The Recovery Act Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) is based on the existing PSGP, which was first established under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). Since 2007, FEMA has been operating the PSGP to provide grant funding to port areas for the protection of critical port infrastructure from terrorism. When the Recovery Act was enacted in February 2009, it provided an additional $150 million while preserving the funding priorities of the existing PSGP, which emphasize prevention and response to threats against the nation’s seaports, including weapons of mass destruction. FEMA had obligated all $150 million of its Recovery Act PSGP funds as of September 29, 2009. As of September 3, 2010, 64 of the 218 PSGP recipients had drawn down funds, for a total of $10,002,461. The Recovery Act PSGP also placed additional priority on cost-effective projects that can be started quickly and stimulate the economy through jobs creation. PSGP recipients, such as owners and operators of MTSA- regulated vessel and facilities, can use their 3 year grants for, among other things, equipment purchases, such as acquiring security cameras and security gates to strengthen access controls, as well as card readers and other infrastructure necessary to implement DHS’ Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program. FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) is the central unit for grants management at FEMA and within DHS, both FEMA’s GPD and the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) are involved in managing the Recovery Act PSGP. FEMA (1) has the lead in creating selection criteria for use in the application review process, (2) administers the Recovery Act PSGP, (3) provides outreach and support to applicants about program requirements, and (4) manages the Recovery Act PSGP to ensure compliance with federal grant management requirements. In addition, FEMA assigned all Recovery Act PSGP recipients a FEMA program analyst to serve as the recipient’s “one-stop” account manager, who would meet with the recipient as needed and coordinate with other agencies to support the recipient. The Coast Guard has the lead in setting port security priorities associated with Recovery Act PSGP award selection criteria. These priorities are emphasized in the Recovery Act PSGP application process, which requires eligible port areas and ferry systems to provide, among other things, an investment justification describing how the proposed project will help address gaps and deficiencies in current programs and capabilities, the length of time needed to begin and complete the project, and the number of jobs the project would create. DHS Management Directive 11056.1 establishes the department’s policy regarding the recognition, identification, and safeguarding of SSI. In addition to requiring certain actions by specified agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Coast Guard, the directive provides that other DHS component heads not specifically identified—where appropriate based on the extent of use of SSI—should appoint an official to serve as the component’s SSI Program Manager, who is to be responsible for, among other things, developing component-specific SSI identification and procedural guidance as necessary, and conducting self-inspections of the component for the effective management and practical application of SSI, and consistent and appropriate application and use of SSI at least once every 18 months. In addition, the directive states that those other component heads not specifically identified in the directive, where appropriate, should appoint at least one employee in each office that generates or accesses SSI to serve as SSI Coordinator and have the authority to make determinations on behalf of DHS that records generated by this office are appropriately marked SSI. Further, among other responsibilities, the SSI Coordinator is to conduct annual self-inspections of the office for the effective management and practical application of SSI, and consistent and appropriate application and use of SSI, as well as ensure that office personnel who access SSI receive training. FEMA considers the narratives within PSGP recipients’ investment justifications to be SSI, the disclosure of which could compromise national security, because information found in the investment justifications could reveal current vulnerabilities and present opportunities for potential terrorist threats. Therefore, FEMA does not permit the investment justifications to be publicly released. In addition, under federal SSI regulations, both FEMA’s grants management staff and PSGP recipients are considered to be “covered persons” because, among other things, they access SSI contained in the investment justifications. Covered persons’ responsibilities include, among others, taking reasonable steps to safeguard SSI in their possession or control from unauthorized disclosure, regardless of medium, and marking information as SSI. To promote transparency and accountability, the Recovery Act requires recipients of Recovery Act funds, such as PSGP recipients, to report each calendar quarter on the use of funds, and further requires that this reporting continue for every quarter in which the recipient receives Recovery Act funds from the federal government. Specifically, these reports collect numerical information, such as the amount of funds obligated—or committed for payment—as well as narrative details, such as a description of the activity funded at the port. To implement Recovery Act reporting requirements, OMB has worked with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board) to deploy a nationwide data collection system at Federalreporting.gov. OMB set specific time lines for recipients to submit reports and for agencies to review the data using this site. Specifically, recipients are required to prepare, enter, and validate their information by the tenth day following the end of a quarter, after which federal agencies perform data quality reviews, in accordance with OMB guidance, to identify material omissions and significant reporting errors, and notify recipients of the need to make appropriate and timely changes to erroneous reports. Recipients have the ultimate responsibility for responding to the agency’s data quality reviews and then submitting the final data for posting on Recovery.gov, as illustrated in figure 1. Recovery.gov was designed to provide transparency of information related to spending on Recovery Act programs and is the public’s official source of information related to the Recovery Act. As a federal agency administering Recovery Act funds, FEMA is responsible for adhering to OMB guidance and Recovery Act requirements and GPD has the lead for executing these responsibilities for the Recovery Act PSGP. In addition, DHS officials responsible for agencywide Recovery Act implementation also review recipient quarterly reports, checking data fields, such as award numbers, for accuracy, and informing GPD staff of noncompletion. FEMA has taken recent steps to adhere to DHS’ Management Directive when administering the PSGP, such as appointing officials with direct responsibility for SSI; however, FEMA has not yet established or put in place all of the management controls, or taken all the actions, called for in the directive. For example, in January 2010, FEMA appointed its first SSI Program Manager, and in July 2010—during the course of our review— GPD appointed an SSI Coordinator. Nevertheless, GPD’s SSI Coordinator has not assessed the extent to which SSI documents, including Recovery Act PSGP investment justifications, have been marked appropriately, or instilled practices to ensure that GPD personnel who access SSI receive appropriate training, as required by DHS’ directive. FEMA has appointed an SSI Program Manager, GPD has appointed an SSI Coordinator, and both individuals are taking steps to adhere to DHS’ Management Directive, issued in 2005. FEMA has appointed an SSI Program Manager. FEMA appointed its first SSI Program Manager in January 2010, and this individual has developed a standard operating procedure that, in accordance with DHS’ 2005 Management Directive, establishes FEMA’s protocols for recognizing, identifying, and safeguarding SSI. According to the SSI Program Manager, the standard operating procedure was reviewed by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Coast Guard officials, and approved by officials in FEMA’s Office of Security before distribution to FEMA staff in mid-August. The SSI Program Manager also reported that he is planning to develop an SSI Instruction Guide for FEMA GPD in November 2010 that will identify the types of information in grant documents handled by FEMA GPD staff that should and should not be marked and treated as SSI. According to the SSI Program Manager, this guide will be completed in collaboration with FEMA GPD, TSA, and the Coast Guard, and will be applicable to FEMA GPD staff, contractors, and grantees. Further, the SSI Program Manager reported to us that he is developing a self-inspection program based on an SSI evaluation program that the Coast Guard currently uses. This will fulfill the Management Directive’s instruction to conduct self-inspections for effective management, and consistent and appropriate application and use of SSI, at least once every 18 months. He expects to conduct FEMA’s self-inspection in December 2010. In addition, in response to our questions regarding the extent of SSI training offered to GPD staff, the Program Manager provided training to FEMA’s GPD staff in mid-July on identifying, handing, and safeguarding SSI. We observed this training, and noted that it explained the difference between SSI and classified information, defined the 16 categories of SSI in the SSI regulations, and provided guidance regarding how to handle SSI. FEMA’s GPD has appointed an SSI Coordinator. During the course of our review, and in response to our questions regarding the status of GPD’s efforts to appoint an SSI Coordinator within GPD, the GPD Assistant Administrator appointed GPD’s Director of Internal Controls and Risk Management to be GPD’s first SSI Coordinator on July 8, 2010. The SSI Coordinator told us that she informed all GPD staff of the SSI Program Manager’s July SSI training and encouraged GPD personnel who access or generate SSI to attend. Further, according to the SSI Coordinator, she and her staff will reach out to ensure that the remaining staff who have not yet received training attend one of the upcoming training sessions that the SSI Program Manager is offering throughout the fall of 2010. In addition, the SSI Coordinator told us that, once staff are trained, she plans to identify and reach out to supervisors in GPD branches who will have responsibility for staff managing SSI within their units to discuss and delineate their unit’s SSI responsibilities, including determining whether documents in their office are appropriately marked SSI, and reporting back to her. Further, the SSI Coordinator told us that she plans to issue a bulletin or memorandum to GPD staff and grantees to provide additional information beyond that discussed in the initial SSI training, such as GPD staff members’ specific roles in identifying and handling SSI and the relevance of SSI to GPD grants. Before writing the bulletin, the SSI Coordinator reported that she planned to talk to GPD staff—including Recovery Act PSGP program officials, as well as the official responsible for reviewing Recovery Act PSGP recipient reports—to determine the process being used for handling recipient information and reporting, and what information related to SSI these officials need. According to the SSI Coordinator, she has drafted the bulletin but plans to make revisions before issuing it to GPD staff and grantees later this fall. Additionally, the SSI Coordinator told us she will—while conducting training and working with GPD staff responsible for SSI in their branches—assume responsibility for conducting GPD’s annual self-inspection, in accordance with DHS’ 2005 Management Directive. According to FEMA’s SSI Program Manager, he and the SSI Coordinator will jointly complete a self-inspection of FEMA GPD in December 2010 to identify to the SSI Coordinator what the self-inspection program should entail. FEMA has established some management controls outlined in DHS’ Management Directive to help ensure that its staff are better able to appropriately identify and handle SSI, but it has not yet taken all the actions or fully established all the management controls included in the directive. Marking of SSI: The SSI Coordinator told us that with respect to Management Directive-required oversight of SSI within GPD, she has not made any determinations as to whether SSI documents are appropriately marked. While FEMA considers all PSGP investment justifications to be SSI, our analysis showed that not all Recovery Act PSGP investment justifications—documents recipients submit to FEMA when applying for the grant and that FEMA keeps on file—have been marked as such, pursuant to SSI regulations. Specifically, our sample review of six Recovery Act PSGP investment justifications showed that none of the materials were marked as SSI, as required by SSI regulations. According to one Recovery Act PSGP official, while the investment justifications are not labeled SSI, GPD staff convey the sensitive nature of the documents to the covered parties involved. The SSI Coordinator told us that supervisors she designates throughout GPD will be responsible for reviewing their unit’s grant file documents to determine if they are marked appropriately and report the results to her after these supervisors receive SSI training. However—while FEMA does not publicly release the investment justifications, such as on Recovery.gov—-some of the Recovery Act PSGP investment justifications are currently not marked SSI in accordance with SSI regulations. As a result, others who access the information in the investment justifications may not be aware that it is SSI and, thus, are at a greater risk of inadvertently disclosing such information. Reviewing these justifications and marking them immediately as SSI could help the SSI Coordinator ensure that GPD personnel are better positioned to safeguard them from inadvertent unauthorized disclosure. SSI Training: Prior to July 2010, FEMA did not provide specific SSI training to its grants management staff, and the FEMA SSI Program Manager told us the development of this course stemmed largely from our work on the subject. However, based on our observations, the course did not include grant-specific examples that could have helped facilitate GPD staff’s understanding in applying the training concepts regarding SSI to their work. For instance, GPD officials with whom we spoke were unclear about the application of SSI to the Recovery Act PSGP and grant specific examples could clarify how to determine if grant information is SSI. For instance, according to a TSA SSI official, the information upon which the PSGP investment justifications are based—port vulnerability assessments—are identified as SSI in the C.F.R. Therefore, the investment justifications may contain SSI, but the TSA official told us that the investment justifications are not SSI in their entirety because information from the vulnerability assessments could be removed from the documents. However, the three Recovery Act PSGP officials with responsibility for administering the program offered conflicting information with regard to the sensitive nature of PSGP materials. One official reported that FEMA considers all PSGP investment justifications to be SSI because the disclosure of activities under the PSGP could demonstrate current vulnerabilities and present opportunities for potential terrorist threats. Another official told us that he disagrees with the determination that the investment justifications are SSI because projects funded under the PSGP are visible to the public—for instance, if a port is adding lighting, the public can see that the project is being undertaken. Moreover, this official noted that information about the Recovery Act PSGP projects could easily be obtained from other publicly available sources, such as construction permits. A third FEMA official believed that certain information in the investment justifications may be SSI, but the investment justifications in their entirety are not. Moreover, during the training session we observed, numerous GPD staff asked for clarification and examples to understand how the SSI regulations apply to their day-to-day work. The training did not provide this information. The SSI Coordinator acknowledged that the training lacked specific examples and told us that GPD staff likely will need additional information about the relevance of SSI to FEMA’s grant management. We have previously reported on a number of factors that managers should consider when assessing training. One of these factors includes whether the training incorporated a suitable blend of content, addressing both the theoretical basis of the material (such as an explanation of the context and principles involved) and the practical application of the issues (such as agency administrative procedures related to the material). The initial SSI training delineated the context of SSI and the regulations involved, but it did not incorporate any GPD- specific examples to illustrate the appropriate identification and handling of SSI by GPD personnel. In addition, it did not include any reference to the Recovery Act PSGP or any other Recovery Act program FEMA administers. Further, it also did not address how GPD staff should ensure transparent reporting on funded activities and expected outcomes while also safeguarding SSI. Given that Recovery Act PSGP staff were unclear about the application of SSI to their work and attendees at GPD’s initial SSI training requested examples to illustrate how SSI pertains to their work, providing grant-specific examples in its SSI training could help FEMA ensure that all GPD staff, including Recovery Act PSGP staff, are better positioned to identify, mark, and safeguard SSI within their programs. FEMA has implemented an agencywide standard operating procedure governing the safeguarding of SSI within FEMA; however, this is a broad policy that does not specifically address aspects related to the Recovery Act PSGP recipient report review process. Further, while FEMA GPD staff have taken steps to outline their recipient review process, GPD management has not approved the procedure and the draft does not include key controls for reducing the risk of error. Moreover, when conducting its data quality review, FEMA does not have a distinct process for comparing recipients’ quarterly reports against SSI criteria to ensure that sensitive information, similar to that which is described in the recipients’ investment justifications, is not included in the Recovery Act reporting and thus made publicly available. FEMA also lacks a protocol for informing recipients when their draft Recovery Act reports contain sensitive information and should be safeguarded appropriately. Finally, FEMA has not provided instruction to recipients cautioning them up front against revealing SSI in their recipient report submissions and guiding them on what an appropriate level of detail would be. Two officials within GPD were responsible for performing quality reviews on recipients’ quarterly submissions to FederalReporting.gov before these submissions were posted to Recovery.gov in February 2010, the reporting period we reviewed. One official told us that he and his former colleague drafted a standard operating procedure after they were charged with reviewing recipients’ reports in 2009 which described the Recovery Act recipient report reviewing process they undertook. This draft standard operating procedure included descriptions of the reporting cycle, the various elements recipients report, sources of the reporting data, the Recovery Act process for reviewing recipient information, and directions on how to compile and report the required information. However, the draft standard operating procedure does not have managerial approval as of September 2010 and lacks a discussion of internal controls, including a process to ensure that a secondary review of the comments occurs. Internal control standards state that transactions and significant events— in this case, FEMA’s data quality review of Recovery Act recipients’ reports—should be authorized and the authorization should be clearly communicated to employees to assure that only valid transactions take place. We found that the draft standard operating procedure being used was not approved by senior GPD management as of September 2010. A former director in GPD with oversight of the individuals conducting reviews of recipients’ submissions did not approve the standard operating procedure before she left the agency and, as of September 2010, it has neither been approved nor presented to her replacement for approval. Approving a standard operating procedure for Recovery Act quarterly recipient report reviews could help FEMA management better ensure that the Recovery Act PSGP personnel are conducting reviews in a consistent manner. In addition, internal control standards state that key duties and responsibilities need to be divided or segregated among different people to reduce the risk of error or fraud, including separating the responsibilities for authorizing, processing and recording, and reviewing transactions. Moreover, internal control standards call for internal controls and all transactions and other significant events to be clearly documented and appear in management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals. The draft standard operating procedure FEMA’s Recovery Act staff developed does not describe procedures for verifying the accuracy of reviews, such as the process whereby one reviewer independently verifies the other’s work, that its author told us had been occurring. Without determining what procedures FEMA will use to verify its reviews of recipient reports and documenting those procedures, FEMA management lacks reasonable assurance that the reviews are being conducted consistently and in accordance with management’s direction. For instance, the GPD official with responsibility for reviewing quarterly Recovery Act recipient reports told us that a former director in GPD completed another layer of review before FEMA concluded its data quality review. Further, although this official reported that four additional GPD or DHS officials verified the accuracy of his initial reviews, three of the officials named told us that they have not reviewed recipient reports in any manner. The remaining official told us that she reviews the numerical fields solely for data accuracy and does not review the narrative fields, such as the award description where potential SSI may appear. FEMA’s standard operating procedure does not include a method for its Recovery Act PSGP recipient report reviewers to safeguard SSI as required of covered persons in SSI regulations. For example, none of the FEMA officials with whom we spoke reported that they—or anyone else—was responsible for incorporating a sensitivity review into their quarterly data quality assessment during which they could compare recipients’ submissions to FederalReporting.gov against SSI standards to determine if the information should be prevented from public disclosure on Recovery.gov. A Recovery Act PSGP official with whom we spoke reported that it is Recovery Act PSGP recipients’ responsibility to ensure that they do not report SSI in their quarterly reports because it is the recipients who initially report the information, not FEMA. However, since FEMA treats the investment justifications as SSI, and much of the information requested in the reporting fields on FederalReporting.gov is similar in nature, conducting such a review would help FEMA ensure that nothing from the investment justifications was inadvertently copied into the FederalReporting.gov reporting fields and ultimately published on Recovery.gov. Further, pertinent SSI regulations require that a covered person must take reasonable steps to safeguard SSI in that person’s possession or control from unauthorized disclosure, and state that violations of the SSI regulations, such as unauthorized disclosure of SSI, is grounds for, among other things, a civil penalty and other enforcement or corrective action by DHS. While recipients initially report the information, FEMA accesses this information during its data quality review and, therefore, under SSI regulations, Recovery Act PSGP personnel are considered to be covered persons and have the accompanying responsibility to safeguard any SSI in the recipient reports. A TSA security official who reviewed our sample of 61 PSGP recipient reports available on Recovery.gov for the reporting period with data available as of February 2010, informed us that none contained SSI; however, FEMA should consider a cautious approach when reviewing this material in advance and inform recipients if their draft submissions contain SSI. While our review showed that none of the Recovery Act PSGP recipient reports for the single reporting period in our review contained SSI, developing a management-approved policy for reviewing Recovery Act PSGP recipient reports that includes steps to compare submissions against SSI criteria and properly safeguard it could reduce the risk that SSI is made publicly available on Recovery.gov in subsequent reporting periods. Further, such a policy could help better position FEMA to ensure that officials responsible for Recovery Act recipient reviews take reasonable steps to safeguard SSI from unauthorized disclosure, as required by SSI regulations. According to the GPD official responsible for reviewing recipients’ submissions and performing the data quality review on FederalReporting.gov, when the Recovery Act quarterly reporting began, the issue of data sensitivity was not discussed in any manner. However, the official noted that the GPD Director to whom he reported at the time told him to use his judgment and when he thought recipient submissions included “too much detail” in the narrative-based fields, such as the one for “award description,” he should notify recipients. Specifically, the director instructed him to use boilerplate language when commenting back to the recipients, with the following notification statement: “Due to the public nature of this report, please adjust the Award Description to: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Port Security Grant Program (ARRA PSGP).” This official stated that he did not develop standard criteria to determine what “too much detail” meant, nor does he compare the information contained in these quarterly reports against SSI criteria while conducting his data quality review. Instead, he explained that he used his best judgment and if the details in the narrative field appeared similar to the information the recipient reported in its investment justification, then he sent the recipient the standard notification statement. This notification statement did not communicate the rationale for change—that the specific information about their use of award funds or expected outcomes could disclose SSI, which could document vulnerabilities or jeopardize port security—or a reason for recipients to take action, even though SSI regulations require covered persons to take reasonable steps to safeguard SSI from unauthorized disclosure. Moreover, internal control standards call for managers to ensure that there are adequate means of communicating with, and obtaining information from, external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency achieving its goals. Most importantly, FEMA’s notification statement does not inform recipients of their responsibility as covered persons to safeguard SSI. Including in its standard operating procedures a process for notifying recipients when their reports include SSI and taking steps to inform recipients about their responsibilities as covered persons could better position FEMA to help prevent the inadvertent release into the public domain of information that could potentially compromise national security. During the Recovery Act quarterly reporting process, under federal SSI regulations, both recipients—who submit the initial information—and FEMA personnel—who review the information—are considered to be covered persons with a duty to safeguard SSI. In addition, OMB’s Recovery Act reporting guidance states that recipients’ narrative information must be sufficiently clear to facilitate understanding by the general public of how Recovery Act funds are being used. In reviewing the narrative descriptions provided on Recovery.gov for the 61 recipients in our sample, we found wide variation in the level of detail provided regarding the awards’ purposes, scope and nature of activities, locations, costs, outcomes, and status of work. In a few instances, the reports had clear and complete information across these areas. For instance, the description of an award for a Missouri port stated that it will be used for surveillance cameras that will allow the police department to receive information about potential attacks using improvised explosive devices and, as a result, increase the likelihood of preemptive action. In the majority of cases, however, the reports provided little or none of the information on what funds are being spent on and what outcomes are expected. For instance, an award description for a port in Washington did not provide the location where the award activities are being conducted, what the award would fund, or the outcomes expected as a result of the award. According to FEMA, the sensitive nature of port security information affects the transparency of PSGP recipient reporting. However FEMA’s GPD has not provided technical assistance or program-specific guidance to Recovery Act PSGP recipients on how to report on funded activities and expected outcomes in a transparent manner while also safeguarding SSI. For example, all of the PSGP recipients with whom we spoke reported that FEMA had not instructed them on how to consider transparency needs and safeguard SSI in Recovery Act reporting. According to a Coast Guard Recovery Act PSGP official, GPD’s SSI Coordinator, and three of the five Recovery Act PSGP recipients with whom we spoke, Recovery Act PSGP recipients are not always clear regarding what information they should report and what information they should protect. For instance, GPD’s SSI Coordinator told us that the recipients may be confused about what they should report in their quarterly Recovery Act reports because OMB guidance stresses transparency even though SSI regulations stress safeguards. Therefore, the SSI Coordinator stated that recipients may be unsure how to comply with both because of their seemingly conflicting messages. Moreover, the Coast Guard official and four of the five Recovery Act PSGP recipients with whom we spoke told us that guidance from FEMA on what recipients should and should not report for ultimate posting on Recovery.gov would be helpful to recipients and assist them in better understanding how to adhere to the requirements in both OMB’s existing guidance on Recovery Act recipient reporting and those found in the SSI-related regulations. Recovery Act PSGP officials with whom we spoke cited two reasons why FEMA has not issued instructions to recipients on what information to include in the narrative fields when completing their quarterly reports. First, the officials reported to us that FEMA was concerned that issuing instructions to recipients on what to report in the narrative fields may conflict with OMB’s emphasis on transparency in Recovery Act reporting. When we raised this issue with OMB, staff there told us that OMB allows agencies discretion with regard to balancing transparency with national security concerns and it cannot provide guidance that addresses the details of each Recovery Act program. OMB staff noted that agencies should be aware of what program information may be sensitive and address these concerns directly with recipients. Further, according to OMB officials, agencies overseeing Recovery Act programs have discretion to provide their recipients with technical assistance or supplemental materials to aid recipients in reporting. In our May 2010 report, we reported that some agencies—unlike FEMA— supplemented OMB’s high-level guidance with program-specific technical assistance on how to meet OMB’s reporting requirements, including specific instructions on what to write in the narrative fields. In addition, OMB’s March 2010 Memorandum 10-14 permits federal agencies overseeing Recovery Act reporting to provide program-specific guidance on Recovery Act recipient reporting to recipients as long as it does not conflict with OMB guidance and the agency obtains OMB approval. Two other agencies—the departments of Transportation and Education—have obtained OMB approval to issue such program-specific guidance to assist recipients with Recovery Act reporting. As we reported in May 2010, OMB officials told us that OMB created generic reporting guidance because they expected the guidance to be a baseline, with agencies providing supplemental guidance that was more specific to unique program characteristics and situations than OMB’s one-size-fits-all guidance was designed to address. We also reported that, according to OMB, the agencies would be better sources of program specific individualized guidance, tailored to the awards made under their programs. Second, FEMA officials said that even if they were to issue instructions to recipients on what to report in the narrative fields that ultimately will be posted on Recovery.gov, some recipients might not follow them and FEMA cannot require them to do so. However, given that under federal SSI regulations Recovery Act PSGP recipients are considered to be covered persons, they have a duty under SSI regulations to safeguard SSI. Taking appropriate measures to provide instruction—which could be in the form of technical assistance, supplemental materials, or OMB- approved guidance—to Recovery Act PSGP recipients has several benefits. Namely, by describing the information to include in narrative fields that ultimately will be posted on Recovery.gov and informing recipients of their duty to protect SSI as covered persons, FEMA could help ensure that recipients consider both the need to report on funded activities and expected outcomes in a transparent manner while safeguarding SSI when reporting information on issues that ultimately will be posted on Recovery.gov. With regard to additional controls to prevent unauthorized disclosure of Recovery Act PSGP SSI, FEMA officials reported that their ability to implement such controls—including their assessments of information recipients submit quarterly to FederalReporting.gov—is constrained due to the small number of PSGP staff on board, as well as significant staff turnover. According to FEMA data, as of July 2010, 10 FEMA employees were administering both the Recovery Act PSGP and regular PSGP, and GPD’s staff turnover rates were 4 percent and 8 percent in the 2nd quarter and 3rd quarter of 2010, respectively. Further, according to FEMA officials, OMB is primarily concerned with data quality surrounding the numerical reporting fields, such as the award amount, and is less concerned with the content of the narrative reporting fields, such as the award description. In addition, DHS officials charged with overall Recovery Act implementation confirmed that their review of DHS-wide recipient information focuses on the nonnarrative fields—such as jobs created, recipient addresses, or recipient Congressional district. As a result, the FEMA official charged with conducting the data quality reviews told us his priorities have been on numbers rather than narrative. OMB staff with whom we spoke told us that agencies are better positioned to review narrative information because they have knowledge of the programs and OMB staff explained that agencies are expected to use their judgment to help ensure that recipients do not disclose SSI in the information that ultimately will be posted on Recovery.gov. Reporting on the funded activities and expected outcomes of Recovery Act funds in a transparent manner is vital to ensuring public trust. As such, OMB has made transparency a priority in the oversight of Recovery Act spending and instructed agencies that when reviewing recipients’ quarterly reports they should aim to ensure transparency while also safeguarding information that is crucial to national security. FEMA’s GPD has taken some recent steps to establish polices and procedures to ensure that it appropriately identifies, handles, and safeguards any Recovery Act PSGP information that is SSI. However, FEMA could do more to ensure that FEMA officials are helping to prevent the disclosure of information that ultimately will be posted on Recovery.gov and that is otherwise considered SSI. Specifically, determining whether Recovery Act PSGP documents, such as investment justifications, that contain SSI are appropriately marked as such and taking steps to ensure Recovery Act PSGP officials receive FEMA-specific SSI training could help better position FEMA to ensure that its Recovery Act PSGP staff protect SSI from unauthorized disclosure. Further, having an approved policy for reviewing Recovery Act PSGP recipient reports could help ensure that initial reviews by different FEMA GPD staff will be conducted in a consistent manner to reduce the risk of error. Moreover, including in its process a review to identify recipient-reported information as SSI, and taking appropriate measures to improve recipients’ understanding of what information to include in the narrative fields that ultimately will be posted on Recovery.gov and what information to safeguard as SSI could better position FEMA to help prevent the disclosure of sensitive information on Recovery.gov. To enhance the identification, management, and protection of SSI within FEMA in its administration of the Recovery Act PSGP, we recommend that the FEMA Administrator take the following four actions: Direct GPD’s SSI Coordinator to review Recovery Act PSGP investment justifications in FEMA’s possession and ensure that they are appropriately marked as SSI. Direct GPD’s SSI Coordinator, when developing and providing further SSI training to GPD staff, to incorporate FEMA-specific examples of the application and use of SSI in the training. Direct FEMA’s Assistant Administrator for GPD to develop, document, and approve a policy that reflects management’s intent to implement internal controls governing FEMA’s review process for Recovery Act recipient reports that include appropriate internal controls and a procedure both for comparing recipient reports against SSI criteria and notifying recipients when their submissions contain SSI. Direct FEMA’s Assistant Administrator for GPD to take appropriate measures—such as issuing technical assistance, supplemental materials, or OMB-approved guidance—to inform Recovery Act PSGP recipients of what information they should include in the narrative fields that ultimately will be posted on Recovery.gov to foster a basic understanding of funded activities and expected outcomes in a transparent manner while ensuring that SSI is not disclosed on Recovery.gov. We provided a draft of this report to FEMA for review and comment. FEMA provided written comments on the draft report, which are reproduced in full in appendix I. FEMA concurred with all four of our recommendations, and reported that it plans to take steps to implement them. Specifically, FEMA plans to ensure that all Recovery Act PSGP grant documents are reviewed and appropriately marked as SSI, which would address our first recommendation. Further, FEMA intends to enhance its current SSI training to ensure that it is relevant to FEMA personnel. If implemented, such training would address our second recommendation. In addition, FEMA plans to take steps to incorporate appropriate internal controls into its written Recovery Act PSGP policies to help ensure consistency in its review of Recovery Act PSGP recipient reports. Implementing such controls will address our third recommendation. FEMA also agreed with our final recommendation to take appropriate measures to inform Recovery Act PSGP recipients of what information they should include in their Recovery Act reports. However, FEMA did not describe specific actions it planned to take to address this recommendation. Nevertheless, FEMA noted that, while no SSI was released to the public for the reporting period which we reviewed, implementing this recommendation, as well as our others, will enhance ongoing review of Recovery Act PSGP recipient reports and better enable FEMA to protect SSI from disclosure in the future. FEMA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution for 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and interested congressional committees. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact David Maurer at 202-512-9627 or by e-mail at maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points from 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. In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report were Joy Gambino, Assistant Director; Jill Evancho, Analyst-in-Charge; and Kathryn Crosby. Tom Beall assisted with design and methodology; Geoffrey Hamilton provided legal support; Katherine Siggerud, Yvonne Jones, and Susan Zimmerman contributed expertise in the Recovery Act; George Erhart and Richard Winsor helped with on-site record review; and Labony Chakraborty provided assistance in report preparation.

Summary: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) requires recipients to report, among other things, project descriptions on Recovery.gov, the federal Recovery Act Web site. Within the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Grant Programs Directorate administers the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) to strengthen ports against risks from terrorist attacks. FEMA received and obligated $150 million in Recovery Act PSGP funds in 2009, and, as of September 2010, recipients have drawn down over $10 million. To facilitate recipient reporting, FEMA must consider the need both for transparency and for protection of Sensitive Security Information (SSI), which could be detrimental to transportation security if disclosed. As requested, GAO assessed FEMA's: (1) controls to ensure Recovery Act PSGP staff consistently follow SSI policies, and (2) steps to ensure PSGP recipients have not disclosed SSI on Recovery.gov. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, guidance, and a random sample of PSGP Recovery Act recipient reports available as of February 2010, and interviewed agency officials. FEMA has taken steps to ensure Recovery Act PSGP staff consistently follow the Department of Homeland Security's SSI policies and processes, but key actions have not been taken. For instance, FEMA has appointed an SSI Program Manager--responsible for FEMA-wide SSI oversight--and an SSI Coordinator to facilitate the Grant Programs Directorate's use of SSI. Also, the SSI Program Manager provided SSI training to FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate staff; however, the training did not include FEMA-specific examples to illustrate the application of SSI, which the staff requested. GAO has previously reported that, when assessing training, managers should consider whether the training includes both the theoretical basis of the material--such as context and principles--and the practical application of the issues. Including FEMA-specific examples could help FEMA ensure Recovery Act PSGP staff have the necessary knowledge to handle and safeguard SSI. In addition, the SSI Coordinator has not assessed whether SSI documents have been appropriately labeled, in accordance with SSI regulations. For example, FEMA has determined that certain materials grant recipients submit to FEMA during the application process to describe how their projects will address current gaps and deficiencies are SSI, but has not marked them as such. While these documents have not been posted to Recovery.gov, immediately reviewing and marking them as SSI could improve safeguards and help prevent the information contained therein from inadvertent disclosure. FEMA has taken steps to develop a quarterly review process for Recovery Act PSGP recipient reports--prior to their public release on Recovery.gov--but does not have key controls to help prevent public disclosure of SSI. For instance, FEMA staff drafted a procedure for reviewing recipient reports, but FEMA management has not approved it and the draft does not include a procedure to verify the reviews' accuracy. Further, while GAO found that SSI had not been disclosed in Recovery Act recipient reports posted on Recovery.gov for the single reporting period GAO reviewed--with data publicly available as of February 2010--FEMA lacks a process for comparing recipient reports to SSI criteria, and a protocol that informs recipients when FEMA determines that their reports contain SSI. Introducing these measures could help Grant Programs Directorate staff consistently review reports, identify when they contain SSI, reduce the risk of SSI disclosure on Recovery.gov, and reinforce recipients' obligations to safeguard SSI. In addition, GAO found wide variation in the level of detail about the awards' descriptions among the recipient reports sampled from Recovery.gov as of February 2010, although the majority provided minimal detail. According to FEMA, the sensitive nature of PSGP information affects the transparency of PSGP recipient reporting. By providing instruction to recipients on what should and should not be reported due to SSI requirements, FEMA could help recipients report project details in a transparent manner on the expenditure of Recovery Act funds while protecting information that could otherwise jeopardize transportation security if released. GAO recommends that FEMA improve SSI training, ensure proper marking of SSI, enhance recipient report review controls, and instruct recipients on safeguarding SSI while reporting on funded activities and expected outcomes in a transparent manner. FEMA concurred.