Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant Programs and Efforts to Improve Accountability Continue to Evolve
Published: 2005-04-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2002 through 2005, the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) within the Department of Homeland Security managed first responder grants totaling approximately $10.5 billion. The bulk of this funding has been for statewide grants through the State Homeland Security Grant Program and urban area grants through the Urban Areas Security Initiative. This testimony provides information on the history and evolution of these two grant programs, particularly with respect to ODP grant award procedures; timelines for awarding and transferring grant funds; and accountability for effective use of grant funds.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal first responder grants are a means of achieving an important goal--enhancing the ability of first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist and other incidents with well-planned, well-coordinated efforts that involve a variety of first responders from multiple jurisdictions. ODP has led federal efforts to develop these capabilities in part through its management of federal first responder grants. ODP has modified grant award procedures for states and localities. ODP developed procedures and guidelines for awarding the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative grants to states, and for determining how states and localities could expend funds and seek reimbursement for first responder equipment or services they purchased. As part of this process, ODP gave states some flexibility by allowing them to determine how grant funds were to be managed and distributed within their states and whether purchases would be made locally or at the state level. Congress, ODP, states, and localities have acted to expedite grant awards by setting time limits for the grant application, award, and distribution processes and by instituting other procedures. Nevertheless, the ability of states and localities to spend grant funds expeditiously was complicated by the need to fulfill state and local legal and procurement requirements, which in some cases added months to the purchasing process. Some states have modified their procurement practices, and ODP is identifying best practices to aid in the effort, but challenges remain. ODP has taken steps to improve accountability in the state preparedness planning process, in part by requiring states to update homeland security strategies. In tandem with this effort, ODP revised its grant-reporting method, moving away from requiring states, localities, and urban areas to submit itemized lists of first responder equipment they plan to purchase towards a more results-based approach, whereby grant managers at all levels must demonstrate how grant expenditures are linked to larger projects that support goals in state homeland security strategies. As part of a broader effort to meet mandates contained in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, addressing national preparedness goals for all hazards, ODP has taken steps to ensure more assessments of first responder needs are conducted on a national basis. Finally, ODP recently issued interim national preparedness goals that reflect the department's progress in developing readiness targets, priorities, standards for preparedness assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the nation's overall level of preparedness. However, DHS's task of finalizing these goals and translating them into capabilities that are meaningful and readily transferable to the wide variety of local jurisdictions around the nation is still not complete.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal funding for first  responders. The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted the critical role  of the nation’s first responders in preventing, preparing for, responding to,  and recovering from the effects of a terrorist attack. In fiscal years 2002  through 2005, the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) within the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) managed first responder grants  totaling approximately $10.5 billion. The bulk of this funding has been for  the State Homeland Security Grant Program (statewide) and the Urban  Areas Security Initiative (urban area) grants. Although the grant programs  have evolved over time, this money has generally been available for  planning, equipment, exercises, training, and administrative costs. The  grants have also generally been targeted at preventing, preparing for,  responding to, and recovering from terrorist events.
The amount of federal funding for ODP grant programs has increased  significantly since September 11. Accompanying this increase has been a  discussion at the federal, state, and local levels of the most appropriate  means of allocating these funds, developing plans that set priorities for  their use, and assessing the effective use of the funds. Several factors  could affect how these things are done in the future. For example, recent  congressional proposals have addressed the most appropriate means to  allocate grant funds to states. In addition, the issuance of Homeland  Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) in December 2003—calling for,  among other things, a new national preparedness goal and performance  measure that pertained to “all hazards”—placed first responder grant  programs, including those managed by ODP, into a broader context that is  to consider the nation’s readiness to respond to all major events, including  natural disasters as well as acts of terrorism.
We are currently conducting a review of DHS’s implementation of HSPD-8  and expect to issue our report in the summer of 2005, looking at how DHS  is working with state and local governments and first responders to  implement it.
My statement today provides information on the history and evolution of  the two largest grant programs, particularly with respect to ODP grant  award procedures; timelines for awarding and transferring grant funds;  and accountability for effective use of grant funds. My comments are  based on our report on the management of first responder grant programs  as well as updated information on DHS’s progress since the report’s  issuance in addressing its challenges.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Department of Justice established the ODP in 1998 within the Office  of Justice Programs to assist state and local first responders in acquiring  specialized training and equipment needed to respond to and manage  terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. ODP, which  was transferred to DHS upon its creation in March 2003, has been a  principal source of domestic preparedness grant funds. These grants are a  means of achieving an important goal—enhancing the ability of first  responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist  incidents with well-planned and well-coordinated efforts that involve  police, fire, emergency medical, public health, and other personnel from  multiple jurisdictions. In March 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security  consolidated ODP with the Office of State and Local Government  Coordination to form the Office of State and Local Government  Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP). In addition, other preparedness  grant programs from agencies within DHS were also transferred to SLGCP.  SLGCP, which reports directly to the Secretary, was created to provide a  one-stop shop for the numerous federal preparedness initiatives applicable  to state and local first responders. Within SLGCP, ODP continues to have  program management and monitoring responsibilities for the domestic  preparedness grants.
subsections: section_title: Status of Grant Funding and Allocation
paragraphs: From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005, the amount of domestic  preparedness grants awarded by ODP increased from about $436 million  to about $3.3 billion. The scope of ODP’s grant programs expanded as  well, from funding only first responder advanced equipment, exercises,  and administrative activities in fiscal year 2002 to funding a range of  preparedness planning activities, exercises, training, equipment purchases,  and related program management and administrative costs in fiscal year  2005. During fiscal years 2002 through 2005, the State Homeland Security  Grant Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative program accounted for  about 69 percent of total ODP grant funds. Table 1 shows the amounts  provided for the domestic preparedness grant programs.
For fiscal years 2002 through 2005, ODP awarded approximately $2.1  billion in urban area grant funds to selected urban areas identified by DHS.  The amount of individual urban area grants is determined through a  combination of factors, including current threat estimates, an assessment  of each area’s critical assets, and population density. For the same period,  ODP awarded approximately $5.1 billion in statewide grant funds to states  to enhance domestic preparedness. Under its current funding formula,  approximately 40 percent of statewide grant funds are shared equally  among states, while the remaining amount is distributed according to state  population.
Several congressional proposals have been advanced to alter the statewide  funding formula to base it more directly on risk considerations. One  proposal would largely maintain the portion of funds shared equally by the  states but would base the distribution of the remaining funds on a risk- based formula similar to the one currently used for urban area grants.  Another proposal from the House Homeland Security Committee would  reduce the minimum amount of funding shared equally by states to  approximately 14 percent of total funding and establish a board to allocate  the remaining funds through an evaluation of threat, vulnerability, and the  potential consequences of a terrorist attack.
GAO supports a risk-based approach to homeland security.  Adoption of a  risk management framework can aid in assessing risk by determining  which vulnerabilities should be addressed in what ways within available  resources.  Assessing risk for specific assets or locations is defined by two  conditions: (1) probability or likelihood, quantitative or qualitative, that an  adverse event would occur, and (2) consequences, the damage resulting  from the event, should it occur.  Because it is unlikely that sufficient  resources will be available to address all risks, it becomes necessary to  prioritize both risks and the actions taken to reduce those risks, taking  cost into consideration.  For example, which actions will have the greatest  net potential benefit in reducing one or more risks?
section_title: ODP Grant Award Procedures
paragraphs: Over time, ODP has modified its grant application processes and  procedures for awarding grants to states, governing how states distribute  funds to local jurisdictions, and facilitating reimbursements for states and  localities. To obtain funding, state and urban area grantees must submit  applications to ODP and have them approved. In fiscal year 2004, ODP  began to streamline the application process. According to ODP, based on  feedback from the grantees, and to continue to improve the grant  programs, it combined three grant programs into a single grant application  solicitation. In fiscal year 2005, the number of combined programs  increased to six. ODP stated that the consolidation was done to streamline  the grant application process and better coordinate federal, state, and  local grant funding distribution and operations.
For the statewide grant programs, ODP has allowed the states flexibility in  deciding how the grant programs are structured and implemented in their  states. In general, states are allowed to determine such things as the  following:  the formula for distributing grant funds to local jurisdictional units;  the definition of what constitutes a local jurisdiction eligible to receive  funds, such as a multicounty area;  the organization or agency that would be designated to manage the  grant program; and    whether the state or local jurisdictions would purchase grant-funded  items for the local jurisdictions.
Urban area grantees, for the most part, have had flexibilities similar to  those of the states and could, in coordination with members of the Urban  Area Working Group, designate contiguous jurisdictions to receive grant  funds. For the first round of the urban area grants in fiscal year 2003, the  grants were made directly to the seven urban areas identified as  recipients. Starting with the second round of urban area grants in 2003,  grants were made to states, which then subgranted the funds to the  designated urban areas, but retained responsibility for administering the  grant program. The core city and county/counties work with the state  administrative agency to define the geographic borders of the urban area  and coordinate with the Urban Area Working Group.
Once the grant funds are awarded to the states and then subgranted to the  local jurisdictions or urban areas, certain legal and procurement  requirements have to be met, such as a city council’s approval to accept  grant awards. Once these requirements are satisfied, states, local  jurisdictions, and urban areas can then obligate their funds for first  responder equipment, exercises, training, and services. Generally, when a  local jurisdiction or urban area directly incurs an expenditure, it submits  related procurement documents, such as invoices, to the state. The state  then draws down the funds from the Justice Department’s Office of Justice  Programs. According to this office, funds from the U.S. Treasury are  usually deposited with the states’ financial institution within 48 hours. The  states, in turn, provide the funds to the local jurisdiction or urban area.
section_title: Timelines Established for Awarding and Transferring Grant Funds
paragraphs: Since the first announcement of the dramatic increase in first responder  grants after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the speed with  which the funding reached localities has been a matter of concern and  some criticism. Congress, state and local officials, and others expressed  concerns about the time ODP was taking to award grant funds to states  and for states to transfer grant funds to local jurisdictions. Beginning in  fiscal year 2003, ODP, at congressional direction, demonstrated significant  progress in expediting grant awards to states. For the fiscal year 2002  statewide grants, ODP was not required to award funds to states within a  specific time frame. During fiscal year 2002, ODP took 123 days to make  the statewide grant application available to states and, on average, about  21 days to approve states’ applications after receipt. For the second round  of fiscal year 2003 statewide grants, however, the appropriations act  required that ODP make the grant application available to states within 15  days of enactment of the appropriation and approve or disapprove states’  applications within 15 days of receipt. According to ODP data, ODP made  the grant application for this round of grants available to states within the  required deadline and awarded over 90 percent of the grants within 14  days of receiving the applications. The appropriations act also mandated  that states submit grant applications within 30 days of the grant  announcement. According to ODP data, all states met the statutory 30-day  mandate; in fact, the average number of days from grant announcement to  application submission declined from about 81 days in fiscal year 2002 to  about 23 days for the second round of fiscal year 2003 statewide grants.
The transfer of funds from states to local jurisdictions has also received  attention from Congress and ODP. To expedite the transfer of grant funds  from the states to local jurisdictions, ODP program guidelines and  subsequent appropriations acts imposed additional deadlines on states.  For the fiscal year 2002 statewide grants, there were no mandatory  deadlines or dates by which states should transfer grant funds to localities.  One of the states we visited, for example, took 91 days to transfer these  grant funds to a local jurisdiction while another state we visited took 305  days. Beginning with the first round of fiscal year 2003 statewide grants,  ODP required in its program guidelines that states transfer grant funds to  local jurisdictions within 45 days of the grant award date. Congress  subsequently included this requirement in the appropriations act for the  second round of fiscal year 2003 statewide grant funds. To ensure  compliance, ODP required states to submit a certification form indicating  that all awarded grant funds had been transferred within the required 45- day period. States that were unable to meet the 45-day period had to  explain the reasons for not transferring the funds and indicate when the  funds would be transferred. According to ODP, for the first and second  rounds of the fiscal year 2003 grants, respectively, 33 and 31 states  certified that the required 45-day period had been met.
To further assist states in expediting the transfer of grant funds to local  jurisdictions, ODP also modified its requirements for documentation to be  submitted as part of the grant application process for fiscal years 2002 and  2003. In fiscal year 2002, ODP required states to submit and have approved  by ODP budget detail worksheets and program narratives indicating how  the grant funds would be used for equipment, exercises, and  administration. If a state failed to submit the required documentation, ODP  would award the grant funds, with the special condition that the state  could not transfer, expend, or draw down any grant funds until the  required documentation was submitted and approved. In fiscal year 2002,  ODP imposed special conditions on 37 states for failure to submit the  required documentation and removed the condition only after the states  submitted the documentation. The time required to remove the special  conditions ranged from about 1 month to 21 months. For example, in one  state we reviewed, ODP awarded the fiscal year 2002 statewide grant  funds and notified the state of the special conditions on September 13,  2002; the special conditions were removed about 6 months later on March  18, 2003, after the state had met those conditions.
In fiscal year 2003, however, ODP allowed states to move forward more  quickly, by permitting them to transfer grant funds to local jurisdictions  before all required grant documents had been submitted. If a state failed to  submit the required documentation for the first round of fiscal year 2003  statewide grants, ODP awarded the grant funds and allowed the state to  transfer the funds to local jurisdictions. While the state and local  jurisdictions could not expend—and the state could not draw down—the  grant funds until the required documentation was submitted and  approved, they could plan their expenditures and begin state and locally  required procedures, such as obtaining approval of the state legislature or  city council to use the funds. Later that fiscal year, ODP further relaxed  this requirement and allowed the states to transfer, expend, and draw  down grant funds immediately after ODP awarded the grant funds. The  states only had to submit all documentation along with their biannual  progress reports.
Despite congressional and ODP efforts to expedite the award of grant  funds to states and the transfer of those funds to localities, some states  and local jurisdictions could not expend the grant funds to purchase  equipment or services until other, nonfederal requirements were met.  Some state and local officials’ ability to spend grant funds was  complicated by the need to meet various state and local legal and  procurement requirements and approval processes, which could add  months to the process of purchasing equipment after grant funds had been  awarded. For example, in one state we visited, the legislature must  approve how the grant funds will be expended. If the state legislature is  not in session when the grant funds are awarded, it could take as long as 4  months to obtain state approval to spend the funds.
Some states, in conjunction with DHS, have modified their procurement  practices to expedite the procurement of equipment and services. Officials  in two of the five states we visited told us they established centralized  purchasing systems that allow equipment and services to be purchased by  the state on behalf of local jurisdictions, freeing them from some local  legal and procurement requirements. In addition, the DHS’s Homeland  Security Advisory Council Task Force reported that several states  developed statewide procurement contracts that allow local jurisdictions  to buy equipment and services using a prenegotiated state contract. DHS  has also offered options for equipment procurement, through agreements  with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Logistics Agency and the  Marine Corps Systems Command, to allow state and local jurisdictions to  purchase equipment directly from their prime vendors. These agreements  provide an alternative to state and local procurement processes and,  according to DHS, often result in a more rapid product delivery at a lower  cost.
Congress has also taken steps to address a problem that some states and  localities cited concerning a federal law, the Cash Management  Improvement Act (CMIA), that provides for reimbursement to states and  localities only after they have incurred an obligation, such as a purchase  order, to pay for goods and services. Until fiscal year 2005, after  submitting the appropriate documentation, states and localities could  receive federal funds to pay for these goods and services several days  before the payment was due so that they did not have to use their own  funds for payment. However, according to DHS’s Homeland Security  Advisory Council Task Force report, many municipalities and counties had  difficulty participating in this process either because they did not receive  their federal funds before payment had to be made or their local  governments required funds to be on hand before commencing the  procurement process. Officials in one city we visited said that, to solve  the latter problem, the city had to set up a new emergency operations  account with its own funds. The task force recommended that for fiscal  year 2005, ODP homeland security grants be exempt from a provision of  CMIA to allow funds to be provided to states and municipalities up to 120  days in advance of expenditures. In response, the fiscal year 2005 DHS  appropriations legislation included a provision that exempts formula- based grants (e.g., the State Homeland Security Grant Program grants) and  discretionary grants, including the Urban Areas Security Initiative and  other ODP grants, from the CMIA’s requirement that an agency schedule  the transfer of funds to a state so as to minimize the time elapsing between  the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and the state’s disbursement  of the funds for program purposes. ODP’s fiscal year 2005 program  guidelines informed grantees and subgrantees that they are allowed to  draw down funds up to 120 days prior to expenditure.
In addition, DHS efforts are under way to identify and disseminate best  practices, including how states and localities manage legal and  procurement issues that affect grant distribution. DHS’s Homeland  Security Advisory Council Task Force reported that some jurisdictions  have been “very innovative” in developing mechanisms to support the  procurement and delivery of emergency-response-related equipment. The  task force recommended that, among other things, DHS should, in  coordination with state, county, and other governments, identify, compile,  and disseminate best practices to help states address grant management  issues. ODP has responded by establishing a new Homeland Security  Preparedness Technical Assistance Program service to enhance the grant  management capabilities of state administrative agencies and by surveying  states to identify their technical needs and best practices they have  developed related to managing and accounting for ODP grants, including  the procurement of equipment and services at the state and local levels.  This information is to serve as a foundation for the development of a  tailored, on-site assistance program for states to ensure that identified best  practices are implemented and critical grant management needs and  problems are addressed. According to ODP, the technical assistance  service was made operational in December 2004, however, the final  compendium of best grants management practices will not be formally  released until May 2005.
Despite efforts to streamline local procurement practices, some challenges  remain at the state and local levels. An ODP requirement that is based on  language in the appropriations act could delay procurements, particularly  in states that have a centralized purchasing system. Specifically, beginning  with the fiscal year 2004 grant cycle, states were required by law to pass  through no less than 80 percent of total grant funding to local jurisdictions  within 60 days of the award. In order for states to retain grant funds  beyond the 60-day limit, ODP requires states and local jurisdictions to sign  a memorandum of understanding (MOU) indicating that states may  retain—at the local jurisdiction’s request—some or all funds in order to  make purchases on a local jurisdiction’s behalf. The MOU must specify the  amount of funds to be retained by the state. This requirement may pose  problems for some states. A state official in one state we visited said that,  while the state’s centralized purchasing system had worked well in prior  years, the state has discontinued using it because of the MOU requirement,  since establishing MOUs with every locality might take years. The state  transferred the fiscal year 2004 grant funds to local jurisdictions so they  can make their own purchases. In another state, officials expressed  concern that this requirement would negatively affect their ability to  maintain homeland security training provided to local jurisdictions at state  colleges that had been previously funded from local jurisdictions’ grant  funds. In the fiscal year 2005 grant program guidelines, states were  encouraged, but not required, to submit their MOUs to ODP for review by  DHS’s Office of General Counsel to ensure compliance.
section_title: Accountability for Effective Use of Grant Funds
paragraphs: In distributing federal funds to states to assist first responders in  preventing, preparing for, and responding to terrorist threats, the federal  government has required states to develop strategies to address their  homeland security needs as a condition for receiving funding. The details  of this federal requirement have also evolved over time.
Before the events of September 11, 2001, ODP required states to develop  homeland security strategies that would provide a roadmap of where each  state should target grant funds. To assist the states in developing these  strategies, state agencies and local jurisdictions were directed to conduct  needs assessments on the basis of their own threat and vulnerability  assessments. The needs assessments were to include related equipment,  training, exercise, technical assistance, and research and development  needs. In addition, state and local officials were to identify current and  required capabilities of first responders to help determine gaps in  capabilities.
In fiscal year 2003, ODP directed the states to update their homeland  security strategies to better reflect post-September 11 realities and to  identify progress on the priorities originally outlined in the initial  strategies. As required by statute, completion and approval of these  updated strategies were a condition for awarding fiscal year 2004 grant  funds.
ODP has also revised its approach on how states and localities report on  grant spending and use. ODP took steps to shift the emphasis away from  reporting on specific items purchased and toward results-based reporting  on the impact of states’ expenditures on preparedness. ODP maintains an  authorized equipment list that includes such diverse items as personal  protection suits for dealing with hazardous materials and contamination,  bomb response vehicles, and medical supplies. This information is in turn  listed on the budget worksheets that localities submitted to states for their  review. Until the fiscal year 2004 grant cycle, states were required to  submit itemized budget detail worksheets that itemized each item to be  purchased under first responder grants. ODP found, however, that, while  the worksheets reflected the number and cost of specific items that states  and localities planned to purchase, neither states nor ODP had a reporting  mechanism to specifically assess how well these purchases would, in the  aggregate, meet preparedness planning needs or priorities, or the goals  and objectives contained in state or urban area homeland security  strategies. Accordingly, ODP revised its approach for fiscal year 2004 and  required that states, instead of submitting budget detail worksheets to  ODP, submit new “Initial Strategy Implementation Plans” (ISIP). These  ISIPs are intended to show how planned grant expenditures for all funds  received are linked to one or more larger projects, which in turn support  specific goals and objectives in either a state or urban area homeland  security strategy. In addition to the ISIPs, ODP now requires the states to  submit biannual strategy implementation reports showing how the actual  expenditure of grant funds at both the state and local levels was linked by  projects to the goals and objectives in the state and urban area strategy.
Reports by GAO and DHS’s Office of Inspector General, as well as by the  House Homeland Security Committee, have identified the need for clear  national guidance in defining the appropriate level of preparedness and  setting priorities to achieve it. The lack of such guidance has in the past  been identified as hindering state and local efforts to prioritize their needs  and plan how best to allocate their homeland security funding. We have  reported that national preparedness standards that can be used to assess  existing first responder capacities, identify gaps in those capacities, and  measure progress in achieving specific performance goals are essential to  effectively managing federal first responder grant funds as well as to the  ability to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of  public funds.
ODP has responded to the calls for national preparedness standards and  specifically to HSPD-8 that required DHS to develop a new national  preparedness goal and performance measures, standards for preparedness  assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the nation’s overall  preparedness. In order to develop performance standards that will allow  ODP to measure the nation’s success in achieving this goal, ODP is using a  capabilities-based planning approach—one that defines the capabilities  required by states and local jurisdictions to respond effectively to likely  threats. These capability requirements are to establish the minimum levels  of capability required to provide a reasonable assurance of success against  a standardized set of 15 scenarios for threats and hazards of national  significance. The scenarios include such potential emergencies as a  biological, nuclear or cyber attack, two natural disasters, and a flu  pandemic. The objective is to develop the minimum number of credible,  high-consequence scenarios needed to identify a broad range of  prevention and response requirements.
As part of the HSPD-8 implementation process, in January 2005, ODP  issued a list of capability requirements in keeping with a requirement of  the fiscal year 2005 DHS appropriations act. To help define the  capabilities that jurisdictions should set as targets, ODP first defined the  essential tasks that need to be performed from the incident scene to the  national level for major events illustrated by the 15 scenarios. It then  developed a Target Capabilities List that identifies 36 areas in which  responding agencies are expected to be proficient in order to perform  these critical tasks. ODP further plans to develop performance measures,  on the basis of the target capability standards that define the minimal  acceptable proficiency required in performing the tasks outlined in the  task list. According to ODP’s plan, the measures will allow the  development of a rating methodology that incorporates preparedness  resources and information about overall performance into a summary  report that represents a jurisdiction’s or agency’s ability to perform  essential prevention, response, or recovery tasks. The office acknowledges  that this schedule may result in a product that requires future incremental  refinements but has concluded that this is preferable to spending years  attempting to develop a “perfect” process.
On March 31, 2005, DHS issued a document entitled “Interim National  Preparedness Goal” that reflects the department’s progress in developing  readiness targets, priorities, standards for preparedness assessments and  strategies, and a system for assessing the nation’s overall level of  preparedness. The document also states that National Preparedness  Guidance will follow within 2 weeks. This guidance is to include, in DHS’  words, “detailed instructions on how communities can use the Goal and a  description of how the Goal will generally be used in the future to allocate  Federal preparedness assistance.” DHS expects to issue a Final Goal and  an updated target capabilities list on October 1, 2005. Over the next several  months, ODP plans to work with its stakeholders to identify the levels of  capabilities that various types of jurisdictions should possess in order for  the Nation to reach the desired state of national preparedness.
section_title: Prior GAO Recommendations with Regard to First Responder Grants
paragraphs: In May 2004, we reported on the use of first responder grant monies in the  National Capital Region, which includes the District of Columbia and  specified surrounding jurisdictions in the states of Maryland and Virginia.   We found that the grant monies were not being spent in accordance with a  regional plan for their use. To ensure that emergency preparedness grants  and associated funds were managed in a way that maximizes their  effectiveness, we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security  work with NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to  establish goals and priorities for the use of funds, monitor the plan’s  implementation to ensure that funds are used in a way that are not  unnecessarily duplicative, and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures  in addressing gaps in preparedness. DHS and the Senior Policy Group of  the National Capital Region generally agreed with our recommendations  and have been working to implement them.
In our report on interoperable communications for first responders, we  found that federal assistance programs to state and local government did  not fully support regional planning for communications interoperability.   We also found that federal grants that support interoperability had  inconsistent requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications  plans.  In addition, uncoordinated federal and state level grant reviews  limited the government’s ability to ensure that federal funds were used to  effectively support improved regional and statewide communications  systems. We recommended that DHS grant guidance encourage states to  establish a single statewide body responsible for interoperable  communications that would prepare a single comprehensive statewide  interoperability plan for federal, state, and local communications systems  in all frequency bands. We also recommended that at the appropriate time,  that DHS grant guidance should require that federal grant funding for  interoperable communications equipment should be approved only upon  certification by the statewide body that such grant applications were in  conformance with the statewide interoperability plan. In its comments on  our draft report, DHS did not address the second recommendation.   However, on November 1, 2004, the SAFECOM office with DHS Office of  Interoperability and Compatibility issued its methodology for developing a  statewide interoperability communications plan.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: In summary, Mr. Chairman, since the tragic events of September 11, 2001,  the federal government has dramatically increased the resources and  attention it has devoted to national preparedness and the capabilities of  first responders. The grant programs managed by ODP have expanded  rapidly in their scope and funding levels. Over the 3-½ years since the  terrorist attacks, Congress, ODP, states, and local governments  encountered obstacles, some of them frustrating and unexpected, in  delivering grant funds to their ultimate recipients in a timely manner and  ensuring they are used most effectively. All levels of government have  attempted to address these obstacles and succeeded in resolving or  ameliorating many of them. Some of the changes made are relatively new;  thus, it is still too early to determine if they will have the desired outcome.
ODP’s focus has changed over time from examining and approving, for  example, specific items of equipment proposed for purchase under first  responder grants to defining the capabilities that states and local  jurisdictions need to attain—that is, establishing performance standards.  Such a results-based orientation could prove to be the most practical and  effective grants management approach at the federal level to help ensure  accountability and effectiveness of results. DHS must also continue to  ensure that an effective system for monitoring and accounting for limited  federal funds intended for enhancing the nation’s ability to respond to  terrorist attacks or natural disasters exists at the state and local level.
DHS’s task of defining a national preparedness goal and translating that  definition into capabilities that are meaningful and readily transferable to  the wide variety of local jurisdictions around the nation is still not  complete. As the department has acknowledged, the process will  necessarily be iterative. As we have stressed before, during this process  DHS must continue to listen and respond constructively to the concerns of  states, local jurisdictions, and other interested parties. Such collaboration  will be essential to ensuring that the nation’s emergency response  capabilities are appropriately identified, assessed, and strengthened. At  the same time, state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector  must recognize that the process is iterative, will include periodic  adjustments and refinements, and that risks are not equally distributed  across the nation.
As we have noted previously, it is important that the quest for speed in  distributing and using federal first responder grants does not hamper the  planning and accountability needed to ensure that the funds are spent on  the basis of a comprehensive, well-coordinated plan to provide first  responders with the equipment, skills, and training needed to be able to  respond quickly and effectively to a range of emergencies, including,  where appropriate, major natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
The challenges we noted in developing effective interoperable  communications for first responders are applicable to developing effective  first responder capabilities for major emergencies, regardless of cause. A  fundamental challenge has been limited regional and statewide planning,  coordination, and cooperation. No one level of government can  successfully address the challenges of developing needed first responder  capabilities alone. The federal government can play a leadership role in  developing requirements and providing support for state, regional, and  local governments to: assess first responder capabilities; identify gaps in  meeting those capabilities; develop coordinated plans and priorities for  closing those gaps; and assess success in developing and maintaining the  needed capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer  any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
section_title: Contact Information
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact William O.  Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512-8777. Individuals making key contributions to this  testimony included Amy Bernstein, David Brown, Frances Cook, James  Cook, Christopher Keisling, Katrina Moss, Sandra Tasic, John Vocino, and  Robert White.
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.