Urban Area Security Initiative: FEMA Lacks Measures to Assess How Regional Collaboration Efforts Build Preparedness Capabilities
Published: 2009-07-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: From fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allocated about $5 billion for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program to enhance regional preparedness capabilities in the nation's highest risk urban areas (UASI regions). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers this program. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) required FEMA to change the size of the geographical areas used to assess UASI regions' risk. The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008 directed GAO to assess FEMA's efforts to build regional preparedness through the UASI program, and determine how the 9/11 Act change affected UASI regions. This report addresses (1) the extent to which FEMA assesses how UASI regions' collaborative efforts build preparedness capabilities, and (2) how UASI officials described their collaboration efforts and changes resulting from the 9/11 Act. GAO surveyed all 49 UASI regions that received funding prior to the 9/11 Act change, and visited 6 regions selected based on factors such as length of participation. GAO also reviewed FEMA's grant guidance and monitoring systems.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Although FEMA has gathered and summarized data on UASI regions' funding for specific projects and related preparedness priorities and capabilities, it does not have measures to assess how UASI regions' collaborative efforts have built preparedness capabilities. An executive directive, Departmental policy, and agency guidance all require that preparedness priorities and capabilities be measurable so that FEMA can determine current capabilities, gaps, and assess national resource needs. To report on the performance of the UASI program, FEMA has gathered data on UASI regions' funding for projects and the goals and objectives those projects support, including the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration. However, FEMA's assessments do not provide a means to measure the effect UASI regions' projects have on building regional preparedness capabilities--the goal of the UASI program. FEMA acknowledged a lack of specific measures that define how or whether national priorities--including expanding regional collaboration--are achieved. In the absence of measures, FEMA directed states to describe their collaborative activities. However, these state activities do not provide a means to assess how regional collaboration activities help build preparedness capabilities. FEMA has an effort underway to establish a comprehensive assessment system to appraise the nation's preparedness capabilities. FEMA could build upon its current efforts to assess overall preparedness by developing and including measures related to the collaboration efforts of UASI regions and their effect on building regional preparedness. This could provide FEMA with more meaningful information on the return on investment of the $5 billion it has allocated to the UASI program to date. UASI officials described program activities that they said greatly or somewhat helped support regional collaboration, reflecting factors GAO identified that can enhance and sustain collaboration, and also described a variety of actions taken in response to the 9/11 Act change to assess risk. Regarding program activities that support regional collaboration, of the 49 UASI regions GAO surveyed, 46 said they have active mutual aid agreements in part to share resources among jurisdictions, and 44 described training and exercises as activities they use to build regional preparedness capabilities. Some UASI regions reported changes in membership in response to FEMA's change in the size of the geographical areas used to assess UASI regions' risk. For example, of the 49 regions GAO surveyed, 27 reported that additional jurisdictions were included within the geographical area FEMA used to assess risk that were not included in the region's membership. However, 17 of these regions reported that they had assessed and evaluated the need to include these new jurisdictions in their membership and 3 UASI regions said they plans to do this, while 7 UASI regions said they had no plans to do this.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The November 2008 Mumbai attacks, where members of a terrorist group  attacked multiple locations, including transportation, commercial, and  religious facilities, illustrated the propensity of terrorists to strike high- profile urban targets. To prepare for and respond to such acts of terrorism,  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides grants administered  by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to state, local,  tribal jurisdictions, and urban areas to build and sustain national  preparedness capabilities. From its inception in fiscal year 2003 through  fiscal year 2009, Congress has appropriated about $5 billion for the Urban  Area Security Initiative (UASI) to support regional preparedness in the  nation’s highest risk urban areas. The UASI grant program is designed to  distribute federal funding to an urban region composed of multiple local  governments and first responder agencies rather than a single city. The  purpose of the UASI program is to support regional collaboration among  local jurisdictions and emergency response organizations in order to build  and sustain regional preparedness capabilities necessary to prevent,  protect, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.
Reflecting the requirements of the Implementing Recommendations of the  9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), FEMA changed the way it  assessed risk for urban areas in allocating grant funds in 2008. Previously,  FEMA measured the relative risk of UASI regions’ using a 10 mile radius  around the center city’s boundaries. The 9/11 Act required FEMA to use  the boundaries of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for the 100 largest  (by population) areas in determining its 2008 UASI grant allocations.  Although the 9/11 Act did not specify the intent of the change to MSAs, we  concluded in June 2008 that using MSAs provided a more standardized and  generally accepted approach to defining an urban area.
In the conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations  Act for fiscal year 2008, Congress directed that GAO assess how DHS is  implementing a regional approach to preparedness through the UASI  program and what changes to this approach resulted from the relevant  9/11 Act provisions. We conducted this review to answer the following  questions:    To what extent has FEMA assessed how UASI regions’ collaborative  efforts build regional preparedness capabilities?
How did UASI officials describe their regional collaboration efforts and  changes, if any, resulting from the 9/11 Act?
To determine the extent to which FEMA has assessed how UASI regions’  collaborative efforts build regional preparedness capabilities, we reviewed  DHS strategic policies and guidance such as the National Preparedness  Guidelines and the Target Capabilities List, as well as FEMA’s UASI  program policies and guidance. Specifically, we reviewed guidance from  the Homeland Security Grant Program that requires grantees to report on  project progress and costs and use metrics and/or narrative discussions to  indicate project progress/success. The guidance also describes how  grantees are to structure their UASI programs, membership and  management, and processes for developing, submitting, and implementing  proposed grant projects. We reviewed FEMA’s January 2009 Federal  Preparedness Report, and the information FEMA submitted for OMB’s  2008 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) on the UASI program.  We  observed demonstrations of two systems FEMA uses to monitor and  report on the status and progress of the use of homeland security grants  (the Grant Reporting Tool and Grant Monitoring Tool), and reviewed  documents supporting another system being developed by FEMA to help  grant recipients assess and prioritize grant project proposals (the Cost To  Capability Initiative). In addition, we analyzed project data submitted by  UASI grantees to FEMA. FEMA maintains this information in its Grant  Reporting Tool, which includes information on the kinds of projects UASI  applicants proposed, how these projects were associated with the  National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration, and the types of  preparedness capabilities UASI grant recipients anticipated would be  increased as a result of these projects. We reviewed all those projects that  supported the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration—446  projects from the total 2,847 UASI grant projects funded under the  program during this time period. We assessed the reliability of these data  by questioning agency officials about the steps they take to ensure the  integrity of the data, including efforts taken during site monitoring visits.  We also compared the results from our analyses to other information  provided by FEMA. From these efforts we believe that the data used in our  analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Finally,  we interviewed FEMA officials responsible for implementing, measuring,  and monitoring the UASI program. In addition to the National  Preparedness Guidelines and UASI program guidance, we reviewed the  Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and Homeland Security  Presidential Directive 8, which also require measures and assessments of  national preparedness.
To determine how UASI officials described their regional collaboration  efforts and the changes, if any, resulting from the 9/11 Act, we surveyed by  telephone all 49 UASI regions that were recipients of UASI grant funding  in fiscal years 2008 and in at least 1 fiscal year prior to 2008. We based our  survey questions in part on our prior work including best practices for  collaboration, factors that support regional collaboration, and challenges  to interagency coordination. We conducted pretests by telephone with  representatives of 3 UASI regions to refine our questions, develop new  questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the questionnaire, and  identify any potentially biased questions. We obtained a 100 percent  response rate to our telephone survey. Because our survey included all 49  UASI regions that received grant funding as described above, there are no  sampling errors. We also selected a nonprobability sample of 6 UASI  regions to visit. We selected these UASI regions based on several factors,  including the length of time the region had participated in the program, its  relative risk ranking (Tier 1—those at highest risk—or Tier 2), the amount  of grant funding received, the change in geographic footprint resulting  from the switch to MSAs, and geographical diversity. While the results of  these site visits cannot be generalized to all UASI regions, we believe that  the observations obtained from these visits provided us with a general  understanding of the differing extents to which UASI program managers  felt their programs were achieving regional collaboration and what steps,  if any, they took in response to FEMA’s change in the definition of a UASI  region for its risk allocation methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2008 through June 2009, 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
subsections: section_title: UASI Grant Program Designed to Build Preparedness Capabilities within Urban Areas and Support Regional Collaboration
paragraphs: FEMA created the Grant Programs Directorate on April 1, 2007, in  accordance with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act  (Post-Katrina Act), to consolidate the management of emergency  preparedness grants, including the UASI grants. The Grant Programs  Directorate’s subject-matter experts are to provide on-site programmatic  monitoring and technical assistance to grantees, while analyzing,  evaluating, and ensuring accountability and program effectiveness.  Similarly, FEMA created the National Preparedness Directorate to carry  out key elements of the national preparedness system, in coordination  with other federal, state, local, tribal, nonprofit, and private-sector  organizations. The Directorate includes the National Integration Center  and the Office of Preparedness Policy, Planning, and Analysis. The Office  of Preparedness Policy, Planning, and Analysis is responsible for  developing tools and measures for assessing national preparedness  nationwide.
Since its inception in fiscal year 2003, the purpose of the UASI program  has been to provide federal assistance to build and sustain regional  preparedness capabilities necessary to prevent, protect, respond to, and  recover from acts of terrorism in the nation’s highest risk urban areas,  such as information gathering, search and rescue, and citizen evacuation.  To administer the UASI program, FEMA estimates the risk relative to  selected urban areas, considering threat, vulnerability, and consequences.  On the basis of this analysis, it ranks the UASI areas and identifies urban  areas as eligible to apply for UASI funding. DHS and FEMA have increased  the number of regions receiving UASI grant funds from the original 7 areas  identified for funding by DHS in 2003 which received $96.5 million, to 62  areas designated by FEMA that received $798.6 million in funding in 2009,  as shown in table 1.
As required by the 9/11 Act, FEMA changed the definition it used to  identify the UASI regions included in its risk analysis model. Specifically,  FEMA used this risk analysis model to determine its 2008 UASI grant  allocations and changed the definition of UASI regions included in the  model from one that includes a 10-mile radius around an urban area’s  center city boundary to Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) as defined  by the Census Bureau. In July 2008, we reported on the effect of this  change on FEMA’s risk analysis model and risk-based allocation  methodology for determining risk and distributing UASI grant funds and  found the methodology reasonable. In addition, although the 9/11 Act did  not specify the intent of the change to MSAs, we concluded that using  MSAs provided a more standardized and generally accepted approach to  defining an urban area. FEMA did not require UASI grantees to change the  number of jurisdictions participating in the governance of the UASI region  as a result of this change, but recommended in grant guidance that UASI  regions expand their efforts to involve regional preparedness partners (for  example, contiguous jurisdictions, port authorities, rail and transit  authorities, campus law enforcement, and state agencies) in their program  activities.
GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Risk-Based Grant Methodology Is Reasonable, But  Current Version’s Measure Of Vulnerability Is Limited, GAO-08-852 (Washington, D.C.:  June 27, 2008). collectively responsible for coordinating development and implementation  of the projects and programs being conducted with UASI grant funds.  Each UASI region is to develop a charter or other form of standard  operating procedures that addresses such issues as membership,  governance structure, voting rights, grant management and administration  responsibilities, and funding allocation method. The charter must also  outline how decisions made in UASI meetings for that region will be  documented and shared with UASI members. FEMA requires each UASI  region to create its own regional working group, which FEMA’s grant  guidance refers to as an urban area working group. UASI grant guidance  requires that membership of a region must include representation from the  jurisdictions and response disciplines that comprise the region as defined  by the urban area’s working group. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, UASI  grant guidance recommended to urban areas that they consider for UASI  working group membership those counties within which the cities  included in the UASI region reside, contiguous jurisdictions, and  jurisdictions within the region’s MSA.
Each year FEMA issues UASI grant guidance that describes the priorities  and requirements for the annual grant cycle. FEMA requires each UASI  region to develop and submit a strategic plan that outlines the region’s  common goals, objectives, and steps for implementation of projects and  programs to enhance regional preparedness. This strategy, known as the  Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, is intended to provide each UASI  region with direction for enhancing regional capabilities. UASI regions  must use their strategy as the basis for requesting funds, and FEMA’s grant  guidance states that there must be a clear correlation between the goals,  objectives, and priorities identified in the Urban Area Homeland Security  Strategy and UASI program activities. Once FEMA allocates grant funds,  UASI regions are responsible for coordinating development and  implementation of preparedness projects under the grant program. After  funds are awarded, grantees are required to report every 6 months on  progress as part of the regular grant reporting process. Performance data  submitted through grant reporting are to be reviewed and validated  through program monitoring by FEMA.
section_title: National Preparedness Guidelines and Preparedness Capabilities
paragraphs: In December 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential  Directive-8 (HSPD-8), which called on the Secretary of Homeland Security  to carry out and coordinate preparedness activities with public, private,  and nonprofit organizations involved in such activities, and directed that  DHS establish measurable readiness priorities and targets. In addition,  the Post-Katrina Act requires FEMA to develop specific, flexible, and  measurable guidelines to define risk-based preparedness (i.e., target)  capabilities and to establish preparedness priorities that reflect an  appropriate balance between the relative risks and resources associated  with all hazards. DHS published the National Preparedness Guidelines in  September 2007. Specifically, the purposes of the Guidelines are to:    organize and synchronize national—including federal, state, local, tribal,  and territorial—efforts to strengthen national preparedness;    guide national investments in national preparedness;  incorporate lessons learned from past disasters into national preparedness  priorities;  facilitate a capability-based and risk-based investment planning process;  and    establish readiness metrics to measure progress and a system for  assessing the nation’s overall preparedness capability to respond to major  events, especially those involving acts of terrorism.
The Guidelines describe eight national priorities that are intended to guide  preparedness efforts, as presented in table 2.
The National Preparedness Guidelines also define 37 specific  preparedness capabilities that communities, the private sector, and all  levels of government should collectively possess in order to respond  effectively to disasters. These preparedness capabilities cover a broad  range of activities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover  from man-made or natural disasters, and include such things as  information gathering, search and rescue, citizen evacuation, and  structural damages assessment. A complete list of the 37 preparedness  capabilities is provided in appendix 1. FEMA requires grant recipients to  demonstrate how their progress in meeting these priorities is supported by  projects to develop specific preparedness capabilities. According to  FEMA, with its focus on enhancing regional preparedness through the  collaborative efforts of multiple jurisdictions throughout urban areas, the  UASI program directly supports the national priority to expand regional  collaboration.
section_title: Prior GAO Work on Assessing Preparedness Capabilities
paragraphs: In March 2008 we testified that, although FEMA has taken some steps to  establish goals, gather information, and measure progress, its monitoring  of homeland security grant expenditures did not provide a means to  measure the achievement of desired program outcomes. We further  reported that FEMA’s efforts did not provide information on the  effectiveness of those funds in improving the nation’s capabilities or  reducing risk.
To address these concerns, FEMA is developing two new systems to  gather data on preparedness capabilities. Specifically, as we reported in  December 2008 and April 2009, respectively, FEMA is developing a Cost- to-Capability (C2C) initiative and a Comprehensive Assessment System.   In December 2008, we reported that to help state and local stakeholders  make better investment decisions for preparedness, FEMA’s Grant  Programs Directorate is developing the C2C initiative to help assess a  jurisdiction’s capabilities. However, according to FEMA officials, the C2C  results—as designed—would not directly measure preparedness, and  grantees’ use of the C2C tool will not be mandatory. In April 2009, we  reported that FEMA is developing a comprehensive assessment system in  response to a Post-Katrina Act requirement to assess the nation’s  capabilities and overall preparedness for preventing, responding to, and  recovering from natural and man-made disasters. We reported that FEMA  faces methodological and coordination challenges in developing and  completing its proposed Comprehensive Assessment System and reporting  on its results. Among other things, we recommended that FEMA enhance  its project management plan to include milestone dates, an assessment of  risk, and related mitigation strategies for comprehensively collecting and  reporting on disparate information sources, developing quantifiable  metrics for preparedness capabilities that are to be used to collect and  report preparedness information, and reporting on the results of  preparedness assessments to help inform homeland security resource  allocation decisions. FEMA agreed with our recommendations.
In prior reviews, we examined effective regional coordination in  emergency preparedness efforts and collaboration among federal agencies  to identify common approaches and practices. For example, in  September 2004 we reviewed coordination practices in various  metropolitan areas to identify regional programs with lessons learned that  could be applied in the National Capital Region and elsewhere and  identified four factors that enhance regional coordination efforts—a  collaborative regional organization, flexibility in the membership and  geographic area, a strategic plan with measurable goals and objectives,  and funding at a regional level. (See table 3).
In 2005, we examined challenges that federal agencies face in coordinating  their efforts and identified key practices that can enhance and sustain  their collaborative efforts by among other things:    defining and articulating a common outcome(s);    establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the  outcome;  identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources;    achieving mutual agreement(s) on agency roles and responsibilities;    establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate    developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of  collaborative efforts; and  reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency  plans and reports.
In March 2000, we reported that agencies can encounter a range of  barriers when they attempt to collaborate. These include such challenges  as missions that are not mutually reinforcing or that may even conflict,  agencies’ concerns about protecting jurisdiction over missions and control  over resources, and incompatible procedures, processes, data, and  computer systems—making reaching a consensus on strategies and  priorities difficult.
In September 2004, we also reported that the short history of regional  collaboration for homeland security is characterized by attempts of  federal, state, and local governments to overcome a fragmented federal  grant system and local jurisdictional barriers to assess needs, fill gaps, and  plan for effective prevention and emergency response. In July 2002, the  President issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security, which  emphasized a shared responsibility for security involving close  cooperation among all levels of government. To enhance emergency  preparedness, the strategy called for systems that avoid duplication and  increase collaboration to better align public and private resources for  homeland security. We have consistently called for the development of a  national, rather than purely federal, strategy that involves partners from all  levels, including federal, state, and local organizations. For example, in  testimony given in 2003, we highlighted multiple barriers to addressing one  basic area of preparedness—interoperable communications systems— including the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and  intergovernmental planning. In another study of bioterrorism  preparedness, we reported that although progress had been made in local  planning, regional planning involving multiple municipalities, counties, or  jurisdictions in neighboring states lagged. We found that the autonomy of  local jurisdictions and competing priorities within and among them can  make regional coordination difficult and that efforts that seek to overcome  these challenges to coordinate regionally must take into account the  different operational structures and civic traditions of states and  municipalities.
section_title: FEMA Gathers Data and Reports on Funding for Regional Collaboration Efforts, but Does Not Assess How UASI Regions’ Collaborative Efforts Enhance Regional Preparedness
paragraphs: FEMA uses two grant administration tools—the Grant Reporting Tool and  the Grant Monitoring Tool—to gather information on projects funded and  progress made by UASI grantees to expand regional collaboration and to  report on UASI program performance. However, FEMA has not assessed  how UASI regions’ collaboration efforts have helped build regional  preparedness capabilities.
subsections: section_title: FEMA Uses Grant Administration Tools to Gather Data and Report On UASI Program Performance
paragraphs: FEMA uses two grant administration tools to gather information on  projects funded and progress made by UASI grantees; and the agency used  this information to help produce the first Federal Preparedness Report in  January 2009, which provided an overall assessment of the nation’s  preparedness to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from natural  and man-made disasters. UASI region officials use FEMA’s Grant  Reporting Tool to, among other things, report on project funding plans and  collect and record grant expenditures over the life of grant projects. FEMA  program analysts use another system, the Grant Monitoring Tool, to record  the results of their monitoring visits at each UASI region once every 2  years. FEMA also used information from the Grant Monitoring Tool to  report on UASI program performance in OMB’s 2008 Program Assessment  Rating Tool (PART).
Grantees use FEMA’s Grant Reporting Tool to report twice a year on  planned and actual grant obligations and progress made on grant projects.  According to annual grant guidance, recipients must account for all grant  funds and the funds must be linked to one or more projects that support  specific goals and objectives in a state’s homeland security strategy and  the corresponding urban area’s security strategy. The Grant Reporting  Tool is updated by the grantee primarily with the dollar amounts  associated with specific grant projects, national priorities associated with  each project, and the preparedness capabilities recipients believe will be  enhanced by each proposed project. The Grant Reporting Tool also  contains data on the funds allocated to specific categories of activities— planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises. For each  project, UASI grantees are to identify at least one of the national priorities  to be addressed by the project as well as the primary capability to be  developed. However, they can also identify additional national priorities  and capabilities they intend to improve as a result of the proposed project.
We analyzed data from FEMA’s Grant Reporting Tool from fiscal year 2006  through fiscal year 2008 to determine the types of preparedness  capabilities that UASI regions associated with their projects that  supported the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration. Of the  2,847 UASI grant projects funded under the UASI program during this time  period, we reviewed all those projects that supported the National Priority  to Expand Regional Collaboration—a total of 446 such projects. Of these  446 projects, 303 projects funded a single preparedness capability. (The  remaining 143 projects funded multiple capabilities.) In terms of funding,  of the 37 preparedness capabilities, these projects primarily sought to  develop six: (1) Planning, (2) Communications, (3) Intelligence and  Information Sharing and Dissemination, (4) Emergency Operations Center  Management, (5) Counter-Terror Investigation and Law Enforcement, and  (6) Chemical/Biological/Radiological/Nuclear and/or Explosive (CBRNE)  Detection (See fig. 1). For example, one UASI project to expand regional  collaboration through the planning capability was intended to  “develop/enhance plans, procedures, and protocols.” According to the  project description, the specific activities the UASI region planned to fund  included conducting a business impact threat assessment that will drive  the development of plans to ensure continuity of operations for critical  information technology infrastructure and applications. Another project— to provide funding to purchase interoperable systems and establish an  emergency operations center— was intended to expand regional  collaboration through the communications preparedness capability.
According to FEMA officials, the agency used data from the Grant  Reporting Tool to publish the first Federal Preparedness Report in January  2009. In summarizing the achievement of the UASI grant program, the  report noted that 64 percent of UASI grant recipients reported progress in  implementing their UASI strategies’ program goals and objectives. The  report assessed the achievement of the National Priority to Expand  Regional Collaboration in terms of the funding allocated to this priority— noting that states and urban areas had allocated nearly $1.1 billion in  homeland security grant funds from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2007 to  projects that were intended to improve regional collaboration. FEMA also  reported that states and UASI regions have supported regional  preparedness through “plans, initiatives, and other programs.”
FEMA uses the Grant Monitoring Tool primarily to record the results of  program analysts’ visits to UASI regions. On a 2-year cycle, FEMA officials  visit each UASI region to interview officials and use the system to  document their observations regarding grant activities. The Grant  Monitoring Tool contains a series of questions about UASI regions’  progress in achieving their goals and objectives as well as national  priorities, and FEMA program analysts are to discuss the priorities with  grantees to measure their progress in implementing each national priority.  FEMA uses data from this tool to report on the overall performance of the  UASI program in OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). In 2008,  FEMA measured the UASI program’s overall performance against three  long-term measures as reported by UASI officials:    percent of significant progress made toward implementation of the    percent of grantees reporting significant progress toward the goals and  objectives identified in their state homeland security strategies—67  percent; and    percent of analyzed capabilities performed acceptably in exercises—79  percent.
section_title: FEMA Does Not Assess How Collaborative Efforts Help Build UASI Regional Preparedness Capabilities
paragraphs: While executive, departmental, and agency guidance all direct FEMA to  assess how regional collaboration builds national preparedness  capabilities, FEMA has not yet established measures to do so. Specifically:    Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 requires that the national  preparedness policy establish measurable priorities (such as the national  priority to expand regional collaboration) and targets and include metrics  that support the national preparedness goal, including standards for  preparedness assessments and a system for assessing the nation’s overall  preparedness.
DHS’s National Preparedness Guidelines, the national preparedness  policy, state that regional collaboration is critical to national  preparedness, identify the need to expand regional collaboration as a  national priority, and establish the need to develop measurable capability  objectives, assess current levels of capabilities, and find ways to close any  gaps.
FEMA’s UASI grant guidance identifies the need to tie together the  established priorities and objectives of the National Preparedness  Guidelines, including the national priority to expand regional  collaboration, with efforts to establish preparedness capabilities, conduct  capability assessments, and make adjustments to better ensure that the  national investment yields measurable improvements in the nation’s  preparedness.
Moreover, leading management practices recognize the importance of  establishing performance measures in achieving results. When designed  effectively, performance measures help managers (1) determine how well  a program is performing, (2) identify gaps in performance, and (3)  determine where to focus resources to improve results. However, FEMA  has no measures in place to assess the extent to which the funds  appropriated by Congress—approximately $5 billion for the UASI program  since 2003—have achieved the goal to build regional preparedness through  collaboration efforts.
The National Preparedness Guidelines state that, because major events  often have regional impact, it is vital to enhance collaborative efforts by  federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial entities to communicate and  coordinate with one another, the private sector, nongovernmental  organizations, and individual citizens. However, the Guidelines do not  identify any means of assessing regional collaboration outputs and  activities, or the connection between regional collaboration activities and  the achievement of regional preparedness capabilities. In addition, none of  FEMA’s other strategies, guidance, and policies—such as FEMA’s Grant  Programs Directorate Strategy for 2009-2011 and FEMA’s agencywide  strategy for 2008-2013—provide output or outcome measures to assess the  effect of UASI regions’ collaborative efforts on preparedness capabilities.
FEMA’s Federal Preparedness Report acknowledges this limitation, citing  a lack of specific targets that define how or whether national priorities— including the National Priority to Expand Regional Collaboration—are  achieved. The report does not identify or specifically discuss the effects of  collaborative efforts or how they contributed to improvements in regional  preparedness capabilities associated with UASI grant program  investments. In gathering data from states, FEMA directed states to  describe their current capability under the National Priority to Expand  Regional Collaboration, but this was limited to a general description of  factors related to collaboration. While these factors are related to states’  and urban areas’ efforts to enhance regional collaboration, they do not  provide a means to assess how regional collaboration activities help build  preparedness capabilities.
In accordance with the Post-Katrina Act, FEMA has an effort underway to  establish a comprehensive assessment system to assess the nation’s  capabilities and overall preparedness for preventing, responding to, and  recovering from natural and man-made disasters. As part of this effort,  FEMA is to collect information on state capability levels and report on  federal preparedness to Congress, including the results of the  Comprehensive Assessment System. Moreover, FEMA is currently  working to develop measurable targets related to each of the 37  preparedness capabilities. While we previously reported challenges FEMA  faces in developing and implementing the comprehensive assessment  system, FEMA could build upon its current efforts to assess overall  preparedness by developing and including measures related to the  collaboration efforts of UASI regions and their effect on building regional  preparedness. FEMA officials cited the National Preparedness Guidelines,  which note that the challenge for government officials is to determine the  best way to build capabilities for bolstering preparedness and achieving  the guidelines, and that the “best way” to do so will vary across the nation.  According to the Guidelines, the results of national preparedness  assessments will be used to refine strategies and update the national  priorities, and FEMA officials said that the agency is considering updating  the National Preparedness Guidelines in 2010. FEMA officials stated that  their current efforts to develop measurable preparedness capabilities will  determine progress in building preparedness, but officials said that there  are no program plans to develop measures to assess how UASI  collaborative efforts build preparedness. We recognize the challenges  associated with establishing a single set of measures related to  collaboration activities for the UASI program, such as deciding how  information and data from different sources will be used to inform any  such measures, and coordinating with numerous federal, state, and local  stakeholders during this process. However, developing measures to assess  how UASI regions’ collaborative efforts enhance regional preparedness  capabilities could provide FEMA with more meaningful information on the  national return on investment for the approximately $5 billion in grant  expenditures for regional collaboration through the UASI program to date.
section_title: UASI Officials Described Program Features That Support Regional Collaboration but Cited Continuing Challenges; Some UASI Regions Increased their Membership in Response to Changes in the 9/11 Act
paragraphs: UASI program officials described program features that support regional  collaboration, many of which reflect practices we have identified that can  enhance and sustain collaboration. UASI officials also described a number  of continuing challenges they faced in their efforts to expand regional  collaboration, which mirror collaboration challenges we identified in  earlier work examining coordination among federal agencies. In addition,  some UASI regions reported changes in membership planned or  undertaken in response to FEMA’s use of metropolitan statistical areas to  assess risk, as called for in the 9/11 Act.
subsections: section_title: UASI Program Features Demonstrate Practices That Support Regional Collaboration
paragraphs: Certain UASI program features reflect practices we have identified that  can enhance and sustain collaboration. For example, the UASI program  requires that each UASI region develop and maintain a strategy and define  its membership and governance structure. The program requirements also  include the need for written charters and mutual aid agreements between  local governments and agencies, as well as biannual reporting—the types  of practices we have reported that agencies perform to enhance and  sustain their collaborative efforts, as summarized in table 4. Monitoring,  evaluating, and reporting the results of collaborative efforts—one of the  leading practices we identified—could be strengthened if FEMA develops  measures to assess how UASI regions’ collaborative efforts enhance  regional preparedness capabilities.
Additionally, in our survey of UASI participants and during our site visits,  UASI officials described various program features that they said greatly or  somewhat helped support regional collaboration, and their responses  generally reflect factors related to organization, flexibility, planning, and  funding that we have found support effective regional collaboration in  preparedness efforts. The results of our survey can be found in appendix  II.
Collaborative regional organization: In September 2004, we reported  that a collaborative regional organization enhances preparedness and  includes representation from many different jurisdictions and disciplines.  Moreover, our prior work on key practices to enhance and sustain  collaboration identified the establishment of mutually reinforcing or joint  strategies and the mutual agreement of roles and responsibilities as  important elements. In the UASI program, mutual aid agreements are one  way jurisdictions and agencies within UASI regions define organizational  roles and responsibilities during those times when one locality needs the  resources of nearby localities. Of the 49 UASI regions we surveyed, 46 said  they have active mutual aid agreements, of which 38 identified that such  an agreement either “greatly helps” or “somewhat helps” measure regional  capability-building. Mutual aid agreements promote collaboration across  governments or agencies when they explicitly identify how certain  regional response efforts are to be accomplished and by whom. In  addition, 39 UASI regions stated that agreements such as charters and  bylaws are a UASI-wide program feature, of which 26 said that this either  “greatly helps” or “somewhat helps” measure regional capability-building  (15 and 11 respectively).
Officials in all six UASI regions we visited said that their UASI regional  organization included representation from many jurisdictions and  disciplines. UASI region officials in our site visits stated that they rely on  subcommittees within their organization to develop proposed projects for  their grant application. These subcommittees, for example, can be  organized based on a particular project (e.g., communications, exercises,  and training, etc.) or based on a response discipline (e.g., all fire  departments) across the urban area. According to UASI officials, grant  project proposals are then provided to the voting officials of the UASI  region for approval. This structured approach helps subcommittee  officials focus on operational planning while UASI officials can focus on  strategic planning, according to UASI officials from 2 sites we visited.
Flexibility in membership and geographic area: In our prior work, we  reported that when the membership and geographic area of the regional  organization is flexible it fosters interjurisdictional coordination and  enhances regional preparedness. Further, we reported addressing needs  by leveraging resources as a leading practice for effective collaboration.  Officials from three UASI regions we visited in California—Los  Angeles/Long Beach, Anaheim/Santa Ana, and Riverside—described a  long-standing tradition of flexibility in working among response  disciplines, leveraging the expertise of diverse members such as fire and  public health departments across jurisdictions to prepare and respond to  actual events such as frequent wildfires and periodic earthquakes. Officials  from jurisdictions in these three UASI regions used this expertise to  develop and refine California’s incident management system, which  became the foundation for the National Incident Management System  (NIMS). UASI region officials in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida said  that NIMS, in turn, has been very useful for expanding regional  collaboration as the system integrates first responders under a commonly  understood incident command structure. Similarly, all 49 UASI regions we  surveyed reported that they use NIMS compliance for first responders to  build regional capabilities.
Training and exercise activities can be developed to provide flexible  opportunities to bring in as many or as few multidisciplinary and  multijurisdictional stakeholders within the region, as needed, to learn and  test organizational preparedness responsibilities. All UASI regions we  visited identified training and exercises as key activities that help bring  together jurisdictions and first responders. In addition, 44 of the 49 UASI  regions we surveyed reported that their UASI-wide training and exercises  are an activity they use regionwide that builds regional capabilities.
Strategic planning: Our prior work found that planning activities can  enhance regional preparedness and collaboration. All but one of the 49  UASI regions we surveyed identified their strategic planning activities as  building their urban areas’ regional capabilities. In addition, officials at all  six of the UASI regions we visited said the annual UASI grant planning  process required by FEMA enhances regional collaboration because the  process establishes an annual, organized effort to identify a region’s needs  based on its strategic plans and preparedness capabilities. UASI region  officials said that FEMA requires UASI regions to develop and submit their  Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy—along with the UASI region’s  grant program proposals—as the basis for requesting funds. The  evaluation of needs and identification of gaps in capabilities are important  steps for UASI regions in their development of a homeland security  strategy and annual grant proposals.
Regional funding: Our 2004 report found that funding regional  organizations provides incentives for collaborative planning activities to  enhance preparedness regionwide. A number of UASI regions have used  the grant program as a means to consolidate administrative functions and  procurement activities regionally. For example, 42 of 49 UASI regions we  surveyed said that they use UASI-wide cost-sharing activities across  jurisdictions—such as purchasing larger quantities of equipment at lower  overall costs in order to take advantage of economies of scale. Also, 33  UASI regions said that they work with their state to take advantage of  economies of scale. Leveraging federal funds across grant programs is  another collaboration activity that 44 UASI regions reported in our survey.  One example where DHS grant funds—UASI and State Homeland Security  Grant funds—are leveraged to build regional capabilities is in Florida,  where the Miami and Fort Lauderdale UASI programs are both in the same  state-designated region for security planning purposes. According to  officials, both UASI regions work with the state to coordinate the sources  of project funding. Miami or Fort Lauderdale UASI regions pool a part of  their funds each year to make them available for their state-designated  security region’s needs, regardless of whether the jurisdiction in need is  the Miami or Fort Lauderdale UASI region. For example, the Fort  Lauderdale UASI region provided a portion of its UASI funding to support  training for a local government within the Miami UASI region area.
section_title: UASI Officials Described Continuing Challenges Including Conflicting Missions, Jurisdictional Concerns, and Incompatible Systems to Their Efforts to Collaborate
paragraphs: In addition to the positive impact of a variety of program features on  regional collaboration described above, UASI officials also described a  number of continuing challenges they faced to expand regional  collaboration reflecting those challenges we previously identified that  federal agencies may encounter when they attempt regional  collaboration. These challenges include conflicting missions, concerns  regarding jurisdiction and control over resources, and incompatible  processes or systems that can make reaching a consensus on strategies  and priorities difficult. Specifically:  Conflicting missions: As we reported in 2000, one challenge concerns  missions that are not mutually reinforcing or that may even conflict,  making reaching a consensus on strategies and priorities difficult. As part  of our survey, we posed a series of possible challenges, based in part on  our prior work, which may occur between UASI regions’ goals and  objectives and the goals and objectives of FEMA and other related federal  programs. In response, 30 of the 46 surveyed UASI regions reported that  “changing federal homeland security goals and objectives” presented a  regional challenge for their urban area. Of these, 28 UASI regions cited this  as a challenge that “greatly” or “somewhat” impairs regional collaboration  (4 and 24 respectively). In addition, 19 UASI regions identified “unclear  federal homeland security goals and objectives” as a regional challenge,  with 18 of these UASI regions saying that this “greatly” or “somewhat”  impairs regional collaboration (5 and 13 respectively).
According to the National Preparedness Guidelines, FEMA is committed to  working with its homeland security partners in updating and maintaining  the Guidelines and related documents as part of a unified National  Preparedness System, which should help ensure coordinated strategies,  plans, procedures, policies, training, and capabilities at all levels of  government. For example, in January 2009, FEMA reported the results of  its discussions with state and local emergency management and homeland  security agencies from 20 states (that included 15 UASI regions), finding  the most significant challenges the agencies identified to be “balancing the  varied, and often competing, interests (ie. missions, goals and objectives)  from the full spectrum of stakeholders on the design and management of  preparedness programs.” The report notes that these challenges are  common to the management and coordination of homeland security  preparedness initiatives but that the resulting recommendations will help  to overcome those challenges, noting, for example, that “efforts are  already underway in updating policy, and coordinating preparedness  assistance.” Moreover, as FEMA implements the recommendations from  our report on the National Preparedness System to improve development  of policies and plans, national capability assessments, and strategic  planning—all of which contain preparedness goals and objectives—should  help better align local, state, regional, and federal missions.
Jurisdictional concerns: Another significant barrier to collaboration our  prior work identified related to concerns about protecting jurisdiction  over federal missions. Our survey found, for example, that 22 UASI  regions identified the lack of written authority and agreements as a  regional challenge. Eighteen of these UASI regions cited this as a  challenge that “greatly” or “somewhat impairs” regional collaboration (4  and 14 respectively). However, 31 UASI regions said that “difficulty in  reaching consensus in decision making among jurisdictions” was not a  challenge that they face within their region. Further, 36 UASI regions said  that “difficulty in reaching consensus in decision making among response  disciplines (e.g. police, fire, EMS, etc.)” was not a challenge within their  urban area; although 13 of 49 UASI regions said this was a challenge, none  of these 13 UASI regions said this challenge greatly impairs regional  collaboration, 10 regions said this challenge somewhat impairs regional  collaboration, while the remaining 3 cited no impairment. Although our  survey found some UASI regions facing challenges over jurisdiction, fewer  UASI regions reported issues related to control and access to resources  within the region. The Grant Programs Directorate’s Cost-to-Capability  initiative, currently under development, is intended to help FEMA and  localities better target their use of federal grant funds and enable  comparisons across jurisdictions in evaluating grant proposals, which  should help UASI regions in their efforts to reach consensus in decision  making among jurisdictions.
Incompatible systems: Another barrier to effective collaboration, which  we reported in 2000, is the lack of consistent data collected and shared by  different agencies, which prevents the federal government from achieving  interagency goals and objectives. For a UASI region, this collaboration  barrier can occur as a part of its efforts to establish or sustain fusion  centers. As we reported in 2007, almost all states and several local  governments have established or are in the process of establishing fusion  centers to collaborate and share information across federal, state, and  local governments and agencies and address gaps in information sharing.  Our survey found, for example, that intelligence sharing activities are a  part of 41 UASI regions; while the remaining 8 UASI regions reported that  they are in the process of building this capability. In addition, 34 UASI  regions reported no regional challenges related to sharing intelligence. Of  those 14 UASI regions we surveyed that cited conflicts about intelligence  sharing as a regional challenge, 13 reported that this either greatly or  somewhat impaired regional collaboration (5 and 8 respectively; 1  response was “don’t know”). As we stated in the 2007 report, DHS,  recognizing the importance of fusion centers in information sharing, has  efforts under way to address challenges fusion center officials identified in  establishing and operating their centers. DHS concurred with our  recommendation that the federal government should determine its long- term fusion center role and whether it expects to provide resources to  centers to help ensure their sustainability, and said it was reviewing  strategies to sustain fusion centers as part of the work plan of the National  Fusion Center Coordination Group. In September 2008, officials in DHS’s  Office of Intelligence and Analysis reported that DHS has committed to  dedicating resources to support and develop the state and local fusion  center network and will continue to deploy personnel and resources to  centers to augment their capabilities. Specifically, officials reported that  DHS continues to provide personnel to certain fusion centers, has  augmented training and technical assistance efforts, and has provided  additional centers with networks and systems for information sharing. In  December 2008, DHS issued additional guidance for interaction with  fusion centers. While these efforts address DHS’s efforts to define its role  in fusion centers, the efforts are ongoing and specific questions regarding  the timing and amount of these resources have yet to be determined.
Similarly, interoperable communications has been both a common need  across all urban areas, and a long-standing barrier. According to FEMA,  interoperable communications is the ability of public safety agencies  (police, fire, EMS) and service agencies (public works, transportation,  hospitals, etc.) to talk within and across agencies and jurisdictions via  radio and associated communications systems. According to FEMA, it is  essential that public safety agencies have the intra-agency operability they  need, and that they build its systems toward interoperability. Of the 49  UASI regions we surveyed, 27 UASI regions reported that interoperable  communications between first responders present a regional challenge  within their UASI region, with 21 of these regions reporting that this  “greatly” or “somewhat” impairs regional collaboration (6 and 15  respectively). However, 6 of the 27 UASI regions said it does not impair  regional collaboration. FEMA’s Federal Preparedness Report reported on  the extent that urban areas were achieving interoperable communications.  In 2007 DHS assessed which of these regions were in one of four stages of  implementation—“Early” through “Advanced.” DHS has several programs  designed to help build national interoperable communications capabilities  in varying stages of implementation.
section_title: UASI Officials Described Program Activities Such as Exercises and Training That Helped Them Assess Their Collaborative Efforts
paragraphs: In response to our survey and at all 6 of the UASI regions we visited,  officials described their views of what constituted effective regional  collaboration and how they assess their collaborative efforts. Many UASI  regions identified program activities and processes that helped them build  regional capabilities and assess their performance as a region. For  example, according to our survey:    Thirty-seven UASI regions said a needs assessment or analysis of gaps in  preparedness capabilities is a UASI-wide program feature. All 37 UASI  regions said that this either “greatly helps” or “somewhat helps” measure  regional capability-building (27 and 10 respectively). In addition, 35 of  these 37 UASI regions also said that this feature either “greatly helps” or  “somewhat helps” them measure regional performance (24 and 11  respectively).
Thirty-one UASI regions identified operational planning as an activity they  use to build regional collaboration.
Sixteen UASI regions said that their regional operations plan greatly or  somewhat helps measure regional performance (8 and 8 respectively).
Thirty-six UASI regions identified tactical planning as a regional activity  they use to build regional collaboration.
Thirty-nine UASI regions reported that they have a UASI-wide exercise  plan. Thirty-six of these said that this exercise plan either “greatly helps”  or “somewhat helps” measure regional capability-building (24 and 12  respectively), and 37 of these 39 UASI regions said that this feature either  “greatly helps” or “somewhat helps” them measure regional performance  (25 and 12 respectively).
section_title: Some UASI Regions Reported Changes in Membership Planned or Undertaken in Response to FEMA’s Use of MSAs to Assess Risk
paragraphs: A provision within the 9/11 Act required FEMA to perform a risk  assessment for the 100 largest MSAs by population, beginning in fiscal year  2008. In response, FEMA’s fiscal year 2008 grant program guidance stated  that, while UASI officials were not required to expand or contract existing  urban area participation to conform to MSAs, UASI regions were  encouraged to involve regional preparedness partners (for example,  contiguous jurisdictions, mutual aid partners, port authorities, rail and  transit authorities, campus law enforcement, and state agencies) in their  2008 UASI program activities. Of the 49 UASI regions we surveyed, 27 said  that there were jurisdictions within the MSA that were not part of their  UASI region; the remaining 22 UASI regions responded that their UASI  included all jurisdictions within the MSA.
In our survey, 27 UASI regions had jurisdictions within the MSA that were  not part of their UASI region, and we asked them to describe the actions, if  any, they planned to take or had taken in response to FEMA’s use of MSAs  for its risk calculations. UASI officials’ responses to the grant guidance  varied. Of the 27 UASI regions that said there were jurisdictions within the  MSA that weren’t part of their UASI region:    Twenty-two said that they either had taken or had plans to take some  action(s) in response to FEMA’s risk calculation change; 5 UASI regions  said they had not taken and did not plan to take any of the actions cited  (e,g., initiating a dialogue and assessing the need to include new  jurisdictions) to expand their membership.
Seventeen UASI regions reported that they already assessed and evaluated  the need to include new jurisdictions and 3 UASI regions said they plan to  do this, while 7 UASI regions said they had no plans to assess and evaluate  the need to include new jurisdictions.
Twelve UASI regions said they have already initiated dialogue to  collaborate with new jurisdictions and 3 UASI regions have reported that  they plan to do this, while 12 UASI regions said they had no plans to  initiate dialog with new jurisdictions.
Seven UASI regions reported that they have already included new  jurisdictions in advisory committees and 4 UASI regions reported that they  plan to do this, while 16 UASI regions said they have no plans to include  any new jurisdictions in advisory committees.
Six UASI regions reported that they have plans to increase the number of  jurisdictions in their UASI region urban area working group and 1 UASI  region reported that it had already done so, while 20 UASI regions said  they have no plans to do this.
In a follow-up question to these 27 UASI regions, we asked whether there  were specific reasons why some jurisdictions are not included in their  UASI region, e.g., because other jurisdictions were not a possible provider  of prevention, medical surge, resources, or evacuation capabilities.  Overall, 11 of the 27 UASI regions reported at least one of the possible  issues we posed within our survey as a reason why some jurisdictions  were not part of their UASI region. Specifically, 5 UASI regions reported  that excluding a jurisdiction was due to that outside jurisdiction’s lack of  capacity to provide, for example, first responder support or medical surge  capabilities, and 4 UASI regions reported excluding a jurisdiction because  that jurisdiction was not a provider of support for recovery efforts or  evacuation efforts. Two UASI regions also cited the lack of mutual aid  agreements as a reason for not including a new jurisdiction. UASI officials  from 14 regions provided additional comments stating that the reason why  additional jurisdictions were not included in the UASI region was that  their UASI region was either part of an existing state-defined region  developed for strategic planning and response purposes, or their UASI  region’s composition was based on existing regional bodies such as  councils of governments or regional planning commissions. Another  common reason cited by officials in 10 UASI regions who provided  additional comments was that these other jurisdictions were remote and  not adjacent to the urban area, and lacking in population or critical  infrastructure.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Natural and man-made disasters often have a regional impact, affecting  multiple jurisdictions; therefore it is vital to ensure that federal, state,  local, tribal, and territorial entities collaborate effectively in the  protection, prevention of, response to, and recovery from a disaster. The  UASI program is intended to enhance regional preparedness through  expanded regional collaboration. However, FEMA currently has no  measures to determine the impact of the UASI regions’ collaborative  efforts on regional preparedness. With such measures, FEMA would be  better positioned to determine the national return on investment for the  more than $5 billion awarded in UASI grant funds to date.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the FEMA Administrator develop and implement  measures to assess how regional collaboration efforts funded by UASI  grants build preparedness capabilities.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from FEMA. FEMA did  not provide official written comments to include in our report. However,  in e-mails received June 26, 2009, the DHS liaison stated that FEMA  concurred with our recommendation and will work toward addressing it.   DHS also provided technical comments which we incorporated into our  report, as appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the FEMA Administrator, and the Secretary of Homeland  Security. This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8757 or e-mail at jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: DHS’s Target Capabilities List
paragraphs: As we noted in 2005, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) developed  the National Preparedness Guidelines to comply with HSPD-8. The  National Preparedness Guidelines are intended to generally define “how  well” all levels of governments and first responders are to prepare for all- hazards, through a capabilities-based preparedness planning process  based on common tools and processes of preparedness including the  Target Capabilities List. The purpose of this approach is to provide  capabilities suitable for a wide range of threats and hazards.
According to DHS, the Target Capabilities List is a comprehensive catalog  of capabilities to perform homeland security missions. In July 2005, we  reported that the application of this capabilities-based preparedness  process involves three stages: (1) defining target levels of capability,   (2) achieving target levels of capability, and (3) assessing preparedness.  As of September 2007, the list identified 37 capabilities needed to perform  critical tasks across all events—prevention, protection, response, and  recovery. The Target Capabilities List also provides guidance on each  specific preparedness capability and levels of capability that federal, state,  local, and tribal first responders will be expected to develop and maintain.
section_title: Appendix II: Results of GAO’s Telephone Survey of 49 UASI Regions
paragraphs: In the absence of objective measures to determine the impact of the Urban  Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions’ collaboration efforts on regional  preparedness, we surveyed UASI regions to solicit officials’ views on the  impact of program activities on regional collaboration and challenges they  faced to support regional collaboration. We surveyed by telephone all 49  UASI regions that were recipients of UASI grant funding in fiscal years  2008 and in at least one fiscal year prior to 2008. We based our survey  questions in part on our prior work including best practices for  collaboration, factors that support regional collaboration, and challenges  to interagency coordination. Our questions were designed to collect  information on (1) activities that are incorporated into the UASI regions’  collaboration efforts and those features that help UASI regions measure  their regional capability-building and performance, (2) whether UASI  regions face certain regional challenges and if so, whether those  challenges impair the efficiency and effectiveness of their regional  collaboration and preparedness efforts, and (3) whether respondents have  or plan to make changes in response to FEMA’s change to Metropolitan  Statistical Areas (MSAs) for risk calculation. We conducted pretests by  telephone with representatives of 3 UASI regions to refine our questions,  develop new questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the  questionnaire, and identify any potentially biased questions. We obtained a  100 percent response rate to our telephone survey. Because our survey  included all 49 UASI regions that received grant funding as described  above, there are no sampling errors. The information below represents  responses provided by UASI regions to our close-ended survey questions.
Q1. Are any of the following activities a part of, or in progress of being a  part of, your UASI area?  (Check one box each row.)
Q2. Does your UASI area face any of the following regional challenges?
Q3. How much, if at all, does this regional challenge impair the  effectiveness of regional collaboration in your preparedness efforts?
UASI? impairs regional collaboration? “Yes”
Q4. Are there are any jurisdictions within your MSA that are not a part of  the UASI area?
Yes 27  No 22  If “No,” go to question 8.
Q5. In response to FEMA’s change to MSAs for risk calculation, has your  UASI area done, have plans to do, or have no plans to do any of the  following with the jurisdictions in your geographic area? (Check one box  in each row.)
Have no plans to do  this  a. Assess/Evaluate need to include new jurisdictions   b. Initiate dialogue with new jurisdictions  d. Solicit proposals from new jurisdictions  f. Increase the number of jurisdictions in Urban Area Working  Group (UAWG) (e.g, your Executive or Steering committee)
Q6. Is each of the statements listed below a reason why there are some  jurisdictions that are not part of your UASI area?  Q7. (For each item in Q6 with a “Yes,” ask:) Does your UASI intend to  enter into this kind of relationship with all, some, or none of these  jurisdictions?
Reason why not part of  UASI area?
Intend to enter relationship?
If “Yes” b. Not a part of prevention activities (e.g., fusion  center/information sharing; see TCL)  c. Not a provider of emergency response support (see  TCL)  d. Not a provider of surge capabilities (e.g., first  responders, medical surge; see TCL)  e. Not a provider of resource capabilities  f. Not a part of interoperable communications system  g. Not a provider of support for recovery or evacuation  efforts (see TCL)
Q8. In addition to your UASI’s Homeland Security Strategy, does your  UASI possess the following program features?  Q9. (For each item in Q8 with a “Yes”, ask:) How much, if at all, does this  program feature help your UASI measure its regional capability-building?  Q10. (For each item in Q8 with a “Yes”, ask:) How much, if at all, does  each of the following program features help your UASI measure its  performance?
How much helps measure regional  capability-building? regional performance? “Yes”
Q11. Does your UASI area use any of the following activities to build  regional capabilities?  Q12. (For each item in Q11 with a “Yes,” ask:) Has your UASI area defined  performance measures for this activity?
Builds regional capabilities? measures?
If “Yes”
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Chris Keisling (Assistant  Director), John Vocino (Analyst-in-Charge), Orlando Copeland, Perry  Lusk, Adam Vogt, Linda Miller, David Alexander, Grant Mallie, and Tracey  King made key contributions to this report.