Homeland Security: Managing First Responder Grants to Enhance Emergency Preparedness in the National Capital Region
Published: 2005-07-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the National Capital Region (NCR)--the District of Columbia and nearby jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia--was recognized as a significant potential target for terrorism. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, about $340 million in emergency preparedness funds were allocated to NCR jurisdictions. In May 2004, GAO issued a report (GAO-04-433) that examined (1) the use of federal funds emergency preparedness funds allocated to NCR jurisdictions, (2) the challenges within the NCR to organizing and implementing efficient and effective preparedness programs, (3) any emergency preparedness gaps that remain in the NCR, and (4) the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) role in the NCR. The report made recommendations to the Secretary of DHS to enhance the management of first responder grants in the NCR. We also reported in September 2004 (GAO-04-1009) that the NCR's Governance Structure for the Urban Area Security Initiative could facilitate collaborative, coordinated, and planned management and use of federal funds for enhancing emergency preparedness, if implemented as planned DHS agreed to implement these recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: A coordinated, targeted, and complementary use of federal homeland security grants is important in the NCR and elsewhere. These grants are one 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, and effective efforts that involve a variety of first responders from multiple jurisdictions. To oversee and coordinate federal emergency preparedness programs among federal, state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR, the Homeland Security Act established the Office for National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) within DHS. The ongoing security risk requires a comprehensive, coordinated, and carefully planned approach to the expenditure of federal first responder grants. This requires a NCR-wide strategic plan, performance goals, an assessment of preparedness gaps to guide priority setting, and continuing assessments of the progress made in closing identified gaps This testimony summarizes our prior work and provides information on the implementation of the three recommendations in our May 2004 report. First, we recommended that DHS work with the NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan. DHS and NCR jurisdictions have completed a final draft for review that has been circulated to key stakeholders. Second, we recommended that DHS monitor's the plans implementation, which must await a final plan. To implement and monitor the future plan, data will be needed regarding the funding available and used for implementing the plan and enhancing first responder capabilities in the NCR--data that is not currently routinely available. The NCR, through the District of Columbia's Office of Homeland Security, has a system for tracking the use of Urban Area Security Initiative funds in the NCR as well as other homeland security grant funds available to Washington, D.C. However, the NCR does not currently track non-Urban Area Security Initiative funds available to and used by other NCR jurisdictions in an automated, uniform way. Rather, it obtains information about those funds through a variety of means, including teleconferences involving senior emergency preparedness officials. Third, we recommended that DHS identify and address preparedness gaps and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures by conducting assessments based on established guidelines and standards. No systematic gap analysis has been completed for the region; however, by March 2006, the NCR plans to complete an effort to use the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) as a means of conducting a gap analysis and assess NCR jurisdictions against EMAP's national preparedness standards. The result would be a report on the NCR's compliance with EMAP standards for emergency preparedness and an analysis of areas needing improvement to address in the short- and long-term. The ONCRC has not determined how this effort would be integrated with DHS' capabilities-based planning and assessments for first responders, pending the issuance of DHS' final version of the National Preparedness Goal in October 2005.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on efforts to  use federal first responder grants to effectively enhance emergency  preparedness in the National Capital Region (NCR). We reported on this  issue twice in 2004 and testified before the House Committee on  Government Reform on this topic in June 2004. My statement today  highlights the major findings and recommendations of our prior work and  provides some updated information on the status of efforts by NCR  jurisdictions and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for  National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) to implement our  recommendations.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the federal government, state and  local governments, and a range of independent research organizations  have agreed on the need for a coordinated intergovernmental approach for  allocating the nation’s resources to address the threat of terrorism and  improve our security. The National Strategy for Homeland Security,  released in 2002 following the proposal for DHS, emphasized a shared  national responsibility for security involving close cooperation among all  levels of government and acknowledged the complexity of developing a  coordinated approach within our federal system of government and among  a broad range of organizations and institutions involved in homeland  security. The national strategy highlighted the challenge of developing  complementary systems that avoid unintended duplication and increase  collaboration and coordination so that public and private resources are  better aligned for homeland security.
The national strategy established a framework for this approach by  identifying critical mission areas with intergovernmental initiatives in each  area. For example, the strategy identified such initiatives as modifying  federal grant requirements and consolidating funding sources to state and  local governments. The strategy further recognized the importance of  assessing the capability of state and local governments, developing plans,  and establishing standards and performance measures to achieve national  preparedness goals. In addition, many aspects of DHS’ success depend on  its maintaining and enhancing working relationships within the  intergovernmental system as it relies on state and local governments to  accomplish its mission. In our view, intergovernmental and  interjurisdictional coordination in managing federal first-responder grants  is as important in the NCR as it is anywhere in the nation.
section_title: The Role of DHS’ Office of National Capital Region Coordination in Enhancing Regional Preparednedness
paragraphs: As noted in our May 2004 report and June 2004 testimony, the creation of  DHS was an initial step toward reorganizing the federal government to  respond to some of the intergovernmental challenges identified in the  National Strategy for Homeland Security. ONCRC was created by the  Homeland Security Act. According to NCR emergency management  officials we contacted during the time of our previous reviews, ONCRC  could play a potentially important role in assisting them to implement a  coordinated, well planned effort in using federal resources to improve the  region’s preparedness. As we stated in the past, meeting the office’s  statutory mandate would fulfill those key responsibilities.
The Homeland Security Act established ONCRC within DHS to oversee  and coordinate federal programs for, and relationships with federal, state,  local, and regional authorities in the NCR. The ONCRC’s responsibilities  are primarily ones of coordination, assessment, and advocacy. With regard  to coordination, the ONCRC was mandated to:    coordinate the activities of DHS relating to the NCR, including cooperation  with the DHS’ Office for State and Local Government Coordination;    coordinate with federal agencies in the NCR on terrorism preparedness to  ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution of  the federal role in domestic preparedness activities;    coordinate with federal, state, local, and regional agencies and the private  sector in NCR on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate planning,  information sharing, training, and execution of domestic preparedness  activities among these agencies and entities;    serve as a liaison between the federal government and state, local, and  regional authorities, and private sector entities in the NCR to facilitate  access to federal grants and other programs.
ONCRC also has responsibilities related to resource and needs  assessments and advocating for needed resources in the NCR, including:    assessing and advocating for resources needed by state, local, and regional  authorities in the NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland; and    submitting an annual report to Congress that (1) identifies resources  required to fully implement homeland security efforts in the NCR, (2)  assesses progress in implementing homeland security efforts in the NCR,  and (3) includes recommendations to Congress regarding additional  resources needed to fully implement homeland security efforts in the NCR.  (According to the ONCRC, the first annual report is now with the Office of  Management and Budget for review).
We recognize that ONCRC’s missions and tasks are not easy. The overall  job of promoting domestic preparedness in a large area with a huge  federal presence is daunting. The NCR is a complex multijurisdictional  area comprising the District of Columbia and surrounding county and city  jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia. Coordination within this region  presents the challenge of working with numerous jurisdictions that vary in  size, political organization, and experience in managing large emergencies.
As we noted in our May 2004 report on the management of funds in the  NCR, effectively managing first responder grant funds requires the ability  to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of the funds.  To do this, it is necessary to:  1.  Develop and implement strategies for the use of the funds that identify  key goals and priorities;  2.  Establish performance baselines;  3.  Develop and implement performance goals and data quality standards;  4.  Collect reliable data;  5.  Analyze those data;  6.  Assess the results of that analysis;  7.  Take action based on those results; and  8.  Monitor the effectiveness of actions taken to achieve the designated  performance goals.
This strategic approach to homeland security includes identifying threats  and managing risks, aligning resources to address them, and assessing  progress in preparing for those threats and risks.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that the equipment, skills,  and training required to prepare for and respond to identified terrorist  threats and risks may be applicable to non-terrorist risks as well. For  example, the equipment, skills, and training required to respond effectively  to a discharge of lethal chlorine gas from a rail car is much the same  whether the cause of the discharge is an accidental derailment or a  terrorist act.
section_title: Our May 2004 Report Showed the Need to Improve Management of First-Responder Grants in the NCR
paragraphs: As we reported in May 2004, in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the  Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human  Services awarded about $340 million through 16 first-responder grants to  NCR jurisdictions to enhance regional emergency preparedness. Of these  funds, $60.5 million were from the UASI grant, designated for regionwide  needs. The remaining funds, about $279.5 million, were available to local  jurisdictions for a wide variety of needs, such as equipment and training,  and local jurisdictions determined how these funds were to be spent.  Local jurisdictions used or planned to use money from those grants to buy  equipment and to implement training and exercises for the area’s first  responders, as well as improve planning for responding to a terrorist  event. We have not reviewed how funds were spent since the issuance of  our May 2004 report; however, spending could not be based on a  coordinated plan for enhancing regional first responder capacities and  preparedness because such a plan does not yet exist, although one is being  prepared.
In May 2004, we reported that ONCRC and the NCR faced 3 interrelated  challenges in managing federal funds in a way that maximizes the increase  in first responder capacities and preparedness while minimizing  inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of expenditures. These were the  lack of (1) preparedness standards; (2) a coordinated regionwide plan for  establishing first responder performance goals, needs, and priorities, and  assessing the benefits of expenditures; and (3) readily available, reliable  source of data on the federal grant funds available to first responders in  the NCR and their use. Without the standards, a regionwide plan, and data  on available funds and spending, it will be extremely difficult to determine  whether NCR first responders have the ability to respond to threats and  emergencies with well-planned, well-coordinated, and effective efforts that  involve a variety of first responder disciplines from NCR jurisdictions.  Moreover, without such data, it is not clear how the ONCRC can fulfill its  statutory mandate to assess and advocate for resources needed by state,  local, and regional authorities in the NCR to implement efforts to secure  the homeland.
During our review we could identify no reliable data on preparedness gaps  in the NCR, which of those gaps were most important, and the status of  efforts to close those gaps. The baseline data needed to assess those gaps  had not been fully developed or made available on a NCR-wide basis. We  also noted that at the time our May 2004 report was released, DHS and  ONCRC appear to have had a limited role in assessing and analyzing first  responder needs in NCR and developing a coordinated effort to address  those needs through the use of federal grant funds. ONCRC has focused  principally on developing a plan for using the UASI funds—funds that  were intended principally for addressing region wide needs. In its  comments on a draft of our May 2004 report, DHS said that a governance  structure approved in February 2004 would accomplish essential  regionwide coordination. We agree that this structure has the potential to  accomplish essential regionwide coordination, but it is not clear how it  can do so effectively without comprehensive data on funds available for  enhancing first responder skills and capabilities in the NCR, their use, and  their effect on meeting identified performance goals.
section_title: Recommendations in Our May 2004 Report Not Yet Fully Implemented
paragraphs: To help ensure that emergency preparedness grants and associated funds  are managed in a way that maximizes their effectiveness, our May 2004  report included three recommendations to the Secretary of the  Department of Homeland Security. As discussed in more detail below,  some progress has been made in implementing these recommendations,  but none has yet been fully implemented.
Recommendation 1: Work with the NCR jurisdictions to develop a  coordinated strategic plan to establish goals and priorities for enhancing  first responder capacities that can be used to guide the use of federal  emergency preparedness funds.    Actions taken: According to an ONCRC official, a final draft for review  has been circulated to key stakeholders. According to the Director,  ONCRC, the plan will feature measurable goals, objectives, and  performance measures.
Recommendation 2: Monitor the strategic plan’s implementation to ensure  that funds are used in a way that promotes effective expenditures that are  not unnecessarily duplicative.    Actions taken: Monitoring implementation of the strategic plan cannot  be accomplished absent a plan. Importantly, to monitor the plan’s  implementation, data will be needed on funds available and spending  from all first responder grants available to jurisdictions in the NCR,  such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program.  The NCR,  through the D.C. Office of Homeland Security, has a system for  tracking the use of UASI funds in the NCR and other homeland security  grant funds available to D.C., such as the State Homeland Security  Grants. However, at this time, it does not have an automated, uniform,  system to track non-UASI grant funds available and used by other NCR  jurisdictions. Information on the projects funded in NCR jurisdictions  by funds other than UASI is obtained through the monthly meetings  and weekly conference calls of the Senior Policy Group and full-day  quarterly meetings of jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic area, sponsored  by the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP). These meetings  provide contacts for obtaining information, as needed, on grant  allocations and expenditures in jurisdictions both within and outside  the NCR in the mid-Atlantic region. The ONCRC recognizes the need to  develop a more systematic means of capturing all homeland security  grant funds available and used through the NCR.
Recommendation 3: Identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness  and evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures in meeting those needs by  adopting standards and preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios  for NCR and conducting assessments based on them.
Actions taken: To date, no systematic gap analysis has been completed  for the region as a whole. The NCR plans to use the Emergency  Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) as a means of conducting  a gap analysis and assessing NCR jurisdictions against EMAP’s  standards for emergency preparedness—an effort expected to be  completed by March 2006. How this effort would be integrated with  DHS’ capabilities-based planning and assessments for first responders  has not yet been determined, pending the issuance of DHS’ final  version of the National Preparedness Goal in October 2005.
At the national level, DHS’ efforts to develop policies, guidance, and  standards that can be used to assess and develop first responder skills  and capabilities have included three policy initiatives: (1) a national  response plan (what needs to be done to manage a major emergency  event); (2) a command and management process—the National  Incident Management System—to be used during any emergency event  nation-wide (how to do what needs to be done); and (3) a national  preparedness goal (how well it should be done). Since our May 2004  report, DHS, as part of developing the national preparedness goal,  developed 15 scenarios (12 terrorist events, a flu pandemic, a  hurricane, and an earthquake) of “national significance” that would  require coordinated federal, state, and local response efforts; the  critical tasks associated with these scenarios; and the capabilities—in  terms of planning, training, equipment, and exercises—that first  responders would need to develop and maintain to effectively prepare  for and respond to major emergency events. The 300 critical tasks and  36 capabilities were intended as benchmarks first responders could use  to assess their relative level of preparedness and capacity to prevent,  mitigate, respond to, and recover from major emergency events,  including terrorist attacks. Because no single jurisdiction or agency  would be expected to perform every task, possession of a target  capability could involve enhancing and maintaining local resources,  ensuring access to regional and federal resources, or some  combination of the two.
The January 25, 2005 proposal for the EMAP assessment program does  suggest one way in which the NCR may include the DHS scenarios,  critical tasks, and capabilities in the EMAP assessment project. The  proposal states: “Should the NCR or local jurisdictions within the  region desire to conduct (a) hazard identification, risk assessment, and  impact analysis activities, and/or (b) capabilities assessment against  catastrophic scenarios using federally provided technical assistance  during the period of this project, EMAP representatives will coordinate  with local and regional personnel to ensure that assessment activities  and products are complementary.”
section_title: Concluding Comments
paragraphs: The need for comprehensive, coordinated emergency planning and  preparedness is important in the National Capital Region. As we noted in  the recent past, the ongoing security risk to the NCR requires a  comprehensive, coordinated, and carefully planned approach to the  expenditure of federal first responder grants. This requires a regionwide  strategic plan, performance goals, an assessment of preparedness gaps to  guide priority setting, and continuing assessments of the progress made in  closing identified gaps. The NCR has completed a draft strategic plan and  has established a process for assessing existing preparedness gaps. But it  still needs to develop a means of routinely obtaining reliable data on all  funds available for enhancing emergency preparedness in the NCR and  their uses. It is important to know how all first responder funds are being  spent in the NCR for setting priorities and assessing the results of funds  spent. The NCR has selected the EMAP emergency preparedness  standards as its performance standards for the region, but it will be  necessary to integrate the EMAP standards with the set of 36 performance  capabilities for first responders that DHS has developed as part of its  National Performance Goal.
The NCR, in common with jurisdictions across the nation, faces the  challenge of implementing DHS requirements for its three key policy  initiatives—the National Incident Management System, National Response  Plan, and the National Preparedness Goal. Successfully accomplishing all  of these things will require a sound strategic plan; effective coordination;  perseverance; and reliable data on available funds, their use, and the  results achieved. As we noted in our September 2004 report, the NCR’s  UASI Governance Structure represents a positive step towards instituting  a collaborative, multijurisdictional, regionwide, planning structure. Fully  implementing the recommendations in our May 2004 report would, in our  view, be a major step toward developing the structure, processes, and data  needed to assess current first responder skills and capabilities in the NCR  and monitor the success of efforts to close identified gaps and achieve  designated performance goals for the NCR.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions you or other members of the Committee may  have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For questions regarding this testimony please contact William O. Jenkins,  Jr. on (202) 512-8777. Ernie Hazera also made key contributions to this  testimony.
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.