Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain
Published: 2005-02-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)--originally established in 1998 within the Department of Justice to help state and local first responders acquire specialized training and equipment needed to respond to terrorist incidents--was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security upon its creation in March 2003. After September 11, 2001, the scope and size of ODP's grant programs expanded. For example, from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003, ODP grants awarded to states and some urban areas grew from about $91 million to about $2.7 billion. This growth raised questions about the ability of ODP and states to ensure that the domestic preparedness grant programs--including statewide and urban area grants--are managed effectively and efficiently. GAO addressed (1) how statewide and urban area grants were administered in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds were spent in accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness planning and (2) what time frames Congress and ODP established for awarding and distributing grants, and how time frames affected the grant cycle.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: ODP has established and refined grant award procedures for states and localities to improve accountability in state preparedness planning. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP developed procedures and guidelines for awarding statewide and urban area grants to states and for determining how states and localities could expend funds and seek reimbursement for first responder equipment or services. ODP gave states flexibility by allowing them to determine how grant funds were to be managed and distributed within their states. In fiscal year 2003, ODP required states to update homeland security strategies and related needs assessments prepared in earlier years. These efforts are intended to guide states and localities in targeting grant funds. ODP also took steps to improve grant oversight procedures. Finally, to help meet mandates contained in a presidential directive, ODP has begun drafting national preparedness standards to identify and assess gaps in first responder capabilities on a national basis. Congress and ODP have acted to expedite grant awards by setting time limits for grant application, award, and distribution processes. For fiscal year 2002 through February 2003, the appropriations statutes did not require ODP to award grant funds to states within a specific time frame. Then, in April 2003, the supplemental appropriations act imposed new deadlines on ODP and the states. As a result, ODP reported that all states submitted grant applications within the mandated 30 days of the grant announcement, and that over 90 percent of grants were awarded within the mandated 15 days of receipt of the applications. ODP also took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states to local jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the ability of states and localities to spend grant funds expeditiously was complicated by the need to adhere to various legal and procurement requirements. ODP is identifying best practices to help states address the issue. In reviewing a draft of the report, the Department of Homeland Security generally agreed with GAO's findings; however, it questioned whether the report's title adequately reflected the agency's progress in meeting grant management challenges.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, placed enormous demands  upon the capacities of state and local police and fire departments,  emergency medical and public health services, and other first responders.  After the attacks, Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments,  and a range of independent research organizations acknowledged that  additional resources and intergovernmental coordination were needed to  ensure that state and local first responders would be better prepared to  respond to future domestic terrorist threats or attacks.
The Department of Justice established the Office for Domestic  Preparedness (ODP) in 1998 within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)  to assist state and local first responders in acquiring specialized training  and equipment needed to respond to and manage terrorist incidents  involving weapons of mass destruction. ODP, which was transferred to the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) upon its creation in March 2003,  has been a principal source of domestic preparedness grant funds. These  grants are a means of achieving an important goal—enhancing the ability  of first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from  terrorist incidents with well-planned and well-coordinated efforts that  involve police, fire, emergency medical, public health, and other personnel  from multiple jurisdictions. Since the events of September 11, the amount  of grant funds awarded and managed by ODP has grown significantly. For  example, in fiscal year 2001, ODP awarded about $91 million in domestic  preparedness grants. In fiscal year 2003, ODP awarded about $2.1 billion  through its State Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP) I and II and  an additional $596 million for Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)  grants I and II. The scope of ODP’s grant programs expanded as well,  from funding only first responder equipment in fiscal year 2001 to funding  a range of preparedness planning activities, exercises, training, equipment  purchases, and related administrative costs in fiscal year 2003.
In your request, you raised questions about how, given the growth in  funding, ODP, states, and local jurisdictions work together to ensure that  grant funds are spent in accordance with both ODP’s grant guidance and  the state and urban area homeland security strategies that ODP required  states to develop as a condition of receiving grant funds. In response to  your request, we first briefed your office on ODP’s structure and processes  for program and financial management of its grants and its monitoring  policies and processes. In this report, we address two other issues:  (1) How were SHSGP and UASI grants administered in fiscal years 2002  and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds were spent in  accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness planning? (2)  What time frames did Congress and ODP establish for awarding and  distributing grants, and how did these time frames affect the grant cycle?
In addition to this work, we have recently issued other reports and  delivered congressional testimonies on issues relating to federal funding  and oversight of grants for first responders, which include ODP grants as  well as grants from other federal sources. Among other things, we  reported that a major challenge in managing first responder grants is  balancing two goals: (1) minimizing the time it takes to distribute grant  funds to state and local first responders and (2) ensuring appropriate  planning and accountability for effective use of the funds. (See appendix  V for the list of Related GAO Products.)
To address the objectives in this report, we met with officials from ODP  and selected states and local jurisdictions to obtain information about the  grant management process. We identified 25 domestic preparedness grant  programs managed by ODP in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for our  detailed review, we selected the five largest in terms of federal funding  provided to state and local jurisdictions. As part of our review, we also  selected five states (Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, and  Pennsylvania) and 19 local jurisdictions within those states that have  received state and urban area grants. The five states were selected on the  basis of the amount of ODP grant funding received, population size, and  other factors. The local jurisdictions were selected for a more detailed  analysis of grant administration. We collected and analyzed grant data  from ODP. Specifically, we obtained and analyzed data from ODP on the  time frames associated with the grant award and distribution processes.  We reviewed these data for obvious inconsistency errors and  completeness and compared these data for the five selected states with  hard-copy documents we obtained from these states. When we found  discrepancies, we brought them to the attention of ODP and state and  local officials and worked with them to correct the discrepancies before  conducting our analyses. In addition, we obtained and analyzed data on  the number of ODP’s office-based and on-site monitoring reviews  conducted in fiscal year 2004. We also reviewed these data for obvious  inconsistency errors and completeness and compared these data with on- site monitoring reports prepared and provided by ODP. From these  assessments, we determined that the grant data were sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of this report.
We also reviewed relevant reports and studies on homeland security and  domestic preparedness. We conducted our work from November 2003  through November 2004 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. (See appendix I for more details on our  scope and methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: When DHS was created in March 2003, ODP was transferred from the  Justice Department’s OJP to DHS’s Directorate of Border and  Transportation Security. In March 2004, the Secretary of Homeland  Security consolidated ODP with the Office of State and Local Government  Coordination to form the Office of State and Local Government  Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP). In addition, other preparedness  grant programs from agencies within DHS were transferred to SLGCP.  SLGCP, which reports directly to the Secretary, was created to provide a  “one-stop shop” for the numerous federal preparedness initiatives  applicable to state and local first responders. As shown in figure 1, while  SLGCP/ODP has program management and monitoring responsibility for  domestic preparedness grants, it relies upon the Justice Department’s  Office of the Comptroller (OC) for grant fund distribution and assistance  with financial management support, which includes financial monitoring.
Within ODP, the Preparedness Programs Division (formerly the State and  Local Program Management Division) is specifically tasked with  enhancing the capability of state and local emergency responders to  prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks involving the  use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE)  weapons. For these purposes, ODP provides grant funds to the 50 states,  the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the  Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and  selected urban areas. In addition to this grant funding for specialized  equipment and other purposes, ODP provides direct training, exercises,  technical assistance, and other counterterrorism expertise.
subsections: section_title: Program Funding and Allocation for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
paragraphs: During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP managed 25 grant programs  totaling approximately $3.5 billion. About $2.98 billion (85 percent) of the  total ODP grant funds for both years was for statewide grants—the State  Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP), which is a predecessor grant  program to SHSGP, and SHSGP I and II—and grants targeted at selected  urban areas (UASI I and II). The SDPP/SHSGP grant funds accounted for  about 68 percent ($2.38 billion) and the UASI I and II grant funds about  17 percent ($596 million). Table 1 shows the amounts provided for these  and other ODP grants.
See appendix II for the SDPP/SHSGP grant funding awarded in fiscal years  2002 and 2003 and the UASI I and II grant funding awarded in fiscal year  2003.
The SDPP/SHSGP grant programs expanded from funding equipment,  exercises, and administrative activities in fiscal year 2002 to include, in  fiscal year 2003, the cost of planning and training. The SDPP generally  provided funding for advanced equipment, exercises, and administrative  activities. The SHSGP I provided, among other things, funding for  specialized equipment, exercises, training, and planning and  administrative costs. From a separate appropriation, the SHSGP II  supplemented funding available through SHSGP I for basically the same  purposes, but included separate funding for critical infrastructure  protection. The SDPP/SHSGP grant funds were distributed using a base  amount of 0.75 percent of the total allocation to each state, the District of  Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 0.25 percent of the  total allocation to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,  American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, with the balance being  distributed on a population-share basis. The UASI I grant funds were  provided directly to seven selected urban areas to address the unique  equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs of large high-threat  urban areas and specifically, to assist in building an enhanced and  sustainable capacity to prevent, respond, and recover from threats or acts  of terrorism. From a separate appropriation, UASI II provided funding  through the states (not directly) to 30 selected urban areas for basically  the same purposes. The UASI grant funds were awarded on the basis of  the following factors: population density, critical infrastructure, and  current threat estimates. (See appendix II for the urban areas that  received UASI I and II grant funds.) Table 2 shows the funding authority  for these grant programs.
section_title: ODP Established Grant Award Procedures for States and Localities That Support Efforts to Improve Accountability in State Preparedness Planning
paragraphs: Over time, ODP has developed and modified its procedures for awarding  grants to states, governing how states distribute funds to local  jurisdictions, and facilitating reimbursements for states and localities  purchasing first responder equipment and services. ODP also developed  requirements intended to hold states and localities accountable for how  grant expenditures were planned, justified, expended, and tracked. These  accountability-related requirements evolved over time. For instance, prior  to fiscal year 2004, the states were primarily required to provide  information on the specific items they and localities planned to purchase  on the basis of ODP’s evolving authorized equipment lists. In fiscal year  2004, to better determine the impact of expenditures on preparedness  efforts, ODP began placing more emphasis on results-based reporting of  planned and actual grant expenditures. ODP instituted new state and local  reporting requirements aimed at ensuring that grant expenditures would  align with goals and objectives contained in state and urban area  homeland security strategies. ODP also, over time, has stepped up its state  grant-monitoring activities.
subsections: section_title: ODP Gave States Flexibility in Administering and Distributing Grants
paragraphs: For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP developed procedures and guidelines  for awarding SDPP/SHSGP and UASI grants to states that enabled states to  distribute grant funds and states and localities to expend funds and seek  reimbursement for first responder equipment or services they purchased  directly. After enactment of appropriations for the grant programs, ODP  developed and made available program guidelines including the grant  application for each grant program. With the exception of UASI I, once a  grant application was submitted to and approved by ODP, ODP awarded  grant funds directly to each state, which was required to designate a state  administrative agency to administer the grant funds. States in turn  transferred or subgranted the funds to local jurisdictions or urban areas,  with a designated core city and county/counties. For UASI I grants, ODP  awarded grant funds directly to selected urban areas (i.e., selected cities).  Figure 2 illustrates the main steps involved in the SDPP/SHSGP and UASI  II grant cycle.
For SDPP/SHSGP grant programs, ODP allowed the states flexibility in  deciding how the grant programs were structured and implemented in  their states. In general, states were allowed to determine such things as  the following:   the formula for distributing grant funds to local jurisdictional units;  the definition of what constitutes a local jurisdiction eligible to receive  funds, such as a multicounty area;  the organization or agency that would be designated to manage the grant  program; and    whether the state or local jurisdictions would purchase grant-funded items  for the local jurisdictions.
UASI I grantees, for the most part, have had flexibilities similar to those of  the states and could, in coordination with members of the Urban Area  Working Group, designate contiguous jurisdictions to receive grant  funds. For UASI II, while the states subgranted the grant funds to selected  urban areas, states retained responsibility for administering the grant  program. The core city and county/counties worked with the state  administrative agency to define the geographic borders of the urban area  and coordinated with the Urban Area Working Group.
Once the grant funds were awarded to the states and then subgranted to  the local jurisdictions or urban areas, certain legal and procurement  requirements had to be met, such as a city council needing to approve  acceptance of grant awards. Once these requirements were satisfied,  states, local jurisdictions, and urban areas could then obligate their funds  for first responder equipment, exercises, training, and services. Generally,  when a local jurisdiction or urban area directly incurred an expenditure  for first responder equipment, it submitted related procurement  documents, such as invoices, to the state. The state would then draw down  the funds from the Justice Department’s OJP. According to OJP, funds  from the U.S. Treasury were usually deposited with the states’ financial  institution within 48 hours. The states, in turn, provided the funds to the  local jurisdiction or urban area.
section_title: States Updated Homeland Security Strategies to Guide Grant Spending, and ODP Revised Grant Reporting and Monitoring Procedures
paragraphs: In addition to the guidelines ODP developed for the grant award,  distribution, and reimbursement process, ODP developed separate  guidance that required every state to develop a homeland security strategy  as a condition of receiving grant funds. Specifically, ODP required states to  develop homeland security strategies that would provide a roadmap of  where each state should target grant funds for fiscal years 1999 to 2001  (subsequently extended to fiscal year 2003). To assist the states in  developing these strategies, state agencies and local jurisdictions were  directed to conduct needs assessments on the basis of their own threat  and vulnerability assessments. The needs assessments were to include  related equipment, training, exercise, technical assistance, and research  and development needs. In addition, state and local officials were to  identify current and required capabilities of first responders to help  determine gaps in capabilities.
ODP directed the states in fiscal year 2003 to update their homeland  security strategies to better reflect post-September 11 realities and to  identify progress on the priorities originally outlined in the initial  strategies. As with these initial strategies, the updated strategies included  goals and objectives the states wanted to achieve to meet homeland  security needs, such as upgrading emergency operations centers and  command posts. As directed by statute, ODP required completion and  approval of these updated strategies as a condition for awarding fiscal  year 2004 grant funds. As of July 2004, ODP had approved or conditionally  approved all state strategies and awarded all fiscal year 2004 SHSGP  funds. Figure 3 shows an overview of the state homeland security  assessment and strategy development process in place for fiscal years  1999 through 2003.
In conjunction with the development of the states’ updated homeland  security strategies, ODP revised its approach to how states and localities  reported on grant spending and use. Specifically, ODP took steps to shift  the emphasis away from reporting on specific items purchased and toward  results-based reporting on the impact of states’ expenditures on  preparedness. ODP maintains a list of authorized items that all states and  localities were required to use as a guideline for making purchases. This  evolving list, comprising hundreds of first responder items, is arranged by  category, such as personal protection equipment; explosive device  mitigation and remediation equipment; CBRNE search and rescue  equipment; interoperable communications equipment; and more. Under  this arrangement, states and localities consulted ODP’s authorized  equipment list and selected the equipment and quantity they planned to  purchase—including such diverse items as personal protection suits for  dealing with hazardous materials and contamination, bomb response  vehicles, and medical supplies. This information is in turn listed on  itemized budget detail worksheets that localities submitted to states for  their review. Prior to the fiscal year 2004 grant cycle, states submitted the  worksheets to ODP. States also compared purchased items against these  worksheets when approving reimbursements to localities.
According to ODP, this list-based reporting method made it difficult to  track the cumulative impact of individual expenditures on the goals and  objectives in a state’s and urban area’s homeland security strategy. While  the budget detail worksheets reflected the number and cost of specific  items that states and localities planned to purchase, neither states nor  ODP had a reporting mechanism to specifically assess how well these  purchases would, in the aggregate, meet preparedness planning needs or  priorities, or the goals and objectives contained in state or urban area  homeland security strategies. To help remedy this situation, ODP revised  its approach for fiscal year 2004. Rather than being required to submit  budget detail worksheets to ODP, states, urban areas, and local  jurisdictions were required instead to submit new Initial Strategy  Implementation Plans (ISIP). These ISIPs are intended to show how  planned grant expenditures for all funds received are linked to one or  more larger projects, which in turn support specific goals and objectives in  either a state or urban area homeland security strategy. The state  administrative agency is responsible for submission of all ISIPs to ODP  within 60 days of the state’s grant award. The final submission is to  include one ISIP from the state administrative agency if the agency retains  a portion of the funding, and one ISIP for every local jurisdiction, state  agency, or nongovernmental organization receiving grant funds. ODP said  that almost all of the states have submitted their ISIPs.
In addition to the ISIPs, ODP now requires the states to submit biannual  strategy implementation reports showing how the actual expenditure of  grant funds at both the state and local levels was linked by projects to the  goals and objectives in the state and urban area strategy. According to  ODP, this reporting process is intended to better enable states and ODP to  track grant expenditures from all funding sources against state and urban  area homeland security strategies as well as collect critical project output  and performance data. The first biannual strategy implementation reports  covering the 6-month period ending December 31, 2004, were due to ODP  on January 31, 2005. At the time of our review, it was too early to  determine whether the new approach would improve expenditure tracking  and performance reporting.
section_title: ODP, State, and Local Officials Expressed Concerns about the 2003 Needs Assessments
paragraphs: While progress has been made in updating state homeland security  strategies and planned improvements for reporting and tracking grant- related expenditures are under way, some federal, state, and local officials  expressed concerns about the accuracy of the needs assessments on  which the state strategies were based. When ODP instructed states and  local jurisdictions to update their fiscal year 1999 needs assessments in  fiscal year 2003, the agency told them not to constrain their estimates of  needs to a specific period of time or take potential sources of funding into  account. At the same time, ODP instructed states to review and analyze  local jurisdictions’ needs assessments and the aggregated results before  submitting their needs assessment data to ODP. The needs assessments  for equipment received by ODP from 56 states and territories as a result of  this process totaled $352.6 billion. By contrast, the funding available for  SHSGP I and II in fiscal year 2003 totaled roughly $2.1 billion.
State and local officials in three of the five states we visited cited concerns  about the accuracy of the needs assessments for their individual states.  For example, the needs assessment for one state we reviewed amounted  to about $11.8 billion—nearly 300 times the $39.5 million in total state  homeland security grant funds awarded to the state in fiscal year 2003.
Grant managers in this state said that they had reviewed the local  jurisdictions’ threat estimates and determined that, because of a  misinterpretation of the term “threat” by local officials, the number of  critical assets needing protection was higher than estimated by the state.  In their opinion, the local jurisdictions included items in their needs  assessments that were not needed to protect the state’s critical assets.  Nevertheless, state officials did not revise the aggregated needs  assessment estimates included in their state strategy. ODP conditionally  approved the strategy for this state, noting, among other things, a  “disconnect” between the state’s mission and goals and that time lines  were “too broad” and “not realistic.” Grant managers in a second state  said that the state did not base its strategy on the needs assessments  prepared by the local jurisdictions, in part, because they judged the  unconstrained assessments for equipment to be unrealistically high— approximately $13 billion over an open-ended, multiyear period. While the  state submitted the total of these local assessments to ODP; it submitted a  strategy on the basis of its own planning procedures for 1 year only,  resulting in a $92 million estimate of needs. After discussions with ODP,  the state later submitted a broader, multiyear $9.6 billion needs  assessment for equipment.
ODP has taken steps to address its concerns, and some states’ concerns,  related to the estimates included in the needs assessments. In a  conference held with state officials in March 2004, ODP personnel  discussed concerns that arose from their review of aggregated needs  assessment data and identified some possible sources of the problems.  They determined that, before submitting their fiscal year 2003 needs  assessments to ODP, states might not have adequately considered such  factors as mutual aid agreements for first responder assistance within  jurisdictions or whether jurisdictions within a region could share  resources, rather than submit separate or overlapping requests for first  responder equipment. In response, ODP requested the states to validate  and revise, if necessary, the needs assessment data to take these factors  into account and to resubmit their assessments. States were to submit  their validated assessments to ODP by October 15, 2004. According to an  ODP document, ODP is currently completing its analysis of the assessment  data.
section_title: ODP Has Begun Drafting National Preparedness Standards to Better Assess First Responder Needs
paragraphs: In addition to the issues raised about the accuracy of the fiscal year 2003  needs assessments, other factors may affect ODP’s and states’ abilities to  identify and assess first responder needs and priorities. For example,  according to some state officials we interviewed as well as recent reports  by DHS’s Office of Inspector General (IG) and the House Select  Committee on Homeland Security, efforts by state and local jurisdictions  to prioritize expenditures to enhance first responder preparedness have  been hindered by the lack of clear guidance in defining the appropriate  level of preparedness and setting priorities to achieve it.
Additionally, in our recent report on the management of first responder  grants in the National Capital Region, we reported that the lack of national  preparedness standards that could be used to assess existing first  responder capacities (such as the number of persons per hour that could  be decontaminated after a chemical attack), identify gaps in those  capacities, and measure progress in achieving specific performance goals  was a challenge. We also reported that effectively managing federal first  responder grant funds requires the ability to measure progress and provide  accountability for the use of public funds. This required a coordinated  strategic plan for enhancing preparedness, performance standards to  guide how funds are used to enhance first responder capacities and  preparedness, and data on funds available and spent on first responder  needs.
National performance standards for assessing domestic preparedness  capabilities and identifying gaps in those capabilities that reflect post- September 11 priorities are being developed. ODP has submitted to the  Secretary of DHS a definition of a national preparedness goal that is  intended to provide assurance of the nation’s capability to prevent,  prepare for, respond to, and recover from major events, especially  terrorism. ODP plans call for achieving the full capability needed to  sustain the preparedness levels required by the new national standards by  September 2008. In order to develop performance standards that will allow  ODP to measure the nation’s success in achieving this goal, ODP is using a  capabilities-based planning approach—one that defines the capabilities  required by states and local jurisdictions to respond effectively to likely  threats. These capability requirements are to establish the minimum levels  of capability required to provide a reasonable assurance of success against  a standardized set of 15 scenarios for threats and hazards of national  significance.
ODP’s efforts to develop national preparedness standards are, in part, a  response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), issued  by the President in December 2003. HSPD-8 called for a new national  preparedness goal and performance measures, standards for preparedness  assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the nation’s overall  preparedness. The directive required the DHS Secretary to submit the  new national preparedness goal to the President through his Homeland  Security Council for review and approval prior to, or concurrently with,  DHS’s fiscal year 2006 budget submission to the Office of Management and  Budget in September 2004. HSPD-8 also requires the preparation and  approval of statewide, comprehensive all-hazards preparedness strategies  in order to receive federal preparedness assistance at all levels of  government, including grants, after fiscal year 2005.
As part of the HSPD-8 implementation process, ODP plans to develop a list  of capability requirements by the end of January 2005 in keeping with the  fiscal year 2005 DHS appropriations act. To help define the capabilities  that jurisdictions should set as targets, ODP first drafted a list of tasks  required to prevent or respond to incidents of national consequence. They  include such generic tasks as integrating private-sector entities into  incident response activities or coordinating housing assistance for disaster  victims. The list of target capabilities includes the policies, procedures,  personnel, training, equipment, and mutual aid arrangements needed to  perform the tasks required to prevent or respond to the national planning  scenarios. ODP further plans to develop performance measures, on the  basis of the target capability standards that define the minimal acceptable  proficiency required in performing the tasks outlined in the task list. ODP  plans to complete initial development of the performance measures by  March 2005 and to refine them subsequently. According to ODP’s plan, the  measures will allow the development of a rating methodology that  incorporates preparedness resources and information about overall  performance into a summary report that represents a jurisdiction’s or  agency’s ability to perform essential prevention, response, or recovery  tasks. The office acknowledges that this schedule may result in a product  that requires future incremental refinements but has concluded that this is  preferable to spending years attempting to develop a “perfect” process.  ODP held a workshop in mid-October 2004 to obtain input from  representatives from states, national associations, and other federal  departments and agencies regarding the implementation of HSPD-8. At the  workshop, some participants voiced concerns that the process, among  other things, was moving too fast and did not consider the state and local  needs assessments that had already been done. In addition, some  participants believed that better communication and a more collaborative  process was needed. ODP officials promised to address the participants’  concerns and asked for additional input on how ODP could better  implement the process and work better with state and local jurisdictions.
section_title: ODP Increased Grant Monitoring Activities for Fiscal Year 2004 but Did Not Meet Its Monitoring Goal for All States
paragraphs: ODP has taken steps to improve its oversight procedures with respect to  state, urban area, and local grantees. ODP is responsible for ensuring  administrative and programmatic compliance with relevant statutes,  regulations, policies, and guidelines of the grants it manages. ODP also  monitors the progress that states make toward the goals and objectives  contained in their homeland security strategies. Prior to September 11,  2001, ODP formally monitored grantees through such activities as office- based reviews at ODP of grantees’ financial reports and other documents,  followed by on-site visits to state grant officials. Office-based reviews  entail a review of grant files to ensure that all grant documentation is  complete and up-to-date and that any apparent problems are addressed  through follow-up telephone or e-mail contact with the state or urban area.  Upon completion of an office-based review, an ODP preparedness officer  prepares a memorandum for the file. This review usually takes place  before an on-site visit is scheduled, according to ODP. During an on-site  visit, an ODP preparedness officer is to discuss administrative and  financial issues and programmatic issues such as whether the state or  urban area is meeting the goals and objectives in the homeland security  strategies. The ODP preparedness officer is to prepare a monitoring report  for each on-site visit.
ODP officials told us that formal on-site monitoring visits were temporarily  discontinued after September 11, 2001, because of a high volume of work.  For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP did not set formal monitoring goals,  such as a specific number of on-site visits to be made in a given year. ODP  officials said they continued to maintain active, almost daily contact with  the states by telephone, e-mail, and regular correspondence and through  informal visits to monitor programmatic and financial aspects of the  grants; however, no memorandums or formal site-visit reports were filed  during that period. In fiscal year 2004, ODP updated its grant-monitoring  guidance and established new monitoring goals. According to the  guidance, at least one office file review and one on-site visit—resulting in a  monitoring visit report—should be completed for each state (inclusive of  urban area grantees) each fiscal year.  As of September 30, 2004, ODP had  completed 44 office file reviews and 44 on-site visits for the 56 states and  territories. According to ODP, of the remaining 12 reviews and visits for  the fiscal year 2004 monitoring cycle, 8 have been conducted as of  December 2004. ODP officials said that these reviews and visits were  delayed, in part, because of turnover in preparedness officer positions and  scheduling problems. These on-site monitoring visits are a principal tool  for, among other things, ascertaining a grantee’s progress on its strategy  implementation, and noting problems with implementing the grant  program and the steps the grantee and ODP will take to resolve them.  These on-site visits are needed to track whether and how grantees are  managing their program funds.
section_title: ODP and Some State and Local Jurisdictions Cite Staffing Challenges
paragraphs: ODP cited staffing challenges that have affected its grant management in  general. ODP has made progress in filling authorized staff positions, but  vacancies remain. ODP had 146 full-time equivalent positions authorized  for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 30 of which were preparedness officers. As  of September 2004, ODP had filled 138 of these positions compared with  63 filled positions at the end of fiscal year 2003. Of the eight vacancies  remaining, five were preparedness officer positions. In addition to  performing office-based and scheduled on-site monitoring, these officers  serve as day-to-day liaisons to designated states. According to ODP, the  ODP preparedness officers currently have responsibility for one to five  states each, depending on the state’s population.
ODP officials told us that, in hiring staff, they face challenges shared by  other agencies. ODP has acknowledged that it experienced significant  staffing shortages in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 because of a hiring freeze.  In addition, officials cited other factors, including staff turnover, the lack  of recruitment and relocation bonuses, the high cost of living in the  Washington metropolitan area, and competition with other DHS entities  and contracting firms for high-quality candidates. These officials also said  that the lengthy federal hiring process is further extended by the need to  conduct security clearances for job candidates. To deal with some staff  shortages, ODP has relied on outside contractors and temporary  employees, but they are not working directly with states and local  jurisdictions on grants, and none are ODP preparedness officers.
State and local officials in two of the five states visited also cited a lack of  sufficient state and local personnel to administer and manage their grant  programs. While the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 grants provided funding  that states and local jurisdictions could use to administer the grants,  these officials said that the 3 percent limit on grant management and  administrative costs imposed by ODP in the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP II was  not sufficient to cover the grant administrative costs needed to administer  and manage the grants. This allowance can be used at the state and/or  local levels, but the combined allowance cannot exceed 3 percent of the  total first responder preparedness grant funds for each state. For SHSGP  II first responder preparedness grant funds, the allowable administrative  costs ranged among all states from a low of about $102,000 to a high of  about $3.1 million per state. Some officials said they have not been able to  hire the personnel necessary to administer and manage the grant  programs, in part, because of the limit on funds used for administrative  costs. DHS’s IG and Homeland Security Advisory Council Task Force also  cited similar reports from state and local officials they spoke with. In  responding to DHS’s IG report, ODP said that the homeland security grant  programs allow for the hiring of both full- and part-time personnel and  contractors to implement the program and that this option could be more  widely used by states to address the issue of inadequate staffing. ODP  officials recently told us that the fiscal year 2005 grant guidelines allow  states to retain 3 percent of the total grant award and local jurisdictions to  use 2.5 percent of their grant allocation for management and  administrative purposes. According to these officials, this change should  alleviate some of the staffing issues.
section_title: Congress, ODP, States, and Localities Have Acted to Expedite Grant Awards, but Challenges Remain
subsections: section_title: Statutory Deadlines Were Imposed to Expedite the Grant Award and Distribution Process
paragraphs: Congress, the Conference of Mayors, some state and local officials, and  others expressed concerns about the time ODP was taking to award grant  funds to states and for states to transfer grant funds to local jurisdictions.  For SDPP and SHSGP I grants, ODP was not required to award grant funds  to states within a specific time frame. During fiscal year 2002, ODP took  123 days to make the SDPP grant application available to states and, on  average, about 21 days to approve states’ applications after receipt. For  SHSGP II, however, the appropriations statute required that ODP make the  grant application available to states within 15 days of enactment of the  appropriation and approve or disapprove states’ applications within 15  days of receipt. According to ODP data for SHSGP II, ODP made the grant  application available to states within the required deadline and awarded  over 90 percent of the grants within 14 days of receiving the applications.  For SHSGP II, the appropriations statute also mandated that states submit  grant applications within 30 days of the grant announcement. According  to ODP data, all states met the statutory 30-day mandate. For SHSGP II,  the average number of days from grant announcement to application  submission declined from about 81 days in fiscal year 2002 to about  23 days.
To expedite the transfer of grant funds from the states to local  jurisdictions, ODP program guidelines and subsequent appropriations acts  imposed additional deadlines on states. For SDPP, there were no  mandatory deadlines or dates by which states should transfer grant funds  to localities. One of the states we visited, for example, took 91 days to  transfer the SDPP grant funds to a local jurisdiction while another state we  visited took 305 days. In addition, a DHS IG report found that for SDPP,  two of the states it visited took 73 and 186 days, respectively, to transfer  funds to local jurisdictions. Beginning with SHSGP I, ODP required in its  program guidelines that states transfer grant funds to local jurisdictions  within 45 days of the grant award date. Congress subsequently included  this requirement in the appropriations statute for SHSGP II grant funds. To  ensure compliance, ODP required states to submit a certification form  indicating that all awarded grant funds had been transferred within the  required 45-day period. States that were unable to meet the 45-day period  had to explain the reasons for not transferring the funds and indicate  when the funds would be transferred. According to ODP, for SHSGP I and  II, respectively, 33 and 31 states certified that the required 45-day period  had been met.
To further assist states in expediting the transfer of grant funds to local  jurisdictions, ODP also modified its requirements for documentation to be  submitted as part of the grant application process for fiscal years 2002 and  2003. In fiscal year 2002, ODP required states to submit budget detail  worksheets and program narratives indicating how the grant funds would  be used for equipment, exercises, and administration—and have them  approved. If a state failed to submit the required documentation, ODP  would award the grant funds, with the special condition that the state  could not transfer, expend, or draw down any grant funds until the  required documentation was submitted and approved. In fiscal year 2002,  ODP imposed special conditions on 37 states for failure to submit the  required documentation and removed the condition only after the states  submitted the documentation. The time required to remove the special  conditions ranged from about 1 month to 21 months. For example, in one  state we reviewed, ODP awarded SDPP grant funds and notified the state  of the special conditions on September 13, 2002; the special conditions  were removed about 6 months later on March 18, 2003, after the state had  met those conditions.
However, in fiscal year 2003, ODP allowed states to move forward more  quickly, by permitting them to transfer grant funds to local jurisdictions  before all required grant documents had been submitted. If a state failed to  submit the required documentation for SHSGP I, ODP awarded the grant  funds and allowed the state to transfer the funds to local jurisdictions.  While the state and local jurisdictions could not expend—and the state  could not draw down—the grant funds until the required documentation  was submitted and approved, they could plan their expenditures and begin  state and locally required procedures such as obtaining approval of the  state legislature or city council to use the funds. For SHSGP I, ODP  imposed special conditions on 47 states for failure to submit the required  documentation and removed the condition only after the states submitted  the documentation. The special conditions were removed approximately 1  month to 15 months after the grant funds were awarded to the states. For  the SHSGP II grant cycle, in order to further expedite the award process  and availability of fiscal year 2003 funds for expenditure, ODP no longer  required states to submit the budget detail worksheets and certain other  documents as part of the grant application process. Rather, these  documents could be submitted later with the state’s biannual progress  report. Thus, states were able to transfer, expend, and draw down grant  funds immediately after ODP awarded the grant funds. (See appendix III  for grant award and distribution timelines for selected state and local  grantees.)
section_title: Some States Have Revised Procurement Requirements Affecting Grant Time Lines, and ODP Is Developing Related Best Practices
paragraphs: Despite congressional and ODP efforts to expedite the award of grant  funds to states and the transfer of those funds to localities, some states  and local jurisdictions could not expend the grant funds to purchase  equipment or services until other, nonfederal requirements were met.  Some state and local officials’ ability to spend grant funds was  complicated by the need to meet various state and local legal and  procurement requirements and approval processes, which could add  months to the process of purchasing equipment after grant funds had been  awarded. For example, in one state we visited, the state legislature must  approve how the grant funds will be expended. If the state legislature is  not in session when the grant funds are awarded, it could take at least  4 months to obtain state approval to spend the funds. In another state we  visited, a city was notified on July 17, 2003, that SHSGP I grant funds were  available for use, but the city council did not vote to accept the funds until  almost 4 months later. A 2004 report by the House Select Committee on  Homeland Security also cited instances of slowness at the state and local  government levels in approving the acceptance and expenditure of grant  funds. For example, according to the committee report, one county took  about 7 months after receiving its SHSGP I grant award to get  authorization to spend the grant funds. Some state and local officials we  talked with said that complying with their normal procurement regulations  could also take months. They said that these regulations require, among  other things, competitive bidding for certain purchases—a frequently  lengthy process in their view.
Some states, in conjunction with DHS, have modified their procurement  practices to expedite the procurement of equipment and services. Officials  in two of the five states we visited told us they established centralized  purchasing systems that allow equipment and services to be purchased by  the state on behalf of local jurisdictions, freeing them from some local  legal and procurement requirements. As reported by the House Select  Committee on Homeland Security in April 2004, many states were looking  to move to a centralized purchasing system for the same reason. In  addition, the DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council Task Force  reported that several states developed statewide procurement contracts  that allow local jurisdictions to buy equipment and services using a        prenegotiated state contract. According to DHS, it has offered options for  equipment procurement, through agreements with the U.S. Department of  Defense’s Defense Logistics Agency and the Marine Corps Systems  Command, to allow state and local jurisdictions to purchase equipment  directly from their prime vendors. DHS said that these agreements provide  an alternative to state and local procurement processes and often result in  a more rapid product delivery at a lower cost. For example, one state we  visited is using a Defense Logistics Agency prime vendor to make  equipment purchases. Local jurisdictions can order the equipment without  having to go through their own locally based competitive bidding process.
Congress has also taken steps to address a problem that some states and  localities cited concerning a federal policy that provides reimbursement to  states and localities only after they have incurred an obligation, such as a  purchase order, to pay for goods and services. Until fiscal year 2005, after  submitting the appropriate documentation, states and localities could  receive federal funds to pay for these goods and services several days  before the payment was due so that they did not have to use their own  funds for payment. However, according to DHS’s Homeland Security  Advisory Council Task Force, many municipalities and counties had  difficulty participating in this process either because they did not receive  their federal funds before payment had to be made or their local  governments required funds to be on hand before commencing the  procurement process. Officials in one city we visited said that, to solve the  latter problem, the city had to set up a new emergency operations account  with its own funds. The task force recommended that for fiscal year 2005,  ODP homeland security grants be exempt from the Cash Management  Improvement Act to allow funds to be provided to states and  municipalities up to 120 days in advance of expenditures. The fiscal year  2005 DHS appropriations legislation includes a provision that exempts  formula-based grants (SHSGP) and discretionary grants, including UASI  and other ODP grants, from the act's requirement that an agency schedule  the transfer of funds to a state so as to minimize the time elapsing between  the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and the state’s disbursement  of the funds for program purposes.
In addition, DHS efforts are under way to identify and disseminate best  practices, including how states and localities manage legal and  procurement issues that affect grant distribution. DHS’s Homeland  Security Advisory Council Task Force stated in a June 2004 report that  some jurisdictions have been “very innovative” in developing mechanisms  to support the procurement and delivery of emergency-response-related  equipment. For example, one state cited in the report was in the process of  forming a procurement working group to address issues as they arise. The  report also cited that several states have developed statewide  procurement contracts that allow municipal government units to buy first  responder equipment and services. One state created a password- protected Web site that allowed local jurisdictions to view their allocation  balance and place orders for equipment up to their funding allocation  limit. According to the task force, these efforts substantially reduced the  time it takes for localities to purchase and receive their equipment. The  task force recommended that, among other things, DHS should, in  coordination with state, county, and other governments, identify, compile,  and disseminate best practices to help states address grant management  issues. According to ODP, in an effort to complement and reinforce the  task force’s recommendations, in partnership with the National Criminal  Justice Association, it established a new Homeland Security  Preparedness Technical Assistance Program service to enhance the grant  management capabilities of state administrative agencies. In an August 30,  2004, Information Bulletin, ODP requested that state administrative  agencies complete a survey designed to gather information on their grant  management technical needs and best practices related to managing and  accounting for ODP grants, including the procurement of equipment and  services at the state and local levels. The information that ODP is  gathering is to serve as a foundation for the development of a tailored, on- site assistance program for states to ensure that identified best practices  are implemented and critical grant management needs and problems are  addressed. According to ODP, this program will be operational in  December 2004.
Despite efforts to streamline local procurement practices, some challenges  remain at the state and local levels. An ODP requirement that is based on  language in the appropriations statute could delay procurements,  particularly in states that have a centralized purchasing system.  Specifically, for the fiscal 2004 grant cycle, states are required by statute to  pass through no less than 80 percent of total grant funding to local  jurisdictions within 60 days of the award. In order for states to retain grant  funds beyond the 60-day limit, ODP requires states and local jurisdictions  to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) indicating that states may  retain—at the local jurisdiction’s request—some or all funds in order to  make purchases on a local jurisdiction’s behalf. The MOU must specify the  amount of funds to be retained by the state. A state official in one state we  visited said that, while the state’s centralized purchasing system had  worked well in prior years, the state has discontinued using it because of  the MOU requirement, since establishing MOUs with every locality might  take years. The state transferred the fiscal year 2004 grant funds to local  jurisdictions so they can make their own purchases. In another state,  officials expressed concern that this requirement would negatively affect  their ability to maintain homeland security training provided to local  jurisdictions at state colleges that had been previously funded from local  jurisdictions’ grant funds. In a June 23, 2004, ODP Information Bulletin,  ODP strongly recommended that states retaining funds at the state level  on behalf of local jurisdictions have the MOUs reviewed by DHS’s Office of  General Counsel to ensure that the MOUs meet the requirements of the  appropriation language and ODP program guidelines. ODP officials told us  that they were assisting states to adapt to the new requirement.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, forced the nation to  reexamine its requirements for domestic safety, including the capacity and  resources that would be needed at the state and local levels to prevent,  prepare for, respond to, or recover from potential future threats from  terrorists and minimize their impact. Congress addressed this concern in  the months after the attacks, in part by increasing the grant funds that  states would receive to enhance their emergency first responder and  public health and safety capabilities to deal with terrorist attacks involving  CBRNE weapons. Not surprisingly, the enormous effort required to bolster  first responder capacity nationwide posed challenges for government  administrators at the federal, state, and local levels. A major challenge in  administering first responder grants is balancing two goals: minimizing the  time it takes to distribute grant funds to state and local first responders,  and ensuring appropriate planning and accountability for the effective use  of grant funds. ODP’s approach to striking this balance has been evolving  from experience, congressional action, and feedback from states and local  jurisdictions.
Over the last 2 years, working in concert with state governments and  others, DHS has made progress, through ODP, in managing its state  homeland security grant programs. ODP has addressed management  problems regarding how grants were awarded and funds distributed,  which arose following the dramatic increase in federal funding for first  responders after September 11. While some localities continue to face  legal and procurement challenges that can tie up access to grant funds,  ODP is taking steps to provide technical assistance that will, among other  things, give state and local officials access to best-practice information on  how other jurisdictions have successfully addressed procurement  challenges.
As ODP continues to administer its state and urban first responder grant  programs, it will likely face new challenges. In particular, as DHS and ODP  work to develop national preparedness standards, it will be important to  listen and respond fully to the concerns of states, local jurisdictions, and  other interested parties about, among other things, the planned time  frames for implementing the new standards. It will also be important to  ensure that there is adequate collaboration and guidance for moving  forward. Effective collaboration among ODP, states, and others in  developing appropriate preparedness performance goals and measures  will be essential to ensuring that the nation’s emergency response  capabilities are appropriately identified, assessed, and strengthened.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: DHS generally agreed with the report’s findings. In particular, the agency  concurred that it faced a number of challenges related to effectively  managing first responder grants and highlighted the progress it has made  in addressing them. The agency expressed the view, however, that the  progress already achieved in meeting these challenges was not  appropriately reflected in the title of the report. We disagree. As DHS  notes, our report acknowledges the efforts the agency has made in revising  grant procedures to expedite awards while maintaining accountability.  Nevertheless, not all of the agency’s efforts have gone smoothly, as  attested, for example, by the problems that DHS and the states  experienced in realistically defining first responder equipment needs in  2003. In view of the concerns recently expressed by state and other  officials, DHS may, in our view, continue to face significant challenges in  meeting its time tables to develop realistic capability requirements and  performance measures for first responders. DHS also provided further  details on some grant management issues we raised in the report. We have  revised the report as appropriate to include these and other technical  comments provided.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to relevant  congressional committees and subcommittees, the Secretary of    Homeland Security, and to other interested parties. We will also make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it further,  please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Key  contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We initially addressed our researchable questions regarding the Office for  Domestic Preparedness’s (ODP) structure and processes for program and  financial management of its grants and its monitoring policies and  processes in a briefing to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the  House Committee on Appropriations. In addressing those questions, we  identified 25 domestic preparedness programs managed by ODP in fiscal  years 2002 and 2003. For this report, we selected the five largest programs  in terms of federal funding provided to state and local jurisdictions for our  detailed review. Three of the five programs that addressed state and local  preparedness issues were basically for the same purposes but received  funding from separate appropriations. These were the fiscal year 2002  State Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP) and the fiscal year 2003  State Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP) I and II. The other two  programs were awarded to selected urban areas. These were the fiscal  year 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiatives (UASI) I and II grant programs.
We also selected Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania  and 19 local jurisdictions within those states:    The cities of Phoenix and Pima and Maricopa and Coconino Counties in  Arizona.
The cities of Los Angeles and Sacramento and the County of Los Angeles  in California.
The city of Miami, Miami-Dade County, and the Miami and Tallahassee  Regional Domestic Security Task Forces in Florida.
The city of St. Louis, St. Louis and Franklin Counties, and the rural cities  of Jackson and Sikeston in Missouri.
The city of Philadelphia and the Southeastern and South Central Regional  Terrorism Task Forces in Pennsylvania.
The five states were selected on the basis of the amount of ODP grant  funding received, population size, and other factors. The local jurisdictions  were selected on the basis of a mix of urban and rural locations to include  cities and counties that received UASI funding.
To determine how SHSGP and UASI were administered in fiscal years 2002  and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds were spent in  accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness planning, we  interviewed ODP officials and homeland security and grant management  officials and first responders in the five selected states and from selected  local jurisdictions within those states. We also obtained and reviewed  related ODP policy guidance and program guidelines for the SDPP/SHSGP  and UASI grant programs. We also obtained and reviewed documentation  on grant awards to state and local jurisdictions. We spoke with ODP  officials about their grant monitoring and reporting processes and  obtained and reviewed related ODP grant-monitoring guidance and  monitoring reports for fiscal year 2004. We also obtained and analyzed  data on the number of office-based and on-site-monitoring reviews  conducted in fiscal year 2004. We reviewed these data for obvious  inconsistency errors and completeness and compared these data with on- site-monitoring reports prepared by ODP. On the basis of these efforts, we  determined that the monitoring review data were sufficiently reliable for  the purpose of this report. In addition, we spoke with ODP and state and  local officials about staffing issues that affect grant management. We also  interviewed ODP and state and local officials and reviewed documentation  about ODP’s state homeland security needs assessment and strategy  development process and the similar needs assessment and strategy  development process for selected urban areas. In addition, we obtained  and reviewed the state domestic preparedness strategies for the selected  five states. In conjunction with this effort, we also obtained information  about the steps that ODP is taking to implement Homeland Security  Presidential Directive-8 regarding national preparedness goals and  performance standards. We also reviewed relevant reports on homeland  security and domestic preparedness that discuss the development of  national performance standards.
To determine the time frames for awarding and distributing SHSGP and  UASI grants established by ODP grant guidance or by law, and how these  time frames affected the grant cycle, we obtained and analyzed  appropriations acts and program guidelines for the grant programs. We  also met with ODP officials and state homeland security and grant  management officials, and local grant managers and first responders in the  selected states and local jurisdictions to discuss how the time lines  affected the grant cycle. We obtained and analyzed data on the time  frames associated with the grant award and distribution processes. We  reviewed these data for obvious inconsistency errors and completeness  and compared these data with hard-copy documents we obtained for these  states. When we found discrepancies, we brought them to the attention of  ODP and state and local officials and worked with them to correct the  discrepancies before conducting our analyses. On the basis of these  efforts, we determined that the time-frame data were sufficiently reliable  for the purpose of this report. We also obtained information about local  procurement policies and practices. In addition, we reviewed recent  reports and studies on issues related to federal funding and oversight of  grants for first responders. We also obtained grant funding and  expenditures as of July 31, 2004, for the 56 states and territories and the  urban areas. Given that the grant funding and expenditure data are used  for background purposes only, we did not assess the reliability of these  data. We also obtained and analyzed key dates associated with the grant  award, distribution, and reimbursement processes for selected states and  local jurisdictions. We conducted this work from November 2003 through  November 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP and UASI Funding and Draw Downs by State
paragraphs: Given that these grant-funding and drawn-down amounts are used for  background purposes only, we did not assess the reliability of these data.
section_title: Appendix III: Grant Award, Distribution, and Reimbursement Process for Selected States and Local Jurisdictions
paragraphs: Appendix III: Grant Award, Distribution, and  Reimbursement Process for Selected States  and Local Jurisdictions SAA officially notifies County A that it will receive  $119,202 in SDPP funding for equipment.
County A's local emergency planning  notifies County A that it  2002 SDPP program  guidelines to states. applications for grant funding; an equipment  list is sent to SAA for approval. and exercises.
County A for   SDPP funds. with SDPP funds.
SDPP purchase. 2/18/03                    County A's Board of  Supervisors approves  agenda item to accept   funding to ODP.
SDPP funds for equipment.  agenda item to County A's  Board of Supervisors to accept  in SDPP funding.
SDPP funds for equipment.
State A for SDPP funds.
County A's first responder  grant applications are due.
County A’s local emergency planning committee  sends grant application forms to all county first  responder agency administrators.
County's $1,383,000 grant share, and approves  will be spent by local jurisdictions and state agencies. appropriation adjustments to county departmental  budgets receiving grant funds.
A SAA expenditure report shows that  application to state. $25,733 of the total $3,705,921  awarded SDPP funding for the  operational area had been expended.
SAA posts local grant  guide to its Web site.
ODP awards State B $24,831,000  in SDPP funding, but imposes  special conditions. grant items.
12/12/03                                           City B's Controller releases fund to  emergency management grant  administrators for grant uses.
SAA approves County B's grant  purchase orders. application to ODP. $3,705,921 in SDPP funding for  by the county.
City B's funds into an emergency  operations fund and approves the City  draw down.
Council's decision to accept the city's grant  share ($1,139,241). The Mayor also  authorizes the purchase of approved  equipment with funds from the emergency  operations fund.
City B's City Council approves the acceptance of its $1,139,241  available for draw down. grant share, and approves the transfer of city funds to an  emergency operations fund to support grant purchases.
6/11/03 State B's ESO approves County B's grant  application and awards grant totaling $9,491,596  for the entire area emcompassed by the county.
County B's Board of Supervisors accepts  county's $3,923,000 grant share.
12/15/03 City B begins issuing  purchase orders.
6/23/03 ODP sends written correspondence to State B inquiring  about the state's progress toward complying with the grant  guidance requirement to obligate funds to local  communities within 45 days of receiving the grant award.       7/15/03 City B's City Council approves the acceptance  of $2,738,053 grant share, and the transfer of  city funds to an emergency operations fund to  support grant purchases.
A State B ESO expenditure report shows that  $100,947 of the total $9,491,596 for all  jurisdictions in the county had been expended. 8/01/03 City B's Chief Administrative Officer issues notice to exempt grant purchases from  freeze on equipment purchases imposed because of city budget constraints. 7/23/03 City B's Mayor concurs with City Council's  acceptance of $2,738,053 grant share.
State B submits its  application to ODP.
7/21/03 Formal ODP Grant Adjustment Notice removing most of  the special conditions that prohibited the expenditure or  draw down of funds for equipment and training. The  restrictions on $1,495,000 in equipment funds remain in  effect until detailed equipment budget worksheets are  submitted and approved by ODP. application to state.
7/09/03 State B's SAA transmits to ODP a form certifying that  State B has obligated all SHSGP I funds within the  required 45 days.
1/28/04                      County B expenditure report  shows that $123,144 of the  total $9,491,596 grant award  had been expended by all  jurisdictions in the county.
County B notifies City B that  it may begin purchasing  approved grant items.
8/06/03 City B's grant administrators instructed to create  a new account to receive funds from emergency  operations account to purchase grant items.
County B notifies City B that  grant-approved items.
City B's Controller  releases funds to  grant use. orders.
8/08/03 State B's SAA approves County B's grant  application and awards a grant totaling  $22,421,072 for the entire area  encompassed by the county.
A State B ESO  expenditure  report shows that $98,865 of the  total $22,505,947 awarded to  County B had been expended.
County's $9,824,000 share, and approves  obligated all SHSGP II funds within  the required 45-days. departmental budgets receiving grant funds.
SHSGP I funding. grant were removed.
7/11/03 SAA notifies ODP that  State C has obligated all  SHSGP I funds within the  required 45-day period. orders for equipment on  regional task force behalf.
Counties that  comprise the  regional task  12/17/03 Equipment purchased by the  state for the regional task force  is shipped to County C.
State C submits its  application to ODP. to SAA for approval. task force.
County C's Board of Commissioners  approves SHSGP I funds for expenditure  on planning, training, exercises, and  program administration.  The board also  approves funds for equipment purchases  7/31/03 SAA submits additional  information to ODP to  remove  special conditions.
Formal ODP Grant  Adjustment Notice  removing most of  by the state for the regional task force. the special  conditions.
State C SAA. task force; all purchase orders  made by the state for the regional  task force are released. $18,570,000 in SHSGP I  funding, with special conditions. force equipment list.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix V: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination Can Enhance  Emergency Preparedness. GAO-04-1009. Washington, D.C.: September 15,  2004.
Homeland Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate  Interoperable Communications between First Responders. GAO-04- 1057T. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2004.
Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental  Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable  Communications. GAO-04-740. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental  Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable  Communications. GAO-04-963T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to  Better Manage First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region.  GAO-04-904T. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004.
Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the  National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and  Performance Goals. GAO-04-433. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.
Emergency Preparedness: Federal Funds for First Responders. GAO-04- 788T. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2004.
Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable  Communications for First Responders. GAO-04-231T.  Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2003.
Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet  Outstanding Needs. GAO-03-1146T. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those persons mentioned above, David Alexander,  Leo Barbour, Amy Bernstein, Mona Nichols Blake, Laura Helm,  Carlos Garcia, Jessica Kaczmarek, and Katrina Moss made key  contributions to this report.