United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives

EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT 

Status of School Districts’ 

Planning and Preparedness 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 17, 2007

 

GAO-07-821T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 17, 2007

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Status of School Districts’ Planning and 

Highlights of GAO-07-821T, a testimony Preparedness 

before the Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives 

Events such as the recent 

shootings by armed intruders in

schools across the nation, natural 

disasters, the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, and potential

pandemics have heightened

awareness for the need for school

districts to be prepared to address 

a range of emergencies within and 

outside of schools buildings. 

Congress has raised concerns over 

school preparedness, with a 

particular interest in how federal 

agencies provide assistance to

school districts. 

This testimony discusses 

preliminary findings related to 

GAO’s review of emergency 

management in school districts,

including (1) the roles of federal 

and state governments in

establishing requirements and 

providing resources to school 

districts for emergency 

management planning, (2) what 

school districts have done to plan 

and prepare for emergencies, and 

(3) the challenges school districts 

have experienced in planning for

emergencies, and communicating

and coordinating with first 

responders, parents, and students. 

To obtain this information, GAO 

interviewed federal officials, 

surveyed a stratified random 

sample of all public school 

districts, surveyed state agencies 

that administer federal grants that

can be used for school emergency 

management planning, conducted 

site visits to school districts, and 

reviewed relevant documents. 

Federal and state governments have a role in supporting emergency

management in school districts. While no federal laws require school districts to 

have emergency management plans, 32 states reported having laws or policies 

requiring school districts to have such plans. The Departments of Education and 

Homeland Security (DHS) provide funding for emergency management planning

in schools. However, some DHS program guidance, for specific grants, does not 

clearly identify school districts as entities to which state and local governments 

may disburse grant funds. Thus, states receiving this funding may be uncertain

as to whether such funding can be allocated to school districts or schools and 

therefore may not have the opportunity to benefit from this funding. States also 

provide funding and other resources to school districts to assist them in 

planning for emergencies. 

School districts have taken steps to plan for a range of emergencies, as most

have developed multi-hazard emergency management plans; however some 

plans and activities do not address federally recommended practices. For 

example, based on GAO’s survey of a sample of public school districts, an 

estimated 56 percent of all school districts have not employed any procedures in

their plans for continuing student education in the event of an extended school 

closure, such as might occur during a pandemic, and many do not include 

procedures for special needs students. Fewer than half of districts with 

emergency plans involve community partners when developing and updating 

these plans. Finally, school districts are generally not training with first 

responders or community partners on how to implement their school district

emergency plans. 

Estimated Percentages of Urban and Rural Districts’ Multi-Hazard Emergency Management

Plans that Include Specific Types of Incidents 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pandemic 

influenza

Natural Terrorism Radiological Anthrax

disastersa

Bombs or 

bomb threatsa

Intruder/

hostagea

Percentage

Type of incident

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

Urban Rural

99 98 100 98 98 95

86

70

60

29

57

26

52

36

a

Differences between urban and rural districts are not statistically significant. 

Many school district officials said that they experience challenges in planning 

for emergencies and some school districts face difficulties in communicating

and coordinating with first responders and parents, but most said that they do 

not experience challenges in communicating with students. For example, in 

an estimated 62 percent of districts, officials identified challenges stemming

from a lack of equipment, training for staff, and personnel with expertise in the 

area of emergency planning as obstacles to implementing recommended

practices.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-821T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss emergency management in public

school districts. The nation’s more than 17,000 school districts are 

responsible for maintaining the safety and security of approximately 

49 million public school students. Events such as the recent shootings by 

armed intruders in schools across the nation, natural disasters such as 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2001, and potential pandemics have heightened awareness of the need for 

school districts to be prepared to address a range of emergencies within 

and outside of school buildings. 

My testimony today is drawn from ongoing work we have conducted for 

this Committee and other congressional requesters on emergency 

management in school districts. We anticipate completing the report in 

June 2007. “Emergency management” refers to the range of efforts 

involved in building the capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, 

and recover from an incident. Planning for such incidents varies by the 

type and scale of the incident. The federal government’s role in emergency

management is principally to support state and local activities and develop

the federal capabilities to respond effectively when state and local 

governments require federal assistance. Some federal support comes in 

the form of guidance and recommendations. Because the federal 

government serves as a partner to all states, it is uniquely positioned to 

observe and evaluate the range of emergency management activities 

across states and local governments, including school districts, and 

disseminate information on recommended practices and successful 

strategies. 

My testimony today will focus on (1) the role of the federal and state 

governments in establishing requirements and providing resources to 

school districts for emergency management planning, (2) what school 

districts have done to plan and prepare for emergencies, and, briefly, 

(3) the challenges school districts have experienced in planning for 

emergencies and communicating and coordinating with first responders, 

parents, and students. When discussing the federal government, I am 

primarily referring to the three agencies included in our report—the 

Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Education (Education), and 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

To determine the role of the federal and state governments, planning 

requirements for school districts and schools, and the types of resources 

provided to districts, we conducted interviews with officials representing 

Page 1 GAO-07-821T 
DHS, Education, and HHS and reviewed relevant federal laws. We also 

administered two surveys, one to state education agencies and one to state 

administering agencies (the state agencies to which DHS disburses 

emergency management funding) in all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. To better understand how school districts plan and prepare for 

emergencies, we administered a mail survey to a stratified random sample 

of school districts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Using a 

95 percent confidence interval, all percentage estimates included in this 

statement have a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percent or less, 

unless otherwise noted. To further understand the experiences districts 

have had in planning for emergencies and communicating and

coordinating with first responders1

, parents, and students, we visited 

selected districts in the states of Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, North 

Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. In total, we conducted semi-structured 

interviews, either in person or by telephone, with officials in 27 school 

districts. We are conducting the review in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, federal and state governments support emergency 

management in school districts with a range of resources and most school 

districts have developed emergency management plans despite facing

challenges; however not all of these plans incorporate recommended 

practices. Federal and state governments provide funding, guidance, 

training, and equipment; and many states require school districts to 

develop emergency management plans or engage in other planning 

activities. However, funding guidance for some federal grant programs 

does not clearly identify school districts as entities to which state and 

local governments may disburse these grant funds. Therefore, some states 

receiving this funding may be uncertain as to whether such funding can be 

 1

In both our site visits and our survey of school districts, we focused on the traditional 

definition of first responders—law enforcement, fire, and EMS. However, the Homeland 

Security Act as amended includes a broader definition of emergency response providers,

including “Federal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental emergency public 

safety, fire, law enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital 

emergency facilities), and related personnel, agencies, and authorities.” Homeland Security

Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 2,(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 101(6)). Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive 8 defined the term “first responder” as “individuals who in the early 

stages of an incident are responsible for the protection and preservation of life, property, 

evidence, and the environment, including emergency response providers as defined in

section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101), as well as emergency 

management, public health, clinical care, public works, and other skilled support personnel 

(such as equipment operators) that provide immediate support services during prevention, 

response, and recovery operations.”

Page 2 GAO-07-821T 
allocated to school districts or schools; and as a result, school districts 

may not have the opportunity to benefit from this funding. At the local 

level, school districts have taken a number of important steps to plan for a 

range of emergencies, most notably developing emergency management 

plans; however, in many districts these plans, or their implementation, do 

not align with federally recommended practices. For example, many 

school districts do not include procedures for special needs students in 

their plans and many districts have not employed any procedures in their 

plans for continuing student education in the event of an extended school 

closure, such as might occur during a pandemic. Additionally, school 

districts are generally not training with their first responders (i.e., law 

enforcement, fire, and Emergency Medical Services [EMS]) and 

community partners (such as the local head of government and local 

public health agency), which are both federally recommended practices. 

Finally, many school district officials said that they experience challenges

in planning for emergencies due to a lack of equipment, training for staff, 

and expertise and some school districts face difficulties in communicating 

and coordinating with first responders and parents, but most said that they 

do not experience challenges in communicating emergency procedures to 

students. We are currently considering recommendations that federal 

agencies clarify and improve guidance to states and school districts to 

better enable school districts to incorporate recommended practices for 

emergency management. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and consolidated most of 

the federal programs and agencies with responsibilities for emergency 

management into that agency.2

 DHS serves as a federal partner to state and 

local governments in emergency management.3

 DHS provides technical 

assistance and homeland security grant funding to states and local 

governments to enhance their emergency management efforts. States and

local governments have the responsibility for spending DHS grant funds in 

Background 

 2

Pub. L. No. 107-296. 

3

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707, 

provides the legal framework for this partnership. The Stafford Act is the principal federal

statute governing federal disaster assistance and relief and primarily establishes the 

programs for and processes by which the federal government may provide major disaster 

and emergency assistance to states and local governments. The Stafford Act also provides 

emergency assistance to tribal nations, individuals and qualified private non-profit 

organizations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the principal

federal agency responsible for implementing the Stafford Act. 

Page 3 GAO-07-821T 
accordance with DHS guidelines to meet local emergency management 

needs. In fiscal year 2006, DHS awarded $1.7 billion to states, urban areas, 

and territories to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other 

disasters. States and local governments may then provide a portion of this 

funding to a range of entities, as specified in DHS’s program guidance. 

As we have noted in prior reports, emergency management requires 

coordinated planning and implementation by a variety of participants. 

Effective emergency management requires identifying the hazards for 

which it is necessary to be prepared (risk assessments); establishing clear 

roles and responsibilities that are effectively communicated and well 

understood; and developing, maintaining, and mobilizing needed 

capabilities, such as people, skills, and equipment.4

 The plans and 

capabilities should be tested and assessed through realistic exercises that

identify strengths and areas that need improvement, with any needed 

changes made to both plans and capabilities. 

The hazards that school districts may face will vary across the country 

depending upon the natural hazards to which their particular areas are 

prone and an assessment of other risks for which they need to be 

prepared, such as pandemic influenza or the discharge of hazardous 

substances from nearby chemical or nuclear plants. Similarly, who should 

be involved in emergency planning and response for schools, and the roles 

of the various participants will vary by type and size of the emergency 

incident. For large-scale emergencies, effective response is likely to 

involve all levels of government—federal, state, and local—

nongovernment entities, such as the Red Cross, and the private sector. 

 4

GAO, Homeland Security: Preparing for and Responding to Disasters, GAO-07-395T 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2007); and Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, 

Capabilities, and Accountability Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the 

Nation’s Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System, GAO-06-618 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 6, 2006). 

Page 4 GAO-07-821T 
Although no federal laws exist requiring school districts to have 

emergency management plans, most states reported having requirements 

for school emergency management planning; however, the federal 

government, along with states, provides financial and other resources for 

such planning. Education, DHS, and state governments provide funding for 

emergency management planning in schools. However, DHS program 

guidance does not clearly identify school districts as entities to which 

states and local governments may disburse grant funds. Not all states 

receiving DHS funding are aware that such funding could be disbursed to 

school districts. In addition to providing funding, the federal government 

assists school districts and schools in emergency management planning by 

providing other resources such as guidance, training, and equipment. 

Federal and State 

Governments Provide 

Resources to School 

Districts for 

Emergency 

Management 

Planning, While Only 

States Have Laws that 

Require School 

Emergency 

Management Planning 

Although No Federal Laws 

Exist Requiring School 

District Emergency 

Management Planning, the 

Majority of States Have 

Requirements 

Although there are no federal laws requiring school districts to have 

emergency management plans, many states reported having laws or other 

policies that do so. Congress has not enacted any broadly applicable laws 

requiring all school districts to have emergency management plans. While 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 provides that local education 

agencies (LEAs or school districts) applying for subgrants under the Safe

and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program include in their grant 

applications an assurance that either they or their schools have “a plan for 

keeping schools safe and drug-free that includes...a crisis management 

plan for responding to violent or traumatic incidents on school grounds”, 

Education has not issued any regulations imposing such a requirement on 

all school districts.5

 However, 32 of the states responding to our survey of 

state administering agencies and state education agencies reported having

laws or other policies requiring school districts or schools to have a 

written emergency management plan (see fig. 1). Several state laws 

identify a broad range of specific emergencies that schools or districts are 

required to address in their plans, while many other states do not identify

particular kinds of crises or use more general language to refer to the 

kinds of emergencies that plans must incorporate.

 5

20 U.S.C. § 7114(d)(7)(D). However, these plans are not required to address multiple 

hazards; therefore, for purposes of this report, we do not consider this to be a requirement 

for an emergency management plan. 

Page 5 GAO-07-821T 
Figure 1: States That Reported Having Laws or Other Policies Requiring School Districts or Schools to Have Emergency

Management Plans

VT

AZ

CA

GA

IL IN

ME

MA

NM

NY

OR

PA

TX

FL

MS

OH

OK

SD

WY

AK

WA

NV

UT

CO

MN

VA

SC

TN

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

States reporting requirements for districts or schools to have emergency management plans.

RI

NJ

DE

MD

Page 6 GAO-07-821T 
Education and DHS provided some funding to school districts for 

emergency management. Education provides funding to some school 

districts specifically for emergency management planning through its 

Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM) Grant Program.6

Since fiscal year 2003, Education dispersed $130 million in such grants to 

over 400 of the over 17,0007

 school districts in the United States. These 

grant awards ranged from $68,875 to $1,365,087.

Federal Agencies and 

States Provide Funding for 

School Districts’ 

Emergency Management 

Planning 

DHS provides funding to states and local jurisdictions for emergency 

management planning, some of which can be provided to school districts 

or schools for emergency management planning. DHS officials told us that 

such funds are available through the State Homeland Security Program, 

Urban Areas Security Initiative, and Citizen Corps grants.8

 Five states—

Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wyoming—reported that they

provided approximately $14 million in DHS funding directly to school 

districts in these states during fiscal years 2003–2006. In addition, eight 

states and the District of Columbia reported that they provided DHS 

funding to local jurisdictions that then provided a portion of these funds to 

school districts or schools for emergency management planning.9

 6

The purpose of the ERCM grant program is to provide funds for local education agencies 

to improve and strengthen their emergency response plans. School districts receiving grant

funds under this program may use them to develop improved plans that address all four 

phases of crisis response: prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. In

April 2007, Education announced that it was renaming the ERCM grant as the Readiness 

and Emergency Management for Schools grant program (REMS) to reflect terminology

used in the emergency management field. 72 Fed. Reg. 17,139 (April 6, 2007) 

7

As reported by the states to the Department of Education and contained in the Common 

Core Data (CCD), there were over 17,000 school districts in the United States in school

year 2003-04. This number includes school districts in Puerto Rico; four outlying areas 

(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands); the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs; and the Department of Defense, which were eligible for funds but we 

excluded from the sample for our survey of school districts. Department of Defense

schools are included in the CCD count of school districts, but according to Education

officials, such schools are not eligible to receive funding under the ERCM/REMS grant 

program. 

8

The State Homeland Security Program provides funds to enhance the emergency 

preparedness of state and local governments. The Urban Areas Security Initiative grant is 

awarded to some states with high threat and high density urban areas that need planning, 

exercises, equipment, and training to respond to acts of terrorism. Citizen Corps funds are 

provided to states to promote volunteer efforts. 

9

A ninth state distributed DHS funding to its state education agency, which then provided 

the funding to public schools in its state. 

Page 7 GAO-07-821T 
Although DHS officials told us that these three grant programs allow for 

the use of funds at the district or school level, the department’s program 

guidance does not clearly specify that school districts are among the 

entities to which state and local governments may disburse funds.10 As a 

result, some states may not be aware of their availability. 

State governments also provide state funds to school districts. Eleven of 

the 49 states11 responding to surveys we sent to state education and state 

administering agencies reported providing state funding to school districts 

for emergency management planning. 

Federal Agencies and 

States Provide Guidance, 

Training, and Equipment 

for Emergency 

Management in School 

Districts 

The federal government also provides guidance, training, and equipment to

school districts to assist in emergency management planning (see table 1).

 10DHS guidance for these grant programs provides that state administering agencies are the

only agencies eligible to apply for funding and that they are responsible for disbursing 

grant funds to local units of government and other designated recipients. The guidance

identifies a definition of “local unit of government” that was used in the Conference Report

accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act of 2006, and which includes “any county, city, 

village, town, district, borough, parish, port authority, transit authority, intercity rail 

provider, commuter rail system, freight rail provider, water district, regional planning

commission, council of government, Indian tribe with jurisdiction over Indian country, 

authorized Tribal organization, Alaska Native village, independent authority, special 

district, or other political subdivision of any State.” 

11We included the District of Columbia in our state education and state administering 

agency surveys. 

Page 8 GAO-07-821T 
Table 1: Examples of Guidance, Training, and Equipment the Federal Government

Provides to School Districts

Examples of guidance

• Education publishes a guide for schools and communities titled Practical 

Information on Crisis Planning, which explains, among other things, how schools

can prepare for an emergency.

• DHS created a Web site, How Schools Can Become More Disaster Resistant, that 

provides guidance for teachers and parents regarding how to prepare emergency 

management plans. The site also discusses identifying and mitigating hazards, 

developing response and coping plans, and implementing safety drills. 

Examples of training

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within DHS, offers on-line 

courses including one on emergency management planning for schools. 

• Education offers two 1-1⁄2 day Emergency Management for Schools training

sessions that provide school personnel with critical training on emergency 

management issues, resources, and practices. Emphasis for these trainings is

placed on emergency management plan development and enhancement within the 

framework of four phases of emergency management: prevention and mitigation, 

preparedness, response, and recovery. 

Examples of equipment 

• With funding from DHS and support from Education, the Department of 

Commerce’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) distributed 

96,000 NOAA radios to almost all public schools in the United States in 2005 and 

2006. These radios are intended to notify school officials of hazards in their area 24 

hours a day/7 days a week, even when other means of communication are 

disabled.

a

 

Source: Education, DHS, and HHS. 

a

Schools receiving NOAA radios included those in six states that, according to DHS, mandate that 

public schools have radios. These states are Washington, Tennessee, North Carolina, Maryland, 

Florida, and Mississippi. DHS told us that they have procedures in place to allow a school to request 

a radio if it did not receive one. DHS officials also told us that they plan to distribute NOAA radios to 

non-public schools (private, independent, and parochial and other faith-based institutions), 

postsecondary education facilities, and district offices in 2007. 

Education, DHS, and HHS have collaborated and developed recommended 

practices to assist in preparing for emergencies that can be applied to 

school districts.12 Some of these practices are shown in table 2. 

 12Education, for example, also obtained input from state and local school and emergency 

management officials and associations in developing these recommended practices. 

Page 9 GAO-07-821T 
Table 2: Selected Practices that Education, DHS, and HHS Recommend School

Districts Take to Prepare for Emergencies

Recommended practices 

• Allocate time to emergency management planning. 

• Conduct an assessment of vulnerabilities. 

• Conduct regular drills. 

• Identify and acquire equipment to mitigate and respond to emergencies. 

• Identify a storage location and replenish emergency supplies on a regular basis. 

• Develop an emergency management plan and update the plan on a regular basis. In 

developing and updating this plan, school districts should: 

• Identify and address a range of events and hazards specific to the district or 

schools. 

• Develop roles and responsibilities and procedures for school community 

members. 

• Develop roles and responsibilities for first responders and community partners. 

• Develop procedures for communicating with key stakeholders such as parents

and students, including those who are limited-English proficient. 

• Develop procedures for special needs students. 

• Develop procedures in the plan for recovering from an incident, including 

continuing student education during an extended school closure. 

• Determine lessons learned after an incident or training. 

• Develop multi-purpose manuals, with emergency management information, that 

can be tailored to meet individual school needs. 

• Include community partners such as local government and public health agencies in 

planning.

• Coordinate the school district’s emergency procedures with state and local 

governments. 

• Practice the emergency management plan with first responders and community 

partners on a regular basis. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education, DHS, and HHS guidance and training documents. 

The type of guidance available from the federal government on topics 

related to these recommended practices varies significantly; in some 

instances, federal agencies provide detailed instructions on how to 

implement recommended practices while, in other instances, guidance is 

less detailed. 

We have also recognized the importance of certain of these practices in 

our prior reports on emergency management.13 We have noted the 

importance of realistic training exercises followed by a careful assessment 

 13See GAO-07-395T and GAO-06-618. 

Page 10 GAO-07-821T 
of those exercises. Those with whom the school districts should 

coordinate and train will vary by the type and size of the emergency. For 

example, for a potential pandemic flu or other major infectious outbreak,

planning and working with local health authorities is critical.

In addition to the federal government, states provide guidance and training 

to school districts. Based on our survey of state administrative agencies 

and state education agencies, 47 states reported providing guidance and 

37 states reported providing training. Some states also reported providing 

online resources that include guidance and training. 

Almost all school districts have taken steps to prepare for emergencies, 

including developing written plans, but some plans do not address 

federally recommended practices such as establishing procedures for 

special needs students and procedures for continued student education in

the event of an extended closure. Additionally, many school districts do 

not have procedures for training regularly with first responders and 

community partners. 

Most Districts Have 

Taken Steps to 

Prepare for 

Emergencies, but 

Some Plans and 

Activities Do Not 

Address 

Recommended 

Practices 

Most School Districts Have 

Undertaken Some 

Emergency Management 

Activities

Many school districts, those with and without emergency management 

plans, have undertaken activities to prepare for emergencies. Based on our 

survey of school districts, we estimate that 93 percent of all school 

districts conduct inspections of their school buildings and grounds to 

identify possible vulnerabilities in accordance with recommended 

practices. Of those school districts, 87 percent made security 

enhancements to their school facilities and grounds as a result of these 

inspections. Security enhancements included adding or enhancing 

equipment to communicate with school employees, strengthening the 

perimeter security of the school, and enhancing access controls. 

In addition to conducting vulnerability assessments, many school districts 

carry out a number of other activities to prepare for emergencies such as 

conducting some type of school drill or exercise and maintaining a storage 

location for and replenishing emergency supplies such as food, water, and 

first-aid supplies, as recommended. Additionally, school districts took 

Page 11 GAO-07-821T 
responsibility for a number of activities to prepare for emergencies at the 

district level such as negotiating the use of school buildings as community 

shelters and identifying security needs in schools. These activities can vary 

by locality depending on community needs and include oversight, 

coordination with other entities, and training. 

Most Districts Have 

Emergency Management 

Plans That Address 

Multiple Hazards, but the 

Content of Plans Varies 

Significantly 

Most school districts have developed written emergency management 

plans that address multiple hazards. Based on our survey of school 

districts, we estimate that 95 percent of all school districts have written 

emergency management plans with no statistical difference between urban 

and rural districts.14 Of those school districts that have written emergency 

plans, nearly all (99.6 percent) address multiple hazards in accordance 

with recommended practices to prepare for emergencies. However, the 

specific hazards addressed by plans vary. (See fig. 2.) In some instances, 

the hazards included in emergency plans are specific to local conditions, 

which is to be expected.

 14Those school districts that did not have a written emergency management plan cited 

several reasons for the lack of such plans that included (1) no requirement to have a 

written plan, (2) inadequate resources for experienced personnel to develop emergency

plans, and (3) schools, not the district, have individual plans.

Page 12 GAO-07-821T 
Figure 2: Estimated Percentages of Urban and Rural Districts’ Multi-Hazard Emergency Management Plans that Include

Specific Types of Incidents 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pandemic

influenza

Natural Terrorism Radiological Anthrax

disastersa Bombs orbomb threatsa Intruder/hostagea

Percentage

Type of incident

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

Urban

Rural

99 98 100 98 98

95

86

70

60

29

57

26

52

36

a

Differences between urban and rural districts are not statistically significant. 

The extent to which school districts’ emergency management plans and 

planning activities are consistent with other recommended practices 

varies: 

Develop Roles and Responsibilities for School Community 

Members. Based on our survey of school districts, most districts have 

written roles and responsibilities in their plans for staff such as 

superintendents, building engineers or custodians, principals, teachers, 

and nurses. 

Develop Roles and Responsibilities for First Responders and 

Community Partners. Based on our survey, we estimate that 43 percent 

of school districts use the Incident Command System (ICS)—established 

Page 13 GAO-07-821T 
by DHS as part of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)15— 

to establish the roles and responsibilities of school district officials, local 

first responders, and community partners during an emergency, in 

accordance with recommended practices. 

Develop Procedures for Communicating with Key Stakeholders.

Central to district emergency plans is the inclusion of procedures for 

communicating with key stakeholders such as staff, parents, and students, 

including those who are Limited-English Proficient. Our survey finds that

roughly three-quarters of all school districts have not included written 

procedures in their plans for communicating with Limited-English 

Proficient parents and students, in accordance with federally 

recommended practices. 

Develop Procedures for Special Needs Students. Although the 

number of special needs students in the schools is growing, our survey 

finds that an estimated 28 percent of school districts with emergency 

management plans do not have specific provisions for them in their 

emergency management plans. Education officials told us that because 

there is no agreement among disability groups on what the best practices

are for special needs students in an emergency, districts usually devise 

their own procedures. According to these officials, some of these 

procedures such as keeping special needs students in their classrooms 

during some emergencies may not ensure the students’ safety in an 

emergency. 

Develop Procedures for Recovering from an Incident. Over half of all 

school districts with written emergency plans include procedures in their 

plans to assist with recovering from an incident, in accordance with 

recommended practices. School districts’ plans include such procedures 

as providing on-site trauma teams, restoring district administrative 

 15The Incident Command System is a standard incident management system to assist in

managing all major incidents. The Incident Command System also prescribes interoperable 

communications systems and preparedness before an incident happens, including planning, 

training, and exercises. The Incident Command System was developed in the 1970s

following a series of catastrophic fires. Specifically, researchers determined that response 

problems were more likely to result from inadequate management rather than from any

other reason. The Incident Command System was designed so that responders from 

different jurisdictions and disciplines could work together better to respond to natural 

disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism. NIMS includes a unified approach

to incident management: standard command and management structures, and emphasis on 

preparedness, mutual aid, and resource management. 

Page 14 GAO-07-821T 
functions, and conducting assessments of damage to school buildings and 

grounds. 

Develop Procedures for the Continuation of Student Education.

Few school districts’ emergency plans contain procedures for continuing 

student education in the event of an extended school closure, such as a 

pandemic outbreak, although it is a federally recommended practice. 

Based on our survey, we estimate that 56 percent of school districts do not 

include any of the following procedures (see table 3) in their plans for the

continuation of student education during an extended school closure. 

Without such procedures school districts may not be able to educate 

students during a school closure that could last from several days to a year

or longer. 

Table 3: Percentages of School Districts with Written Plans that Include Certain

Types of Procedures to Continue Student Educational Instruction in the Event of an

Extended School Closure

Types of procedure to continue student educational instruction 

Estimated 

percentage

of school

districts with

written plans

that include 

procedure

Electronic or human telephone trees to communicate academic 

information to students

30

Web-based distance instruction 12

Mailed lessons and assignments 10

Academic instruction via local radio or television stations 7

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. 

Determine Lessons Learned. Based on our survey of school districts, 

we estimate that 38 percent of districts have emergency management 

plans that contain procedures for reviewing lessons learned to analyze 

how well the plans worked in responding to a drill or emergency. Of the 

remaining school districts, 53 percent indicated they have procedures but 

those procedures are not included in their plans and 7 percent have no 

such procedures. 

Develop Multi-Purpose Manuals. Some school districts have multipurpose manuals that contain various types of information such as roles 

and responsibilities for staff, descriptions of how to respond to different 

Page 15 GAO-07-821T 
types of emergencies, as well as site specific information for individual 

schools to complete in order to tailor their plan. In contrast, other districts 

provide less information. For example, one district’s plan consisted of a 

flipchart with contact information on whom to call during an emergency.

Involve Local Government and Public Heath Agencies in

Developing and Updating Plans. School districts differed in the extent

to which they involve community partners in the development and 

updating of their plans.16 Fewer than half of school districts with 

emergency management plans involve community partners such as the 

local head of government (43 percent) or the local public health agency 

(42 percent) when developing and updating their emergency management 

plans, as recommended by HHS.17 According to written guidance provided

by Education, those school districts that do not include community 

partners in the development and updating of their plans may limit their 

opportunity to exchange information with local officials, take advantage of

local resources, and identify gaps in their plan. More than half (52 percent) 

of all school districts with emergency management plans report regularly 

(i.e., at least once a year) updating their emergency management plans in 

accordance with recommended practices. However, 10 percent of all

school districts had never updated their plans. 

Train with First Responders. Based on our survey, we estimate that 

27 percent of all school districts with emergency management plans have 

never trained with any first responders on how to implement the plans, in 

accordance with federally recommended practices. The reasons why 

school districts are not training with first responders are not readily 

apparent. As we have previously reported, involving first responder groups 

in training and exercise programs can better familiarize first responders 

with and prepare first responders for their roles in an emergency as well 

as assess the effectiveness of a school or district emergency plan.18

 16In our survey, community partners included representatives from public health, mental

health, local head of government, transportation, hospitals, Red Cross, faith-based 

community, and the business community. 

17Twelve percent of school districts do not know whether public health agencies were 

included in the development and update of plans. Thirteen percent of districts do not know

whether the local head of government was included in the development and update of 

plans.

18See GAO-06-618. 

Page 16 GAO-07-821T 
Train with Community Partners. School districts report training with 

community partners—such as local government and local public health

entities—on activities to prepare for an emergency with similar frequency.

Specifically, we estimate that 29 percent of all school districts train with 

community partners. As with first responders, the reasons for the lack of 

training with community partners are not readily apparent. In our work on 

Hurricane Katrina, we reported that involving local community partners in

exercise programs and training could help prepare community partners 

and enhance their understanding of their roles in an emergency as well as 

help assess the effectiveness of a school district’s emergency plan.19

Without such training, school districts and their community partners may 

not fully understand their roles and responsibilities and could be at risk of

not responding effectively during a school emergency. 

In planning for emergencies, many school districts face challenges 

resulting from competing priorities, a lack of equipment, and limited 

expertise; some school districts experience difficulties in communicating 

and coordinating with first responders and parents, but most do not have 

such challenges with students. 

School Districts 

Report Challenges in 

Planning for 

Emergencies and 

Difficulties in 

Communicating with 

First Responders and 

Parents 

Competing Priorities, Lack 

of Equipment, and Limited 

Expertise Are Obstacles to 

Incorporating 

Recommended Practices 

in Emergency Management 

Planning 

School district officials who responded to our survey reported difficulty in 

following the recommended practice of allocating time to emergency

management planning, given the higher priority and competing demand on 

their time for educating students and carrying out other administrative 

responsibilities. Based on our survey of school districts, we estimate that 

in 70 percent of all districts, officials consider competing priorities to be a 

challenge to planning for emergencies. 

In an estimated 62 percent of districts, officials cited a lack of equipment 

and expertise as impediments to emergency planning. For example, 

 19See GAO-06-618. 

Page 17 GAO-07-821T 
officials in one Massachusetts school district we visited reported that they 

do not have adequate locks on some of the doors to school buildings to 

implement a lockdown procedure. In a North Carolina district we visited, 

officials said a lack of two-way radios for staff in the elementary schools 

hinders their ability to communicate with one another and with first 

responders during an emergency.20 As demonstrated in these school 

districts, the lack of equipment would prevent districts from implementing 

the procedures in their plans and hinder communication among district 

staff and with first responders during emergencies. In addition to not 

having sufficient equipment, school district officials we spoke with 

described a shortage of expertise in both planning for and managing 

emergencies. These officials said their districts lacked specialized 

personnel and training with which to develop needed expertise. For 

example, district officials in 5 of the 27 districts we interviewed noted that 

they do not have sufficient funding to hire full-time emergency 

management staff to provide such training or take responsibility for 

updating their district plans. These officials noted that the lack of 

expertise makes it difficult to adequately plan for responding to 

emergencies. 

School districts we interviewed also reported challenges in incorporating 

special needs students in emergency management planning. According to 

officials in about half (13 of 27) of the districts in which we conducted 

interviews, a lack of equipment or expertise poses challenges for 

districts—particularly in the area of evacuating special needs students. For 

example, an official in one school district, said that the district tracks the 

location of special needs students, but many of the district’s schools do 

not have evacuation equipment (e.g., evacuation chairs used to transport 

disabled persons down a flight of stairs) to remove students from 

buildings and staff need more training on how to operate the existing 

equipment 

 20Two-way radios, commonly known as walkie-talkies, are radios that can alternate 

between receiving and transmitting messages. Cellular telephones and satellite telephones 

are also two-way radios but, unlike walkie-talkies, simultaneously receive and transmit 

messages. 

Page 18 GAO-07-821T 
Based on our survey of school districts, an estimated 39 percent of 

districts with emergency plans experience challenges in communicating 

and coordinating with local first responders.21 Specifically, these school 

districts experience a lack of partnerships with all or specific first 

responders, limited time or funding to collaborate with first responders on 

plans for emergencies, or a lack of interoperability between the equipment 

used by the school district and equipment used by first responders. For 

example, the superintendent of a Washington school district we visited 

said that law enforcement has not been responsive to the district’s 

requests to participate in emergency drills, and, in addition to never having 

had a districtwide drill with first responders, competition among city,

county, and private first responders has made it difficult for the school 

district to know with which first responder entity it should coordinate. 

According to guidance provided by Education, the lack of partnerships, as 

demonstrated in these school districts, can lead to an absence of training 

that prevents schools and first responders from understanding their roles 

and responsibilities during emergencies. Additionally, in 8 of the 27 

districts we interviewed, officials said that the two-way radios or other 

equipment used in their school districts lacked interoperability with the 

radios used by first responders.22

Some School Districts 

Reported Difficulty in 

Communicating and 

Coordinating with First 

Responders 

School Districts Have 

Methods to Communicate 

With Parents, but Face 

Challenges in Ensuring 

Parents Receive 

Consistent Information 

during Incidents 

In keeping with recommended practices that call for school districts to 

have a way to contact parents of students enrolled in the district, all of the

27 school districts we interviewed had ways of communicating emergency 

procedures to parents prior to (e.g., newsletters), during (e.g., media, 

telephone), and after an incident (e.g., letters). Eleven of these districts 

have a system that can send instant electronic and telephone messages to 

parents of students in the district. Despite having these methods, 16 of the 

27 districts we interviewed experience difficulties in implementing the

 21Thirteen percent of school districts reported not knowing whether the district has 

challenges related to first responders. 

22GAO has reported on the range of issues associated with the lack of interoperability 

among first responders and the implications of these issues for emergency management. 

For a fuller discussion of these issues see the following GAO reports: First Responders: 

Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability, GAO-07-301 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2007); Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, 

Capabilities, and Accountability Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation’s

Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System, GAO-06-618 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6,

2006); and Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation 

Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications. GAO-04-740 

(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004). 

Page 19 GAO-07-821T 
recommended practice that school districts communicate clear, 

consistent, and appropriate information to parents regarding an 

emergency. For example, officials in a Florida school district said that 

with students’ increased access to cellular telephones, parents often arrive 

on school grounds during an incident to pick up their children before the 

district has an opportunity to provide parents with information. Thus, 

according to these officials, the district experiences challenges in 

simultaneously maintaining control of both the emergency situation and 

access to school grounds by parents and others. Representatives of three 

education associations23 also noted that school districts have much to do 

to ensure that their emergency management efforts diffuse confusion 

during emergencies and provide parents with consistent information. 

Based on our survey of school districts, an estimated 39 percent of all 

school districts provide translators to communicate with Limited-English 

Proficient parents during emergencies, but fewer—an estimated 

23 percent of all districts—provide translations of emergency management 

materials. Officials in eight of the 27 districts we interviewed discussed 

challenges in retaining bilingual staff to conduct translations of the 

districts’ messages or in reaching parents who do not speak the languages 

or dialects the district translates. Our findings, are consistent with the 

observations of some national education groups that have indicated that 

districts, in part due to limited funding, struggle to effectively 

communicate emergency-related information to this population of parents. 

Officials in all but one of the districts in which we conducted interviews 

said that the district did not have problems communicating emergency 

procedures to students. While some of these officials did not provide 

reasons; as we previously discussed, most districts regularly practice their 

emergency management plans with their students and staff. 

The federal government plays a critical role in assisting school districts to 

prepare for emergencies by providing funding, giving states flexibility to 

target federal funding for emergency management to areas of greatest 

need, disseminating information on best practices and other guidance, and 

providing training and equipment. School districts have taken a number of 

important steps to plan for a range of emergencies, most notably 

Concluding 

Observations 

 23National Education Association, American Association of School Administrators, and

National Association of Secondary School Principals. 

Page 20 GAO-07-821T 
developing emergency management plans; however, in many districts 

these plans or their implementation do not align with federally 

recommended practices. Given the challenges many school districts face 

due to a lack of necessary equipment and expertise, they do not have the 

tools to support the plans they have in place and, therefore, school 

districts are left with gaps in their ability to fully prepare for emergencies. 

Additional clarity regarding access to federal resources and improved 

guidance may enhance the ability of school districts to plan and prepare 

for emergencies. We are currently considering recommendations to 

address these issues. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me on 

(202) 512-8403 or William O. Jenkins, Jr. on (202) 512-8757. Individuals 

making contributions to this testimony include Kathryn Larin, Debra 

Sebastian, Tahra Nichols, and Kris Trueblood. 

GAO Contacts 

Page 21 GAO-07-821T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER