Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness
Published: 2004-09-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As requested, GAO reviewed coordination practices in various metropolitan areas to find regional programs with lessons learned that could be applied in the National Capital Region (NCR) and elsewhere. We addressed the following questions: (1) In selected metropolitan areas, what factors enhance regional coordination? (2) What features of federal programs enhance regional emergency preparedness coordination? (3) How does regional coordination for emergency preparedness in the NCR incorporate features from other areas and federal programs? For detailed analysis, we selected Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Tampa-St. Petersburg--considered by DHS to be high-threat urban areas because of their population and critical infrastructure, among other factors. We also analyzed regional coordination in the planning and implementation of transportation and environmental programs because of their history of requiring such collaboration. DHS and the District of Columbia's Deputy Mayor/City Administrator generally agreed with our report regarding the characteristics of regional coordination and that the NCR's Urban Area Security Initiative governance structure was relatively advanced.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's analysis of federal program documents and plans, and interviews with federal, state, and local officials in six metropolitan areas revealed several factors that characterize effective regional coordination of federally supported efforts. Regional coordination efforts are enhanced by the presence of a collaborative regional organization that includes representation from many different jurisdictions and different disciplines. Also, when regional civic and political traditions foster interjurisdictional coordination, flexibility in the membership and geographic area of the regional organization can enhance collaborative activities. In addition, a comprehensive strategic plan with measurable goals and objectives helps focus resources and efforts to address problems. Finally, funding regional organizations provides incentives for their collaborative planning activities. The federal government can provide support for regional coordination. In particular, through its grant design and requirements, it encourages structures and practices associated with effective regional efforts. For example, federal transportation law requires the existence of metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) before transportation funds can be awarded. Some programs have recognized the importance of flexibility by allowing local jurisdictions to organize themselves in ways consistent with their regional environment. For example, the DHS' Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program allowed three San Francisco Bay programs to pool some of their grant resources to establish a regionwide UASI effort. Moreover, some federal grants require regional organizations to prepare plans that guide funding decisions. Transportation law, for example, requires MPOs to prepare transportation improvement plans as a condition for awards. Finally, federal financial support can facilitate coordination activities. Several programs, including the MPO program, provide such support. The characteristics of effective regional coordination we identified are applicable to the NCR's efforts to coordinate emergency preparedness. If implemented as planned and as observed in its early stage, the NCR's UASI program would include a collaborative regional organization. However, as we reported in May 2004, the NCR did not include a full array of homeland security grants in its planning. The NCR's UASI program plans to address those issues by identifying non-UASI funding sources and collecting information about the funding allocations, expenditures, and purposes, as well as data on spending by NCR jurisdiction. DHS and UASI officials believe these data will enable program managers to avoid duplication of expenditures and to better utilize program funds. Regional approaches are changing quickly, and the nation is still in the early stages of building regional institutions across the country to deal with homeland security issues. Those important developments warrant continued congressional monitoring and oversight.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Particularly since the events of September 11, 2001, regional approaches  have been recognized as a key way to address the threat of terrorism.  In  many urban areas, the threat of terror is regionwide, and resources for  responding to that threat are distributed among many jurisdictions.   Therefore, the most effective responses are coordinated and planned  across the region, rather than being jurisdiction-specific.  The complexity  of multijurisdictional urban areas—such as the National Capital Region  (NCR), composed of Washington, D.C., and numerous surrounding  jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia—with a range of potential terrorism  targets, presents significant challenges to coordinating the development of  effective homeland security programs.
Following the initial allocation of billions of dollars to first responders after  September 11, 2001, the need to address the threat of terrorism from a  regional perspective began to be a focus of federal policy.  The Department  of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)  allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to urban areas that were  considered to be at a high risk for a terror attack.  In fiscal year 2003, DHS  granted seven high-threat metropolitan regions UASI funding to address  the unique needs of emergency preparedness and response in large urban  areas.  Each of these areas covered multiple city/county jurisdictions, and  two (New York City and the NCR) covered more than one state.  In May  2003 DHS announced an additional total of $500 million to augment the  original UASI areas’ funding and provide funding for 23 more areas. Fiscal  year 2004 funding was announced November 2003 to continue the thirty  2003 UASI programs and to fund an additional 20 areas.
In May 2004, we reported on the management by NCR jurisdictions and the  DHS’ Office of National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) of  approximately $340 million in first responder grants during fiscal years  2002 and 2003.  We found that managers of first response agencies—police  and fire, for example—as well as federal and state emergency  preparedness agencies did not have national preparedness standards to  assess existing first responder capabilities, gaps in those capabilities, and  progress made in achieving performance goals.  Similarly, those agencies  had no regionwide, comprehensive, strategic plan for establishing first  responder preparedness goals, needs, and priorities.   Finally, the agencies  had no consolidated, readily available source of information on (1) the  amount of first responder grants available to each jurisdiction, (2) budget  plans or criteria used to determine spending priorities, and (3) data on  funds expended from the various sources.  Without these components, the  federal grants were difficult to manage in a way that enabled first response  agencies to pursue and monitor goals and objectives.
As you requested, we followed up our NCR work with this review of  coordination practices in various other metropolitan areas around the  nation, with an emphasis on identifying characteristics of successful  regional coordination that could be applied in the NCR and elsewhere.  We  agreed to address the following questions: 1.
In selected metropolitan areas, what factors enhance regional  coordination? 2. What features of federal programs enhance regional emergency  preparedness coordination? 3. How does regional coordination for emergency preparedness in the  NCR incorporate features from other metropolitan areas and federal  programs?
We selected six metropolitan areas in which to examine regional  coordination:  Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia,  the San Francisco Bay Area, and Tampa-St. Petersburg.  We selected these  locations based on such factors as their vulnerability to terror events  indicated by the presence of potential targets, such as critical  infrastructure and important federal and commercial facilities.  We also  selected metropolitan areas with a large number of regional jurisdictions  that indicated a level of complexity in approaching emergency  preparedness from a regional perspective. Within each area, we examined  certain federal programs-–such as metropolitan planning organizations  (MPO), regional estuary preservation efforts, and UASI, which require  regional coordination. We included in our analysis nonemergency  preparedness programs, such as transportation planning (involving MPOs)  that have existed for decades and have developed their own regional  organizations and planning practices.  Examining such programs can  provide insights into how to structure regional homeland security efforts,  which are relatively new, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror  attacks.
We met with and obtained documentation from mayors’ offices, city and/or  county offices of emergency management, state emergency management  offices, regional planning councils, or MPOs; other regional bodies, offices,  and task forces; and program directors for selected programs that require  coordination.  We also contacted officials of the responsible federal  agencies, including DHS, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  We reviewed relevant reports,  studies, and guidelines on homeland security and emergency preparedness.
We conducted our review from July 2003 to September 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.  See appendix I for  more details on our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Historically, the American governance system, divided into federal, state,  and local jurisdictions, does not provide a natural vehicle for addressing  public policy issues from a regional, multijurisdictional perspective.  The  autonomy of local jurisdictions and competing priorities within and among  them can make regional coordination difficult.  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.  For example, states differ in their relationship to local  governments and their promotion of regional infrastructures.  Local  municipalities differ in their history of multijurisdiction cooperation.  Some  local jurisdictions have histories of mutual aid agreements and working  together, while in other regions federal homeland security programs may  be bringing partners together across jurisdictions to conduct planning  efforts for the first time.
As used in this report, regional coordination refers to the use of  governmental resources in a complementary way toward goals and  objectives that are mutually agreed upon by various stakeholders in a  region. Regional coordination can also help to overcome the fragmented  nature of federal programs and grants available to state and local entities.   Successful coordination occurs not only vertically among federal, state,  and local governments but also horizontally within regions.  The effective  alignment of resources for the security of communities could require  planning across jurisdictional boundaries; neighboring jurisdictions may be  affected by an emergency situation in many potential ways, from  implementation of mutual aid agreements, to accepting evacuated  residents, to traffic disruptions.
Our work has previously noted the concerns of state and local governments  about fragmented federal grant programs with burdensome application  processes that are complicated by the inconsistency across programs.   State and local governments manage multiple funding sources for distinct  but often similar purposes.  For instance, GAO identified 25 emergency  preparedness programs that provided funding to the NCR.  The short  history of regional coordination 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.
GAO has consistently called for the development of a truly national, rather  than purely federal, strategy.  For example, in testimony given in 2003,  GAO highlighted multiple barriers to addressing one basic area of  preparedness—interoperable communications systems—including the lack  of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental  planning.   Another GAO study of bioterrorism preparedness found that  although progress had been made in local planning, regional planning  involving multiple municipalities, counties, or jurisdictions in neighboring  states lagged.   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 coordination to better align public and private  resources for homeland security.
With the creation of DHS and the development of the National Strategy, the  federal government has developed several programs and provided financial  assistance to improve state and local governments’ ability to prevent and  respond to the threat of terrorism.  These grant programs demonstrate a  variety of approaches.  For example, all states are eligible for the State  Homeland Security Grant Program to update and implement their state  Homeland Security Strategy.  The UASI provides support to metropolitan  areas designated by DHS as high-threat areas.  The funds are distributed  based on a formula that considers critical infrastructure, population  density, assessment of threats, and other factors.
DHS’ UASI program combines the elements of threat-based assessment and  funding with regional planning.  UASI programs must create a working  group with representation from the region that will be responsible for  coordinating development and implementation of program elements.    Before funding can be distributed, DHS also requires each UASI program to  develop and submit a strategic plan that outlines the region’s common  goals, objectives, and steps for implementation. The strategy is intended to  provide each program with direction for enhancing regional capability and  capacity to prevent and reduce vulnerability.  UASI funds can be used to  purchase a range of goods and services to enhance the preparedness of  first responders, including approved equipment, preparedness plans,  exercises, and training.
Other federal programs that require regional coordination may be  instructive for homeland security.  In the area of transportation planning,  the federal government has required states to establish MPOs to address  regional transportation impact and needs.  Established in response to  federal planning requirements dating back to 1962, MPOs are  multijurisdictional regional bodies composed of local elected officials and  public agency representatives who review and approve transportation  investments in metropolitan areas as a condition for federal highway and  transit funding.  In the area of environmental planning, the Clean Water Act  directs EPA to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in  an estuary system.  Congress established EPA’s National Estuary Program  in 1987 to improve the quality of estuaries of national importance.  To be  selected for the National Estuary Program, estuaries must be nominated by  state governors and demonstrate existing regional infrastructure with the  capacity to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
section_title: Collaborative Organizations and Strategic Planning Foster Regional Coordination
paragraphs: As corroborated by officials with whom we met, collaborative regional  organizations that include a wide range of stakeholders from multiple  jurisdictions and disciplines contribute to successful regional coordination  for a variety of public programs.  In addition, effective strategic planning  that includes measurable objectives appropriately aligned with resources is  necessary for fostering regional approaches that enhance emergency  preparedness and achieve other public goals.   The application of  standards, where existent, to the planning process can help to define and  measure a baseline status (e.g., a baseline of preparedness), a desired level  of performance (e.g., preparedness levels that are to be achieved), and a  gap between the baseline and desired level that would be the focus of a  program’s efforts.
subsections: section_title: Regional Organizations and Collaborative Decision- making Process Support Effective Coordination
paragraphs: When regional organizations are structured so that they include a wide  range of stakeholders and promote collaborative decision making, they can  advance regional coordination by creating a forum for those stakeholders  to build rapport, solve problems regarding issues of mutual concern, and  engage in information and resource sharing.  Collaborative problem  identification and problem solving promotes cooperation in planning  efforts to address public problems.  Collaborative decision making can  encourage decisions that preclude one party from dominating decisions  about problems, potential solutions, programmatic goals and objectives,  and funding allocations; instead, such decisions are made with input from  many.  Emergency management, transportation, and estuary program  officials reported that regional organizations enabled their regions to work  together on a variety of emergency preparedness, environmental, and  transportation issues.  In the emergency preparedness area, the UASI  working group in the NCR has achieved multijurisdictional agreement on  regional plans that contain 21 specific efforts to be funded in equipment,  training, exercises, and planning to improve the NCR’s preparedness  regionwide, not just to benefit individual jurisdictions.  Also in the NCR, the  Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments promotes collaborative  transportation decision making by requiring the majority of the area’s  multijurisdictional transportation planning board to support a  transportation plan that specifies projects to be funded that are intended to  address the region’s traffic congestion and air quality problems—seen as  being among the worst in the nation.  The region’s long-range  transportation improvement plan contained agreements on such projects  as road improvements associated with rebuilding the Woodrow Wilson  Bridge.  Similarly, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program has restored a net  increase of about 850 acres of sea grasses on the Tampa Bay seabed since  the program’s inception, or about 6 percent of the 14,000 total acreage to be  restored.
Collaborative decisions made by many stakeholders represented in  regional organizations can formulate mutually agreed-upon responses to  public policy problems.  The collaborative experiences we observed in the  Dallas-Fort Worth area provided examples of how regional organizations  can aid in solving problems.  For example, the Dallas-Fort Worth’s Regional  Emergency Managers Group has served as a forum for the region’s  emergency preparedness officials to analyze, plan for, and make decisions  about various regional initiatives, such as improving interjurisdictional  communications interoperability.  Within this group, an associated  subgroup explored technical issues related to communications  interoperability.  The Regional Emergency Managers Group evaluated  technology options and is creating a regional purchasing plan to facilitate  the purchase of interoperable communications equipment.  Without  interoperable radios and other communications equipment, police and fire  departments in different jurisdictions cannot easily communicate when  responding to an emergency.
Collaborative efforts through regional organizations can also result in the  integration of plans and programs that are implemented by individual  jurisdictions.  In Dallas-Fort Worth, local first responder agencies built  upon the established working relationships and their trust of the local  council of governments to enhance regional coordination of homeland  security.  For example, the City of Dallas contracted with the North Central  Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) to facilitate the development of  the UASI strategy.  In addition, most of the jurisdictional and private sector  stakeholders had their own emergency preparedness plans that were not  integrated.  Acting upon a request from local officials, NCTCOG initiated a  process to coordinate and integrate these various plans that reflected the  NCTCOG’s reputation as an impartial and fair arbiter.  The resulting plan  identifies the roles of the various first responder agencies across  jurisdictional boundaries, thereby increasing the police, fire, and  emergency medical resources that can respond to an emergency.
Regional organizations can also facilitate coordination by fostering  information and resource sharing.  For example, in response to problems  coordinating the construction schedules on roads in the New York-New  Jersey region, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey created the  Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee (TRANSCOM) in  1986—a coalition of 18 independent transportation and public safety  agencies in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York.  TRANSCOM’s  significance was exhibited on September 11, 2001, when it facilitated  efforts among member agencies such as the Port Authority, New Jersey  State Police, New Jersey Transit, New Jersey Department of  Transportation, and New Jersey Turnpike to reopen a major Manhattan bus  terminal to transport thousands of people home.
DHS and state and local emergency management officials have cited the  Los Angeles Terrorism Early Warning Group (TEW) as an example of an  information-sharing network focused on the prevention of terrorist acts.   Created in 1996 by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the  primary focus of TEW is to provide a coordinated and focused response to  acts of terrorism based on assessment and dissemination of intelligence  information.  The core team of TEW includes the Los Angeles Sheriff’s  Department, Los Angeles Police Department, City and County Fire  Departments, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and the  Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Cooperating agencies include about 30  other agencies representing a number of disciplines, such as emergency  management, transportation, and criminal justice.  As a group, TEW  monitors trends and assesses threats that could potentially result in  terrorist attacks within Los Angeles County.  Because of its ability to  develop terror threat information from a variety of sources and disseminate  it to first response officials throughout a large metropolitan region, DHS is  encouraging states and local agencies to utilize their federal homeland  security funding to replicate the Los Angeles TEW model within the  framework of their UASI plans.
section_title: Where Consistent with Civic and Political Traditions, Flexible Approaches Can Enhance Regional Organizations
paragraphs: Metropolitan regions differ in their civic and political traditions.  Some  regions have leadership and/or long-running civic and political traditions  that promote collaborative efforts.  For example, according to national  associations and emergency preparedness officials in the San Francisco  and Los Angeles areas, fire and emergency services in California  jurisdictions have longstanding traditions of coordinating and operating  jointly, across city and county lines.  This tradition is expressed through a  strong mutual aid system.  In other regions, however, tradition can work  against regional collaboration.  In one state we visited, metropolitan  transportation planning was characterized by a practice of having one MPO  for each county.  Officials in the region we visited explained that local  development patterns in the region traditionally isolated each county from  the next, but in recent decades the counties’ development had merged as  new migrants moved into the area.  As a result, the county-based planning  structure may be outdated, because it is based on previously existent  development patterns.  In response to the lack of a regionwide MPO, the  county-based MPOs have formed a regional MPO alliance that includes  MPO chairs, representatives from the regional councils of government, and  the state transportation department.
To function effectively, regional organizations must take into account the  impact of political and civic traditions.  In regions where leadership or  cultural factors encourage collaborative efforts, regional organizations that  are formed locally, instead of being imposed by federal and state  government, are more likely to have identified a coherent regional area  based upon natural boundaries, population, and established mutual aid  relationships.  Where appropriate and considering regional leadership or  culture, federal or state programs can preserve the benefits of existing,  locally formed regional organizations by allowing local jurisdictions to  organize together.  The following examples illustrate this point:  Pennsylvania’s Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response  Act of 2002 (Act 227) legally established the state’s nine regional  counterterrorism task forces to coordinate the activities of county law  enforcement agencies in addressing terror threats.  However, in most  cases, Pennsylvania allowed counties to divide themselves into regions  based upon their natural mutual aid alliances, rather than imposing a  new organizational boundary.
In Texas, the Governor requested assistance from regional councils of  governments to facilitate a variety of collaborative efforts to build  regional emergency preparedness capacity across the state.   Specifically, regional councils of governments were able to unite public  and private stakeholders to develop, maintain, and coordinate regional  emergency preparedness management plans and actions.  While many  cities, counties, and private sector stakeholders in Dallas-Fort Worth  had extensive emergency preparedness plans, many of these plans were  not integrated.  The North Central Texas Council of Governments played  a key role in facilitating emergency preparedness coordination and  integrating preparedness plans through its efforts to coordinate and  integrate the emergency preparedness initiatives of the metropolitan  area.  Those efforts culminated in the Regional Emergency Managers  meeting—a forum through which emergency managers shared  information, discussed best practices and technology, built rapport, and  developed mutual aid agreements.  At the time of our study, the group  was continuing to meet on a quarterly basis and is developing a regional  emergency plan and associated schedule for achieving emergency  preparedness goals.
Regional leadership or traditions that are focused on achieving  collaboration can advance regional coordination by expanding  collaborative efforts throughout a region.  In such cases, allowing regional  organizations the flexibility to define their geographic areas or membership  requirements can foster increased degrees of regional coordination.   However, in our view, in cases where state and local traditions do not  engender interjurisdictional collaboration, more prescriptive requirements  regarding group membership, decision-making processes, and planning  serve as minimum thresholds for those activities.  In some cases, leaders  bring together stakeholders to agree upon common objectives and to act to  achieve them.  Those leaders play an important role in fostering trust  among partners and facilitating progress.  According to a report by the  National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), leadership dedicated  to stakeholder involvement is a critical characteristic of high-performing  partnerships, second only to achieving results.
Collaborative leadership contributed to the expansion and success of  regional coordination efforts we studied in both emergency preparedness  and transportation programs.  For example, emergency managers in the  San Francisco Bay Area developed the area’s Regional UASI working  group, recognized by DHS and the State of California as a good example of  regional coordination.  They brought the working group together to discuss  emergency issues and develop solutions for the entire Bay Area, which  includes three subregions with individual UASI programs—San Francisco,  San Jose, and Oakland.  While there was no requirement to work  collaboratively across UASI programs, these emergency management  leaders took the initiative to establish a regional approach to facilitate  coordination throughout the area. They created a regionwide group that  meets for planning, and they obtained funding to implement the UASI  efforts by combining a portion of the individual UASI program’s funds for  use in the whole of the San Francisco Bay Area.  The group has effectively  developed a regionwide emergency preparedness strategic plan that  includes eight goals, such as regional mutual aid exercises and  communications interoperability.
section_title: Comprehensive Strategic Planning Based on Measurable Objectives and Resource Alignment Contributes to Regional Coordination
paragraphs: The deliberations of regional collaborative entities can result in mutually  agreed upon problems and solutions.  Moreover, strategic plans are a  valuable tool to articulate goals, objectives, tasks, and measures. By adding  specificity to more general discussions about problems and solutions,  strategic plans can help to focus and operationalize efforts to deal with  identified problems.  In addition, standards, if existent, can be applied to  help measure baseline performance levels (e.g., the existing level of  preparedness), define measurable goals and objectives, and identify any  gaps in performance.  In other words, the application of standards can give  measurability and benchmarking to strategic planning and performance  monitoring.
Regional organizations’ collaborative efforts can result in achieving mutual  agreement, expressed in plans, among diverse stakeholders on priority  problems and on specific steps to be taken to address them.  Moreover, the  goals and objectives in plans allow problems and planned steps to be  defined specifically and progress to be measured.  Two examples follow.
In the case of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP), a regional  organization’s collaborative efforts identified environmental problems,  goals, and objectives that were expressed in a comprehensive strategic  plan. Estuary program officials pointed to the program’s focus on a  limited number of measurable and achievable restoration goals as key to  its success, with respect to the strategic planning process.  Such  planning addressed how to restore and recover the Tampa Bay sea grass  to conditions of 1950 via measurable and actionable goals, objectives,  and tasks.  By specifically defining what could be done in an action plan,  TBEP involved a wide cross-section of stakeholders, including federal,  state, and local government partners, local environmental groups, and  the private sector.  Using EPA’s primer dated August 1989, “Saving Bays  and Estuaries” as a guideline for developing missions and policies, the  program’s planning component involved a diverse and comprehensive  set of stakeholders.  For example, a technical advisory committee  proposes technical solutions to the restoration effort; a nitrogen  mitigation consortium involves local industry in proposing solutions;  and a management board involves environmental agencies in providing  advice to the Policy Board—chaired by the Florida Department of  Environmental Protection and EPA—that approves all major decisions.   Program officials credited the involvement of scientists and citizens  from the Tampa Bay region as vital to the process of identifying and  ranking the Bay’s problems, as well as developing measurable goals and  objectives that are included in its comprehensive restoration plan.   Specifically, the strategic plan identifies the restoration of 14,000 acres  of sea grasses and protection of the remaining sea grasses as a major  goal and also establishes a nitrogen management strategy (action plan)  to encourage sea grass recovery.  The comprehensive strategic plan and  nitrogen management strategy include specific and measurable goals by  reducing nitrogen levels, identifying interim indicators (including water  clarity and chlorophyll concentrations), as well as monitoring  mechanisms to measure progress toward goals.
In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, emergency management officials reported  that the UASI requirement for a regional emergency preparedness plan  initiated development of a comprehensive plan for emergency  preparedness policy guidance and coordination.  They noted that  planning helped the region to prioritize goals and resulted in a  systematic decision-making process to determine spending for the UASI  funds. Other UASI areas, including Tampa Bay and Los Angeles,  reported that the strategic planning process was a driving force in  streamlining administration of the program.
Another example of the role of strategic planning with well-defined goals  and measurable objectives in encouraging regional coordination is the  MPO’s requirement to develop a realistic transportation plan that includes  short-term and long-term strategies.  According to officials, such planning  forces stakeholders to determine the relative importance of various  transportation projects. Federal transportation law requires MPOs to plan  for projects using a process that considers financial resources that are  budgetarily constrained, thereby forcing stakeholders to resolve disputes  and agree on common goals and realistic objectives at the outset.  In the  San Francisco Bay Area, the planning process led to transportation  projects that served the region as a whole instead of disparate projects in  different jurisdictions.  For example, the regional MPO planned for an  extension between two rail systems that enhanced regional access to the  San Francisco Airport with the surrounding area, including San Jose and  Oakland.
In addition, a strategic plan can be used in making decisions about funds  and other resources.  Funds and resources can be allocated based on the  goals and objectives of the strategic plan.  For example, the NCR’s UASI  plan aligned $60 million to 21 lines of effort that were categorized in  functional areas that included equipment, training, exercises, and planning.   Those projects were linked to eight points contained in a multistate  agreement.   At the same time, to be truly effective strategic planning needs  to be comprehensive by addressing most of the resources available to  address a public policy problem.  Failure to do so can result in overfunding  some ongoing efforts, and underfunding or not funding other activities.  For  example, in our May 2004 report on the management of first responder  grants in the NCR, we found that the UASI planning effort for the NCR  would have been improved by considering not only the uses of $60 million  in UASI funds, but also the uses of $280 million in funding from other first  responder grants.  While we found no evidence of duplicative purchases,  consideration of the other $280 million in funds within the framework of  the UASI plan would have reduced opportunities for excessive  expenditures in some areas, while gaps remained in other areas. More  comprehensive planning could have better ensured that funding would  have been focused on the highest priority emergency preparedness needs  of the region.  The NCR’s UASI governance structure is now taking steps to  implement more comprehensive planning.
section_title: Some Federal Programs Contain Incentives for Regional Coordination
paragraphs: Some federal programs contain features that encourage regional solutions  by providing incentives for local jurisdictions to join together to obtain  federal grant funding.  A federal grant whose award is conditioned on the  recipient working through a collaborative regional organization can  encourage regional coordination.  Grant programs can also require the  regional groups to express their agreements regarding problems and  solutions by preparing a strategic plan with measurable goals and  objectives.  Such plans can guide grant expenditures.  Grant requirements  that take into account local and regional conditions and histories of  collaboration by providing appropriate flexibility can further enhance  regional coordination.  Finally, federal financial assistance for coordination  activities can provide important support.
subsections: section_title: Some Federal Requirements Support Regional Organizations
paragraphs: Federal grantor agencies support the existence of regional organizations by  requiring the grantee to establish such an organization before receiving  federal funds. Importantly, such requirements can promote  interjurisdictional cooperation in areas where civic and political traditions  work against such cooperation.  For example, federal transportation law  requires an MPO to write metropolitan transportation improvement plans  before federal highway and transit funds can be allocated.  Moreover,  UASI requires a regional working group representing first responder  agencies and policymakers in a core city, core county, and other local  jurisdictions to write a regional UASI plan.
In addition, a federal agency may define a collaborative decision-making  process that fosters wide participation by a variety of stakeholders and  tries to avoid one party or type of party being overrepresented in the  regional group or wielding too much power within the group.  In that  regard, a federal program may define minimally acceptable requirements  for such a group and the planning processes associated with it.  For  example, DHS’ UASI assigns funding to predefined core cities and core  counties.  In addition, in one location that we visited, the working group  was required to agree unanimously to the UASI regional strategic plan and  budget, representing a high state of consensus.  In another case, federal  transportation law requires MPOs to be broad-based bodies that include  representation from elected officials of various jurisdictions in the defined  service area of the MPOs.  In addition, MPOs must include the state  transportation agencies and operators of publicly owned transit services.
section_title: Flexibility in Grant Requirements Accommodates Regional Variations
paragraphs: Federal grant designs can take into account the uniqueness of leadership  and political traditions at the state, local, and regional levels by allowing  local jurisdictions the flexibility to pursue working arrangements that can  facilitate regional coordination.  By allowing jurisdictions to identify the  boundaries of the region, they can take advantage of regional leadership or  political relationships that can bring additional stakeholders, resources, or  ideas to the process.  For example, in fiscal year 2003, the Dallas UASI  region as defined by DHS included the City of Dallas and its contiguous  counties—Collin, Dallas, Denton, Kaufman, and Rockwall.  However, many  regional, state, and city officials felt that Tarrant County also should be  included in the UASI planning, since Tarrant County includes a large  portion of the Dallas-Fort Worth population, including the entire city of  Fort Worth.   To address this issue, the state provided funding to Tarrant  County from the 20 percent of UASI funding that was not passed through to  the City of Dallas.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also exhibited a commitment to  regional collaboration when it overlaid the regional Philadelphia UASI area  onto a preexisting regional task force.  Member jurisdictions of that task  force—five emergency management coordinators from the counties in the  Southeastern Pennsylvania Regional Task Force—had been working  together for 5 years.  As a result, the UASI program in Philadelphia  benefited from strong preexisting working relationships.  The cordiality  built up among the UASI task force members fostered relatively coequal  funding and planning efforts that extended to suburban parties well beyond  the core city and core county.
Other locations, however, may not have traditions or leadership that  encourage interjurisdictional collaboration.  For example, in some  locations, we found power imbalances, as well as political traditions and  histories of competition that challenged regional coordination.  Such  challenges, for example, have been manifested by one or two jurisdictions  making decisions about how federal dollars would be spent and how much  funding other jurisdictions would receive.  In such cases, regional  cooperation might be facilitated by designing grants that require  representation and collaboration through regional organizations.
section_title: Federal Grant Requirements for Comprehensive Strategic Planning with Measurable Objectives and Resource Alignment Encourage Effective Regional Coordination
paragraphs: Some federal grant programs require strategic plans as a precondition for  receiving federal grant dollars to encourage regional coordination, but for  the plans to be effective they should include measurable objectives and  corresponding resource alignment. In addition, the application of  preparedness standards to define the baseline status and goals for regions  can enhance strategic plans by adding an element of measurability and  specificity to them.
Our previous study of a number of leading public sector organizations  shows that strategic plans work most effectively when they contain goals  and objectives that are measurable and actionable.  The presence of  measurable goals and objectives allows program managers to ascertain  progress being made and required action—such as reallocating funding  and/or making programmatic changes—needed to meet those goals and  objectives.  For example, in the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, a community  of state, local government, nonprofit, and commercial stakeholders  determined four key program goals, as well as mechanisms through which  to achieve these goals prior to receiving funding. Upon obtaining the  funding, the program’s management built upon the stakeholders’ support to  proceed efficiently with the plan.
As previously noted, the existence and applicability of standards can  enhance the ability of decision makers to define measurable programmatic  goals and objectives and enable them to assess and demonstrate progress  being made. DHS’ recently issued strategic plan makes reference to  establishing, implementing, and evaluating capabilities through a system of  national standards.  In emergency planning, preparedness standards can  serve to define the preparedness requirements of an area or jurisdiction,  the current status of preparedness, and the gap that exists between the  requirements and current status.  Emergency preparedness officials told us  that when developing their strategic plan, national standards would have  been helpful to identify gaps and determine appropriate actions to address  them.
Clear standards help to guide the progress toward measurable objectives.  For example, MPOs must show that projects identified in transportation  plans for federal funding do not worsen air quality conditions of the  nonattainment metropolitan area.  Their analysis must demonstrate that  the total emissions projected for a transportation plan or program are  within the emission limits established by the State Implementation Plan.   Reducing transportation emissions in the metropolitan planning process is  usually achieved by a combination of new construction, system  improvements, and demand reduction measures.
section_title: Federal Funding for the Costs of Coordination Supports Regional Efforts
paragraphs: Some federal grant programs provide regional organizations recurring  funding for costs associated with regional coordination.  The federal  government sometimes facilitates regional collaboration by paying  specifically for some of the costs of regional coordination.  For example,  the coordination activities of MPOs are paid in part with federal  transportation funds.
Estuary program officials said annual EPA grants allow spending for  administrative needs and are important for facilitating regional estuary  efforts.  They reported that federal EPA funding, even though a relatively  small portion of their overall budgets, was important to program  sustainability, because it is often the only funding available to cover the  critical operations that enable the rest of the estuary program’s activities to  take place.
Federal grants also may facilitate regional coordination by enabling  organizations to use federal grant dollars to leverage partner organizations  to fund administrative costs.  Officials with TRANSCOM in the New York- New Jersey region said that federal funding for technical infrastructure and  maintenance costs enabled them to leverage funding from partner  jurisdictions for administrative costs.
section_title: NCR Emergency Preparedness Effort Can Benefit from Comprehensive Planning and Application of Standards
paragraphs: Our observations about regional coordination in the implementation of  federal programs in metropolitan areas we visited are applicable to the  efforts to coordinate homeland security in the NCR.  Importantly, DHS’  UASI program allowed the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, the  Commonwealth of Virginia, and regional jurisdictions to exercise a high  degree of flexibility in organizing the UASI governance structure.  Based on  our review early developments, the NCR’s UASI program would exhibit key  elements of successful regional coordination in UASI-related emergency  preparedness efforts.  As envisioned in the current UASI plans, the NCR’s  UASI program may be on the way to developing multilayered regional  coordination structures for the UASI.  For example, the NCR is beginning  to use regional working groups—the Emergency Preparedness Council  (EPC) and the Chief Administrative Officers Committee (CAO), among  others—to bring stakeholders together to agree upon goals and to consider  funding allocations for regional emergency preparedness.  However, at the  time of our May 2004 report, the NCR had not applied this regional  coordination structure and plans to the full array of federal homeland  security grants in the region, totaling about $340 million.  As discussed at  a September 1, 2004, meeting of the UASI governance structure’s Senior  Policy Group (SPG) and CAOs committee, the UASI governance structure  plans to implement comprehensive planning by identifying funding other  than UASI and developing centralized information on the uses of those  funds.
subsections: section_title: NCR UASI Program Could Demonstrate Some Elements of Successful Regional Coordination
paragraphs: Based on our work in six urban areas, effective regional collaboration is  characterized by, among other things, the presence of a regional  organization of many diverse stakeholders that identifies problems and  possible solutions.  The combined outcome of the collaborative interaction  of those parties is a strategic plan that is made actionable by the presence  of goals and objectives.  As currently envisioned and as being implemented  in the initial stages, the NCR’s UASI governance structure appears to  incorporate those features and thereby has the potential to identify, fund,  and implement emergency preparedness regionwide, rather than having  those decisions made either by one dominant jurisdiction or in a  fragmented, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction manner.
As the UASI program is currently planned and implemented in the early  stages, the governance structure is bringing together various stakeholders  to identify regional emergency preparedness projects to be funded with  UASI funds, and to solicit and obtain funding priorities, other input, and  concurrence from federal, state, and local governmental stakeholders  (including first responders); the commercial sector; the not-for-profit  sector; and the health community, among others.  For example, the CAO  committee uses several technical committees—e.g., police chiefs, fire  chiefs, public information officers, and health care committees—to identify  security gaps and make recommendations on how to close them.  Those  recommendations are to be reviewed by the CAO committee, which is  comprised of the 19 CAOs (in effect, county executives and city and town  managers) of the Metropolitan Washington Area Council of Government’s  (MWCOG) jurisdictions, and consolidated, where necessary.  In addition,  the CAOs would discuss preparedness expectations for the region,  including strategic objectives and commitments to action by Maryland,  Virginia, and the District of Columbia.  The CAOs would obtain UASI  proposals by asking NCR jurisdictions and technical committees to provide  their top priorities.  According to the CAO Committee’s chairman, those  priorities would be consolidated by the CAO committee and used to  generate final, rank-ordered funding priorities for the fiscal year 2004 UASI  funds.
Under current plans, the EPC, which serves as the UASI working group,  would have the authority to approve all funding initiatives.  The EPC  represents the federal, state, and local levels of government, a variety of  first responder disciplines, and the commercial and not-for-profit sectors,  among others.  It meets to discuss and approve the UASI funding  recommendations that have been made by the CAO Committee.
The SPG—representing the Governors of Maryland and Virginia, the Mayor  of Washington, D.C., and the DHS Office of National Capital Region  Coordination (ONCRC)---has final budget authority over projects  discussed, recommended, and approved by the CAOs and EPC.  MWCOG  staff and the CAO Committee’s Chairman do not envision disagreements  between the different elements of the UASI governance structure, because  they share membership on the same committees.
section_title: Management of Most Emergency Preparedness Grants in the NCR Affected by Lack of Comprehensive Regional Planning and Preparedness Standards
paragraphs: In our report and testimony of May and June 2004, respectively, we  concluded that the NCR efforts to implement an efficient and effective  regional preparedness approach were hampered by not having a  coordinated strategic plan for enhancing NCR preparedness.  Moreover, the  regional UASI plan would not be based on any performance standards.   Specifically, the NCR’s UASI plan could not be considered to be a  comprehensive strategic preparedness plan because it excluded non-UASI  funds totaling $280 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.  As we reported, at  the time of our May 2004 report, there existed no reliable central source of  data on funds available and expended and the purposes for which they  were spent.  Instead, those funds were allocated on a grant-by-grant basis  within each jurisdiction largely based on requests from first responder and  emergency management officials.  To the extent there was consensus on  regional goals and knowledge of regional capacities, funds could be  allocated in a more coherent manner.  Moreover, federal emergency  preparedness grants were often spent by each jurisdiction without  considering whether assets and resources purchased already existed in  neighboring jurisdictions and could be shared.  Decisions about those  purchases generally were not based on knowledge of the current level of  preparedness or requirements to reach a desired preparedness level.   According to comments provided by DHS and as discussed at a September  1, 2004, meeting of the UASI governance structures SPG and CAOs  Committee, the UASI governance structure now plans to address these  issues by gathering information from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of  Columbia on funding sources other than UASI, how the funds were  allocated and for what purposes, and how they were distributed by  jurisdiction.  In that regard, the governance structure’s working group is  converting hard-copy data on funds available and expended to a centralized  database that would be fully populated by 2005.  This would help the UASI  governance structure avoid duplication of funding and leverage UASI funds  to extend preparedness efforts to the entire region.  In addition, as stated in  DHS’ comments on our draft report and as discussed at the September 1,  2004, meeting of the SPG and CAOs Committee, a committee has been  assigned to work on an analysis of regional preparedness gaps that would  consider the local assets that could be applied to closing those gaps.   Stakeholders at the meeting mentioned that such a gap analysis could be  based on likely scenarios that would need to be addressed during an  emergency.
The NCR’s UASI plan sets broad strategic goals of preventing terror  attacks, reducing the region’s vulnerability to terror, and minimizing  damages and recovery from any terror attacks that do occur.  The plan  endorses an eight-point agreement signed by Maryland, Virginia, and the  District of Columbia to achieve those three strategic objectives by focusing  action on (1) preventing terror; (2) promoting citizen involvement in  preparedness; (3) working in partnership to implement a coordinated  decision-making process; (4) implementing emergency protective  measures; (5) promoting a public/private partnership to protect the  infrastructure; (6) working to develop a Joint Information System for the  media; (7) enhancing mutual aid agreements, including dealing with any  liability issues; and (8) partnering to coordinate plans for terrorism and  security-related training and exercises across the area.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Federal programs frequently rely on regionally coordinated approaches to  deliver important services to program beneficiaries and clientele.  This fact  is especially important in the relatively young field of homeland security,  because the urgency of addressing the terror threat calls for effectively and  efficiently managing the use of federal homeland security grant dollars.   Based on our work, we have concluded that regional approaches to  manage federal homeland security dollars help to ensure that those funds  are spent in a complementary, coordinated fashion that is targeted at  known security gaps.  Our work further shows that regional approaches to  emergency preparedness and other fields are characterized by several  broad features that the federal government can encourage, frequently  through the design and requirements of its grants.  These lessons can be  applied in the NCR and elsewhere to improve the management of federal  emergency preparedness grant dollars by enlisting the support of a variety  of stakeholders in identifying and supporting solutions to preparedness  requirements and targeting the use of scarce resources to address  preparedness gaps.
The federal government can encourage effective coordination in its grant  requirements in four ways:  First, some federal grants require the existence and operation of a  regional collaborative organization and establish a minimum threshold  of regional collaboration by requiring a variety of stakeholders, resulting  in widespread agreement on what problems should be addressed and  what steps should be taken.
Second, where favorable political and civic conditions exist, some  federal grants have allowed regional organizations to exercise flexibility  in how they operate—for example, in establishing their membership  boundaries.
Third, some grants provide minimum thresholds for planning by  requiring that regional organizations prepare regional strategic plans  that contain goals and objectives that are specific and measurable.    Strategic plans provide a focal point for establishing goals and aligning  resources.  The application of standards, where existent, adds a  measure of precision and measurability to a plan’s goals and objectives.
Fourth, some grants fund the costs of regional organizations, thereby  providing additional incentives for localities to collaborate  interjurisdictionally.
Regional approaches for homeland security continue to evolve quickly, but  the nation is still in the early stages of building institutions and processes to  address emergency preparedness.  Also, the federal government is still in  the early stages of developing preparedness standards to guide local  initiatives.  Based on our work and given the important role that regional  planning and governance can play in improving national preparedness,  these developments warrant continued congressional monitoring and  oversight.  As local initiatives continue to evolve and federal guidance  becomes more definitive, the use of regional structures and plans in  guiding the allocation and use of all major federal homeland security  assistance will likely become more important.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS and officials of the NCR’s UASI  governance structure for their review and comment.  DHS commented that  the report contains information that will be valuable to communities across  the country as DHS encourages regional coordination and capability  building. DHS also states that the UASI governance structure is currently  active and is not proposed or interim.  We agree that the governance  structure is not proposed or interim, and we state in our report that the  regional coordination activities of the NCR’s UASI governance structure  have evolved to begin to display many of the characteristics of regional  coordination.  For example, our report reflects information regarding the  establishment and evolution of structures associated with the UASI  governance structure, including the Senior Policy Group, the Emergency  Preparedness Council, and the Chief Administrative Officers Committee.
DHS also remarked that, as discussed at a September 1, 2004, meeting of  the UASI Senior Policy Group and Chief Administrative Officers  Committee, the UASI governance structure will take steps to ensure that  planned uses of federal emergency preparedness funds consider all funding  sources, including non-UASI sources.  Specifically, the UASI governance  structure plans to gather information from Maryland, Virginia, and the  District of Columbia on funding sources other than UASI, how the funds  were allocated and for what purposes, and how they were distributed by  jurisdiction.  In that regard, the governance structure is converting hard- copy data on funds available and expended to a centralized database that  would be fully populated by 2005.  In response, we added information in  our report to reflect these refinements to the NCR’s governance structure.
The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator of Washington, D.C., also provided  comments.  Similar to DHS, he stated that the NCR’s governance structure  reflected the building of a great deal of the foundation for meeting the  domestic preparedness challenges that affect the area.  He also commented  that the NCR is unique compared to the six metropolitan areas we chose  for detailed analysis because only the NCR (1) involves two states and a  governmental entity that combines state and local functions; (2) contains  monuments and memorials that are the most visible symbols of our  national strength and patriotism that, if attacked, would create a  perception of vulnerability on the part of the federal government; and (3) is  the seat of the federal government, creating a partnership between the  national government and state and local governments.  While we agree that  the NCR is an important and unique urban area, the areas we chose for  detailed analysis contain comparable features.  For example, the New York  City region contains three states and a very large city; that same region, as  well as other areas we visited, also contains a significant federal presence  and many buildings and icons that could be at risk for a terror event.    Moreover, other regions we studied contained extensive partnerships  between federal, state, and local governments.
The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator also stated that the National Estuary  Program incorporates clean water standards and scientific solutions to  accomplish clean water.  He stated that the federal homeland security  strategies and plans are not based on proven standards and solutions.   Hence, he concluded that the National Estuary Program is not comparable  with federal homeland security strategies and plans.  We agree that the  National Estuary Program is based on existing standards and solutions;  indeed, our report notes that for the most part, standards are not yet extant  for homeland security efforts.  However, the application of standards in the  planning and implementation of the National Estuary Program is the very  reason we chose to explore and elaborate upon it.  Our report notes that  the preparation and implementation of plans that have goals and objectives  that are actionable and measurable—frequently based on the application of  existing standards—is a key factor in the success of regionally coordinated  programs.   Indeed, our May 2004 report on the management of first  responder grants in the NCR recommends that the Secretary, DHS, identify  and address gaps in emergency preparedness and evaluate the  effectiveness of expenditures in meeting those needs by adapting standards  and preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios for the NCR and  conducting assessments based on them.
As agreed with your office, unless you release this report earlier, we will  not distribute it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we  will send copies to relevant congressional committees and subcommittees,  to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and to other interested parties. We  will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at 202-512-6806.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our overall goal for this engagement was to identify features of regional  collaboration in urban areas outside of the National Capital Region (NCR)  that could be transferred to homeland security efforts in the NCR and  elsewhere.  In pursuit of that overall goal, we met with representatives and  officials of the National Academy of Public Administration, the Association  of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the National Association of  Regional Councils, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.   We asked these parties to recommend  specific urban areas that, in their view, had significant regional  coordinative activities that we should examine.  We also sought out areas  that presented challenges for regional coordination through such features  as having a multitude of jurisdictions within a region, an interstate  geographic area, and geographic bifurcation characterized by the presence  of a large body of water.  We also obtained information regarding factors— such as the presence of significant federal and commercial facilities,  national monuments, critical infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, airports, and  seaports), population density, and ranking as a high-threat urban area per  the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Urban Area Security  Initiative—that indicated a metropolitan area was at risk for a terror event.
Based on these various considerations and recommendations, we  identified the Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, New  York, Philadelphia, and Tampa-St. Petersburg areas as sites meeting one or  more of these criteria and selected them for a more detailed analysis of  regional coordination across a variety of federal programs.
We also used information from these parties, along with a review our  previous work in the area of intergovernmental relations, to identify federal  programs with regional coordination features that could be useful for  enhancing regional emergency preparedness coordination.  Based on our  assessment of this information, we selected for examination the  transportation planning program that utilizes metropolitan planning  organizations to prepare regional transportation improvement plans and  related plans to guide the expenditure of federal highway and transit  dollars.  In the area of environmental protection, we selected estuary  programs in which state agencies; local governments; or other public,  nonprofit, or private agencies, research institutions, and individuals  develop programs to protect and restore coastal resources through  comprehensive planning and joint action.  We also selected a homeland  security program—the Urban Area Security Initiative—that apportions  domestic preparedness funding for equipment, training, exercises, and  planning on the basis of a regional plan that is prepared by a regional  working group.
To meet our first objective of identifying factors of successful regional  coordination, we met with representatives of regional organizations and  with federal, state, and local government officials in the areas selected.   Regional organization representatives that we met with came from regional  councils, councils of governments, metropolitan planning organizations, air  quality districts, and estuary programs (where applicable).  We also met  with local and state officials responsible for homeland security and  emergency preparedness, first responders, and other region-specific  officials with responsibility for transportation, environmental, or homeland  security planning.  We asked these officials about characteristics of their  organizations and regional political and civic factors that fostered regional  coordination.  We also obtained, analyzed, and followed up on such  documentation as: stakeholder lists and the decision-making procedures of  regional organizations, strategic planning documents, indicators of  progress made against program goals and objectives, and plans for future  enhancements of regional coordination.
In pursuit of the second objective of identifying features of federal  programs that enhance regional emergency preparedness coordination, we  met with local officials and officials from state emergency management  agencies at all six case study locations.  We also met with federal grantor  agency officials from the Department of Transportation, the Environmental  Protection Agency, and DHS’s Office of State and Local Government  Coordination and Preparedness.  We obtained information and examined  documentation (i.e., program guidance, grant requirements, and reporting  requirements) about the federal guidelines and objectives for these  programs.  Based on those discussions and documentation examinations,  we were also able to identify traits and characteristics that provided  incentives to state, regional, and local governmental, commercial, and not- for-profit entities to collaborate in pursuit of public policy purposes.
To address our third objective of examining the state of emergency  preparedness regional coordination in the NCR, we determined current  NCR regional coordination practices by meeting with officials from the  Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s Divisions of  Transportation, Environment (Air Quality), and Homeland Security and  Public Safety.  We also met with officials from the DHS’s Office of National  Capital Region Coordination and the Chair of the NCR Chief Administrative  Officers Committee, and we attended meetings of the NCR Emergency  Preparedness Council as well as the Senior Policy Group and Chief  Administrative Officers Committee.  We relied on oral and documentary  evidence from these officials as well as our previous review of the  management of first responder grants in the NCR to understand the state of  regional coordination in the NCR as of September 2004.
We conducted our review from July 2003 to September 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Comments from the Deputy Mayor and City Administrator, District of Columbia
paragraphs: Patricia Dalton Director, Strategic Issues U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 As the State Administrative Agent (SAA) for the National Capital Region (NCR), I would like to thank you for forwarding the Draft GAO report, GAO-04-1009, entitled Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness for review. This draft report was provided to the NCR to obtain advance review and comment for subjects it discusses. We understand that the report has not been fully reviewed within GAO and is, therefore subject to revision.In general, the report describes factors that enhance regional coordination in selected metropolitan areas, the features of federal programs that enhance regional emergency preparedness coordination, and how to incorporate regional coordination for emergency preparedness features from other metropolitan areas into the NCR.
The report selected six metropolitan areas to examine regional coordination. These six areas were chosen based on their vulnerability to terror events indicated by the presence of potential targets and the level of complexity as it relates to regional coordination. Based on the uniqueness of the NCR, it is difficult to compare the NCR with the six metropolitan areas identified. The following describes the differentiating factors associated with the NCR:  The NCR is the only urban area to include two states and a government entity that serves city, county, state functions in combination (the District of Columbia). The NCR comprises eight major jurisdictions with a number of additional municipalities that reside within the boundaries of these eight jurisdictions. In line with regional homeland security coordination and the guidance set forth by the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), the NCR adopted a comprehensive governance structure that includes elected leaders and Chief Administrative Officers (CAO’s) from each jurisdiction as well as the State Homeland Security Advisors and Emergency Management Directors that comprise the Senior Policy Group (SPG).
The NCR’s monuments and memorials are some of the most visible in the country and are symbols of national strength and patriotism. A terrorist threat to anyone of these monuments or memorials is likely to have a major negative psychological and emotional impact that would be felt throughout the country and the world. This would create a perception of vulnerability on the part of the Federal government.
The NCR is also the seat of the Federal government. A partnership exists between the NCR state and local governments and the Federal government entities to coordinate homeland security efforts.
For these reasons, the NCR must be viewed as unique in comparison to other urban areas designated by the Department of Homeland Security.
The report recognizes the importance of regional organizations to serve as structured forums for diverse parties to discuss public policy problems and agree on possible solutions. The report specifically refers to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) multi-jurisdiction transportation board as an example of such an organization and forum for collaborative decision making. As discussed in the Office of National Capital Region’s response to the previous GAO report (GAO-04-433), the NCR recognizes the importance of such an entity through the formal NCR Review and Recommendation Process. This process ensures coordination of resources among all jurisdictions within the NCR and utilizes MWCOG public safety cluster committees (i.e., Law Enforcement, Fire Chief, Emergency Manager, etc…) to ensure coordination throughout the NCR within their particular area of expertise and provide the associated priorities and needs. This allows the NCR to leverage longstanding tradition of inter- jurisdictional coordination to provide recommendations through the regional process and accompanying governance structure. This regional collaborative process has been encouraged by the leadership of the NCR and has resulted in the NCR Chief Information Officers (CIO’s) to formulate a MWCOG committee to discuss information technology issues and develop solutions as it pertains to homeland security.
The report also recognizes the importance of strategic plans developed by regional organizations can be effective tools to focus resources and efforts to address problems. Such plans often contain features as goals and objectives that are measurable and quantifiable. The report specifically refers to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program involving multiple entities from the private and public sectors (federal and state) to implement solutions to cleaning up Tampa Bay on technically sound plans that are based on measurable goals and objectives. The National Estuary program identifies federal standards that have been established for hazardous substances, through scientific data, that must be obtained within the water through specific sampling methods to determine if the Estuary is considered “clean”. These standards are based on remedial technologies (solution) that currently exist for remediating a source as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The NCR recognizes the importance of technically sound plans that are based on measurable goals and objectives when federal standards exist to define the quantifiable standard to be met with existing remedies or solutions. Such quantifiable federal standards currently do not exist for defining a level of preparedness or established remedies or solutions to meet such standards. For the reasons stated above, GAO has incorrectly compared a well established, federal estuary program with baseline performance measures with homeland security strategies and plans that do not have well developed, scientifically tested, baseline performance measures.
That said, the NCR has in place a structure to enable good planning. To assist in future coordination efforts the SPG has developed a team to assist in administering state and regional grant funds, and coordination of programmatic planning and response issues. A detailed outline of theses processes were described with the response to the draft GAO report, GAO-04-433 entitled: Homeland Security: National Capital Region Grant Management Issues Reflect the Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Standards. The processes described allow for coordinated grants administration and strategic planning for enhancing the NCR’s preparedness, performance standards, and a reliable, central source of data on funds available and the purpose for which they are spent.
The report further recognizes the importance of regional organizations that reach collaborative decisions prior to receiving grant funds. As the report points out, this avoids one party or type of party being over-represented in the regional group or wielding too much power. As stated on page 32 of the report, the NCR utilizes regional working groups for collaborative decision making, as stated above when referring to the public safety committees of MWCOG. This was also exemplified in the September 2, 2004 CAO/SPG meeting, which GAO representatives attended to view the NCR’s collaborative decision-making process at work.
In line with regional homeland security coordination and the guidance set forth by ODP, the NCR adopted a comprehensive governance structure that includes the CAO's from each jurisdiction as well as SPG, which is comprised of the homeland security advisor and the director of the emergency management agency of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This governance process is required to ensure collaborative decision making throughout the NCR. The governance structure of the NCR is all encompassing to include not only the strategic decision makers and the senior leaders of the region but also the tactical decision makers, the Public Safety department heads, and their subordinate field experts.
For all the progress made in the NCR to increase preparedness, the NCR realizes, and your report supports the fact, that we need to continue to implement and enhance our collaborative decision-making process and continue to redefine our performance goals. We have already built a great deal of the foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the report and will continue to work toward meeting our goals.
Your cooperation is appreciated. Kral, Administrator for the Office of Homeland Security, at (202) 727-5934.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition, Ernie Hazera, Joseph Byrns, Chelsa Kenney, Laurie Latuda,  Jeanine Lavender, Amy Rosewarne, Susan Sato, and Amelia Shachoy made  key contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and  investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its  constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and  accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO  examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;  and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost  is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts  newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To  have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to  www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Congressional Relations
section_title: Public Affairs