National Response Framework: FEMA Needs Policies and Procedures to Better Integrate Non-Federal Stakeholders in the Revision Process
Published: 2008-06-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Hurricane Katrina illustrated that effective preparation and response to a catastrophe requires a joint effort between federal, state, and local government. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is responsible for heading the joint effort. In January 2008, DHS released the National Response Framework (NRF), a revision of the 2004 National Response Plan (2004 Plan), the national preparation plan for all hazards. In response to the explanatory statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 and as discussed with congressional committees, this report evaluates the extent to which (1) DHS collaborated with non-federal stakeholders in revising and updating the 2004 Plan into the 2008 NRF and (2) FEMA has developed policies and procedures for managing future NRF revisions. To accomplish these objectives, GAO reviewed DHS and FEMA documents related to the revision process, analyzed the relevant statutes, and interviewed federal and non-federal officials who held key positions in the revision process.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While DHS included non-federal stakeholders--state, local, and tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector--in the initial and final stages of revising the 2004 Plan into the NRF, it did not collaborate with these stakeholders as fully as it originally planned or as required by the October 2006 Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (Post-Katrina Act). As the revision process began in 2006, DHS involved both federal and non-federal stakeholders by soliciting and incorporating their input in determining the key revision issues and developing the first draft in April 2007. However, after this first draft was completed, DHS deviated from its revision work plan by conducting a closed, internal federal review of the draft rather than releasing it for stakeholder comment because the draft required further modifications DHS considered necessary. DHS limited communication with non-federal stakeholders until it released a draft for public comment 5 months later on September 10, 2007. The following day, non-federal stakeholders testified at a congressional hearing that DHS had shut them out during that 5-month period. In addition, the Post-Katrina Act required that DHS establish a National Advisory Council (NAC) for the FEMA Administrator by December 2006 to, among other things, incorporate nonfederal stakeholders' input in the revision process. However, FEMA stated the necessary time to select quality NAC members required additional time, and FEMA did not announce the NAC's membership until June 2007. The NAC did not provide comments on a revision draft until one month before DHS publicly released the final NRF in January 2008. FEMA anticipates that the NRF will be revised in the future; however, FEMA does not have policies or procedures in place to guide this process or ensure a collaborative partnership with stakeholders. FEMA has emphasized the importance of partnering with relevant stakeholders to effectively prepare for and respond to major and catastrophic disasters, and the Congress, through the Post-Katrina Act, requires such partnership. In addition, the Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government calls for policies and procedures that establish regular communication with stakeholders and monitor performance over time as essential for achieving desired program goals. Furthermore, previous GAO work on the Department of Defense's civil support plans and the administration's national pandemic influenza implementation plan has shown the need for participation of state and local jurisdictions in emergency planning. Especially in view of a new administration, the experience of the previous revision process illustrates the importance of collaborating with stakeholders in revising a plan that relies on them for its successful implementation. While the NRF is published by DHS, it belongs to the nation's emergency response community. Developing such policies and procedures is essential for ensuring that FEMA attains the Post- Katrina Act's goal of partnering with non-federal stakeholders in building the nation's emergency management system, including the periodic review and revision of the NRF.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A common axiom in emergency management is that “All disasters are  local.” But a key lesson Hurricane Katrina dramatically emphasized was  that major disasters can quickly overwhelm the capacity of local  responders. Thus, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from major  disasters requires partnerships between the federal government and non- federal stakeholders, such as state, local, and tribal governments, the  private sector, and nongovernmental organizations. In summarizing the  lessons learned from our nation’s response to Katrina, we reported in  September 2006 that these federal and non-federal partnerships were  critical to improving catastrophic disaster response. The 2006 Post- Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (Post-Katrina Act)  specifically tasked the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to partner with these  non-federal stakeholders to build a national system of emergency  management. In outlining his vision for a “New FEMA” and in testimonies  before the Congress, the FEMA Administrator has acknowledged that  FEMA’s success depends on its ability to establish and maintain robust  partnerships with non-federal stakeholders.
DHS issued the National Response Plan in December 2004 (2004 Plan) to  provide common principles and structures to align the efforts of  stakeholders at the local, state, and federal level to ensure an effective  national disaster response system. The events surrounding Hurricane  Katrina in August 2005 and the resulting lessons-learned and after-action  reports by the Congress and administration prompted DHS to revise the  just issued 2004 Plan. DHS released an interim revision of elements of the  2004 Plan in May 2006 and developed a work plan for a more  comprehensive revision in September 2006. Shortly thereafter, Congress  passed the October 2006 Post-Katrina Act, which made the FEMA  Administrator, through the National Integration Center, responsible for  ongoing management and maintenance of the 2004 Plan, including  periodic review and revision. In addition, the act required the DHS  Secretary to establish a National Advisory Council of non-federal  stakeholders to advise the FEMA Administrator in revising the 2004 Plan.  During the summer of 2007 in the midst of the revision process, non- federal members of the emergency management community raised  concerns over the extent to which DHS included them in the process. In  September 2007, the House Committee on Transportation and  Infrastructure held a hearing on DHS’s management of the revision  process and the involvement of non-federal stakeholders. DHS completed  its revision efforts with the publication of the National Response  Framework (NRF) on January 22, 2008. The NRF is a guide for how the  federal, state, local, and tribal governments, along with nongovernmental  and private sector entities, will collectively respond to and recover from  all disasters, particularly catastrophic disasters such as Hurricane Katrina,  regardless of their cause. The NRF recognizes the need for collaboration  among the myriad of entities and personnel involved in response efforts at  all levels of government, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.  See figure 1 depicting the significant events and documents in the revision  of the 2004 Plan into the 2008 NRF.
In the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated  Appropriations Act of 2008, the appropriations committees tasked GAO to  review the process DHS used to update the NRF, including the process for  including key stakeholders. We conducted our review to determine the  extent to which (1) DHS collaborated with non-federal stakeholders in  revising and updating the 2004 Plan into the 2008 NRF and (2) FEMA has  developed policies and procedures for managing future revisions of the  NRF, for which it is statutorily responsible.
To address our objectives, we reviewed DHS and FEMA documents on the  revision process and applicable statutes to determine the level to which  the revision process was planned. To determine what happened during the  process, we interviewed DHS and FEMA officials as well as non-federal  stakeholders representing state and local levels of government, emergency  management associations, and others who served in key positions in the  revision process, such as the co-leaders of work groups and members of a  steering committee. The statements and views of these stakeholders are  not generalizable to the population of non-federal stakeholders involved in  the revision process. However, we selected these stakeholders because of  their assigned key roles and believe that their views provided us with a  general indication of stakeholder perspectives on their involvement in the  revision process. To address our objectives, we reviewed DHS and FEMA  documents on the revision process and applicable statutes to determine  the level to which the revision process was planned. In assessing DHS and  FEMA actions related to these objectives, we used criteria from our prior  work on results-oriented government as well as best practices for federal  coordination and collaboration with stakeholders. We also used criteria in  GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. These  standards, issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers’  Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for  establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal government.  Also pursuant to FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget issued  Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide the specific  requirements for assessing and reporting on internal controls. Internal  control standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A-123  are based on GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government. For more detailed information on our scope and  methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to June 2008,  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: Several federal legislative provisions support preparation for and response  to disasters. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency  Assistance Act (Stafford Act) primarily establishes the programs and  processes for the federal government to provide major disaster and  emergency assistance to states, local governments, tribal nations,  individuals, and qualified private nonprofit organizations. FEMA has  responsibility for administering the provisions of the Stafford Act, and the  Act provides the FEMA Administrator with the authority to prepare  federal response plans and programs. In April 1992, FEMA issued a  Federal Response Plan, which outlined how the federal government  implements the Stafford Act. The Federal Response Plan described,  among other things, the response and recovery responsibilities of each  federal department and agency for saving lives and protecting public  health and safety during an emergency or major disaster.
After the events of September 11, 2001, and with the passage of the  Homeland Security Act in November 2002, FEMA became part of the  newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Under the Act,  FEMA retained its authority to administer the provisions of the Stafford  Act as well as its designation as the lead agency for the Federal Response  Plan. The Homeland Security Act required DHS to consolidate existing  federal government emergency response plans into a single, integrated,  and coordinated national response plan. In December 2004, DHS issued  the 2004 Plan to integrate the federal government’s domestic prevention,  preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one plan that addressed  all disaster situations, whether due to nature, terrorism, or other man- made activities. The 2004 Plan incorporated or superceded other federal  interagency plans such as the Federal Response Plan and the Federal  Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina and, shortly after, hurricanes Wilma and  Rita revealed a number of limitations in the 2004 Plan. Beginning in  February 2006, reports by the House Select Bipartisan Committee to  Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, the  Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the  White House Homeland Security Council, the DHS Inspector General,  and DHS and FEMA all identified a variety of failures and some strengths  in the preparations for, response to, and initial recovery from Hurricane  Katrina. After reviewing these reports, DHS concluded that the 2004 Plan  required revision. In May 2006, DHS released immediate modifications to  the 2004 Plan pending a more comprehensive review. In June 2006,  Congress passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for  Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. In the  conference report accompanying this act, the conferrees recommended  that FEMA apply $3 million of its Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and  Recovery appropriation to immediately review and revise the 2004 Plan as  well as its companion document, the National Incident Management  System, which provides standard command and management structures  that apply to response activities.
On October 4, 2006, the Post-Katrina Act was enacted. This act, among  other things, made certain organizational changes within DHS to  consolidate emergency preparedness and emergency response functions  within FEMA, required that DHS maintain FEMA as a distinct entity within  the department, and designated the FEMA Administrator—the new title of  the official who will lead the agency—as the principal advisor to the  President, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary for all  matters relating to emergency management. Most of the organizational  changes, such as the transfer of various functions from DHS’s Directorate  of Preparedness to FEMA, became effective as of March 31, 2007. Others,  such as the increase in the organizational autonomy for FEMA and the  establishment of the National Integration Center, became effective upon  enactment. The Post-Katrina Act specified that the FEMA Administrator,  acting through the Center, “shall ensure ongoing management and  maintenance of the…National Response Plan,” including periodic review  and revision. The Post-Katrina Act also directed the Secretary to establish  a National Advisory Council (NAC) by December 2006 to, among other  things, incorporate state, local, and tribal government and private sector  input in the development and revision of the 2004 Plan. As established by  the Post-Katrina Act, the NAC is intended to be an ongoing advisory  council that draws upon individuals with a broad body of expertise and  geographic and substantive diversity. The Act requires the NAC to advise  the Administrator on a variety of emergency management issues across  the national preparedness spectrum, including the 2004 Plan.
In January 2008, DHS issued the 2008 NRF, the product of the revision of  the 2004 Plan. The NRF became effective in March 2008 and retained the  basic structure of the 2004 Plan. For example, like the 2004 Plan, the  NRF’s core document describes the doctrine that guides national response  actions and the roles and responsibilities of officials and entities involved  in response efforts. Further, the NRF also includes Emergency Support  and Incident Annexes. However, in contrast to the 2004 Plan, FEMA plans  to include four partner guides to the NRF that describe key roles and  actions for local, tribal, state, federal and private sector entities involved in  response activities.
section_title: DHS Did Not Collaborate with Non- Federal Stakeholders As Fully As Planned or Required in Developing the NRF
paragraphs: While DHS included non-federal stakeholders at the initial and final stages  in the process of revising the December 2004 Plan, it did not collaborate  with them as fully as planned in its revision work plan or as required by  the Post-Katrina Act. DHS based the work plan, which was approved by a  White House Homeland Security Council–chaired policy committee, on a  section in the 2004 Plan that provided procedural guidance for managing  revisions of the document. DHS managed the initial stages of the revision  process according to the work plan. However, DHS deviated from its work  plan after the first draft was completed in April 2007. Instead of widely  disseminating the first draft to all stakeholders, including non-federal  stakeholders, for comment and modification, DHS retained the draft to  make modifications that it felt were necessary and conducted an internal,  federal review of the draft for a 5-month period. DHS delayed the release  of the April 2007 draft and provided limited communication to state and  local stakeholders on the status of the review until after releasing the draft  for public comment in September 2007. In addition, DHS did not manage  the revision process in accordance with the Post-Katrina Act’s provision  that DHS establish FEMA’s NAC by December 2006 and incorporate the  NAC’s non-federal input into the revision.
subsections: section_title: DHS Created a Work Plan to Revise the 2004 National Response Plan, Specifying Revision Issues, Entities and Tasks, and a Time Line for Completing the Revision
paragraphs: Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in August 2005 and the nation’s  response prompted DHS to revise the 2004 Plan. In May 2006, DHS issued  an official Notice of Change to the 2004 Plan to incorporate lessons  learned from the response to hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Rita as well  as to incorporate organizational changes within DHS. This Notice of  Change—which was distributed to all signatories of the 2004 Plan, DHS  headquarters and regional offices, and state emergency management and  homeland security offices—noted that DHS intended to initiate a  comprehensive stakeholder review of the 2004 Plan in the fall of 2006.  Accordingly, DHS developed a work plan to manage the revision of the  2004 Plan that established (1) the issues that were to be the focus of the  revision process, (2) the entities to be created to implement the process  and the tasks involved, and (3) a timeline for completing the revision  process and issuing the final document. DHS based its work plan for  revising the 2004 Plan on guidance found in the Plan itself. Anticipating  that modifications or updates would arise when needed, the 2004 Plan  included a section specifying how DHS would conduct interim changes  and full revisions, listing the time frames and circumstances—within the  first year and every 4 years, or more frequently if the Secretary deems  necessary, to incorporate new presidential directives, legislative changes,  and procedural changes based on lessons learned from exercises and  actual events. The Domestic Readiness Group, an interagency group that  coordinates preparedness and response policy and is chaired by staff of  the White House Homeland Security Council, approved DHS’s work plan  in September 2006. For the revision process, the Domestic Readiness  Group was to provide strategic policy coordination, be a mechanism for  vetting the revision at the federal level, and was to resolve conflicting  policy issues.
The work plan contained an initial list of 14 revision issues. According to  FEMA officials, they compiled these issues by reviewing Hurricane Katrina  after-action and lessons-learned reports from the White House, Congress,  GAO, and the DHS Inspector General and identifying common issues that  were raised in multiple reports. According to the work plan, DHS was to  conduct meetings with selected stakeholders to review the initial list and  identify other issues to be considered during the revision process. The  result of these meetings was to be a finalized list of revision issues that  would serve as the starting point for revising the 2004 Plan.
Based on the 2004 Plan, DHS created three entities to facilitate the  revision process: the Steering Committee, the Writing Team, and 12 Work  Groups. DHS provided a copy of the approved work plan to all  participants. The Steering Committee was to conduct the day-to-day  management and oversight of the 2004 Plan revision process, which  included managing the Work Groups and overseeing the Writing Team.  The work plan assigned overall management of the 2004 Plan rewrite to  the Writing Team, which was to assign issues to the Work Groups and  track the Work Groups’ progress on resolving the assigned issues. The  Work Groups, which were chaired by designated co-leaders, were to  examine the issues received from the Writing Team and determine if  existing language in the 2004 Plan adequately addressed the issues. If the  Work Groups determined that current language in the 2004 Plan did not  adequately address the issue, they were required to provide  recommendations to the Writing Team on how the issues should be  addressed. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the entities involved  in the revision process.
The revision schedule in the work plan was to begin in December 2006  with a goal to complete the revision process by June 2007. As a first step in  the plan, the Writing Team was to provide the Work Groups with writing  assignments. Once the Work Groups completed their writing assignments,  the Writing Team was to review their recommendations and submit a draft  of the revised NRF to the Steering Committee for its review and approval.  The Steering Committee was to release the first draft of the revised NRF  for stakeholder comment by the end of January 2007 with an approximate  30-day review period. According to the work plan, the Steering Committee,  Writing Team, and Work Groups would review comments on this first  draft, make any needed modifications, and release a second draft at the  end of March 2007 for the final of two 30-day comment periods. Per the  work plan, these two comment periods would ensure wide dissemination  of the product to all stakeholders, including federal agencies, state and  local governments, and major professional associations. The work plan  schedule also included a 2-month internal, federal review process to take  place beginning in May 2007, after which DHS would provide the final  draft for approval to the Domestic Readiness Group and the signatories of  the 2004 Plan, with the final issuance of the revised 2004 Plan targeted for  June 2007. See figure 3 for the proposed timeline for the revision process.
section_title: DHS Included Non-Federal Stakeholders at the Beginning of the Revision Process
paragraphs: DHS included non-federal stakeholders in the early stages of the 2004 Plan  revision process in accordance with the work plan. For example, in  October 2006, DHS hosted a meeting with approximately 90 non-federal  stakeholders where DHS sought feedback on the 14 revision issues from  participants using structured breakout groups. At this meeting, FEMA  reported that non-federal stakeholders identified the need for  enhancements to the 2004 Plan to further describe coordination processes  with the private sector and volunteer organizations. DHS held a similar  meeting with federal stakeholders in November 2006. According to DHS, it  modified the scope of some of the 14 revision issues and added three  additional issues. (See app. II for a listing of the 17 revision issues.)
DHS assigned non-federal stakeholders to serve as members of the  Steering Committee and the Work Groups. Although the work plan called  for the engagement of all levels of stakeholders in the revision process and  described the Steering Committee and Work Groups, it did not specify the  composition of the Work Groups but stated that one non-federal  stakeholder would serve on the Steering Committee. In the spirit of the  plan, DHS selected non-federal officials to serve on the Steering  Committee and Work Groups. Of the 32 members on the Steering  Committee, six members or 19 percent were non-federal officials,  including representatives from state and local government emergency  management associations as well as a local fire department and police  associations. According to a FEMA official, the Steering Committee, led by  FEMA and DHS co-chairs, generally met on a weekly basis via  teleconferences throughout the revision process.
Of the approximately 710 members who served on the 12 Work Groups,  224 officials, or 32 percent, were non-federal officials, including 3 of the 27  Work Group co-leaders. These non-federal officials included  representatives from state and local emergency management agencies and  tribal governments as well as officials from the fire, law enforcement, and  public health sector. See figure 4 for the composition of the 12 Work  Groups members by level of government, nongovernmental organization,  and private sector. See appendix III for a listing of the 12 Work Groups and  a table showing the occupational demographics of the non-federal  stakeholders who served on the Work Group.
The Writing Team, which consisted of 11 federal officials and private  contractors for administrative support, did not include any non-federal  stakeholders. DHS stated that they invited one non-federal stakeholder to  be on the team but that they were not successful in their attempts to  secure that person.
The 12 Work Groups met in January and February 2007. During that time,  and in accordance with the work plan, the Work Groups met to address  the issues assigned to them by the Writing Team. Most Work Groups  addressed their issues by submitting recommended language changes to  the 2004 Plan, which generally consisted of inserting new language or  clarifying existing language. The Work Groups supported a recommended  language change by providing the rationale for such a change. For  example, the Writing Team tasked the Roles and Responsibilities Work  Group with clarifying and strengthening the role of state governments in  the 2004 Plan. One recommended language change suggested by this Work  Group was to describe the state government’s role in the coordination of  resources through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, an  interstate mutual aid compact that provides a legal structure through  which affected states may request assistance from other states during a  disaster.
All Work Group recommendations were due to the Writing Team by the  middle of February 2007. Although the work plan provided for the Work  Groups’ continued involvement after submitting their recommendations,  this did not occur.
subsections: section_title: DHS Departed from the Work Plan by Conducting an Internal Federal Review Rather Than Providing a Draft to Non- Federal Stakeholders for Comment
paragraphs: On March 13, 2007, DHS officials e-mailed stakeholders that the release of  the first revision draft for the first 30-day comment period was being  delayed. According to the message, DHS still planned to release the draft  within the next several weeks and issue a final document by June 1, 2007.  The message noted that once an updated timeline was approved, DHS  would share the dates with the stakeholders.
According to FEMA officials, the first draft of the revised 2004 Plan was  completed in April 2007 and incorporated many of the Work Groups’  recommendations. However, rather than sending this first draft to  stakeholders for comment, DHS conducted its internal, federal review of  the draft document for approximately 5 months until September 2007.  FEMA officials said that DHS did not release this April 2007 draft for  comment because the draft required further modifications DHS considered  necessary. An April 11, 2007, notice subsequently posted on DHS’s Web  site described the status of the process and its plans to further revise the  draft for comment. “As the NRP revision process unfolded, it became apparent that some important issues  were more complex than we originally thought and require national-level policy decisions.
We also came to the realization that creating a more user-friendly document that clearly  addressed the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders and incident management  structures would require substantial format changes to the NRP… An updated timeline has  not been determined but we will share one with you quickly.”
FEMA officials said that the length of time for the review and approval  process, about 3 months longer than planned, was unpredictable and that  it took longer than they had expected. DHS did not modify or update the  work plan to reflect this deviation from the approved revision process or  propose how the revision process would now be completed.
Certain non-federal stakeholders we interviewed who served on the  Steering Committee and as co-leaders on the Work Groups reported  receiving occasional or no communication from DHS on the decision not  to release the first draft for comment or how the revision process would  be completed during this internal, federal review process. FEMA’s Deputy  Administrator acknowledged that the federal government should have  done a better job in communicating the status of the draft and the revision  process to non-federal stakeholders while the document was undergoing  the internal, federal review.
During this internal, federal review, DHS and FEMA officials continued to  revise the April 2007 draft. For example, FEMA officials said that they  added a chapter to explain the need for all levels of government to plan for  preparedness and response actions and additional language to clarify the  role of state and local governments during disaster response. At this point  in the process, around August 2007, DHS’s Office of the Deputy Secretary  decided to release a revised draft just to the Steering Committee and the  Domestic Readiness Group for comment. Writing Team officials assumed  that the Deputy Secretary would make the final decision on whether to  incorporate the comments received while staff from his office would be  responsible for completing any further edits. A draft of this document,  dated July 2007, was leaked to the press in August 2007.
During a September 11, 2007, hearing before the House Transportation and  Infrastructure Committee, officials representing state and local  emergency management associations expressed their concerns that the  July 2007 leaked draft had changed significantly from the April 2007 draft.  The government affairs committee chair of the International Association  of Emergency Managers testified, “The document we saw bore no  resemblance to what we had discussed so extensively with FEMA and  other stakeholders in the December 2006 through February 2007 timeline.”  Additionally, the National Emergency Management Association  representative, who served on the Steering Committee, expressed his  concern that its association had been effectively shut out of the process,  testifying that the collaborative process in rewriting the 2004 Plan “broke  down…with no stakeholder input, working group involvement, or steering  committee visibility.”
section_title: After the Internal, Federal Review, DHS Provided All Stakeholders an Opportunity to Comment before Final Publication and Considered All Comments in Finalizing the New Framework
paragraphs: After the approximate 5-month internal, federal review period, DHS  released a draft of the newly renamed National Response Framework for  public comment on September 10, 2007. However, as we stated earlier, the  original work plan called for DHS to provide stakeholders with two 30-day  public comment periods before the internal, federal review; after the  review, DHS was to publish the revised document without further  comment by stakeholders. The public comment period starting on  September 10 allowed for both federal and non-federal stakeholders to  provide their reactions to the changes made during the internal federal  review process. FEMA officials said they conducted this unplanned public  comment period to address the work plan’s requirement that the draft  NRF be widely disseminated for all stakeholders to review. FEMA  provided a 40-day public comment period for the NRF core document.  FEMA received 3,318 comments on the core NRF.
The Writing Team led the adjudication—review, analysis, and resolution— of the comments received during the public comment period. The Writing  Team examined each comment, made an initial disposition  recommendation—accepted, modified, rejected, or noted—and forwarded  that recommendation to the FEMA leadership and the Domestic Readiness  Group for review. In addition, FEMA posted a spreadsheet on  www.regulations.gov that included, among other things, the comments  made by non-federal stakeholders and the final disposition FEMA assigned  to each of those comments. This allowed these stakeholders to see how  FEMA did or did not incorporate their comments into the final NRF  document. The Work Groups and Steering Committee, both of which  contained non-federal stakeholders, were not involved in adjudicating the  public comments, although this was called for by the work plan. A FEMA  official said that the agency tried to recruit a non-federal stakeholder to  serve on the Writing Team, but that its efforts were unsuccessful.
section_title: DHS’s Establishment of the National Advisory Council Did Not Meet Post-Katrina Act Deadlines, Which Also Limited Collaboration with Non-Federal Stakeholders
paragraphs: The Post-Katrina Act required the DHS Secretary to establish a National  Advisory Council (NAC) by December 2006 to advise the FEMA  Administrator on all aspects of emergency management. Among its  specific responsibilities, the NAC was to incorporate input from state,  local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector in the revision of  the 2004 Plan. The Act stated that the membership of the NAC should  represent a geographic and substantive cross-section of officials,  emergency managers, and emergency response providers, such as law  enforcement, fire service, health scientists, and elected officials. However,  DHS did not incorporate the NAC by amending its approved September  2006 work plan for revising the 2004 Plan or establish the NAC in time for  the Council to incorporate non-federal stakeholder input into the revision  of the 2004 Plan, as directed by the October 2006 Post-Katrina Act.  According to a FEMA official, DHS did not amend the work plan to  incorporate the NAC because of the uncertainty surrounding the time it  would take to establish the NAC. The official said FEMA expected that  establishing the NAC would take more time than the Post-Katrina Act  allowed because FEMA wanted to ensure that the NAC’s membership  complied with the requirements contained in the Post-Katrina Act while  also providing adequate time to announce the NAC’s creation, solicit  applications for membership, and review and select applicants for  membership. FEMA announced the membership of the NAC in June 2007,  6 months after the Post-Katrina Act deadline, and the NAC did not hold its  inaugural meeting until October 22, 2007, the last day of the public  comment period for the base NRF. According to the FEMA Administrator,  it was more important for the agency to invest the time needed to review  hundreds of applications and create a high quality body of advisors than to  rush the process to meet the 60-day statutory deadline for establishing the  NAC.
As a result, the NAC’s only involvement in the NRF revision process  occurred when FEMA provided it with a copy of a draft in December 2007,  2 months after the public comment period closed. According to the NAC  chairman, the NAC gathered and consolidated comments from individual  members and provided these comments to the FEMA Administrator  approximately one month before FEMA published the NRF in January  2008. The chairman noted that these comments were from individual  members and did not reflect the official comments of the NAC as a whole.  For the next NRF revision, the chairman stated that he expected the NAC  to be actively involved with FEMA throughout the entire revision process.  For example, he suggested that the NAC could have a role in the  adjudication of public comments by representing non-federal stakeholders  during the adjudication process to ensure FEMA is aware of issues that are  critically important to state and local governments. The NAC is currently  exploring its role in reviewing and implementing the 2008 NRF. For  example, at the NAC’s February 2008 meeting the NAC Chairman  approved a standing committee on the NRF that may focus on actions that  can help FEMA implement and train stakeholders on the NRF. While the  NAC filed a charter on February 6, 2007, the charter reflects the NAC’s  broad array of statutory responsibilities, but does not detail any specific  responsibilities the NAC would undertake relative to the NRF revision  process. See figure 5 for a comparison of DHS’s actual revision process  with its proposed process.
The late establishment of the NAC also hindered FEMA from fully  collaborating with non-federal stakeholders who were involved in the  revision process established by the approved work plan. In particular, two  non-federal Steering Committee members stated that after the August 2007  leak of the draft NRF, FEMA stopped sharing drafts with non-federal  officials. FEMA officials said that the reason for this decision was because  FEMA had yet to establish the NAC, its official advisory committee. FEMA  officials said that the absence of an official advisory committee raised  fairness concerns about which members of the non-federal community  should be allowed to provide input before the public comment period. As a  result, FEMA stopped sharing pre-decisional drafts with non-federal  members of the Steering Committee because FEMA did not plan to  provide the same opportunity to other non-federal stakeholders until the  public comment period.
section_title: FEMA and the Post- Katrina Act Have Recognized the Importance of Including Non-Federal Stakeholders in Developing National Response Doctrine, but FEMA Lacks Guidance and Procedures for Future NRF Revisions
paragraphs: While FEMA has recognized the importance of partnering with non-federal  stakeholders to achieve the nation’s emergency management goals, both in  congressional testimonies as well as in its January 2008 strategic plan,  FEMA has not yet developed guidance and procedures for how future  revisions of the NRF will be managed or how the newly established  National Advisory Council will be integrated into the revision process in  accordance with the Post-Katrina Act. Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government state that management guidance, policies, and  procedures are an integral part of any agency’s planning for, and  achieving, effective results. Developing such policies and procedures for  how the NRF will be revised in the future and how FEMA will integrate the  NAC and other non-federal stakeholders in the process is essential for  helping to ensure that FEMA attains its goal of partnering with nonfederal  stakeholders to help achieve the nation’s emergency management goals.
subsections: section_title: FEMA and the Post- Katrina Act Stress Partnership and Communication with Non- Federal Stakeholders in Achieving the Nation’s Emergency Management Goals
paragraphs: FEMA has recognized the importance of including the input of non-federal  stakeholders to help achieve the nation’s emergency management goals.  For example, in November 2006, the FEMA Administrator outlined his  vision for a “New FEMA,” asserting FEMA’s dedication to partnering with  all states and the private sector because of FEMA’s reliance on its partners  to accomplish the national emergency response objectives. More recently,  in congressional testimonies the FEMA Administrator has reaffirmed the  need for FEMA to partner with both federal and non-federal  stakeholders. In addition, one objective in FEMA’s Strategic Plan for  2008-2013 is to engage public and private stakeholders in developing and  communicating clear national doctrine and policy. To achieve this  objective, the Strategic Plan identifies the need to engage stakeholders  early and often in the process of developing national doctrine. This is in  accordance with internal control standards for the federal government  that state that information should be communicated to those who need it  and in a form and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their  responsibility for an agency to achieve its objectives. For example,  management should ensure there are adequate means of communicating  with and obtaining information from external stakeholders who may have  a significant impact on the agency’s achieving its goals. In October 2005,  we also reported that frequent communication among collaborating  organizations and stakeholders is a means to facilitate working across  boundaries, prevent misunderstanding, and achieve agency objectives.  Frequent communication is one of a number of practices that enhance and  sustain collaboration.
Recognizing the importance of collaboration, the Post-Katrina Act requires  that the FEMA Administrator partner with non-federal stakeholders from  state, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and  nongovernmental organizations to build a national system of emergency  management that can effectively and efficiently utilize the full measure of  the nation’s resources to respond to all disasters, including catastrophic  incidents, and acts of terrorism. Specifically, the Post-Katrina Act directs  the FEMA Administrator, through the National Integration Center, to  periodically review and revise the National Response Plan and any  successor to such plan and, as discussed above, to establish the NAC to  incorporate non-federal stakeholder input in the revision and development  of the Plan, among other things. The Post-Katrina Act further directs the  FEMA Administrator to appoint council members who represent a  geographic and substantive cross section of officials, emergency  managers, and emergency response providers from the non-federal  community.
The FEMA Administrator’s statements, the agency’s latest strategic plan,  and the Post-Katrina Act also reflect a key precept related to government  performance and results—that stakeholders can have a significant effect  in determining whether a federal agency’s program or action will succeed  or fail, and as such, stakeholders need to be involved in major planning  efforts conducted by the agency. Such involvement is important to help  agencies ensure that their efforts and resources are targeted at the highest  priorities and is particularly important in instances where federal agencies  face a complex political environment, such as emergency management in  which FEMA’s successes depend on the actions of non-federal partners at  the state and local levels.
section_title: FEMA Has Not Yet Developed Guidance and Procedures for Managing Future Revisions or Integrating the National Advisory Council into the Revision Process
paragraphs: While FEMA officials and the National Response Framework  acknowledge that the NRF will need to be revised in the future, FEMA has  not developed guidance or policies on how it will manage future revisions  or described how the NAC will be incorporated into the next NRF revision  process. FEMA officials said that the agency has not yet developed  guidance and procedures for any future NRF revisions because of the need  to focus federal resources on creating training materials to assist all  stakeholders in implementing the current NRF in anticipation of the  pending 2008 hurricane season. As mentioned earlier in this report, the  2004 Plan included a section specifying the circumstances, such as lessons  learned from exercises and actual events, and time frames under which it  would need to be reviewed and revised. This section is in accordance with  the federal internal control standard of monitoring operations to assess  the quality of performance over time and ensure that the findings of  reviews and evaluations are resolved. The 2008 NRF, while it states that it  merits periodic review and revision, does not contain such language  regarding the circumstances and time frames for its review and revision. In  addition, FEMA officials said that the process established for the last  revision (the 2006-approved work plan) would not be applicable for any  future revisions because it did not consider the role of the NAC. The NAC  has also not yet determined how it would like to be involved in the next  NRF revision process. The NAC’s charter, approved in February 2007, does  not provide specific procedures on how it is to be involved and, according  to the chairman, the NAC’s NRF subcommittee expects to focus its efforts  on helping FEMA train non-federal stakeholders.
Having such guidance and procedures in place is an important internal  control, and we have identified this need for other agencies in similar  circumstances to FEMA’s management of future NRF revisions. As we  discussed earlier in this report, control activities—such as guidance,  policies, and procedures—are an integral part of an agency’s planning for  and achieving effective results. In addition, while internal controls should  be flexible to meet an agency’s needs, they should also be clearly  documented, readily available, and properly maintained. We have also  previously reported on the need to include state and local jurisdictions in  the development of national response plans because they are key  stakeholders and would be on the front lines if an incident occurs.
In April 2008, we reported on the need for the Department of Defense’s  Northern Command to collaborate and communicate with non-federal  stakeholders and establish a process to guide such collaboration in  accessing information on state emergency response plans and capabilities,  noting that the absence of effective collaboration could impede  intergovernmental planning for catastrophic incidents and overall  coordination. Specifically, we reported that federal officials involved the  states only minimally in the development of the Department of Defense’s  major homeland defense and civil support plans and that defense officials  were generally not familiar with state emergency response plans and  capabilities and had not established a process for gaining access to this  information. We also reported that each agency’s roles and responsibilities  for planning for homeland defense and civil support during a catastrophic  disaster were not clearly defined. We recommended, among other things,  that the Department of Defense develop a thorough process to guide its  coordination with the states. The department generally agreed with the  recommendation and stated that it was coordinating with DHS to develop  synchronized plans of integrated federal, state, and local operational  capabilities to affect a coordinated national response. It is essential for  both the Department of Defense and DHS to have such guidance in place,  as both DHS’s National Response Framework and the Northern  Command’s Concept of Operations emphasize coordination with non- federal stakeholders in order to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and  recover from catastrophic natural and manmade disasters.  In August 2007, we reported on the administration’s approach to preparing  for a pandemic influenza by issuing, among other things, a National  Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (Strategy) in November 2005, and a  National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Implementation Plan (Plan)  in May 2006. We reported, among other things, that state and local  jurisdictions were not directly involved in developing the Strategy and  Plan. Neither the Strategy nor Plan described the involvement of key  stakeholders, such as state, local, and tribal entities, in their development,  even though these stakeholders would be on the front lines in a pandemic  and the Plan identifies actions they should complete. Officials told us that  while the drafters of the Plan were generally aware of their concerns,  state, local, and tribal entities were not directly involved in reviewing and  commenting on the Plan. We concluded that opportunities existed to  improve the usefulness of the Plan because it was viewed as an evolving  document and was intended to be updated on a regular basis to reflect  ongoing policy decisions as well as improvements in domestic  preparedness. However, time frames or mechanisms for updating the Plan  were undefined. We recommended that the White House Homeland  Security Council establish a specific process and time frame for updating  the Plan and that the update process should involve key non-federal  stakeholders and incorporate lessons learned from exercises and other  sources, but the Homeland Security Council did not provide comments on  this recommendation.
Without similar policies and procedures documenting the circumstances  and time frames under which it would review and revise the NRF and its  process for collaborating with non-federal stakeholders, FEMA cannot  ensure that future revision processes will be conducted in accordance  with management’s directives.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: All disasters occur locally, and the initial post-disaster response is local.  However, large-scale disasters usually exceed local response capabilities.  Effective preparation and response for major and catastrophic disasters  require well-planned and well-coordinated actions among all those who  would have a role in the response to such disasters. The 2008 NRF is a  guide for the myriad of entities and personnel involved in response efforts  at all levels. The NRF recognizes the need for collaboration among these  stakeholders to collectively respond to and recover from all disasters,  particularly catastrophic disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, regardless of  their cause.
To help ensure that the NRF meets the needs of all stakeholders who have  a role in its effective implementation, it is essential that DHS fully  collaborate with non-federal stakeholders in its development and revision.  DHS initially involved non-federal stakeholders in the revision of the 2004  Plan but omitted a key step in its work plan by not obtaining and  incorporating their comments on the first full draft. Instead, DHS  undertook a closed, internal federal review of the draft that lasted about 5  months with little communication with the non-federal partners. The  result was a breach of trust with DHS’s non-federal partners in the drafting  process.
The Post-Katrina Act gives responsibility for maintaining and updating the  NRF to FEMA and charges the Administrator’s National Advisory Council  with incorporating non-federal stakeholder input into the NRF’s  development and revision. Established too late to fulfill this role in the  creation of the current NRF, the NAC is now functioning, and it is  important that there be compatible policies and procedures for how the  NAC will fulfill its statutory charge.
Contrary to effective government internal control and management  principles, FEMA has not yet developed policies and procedures for  guiding future revisions of the NRF, including specifying the conditions  and time frames under which FEMA would review and revise the NRF and  how FEMA will involve the NAC and collaborate with other non-federal  stakeholders. Especially in view of a new administration, non-federal  stakeholder participation and ownership is essential in any revision of the  NRF, and the lessons learned from the process for revising the 2004 Plan  will apply in the future to FEMA’s and DHS’s efforts to develop and revise  other national plans and policies that make up the national preparedness  system. While the NRF is published by DHS, it belongs to the nation’s  emergency response community that is collectively responsible for  effectively implementing the NRF’s provisions should another catastrophic  disaster like Hurricane Katrina occur.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the FEMA Administrator develop and disseminate  policies and procedures that describe (1) the circumstances and time  frames under which the next NRF revision will occur and (2) how FEMA  will conduct the next NRF revision, including how its National Advisory  Council and other non-federal stakeholders—state, local, and tribal  governments; the private sector; and nongovernmental organizations—will  be integrated into the revision process and the methods for  communicating with these stakeholders.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from DHS and FEMA.  They concurred with our recommendations and had no other comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland  Security, FEMA Administrator, and interested congressional committees.  We will also provide copies to others on request. If you or your staff have  any questions about this report or wish to discuss the matter further,  please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. See appendix IV for a list of key  contributors to this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses the following questions: (1) To what extent did the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) collaborate with non-federal  stakeholders in revising and updating the December 2004 National  Response Plan into the January 2008 National Response Framework  (NRF)? (2) To what extent has FEMA developed policies and procedures  for managing future revisions of the NRF?
To address these questions, we interviewed DHS, FEMA, and non-federal  stakeholders who were directly involved in the revision and update of the  2004 Plan into the 2008 NRF, and we reviewed DHS and FEMA documents  on the revision process. Because there were over 700 federal and non- federal officials who participated in the Steering Committee and Work  Groups, we interviewed those who held key positions. The FEMA officials  and non-federal stakeholders we interviewed held key positions in the  revision process, such as the FEMA Administrator and Deputy  Administrator and the two FEMA co-chairs of the Steering Committee. The  non-federal stakeholders we interviewed included four of the five non- federal officials who served as Steering Committee members and all three  of the non-federal officials who served as co-leaders of Work Groups;  these non-federal stakeholders also held positions in state, county, and  city governments and non-governmental organizations.
To determine the extent to which DHS collaborated with non-federal  stakeholders, we first determined the revision process that DHS had  planned to follow to revise the 2004 Plan. We reviewed DHS’s September  2006 revision work plan that had been approved by the Domestic  Readiness Group of White House’s Homeland Security Council and  interviewed FEMA and non-federal officials who served in key positions in  the revision process. We also reviewed applicable statutes, primarily the  October 2006 Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, for  statutory requirements related to the revision process. To determine what  happened during the revision process and the extent to which DHS  involved non-federal stakeholders in that process, we interviewed FEMA  officials and non-federal stakeholders who served in key positions in the  revision process and the chairman of FEMA’s National Advisory Council  (NAC). Further, we reviewed DHS documentation citing the roles provided  to non-federal stakeholders in the revision process and explaining how the  actual revision process was conducted, FEMA documentation on the  process and time frames related to the NAC’s establishment, NAC  documentation regarding its role in the revision process, and  congressional testimony from non-federal stakeholders on how DHS  conducted and included them in the revision process. To determine the  extent to which FEMA had policies and procedures in place for future  revisions of the NRF, we interviewed FEMA officials.
The non-federal officials we interviewed represented state and local levels  of government, emergency management associations, and other non- federal entities. While the statements and views of the stakeholders we  interviewed are not generalizable to the some 230 non-federal  stakeholders involved in the revision process, we chose to speak to them  because of their assigned key roles.
There is some uncertainty in our determination of the total number of non- federal members in the 12 Work Groups, and thus the total number of  Work Group members, due to duplication or the lack of adequate  information identifying a member as federal in the data provided by  FEMA.  However, because DHS’s inclusion of non-federal members in the  revision process is the focus of this report, we took steps to correctly  determine the number and composition of the 224 non-federal members.   Based on our analysis of FEMA’s data for federal members, we believe the  total of 486 federal members is a reasonable approximation, and therefore,  the grand total of 710 Work Group members is also a reasonable  approximation.
section_title: Appendix II: The 17 Key Revision Issues That DHS Identified for the 2004 National Response Plan
paragraphs: In the 2004 National Response Plan revision work plan approved by the  Domestic Readiness Group, a White House Homeland Security Council– chaired policy committee, in September 2006, DHS identified 14 key issues  that it wanted the revision process to address. According to FEMA  officials, these issues were compiled by reviewing Hurricane Katrina after- action and lessons-learned reports from the White House, Congress, GAO,  and DHS’s Inspector General and identifying common issues that were  raised in multiple reports. The work plan directed DHS to conduct  meetings with stakeholders to review the initial list and identify other  issues to be considered during the revision process. These issues were to  serve as the starting point from which the 2004 Plan revision would be  conducted. DHS held meetings with non-federal stakeholder and federal  stakeholders in October and November 2006 respectively. After these  meetings, DHS identified three additional revision issues to its initial list  contained in the approved work plan. The 17 key revision issues are listed  below—the 3 issues added after the stakeholder meetings are indicated  with a note.
The revision issues are categorized by whether they were to be addressed  in either the 2004 Plan base document or its annexes. The 2004 Plan  comprised four major components: the Base Plan, Emergency Support  Function Annexes, Support Annexes, and Incident Annexes. The Base  Plan provided an overview of the structure and processes comprising a  national approach to domestic response actions. The 15 Emergency  Support Function Annexes detailed the missions, policies, structures, and  responsibilities of federal agencies for coordinating resource and  programmatic support, such as mass care and shelter, to states, tribes, and  other federal agencies or other jurisdictions and entities. The nine Support  Annexes provided guidance and described the functional processes and  administrative requirements necessary to ensure the 2004 Plan’s efficient  and effective implementation. The seven Incident Annexes addressed  contingency or hazard situations requiring specialized application of the  2004 Plan, such as biological, catastrophic, and nuclear/radiological  incidents.
The key revision issues identified for the 2004 National Response Plan  base document were    clarify roles and responsibilities of key structures, and positions, and    strengthen role of states and private sector;  integrate National Incident Management System concepts, principles,  terminology, systems, and organizational processes into the revised  National Response Plan;  review Joint Field Office structure and operations, to include Unified  Command; and   incorporate proactive planning for incidents that render state and local  governments incapable of an effective response.
The key revision issues identified for the annexes to the 2004 National  Response Plan base document were    examine all existing National Response Plan annexes and proposed new    strengthen External Affairs and Public Affairs Annexes;   review logistics management issues,    examine evacuation and sheltering issues,    ensure the integration of all search and rescue assets,  review the scope of public safety and security missions,  incorporate companion animal issues,  improve process for identifying and accepting donated goods and the  integration of volunteers,    clarify international support mechanisms,    ensure consistency with National Emergency Communication Strategy,  refine the Catastrophic Incident Supplement to include the review of a  possible increased Department of Defense responsibility, and  review federal incident management plans and determine their  appropriate linkage to the National Response Plan.
section_title: Appendix III: The 12 Work Groups DHS Established during the Revision Process and Their Composition
paragraphs: The 2004 National Response Plan revision work plan approved by the  Domestic Readiness Group in September 2006 directed DHS to establish  Work Groups to rewrite portions of the 2004 Plan. While the work plan did  not specify the number of Work Groups that should be established, DHS  formed 12 Work Groups that were co-led by federal officials or a  combination of federal and non-federal officials. The 12 Work Groups  were    Catastrophic Planning,    Communications,    Companion Animals,    Evacuations and Sheltering (co-led by non-federal stakeholder),    Functions,   Incident Management and Coordination,   International Support,    National Incident Management System,    Roles and Responsibilities (co-led by non-federal stakeholder),    Special Needs,    Training and Implementation, and    Volunteer and Donation Management (co-led by non-federal stakeholder).
Of the 709 members who served on the 12 Work Groups, 224 officials, or  32 percent, were non-federal. These non-federal stakeholders included  representatives from state, tribal, and local government as well as the  private sector and nongovernmental organizations. Further, the non- federal stakeholders came from various occupational sectors. See table 1  for a description of these 224 non-federal stakeholders.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: The following teams and individuals made key contributions to this report:  Pille Anvelt, Patrick Bernard, Sam Hinojosa, Christopher Keisling, David  Lysy, Sally Williamson, and Candice Wright, Homeland Security & Justice  Team; Michele Fejfar, Applied Research & Methods; and Christine Davis,  Jan Montgomery, and Janet Temko, General Counsel.