This work was done in conjunction with a separate review of the Port Security Grant Program. See GAO-12-47. and Training. However, since its creation in April 2007, FEMA’s GPD has been responsible for the program management of 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. GPD works closely with other DHS entities to manage several grants, including the USCG for the PSGP and TSA for the TSGP. From fiscal years 2002 through 2011, DHS distributed approximately $20.3 billion through four grant programs: SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and TSGP. See table 1 for a breakdown of the funding for these programs. Federal grants, including SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and TSGP generally follow the grant life cycle shown in figure 1 of announcement, application, award, postaward, and closeout. A grant program may be established through legislation––which may specify particular objectives, eligibility, and other requirements—and a program may also be further defined by the grantor agency. For competitive grant programs, the public is notified of the grant opportunity through an announcement, and potential grantees must submit applications for agency review. In the application and award stages, the agency identifies successful applicants or legislatively defined grant recipients and awards funding to them. The postaward stage includes payment processing, agency monitoring, and grantee reporting, which may include financial and performance information. The closeout phase includes preparation of final reports and any required accounting for property. Audits may occur multiple times during the life cycle of the grant and after closeout. SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and TSGP are specific grant programs nested under a larger framework of national preparedness. The broader initiatives described below, some of which are in development, are intended to help determine preparedness goals and the capabilities necessary to achieve these goals. Grants programs such as the four we reviewed can then help facilitate specific investments to close identified capability gaps. The purpose and status of the larger preparedness framework affects SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and TSGP in a number of ways, including the development of grant performance metrics to assess the effectiveness of the programs. In December 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), which called on the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate federal preparedness activities and coordinate support for the preparedness of state and local first responders, and directed DHS to establish measurable readiness priorities and targets. In October 2006, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act was enacted, which requires FEMA to develop specific, flexible, and measurable guidelines to define risk-based target preparedness capabilities and to establish preparedness priorities that reflect an appropriate balance between the relative risks and resources associated with all hazards. In September 2007, DHS published the National Preparedness Guidelines. The purposes of the guidelines are to: organize and synchronize national—including federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial—efforts to strengthen national preparedness; guide national investments in national preparedness; incorporate lessons learned from past disasters into national preparedness priorities; facilitate a capability-based and risk-based investment planning process; and establish readiness metrics to measure progress and a system for assessing the nation’s overall preparedness capability to respond to major events, especially those involving acts of terrorism. Each of the grant programs in our review has specific strategies that are aligned with the overall federal national preparedness guidelines, as the following examples illustrate. State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies (all four grants): These strategies are designed to (1) provide a blueprint for comprehensive, enterprise wide planning for homeland security efforts; and (2) provide a strategic plan for the use of related federal, state, local, and private resources within the state and/or urban area before, during, and after threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. State and urban area homeland security strategies are required by FEMA for receiving SHSP and UASI funding. Port-Wide Risk Mitigation Plan (PSGP): The primary goal of these plans is to provide a port area with a mechanism for considering its entire port system strategically as a whole, and to identify and execute a series of actions designed to effectively mitigate risks to the system’s maritime critical infrastructure. FEMA requires a Port-Wide Risk Mitigation Plan for receiving PSGP funding for the high-risk ports, known as Groups I and II, as discussed in table 2. Regional Transit Security Strategy (TSGP): These strategies serve as the basis on which funding is allocated to address regional transit security priorities, and are the vehicles through which transit agencies may justify and access other funding and available resources. TSA requires a Regional Transit Security Strategy for receiving TSGP funding. On March 30, 2011, the President issued Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8), which directs the development of a national preparedness goal and the identification of the core capabilities necessary for preparedness. PPD-8 replaces HSPD-8. FEMA officials noted that the National Preparedness System affirms the all- hazards risk-based approach to national preparedness. FEMA officials further noted that PPD-8 looks to build on the efforts already in place, including those that supported the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and the 2009 National Infrastructure Protection Plan. PPD-8 has specific deadlines for deliverables: 180 days for the National Preparedness Goal, 240 days for a description of the National Preparedness System, and 1 year for a National Preparedness Report. The four grant programs in our review—SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and TSGP—have overlapping goals, project types, and funding jurisdictions, which increases the risk of duplication among the programs. Although the specifics of the four programs vary, they share the overarching goal of enhancing the capacity of state and local emergency responders to prevent, respond to, and recover from a terrorism incident involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or other explosive devices, or cyber attacks. More specifically, each program funds similar projects such as training, planning, equipment, and exercises. For example, the four programs have overlapping lists of allowable costs, so certain types of equipment, such as communication radios, may be purchased through each grant program. Further, although the programs target different constituencies, such as states and counties, urban areas, and port or transit stakeholders, there is overlap across recipients. For example, each state and eligible territory receives a legislatively mandated minimum amount of SHSP funding to help ensure that all areas develop a basic level of preparedness, while UASI explicitly targets urban areas most at However, many jurisdictions within designated risk of terrorist attack.UASI areas also apply for and receive SHSP funding. Similarly, a port stakeholder in an urban area could receive funding for patrol boats through both PSGP and UASI funding streams, and a transit agency could purchase surveillance equipment with TSGP or UASI dollars. More broadly, any designated high-risk urban area located near major waterways can receive funding through SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and TSGP sources. In March 2011, we reported that overlap among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Further, we commented on FEMA’s full suite of 17 fiscal year 2010 preparedness programs, including the four programs in this review, and noted that FEMA needed to improve oversight and coordination of its grant awards. ensure that these four grant programs, which distributed over $20 billion dollars in funding to grant recipients from fiscal years 2002 through 2011, are allocating resources effectively. Table 2 below describes the basic purposes, the types of projects funded, and the eligible applicants of the SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and TSGP programs. GAO-11-318SP. Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) UASI provides federal assistance to address the unique needs of high- threat, high-density urban areas, and assists them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) PSGP provides federal assistance to strengthen the security of the nation’s ports against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks by supporting increased port wide risk management, enhanced domain awareness, training and exercises, and expanded port recovery capabilities. Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) TSGP 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. SAA/ 50 states, DC, and territories. Port Areas: Groups I and II (highest risk); Group III and “All Other Port Areas” (lower risk). Selected transit agencies and ferry systems within high risk urban areas. allocate UASI funds to port and transit stakeholders In fiscal year 2011, Tier I UASI areas included the 11 highest risk urban areas and were allocated about 82 percent of the total UASI funding available; Tier II included the other 20 candidate areas and were allocated the remaining 18 percent funding. Tier I and II Urban Area are determined using a DHS risk model that incorporates threat, vulnerability, and consequence. A DHS risk model determines the port areas at high risk of a terrorist attack and DHS places them in either Group I (highest risk group), Group II (next highest risk group) or Group III. In fiscal year 2011, there were 7 port areas in Group I and 48 port areas in Group II. Port areas in Group I are considered to be the highest risk port areas in the nation.