National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress in Improving Grant Management and Assessing Capabilities, but Challenges Remain
Published: 2013-03-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2002 through 2012, the Congress appropriated about $39 billion to a variety of DHS preparedness grant programs to enhance the capabilities of state and local governments to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and other disasters. DHS allocated more than $21.3 billion through four of the largest preparedness programs--the Port Security Grant Program, the State Homeland Security Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, and the Urban Areas Security Initiative.
In February 2012, GAO identified factors that contribute to the risk of FEMA potentially funding unnecessarily duplicative projects across the four grant programs. In March 2011, GAO reported that FEMA has faced challenges in developing and implementing a national preparedness assessment, which inhibits its abilities to effectively prioritize preparedness grant funding. This testimony updates GAO's prior work and describes DHS's and FEMA's progress over the past year in (1) managing preparedness grants and (2) measuring national preparedness by assessing capabilities. This statement is based on prior products GAO issued from March 2011 to February 2012 and selected updates in March 2013. To conduct the updates, GAO analyzed agency documents and interviewed FEMA officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Officials in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)--have identified actions they believe will enhance management of the four preparedness programs GAO analyzed; however, FEMA still faces challenges. In February 2012, GAO found that FEMA lacked a process to coordinate application reviews and made award decisions with differing levels of information. To better identify potential unnecessary duplication, GAO recommended that FEMA collect project-level information and enhance internal coordination and administration of the programs. DHS concurred. The fiscal year 2013 President's Budget, proposed the establishment of the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a consolidation of 16 FEMA grant programs into a single program. However, Members of Congress raised concerns about the NPGP and have not approved the proposal. As a result, FEMA officials reported that the agency was drafting new guidance for the execution of the NPGP based on pending Congressional direction on fiscal year 2013 appropriations. If approved, and depending on its final form and execution, the NPGP could help mitigate the potential for unnecessary duplication and address GAO's recommendation to improve internal coordination. In March 2013, FEMA officials reported that FEMA intends to start collecting and analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal year 2014; but has not yet finalized data requirements or fully implemented the data system to collect the information. Collecting appropriate data and implementing project-level enhancements as planned would address GAO's recommendation and better position FEMA to identify potentially unnecessary duplication.
FEMA has made progress addressing GAO's March 2011 recommendation that it develop a national preparedness assessment with clear, objective, and quantifiable capability requirements and performance measures; but continues to face challenges developing a national preparedness system that could assist FEMA in prioritizing preparedness grant funding. For example, in March 2012, FEMA issued the first National Preparedness Report, which describes progress made to build, sustain, and deliver capabilities. FEMA also has efforts underway to assess regional, state, and local preparedness capabilities. In April 2012, FEMA issued guidance on developing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA) to self-assess regional, state, and local capabilities and required states and local areas receiving homeland security funds to complete a THIRA by December 2012. However, FEMA faces challenges that may reduce the usefulness of these efforts. For example, the National Preparedness Report notes that while many programs exist to build and sustain preparedness capabilities, challenges remain in measuring progress over time. According to the report, in many cases, measures do not yet exist to gauge performance, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Further, while FEMA officials stated that the THIRA process is intended to develop a set of national capability performance requirements and measures, such requirements and measures have not yet been developed. Until FEMA develops clear, objective, and quantifiable capability requirements and performance measures, it is unclear what capability gaps currently exist and what level of federal resources will be needed to close such gaps. GAO will continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to develop capability requirements and performance measures.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO has made recommendations to DHS and FEMA in prior reports. DHS and FEMA concurred with these recommendations and have actions underway to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the  subcommittee:  I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to provide an  update on the efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA)—a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)— to manage preparedness grants and measure and assess national  capabilities to respond to a major disaster. From fiscal years 2002  through 2012, the federal government appropriated about $39 billion to a  variety of DHS homeland security preparedness grant programs to  enhance the capabilities of state, territory, local, and tribal governments to  prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover  from terrorist attacks and other disasters. DHS allocated more than half  of this total—$21.3 billion—to grant recipients through four of the largest  preparedness programs—the Port Security Grant Program, the State  Homeland Security Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, and the  Urban Areas Security Initiative.
Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act  of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In  response to the act, among other things, DHS centralized most of its  preparedness programs under FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate  (GPD) to better integrate and coordinate grant management. The act also  requires that FEMA develop a national preparedness system and assess  preparedness capabilities to determine the nation’s preparedness  capability levels and the resources needed to achieve desired levels of  capability.
In March 2012, we testified before this committee and summarized our  work from April 2002 through February 2012 on DHS’s and FEMA’s  efforts to manage preparedness grants; develop and assess national  preparedness capabilities at the federal, state, and local levels; identify  capability gaps; and prioritize future national preparedness investments to  fill the most critical gaps. As requested, my testimony today provides an  update on that work, including the extent to which DHS and FEMA have  made progress over the past year in (1) managing preparedness grants  and (2) measuring national preparedness by assessing capabilities and  addressing related challenges.
My statement is based on our March 2012 testimony, as well as reports  on DHS and FEMA grant management and preparedness that we issued  from March 2011 through February 2012. More information about the  scope and methodology of our prior work can be found in those reports.  To update our work, we analyzed documentation such as DHS’s National  Preparedness Report, issued in March 2012; interviewed relevant FEMA  officials to obtain updates on recent progress in managing preparedness  grants and measuring national preparedness; and reviewed our prior  reports. We conducted our work 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 the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Over the past decade, the federal government has expanded financial  assistance to a wide array of public and private stakeholders for  preparedness activities through various grant programs administered by  DHS through its component agency, FEMA. Through these grant  programs, DHS has sought to enhance the capacity of states, localities,  and other entities, such as ports or transit agencies, to prevent, respond  to, and recover from a natural or manmade disaster, including terrorist  incidents. Four of the largest preparedness grant programs are the Port  Security Grant Program, the State Homeland Security Program, the  Transit Security Grant Program, and the Urban Areas Security Initiative.
The Port Security Grant Program provides federal assistance to  strengthen the security of the nation’s ports against risks associated  with potential terrorist attacks by supporting increased portwide risk  management, enhanced domain awareness, training and exercises,  and expanded port recovery capabilities.
The State Homeland Security Program provides funding to support  states’ implementation of homeland security strategies to address the  identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise  needs at the state and local levels to prevent, protect against, respond  to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.
The Transit Security Grant Program provides funds to owners and  operators of transit systems (which include intracity bus, commuter  bus, ferries, and all forms of passenger rail) to protect critical surface  transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of  terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit infrastructure.
The Urban Areas Security Initiative provides federal assistance to  address the unique needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas,  and assists the areas in building an enhanced and sustainable  capacity to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from acts of  terrorism.
Since its creation in April 2007, FEMA’s GPD has been responsible for  managing DHS’s preparedness grants. GPD consolidated the grant  business operations, systems, training, policy, and oversight of all FEMA  grants and the program management of preparedness grants into a single  entity.
section_title: FEMA Has Taken or Proposed Actions to Address Potential Duplication Issues Identified by GAO, but Challenges Remain
subsections: section_title: FEMA Needs Better Coordination and Improved Data Collection to Reduce Risk of Unnecessary Duplication in Four Grant Programs
paragraphs: In February 2012, we identified multiple factors that contributed to the risk  of FEMA potentially funding unnecessarily duplicative projects across four  of the largest grant programs—the Port Security Grant Program, the  State Homeland Security Program, the Transit Security Grant Program,  and the Urban Areas Security Initiative. These factors include overlap  among grant recipients, goals, and geographic locations, combined with  differing levels of information that FEMA had available regarding grant  projects and recipients. Specifically, we found that FEMA made award  decisions with differing levels of information and lacked a process to  coordinate application reviews. To better identify potential unnecessary  duplication, we recommended that FEMA (1) take steps to ensure that it  collects project information at the level of detail needed to better position  the agency to identify any potential unnecessary duplication within and  across the four grant programs, and (2) explore opportunities to enhance  FEMA’s internal coordination and administration of the programs. DHS  agreed with the recommendations and identified planned actions to  improve visibility and coordination across programs and projects. We also  suggested that Congress consider requiring DHS to report on the results  of its efforts to identify and prevent duplication within and across the four  grant programs, and consider these results when making future funding  decisions for these programs.
section_title: FEMA Has Taken Actions to Enhance Preparedness Grant Management, But Challenges Remain
paragraphs: Since we issued our February 2012 report, FEMA officials have identified  actions they believe will enhance management of the four grant programs  we analyzed; however, FEMA still faces challenges to enhancing  preparedness grant management. First, the fiscal year 2013 President’s  Budget outlined a plan to consolidate most of FEMA’s preparedness  grants programs, and FEMA officials expect this action would reduce or  eliminate the potential for unnecessary duplication. The fiscal year 2013  President’s Budget proposed the establishment of the National  Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a consolidation of 16 grant  programs (including the 4 grants we analyzed in our February 2012  report) into a comprehensive single program. According to FEMA officials,  the NPGP would eliminate redundancies and requirements placed on  both the federal government and grantees resulting from the existing  system of multiple individual, and often disconnected, grant programs.  For example, FEMA officials said that the number of applications a state  would need to submit and the federal government’s resources required to  administer the applications would both decrease under the consolidated  program. However, Members of Congress have expressed concern about  the consolidation of the 16 grant programs and Congress has not yet  approved the proposal. In October 2012, FEMA officials told us that  Members of Congress had asked FEMA to refine the NPGP proposal to  address concerns raised by stakeholders, such as how local officials will  be involved in a state-administered grant program. As of March 2013,  FEMA officials reported that the agency was drafting guidance for the  execution of the NPGP based on stakeholder feedback and direction from  Congress pending the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill. If the NPGP is  not authorized in fiscal year 2013, FEMA officials stated that the agency  plans to resubmit the request for the fiscal year 2014 budgetary cycle. If  approved, and depending on its final form and execution, the  consolidated NPGP could help reduce redundancies and mitigate the  potential for unnecessary duplication, and may address the  recommendation in our February 2012 report to enhance FEMA’s internal  coordination and administration of the programs.
Second, in March 2013, FEMA officials reported that the agency intends  to start collecting and analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal  year 2014; however, FEMA has not yet finalized specific data  requirements and has not fully established the vehicle to collect these  data—a new data system called the Non-Disaster Grants Management  System (ND Grants). As of March 2013, FEMA officials expect to develop  system enhancements for ND Grants to collect and use project-level data  by the end of fiscal year 2013. FEMA officials stated that FEMA has  formed a working group to develop the functional requirements for  collecting and using project-level data and plans to obtain input from  stakeholders and consider the cost effectiveness of potential data  requirements. In alignment with data requirement recommendations from  a May 2011 FEMA report, the agency anticipates utilizing the new project- level data in the grant application process starting in fiscal year 2014.  Collecting appropriate data and implementing ND Grants with project- level enhancements as planned, and as recommended in our February  2012 report, would better position FEMA to identify potentially  unnecessary duplication within and across grant programs.
Third, in December 2012, FEMA officials stated that there are additional  efforts underway to improve internal administration of different grant  programs. For example, officials stated that a FEMA task force has been  evaluating grants management processes and developing a series of  recommendations to improve efficiencies, address gaps, and increase  collaboration across regional and headquarters counterparts and financial  and programmatic counterparts. These activities represent positive steps  to improve overall grants management, but they do not include any  mechanisms to identify potentially duplicative projects across grant  programs administered by different FEMA entities.
section_title: FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing National Preparedness Capabilities, but Challenges Remain in Establishing Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Grant Funding
subsections: section_title: FEMA Has Faced Challenges Developing a National Assessment of Preparedness
paragraphs: According to DHS and FEMA strategic documents, national preparedness  is the shared responsibility of the “whole community,” which requires the  contribution of a broad range of stakeholders, including federal, state, and  local governments, to develop preparedness capabilities to effectively  prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover  from a major disaster. Figure 1 provides an illustration of how federal,  state, and local resources provide preparedness capabilities for different  levels of government and at various levels of incident effect (i.e., the  extent of damage caused by a natural or manmade disaster). The greater  the level of incident effect, the more likely state and local resources are to  be overwhelmed.
We have previously reported on and made recommendations related to  DHS’s and FEMA’s efforts to develop a national assessment of  preparedness, which would assist DHS and FEMA in effectively  prioritizing investments to develop preparedness capabilities at all levels  of government, including through its preparedness grant programs.  Such an assessment would  identify the critical elements at all levels of government necessary to  effectively prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to,  and recover from a major disaster (i.e., preparedness capabilities),  such as the ability to provide lifesaving medical treatment via  emergency medical services following a major disaster; develop a way to measure those elements (i.e., capability  performance measures); and assess the difference between the amount of preparedness needed at  all levels of government (i.e., capability requirements) and the current  level of preparedness (i.e. capability level) to identify gaps (i.e.,  capability gaps).
The identification of capability gaps is necessary to effectively prioritize  preparedness grant funding.
However, we have previously found that DHS and FEMA have faced  challenges in developing and implementing such an assessment. Most  recently, in March 2011, we reported that FEMA’s efforts to develop and  implement a comprehensive, measurable, national preparedness  assessment were not yet complete. Accordingly, we recommended that  FEMA complete a national preparedness assessment and that such an  assessment should assess capability gaps at each level of government  based on capability requirements to enable prioritization of grant  funding. We also suggested that Congress consider limiting  preparedness grant funding until FEMA completes a national  preparedness assessment. In April 2011, Congress passed the fiscal year  2011 appropriations act for DHS, which reduced funding for FEMA  preparedness grants by $875 million from the amount requested in the  President’s fiscal year 2011 budget. The consolidated appropriations act  for fiscal year 2012 appropriated $1.7 billion for FEMA Preparedness  grants, $1.28 billion less than requested. The House committee report  accompanying the DHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012 stated that  FEMA could not demonstrate how the use of the grants had enhanced  disaster preparedness.
section_title: FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing Preparedness Capabilities
paragraphs: In March 2011, the White House issued Presidential Policy Directive 8 on  National Preparedness (PPD-8), which called for the development of a  national preparedness system that includes a comprehensive approach to  assess national preparedness. According to PPD-8, the approach should  use a consistent methodology to assess national preparedness  capabilities—with clear, objective, and quantifiable performance  measures. PPD-8 also called for the development of a national  preparedness goal, as well as annual preparedness reports (both of  which were previously required under the Post-Katrina Act). To address  PPD-8 provisions, FEMA issued the National Preparedness Goal in  September 2011, which established a list of preparedness capabilities for  each of five mission areas (prevention, protection, mitigation, response,  and recovery) that are to serve as the basis for preparedness activities  within FEMA, throughout the federal government, and at the state and  local levels. In November 2011, FEMA issued the National  Preparedness System, which described an approach and cycle to build,  sustain, and deliver the preparedness capabilities described in the  National Preparedness Goal. The system contains six components to  support decision making, resource allocation, and progress  measurement, including identifying and assessing risk and estimating  capability requirements. According to the system, measuring progress  toward achieving the National Preparedness Goal is intended to provide  the means to decide how and where to allocate scarce resources and  prioritize preparedness. Finally, in March 2012, FEMA issued the first  National Preparedness Report, designed to identify progress made  toward building, sustaining, and delivering the preparedness capabilities  described in the National Preparedness Goal. According to FEMA  officials, the National Preparedness Report also identifies what they  consider to be national-level capability gaps.
section_title: Challenges Remain in Establishing Capability Requirements and Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Preparedness Grant Funding
paragraphs: While FEMA issued the first National Preparedness Report, the agency  has not yet established clear, objective, and quantifiable capability  requirements and performance measures that are needed to identify  capability gaps in a national preparedness assessment, as recommended  in our March 2011 report. As previously noted, such requirements and  measures would help FEMA identify capability gaps at all levels of  government, which would assist FEMA in targeting preparedness grant  program funding to address the highest-priority capability gaps. According  to the National Preparedness Report, FEMA collaborated with federal  interagency partners to identify existing quantitative and qualitative  performance and assessment data for each of the preparedness  capabilities. In addition, FEMA integrated data from the 2011 State  Preparedness Reports, which are statewide survey-based self- assessments of capability levels and requirements submitted by all 56  U.S. states and territories. Finally, FEMA conducted research to identify  independent evaluations, surveys, and other supporting data related to  preparedness capabilities.
However, limitations associated with some of the data used in the  National Preparedness Report may reduce the report’s usefulness in  assessing national preparedness. First, in October 2010, we reported that  data in the State Preparedness Reports—one of the key data sources for  the National Preparedness Report—could be limited because FEMA  relies on states to self-report such data, which makes it difficult to ensure  data are consistent and accurate. Second, at the time the National  Preparedness Report was issued, in March 2012, states were still in the  process of updating their efforts to collect, analyze, and report  preparedness progress according to the new preparedness capabilities  issued along with the National Preparedness Goal in September 2011. As  a result, the report states that assessment processes, methodologies,  and data will need to evolve for future iterations of the report. Third, the  report’s final finding notes that while many programs exist to build and  sustain preparedness capabilities across all mission areas, challenges  remain in measuring progress over time. According to the report, in many  cases, measures do not yet exist to gauge performance, either  quantitatively or qualitatively. Therefore, while programs may exist that  are designed to address a given capability gap, the nation has little way of  knowing whether and to what extent those programs have been  successful.
Thus, as of March 2013, FEMA has not yet completed a national  preparedness assessment, as we recommended in our March 2011  report, which could assist FEMA in prioritizing grant funding. However,  FEMA officials stated that they have efforts under way to assess regional,  state, and local capabilities to provide a framework for completing a  national preparedness assessment. For example, in April 2012, FEMA  issued guidance on developing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk  Assessments (THIRA), which were initially required to be completed by  state and local governments receiving homeland security funding by  December 31, 2012. Guidance issued for development of the THIRAs  describes a process for assessing the various threats and hazards facing  a community, the vulnerability of the community, as well as the  consequences associated with those threats and hazards. For example,  using the THIRA process, a jurisdiction may identify tornadoes as a  hazard and asses its vulnerabilities to and the consequences of a tornado  striking the jurisdiction, as well as the capabilities necessary for an  effective response. Using the THIRA results, a jurisdiction may then  develop a strategy to allocate resources effectively to achieve self- determined capability requirements by closing capability gaps.
According to FEMA officials in March 2013, the THIRAs are to be used by  state, regional, and federal entities for future planning efforts. At the state  level, FEMA guidance notes that state officials are to use the capability  requirements they identified in their respective 2012 THIRAs in their  future State Preparedness Reports. FEMA officials stated that they  planned to use both the THIRAs and the State Preparedness Reports to  identify states’ (self-reported) capability gaps based on capability  requirements established by the state. At the regional level, each of the  10 FEMA regions is to analyze the local and state THIRAs to develop  regional THIRAs. At the national level, the local, state, and regional  THIRAs are collectively intended to provide FEMA with data that it can  analyze to assist in the identification of national funding priorities for  closing capability gaps. The outcome of the THIRA process is intended to  be a set of national capability performance requirements and measures,  which FEMA officials stated they intend to incorporate into future National  Preparedness Reports. As of March 2013, FEMA officials are working to  coordinate their review and analysis of the various THIRAs through a  THIRA Analysis and Review Team. The team plans to conduct ongoing  meetings to discuss common themes and findings from the THIRAs and  intends to develop an initial proposed list of national preparedness grant  funding priorities by summer 2013.
Depending on how the THIRA process is implemented and incorporated  into future National Preparedness Reports, such an approach could be a  positive step toward addressing our March 2011 recommendation to  FEMA to develop a national preparedness assessment of existing  capabilities levels against capability requirements. Such a national  preparedness assessment may help FEMA to (1) identify the potential  costs for developing and maintaining required capabilities at each level of  government, and (2) determine what capabilities federal agencies should  be prepared to provide. While the recently completed THIRAs and 2012  National Preparedness Report are positive steps in the initial efforts to  assess preparedness capabilities across the nation, capability  requirements and performance measures for each level of government  that are clear, objective, and quantifiable have not yet been developed.  As a result, it is unclear what capability gaps currently exist, including at  the federal level, and what level of resources will be needed to close such  gaps through prioritized preparedness grant funding. We will continue to  monitor FEMA’s efforts to develop capability requirements and  performance measures.
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the  subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
section_title: Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this statement, please contact David C.  Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512- 9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. In addition to the contact named above, the following  individuals also made major contributions to this testimony: Chris  Keisling, Assistant Director; Tracey King; Dan Klabunde; Katherine Lee;  David Lutter; David Lysy; Lara Miklozek; and Erin O’Brien.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.