NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS

FEMA Has Made Progress 

in Improving Grant 

Management and Assessing 

Capabilities, but Challenges 

Remain

Statement of David C. Maurer, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Emergency Preparedness, Response, 

and Communications, Committee on 

Homeland Security, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

GAO-13-456T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-456T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Emergency 

Preparedness, Response, and 

Communications, Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives

March 19, 2013

NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS 

FEMA Has Made Progress in Improving Grant 

Management and Assessing Capabilities, but 

Challenges Remain

Why GAO Did This Study

From fiscal years 2002 through 2012, 

the Congress appropriated about $39 

billion to a variety of DHS 

preparedness grant programs to 

enhance the capabilities of state and 

local governments to prevent, protect 

against, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks and other disasters. 

DHS allocated more than $21.3 billion 

through four of the largest 

preparedness programs—the Port 

Security Grant Program, the State 

Homeland Security Program, the 

Transit Security Grant Program, and 

the Urban Areas Security Initiative. 

In February 2012, GAO identified 

factors that contribute to the risk of 

FEMA potentially funding 

unnecessarily duplicative projects

across the four grant programs. In 

March 2011, GAO reported that FEMA 

has faced challenges in developing 

and implementing a national 

preparedness assessment, which 

inhibits its abilities to effectively 

prioritize preparedness grant funding. 

This testimony updates GAO’s prior 

work and describes DHS’s and 

FEMA’s progress over the past year in 

(1) managing preparedness grants and 

(2) measuring national preparedness 

by assessing capabilities. This 

statement is based on prior products 

GAO issued from March 2011 to 

February 2012 and selected updates in 

March 2013. To conduct the updates, 

GAO analyzed agency documents and 

interviewed FEMA officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made recommendations to 

DHS and FEMA in prior reports. DHS 

and FEMA concurred with these 

recommendations and have actions 

underway to address them.

What GAO Found

Officials in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—a component 

of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—have identified actions they 

believe will enhance management of the four preparedness programs GAO 

analyzed; however, FEMA still faces challenges. In February 2012, GAO found 

that FEMA lacked a process to coordinate application reviews and made award 

decisions with differing levels of information. To better identify potential 

unnecessary duplication, GAO recommended that FEMA collect project-level

information and enhance internal coordination and administration of the 

programs. DHS concurred. The fiscal year 2013 President’s Budget, proposed 

the establishment of the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a 

consolidation of 16 FEMA grant programs into a single program. However, 

Members of Congress raised concerns about the NPGP and have not approved 

the proposal. As a result, FEMA officials reported that the agency was drafting 

new guidance for the execution of the NPGP based on pending Congressional 

direction on fiscal year 2013 appropriations. If approved, and depending on its 

final form and execution, the NPGP could help mitigate the potential for 

unnecessary duplication and address GAO’s recommendation to improve internal 

coordination. In March 2013, FEMA officials reported that FEMA intends to start 

collecting and analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal year 2014; but 

has not yet finalized data requirements or fully implemented the data system to 

collect the information. Collecting appropriate data and implementing projectlevel enhancements as planned would address GAO’s recommendation and 

better position FEMA to identify potentially unnecessary duplication. 

FEMA has made progress addressing GAO’s March 2011 recommendation that 

it develop a national preparedness assessment with clear, objective, and 

quantifiable capability requirements and performance measures; but continues to 

face challenges developing a national preparedness system that could assist 

FEMA in prioritizing preparedness grant funding. For example, in March 2012, 

FEMA issued the first National Preparedness Report, which describes progress 

made to build, sustain, and deliver capabilities. FEMA also has efforts underway 

to assess regional, state, and local preparedness capabilities. In April 2012, 

FEMA issued guidance on developing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk 

Assessments (THIRA) to self-assess regional, state, and local capabilities and 

required states and local areas receiving homeland security funds to complete a 

THIRA by December 2012. However, FEMA faces challenges that may reduce 

the usefulness of these efforts. For example, the National Preparedness Report

notes that while many programs exist to build and sustain preparedness 

capabilities, challenges remain in measuring progress over time. According to the 

report, in many cases, measures do not yet exist to gauge performance, either 

quantitatively or qualitatively. Further, while FEMA officials stated that the THIRA 

process is intended to develop a set of national capability performance 

requirements and measures, such requirements and measures have not yet 

been developed. Until FEMA develops clear, objective, and quantifiable 

capability requirements and performance measures, it is unclear what capability 

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

such gaps. GAO will continue to monitor FEMA’s efforts to develop capability 

requirements and performance measures. 

View GAO-13-456T. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-8777 or 

maurerd@gao.gov.
Page 1 GAO-13-456T 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the 

subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to provide an 

update on the efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA)—a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—

to manage preparedness grants and measure and assess national 

capabilities to respond to a major disaster. From fiscal years 2002 

through 2012, the federal government appropriated about $39 billion to a 

variety of DHS homeland security preparedness grant programs to 

enhance the capabilities of state, territory, local, and tribal governments to 

prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover 

from terrorist attacks and other disasters.1 DHS allocated more than half 

of this total—$21.3 billion—to grant recipients through four of the largest 

preparedness programs—the Port Security Grant Program, the State 

Homeland Security Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, and the 

Urban Areas Security Initiative.

Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 

of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.2 In 

response to the act, among other things, DHS centralized most of its 

preparedness programs under FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate 

(GPD) to better integrate and coordinate grant management. The act also 

requires that FEMA develop a national preparedness system and assess 

preparedness capabilities to determine the nation’s preparedness 

 

1

This total is based on Congressional Research Service data and our analysis, and 

includes firefighter assistance grants and emergency management performance grants. 

See Congressional Research Service, Department of Homeland Security Assistance to 

States and Localities: A Summary of Issues for the 111th Congress, R40246 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 30, 2010). For the purposes of this testimony, we define capabilities for 

prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery as preparedness capabilities.

2

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

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

the Post-Katrina Act became effective upon enactment, October 4, 2006, with the 

exception of certain organizational changes related to FEMA, most of which took effect on 

March 31, 2007.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-456T 

capability levels and the resources needed to achieve desired levels of 

capability.3

In March 2012, we testified before this committee and summarized our 

work from April 2002 through February 2012 on DHS’s and FEMA’s 

efforts to manage preparedness grants; develop and assess national 

preparedness capabilities at the federal, state, and local levels; identify 

capability gaps; and prioritize future national preparedness investments to 

fill the most critical gaps.4 As requested, my testimony today provides an 

update on that work, including the extent to which DHS and FEMA have 

made progress over the past year in (1) managing preparedness grants 

and (2) measuring national preparedness by assessing capabilities and 

addressing related challenges.

My statement is based on our March 2012 testimony, as well as reports 

on DHS and FEMA grant management and preparedness that we issued 

from March 2011 through February 2012. More information about the 

scope and methodology of our prior work can be found in those reports. 

To update our work, we analyzed documentation such as DHS’s National 

Preparedness Report, issued in March 2012; interviewed relevant FEMA 

officials to obtain updates on recent progress in managing preparedness 

grants and measuring national preparedness; and reviewed our prior 

reports. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Over the past decade, the federal government has expanded financial 

assistance to a wide array of public and private stakeholders for 

preparedness activities through various grant programs administered by 

DHS through its component agency, FEMA. Through these grant 

 

3

According to the act, the assessment system must assess, among other things, current 

capability levels as compared with target capability levels (which, for the purposes of this 

testimony, we refer to as capability requirements), and resource needs to meet capability 

requirements. 6 U.S.C. §§ 744, 749.

4

GAO, Managing Preparedness Grants and Assessing National Capabilities: Continuing 

Challenges Impede FEMA’s Progress, GAO-12-526T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2012).

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-456T 

programs, DHS has sought to enhance the capacity of states, localities, 

and other entities, such as ports or transit agencies, to prevent, respond 

to, and recover from a natural or manmade disaster, including terrorist 

incidents. Four of the largest preparedness grant programs are the Port 

Security Grant Program, the State Homeland Security Program, the 

Transit Security Grant Program, and the Urban Areas Security Initiative.

• The Port Security Grant Program provides federal assistance to 

strengthen the security of the nation’s ports against risks associated 

with potential terrorist attacks by supporting increased portwide risk 

management, enhanced domain awareness, training and exercises, 

and expanded port recovery capabilities.

• The State Homeland Security Program provides funding to support 

states’ implementation of homeland security strategies to address the 

identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise 

needs at the state and local levels to prevent, protect against, respond 

to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.

• The Transit Security Grant Program provides funds to owners and 

operators of transit systems (which include intracity bus, commuter 

bus, ferries, and all forms of passenger rail) to protect critical surface 

transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of 

terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit infrastructure.

• The Urban Areas Security Initiative provides federal assistance to 

address the unique needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas, 

and assists the areas in building an enhanced and sustainable 

capacity to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from acts of 

terrorism.

Since its creation in April 2007, FEMA’s GPD has been responsible for 

managing DHS’s preparedness grants.5 GPD consolidated the grant 

business operations, systems, training, policy, and oversight of all FEMA 

grants and the program management of preparedness grants into a single 

entity.

 

5

The Post-Katrina Act transferred most of the Preparedness Directorate to FEMA, 

effective on March 31, 2007. Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1394 (2006).
 

Page 4 GAO-13-456T 

In February 2012, we identified multiple factors that contributed to the risk 

of FEMA potentially funding unnecessarily duplicative projects across four 

of the largest grant programs6

—the Port Security Grant Program, the 

State Homeland Security Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, 

and the Urban Areas Security Initiative. These factors include overlap 

among grant recipients, goals, and geographic locations, combined with 

differing levels of information that FEMA had available regarding grant 

projects and recipients. Specifically, we found that FEMA made award 

decisions with differing levels of information and lacked a process to 

coordinate application reviews.7 To better identify potential unnecessary 

duplication, we recommended that FEMA (1) take steps to ensure that it 

collects project information at the level of detail needed to better position 

the agency to identify any potential unnecessary duplication within and 

across the four grant programs, and (2) explore opportunities to enhance 

FEMA’s internal coordination and administration of the programs. DHS 

agreed with the recommendations and identified planned actions to 

improve visibility and coordination across programs and projects. We also 

suggested that Congress consider requiring DHS to report on the results 

of its efforts to identify and prevent duplication within and across the four 

grant programs, and consider these results when making future funding 

decisions for these programs.

 

6

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

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

2012).

7

GAO, More Efficient and Effective Government: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, 

Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-449T

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

FEMA Has Taken or 

Proposed Actions to 

Address Potential 

Duplication Issues 

Identified by GAO, 

but Challenges 

Remain 

FEMA Needs Better 

Coordination and 

Improved Data Collection 

to Reduce Risk of 

Unnecessary Duplication 

in Four Grant Programs
 

Page 5 GAO-13-456T 

Since we issued our February 2012 report, FEMA officials have identified 

actions they believe will enhance management of the four grant programs 

we analyzed; however, FEMA still faces challenges to enhancing 

preparedness grant management. First, the fiscal year 2013 President’s 

Budget outlined a plan to consolidate most of FEMA’s preparedness 

grants programs, and FEMA officials expect this action would reduce or 

eliminate the potential for unnecessary duplication. The fiscal year 2013 

President’s Budget proposed the establishment of the National 

Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a consolidation of 16 grant 

programs (including the 4 grants we analyzed in our February 2012 

report) into a comprehensive single program. According to FEMA officials, 

the NPGP would eliminate redundancies and requirements placed on 

both the federal government and grantees resulting from the existing 

system of multiple individual, and often disconnected, grant programs. 

For example, FEMA officials said that the number of applications a state 

would need to submit and the federal government’s resources required to 

administer the applications would both decrease under the consolidated 

program. However, Members of Congress have expressed concern about 

the consolidation of the 16 grant programs and Congress has not yet 

approved the proposal. In October 2012, FEMA officials told us that 

Members of Congress had asked FEMA to refine the NPGP proposal to 

address concerns raised by stakeholders, such as how local officials will 

be involved in a state-administered grant program. As of March 2013, 

FEMA officials reported that the agency was drafting guidance for the 

execution of the NPGP based on stakeholder feedback and direction from 

Congress pending the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill. If the NPGP is 

not authorized in fiscal year 2013, FEMA officials stated that the agency 

plans to resubmit the request for the fiscal year 2014 budgetary cycle. If 

approved, and depending on its final form and execution, the 

consolidated NPGP could help reduce redundancies and mitigate the 

potential for unnecessary duplication, and may address the 

recommendation in our February 2012 report to enhance FEMA’s internal 

coordination and administration of the programs.

Second, in March 2013, FEMA officials reported that the agency intends 

to start collecting and analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal 

year 2014; however, FEMA has not yet finalized specific data 

requirements and has not fully established the vehicle to collect these 

data—a new data system called the Non-Disaster Grants Management 

System (ND Grants). As of March 2013, FEMA officials expect to develop 

system enhancements for ND Grants to collect and use project-level data 

by the end of fiscal year 2013. FEMA officials stated that FEMA has 

formed a working group to develop the functional requirements for 

FEMA Has Taken Actions 

to Enhance Preparedness 

Grant Management, But 

Challenges Remain
 

Page 6 GAO-13-456T 

collecting and using project-level data and plans to obtain input from 

stakeholders and consider the cost effectiveness of potential data 

requirements. In alignment with data requirement recommendations from 

a May 2011 FEMA report, the agency anticipates utilizing the new projectlevel data in the grant application process starting in fiscal year 2014.8

Collecting appropriate data and implementing ND Grants with projectlevel enhancements as planned, and as recommended in our February 

2012 report, would better position FEMA to identify potentially 

unnecessary duplication within and across grant programs.

Third, in December 2012, FEMA officials stated that there are additional 

efforts underway to improve internal administration of different grant 

programs. For example, officials stated that a FEMA task force has been 

evaluating grants management processes and developing a series of 

recommendations to improve efficiencies, address gaps, and increase 

collaboration across regional and headquarters counterparts and financial 

and programmatic counterparts. These activities represent positive steps 

to improve overall grants management, but they do not include any 

mechanisms to identify potentially duplicative projects across grant 

programs administered by different FEMA entities.

 

8

FEMA, Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced Performance for Preparedness Grants 

Act: Fiscal Year 2011 Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2011).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-456T 

According to DHS and FEMA strategic documents, national preparedness 

is the shared responsibility of the “whole community,” which requires the 

contribution of a broad range of stakeholders, including federal, state, and 

local governments, to develop preparedness capabilities to effectively 

prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover 

from a major disaster.9 Figure 1 provides an illustration of how federal, 

state, and local resources provide preparedness capabilities for different 

levels of government and at various levels of incident effect (i.e., the 

extent of damage caused by a natural or manmade disaster). The greater 

the level of incident effect, the more likely state and local resources are to 

be overwhelmed.

 

9

 FEMA, FEMA Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2011-2014 (Washington, D.C.: February 

2011), and DHS, National Preparedness Goal (Washington, D.C.: September 2011).

FEMA Has Made 

Progress in 

Establishing National 

Preparedness 

Capabilities, but 

Challenges Remain in 

Establishing 

Performance 

Measures That Could 

Assist in Prioritizing 

Grant Funding

FEMA Has Faced 

Challenges Developing a 

National Assessment of 

Preparedness
 

Page 8 GAO-13-456T 

Figure 1: Conceptual Illustration for Assessing Capability Requirements and 

Identifying Capability Gaps for National Preparedness.

We have previously reported on and made recommendations related to 

DHS’s and FEMA’s efforts to develop a national assessment of 

preparedness, which would assist DHS and FEMA in effectively 

prioritizing investments to develop preparedness capabilities at all levels 

of government, including through its preparedness grant programs.10

Such an assessment would

• identify the critical elements at all levels of government necessary to 

effectively prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, 

and recover from a major disaster (i.e., preparedness capabilities), 

 

10 GAO, Homeland Security: DHS’s Efforts to Enhance First Responders’ All-Hazards 

Capabilities Continue to Evolve, GAO-05-652 (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2005); and 

National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs to Complete and Integrate 

Planning Exercise and Assessment Efforts, GAO-09-369 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 

2009).
 

Page 9 GAO-13-456T 

such as the ability to provide lifesaving medical treatment via 

emergency medical services following a major disaster;

• develop a way to measure those elements (i.e., capability 

performance measures); and

• assess the difference between the amount of preparedness needed at 

all levels of government (i.e., capability requirements) and the current 

level of preparedness (i.e. capability level) to identify gaps (i.e., 

capability gaps).

The identification of capability gaps is necessary to effectively prioritize 

preparedness grant funding.

However, we have previously found that DHS and FEMA have faced 

challenges in developing and implementing such an assessment. Most 

recently, in March 2011, we reported that FEMA’s efforts to develop and 

implement a comprehensive, measurable, national preparedness 

assessment were not yet complete. Accordingly, we recommended that 

FEMA complete a national preparedness assessment and that such an 

assessment should assess capability gaps at each level of government 

based on capability requirements to enable prioritization of grant 

funding.11 We also suggested that Congress consider limiting 

preparedness grant funding until FEMA completes a national 

preparedness assessment. In April 2011, Congress passed the fiscal year 

2011 appropriations act for DHS, which reduced funding for FEMA 

preparedness grants by $875 million from the amount requested in the 

President’s fiscal year 2011 budget.12 The consolidated appropriations act 

for fiscal year 2012 appropriated $1.7 billion for FEMA Preparedness 

grants, $1.28 billion less than requested.13 The House committee report 

accompanying the DHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012 stated that 

FEMA could not demonstrate how the use of the grants had enhanced 

disaster preparedness.14

 

11GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs Save Tax 

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

12Pub. L. No. 112-10 § 1632, 125 Stat. 38, 143 (2011). 

13Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. 786, 960 (2011). This total includes all grant programs in 

the state and local programs account and the Emergency Management Performance 

Grant program but does not include funding appropriated for firefighter assistance grant 

programs.

14H.R. Rep. No. 112-91, at 106-08 (2011). 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-456T 

In March 2011, the White House issued Presidential Policy Directive 8 on 

National Preparedness (PPD-8), which called for the development of a 

national preparedness system that includes a comprehensive approach to 

assess national preparedness. According to PPD-8, the approach should 

use a consistent methodology to assess national preparedness 

capabilities—with clear, objective, and quantifiable performance 

measures.15 PPD-8 also called for the development of a national 

preparedness goal, as well as annual preparedness reports (both of 

which were previously required under the Post-Katrina Act).16 To address 

PPD-8 provisions, FEMA issued the National Preparedness Goal in 

September 2011, which established a list of preparedness capabilities for 

each of five mission areas (prevention, protection, mitigation, response, 

and recovery) that are to serve as the basis for preparedness activities 

within FEMA, throughout the federal government, and at the state and 

local levels.17 In November 2011, FEMA issued the National 

Preparedness System, which described an approach and cycle to build, 

sustain, and deliver the preparedness capabilities described in the 

National Preparedness Goal. The system contains six components to 

support decision making, resource allocation, and progress 

measurement, including identifying and assessing risk and estimating 

capability requirements.18 According to the system, measuring progress 

toward achieving the National Preparedness Goal is intended to provide 

the means to decide how and where to allocate scarce resources and 

prioritize preparedness. Finally, in March 2012, FEMA issued the first 

National Preparedness Report, designed to identify progress made 

 

15The Post-Katrina Act required FEMA, in developing guidelines to define preparedness 

capabilities, to ensure that the guidelines are specific, flexible, and measurable. 6 U.S.C. § 

746.

166 U.S.C. §§ 743, 752. The Post-Katrina Act required FEMA to prepare a federal 

preparedness report and a state preparedness report.

17The National Preparedness Goal refers to these capabilities as “core capabilities,” which 

replace what had been previously called target capabilities. The target capabilities were 

initially developed by DHS in 2005. For example, one of the preparedness capabilities for 

the response mission area relates to mass search and rescue operations, specifically to 

deliver traditional and atypical search and rescue capabilities, including personnel, 

services, animals, and assets to survivors in need, with the goal of saving the greatest 

number of endangered lives in the shortest time possible. 

18The six components are (1) identifying and assessing risk, (2) estimating capability 

requirements, (3) building and sustaining capabilities, (4) planning to deliver capabilities, 

(5) validating capabilities, and (6) reviewing and updating.

FEMA Has Made Progress 

in Establishing 

Preparedness Capabilities
 

Page 11 GAO-13-456T 

toward building, sustaining, and delivering the preparedness capabilities 

described in the National Preparedness Goal. According to FEMA 

officials, the National Preparedness Report also identifies what they 

consider to be national-level capability gaps.

While FEMA issued the first National Preparedness Report, the agency 

has not yet established clear, objective, and quantifiable capability 

requirements and performance measures that are needed to identify 

capability gaps in a national preparedness assessment, as recommended 

in our March 2011 report. As previously noted, such requirements and 

measures would help FEMA identify capability gaps at all levels of 

government, which would assist FEMA in targeting preparedness grant 

program funding to address the highest-priority capability gaps. According 

to the National Preparedness Report, FEMA collaborated with federal 

interagency partners to identify existing quantitative and qualitative 

performance and assessment data for each of the preparedness 

capabilities. In addition, FEMA integrated data from the 2011 State 

Preparedness Reports, which are statewide survey-based selfassessments of capability levels and requirements submitted by all 56 

U.S. states and territories. Finally, FEMA conducted research to identify 

independent evaluations, surveys, and other supporting data related to 

preparedness capabilities.

However, limitations associated with some of the data used in the 

National Preparedness Report may reduce the report’s usefulness in 

assessing national preparedness. First, in October 2010, we reported that 

data in the State Preparedness Reports—one of the key data sources for 

the National Preparedness Report—could be limited because FEMA 

relies on states to self-report such data, which makes it difficult to ensure 

data are consistent and accurate.19 Second, at the time the National 

Preparedness Report was issued, in March 2012, states were still in the 

process of updating their efforts to collect, analyze, and report 

preparedness progress according to the new preparedness capabilities 

issued along with the National Preparedness Goal in September 2011. As 

a result, the report states that assessment processes, methodologies, 

and data will need to evolve for future iterations of the report. Third, the 

 

19GAO, FEMA Has Made Limited Progress in Efforts to Develop and Implement a System 

to Assess National Preparedness Capabilities, GAO-11-51R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 

2010).

Challenges Remain in 

Establishing Capability 

Requirements and 

Performance Measures 

That Could Assist in 

Prioritizing Preparedness 

Grant Funding
 

Page 12 GAO-13-456T 

report’s final finding notes that while many programs exist to build and 

sustain preparedness capabilities across all mission areas, challenges 

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

cases, measures do not yet exist to gauge performance, either 

quantitatively or qualitatively. Therefore, while programs may exist that 

are designed to address a given capability gap, the nation has little way of 

knowing whether and to what extent those programs have been 

successful. 

Thus, as of March 2013, FEMA has not yet completed a national 

preparedness assessment, as we recommended in our March 2011 

report, which could assist FEMA in prioritizing grant funding. However, 

FEMA officials stated that they have efforts under way to assess regional, 

state, and local capabilities to provide a framework for completing a 

national preparedness assessment.20 For example, in April 2012, FEMA 

issued guidance on developing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk 

Assessments (THIRA), which were initially required to be completed by 

state and local governments receiving homeland security funding by 

December 31, 2012.21 Guidance issued for development of the THIRAs 

describes a process for assessing the various threats and hazards facing 

a community, the vulnerability of the community, as well as the 

consequences associated with those threats and hazards. For example, 

using the THIRA process, a jurisdiction may identify tornadoes as a 

hazard and asses its vulnerabilities to and the consequences of a tornado 

striking the jurisdiction, as well as the capabilities necessary for an 

effective response. Using the THIRA results, a jurisdiction may then 

develop a strategy to allocate resources effectively to achieve selfdetermined capability requirements by closing capability gaps.

According to FEMA officials in March 2013, the THIRAs are to be used by 

state, regional, and federal entities for future planning efforts. At the state 

level, FEMA guidance notes that state officials are to use the capability 

requirements they identified in their respective 2012 THIRAs in their 

future State Preparedness Reports. FEMA officials stated that they 

 

20GAO-11-318SP. 

21According to FEMA officials, as of March 2013, some state and local urban areas had 

not yet completed their THIRAs. FEMA granted 6 month extensions to the December 31, 

2012 deadline for five states and three local urban areas affected by Hurricane Sandy in 

late October 2012. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-456T 

planned to use both the THIRAs and the State Preparedness Reports to 

identify states’ (self-reported) capability gaps based on capability 

requirements established by the state. At the regional level, each of the 

10 FEMA regions is to analyze the local and state THIRAs to develop 

regional THIRAs.22 At the national level, the local, state, and regional 

THIRAs are collectively intended to provide FEMA with data that it can 

analyze to assist in the identification of national funding priorities for 

closing capability gaps. The outcome of the THIRA process is intended to 

be a set of national capability performance requirements and measures, 

which FEMA officials stated they intend to incorporate into future National 

Preparedness Reports. As of March 2013, FEMA officials are working to 

coordinate their review and analysis of the various THIRAs through a 

THIRA Analysis and Review Team. The team plans to conduct ongoing 

meetings to discuss common themes and findings from the THIRAs and 

intends to develop an initial proposed list of national preparedness grant 

funding priorities by summer 2013.

Depending on how the THIRA process is implemented and incorporated 

into future National Preparedness Reports, such an approach could be a 

positive step toward addressing our March 2011 recommendation to 

FEMA to develop a national preparedness assessment of existing 

capabilities levels against capability requirements. Such a national 

preparedness assessment may help FEMA to (1) identify the potential

costs for developing and maintaining required capabilities at each level of 

government, and (2) determine what capabilities federal agencies should 

be prepared to provide. While the recently completed THIRAs and 2012 

National Preparedness Report are positive steps in the initial efforts to 

assess preparedness capabilities across the nation, capability 

requirements and performance measures for each level of government 

that are clear, objective, and quantifiable have not yet been developed. 

As a result, it is unclear what capability gaps currently exist, including at 

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

gaps through prioritized preparedness grant funding. We will continue to 

 

22FEMA officials stated that they required the FEMA regions to complete their inaugural 

THIRAs by September 30, 2012, 3 months before the local and state THIRAs were due. 

As a result, the first regional THIRAs did not incorporate information from the local and 

state THIRAs. The officials explained that FEMA directed the regional THIRAs to be 

completed in 2012 before the local and state THIRAs in order to aid development of 

preparedness grant guidance for fiscal year 2013, but that future iterations of the regional 

THIRAs are intended to incorporate information from completed local and state THIRAs. 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-456T 

monitor FEMA’s efforts to develop capability requirements and 

performance measures.

Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the 

subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

For further information about this statement, please contact David C. 

Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-

9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

of this statement. In addition to the contact named above, the following 

individuals also made major contributions to this testimony: Chris 

Keisling, Assistant Director; Tracey King; Dan Klabunde; Katherine Lee; 

David Lutter; David Lysy; Lara Miklozek; and Erin O’Brien.

Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441143)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.