency’s strategic plan set out

programmatic, policy, and management goals and that the goals and

objectives elaborate on how the agency is carrying out its mission. FEMA’s

draft strategic plan articulates three goals, each with two objectives, as

shown in table 1.

Table 1: Goals and Objectives in

FEMA’s Draft Strategic Plan Goal Objective

1.Protect lives and prevent the loss of

property from all hazards.

1.By the end of fiscal year 2002, reduce

by 10 percent the risk of loss of life and

injury from hazards.

2.By the end of fiscal year 2002, reduce

by 15 percent the risk of property loss

and economic disruption from hazards.

2.Reduce human suffering and enhance

the recovery of communities after disaster

strikes.

3.By the end of fiscal year 2002, reduce

by 25 percent human suffering from the

impact of disasters.

4.By the end of fiscal year 2002,

increase by 20 percent the ability of

individuals, businesses, and public

entities to recover from disasters.

3.Ensure that FEMA serves the public in a

timely and cost-efficient manner.

5.By the end of fiscal year 2002, improve

by 20 percent the efficiency with which

FEMA delivers its services.

6.By the end of fiscal year 2002, achieve

90 percent overall customer satisfaction,

internal and external, with FEMA’s

services.

The draft plan characterizes the first two goals as mission-related and the

third as organizational. We note that the first two goals are results-oriented

and the third goal, based on customer service and efficiency, is

process-oriented (characterizing how FEMA intends to operate instead of

expressing an outcome resulting from FEMA’s actions).

The Results Act requires that strategic goals and objectives be stated in a

manner that allows a future assessment to be made on whether they were

or are being achieved. By including specific deadlines and targets, FEMA’s

goals meet this criterion. However, the objectives would be improved by

clarifying their intended results—that is, the specific reduction, increase,

or improvement that is intended. For example, it is not clear whether the

second objective is to reduce the risk of property loss and economic

disruption from hazards by 15 percent from the level existing in an earlier

baseline year or to make the risk 15 percent lower in 2002 than the level

that would have prevailed in the absence of FEMA’s programs. (While the

Page 6 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

latter interpretation appears to be consistent with FEMA’s mission

statement and first goal, the discussion of performance measurement

seems to support the former interpretation.) This clarification is important

because it could affect which specific strategies to use, levels of resources

to require, and specific performance measures to use.

Furthermore, the strategic plan could be strengthened by acknowledging

that the first two goals could be somewhat conflicting. The first goal

focuses on reducing risk prior to a disaster’s striking while the second

focuses on reducing suffering after a disaster has struck. To the extent

that the fourth objective—which focuses on enhanced ability to recover

from disasters—means providing more or quicker financial assistance to

those with property losses, these two goals could conflict: The better the

emergency management partnership is at reducing human suffering and

enhancing the recovery of communities after a disaster has struck, the less

incentive the public may have to take steps that would help prevent future

losses.

Also, the OMB circular states that strategic plans are to set out long-term

objectives of the agency. One of FEMA’s objectives is to achieve 90 percent

overall customer satisfaction with its services by 2002. We note that FEMA’s

FMFIA report for fiscal year 1996 cites customer surveys showing that

nearly 89 percent of the respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied

with FEMA’s overall service. Therefore, this objective may not meet the

circular’s emphasis on long-term improvement without a discussion in the

plan that explains the significance of a 1-percent improvement target.

Strategies for Achieving

Goals/Objectives

The Results Act requires that each agency’s strategic plan describe how

the agency’s goals and objectives are to be achieved. OMB’s guidance

suggests that the plan (1) describe the operational processes,

technologies, and resources that will be used to achieve the strategic goals

and objectives and (2) provide more detail when achieving the goals

depends on a significant change in resources, technologies, or the agency’s

operations. The guidance also suggests schedules for any significant

actions as well as discussions of the process for communicating goals and

objectives throughout the agency and for assigning accountability to

managers and staff for achieving them.

FEMA’s draft plan provides information on approaches for achieving the

goals and objectives in two sections: (1) a discussion of performance

measures associated with each objective and (2) a section entitled

Page 7 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

“Strategies.” However, neither of these sections fully meets the guidance

described above—that is, they do not discuss the resources, the

technologies, or the agency operations that will be needed to accomplish

the goals and objectives, how the goals and objectives with be

communicated throughout FEMA, or how accountability will be assigned.

In addition to more fully addressing OMB’s guidance, the plan could be

strengthened if the strategies were more integrally linked to FEMA’s

strategic objectives. Some of the strategies include 5-year operational

objectives that, according to the plan, “contribute” to achieving one or

more of the agency’s three strategic goals. For example, one such

objective is, “Before 2002, at least 50 percent of all Federal departments

and agencies that influence the built environment (including FEMA) will

document the annually improved contribution their programs have made

in measurably reducing the Nation’s risk from natural hazards.” That

objective is shown to be contributing to achieving goals one and two. The

plan thus identifies which strategic goal(s) each strategy supports but does

not make clear how the strategy will contribute to achieving the goal(s).

Furthermore, because the strategies are not linked to specific strategic

objectives, the plan precludes assessing the extent to which FEMA’s

strategic goals might be achieved by following its strategies, and diffuses

accountability for achieving the strategic objectives. This reduces the

plan’s value to users in FEMA, the administration, and the Congress. One

way that FEMA could improve the linkage would be to clearly describe, for

each strategic objective, the key strategies that it intends to use to

accomplish that objective. This structure would help make the plan more

meaningful to its users, including FEMA employees throughout the agency,

and more useful in measuring the achievement of goals and in assessing

accountability.

Key External Factors The Results Act requires that strategic plans identify key factors external

to the agency and beyond its control that could significantly affect the

achievement of goals and objectives. These factors might be, for example,

economic, demographic, or social conditions. In addition to describing

each factor, Circular A-11 suggests that the strategic plans indicate how

each factor links with a particular goal(s) and describe how achievement

of a goal could be affected by the factor. Addressing key external factors is

important for evaluating the likelihood of achieving strategic goals,

identifying further actions needed to better meet these goals, and

assessing the agency’s performance.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

FEMA’s draft strategic plan does not fully comply with OMB’s guidance. For

example, to better meet OMB’s guidance, the plan should link the external

factors to particular goals or describe how achieving the goals could be

influenced by the factors.

Also, the draft plan does not explicitly mention “key external factors;” a

section labeled “Challenges” implicitly addresses such factors. This

section discusses three factors that are largely beyond FEMA’s control that

could affect its achieving the goals: the extent to which the emergency

management community functions effectively; the availability of resources

at the local, state, and federal levels; and the unpredictable nature of

disasters. To clarify the reader’s understanding of the plan, FEMA could

revise the title of this section to more accurately reflect the language of

the Results Act.

The Relationship Between

General and Annual

Performance Goals

Under the Results Act, each general goal must be linked to an agency’s

annual performance goals. A performance goal is the target level of

performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective against which

actual achievement will be compared. An annual performance goal has

two parts: (1) the performance measure that represents the specific

characteristic of the program that will be used to gauge performance and

(2) the target level of performance to be achieved during a given fiscal

year for that measure. While strategic plans are not required to identify

specific performance measures, OMB Circular A-11 suggests that strategic

plans briefly relate general goals and objectives to annual performance

goals. The guidance suggests that the plans also include descriptions of the

type, the nature, and the scope of the performance goals included in the

performance plans as well as the relevance and the use of those

performance goals to help determine the achievement of the strategic

goals.

FEMA’s draft plan does not contain an explicit discussion of the type, the

nature, and the scope of the performance goals to be included in the

annual performance plan. It does implicitly discuss the relevance and the

use of performance goals. The plan recognizes the requirement for annual

performance measures and states that the agency’s annual performance

plan will include performance goals as well as the activities and the

resources that directly contribute to accomplishing each objective and

strategic goal. Furthermore, by placing a specific time period in its

strategic objectives, the plan appears to recognize that progress will be

Page 9 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

made incrementally. Also, the discussion of performance measures that

follows each strategic objective refers to the use of annual measures.

The annual performance plans required by the Results Act should help the

Congress and the executive branch make informed decisions by providing

a simple, straightforward linkage between an agency’s plans, budgets, and

performance results. The Results Act requires agencies to develop

performance plans covering the programs and activities used in their

budget submissions. FEMA’s draft plan observes that its strategies are

directly aligned with budget activities. However, as noted above, we

believe the agency’s plan could be strengthened by specifying to which

objectives the strategies are linked.

Program Evaluations The Results Act, as supplemented by OMB’s guidance, requires that

strategic plans describe the program evaluations that were used to prepare

them and the schedule for future evaluations. FEMA’s draft strategic plan

does not include the required program evaluations.

The Results Act also requires a discussion of completed and future

program evaluations because they are effective at measuring outcomes—a

principal purpose of that act. The Results Act defines program evaluations

as an assessment, through objective measurement and systematic analysis,

of the manner and extent to which federal programs achieve intended

objectives. FEMA’s draft plan would be improved by including this element

because the use of program evaluations would enhance the agency’s

ability to ensure the validity and reasonableness of its strategic goals and

objectives. Future program evaluations will be needed to help identify

improvement strategies if FEMA’s goals and objectives are not met.

Other Observations As FEMA continues revising its draft strategic plan, it could be strengthened

if the agency considered the following observations:

Given the many and varied stakeholders that will have critical roles in

determining the extent to which FEMA’s goals are met, the plan should

briefly identify the major stakeholders that contributed to its development

both inside and outside the agency. Also, by simplifying some of the

language, the plan might more clearly communicate FEMA’s strategic

direction to make it clearer to readers outside of the emergency

management community. For example, such terms as “risk” and “all

hazards” have specific meanings in the context of emergency management

Page 10 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

that may differ from their meanings in other contexts. To FEMA’s credit, the

draft plan explicitly defines such terms as “preparedness,” “mitigation,”

“response,” and “recovery.” This change should also make FEMA’s mission

statement much clearer to external audiences.

Within the context of the third goal, which focuses on ensuring that FEMA

serves the public in a timely and cost-efficient manner, or elsewhere in the

plan, FEMA may wish to consider specifically addressing the need to

minimize disruptions that occur in its operations when a major disaster

strikes. FEMA staff are often quickly dispatched to the disaster site to aid in

preparation and response activities. While perhaps important to helping

achieve the second goal in the draft strategic plan—reducing human

suffering from the impact of disasters—this rapid exodus of agency staff

could hamper the achievement of other objectives, such as reducing the

risk of future losses.

FEMA’s Strategic Plan

Reflects Key Statutory

Authorities

Although FEMA’s plan reflects consideration of the key statutory provisions

that authorize FEMA’s programs (such as the Stafford Act), it does not

explicitly reference the major legislation or executive orders that serve as

a basis for its mission statement, goals, and strategies. The plan might

benefit from explicit references to these authorities and descriptions of

how they relate to the agency’s goals and objectives.1

 Describing this

relationship throughout the strategic plan would help ensure that FEMA’s

stated goals and objectives respond to the entire spectrum of its key

statutory authorities.

Statutory references to help clarify FEMA’s role in radiological emergencies

at commercial nuclear power facilities and its responsibilities for the flood

insurance program, the fire prevention and control program, and the

earthquake hazards reduction program would also be useful.

Draft Strategic Plan

Does Not Identify

Crosscutting Program

Activities

FEMA’s draft strategic plan clearly acknowledges that the nation’s

emergency management system depends on a partnership with states,

localities, and individuals. However, it does not reflect the significant role

that other federal agencies, such as the Small Business Administration and

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, play in emergency management,

particularly in helping communities and individuals recover from the

effects of disasters. The plan would benefit by incorporating some

1

OMB Circular A-11 suggests that an agency’s mission statement may include a brief discussion of the

agency’s enabling or authorizing legislation; this suggestion, however, does not extend to the

statement of goals and objectives.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

descriptions of other agencies’ programs and their influence on FEMA’s

strategic objectives.

Numerous federal agencies are involved in providing disaster assistance.

The Federal Response Plan—FEMA’s “blueprint” for the federal response to

disasters—identifies 27 federal agencies and the American Red Cross as

service providers when there is a need for federal assistance following any

type of disaster or emergency.

Under authorities other than the Stafford Act, federal agencies also

provide financial assistance to help communities recover from disasters.

For example, other agencies’ assistance to repair or restore certain public

facilities is an important factor in determining eligibility for public

assistance from FEMA. These agencies include the Federal Highway

Administration, whose emergency relief program funds the major portion

of the costs to permanently restore federal highways seriously damaged by

disasters; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose flood control and

coastal works rehabilitation activities provide assistance for constructing

flood control facilities and clearing debris; and the Small Business

Administration, which provides loans to businesses and homeowners to

rebuild or repair business structures and dwellings.

As previously mentioned, FEMA’s draft strategic plan might also benefit by

briefly mentioning the external stakeholders involved in its development

and how FEMA coordinated the development of its plan with federal

agencies that have related missions.

Draft Strategic Plan

Does Not Address

Management

Challenges

One of the three goals in FEMA’s draft plan is directed at better managing

the agency—to ensure that FEMA serves the public in a timely and

cost-efficient manner. However, the plan does not specifically address

certain management issues that we and others have previously identified.

One major challenge the plan does not address is containing disaster

assistance program costs, which have soared in recent years in the wake

of several large-scale disasters. Reducing these costs is an issue that has

received considerable congressional attention,2

 and several proposals,

such as the following, have been made to reduce them:

2

In the 103rd Congress, the House and the Senate established bipartisan task forces on disaster

assistance funding. See Federal Disaster Assistance, Report of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force on

Funding Disaster Relief, Document No. 104-4, Mar. 15, 1995.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

• In a May 1996 report, we presented several proposals, which had been

identified by FEMA regional officials, to reduce the costs of its public

assistance program.3

 (This program provides financial and other

assistance to restore or rebuild disaster-damaged facilities that serve a

public purpose, including government buildings and water distribution

systems.) For example, FEMA officials suggested limiting the impact of

building codes and standards and eliminating funding for some water

control projects.

• In March 1995 testimony, we discussed three broad approaches to

potentially reduce the costs of federal disaster assistance.4

 These included

(1) establishing more explicit and/or stringent criteria for providing federal

disaster assistance, (2) emphasizing hazard mitigation through incentives,

and (3) relying more on insurance.

• In a September 1995 report, we noted that the flexibility and generally

subjective nature of FEMA’s criteria had raised questions about the

consistency of providing federal disaster assistance.5

 These criteria

directly affect FEMA’s costs for providing disaster assistance.

• In July 1995, FEMA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report

identifying ways to reduce the costs of federal disaster assistance by

eliminating or restricting eligibility or by replacing existing grants with

loans.6

• Similarly, in 1993, the National Performance Review recommended that

FEMA propose comprehensive federal policies to reduce the total cost of

disasters and minimize federal costs of disaster assistance.7

FEMA’s draft strategic plan mentions cost reduction in several places. For

example, the plan recognizes the importance of mitigation—which

includes minimizing the risk of property losses from hazards—for

reducing the future societal costs of disasters. Also, the plan’s third goal

acknowledges the importance of operating in a cost-efficient manner.

However, the objective associated with this goal implies reducing FEMA’s

administrative costs, which are small relative to program costs. For

example, in fiscal year 1996, FEMA’s obligations for salaries and expenses

3

Disaster Assistance: Improvements Needed in Determining Eligibility for Public Assistance

(GAO/RCED-96-113R, May 23, 1996).

4

Disaster Assistance: Information on Expenditures and Proposals to Improve Effectiveness and

Reduce Future Costs (GAO/T-RCED-95-140, Mar. 16, 1995).

5

Disaster Assistance: Information on Declarations for Urban and Rural Areas (GAO/RCED-95-242, Sept.

14, 1995).

6

Options for Reducing Public Assistance Program Costs (Inspection Report I-02-95, July 1995).

7

National Performance Review, Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less: Federal

Emergency Management Agency (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).

Page 13 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

totaled about $164 million while obligations for the Disaster Relief Fund

were about $3.6 billion.

In addition, FEMA—like many federal agencies—faces a major challenge in

managing information resources to ensure that information technology

tools and resources are consistent with the agency’s mission. While FEMA’s

draft plan cites improvements in the delivery of telecommunications, in

data infrastructure, and in information technology projects, it does not

discuss the agency’s strategy for information technology. This strategy

should include how FEMA intends to address the “year 2000 problem,”

which involves the need to change computer systems to accommodate

dates beyond the year 1999 as well as any significant information security

weaknesses—two issues that we have identified as high risk across the

government. In addition, FEMA’s information technology strategy should

contain information on how the agency intends to comply with the

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. This act calls for agencies to implement a

framework of modern technology management based on practices

followed by leading private-sector and public-sector organizations that

have successfully used technology to dramatically improve performance

and meet strategic goals.

Furthermore, FEMA’s draft strategic plan does not directly address financial

and information management problems that could hinder the achievement

of its goals and objectives. For example, significant accounting and

financial management deficiencies have precluded FEMA from producing

reliable financial data and statements for the Disaster Relief Fund, which

represents the bulk of the agency’s budget authority (about 76 percent in

fiscal year 1996). This situation has resulted in FEMA’s inability to comply

with the Government Management Reform Act’s requirements to prepare

agencywide financial statements and have them independently audited.

Although FEMA’s draft plan includes a core value that emphasizes

“commitment to prudent management of the taxpayers’ money,” it does

not address correcting the accounting deficiencies related to the Disaster

Relief Fund that would enable FEMA to account for how the funds were

used—a logical first step towards determining whether those funds were

prudently managed.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

FEMA’s Capacity to

Provide Reliable

Information on the

Achievement of

Strategic Goals Is

Uncertain

FEMA needs reliable data to measure its progress in achieving its goals. The

performance measures discussed in FEMA’s draft strategic plan (1) include

approaches for long-term measurement processes that have not yet been

developed and/or (2) propose to use baseline data that are not yet

available. The plan does not discuss what resources may be required to

develop the proposed measurement processes and data. Obtaining

information for some performance measures may be difficult, costly, or

both. For example,

• Data may be scarce for some of the plan’s proposed proxy measures. For

example, one proxy uses, as its universe, communities that have

(1) experienced a presidentially declared disaster, (2) implemented

mitigation measures, and (3) experienced a similar type disaster within a

10-year period. Communities that meet all three criteria might be rare.

• One measure includes quantifying access to roads and transportation,

educational institutions, medical facilities, utilities, water treatment, and

businesses following a disaster. Depending on data availability and

reliability, this measure may be difficult to quantify.

• In several cases, surveys are proposed as the methodology to measure

performance. Depending on their size, scope, and rigor, surveys may be

costly.

Also, as we and others have found, FEMA’s financial and information

management systems may not have the capacity to generate sufficiently

reliable information to monitor progress towards its goals. For example,

the 1996 financial statement audit indicated that FEMA’s Integrated

Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) was not fully

implemented; the data conversion from the legacy system to IFMIS was

insufficiently documented, tested, and approved; and FEMA had no written

security policies and procedures for portions of that system. IFMIS is the

source of information pertinent to certain cost-efficiency performance

measures contained in the agency’s draft strategic plan. Also, FEMA’s fiscal

year 1996 FMFIA report identified several financial information system

weaknesses, including a lack of data standardization and system

documentation. Until FEMA corrects these problems, the agency will be

hindered in its ability to produce reliable data needed for developing and

reporting useful performance measures.

Once FEMA develops its final performance measures, it may need to

consider appropriate system modifications to capture needed data. Key

requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 are the

development of cost information to enable the systematic measurement of

Page 15 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

performance and the integration of systems—program, accounting, and

budget systems.

Agency Comments On July 18, 1997, we provided FEMA with a draft of this report for review

and comment. On July 21, 1997, we obtained comments from officials from

the Office of Policy and Regional Operations. Overall, FEMA officials agreed

with our observations and our facts, indicating that the report provided

helpful information. FEMA officials were concerned that if they

incorporated all our suggestions, the document would be too voluminous.

They stated that other documents, such as 5-year plans and annual plans,

would contribute to fully meeting the requirements of the Results Act. We

agree and believe that the strategic plan should be a document that is

useful to the Congress and FEMA in implementing the Results Act but

should not be so voluminous and detailed so as to impede its utility. The

intent of our report is to provide suggestions for FEMA’s consideration.

FEMA officials also reiterated that they believe they are making good

progress in meeting the intent of the Results Act because they have been

incorporating strategic planning in FEMA’s operations since 1993. We

incorporated, where appropriate, changes suggested by the officials to

clarify certain information presented.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days. At that

time, we will send copies to the Minority Leader of the House of

Representatives; the Ranking Minority Members of your committees; the

Chairmen and the Ranking Minority Members of other committees that

have jurisdiction over FEMA’s activities; the Director of FEMA; and the

Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available

to others on request.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
B-277479 

Major contributors to this report include Dave Wood, Carole Buncher,

Paul Bryant, Mark Connelly, Dianne Langston, James Hamilton, and Mike

Volpe. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,

please contact me at (202) 512-7631.

Judy A. England-Joseph

Director, Housing and Community

 Development Issues

(385688) Page 17 GAO/RCED-97-204R FEMA’s Strategic Plan
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100