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

Letter

Background

Over the past decade, the federal government has expanded financial assistance to a wide array of public and private stakeholders for preparedness activities through various grant programs administered by DHS through its component agency, FEMA. Through these grant programs, DHS has sought to enhance the capacity of states, localities, and other entities, such as ports or transit agencies, to prevent, respond to, and recover from a natural or manmade disaster, including terrorist incidents. Four of the largest preparedness grant programs are the Port Security Grant Program, the State Homeland Security Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, and the Urban Areas Security Initiative.

The Port Security Grant Program provides federal assistance to strengthen the security of the nation’s ports against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks by supporting increased portwide risk management, enhanced domain awareness, training and exercises, and expanded port recovery capabilities.

The State Homeland Security Program provides funding to support states’ implementation of homeland security strategies to address the identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs at the state and local levels to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.

The Transit Security Grant Program provides funds to owners and operators of transit systems (which include intracity bus, commuter bus, ferries, and all forms of passenger rail) to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit infrastructure.

The Urban Areas Security Initiative provides federal assistance to address the unique needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas, and assists the areas in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.

Since its creation in April 2007, FEMA’s GPD has been responsible for managing DHS’s preparedness grants. GPD consolidated the grant business operations, systems, training, policy, and oversight of all FEMA grants and the program management of preparedness grants into a single entity.

FEMA Has Taken or Proposed Actions to Address Potential Duplication Issues Identified by GAO, but Challenges Remain

FEMA Needs Better Coordination and Improved Data Collection to Reduce Risk of Unnecessary Duplication in Four Grant Programs

In February 2012, we identified multiple factors that contributed to the risk of FEMA potentially funding unnecessarily duplicative projects across four of the largest grant programs—the Port Security Grant Program, the State Homeland Security Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, and the Urban Areas Security Initiative. These factors include overlap among grant recipients, goals, and geographic locations, combined with differing levels of information that FEMA had available regarding grant projects and recipients. Specifically, we found that FEMA made award decisions with differing levels of information and lacked a process to coordinate application reviews. To better identify potential unnecessary duplication, we recommended that FEMA (1) take steps to ensure that it collects project information at the level of detail needed to better position the agency to identify any potential unnecessary duplication within and across the four grant programs, and (2) explore opportunities to enhance FEMA’s internal coordination and administration of the programs. DHS agreed with the recommendations and identified planned actions to improve visibility and coordination across programs and projects. We also suggested that Congress consider requiring DHS to report on the results of its efforts to identify and prevent duplication within and across the four grant programs, and consider these results when making future funding decisions for these programs.

FEMA Has Taken Actions to Enhance Preparedness Grant Management, But Challenges Remain

Since we issued our February 2012 report, FEMA officials have identified actions they believe will enhance management of the four grant programs we analyzed; however, FEMA still faces challenges to enhancing preparedness grant management. First, the fiscal year 2013 President’s Budget outlined a plan to consolidate most of FEMA’s preparedness grants programs, and FEMA officials expect this action would reduce or eliminate the potential for unnecessary duplication. The fiscal year 2013 President’s Budget proposed the establishment of the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a consolidation of 16 grant programs (including the 4 grants we analyzed in our February 2012 report) into a comprehensive single program. According to FEMA officials, the NPGP would eliminate redundancies and requirements placed on both the federal government and grantees resulting from the existing system of multiple individual, and often disconnected, grant programs. For example, FEMA officials said that the number of applications a state would need to submit and the federal government’s resources required to administer the applications would both decrease under the consolidated program. However, Members of Congress have expressed concern about the consolidation of the 16 grant programs and Congress has not yet approved the proposal. In October 2012, FEMA officials told us that Members of Congress had asked FEMA to refine the NPGP proposal to address concerns raised by stakeholders, such as how local officials will be involved in a state-administered grant program. As of March 2013, FEMA officials reported that the agency was drafting guidance for the execution of the NPGP based on stakeholder feedback and direction from Congress pending the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill. If the NPGP is not authorized in fiscal year 2013, FEMA officials stated that the agency plans to resubmit the request for the fiscal year 2014 budgetary cycle. If approved, and depending on its final form and execution, the consolidated NPGP could help reduce redundancies and mitigate the potential for unnecessary duplication, and may address the recommendation in our February 2012 report to enhance FEMA’s internal coordination and administration of the programs.

Second, in March 2013, FEMA officials reported that the agency intends to start collecting and analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal year 2014; however, FEMA has not yet finalized specific data requirements and has not fully established the vehicle to collect these data—a new data system called the Non-Disaster Grants Management System (ND Grants). As of March 2013, FEMA officials expect to develop system enhancements for ND Grants to collect and use project-level data by the end of fiscal year 2013. FEMA officials stated that FEMA has formed a working group to develop the functional requirements for collecting and using project-level data and plans to obtain input from stakeholders and consider the cost effectiveness of potential data requirements. In alignment with data requirement recommendations from a May 2011 FEMA report, the agency anticipates utilizing the new project- level data in the grant application process starting in fiscal year 2014. Collecting appropriate data and implementing ND Grants with project- level enhancements as planned, and as recommended in our February 2012 report, would better position FEMA to identify potentially unnecessary duplication within and across grant programs.

Third, in December 2012, FEMA officials stated that there are additional efforts underway to improve internal administration of different grant programs. For example, officials stated that a FEMA task force has been evaluating grants management processes and developing a series of recommendations to improve efficiencies, address gaps, and increase collaboration across regional and headquarters counterparts and financial and programmatic counterparts. These activities represent positive steps to improve overall grants management, but they do not include any mechanisms to identify potentially duplicative projects across grant programs administered by different FEMA entities.

FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing National Preparedness Capabilities, but Challenges Remain in Establishing Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Grant Funding

FEMA Has Faced Challenges Developing a National Assessment of Preparedness

According to DHS and FEMA strategic documents, national preparedness is the shared responsibility of the “whole community,” which requires the contribution of a broad range of stakeholders, including federal, state, and local governments, to develop preparedness capabilities to effectively prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from a major disaster. Figure 1 provides an illustration of how federal, state, and local resources provide preparedness capabilities for different levels of government and at various levels of incident effect (i.e., the extent of damage caused by a natural or manmade disaster). The greater the level of incident effect, the more likely state and local resources are to be overwhelmed.

We have previously reported on and made recommendations related to DHS’s and FEMA’s efforts to develop a national assessment of preparedness, which would assist DHS and FEMA in effectively prioritizing investments to develop preparedness capabilities at all levels of government, including through its preparedness grant programs. Such an assessment would identify the critical elements at all levels of government necessary to effectively prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from a major disaster (i.e., preparedness capabilities), such as the ability to provide lifesaving medical treatment via emergency medical services following a major disaster; develop a way to measure those elements (i.e., capability performance measures); and assess the difference between the amount of preparedness needed at all levels of government (i.e., capability requirements) and the current level of preparedness (i.e. capability level) to identify gaps (i.e., capability gaps).

The identification of capability gaps is necessary to effectively prioritize preparedness grant funding.

However, we have previously found that DHS and FEMA have faced challenges in developing and implementing such an assessment. Most recently, in March 2011, we reported that FEMA’s efforts to develop and implement a comprehensive, measurable, national preparedness assessment were not yet complete. Accordingly, we recommended that FEMA complete a national preparedness assessment and that such an assessment should assess capability gaps at each level of government based on capability requirements to enable prioritization of grant funding. We also suggested that Congress consider limiting preparedness grant funding until FEMA completes a national preparedness assessment. In April 2011, Congress passed the fiscal year 2011 appropriations act for DHS, which reduced funding for FEMA preparedness grants by $875 million from the amount requested in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget. The consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2012 appropriated $1.7 billion for FEMA Preparedness grants, $1.28 billion less than requested. The House committee report accompanying the DHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012 stated that FEMA could not demonstrate how the use of the grants had enhanced disaster preparedness.

FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing Preparedness Capabilities

In March 2011, the White House issued Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness (PPD-8), which called for the development of a national preparedness system that includes a comprehensive approach to assess national preparedness. According to PPD-8, the approach should use a consistent methodology to assess national preparedness capabilities—with clear, objective, and quantifiable performance measures. PPD-8 also called for the development of a national preparedness goal, as well as annual preparedness reports (both of which were previously required under the Post-Katrina Act). To address PPD-8 provisions, FEMA issued the National Preparedness Goal in September 2011, which established a list of preparedness capabilities for each of five mission areas (prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery) that are to serve as the basis for preparedness activities within FEMA, throughout the federal government, and at the state and local levels. In November 2011, FEMA issued the National Preparedness System, which described an approach and cycle to build, sustain, and deliver the preparedness capabilities described in the National Preparedness Goal. The system contains six components to support decision making, resource allocation, and progress measurement, including identifying and assessing risk and estimating capability requirements. According to the system, measuring progress toward achieving the National Preparedness Goal is intended to provide the means to decide how and where to allocate scarce resources and prioritize preparedness. Finally, in March 2012, FEMA issued the first National Preparedness Report, designed to identify progress made toward building, sustaining, and delivering the preparedness capabilities described in the National Preparedness Goal. According to FEMA officials, the National Preparedness Report also identifies what they consider to be national-level capability gaps.

Challenges Remain in Establishing Capability Requirements and Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Preparedness Grant Funding

While FEMA issued the first National Preparedness Report, the agency has not yet established clear, objective, and quantifiable capability requirements and performance measures that are needed to identify capability gaps in a national preparedness assessment, as recommended in our March 2011 report. As previously noted, such requirements and measures would help FEMA identify capability gaps at all levels of government, which would assist FEMA in targeting preparedness grant program funding to address the highest-priority capability gaps. According to the National Preparedness Report, FEMA collaborated with federal interagency partners to identify existing quantitative and qualitative performance and assessment data for each of the preparedness capabilities. In addition, FEMA integrated data from the 2011 State Preparedness Reports, which are statewide survey-based self- assessments of capability levels and requirements submitted by all 56 U.S. states and territories. Finally, FEMA conducted research to identify independent evaluations, surveys, and other supporting data related to preparedness capabilities.

However, limitations associated with some of the data used in the National Preparedness Report may reduce the report’s usefulness in assessing national preparedness. First, in October 2010, we reported that data in the State Preparedness Reports—one of the key data sources for the National Preparedness Report—could be limited because FEMA relies on states to self-report such data, which makes it difficult to ensure data are consistent and accurate. Second, at the time the National Preparedness Report was issued, in March 2012, states were still in the process of updating their efforts to collect, analyze, and report preparedness progress according to the new preparedness capabilities issued along with the National Preparedness Goal in September 2011. As a result, the report states that assessment processes, methodologies, and data will need to evolve for future iterations of the report. Third, the report’s final finding notes that while many programs exist to build and sustain preparedness capabilities across all mission areas, challenges remain in measuring progress over time. According to the report, in many cases, measures do not yet exist to gauge performance, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Therefore, while programs may exist that are designed to address a given capability gap, the nation has little way of knowing whether and to what extent those programs have been successful.

Thus, as of March 2013, FEMA has not yet completed a national preparedness assessment, as we recommended in our March 2011 report, which could assist FEMA in prioritizing grant funding. However, FEMA officials stated that they have efforts under way to assess regional, state, and local capabilities to provide a framework for completing a national preparedness assessment. For example, in April 2012, FEMA issued guidance on developing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA), which were initially required to be completed by state and local governments receiving homeland security funding by December 31, 2012. Guidance issued for development of the THIRAs describes a process for assessing the various threats and hazards facing a community, the vulnerability of the community, as well as the consequences associated with those threats and hazards. For example, using the THIRA process, a jurisdiction may identify tornadoes as a hazard and asses its vulnerabilities to and the consequences of a tornado striking the jurisdiction, as well as the capabilities necessary for an effective response. Using the THIRA results, a jurisdiction may then develop a strategy to allocate resources effectively to achieve self- determined capability requirements by closing capability gaps.

According to FEMA officials in March 2013, the THIRAs are to be used by state, regional, and federal entities for future planning efforts. At the state level, FEMA guidance notes that state officials are to use the capability requirements they identified in their respective 2012 THIRAs in their future State Preparedness Reports. FEMA officials stated that they planned to use both the THIRAs and the State Preparedness Reports to identify states’ (self-reported) capability gaps based on capability requirements established by the state. At the regional level, each of the 10 FEMA regions is to analyze the local and state THIRAs to develop regional THIRAs. At the national level, the local, state, and regional THIRAs are collectively intended to provide FEMA with data that it can analyze to assist in the identification of national funding priorities for closing capability gaps. The outcome of the THIRA process is intended to be a set of national capability performance requirements and measures, which FEMA officials stated they intend to incorporate into future National Preparedness Reports. As of March 2013, FEMA officials are working to coordinate their review and analysis of the various THIRAs through a THIRA Analysis and Review Team. The team plans to conduct ongoing meetings to discuss common themes and findings from the THIRAs and intends to develop an initial proposed list of national preparedness grant funding priorities by summer 2013.

Depending on how the THIRA process is implemented and incorporated into future National Preparedness Reports, such an approach could be a positive step toward addressing our March 2011 recommendation to FEMA to develop a national preparedness assessment of existing capabilities levels against capability requirements. Such a national preparedness assessment may help FEMA to (1) identify the potential costs for developing and maintaining required capabilities at each level of government, and (2) determine what capabilities federal agencies should be prepared to provide. While the recently completed THIRAs and 2012 National Preparedness Report are positive steps in the initial efforts to assess preparedness capabilities across the nation, capability requirements and performance measures for each level of government that are clear, objective, and quantifiable have not yet been developed. As a result, it is unclear what capability gaps currently exist, including at the federal level, and what level of resources will be needed to close such gaps through prioritized preparedness grant funding. We will continue to monitor FEMA’s efforts to develop capability requirements and performance measures.

Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information about this statement, please contact David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512- 9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals also made major contributions to this testimony: Chris Keisling, Assistant Director; Tracey King; Dan Klabunde; Katherine Lee; David Lutter; David Lysy; Lara Miklozek; and Erin O’Brien.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.