The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and consolidated most of the federal programs and agencies with responsibilities for emergency management into that agency. DHS serves as a federal partner to state and local governments in emergency management. DHS provides technical assistance and homeland security grant funding to states and local governments to enhance their emergency management efforts. States and local governments have the responsibility for spending DHS grant funds in accordance with DHS guidelines to meet local emergency management needs. In fiscal year 2006, DHS awarded $1.7 billion to states, urban areas, and territories to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other disasters. States and local governments may then provide a portion of this funding to a range of entities, as specified in DHS’s program guidance. As we have noted in prior reports, emergency management requires coordinated planning and implementation by a variety of participants. Effective emergency management requires identifying the hazards for which it is necessary to be prepared (risk assessments); establishing clear roles and responsibilities that are effectively communicated and well understood; and developing, maintaining, and mobilizing needed capabilities, such as people, skills, and equipment. The plans and capabilities should be tested and assessed through realistic exercises that identify strengths and areas that need improvement, with any needed changes made to both plans and capabilities. The hazards that school districts may face will vary across the country depending upon the natural hazards to which their particular areas are prone and an assessment of other risks for which they need to be prepared, such as pandemic influenza or the discharge of hazardous substances from nearby chemical or nuclear plants. Similarly, who should be involved in emergency planning and response for schools, and the roles of the various participants will vary by type and size of the emergency incident. For large-scale emergencies, effective response is likely to involve all levels of government—federal, state, and local— nongovernment entities, such as the Red Cross, and the private sector. Although no federal laws exist requiring school districts to have emergency management plans, most states reported having requirements for school emergency management planning; however, the federal government, along with states, provides financial and other resources for such planning. Education, DHS, and state governments provide funding for emergency management planning in schools. However, DHS program guidance does not clearly identify school districts as entities to which states and local governments may disburse grant funds. Not all states receiving DHS funding are aware that such funding could be disbursed to school districts. In addition to providing funding, the federal government assists school districts and schools in emergency management planning by providing other resources such as guidance, training, and equipment. Although there are no federal laws requiring school districts to have emergency management plans, many states reported having laws or other policies that do so. Congress has not enacted any broadly applicable laws requiring all school districts to have emergency management plans. While the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 provides that local education agencies (LEAs or school districts) applying for subgrants under the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program include in their grant applications an assurance that either they or their schools have “a plan for keeping schools safe and drug-free that includes...a crisis management plan for responding to violent or traumatic incidents on school grounds”, Education has not issued any regulations imposing such a requirement on all school districts. However, 32 of the states responding to our survey of state administering agencies and state education agencies reported having laws or other policies requiring school districts or schools to have a written emergency management plan (see fig. 1). Several state laws identify a broad range of specific emergencies that schools or districts are required to address in their plans, while many other states do not identify particular kinds of crises or use more general language to refer to the kinds of emergencies that plans must incorporate. Education and DHS provided some funding to school districts for emergency management. Education provides funding to some school districts specifically for emergency management planning through its Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM) Grant Program. Since fiscal year 2003, Education dispersed $130 million in such grants to over 400 of the over 17,000 school districts in the United States. These grant awards ranged from $68,875 to $1,365,087. DHS provides funding to states and local jurisdictions for emergency management planning, some of which can be provided to school districts or schools for emergency management planning. DHS officials told us that such funds are available through the State Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, and Citizen Corps grants. Five states— Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wyoming—reported that they provided approximately $14 million in DHS funding directly to school districts in these states during fiscal years 2003–2006. In addition, eight states and the District of Columbia reported that they provided DHS funding to local jurisdictions that then provided a portion of these funds to school districts or schools for emergency management planning. Although DHS officials told us that these three grant programs allow for the use of funds at the district or school level, the department’s program guidance does not clearly specify that school districts are among the entities to which state and local governments may disburse funds. As a result, some states may not be aware of their availability. State governments also provide state funds to school districts. Eleven of the 49 states responding to surveys we sent to state education and state administering agencies reported providing state funding to school districts for emergency management planning. The federal government also provides guidance, training, and equipment to school districts to assist in emergency management planning (see table 1). Education, DHS, and HHS have collaborated and developed recommended practices to assist in preparing for emergencies that can be applied to school districts. Some of these practices are shown in table 2. The type of guidance available from the federal government on topics related to these recommended practices varies significantly; in some instances, federal agencies provide detailed instructions on how to implement recommended practices while, in other instances, guidance is less detailed. We have also recognized the importance of certain of these practices in our prior reports on emergency management. We have noted the importance of realistic training exercises followed by a careful assessment of those exercises. Those with whom the school districts should coordinate and train will vary by the type and size of the emergency. For example, for a potential pandemic flu or other major infectious outbreak, planning and working with local health authorities is critical. In addition to the federal government, states provide guidance and training to school districts. Based on our survey of state administrative agencies and state education agencies, 47 states reported providing guidance and 37 states reported providing training. Some states also reported providing online resources that include guidance and training. Almost all school districts have taken steps to prepare for emergencies, including developing written plans, but some plans do not address federally recommended practices such as establishing procedures for special needs students and procedures for continued student education in the event of an extended closure. Additionally, many school districts do not have procedures for training regularly with first responders and community partners. Many school districts, those with and without emergency management plans, have undertaken activities to prepare for emergencies. Based on our survey of school districts, we estimate that 93 percent of all school districts conduct inspections of their school buildings and grounds to identify possible vulnerabilities in accordance with recommended practices. Of those school districts, 87 percent made security enhancements to their school facilities and grounds as a result of these inspections. Security enhancements included adding or enhancing equipment to communicate with school employees, strengthening the perimeter security of the school, and enhancing access controls. In addition to conducting vulnerability assessments, many school districts carry out a number of other activities to prepare for emergencies such as conducting some type of school drill or exercise and maintaining a storage location for and replenishing emergency supplies such as food, water, and first-aid supplies, as recommended. Additionally, school districts took responsibility for a number of activities to prepare for emergencies at the district level such as negotiating the use of school buildings as community shelters and identifying security needs in schools. These activities can vary by locality depending on community needs and include oversight, coordination with other entities, and training. Most school districts have developed written emergency management plans that address multiple hazards. Based on our survey of school districts, we estimate that 95 percent of all school districts have written emergency management plans with no statistical difference between urban and rural districts. Of those school districts that have written emergency plans, nearly all (99.6 percent) address multiple hazards in accordance with recommended practices to prepare for emergencies. However, the specific hazards addressed by plans vary. (See fig. 2.) In some instances, the hazards included in emergency plans are specific to local conditions, which is to be expected. The extent to which school districts’ emergency management plans and planning activities are consistent with other recommended practices varies: Develop Roles and Responsibilities for School Community Members. Based on our survey of school districts, most districts have written roles and responsibilities in their plans for staff such as superintendents, building engineers or custodians, principals, teachers, and nurses. Develop Roles and Responsibilities for First Responders and Community Partners. Based on our survey, we estimate that 43 percent of school districts use the Incident Command System (ICS)—established by DHS as part of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)— to establish the roles and responsibilities of school district officials, local first responders, and community partners during an emergency, in accordance with recommended practices. Develop Procedures for Communicating with Key Stakeholders. Central to district emergency plans is the inclusion of procedures for communicating with key stakeholders such as staff, parents, and students, including those who are Limited-English Proficient. Our survey finds that roughly three-quarters of all school districts have not included written procedures in their plans for communicating with Limited-English Proficient parents and students, in accordance with federally recommended practices. Develop Procedures for Special Needs Students. Although the number of special needs students in the schools is growing, our survey finds that an estimated 28 percent of school districts with emergency management plans do not have specific provisions for them in their emergency management plans.