National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Additional Steps Are Needed to Improve Grant Management and Assess Capabilities
Published: 2013-06-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2002 through 2012, Congress appropriated about $41 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 $22.3 billion through four of the largest preparedness programs-- the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Program, the Port Security Grant Program, and the Transit Security Grant Program.
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 faced challenges in developing and implementing a national preparedness assessment, a fact that inhibits its abilities to effectively prioritize preparedness grant funding. This testimony updates GAO's prior work and describes FEMA's progress in (1) managing preparedness grants and (2) measuring national preparedness by assessing capabilities. This statement is based on prior products GAO issued from July 2005 to March 2013 and selected updates in June 2013. To conduct the updates, GAO analyzed agency documents, such as the National Preparedness Reports , and interviewed FEMA officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 and has taken steps to address GAO's recommendations. For example, the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 President's budgets proposed the establishment of the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a consolidation of 16 FEMA grant programs into a single program. Members of Congress raised questions about the NPGP and did not approve the proposal for fiscal year 2013. FEMA incorporated stakeholder views, as directed by Congress, and the fiscal year 2014 President's Budget again proposed the NPGP. 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 the agency 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 project-level 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 in developing a national preparedness system that could assist the agency in prioritizing preparedness grant funding. For example, FEMA required state and local governments receiving homeland security funding to complete Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA) and, as a part of this process, develop their own capability requirements by December 31, 2012. State officials are to use the capability requirements they identified to self-assess capabilities in their future State Preparedness Reports , which FEMA uses along with other sources to develop the annual National Preparedness Reports . However, FEMA faces challenges that may reduce the usefulness of these efforts. For example, because states develop their own capability requirements, and use individual judgment rather than a quantitative standard to assess preparedness capabilities, it may be difficult to identify differences and compare capability levels across states. 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO has made recommendations to DHS and FEMA in prior reports. DHS and FEMA concurred with these recommendations and have actions under way to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to provide an  update on federal efforts to manage preparedness grants and assess  preparedness capabilities. From fiscal years 2002 through 2013, the  federal government appropriated about $41 billion to a variety of  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) preparedness grant programs to  enhance the capabilities of state, local, territory, and tribal governments to  prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover  from terrorist attacks and other disasters. DHS allocated more than half  of this total ($22.3 billion) to grant recipients through four of the largest  preparedness programs— the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the State  Homeland Security Program, the Port Security Grant Program, and the  Transit Security Grant Program.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post- Katrina Act) was enacted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In  response to the Act, among other things, DHS centralized most of its  preparedness programs under the Federal Emergency Management  Agency (FEMA)—a component of DHS—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 capability levels and the resources  needed to achieve desired levels of capability.
My testimony today addresses the following questions: (1) To what extent  has FEMA made progress in managing four of the largest preparedness  grant programs? (2) To what extent has FEMA made progress measuring  preparedness by assessing capabilities?
My statement is based on reports and testimonies on DHS and FEMA  grant management and preparedness assessment that we issued from  July 2005 through March 2013. More information about the scope and  methodology of our prior work can be found in those reports. To update  this work, we analyzed documentation such as DHS’s National  Preparedness Report issued in May 2013 and the DHS Fiscal Year 2014  Budget-in-Brief, and interviewed and obtained updated information on  preparedness grants and capability assessment from FEMA officials in  June 2013. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Preparedness Grants
paragraphs: 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  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 man-made disaster, including terrorist  incidents. Four of the largest preparedness grant programs are the Urban  Areas Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Program, Port  Security Grant Program, and the Transit Security Grant Program.
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.
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 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 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.
Since its creation in April 2007, FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate  (GPD) has been responsible for managing DHS’s preparedness grants.  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.
section_title: National Assessment of Preparedness
paragraphs: 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. 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 man-made disaster). The  greater the level of incident effect, the more likely state and local  resources are to be overwhelmed.
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. 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),  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).
section_title: FEMA Has Taken Actions to Enhance Management of Four Preparedness Grant Programs to Reduce the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication, but Challenges Remain
paragraphs: 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 programs—the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the  State Homeland Security Program, the Port Security Grant Program, and  the Transit Security Grant Program. 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. 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.
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 and 2014  President’s budgets 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 raised questions about the  consolidation of the 16 grant programs and Congress did not approve the  proposal in fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2014 President’s budget  again proposed NPGP and, according to the fiscal year 2014 DHS  Budget-in-Brief, FEMA improved the proposal by incorporating  stakeholder views, as directed by Congress. 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 June 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  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 project- level data in the grant application process starting in fiscal year 2014.  Collecting appropriate data and implementing ND Grants with project- level 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 June 2012, FEMA officials stated that there are additional efforts  under way 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 officials did not identify any  specific mechanisms to identify potentially duplicative projects across  grant programs administered by different FEMA entities.
section_title: FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing National Preparedness Capabilities, but Challenges Remain in Establishing Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Grant Funding
subsections: section_title: FEMA Has Faced Challenges Developing a National Assessment of Preparedness
paragraphs: We have previously found that DHS and FEMA have faced challenges in  developing and implementing a national assessment of preparedness.  For example:  In July 2005, we reported that DHS had identified potential challenges  in gathering the information needed to assess preparedness  capabilities, including determining how to aggregate data from federal,  state, local, and tribal governments and others and integrating self- assessment approaches.
In April 2009, we reported that establishing quantifiable metrics for  capabilities was a prerequisite to developing assessment data that  can be compared across all levels of government. However, in  analyzing FEMA’s efforts to assess capabilities, we reported that  FEMA faced methodological challenges with regard to (1) differences  in available data, (2) variations in reporting structures across states,  and (3) variations in the level of detail within data sources requiring  subjective interpretation.
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. We also suggested that Congress consider limiting  preparedness grant funding until FEMA completes a national  preparedness assessment. In the fiscal year 2011 and 2012  appropriations bills, Congress reduced funding for preparedness  grants by $875 million and $1.28 billion less than the amount  requested, respectively, and the House committee report  accompanying the DHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012 noted  that FEMA could not demonstrate how the use of the grants had  enhanced disaster preparedness. Similarly, in fiscal year 2013,  Congress reduced funding for FEMA preparedness grants by about  $400 million from the amount requested.
section_title: FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing and Assessing Preparedness Capabilities, but Has Not Yet Developed Capability Requirements and Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Grant Funding
paragraphs: While FEMA has taken steps to establish and assess capabilities, the  agency has not yet developed 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. In March 2011, the White House issued  Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness (PPD-8), which  called for the development of a comprehensive approach to assess  national preparedness that uses a consistent methodology with clear,  objective, and quantifiable performance measures. PPD-8 also called  for the development of a national preparedness goal, as well as annual  national preparedness reports (both of which were previously required  under the Post-Katrina Act). To address PPD-8 provisions, FEMA  issued the National Preparedness Goal in September 2011, which  establishes 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. In March  2012, FEMA issued the first annual National Preparedness Report,  designed to identify progress made toward building, sustaining, and  delivering the preparedness capabilities described in the National  Preparedness Goal in the decade following the September 11, 2001,  attacks. The second annual National Preparedness Report was issued in  May 2013 and focuses on national accomplishments either achieved or  reported during 2012. According to FEMA officials, the National  Preparedness Report identifies what they consider to be national-level  capability gaps.
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. For example, FEMA required state  and local governments receiving homeland security funding to complete  Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA) by  December 31, 2012. Guidance issued in April 2012 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. As part  of the process, state and local governments are to develop their own  capability requirements. Further, FEMA officials stated that they plan to  release additional guidance during the summer of 2013 to assist state  and local governments with estimating capability levels based on the  capability requirements they developed in their THIRAs. According to  FEMA officials, these estimations will help inform annual THIRA updates  and may help state and local governments to refine their capability  requirements in future THIRAs.
According to FEMA officials, the THIRAs are to be used by state,  regional, and federal entities for future planning and assessment efforts.  At the state level, FEMA guidance notes that state officials are to use the  capability requirements they identified in their respective THIRAs to  assess capabilities in their future State Preparedness Reports, which are  statewide survey-based self-assessments of capability levels and  requirements submitted by all 56 U.S. states and territories. FEMA uses  the State Preparedness Reports, in addition to other sources, to develop  the National Preparedness Report. Because the THIRAs were first  completed by the end of calendar year 2012, the 2013 National  Preparedness Report was the first iteration of the report in which states  assessed their preparedness capabilities against the capability  requirements from their THIRAs. At the regional level, each of the 10  FEMA regions is to analyze the local and state THIRAs to develop  regional THIRAs. 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.
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 could be limited because FEMA  relies on states to self-report such data, which makes it difficult to ensure  data are consistent and accurate. Second, because states develop their  own capability requirements, and use individual judgment rather than a  quantitative standard to assess preparedness capabilities, it may be  difficult to identify differences and compare capability levels across states.  Finally, both the 2012 and 2013 National Preparedness Reports describe  methodological challenges. For example, the 2012 National  Preparedness Report noted that challenges remain in measuring  progress from year to year and that, 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, FEMA has little way of knowing whether and to what  extent those programs have been successful. Thus, as of June 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.
Depending on how the THIRA and National Preparedness Report  processes evolve, such an approach to capability assessment 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 2013  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  monitor FEMA’s efforts to develop capability requirements and  performance measures.
Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Paul, 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.
section_title: Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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; David Lysy; Erin O’Brien; and  Ben Rosenbaum.
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.