Emergency Preparedness: FEMA Faces Challenges Integrating Community Preparedness Programs into Its Strategic Approach
Released: 2010-02-26T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Responsibility for helping to prepare members of the community for all hazards is shared by federal, state, local, and tribal entities, and nongovernmental organizations. At the federal level, FEMA is responsible for developing national strategies, policies, and guidelines related to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. To achieve the goals of a national strategy, however, requires a close relationship with nonfederal partners, based on the premise that resilient communities—those that can quickly recover from a disaster—begin with prepared individuals and depend on the leadership and engagement of local government and other community members. According to DHS, emergency management agencies at the jurisdiction level are to develop preparedness plans for their localities that are consistent with plans at the state and federal levels. States submit requests for federal Homeland Security funding for state, local, and regional projects, including projects related to community preparedness.

FEMA is required under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) to establish a National Preparedness System to ensure that the nation has the ability to prepare for and respond to disasters of all types, whether natural or man-made, including terrorist attacks. The Community Preparedness Division is responsible for leading activities related to community preparedness, including management of the Citizen Corps program. According to fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Grant Program guidance, the program is to bring together community and government leaders, including first responders, nonprofit organizations, and other community stakeholders as a Citizen Corps Council to collaborate in involving community members in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. Councils and partner programs register online to be included in the national program registries. The Community Preparedness Division also supports the efforts of non-DHS federal “partner programs,” such as the Department of Health and Human Services’ Medical Reserve Corps, which promote preparedness and the use of volunteers to support first responders. The CERT program’s mission is to educate and train people in basic disaster preparedness and response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, and disaster medical operations, using a nationally developed, standardized training curriculum. Trained individuals can be recruited to participate on neighborhood, business, or government teams to assist first responders. According to FEMA officials, training is conducted by local government, typically the fire or police department, which also organizes and supports teams of the trained volunteers in neighborhoods, the workplace, and high schools. The mission of the Fire Corps program is to increase the capacity of fire and emergency medical service departments through the use of volunteers in nonoperational roles and activities, including administrative, public outreach, fire safety, and emergency preparedness education.

FEMA is also responsible for a related program, the Ready Campaign, which works in partnership with the Ad Council, an organization that creates public service announcements (PSA), with the goals of raising public awareness about the need for emergency preparedness, motivating individuals to take steps toward preparedness, and ultimately increasing the level of national preparedness. The program makes preparedness information available to the public through its English and Spanish Web sites (www.ready.gov and www.listo.gov), through printed material that can be ordered from the program or via toll-free phone lines, and through PSAs. The Ready Campaign message calls for individuals, families, and businesses to (1) get emergency supply kits, (2) make emergency plans, and (3) stay informed about emergencies and appropriate responses to those emergencies.

FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring the Performance of Its Community Preparedness Efforts and the Ready Campaign

FEMA faces challenges in measuring the performance of local community preparedness efforts because it lacks accurate information on those efforts. FEMA is also confronted with challenges in measuring performance for the Ready Campaign because the Ready Campaign is not positioned to control the placement of its preparedness messages or measure whether its message is changing the behavior of individuals.

FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring Performance of Community Preparedness Efforts Because It Lacks Accurate Information on Local Programs

According to FEMA officials, FEMA promotes citizen preparedness and volunteerism by encouraging collaboration and the creation of community Citizen Corps, CERT, and Fire Corps programs. FEMA includes the number of Citizen Corps Councils, CERTs, and Fire Corps established across the country as its principal performance measure for community preparedness. However, FEMA faces challenges ensuring that the information needed to measure the number of established, active units is accurate. In our past work we reported on the importance of ensuring that program data are of sufficient quality to document performance and support decision making. FEMA programs report the number of local units registered nationwide as a principal performance measure, but FEMA does not verify that the registration data for Citizen Corps Councils, CERT, or Fire Corps volunteer organizations are accurate. Our work showed that the number of active units reported may differ from the number that actually exists. For example, as of September 2009 we found the following.

Citizen Corps reported having 2,409 registered Citizen Corps Councils nationwide that encompass jurisdictions where approximately 79 percent of the U.S. population resides. However, of the 17 organizations registered as councils that we contacted during our site visits, 12 were active and 5 were not active as councils.

The CERT program reported having 3,354 registered CERTs. Of the 12 registered CERTs we visited, 11 reported that they were actively engaged in CERT activities, such as drills and emergency preparedness outreach, or had assisted in an emergency or disaster. The 12th registered CERT was no longer active.

State officials in two of the four states we visited also said that the data on the number of registered programs might not be accurate. A state official responsible for the Citizen Corps Council and CERT programs in one state estimated that as little as 20 percent of the registered councils were active, and the state subsequently removed more than half of its 40 councils from the national Web site. Officials in another state said that the database is not accurate and they have begun to send e-mails to or call local councils to verify the accuracy of registrations in their state. These officials said that they plan to follow up with those councils that do not respond, but they were uncertain what they planned to do if the councils were no longer active. These results raise questions about the accuracy of FEMA’s data on the number of councils across the nation, and the accuracy of FEMA’s measure that registered councils cover 79 percent of the population nationwide.

Although changes in the number of active local programs can be expected based on factors, including changes in government leadership, voluntary participation by civic leaders, and financial support, a FEMA official responsible for the Citizen Corps program acknowledged that the current program registration lists need to be verified to determine whether they are accurate. The official said that FEMA has plans for improving the accuracy of the data as part of a new online registration process for Citizen Corps Councils and CERTs in 2010, which would involve reregistering local programs with the goal of reactivating inactive programs, although it is likely that some inactive programs would be removed from FEMA’s registries. However, it is possible that registration data could continue to be inaccurate because, according to a FEMA official, the Citizen Corps program does not have the authority to require all local units to update information, particularly councils or CERTs that do not receive federal funding. Furthermore, FEMA officials explained that the Homeland Security Grant Program guidance designates state officials as responsible for approving initial council and CERT registrations and ensuring that the data are updated as needed and said that under the new registration process, state officials will continue to be responsible for ensuring that data are updated as needed. A Citizen Corps official told us that the Community Preparedness Division does not monitor whether states are regularly updating local unit registration information as they do not have the staff or processes in place to monitor states’ efforts and the Division would look to regional staff to work with state officials. The official said that FEMA is considering the possibility of providing contract support to states that request assistance in contacting local programs as part of the re-registration effort.

A key FEMA official told us that they recently drafted a new strategic approach and are considering developing and using outcome measures that are focused on the achievements of Citizen Corps programs as well as the number of programs, as is currently measured. Outcome measures are important because a registered program being active is only a first step in measuring whether local programs are meeting intended program goals. However, our review of the draft showed that it does not state what actions FEMA intends to take to ensure that registrations are accurate and remain up-to-date. Therefore, FEMA does not have reasonable assurance that its data about the number of registrations for local Citizen Corps programs are accurate, which may affect its ability to measure the results of those programs. By developing an approach to ensure the accuracy of local Citizen Corps program data, FEMA managers and others would be better positioned to understand why Citizen Corps programs that no longer exist were disbanded, possible strategies for reconstituting or creating new programs, and a foundation for developing outcome measures that gauge whether local programs are achieving goals associated with enhancing community preparedness.

The Ready Campaign Faces Challenges Measuring Performance Because It Is Not Positioned to Control the Distribution of Its Preparedness Message and Measure Whether Its Message Affects Individual Behavior

Currently, the Ready Campaign measures its performance based on measures such as materials distributed or PSAs shown. For example, according to a DHS official, in fiscal year 2008 the Ready Campaign had more than 99 million “hits” on its Web site, more than 12 million pieces of Ready Campaign literature requested or 43,660 calls to the toll-free numbers.

The Ready Campaign relies on these measures because it faces two different challenges in determining whether its efforts are influencing individuals to be more prepared. First, the Ready Campaign is not positioned to control when or where its preparedness message is viewed. Second, the Ready Campaign is not positioned to measure whether its message is changing the behavior of individuals.

With regard to the Ready Campaign’s ability to control the distribution of its message, our past work has shown that it is important for agencies to measure their performance based on clear and reliable data that are linked to program goals, but also recognizes that agencies whose programs rely on others to deliver services, like the Ready Campaign, may need to use substitute measures—such as counts of Web site hits and the number of television announcements—which are not linked to outcomes. According to FEMA’s Acting Director for the Ready Campaign, the program budget of $2.5 million for 2010 limits the extent to which they could produce advertisements and purchase commercial space for their placement. The PSAs developed by the Ad Council cannot be used for purchased media placement; rather, the Ready Campaign relies on donations of various sources of media. As a result, the Ready Campaign does not control what, when, or where Ready Campaign materials are placed when the media are donated. For example, what PSA is shown and the slots (e.g., a specific channel at a specific time) that are donated by television, radio, and other media companies are not under the Ready Campaign’s control, and these are not always prime viewing or listening spots. On the basis of a review of Ad Council data, the Ready Campaign’s PSAs in 2008 were aired about 5 percent or less of the time by English language and Spanish language television stations during prime time (8:00 pm to 10:59 p.m.), and about 25 percent of the PSAs were aired from 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Similarly, about 47 percent of English language radio and about 27 perc of Spanish language radio spots were aired from midnight to 6:00 a.m. FEMA officials said because new material is more appealing to PSA directors, they expect better placement with the new PSAs released in September 2009. In November 2009, a FEMA official told us that the n PSAs had been released, but information was not yet available to show whether the new material had received better placement.

Just as the Ready Campaign has no control over the time PSAs are aired, it does not control the type of media (e.g., radio, television) donated. Based on Ad Council data on the dollar value of media donated to show Ready Campaign materials (the value of the donated media is generally based on what it would cost the Ready Campaign if the media space were purchased), much of the value from donated media is based on space donated in the phone book yellow pages. Figure 1 shows the value of various types of media donated to the Ready Campaign to distribute its message during 2008.

The Ready Campaign also faces a challenge determining the extent to which it contributes to individuals taking action to become more prepared—the program’s goal. Measuring the Ready Campaign’s progress toward its goal is problematic because it can be difficult to isolate the specific effect of exposure to Ready Campaign materials on an individual’s level of emergency preparedness. Research indicates that there may be a number of factors that are involved in an individual taking action to become prepared, such as his or her beliefs concerning vulnerability to disaster, geographic location, or income. One factor in establishing whether the Ready Campaign is changing behavior requires first determining the extent to which the Ready Campaign’s message has been received by the general population. The Ad Council conducts an annual survey to determine public awareness of the Ready Campaign, among other things. For example, the Ad Council’s 2008 survey found the following When asked if they had heard of a Web site called Ready.gov that provides information about steps to take to prepare in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, 21 percent of those surveyed said that they were aware of the Ready.gov Web site.

When asked a similar question about television, radio, and print PSAs, 37 percent of those surveyed said that they have seen or heard at least one Ready Campaign PSA.

Another factor is isolating the Ready Campaign’s message from other preparedness messages that individuals might have received. The Ad Council’s 2008 survey found that 30 percent of those surveyed identified the American Red Cross as the primary source of emergency preparedness information; 11 percent identified the Ad Council.

While the Ad Council survey may give a general indication as to the population’s familiarity with the Ready Campaign, it does not provide a measure of preparedness actions taken based on the Ready Campaign’s promotion; that is, a clear link from the program to achieving program goals. The Ad Council reported that those who were aware of the Ready Campaign’s advertising were significantly more likely than those who had not seen it to say that they had taken steps to prepare for disaster, but acknowledged that the Ready Campaign could not claim full credit for the differences. Further, as previous Citizen Corps surveys showed, the degree to which individuals are prepared may be less than indicated because preparedness drops substantially when more detailed questions about specific supplies are asked.

FEMA Has Not Developed a Strategy Encompassing How Citizen Corps, Its Partner Programs, and the Ready Campaign Are to Operate within the Context of the National Preparedness System

While DHS’s and FEMA’s strategic plans have incorporated efforts to promote community preparedness, FEMA has not developed a strategy encompassing how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to operate within the context of the National Preparedness System. An objective in DHS’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2008 through 2013 to “ensure preparedness” envisions empowering Americans to take individual and community actions before and after disasters strike. Similarly, FEMA’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2008 through 2013 envisions a strategy to “Lead the Nation’s efforts for greater personal and community responsibility for preparedness through public education and awareness, and community engagement and planning, including outreach to vulnerable populations.” FEMA’s Strategic Plan delegates to the agency’s components the responsibility for developing their own strategic plans, which are to include goals, objectives, and strategies, but does not establish a time frame for completion of the component plans. FEMA’s Strategic Plan states that the components’ strategic plans are to focus on identifying outcomes and measuring performance.

NPD has not clearly articulated goals for FEMA’s community preparedness programs or developed a strategy to show how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to achieve those goals within the context of the National Preparedness System. In our past work, we reported that desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy include articulating the strategy’s purpose and goals; followed by subordinate objectives and specific activities to achieve results; and defining organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination, including a discussion of resources needed to reach strategy goals. In April 2009, we reported that NPD had not developed a strategic plan that defined program roles and responsibilities, integration and coordination processes, and goals and performance measures for its programs. We reported that instead of a strategic plan, NPD officials stated that they used an annual operating plan and Post-Katrina Act provisions to guide NPD’s efforts. The operating plan identifies NPD goals and NPD subcomponents responsible for carrying out segments of the operating plan, including eight objectives identified for the division under NPD’s goal to “enhance the preparedness of individuals, families, and special needs populations through awareness planning and training.” NPD’s objectives for meeting this goal did not describe desired outcomes.

In late September 2009, NPD provided us a spreadsheet that was linked to the NPD operating plan which outlined more detailed information on NPD’s goals and objectives, such as supporting objectives, the responsible NPD division, and projected completion dates. However the spreadsheet lacked details about key issues, and did not include all of the elements of an effective national strategy. For example, one of NPD’s operating plan objectives—called a supporting goal in FEMA’s spreadsheet—for the Community Preparedness Division is to increase “the number of functions that CERTs will be able to perform effectively during emergency response,” but neither the plan nor the spreadsheet provide details, such as the functions CERTs currently perform, what additional functions they could perform, and what it means to be effective. The spreadsheet elaborates on this supporting goal with a “supporting objective” to “develop 12 new CERT supplemental training modules that promote advanced individual and team skills” and a completion date of September 30, 2009. FEMA officials said that 6 of the 12 modules were completed as of September 30, 2009, and that the spreadsheet should have identified the effort as ongoing because developing the planning modules was to be completed over a 4-year period ending in 2011. The operating plan, spreadsheet, and FEMA officials provided no time frame for when the training is expected to be implemented at the local level to increase the function of individual CERTs, nor did they discuss performance measures and targets for gauging changes in the effectiveness of CERTs, or how local training will be coordinated or delivered. NPD’s operating plan and spreadsheet also did not include other key elements of an effective national strategy, such as how NPD will measure progress in meeting defined goals and objectives and the potential costs and types of investments needed to implement community preparedness programs. As a result, NPD is unable to provide a picture of priorities or how adjustments might be made in view of resource constraints.

In our April 2009 report, we recommended that NPD take a more strategic approach to implementing the National Preparedness System to include the development of a strategic plan that contains such key elements as goals, objectives, and how progress in achieving them will be measured. DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it is making progress in this area and in fully implementing the recommendation. NPD officials stated in September 2009 that DHS, FEMA, and NPD, in coordination with national security staff, were discussing the development of a preparedness and implementation strategy within the context of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (National Preparedness) (HSPD-8). They said that community and individual preparedness were key elements of those discussions. At that time, NPD officials did not state when the strategy would be completed; thus, it is not clear to what extent the strategy will integrate Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign. NPD officials stated that work is under way on revising the target capabilities, which are to include specific outcomes, measures, and resources for the Community Preparedness and Participation capability. They said that they expect to issue a draft for public comment in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. Also, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response, Committee on Homeland Security, on October 1, 2009, the NPD Deputy Administrator said that, in recognition of the preliminary observations raised in our testimony, NPD is reformulating the NPD operating plan as a strategic plan. He said that once complete, the strategic plan is intended to integrate Community Preparedness, specifically the efforts of Citizen Corps, its partner programs and affiliates, and the Ready Campaign. However, he said he was not prepared to provide a time frame as to when the strategic plan would be completed. The NPD Deputy Administrator agreed to consult with the Subcommittee staff and other stakeholders as NPD develops the draft strategic plan.

The FEMA official leading the development of the NPD strategic plan told us that NPD had begun to develop a strategic plan, but it had not developed a timeline with milestone dates for completing it because NPD is waiting to coordinate the plan’s development with the revision of HSPD- 8 and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. He said NPD would be better able to establish a timeline and milestones for completing the NPD strategic plan once these other documents were revised; but he was uncertain about when these documents would be completed. He also stated that NPD had developed a draft strategic approach for community preparedness in response to a request by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response, Committee on Homeland Security, during the October 1, 2009 hearing. He said that NPD intends to use this strategic approach as a vehicle for discussing community preparedness within the context of NPD’s overall strategy. He told us that, as with the draft strategic plan, NPD had not established a timeline with milestone dates for completing the Community Preparedness strategy.

On December 2, 2009, FEMA provided a copy of the draft community preparedness strategic approach that it prepared for the Subcommittee. FEMA’s draft represents an important first step because it partially satisfies the elements of an effective national strategy. Specifically, the draft strategic approach broadly discusses why FEMA produced it, the process by which it was developed, and FEMA’s overall community preparedness vision. The draft also outlines goals and subordinate goals and discusses the outcomes FEMA expects in achieving them. However, the draft strategic approach lacks key elements of an effective national strategy because, among other things, it does not discuss how progress will be measured in achieving these goals; the roles and responsibilities of the organizations responsible for implementing the strategy, and mechanisms for coordinating their efforts; and the cost of implementation, including the source and types of resources needed and where those investments and resources should be targeted. FEMA’s draft did not identify a timeline and milestones for completing the strategy.

The Ready Campaign is also working to develop its strategic direction. According to the FEMA Director of External Affairs, the Ready Campaign’s strategy is being revised to reflect the transition of the program from DHS’s Office of Public Affairs to FEMA’s Office of External Affairs, and the new FEMA Director’s approach to preparedness. Program officials said that the Ready Campaign will have increased access to staff and resources and is to be guided by a FEMA-wide strategic plan for external communications. As of September 2009, the plan was still being developed and no date had been set for completion. The Ready Campaign Director said in November 2009 that the plan is not expected to be done before the end of the year, but was not aware of a timeline and milestones for its completion. The Director also said that the Ready Campaign was included in the draft community preparedness strategy.

We recognize that HSPD-8 and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review are instrumental in articulating the overall national preparedness strategy and FEMA’s strategic approach, and that NPD’s plan and community preparedness strategies, including the Ready Campaign, are components of efforts to revise these initiatives. Standard practices for project management established by the Project Management Institute state that managing a project involves, among other things, developing a timeline with milestone dates to identify points throughout the project to reassess efforts under way to determine whether project changes are necessary. By developing plans with timelines and milestones for completing the NPD and community preparedness strategies, FEMA will be better positioned to provide a more complete picture of NPD’s approach for developing and completing these documents. They also would provide FEMA managers and other decision makers with insights into (1) NPD’s overall progress in completing these strategies, (2) a basis for determining what, if any, additional actions need to be taken, and (3) the extent to which these strategies can be used as building blocks for the national preparedness strategy and FEMA’s strategic approach.

Conclusions

Hurricane Katrina was one of the most devastating natural disasters in our nation’s history and will have long-standing effects for years. By their nature, catastrophic events involve casualties, damage, or disruption that will likely overwhelm state and local responders. Americans who are prepared as individuals for disasters, and as trained volunteers, can help to mitigate the impact of disasters in their local communities, yet the previous FEMA surveys indicate that many Americans are still not prepared. The majority of those responding to the surveys said they plan to rely on assistance from first responders during a major disaster.

While FEMA identifies community preparedness as an important part of its national preparedness strategy, FEMA lacks accurate performance information on its community preparedness programs that would enable it to determine whether these programs are operating in the communities in which they have been established. We recognize that FEMA’s Citizen Corps Program and partner programs have relatively small budgets and staff, and that program officials are aware of inaccuracies in the data and are considering options to improve information on local programs, such as re-registering existing programs. However, it is unclear whether these measures will be enough to provide FEMA the assurance it needs that local programs that are registered continue to operate. By having accurate data, FEMA managers and other decision makers would be better positioned to measure progress establishing and maintaining these programs nationwide and in local communities. This would also provide FEMA managers the basis for exploring (1) why programs that no longer exist were disbanded, and (2) possible strategies for reconstituting local programs or developing new ones. Accurate data would also provide a foundation for developing outcome measures that gauge whether local programs are achieving goals associated with enhancing community preparedness.

Challenges in measuring the performance of these programs stem in part from FEMA lacking an overall strategy for achieving community preparedness or defining how these efforts align with the larger National Preparedness System, particularly how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign fit within the strategy. Defining program roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms; identifying performance measures to gauge results; and ensuring the resources needed to achieve program goals would be part of an effective strategy. FEMA has agreed such a strategy is needed and has started to develop strategies for NPD and Community Preparedness, including the Ready Campaign, but has no timeframes or milestone dates for developing and completing them. By having a plan with time frames and milestone dates for completing the NPD strategic plan and its community preparedness strategy, FEMA managers and other decision makers would be better equipped to track NPD’s progress. Moreover, they would have a basis to determine what, if any, additional actions are needed to enhance NPD’s overall preparedness strategy and community preparedness and insights into the extent to which these plans can be used as building blocks for the national preparedness strategy and FEMA’s strategic approach.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure that national community preparedness efforts are effective and completed in a timely fashion, we recommend that the Administrator of FEMA take the following two actions: examine the feasibility of developing various approaches for ensuring the accuracy of registration data of local Citizen Corps Councils and partner programs, and develop plans including timelines and milestone dates for completing and implementing (1) NPD’s strategic plan and (2) its Community Preparedness Strategic Approach, including details on how Citizen Corps, partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to operate within the context of the National Preparedness System.

Agency Comments

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of Homeland Security. The department declined to provide official written comments to include in our report. However, in an e-mail received January 19, 2010, the DHS liaison stated that DHS concurred with our recommendations. FEMA provided written technical comments, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or email at jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

William O. Jenkins, Jr Director, Homeland Security and Ju .

Appendix I: Homeland Security Grant Program Funding for Community Preparedness, 2004 through 2008

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) support for local community preparedness activities is provided through Homeland Security grants, specifically the Citizen Corps grant program, but community preparedness activities are also eligible for support under other Homeland Security grants. Citizen Corps grants are awarded to states based on a formula of 0.75 percent of the total year’s grant allocation to each state (including the District of Columbia and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and 0.25 percent of the total allocation for each U.S. Territory, with the balance of funding being distributed on a population basis.

For other DHS homeland security grants, states prepare a request for funding, which can include support for the state’s community preparedness efforts, as allowed under the guidance for a particular grant. For example, the 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program guidance lists “conducting public education and outreach campaigns, including promoting individual, family and business emergency preparedness” as an allowable cost for State Homeland Security Grants. Grant funding can be used to support Citizen Corps, Citizen Corps partner programs, or other state community preparedness priorities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) grant reporting database does not categorize grants in a way that allows identification of the amount of funding going to a particular community preparedness program, such as a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) or Fire Corps.

Table 1 summarizes the approximately $269 million in DHS grants that were identified by grantees as supporting community preparedness projects from 2004 through 2008. Our selection of projects for inclusion in this summary relied on DHS data on grantees who identified their project as one of three predefined project types that are, according to FEMA officials, relevant for community preparedness, or were projects funded with a Citizen Corps Program grant. Not all grantees may have used these project-type descriptions, so the amount below is an approximation. We worked with grant officials to identify the most appropriate grant selection criteria. To determine the reliability of these DHS grant data, we reviewed pertinent DHS documents, such as the Grant Reporting Tool User’s Manual and interviewed DHS officials about their process for compiling these data. We determined that the grant data we used were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, John Mortin, Assistant Director, and Monica Kelly, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Carla Brown, Qahira El’Amin, Lara Kaskie, Amanda Miller, Cristina Ruggiero- Mendoza, and Janet Temko made significant contributions to the report.