Emergency Preparedness: FEMA Faces Challenges Integrating Community Preparedness Programs into Its Strategic Approach
Published: 2010-01-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Individuals can reduce their need for first responder assistance by preparing for a disaster. By law, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is to develop a National Preparedness System (NPS) that includes community preparedness programs. These programs account for less than 0.5 percent of FEMA's budget. They include the Citizen Corps Program (CCP) and partner programs, e.g., Fire Corps, which provide volunteers to assist first responders. FEMA's Ready Campaign promotes preparedness through mass media. GAO was asked to review federal efforts to promote community preparedness. GAO was asked to address (1) challenges, if any, FEMA faces in measuring the performance of CCP, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign, and (2) actions, if any, FEMA has taken to develop a strategy to encompass how these programs are to operate within the context of the NPS. GAO analyzed documents on preparedness plans and strategies and compared reported performance data with observations during 12 site visits, selected primarily on the basis of major disasters. While not projectable, the results add insight.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: FEMA faces challenges measuring performance for CCP, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign because (1) it relies on states to verify data for local program units and (2) it is unable to control the distribution of the Ready Campaign messages or measure whether the messages are changing the behavior of individuals. GAO's past work showed the importance of ensuring that program data are of sufficient quality to document performance and support decision making. FEMA includes the number of local volunteer organizations registered nationwide as its principal performance measure for community preparedness, but does not verify that registration data are accurate. For example, 5 of the 17 registered Citizen Corps councils GAO contacted were not active as councils. FEMA relies on state officials to verify the accuracy of the data, and does not have staff or processes for this purpose. FEMA officials agreed that the data are inaccurate, and have plans to improve the registration process, but this process is not designed to ensure accurate data because states will continue to be responsible for verifying the accuracy of data. FEMA counts requests for literature, Web site hits, and the number of television and radio announcements made to gauge performance of the Ready Campaign, but it does not control when information is accessed or viewed. Also, changes in behavior can be the result of a variety of factors, including campaigns sponsored by other organizations. GAO's past work stated that agencies should measure performance based on accurate, clear, and reliable data that are clearly linked to program goals, but also recognized that programs like the Ready Campaign may need to rely on substitute measures that it uses such as Web site hits. GAO recognizes that FEMA is challenged measuring the performance of CCP, partner programs, and the Ready Campaign, but examining the feasibility of approaches to verify data on CCP and its partner programs could position FEMA to begin to (1) explore why programs that no longer exist were disbanded and (2) develop possible strategies for reconstituting local programs or developing new ones. FEMA's challenges in measuring the performance of community preparedness programs are compounded because it has not developed a strategy to show how its community preparedness programs and the Ready Campaign are to operate within the context of the NPS. In April and October 2009, GAO reported that FEMA's National Preparedness Directorate (NPD), responsible for community preparedness, had not developed a strategic plan; rather it used an operating plan, which lacked key elements of an effective national strategy, such as how to gauge progress. GAO recommended that NPD develop a strategic plan that contains these key elements. FEMA agreed and reported that it is taking actions to strengthen strategic planning. While officials said an NPD strategic plan and a community preparedness strategy are being developed, NPD has not developed timelines with milestone dates for completing these strategies. By doing so, consistent with standard management practices for implementing programs, FEMA would be better positioned to show progress and provide insights into how these plans can be used as building blocks for the national preparedness strategy.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The public plays an important role in national emergency preparedness.  By preparing their families and property before an event, individuals can  often reduce a disaster’s impact on them and their need for first responder  assistance, particularly in the first 72 hours following a disaster. For  example, having at least a 72-hour supply of food and drinking water on  hand can both sustain the individual and family in a disaster’s aftermath  and reduce the immediate demands for food and water delivered by first  responders whose priority may be search and rescue. They can also  potentially support first responders as trained volunteers, since the  average person will likely be the first on the scene of a disaster. However,  research shows that Americans could be better prepared for disasters,  particularly based on two key indicators—the degree to which people  report having disaster supplies set aside and having a household  emergency plan. According to Citizen Corps national surveys for 2003 and  2007, about half (50 and 53 percent, respectively) of U.S. households had  disaster supplies in their homes, and fewer had supplies set aside in their  car or workplaces. Those who responded that they are personally  prepared may have taken some of the actions recommended, such as  having water set aside but not having extra batteries for their flashlights.  In 2003, 58 percent, and in 2007, 42 percent, of survey respondents  reported having a household emergency plan. Although it is unrealistic to  expect first responders to assist everyone in a disaster, 37 percent of those  surveyed in 2007 said that the primary reason they were unprepared was  because they believed emergency personnel would help them in the event  of a disaster. Also, the 2003 and 2007 Citizen Corps surveys reported that  62 and 57 percent of respondents, respectively, said that they expected to  rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages public  preparedness through the Community Preparedness Division’s Citizen  Corps program, which is designed to bring together government and  community leaders to involve citizens in all-hazards emergency  preparedness and resilience, and the Ready Campaign, which makes  literature and mass media content available to promote preparedness to  individuals, families, and businesses. Citizen Corps is designed to  promote collaboration between local government and community leaders  via local Citizen Corps Councils. Individual councils are to promote  preparedness activities and to encourage volunteering with federally  sponsored programs that support first responders, referred to as Citizen  Corps partner programs. According to FEMA officials, individual Council  activities may include outreach and localized preparedness education,  training, and exercises. Citizen Corps promotes five partner programs, two  of which are funded by FEMA—the Community Emergency Response  Team (CERT) and Fire Corps. According to FEMA officials, Citizen Corps  also encourages Councils to work with the 27 national affiliate  organizations with which FEMA has official agreements, including the  American Red Cross, National Safety Council, Meals on Wheels, Civil Air  Patrol, and the American Association of Community Colleges. The  operating budgets for community preparedness programs currently  represent less than one-half of 1 percent of FEMA’s total budget. In fiscal  year 2009, FEMA’s overall budget was about $7.9 billion, of which about  $5.8 million was dedicated to operating community preparedness  programs and $2.1 million was for the Ready Campaign.
FEMA’s Citizen Corps and partner program officials encourage state, local,  regional, and tribal governments and private and nonprofit community- based organizations to establish and sustain local Citizen Corps Councils  and partner programs, partly through federal funding for local efforts.  Local Citizen Corps Councils, CERTs, and Fire Corps all are considered  “grass roots” organizations that provide volunteer opportunities in their  respective communities. Citizen Corps Councils and CERT programs are  registered and approved online and are potentially eligible to apply for  federal grant funding through the state to support their programs.  According to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data,  approximately $269 million in FEMA homeland security grants (including  grants for Citizen Corps Councils, CERT, and Fire Corps) were awarded  for community preparedness projects from fiscal years 2004 through 2008.  In fiscal year 2008, funding for community preparedness grants  represented about 1.9 percent of the total FEMA grant funding.  Specifically, in fiscal year 2008, approximately $56 million went to  community preparedness projects, out of more than $3 billion awarded in  DHS grants to strengthen prevention, protection, response, and recovery  capabilities at all levels of government. Appendix I provides additional  information on DHS grants awarded for community preparedness  purposes from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008.
In April 2009 we issued a report that discussed, among other things, the  National Preparedness System—a continuous cycle of (1) establishing  policy and doctrine, (2) planning and allocating resources, (3) conducting  training and exercises to gather lessons learned, and (4) assessing and  reporting on the training and exercises to evaluate preparedness, including  identifying any gaps in capabilities. Assessments and reports resulting  from the National Preparedness System are to be used to inform decision  makers on what improvements are needed and how to target finite  resources to improve preparedness for disasters. Our report recognized  that developing and integrating the elements of the National Preparedness  System is a challenge for FEMA, and more specifically the National  Preparedness Directorate (NPD), the FEMA component responsible for  carrying out the key elements of the National Preparedness System, in  coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, nonprofit, and private  sector organizations. We reported that the size and complexity of the  nation’s preparedness activities and the number of organizations  involved—both public and private—pose a significant challenge to FEMA  as it leads the nation’s efforts to develop and sustain a National  Preparedness System. We further stated that, to develop an effective  system, FEMA is to coordinate and partner with a broad range of  stakeholders. As part of the nation’s preparedness system, the status of  citizen and community preparedness can affect the demands on first  responders in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.
In this context, you requested that we review FEMA efforts to promote  community preparedness. On October 1, 2009, we testified before the  Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and  Response, House Committee on Homeland Security, to provide our  preliminary observations. This report supplements our testimony and  provides the final results of our work to address (1) what challenges, if  any, FEMA faces in measuring the performance of Citizen Corps, its  partner programs, and the Ready Campaign, and (2) what actions, if any,  FEMA has taken to develop a strategy to encompass how Citizen Corps, its  partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to operate within the  context of the National Preparedness System.
To address what challenges, if any, FEMA faces in measuring the  performance of Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready  Campaign, we reviewed applicable laws, guidance, and reports on  community preparedness. We also interviewed FEMA officials, including  officials representing Citizen Corps, CERT, Fire Corps, and the Ready  Campaign at DHS headquarters in Washington D.C. to gain an  understanding of these programs and how they operate. In addition, we  analyzed Citizen Corps documents, including Citizen Corps and CERT  registration guidance, and data on the number of registered Citizen Corps  Councils and partner programs to determine how FEMA measures the  performance of its programs. We reviewed documents pertinent to the  collection of these data and discussed the processes FEMA has in place to  ensure the accuracy of the registration data. We had questions about the  reliability of these data, as discussed later in this report. We also  interviewed officials at selected registered Citizen Corps Councils and  partner programs during our site visits to 12 selected locations in five  states—California, Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas—and verified  whether local registered units were active. We selected four of these states  because they had the highest number of major disaster declarations since  1953. We also visited Nevada to observe a full-scale exercise with CERT  participation and interviewed selected officials in Nevada. In total, we  conducted 41 interviews covering 53 organizations in the 5 states. The  results from our interviews in the 5 states are not generalizable, but  provide insights into the operations of local Citizen Corps and partner  programs. Once we completed our site visits, we compared FEMA’s  performance measures for Citizen Corps and its partner programs with  criteria from our past work on best practices for measuring performance.  We also used the performance measurement criteria discussed in our past  work to assess the Ready Campaign’s efforts to measure its performance.  Finally, we analyzed data from the 2008 Ready Campaign national tracking  survey and National Advertising Council’s (Ad Council) 2008 data on  media time donated to the Ready Campaign. To determine the reliability of  the Ready Campaign’s tracking survey and donated media data, we  reviewed documents and interviewed Ready Campaign officials and Ad  Council officials to discuss their process for ensuring data accuracy. We  determined that the tracking survey and donated media data were  sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report.
To address what actions, if any, FEMA has taken to develop a strategy to  encompass how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready  Campaign are to operate within the context of the National Preparedness  System, we reviewed pertinent laws, guidance, and reports on strategic  planning. We also reviewed and analyzed DHS’s and FEMA’s strategic  plans for fiscal years 2008 through 2013, and the National Preparedness  Directorate’s 2009 operating plan and compared these documents with  criteria in our past work that discusses the six characteristics of an  effective national strategy. In addition, we interviewed cognizant FEMA  officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss their efforts to develop a strategy  for integrating Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready  Campaign into the National Preparedness System.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to January 2010  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 that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Responsibility for helping to prepare members of the community for all  hazards is shared by federal, state, local, and tribal entities, and  nongovernmental organizations. At the federal level, FEMA is responsible  for developing national strategies, policies, and guidelines related to  emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. To achieve the goals of  a national strategy, however, requires a close relationship with nonfederal  partners, based on the premise that resilient communities—those that can  quickly recover from a disaster—begin with prepared individuals and  depend on the leadership and engagement of local government and other  community members. According to DHS, emergency management  agencies at the jurisdiction level are to develop preparedness plans for  their localities that are consistent with plans at the state and federal levels.  States submit requests for federal Homeland Security funding for state,  local, and regional projects, including projects related to community  preparedness.
FEMA is required under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform  Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) to establish a National Preparedness  System to ensure that the nation has the ability to prepare for and respond  to disasters of all types, whether natural or man-made, including terrorist  attacks. The Community Preparedness Division is responsible for leading  activities related to community preparedness, including management of  the Citizen Corps program. According to fiscal year 2008 Homeland  Security Grant Program guidance, the program is to bring together  community and government leaders, including first responders, nonprofit  organizations, and other community stakeholders as a Citizen Corps  Council to collaborate in involving community members in emergency  preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. Councils and  partner programs register online to be included in the national program  registries. The Community Preparedness Division also supports the efforts  of non-DHS federal “partner programs,” such as the Department of Health  and Human Services’ Medical Reserve Corps, which promote  preparedness and the use of volunteers to support first responders. The  CERT program’s mission is to educate and train people in basic disaster  preparedness and response skills, such as fire safety, light search and  rescue, and disaster medical operations, using a nationally developed,  standardized training curriculum. Trained individuals can be recruited to  participate on neighborhood, business, or government teams to assist first  responders. According to FEMA officials, training is conducted by local  government, typically the fire or police department, which also organizes  and supports teams of the trained volunteers in neighborhoods, the  workplace, and high schools. The mission of the Fire Corps program is to  increase the capacity of fire and emergency medical service departments  through the use of volunteers in nonoperational roles and activities,  including administrative, public outreach, fire safety, and emergency  preparedness education.
FEMA is also responsible for a related program, the Ready Campaign,  which works in partnership with the Ad Council, an organization that  creates public service announcements (PSA), with the goals of raising  public awareness about the need for emergency preparedness, motivating  individuals to take steps toward preparedness, and ultimately increasing  the level of national preparedness. The program makes preparedness  information available to the public through its English and Spanish Web  sites (www.ready.gov and www.listo.gov), through printed material that  can be ordered from the program or via toll-free phone lines, and through  PSAs. The Ready Campaign message calls for individuals, families, and  businesses to (1) get emergency supply kits, (2) make emergency plans,  and (3) stay informed about emergencies and appropriate responses to  those emergencies.
section_title: FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring the Performance of Its Community Preparedness Efforts and the Ready Campaign
paragraphs: FEMA faces challenges in measuring the performance of local community  preparedness efforts because it lacks accurate information on those  efforts. FEMA is also confronted with challenges in measuring  performance for the Ready Campaign because the Ready Campaign is not  positioned to control the placement of its preparedness messages or  measure whether its message is changing the behavior of individuals.
subsections: section_title: FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring Performance of Community Preparedness Efforts Because It Lacks Accurate Information on Local Programs
paragraphs: According to FEMA officials, FEMA promotes citizen preparedness and  volunteerism by encouraging collaboration and the creation of community  Citizen Corps, CERT, and Fire Corps programs. FEMA includes the  number of Citizen Corps Councils, CERTs, and Fire Corps established  across the country as its principal performance measure for community  preparedness. However, FEMA faces challenges ensuring that the  information needed to measure the number of established, active units is  accurate. In our past work we reported on the importance of ensuring that  program data are of sufficient quality to document performance and  support decision making. FEMA programs report the number of local  units registered nationwide as a principal performance measure, but  FEMA does not verify that the registration data for Citizen Corps Councils,  CERT, or Fire Corps volunteer organizations are accurate. Our work  showed that the number of active units reported may differ from the  number that actually exists. For example, as of September 2009 we found  the following.
Citizen Corps reported having 2,409 registered Citizen Corps Councils  nationwide that encompass jurisdictions where approximately 79  percent of the U.S. population resides. However, of the 17  organizations registered as councils that we contacted during our site  visits, 12 were active and 5 were not active as councils.
The CERT program reported having 3,354 registered CERTs. Of the 12  registered CERTs we visited, 11 reported that they were actively  engaged in CERT activities, such as drills and emergency preparedness  outreach, or had assisted in an emergency or disaster. The 12th  registered CERT was no longer active.
State officials in two of the four states we visited also said that the data on  the number of registered programs might not be accurate. A state official  responsible for the Citizen Corps Council and CERT programs in one state  estimated that as little as 20 percent of the registered councils were active,  and the state subsequently removed more than half of its 40 councils from  the national Web site. Officials in another state said that the database is  not accurate and they have begun to send e-mails to or call local councils  to verify the accuracy of registrations in their state. These officials said  that they plan to follow up with those councils that do not respond, but  they were uncertain what they planned to do if the councils were no  longer active. These results raise questions about the accuracy of FEMA’s  data on the number of councils across the nation, and the accuracy of  FEMA’s measure that registered councils cover 79 percent of the  population nationwide.
Although changes in the number of active local programs can be expected  based on factors, including changes in government leadership, voluntary  participation by civic leaders, and financial support, a FEMA official  responsible for the Citizen Corps program acknowledged that the current  program registration lists need to be verified to determine whether they  are accurate. The official said that FEMA has plans for improving the  accuracy of the data as part of a new online registration process for  Citizen Corps Councils and CERTs in 2010, which would involve  reregistering local programs with the goal of reactivating inactive  programs, although it is likely that some inactive programs would be  removed from FEMA’s registries. However, it is possible that registration  data could continue to be inaccurate because, according to a FEMA  official, the Citizen Corps program does not have the authority to require  all local units to update information, particularly councils or CERTs that  do not receive federal funding. Furthermore, FEMA officials explained  that the Homeland Security Grant Program guidance designates state  officials as responsible for approving initial council and CERT  registrations and ensuring that the data are updated as needed and said  that under the new registration process, state officials will continue to be  responsible for ensuring that data are updated as needed. A Citizen Corps  official told us that the Community Preparedness Division does not  monitor whether states are regularly updating local unit registration  information as they do not have the staff or processes in place to monitor  states’ efforts and the Division would look to regional staff to work with  state officials. The official said that FEMA is considering the possibility of  providing contract support to states that request assistance in contacting  local programs as part of the re-registration effort.
A key FEMA official told us that they recently drafted a new strategic  approach and are considering developing and using outcome measures  that are focused on the achievements of Citizen Corps programs as well as  the number of programs, as is currently measured. Outcome measures are  important because a registered program being active is only a first step in  measuring whether local programs are meeting intended program goals.  However, our review of the draft showed that it does not state what  actions FEMA intends to take to ensure that registrations are accurate and  remain up-to-date. Therefore, FEMA does not have reasonable assurance  that its data about the number of registrations for local Citizen Corps  programs are accurate, which may affect its ability to measure the results  of those programs. By developing an approach to ensure the accuracy of  local Citizen Corps program data, FEMA managers and others would be  better positioned to understand why Citizen Corps programs that no  longer exist were disbanded, possible strategies for reconstituting or  creating new programs, and a foundation for developing outcome  measures that gauge whether local programs are achieving goals  associated with enhancing community preparedness.
section_title: The Ready Campaign Faces Challenges Measuring Performance Because It Is Not Positioned to Control the Distribution of Its Preparedness Message and Measure Whether Its Message Affects Individual Behavior
paragraphs: Currently, the Ready Campaign measures its performance based on  measures such as materials distributed or PSAs shown. For example,  according to a DHS official, in fiscal year 2008 the Ready Campaign had    more than 99 million “hits” on its Web site,    more than 12 million pieces of Ready Campaign literature requested or    43,660 calls to the toll-free numbers.
The Ready Campaign relies on these measures because it faces two  different challenges in determining whether its efforts are influencing  individuals to be more prepared. First, the Ready Campaign is not  positioned to control when or where its preparedness message is viewed.  Second, the Ready Campaign is not positioned to measure whether its  message is changing the behavior of individuals.
With regard to the Ready Campaign’s ability to control the distribution of  its message, our past work has shown that it is important for agencies to  measure their performance based on clear and reliable data that are linked  to program goals, but also recognizes that agencies whose programs rely  on others to deliver services, like the Ready Campaign, may need to use  substitute measures—such as counts of Web site hits and the number of  television announcements—which are not linked to outcomes. According  to FEMA’s Acting Director for the Ready Campaign, the program budget of  $2.5 million for 2010 limits the extent to which they could produce  advertisements and purchase commercial space for their placement. The  PSAs developed by the Ad Council cannot be used for purchased media  placement; rather, the Ready Campaign relies on donations of various  sources of media. As a result, the Ready Campaign does not control  what, when, or where Ready Campaign materials are placed when the  media are donated. For example, what PSA is shown and the slots (e.g., a  specific channel at a specific time) that are donated by television, radio,  and other media companies are not under the Ready Campaign’s control,  and these are not always prime viewing or listening spots. On the basis of  a review of Ad Council data, the Ready Campaign’s PSAs in 2008 were  aired about 5 percent or less of the time by English language and Spanish  language television stations during prime time (8:00 pm to 10:59 p.m.), and  about 25 percent of the PSAs were aired from 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.  Similarly, about 47 percent of English language radio and about 27 perc of Spanish language radio spots were aired from midnight to 6:00 a.m.  FEMA officials said because new material is more appealing to PSA  directors, they expect better placement with the new PSAs released in  September 2009. In November 2009, a FEMA official told us that the n PSAs had been released, but information was not yet available to show  whether the new material had received better placement.
Just as the Ready Campaign has no control over the time PSAs are aired, it  does not control the type of media (e.g., radio, television) donated. Based  on Ad Council data on the dollar value of media donated to show Ready  Campaign materials (the value of the donated media is generally based on  what it would cost the Ready Campaign if the media space were  purchased), much of the value from donated media is based on space  donated in the phone book yellow pages. Figure 1 shows the value of  various types of media donated to the Ready Campaign to distribute its  message during 2008.
The Ready Campaign also faces a challenge determining the extent to  which it contributes to individuals taking action to become more  prepared—the program’s goal. Measuring the Ready Campaign’s progress  toward its goal is problematic because it can be difficult to isolate the  specific effect of exposure to Ready Campaign materials on an individual’s  level of emergency preparedness. Research indicates that there may be a  number of factors that are involved in an individual taking action to  become prepared, such as his or her beliefs concerning vulnerability to  disaster, geographic location, or income. One factor in establishing  whether the Ready Campaign is changing behavior requires first  determining the extent to which the Ready Campaign’s message has been  received by the general population. The Ad Council conducts an annual  survey to determine public awareness of the Ready Campaign, among  other things. For example, the Ad Council’s 2008 survey found the  following    When asked if they had heard of a Web site called Ready.gov that  provides information about steps to take to prepare in the event of a  natural disaster or terrorist attack, 21 percent of those surveyed said  that they were aware of the Ready.gov Web site.
When asked a similar question about television, radio, and print PSAs,  37 percent of those surveyed said that they have seen or heard at least  one Ready Campaign PSA.
Another factor is isolating the Ready Campaign’s message from other  preparedness messages that individuals might have received. The Ad  Council’s 2008 survey found that 30 percent of those surveyed identified  the American Red Cross as the primary source of emergency preparedness  information; 11 percent identified the Ad Council.
While the Ad Council survey may give a general indication as to the  population’s familiarity with the Ready Campaign, it does not provide a  measure of preparedness actions taken based on the Ready Campaign’s  promotion; that is, a clear link from the program to achieving program  goals. The Ad Council reported that those who were aware of the Ready  Campaign’s advertising were significantly more likely than those who had  not seen it to say that they had taken steps to prepare for disaster, but  acknowledged that the Ready Campaign could not claim full credit for the  differences. Further, as previous Citizen Corps surveys showed, the degree  to which individuals are prepared may be less than indicated because  preparedness drops substantially when more detailed questions about  specific supplies are asked.
section_title: FEMA Has Not Developed a Strategy Encompassing How Citizen Corps, Its Partner Programs, and the Ready Campaign Are to Operate within the Context of the National Preparedness System
paragraphs: While DHS’s and FEMA’s strategic plans have incorporated efforts to  promote community preparedness, FEMA has not developed a strategy  encompassing how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready  Campaign are to operate within the context of the National Preparedness  System. An objective in DHS’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2008 through  2013 to “ensure preparedness” envisions empowering Americans to take  individual and community actions before and after disasters strike.  Similarly, FEMA’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2008 through 2013  envisions a strategy to “Lead the Nation’s efforts for greater personal and  community responsibility for preparedness through public education and  awareness, and community engagement and planning, including outreach  to vulnerable populations.” FEMA’s Strategic Plan delegates to the  agency’s components the responsibility for developing their own strategic  plans, which are to include goals, objectives, and strategies, but does not  establish a time frame for completion of the component plans. FEMA’s  Strategic Plan states that the components’ strategic plans are to focus on  identifying outcomes and measuring performance.
NPD has not clearly articulated goals for FEMA’s community  preparedness programs or developed a strategy to show how Citizen  Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to achieve those  goals within the context of the National Preparedness System. In our past  work, we reported that desirable characteristics of an effective national  strategy include articulating the strategy’s purpose and goals; followed by  subordinate objectives and specific activities to achieve results; and  defining organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination, including  a discussion of resources needed to reach strategy goals. In April 2009,  we reported that NPD had not developed a strategic plan that defined  program roles and responsibilities, integration and coordination  processes, and goals and performance measures for its programs. We  reported that instead of a strategic plan, NPD officials stated that they  used an annual operating plan and Post-Katrina Act provisions to guide  NPD’s efforts. The operating plan identifies NPD goals and NPD  subcomponents responsible for carrying out segments of the operating  plan, including eight objectives identified for the division under NPD’s goal  to “enhance the preparedness of individuals, families, and special needs  populations through awareness planning and training.” NPD’s objectives  for meeting this goal did not describe desired outcomes.
In late September 2009, NPD provided us a spreadsheet that was linked to  the NPD operating plan which outlined more detailed information on  NPD’s goals and objectives, such as supporting objectives, the responsible  NPD division, and projected completion dates. However the spreadsheet  lacked details about key issues, and did not include all of the elements of  an effective national strategy. For example, one of NPD’s operating plan  objectives—called a supporting goal in FEMA’s spreadsheet—for the  Community Preparedness Division is to increase “the number of functions  that CERTs will be able to perform effectively during emergency  response,” but neither the plan nor the spreadsheet provide details, such  as the functions CERTs currently perform, what additional functions they  could perform, and what it means to be effective. The spreadsheet  elaborates on this supporting goal with a “supporting objective” to  “develop 12 new CERT supplemental training modules that promote  advanced individual and team skills” and a completion date of September  30, 2009. FEMA officials said that 6 of the 12 modules were completed as  of September 30, 2009, and that the spreadsheet should have identified the  effort as ongoing because developing the planning modules was to be  completed over a 4-year period ending in 2011. The operating plan,  spreadsheet, and FEMA officials provided no time frame for when the  training is expected to be implemented at the local level to increase the  function of individual CERTs, nor did they discuss performance measures  and targets for gauging changes in the effectiveness of CERTs, or how  local training will be coordinated or delivered. NPD’s operating plan and  spreadsheet also did not include other key elements of an effective  national strategy, such as how NPD will measure progress in meeting  defined goals and objectives and the potential costs and types of  investments needed to implement community preparedness programs. As  a result, NPD is unable to provide a picture of priorities or how  adjustments might be made in view of resource constraints.
In our April 2009 report, we recommended that NPD take a more strategic  approach to implementing the National Preparedness System to include  the development of a strategic plan that contains such key elements as  goals, objectives, and how progress in achieving them will be measured.  DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it is making  progress in this area and in fully implementing the recommendation. NPD  officials stated in September 2009 that DHS, FEMA, and NPD, in  coordination with national security staff, were discussing the development  of a preparedness and implementation strategy within the context of  Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (National Preparedness)  (HSPD-8). They said that community and individual preparedness were  key elements of those discussions. At that time, NPD officials did not state  when the strategy would be completed; thus, it is not clear to what extent  the strategy will integrate Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the  Ready Campaign. NPD officials stated that work is under way on revising  the target capabilities, which are to include specific outcomes, measures,  and resources for the Community Preparedness and Participation  capability. They said that they expect to issue a draft for public comment  in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. Also, in testimony before the  Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and  Response, Committee on Homeland Security, on October 1, 2009, the NPD  Deputy Administrator said that, in recognition of the preliminary  observations raised in our testimony, NPD is reformulating the NPD  operating plan as a strategic plan. He said that once complete, the strategic  plan is intended to integrate Community Preparedness, specifically the  efforts of Citizen Corps, its partner programs and affiliates, and the Ready  Campaign. However, he said he was not prepared to provide a time frame  as to when the strategic plan would be completed. The NPD Deputy  Administrator agreed to consult with the Subcommittee staff and other  stakeholders as NPD develops the draft strategic plan.
The FEMA official leading the development of the NPD strategic plan told  us that NPD had begun to develop a strategic plan, but it had not  developed a timeline with milestone dates for completing it because NPD  is waiting to coordinate the plan’s development with the revision of HSPD- 8 and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. He said NPD would be  better able to establish a timeline and milestones for completing the NPD  strategic plan once these other documents were revised; but he was  uncertain about when these documents would be completed. He also  stated that NPD had developed a draft strategic approach for community  preparedness in response to a request by the Chairman of the  Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and  Response, Committee on Homeland Security, during the October 1, 2009  hearing. He said that NPD intends to use this strategic approach as a  vehicle for discussing community preparedness within the context of  NPD’s overall strategy. He told us that, as with the draft strategic plan,  NPD had not established a timeline with milestone dates for completing  the Community Preparedness strategy.
On December 2, 2009, FEMA provided a copy of the draft community  preparedness strategic approach that it prepared for the Subcommittee.  FEMA’s draft represents an important first step because it partially  satisfies the elements of an effective national strategy. Specifically, the  draft strategic approach broadly discusses why FEMA produced it, the  process by which it was developed, and FEMA’s overall community  preparedness vision. The draft also outlines goals and subordinate goals  and discusses the outcomes FEMA expects in achieving them. However,  the draft strategic approach lacks key elements of an effective national  strategy because, among other things, it does not discuss how progress  will be measured in achieving these goals; the roles and responsibilities of  the organizations responsible for implementing the strategy, and  mechanisms for coordinating their efforts; and the cost of implementation,  including the source and types of resources needed and where those  investments and resources should be targeted. FEMA’s draft did not  identify a timeline and milestones for completing the strategy.
The Ready Campaign is also working to develop its strategic direction.  According to the FEMA Director of External Affairs, the Ready  Campaign’s strategy is being revised to reflect the transition of the  program from DHS’s Office of Public Affairs to FEMA’s Office of External  Affairs, and the new FEMA Director’s approach to preparedness. Program  officials said that the Ready Campaign will have increased access to staff  and resources and is to be guided by a FEMA-wide strategic plan for  external communications. As of September 2009, the plan was still being  developed and no date had been set for completion. The Ready Campaign  Director said in November 2009 that the plan is not expected to be done  before the end of the year, but was not aware of a timeline and milestones  for its completion. The Director also said that the Ready Campaign was  included in the draft community preparedness strategy.
We recognize that HSPD-8 and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review  are instrumental in articulating the overall national preparedness strategy  and FEMA’s strategic approach, and that NPD’s plan and community  preparedness strategies, including the Ready Campaign, are components  of efforts to revise these initiatives. Standard practices for project  management established by the Project Management Institute state that  managing a project involves, among other things, developing a timeline  with milestone dates to identify points throughout the project to reassess  efforts under way to determine whether project changes are necessary.  By developing plans with timelines and milestones for completing the NPD  and community preparedness strategies, FEMA will be better positioned to  provide a more complete picture of NPD’s approach for developing and  completing these documents. They also would provide FEMA managers  and other decision makers with insights into (1) NPD’s overall progress in  completing these strategies, (2) a basis for determining what, if any,  additional actions need to be taken, and (3) the extent to which these  strategies can be used as building blocks for the national preparedness  strategy and FEMA’s strategic approach.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Hurricane Katrina was one of the most devastating natural disasters in our  nation’s history and will have long-standing effects for years. By their  nature, catastrophic events involve casualties, damage, or disruption that  will likely overwhelm state and local responders. Americans who are  prepared as individuals for disasters, and as trained volunteers, can help to  mitigate the impact of disasters in their local communities, yet the  previous FEMA surveys indicate that many Americans are still not  prepared. The majority of those responding to the surveys said they plan  to rely on assistance from first responders during a major disaster.
While FEMA identifies community preparedness as an important part of its  national preparedness strategy, FEMA lacks accurate performance  information on its community preparedness programs that would enable it  to determine whether these programs are operating in the communities in  which they have been established. We recognize that FEMA’s Citizen  Corps Program and partner programs have relatively small budgets and  staff, and that program officials are aware of inaccuracies in the data and  are considering options to improve information on local programs, such as  re-registering existing programs. However, it is unclear whether these  measures will be enough to provide FEMA the assurance it needs that  local programs that are registered continue to operate. By having accurate  data, FEMA managers and other decision makers would be better  positioned to measure progress establishing and maintaining these  programs nationwide and in local communities. This would also provide  FEMA managers the basis for exploring (1) why programs that no longer  exist were disbanded, and (2) possible strategies for reconstituting local  programs or developing new ones. Accurate data would also provide a  foundation for developing outcome measures that gauge whether local  programs are achieving goals associated with enhancing community  preparedness.
Challenges in measuring the performance of these programs stem in part  from FEMA lacking an overall strategy for achieving community  preparedness or defining how these efforts align with the larger National  Preparedness System, particularly how Citizen Corps, its partner  programs, and the Ready Campaign fit within the strategy. Defining  program roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms; identifying  performance measures to gauge results; and ensuring the resources  needed to achieve program goals would be part of an effective strategy.  FEMA has agreed such a strategy is needed and has started to develop  strategies for NPD and Community Preparedness, including the Ready  Campaign, but has no timeframes or milestone dates for developing and  completing them. By having a plan with time frames and milestone dates  for completing the NPD strategic plan and its community preparedness  strategy, FEMA managers and other decision makers would be better  equipped to track NPD’s progress. Moreover, they would have a basis to  determine what, if any, additional actions are needed to enhance NPD’s  overall preparedness strategy and community preparedness and insights  into the extent to which these plans can be used as building blocks for the  national preparedness strategy and FEMA’s strategic approach.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better ensure that national community preparedness efforts are  effective and completed in a timely fashion, we recommend that the  Administrator of FEMA take the following two actions:   examine the feasibility of developing various approaches for ensuring the  accuracy of registration data of local Citizen Corps Councils and partner  programs, and    develop plans including timelines and milestone dates for completing and  implementing (1) NPD’s strategic plan and (2) its Community  Preparedness Strategic Approach, including details on how Citizen Corps,  partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to operate within the  context of the National Preparedness System.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of  Homeland Security. The department declined to provide official written  comments to include in our report. However, in an e-mail received January  19, 2010, the DHS liaison stated that DHS concurred with our  recommendations. FEMA provided written technical comments, which  were incorporated into the report as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of Homeland Security, appropriate congressional committees, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8777 or email at jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix II.
William O. Jenkins, Jr Director, Homeland Security and Ju .
section_title: Appendix I: Homeland Security Grant Program Funding for Community Preparedness, 2004 through 2008
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) support for local community  preparedness activities is provided through Homeland Security grants,  specifically the Citizen Corps grant program, but community preparedness  activities are also eligible for support under other Homeland Security  grants. Citizen Corps grants are awarded to states based on a formula of  0.75 percent of the total year’s grant allocation to each state (including the  District of Columbia and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and 0.25 percent  of the total allocation for each U.S. Territory, with the balance of funding  being distributed on a population basis.
For other DHS homeland security grants, states prepare a request for  funding, which can include support for the state’s community  preparedness efforts, as allowed under the guidance for a particular grant.  For example, the 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program guidance lists  “conducting public education and outreach campaigns, including  promoting individual, family and business emergency preparedness” as an  allowable cost for State Homeland Security Grants. Grant funding can be  used to support Citizen Corps, Citizen Corps partner programs, or other  state community preparedness priorities. The Federal Emergency  Management Agency’s (FEMA) grant reporting database does not  categorize grants in a way that allows identification of the amount of  funding going to a particular community preparedness program, such as a  Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) or Fire Corps.
Table 1 summarizes the approximately $269 million in DHS grants that  were identified by grantees as supporting community preparedness  projects from 2004 through 2008. Our selection of projects for inclusion in  this summary relied on DHS data on grantees who identified their project  as one of three predefined project types that are, according to FEMA  officials, relevant for community preparedness, or were projects funded  with a Citizen Corps Program grant. Not all grantees may have used these  project-type descriptions, so the amount below is an approximation. We  worked with grant officials to identify the most appropriate grant selection  criteria. To determine the reliability of these DHS grant data, we reviewed  pertinent DHS documents, such as the Grant Reporting Tool User’s  Manual and interviewed DHS officials about their process for compiling  these data. We determined that the grant data we used were sufficiently  reliable for purposes of this report.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, John Mortin, Assistant Director,  and Monica Kelly, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Carla  Brown, Qahira El’Amin, Lara Kaskie, Amanda Miller, Cristina Ruggiero- Mendoza, and Janet Temko made significant contributions to the report.