The Domestic Preparedness Program is aimed at enhancing domestic preparedness to respond to and manage the consequences of potential terrorist WMD incidents. The authorizing legislation designated DOD as lead agency, and participating agencies include FEMA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Health and Human Services’ Public Health Service, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Army’s Chemical and Biological Defense Command designed a “train-the-trainer” program to build on the existing knowledge and capabilities of local first responders—fire, law enforcement, and medical personnel and hazardous materials technicians—who would deal with a WMD incident during the first hours. The legislation also designated funds for the Public Health Service to establish Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams to help improve cities’ medical response to a WMD incident. Other aspects of the program included systems to provide information and advice to state and local officials and a chemical/biological rapid response team. DOD received $36 million in fiscal year 1997 to implement its part of the program, and the Public Health Service received an additional $6.6 million. DOD’s fiscal year 1998 and 1999 budgets estimate that $43 million and $50 million, respectively, will be needed to continue the program. DOD expects the last 2 years of the 5-year program to cost about $14 million to $15 million each year, and continuing an exercise program for 2 more years could add another $10 million. Thus, the total projected program cost for the DOD segment could exceed $167 million. This does not include the costs of the Public Health Service, which hopes to establish and equip (an average of $350,000 of equipment and pharmaceuticals per city) Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams in all 120 program cities. In addition to the $6.6 million that the Public Health Service initially received, it spent $3.6 million in fiscal year 1997 to expand the number of strike teams. The Public Health Service received no additional funding in fiscal year 1998, but it estimates program requirements at $85 million for the remaining 93 cities. Domestic Preparedness Program training gives first responders a greater awareness of how to deal with WMD terrorist incidents. Local officials in the seven cities we visited praised the training program content, instructors, and materials as well as DOD’s willingness to modify it based on suggestions from local officials. They also credited the program with bringing local, state, and federal regional emergency response agencies together into a closer working relationship. By December 31, 1998, DOD expects to have trained about one-third of the 120 cities it selected for the program. All training is to be complete in 2001. The first responders trained are expected to train other emergency responders through follow-on courses. The cities we visited were planning to institutionalize various adaptations of the WMD training, primarily in their fire and law enforcement training academies. A related field exercise program to allow cities to test their response capabilities also has begun. DOD decided to select cities based on core city population. It also decided to select 120 cities, which equates to all U.S. cities with a population of over 144,000 according to the 1990 census. The 120 cities represent about 22 percent of the U.S. population and cover at least 1 city in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Twelve states and the U.S. territories have no cities in the program, and 25 percent of the cities are in California and Texas. DOD took a city approach because it wanted to deal with a single governmental entity that could select the most appropriate personnel for training and receive equipment. In selecting the cities DOD did not take into account a city’s level of preparedness or financial need. There was also no analysis to evaluate the extent to which the cities selected for the program were at risk of a terrorist attack warranting an increased level of preparedness, or whether a smaller city with high risk factors might have been excluded from the program due to its lower population. In fact, in none of the seven cities we visited did the FBI determine there was a credible threat of a WMD attack, which would be one factor considered in a threat and risk assessment. In our April 1998 report, we cited several public and private sector entities that use or recommend threat and risk assessment processes to establish requirements and target investments for reducing risk. Although we recognize there are challenges to doing threat and risk assessments of program cities, we believe that difficulties can be overcome through federal-city collaboration and that these assessments would provide a tool for making decisions about a prudent level of investment to reduce risks. In implementing the Domestic Preparedness Program, DOD could leverage state emergency management structures, mutual aid agreements among local jurisdictions, or other collaborative arrangements for emergency response. By delivering the program to cities based on population size, DOD is replicating training in nearby cities that might be part of the same response system or mutual aid area. Because of such mutual aid agreements and response districts or regions—as well as traditional state roles in both training and the established federal response system—a more consolidated approach could have resulted in fewer training iterations. Training in fewer locations while taking advantage of existing emergency response structures could hasten the accomplishment of program goals and reinforce local response integration. Such an approach also could cover a greater percentage of the population and make effective use of existing emergency management training venues. Under this approach, WMD training would be delivered over the long term through existing state training systems. As shown in appendix I, DOD’s city approach resulted in clusters of nearby cities, each of which is to receive training and equipment. Our analysis shows that 14 clusters of 44 different cities, or 37 percent of the total number of the cities selected for the program, are within 30 miles of at least one other program city. Southern California is a key example of the clustering effect where training efficiencies could be gained. Appendix II shows California’s mutual aid regions. Consistent with the statewide standardized emergency management system involving countywide operational areas within 6 mutual aid regions, the Los Angeles County sheriff is in charge of the consolidated interagency response to an incident occurring in any of the county’s 88 local jurisdictions and 136 unincorporated areas. These include Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Glendale, all of which are treated separately in the program. Further, the nearby cities of Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, San Bernardino, and Riverside are within 30 miles of at least one other program city and also are treated separately. Through mutual aid and under California’s statewide system, Los Angeles county conceivably could assist or be assisted by these other neighboring program cities or any other jurisdictions in the state in the event of a major incident. Similarly, as shown in appendix III, Virginia has 13 regional hazardous materials teams to respond to a WMD incident. Through these regional teams operating under state control, four adjacent program cities—Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News, and Chesapeake—would assist one another along with Portsmouth and Hampton, which are not program cities. Texas has four program cities less than 30 miles from each other: Dallas, Fort Worth, Irving, and Arlington. In yet another example, the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area established a Metropolitan Medical Strike Team with a council-of-governments approach involving six jurisdictions in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia—these jurisdictions would support each other in the event of a WMD incident. DOD treats Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Virginia, separately for the training and equipment segments of the program. Similar strike teams in other cities are designed to be integrated into the local emergency response and medical systems for that particular area. In response to comments by state and local officials, DOD began holding regional meetings to introduce the program. Nevertheless, each program city still receives its own training and equipment package. Cities may invite representatives from neighboring jurisdictions and state agencies, but classroom space is limited, and if the neighboring city is a program city, it will eventually receive its own on-site training. DOD could have used state structures to deliver its training. Some states have academies and institutes to train first responders and emergency managers. For example, California’s Specialized Training Institute provides emergency management training to first responders statewide. In Texas, the Division of Emergency Management conducts training for local first responders, and fire protection training is provided through the Texas Engineering Extension Service. Under current circumstances, the individual cities whose personnel were trained as trainers are to ensure that the appropriate courses are delivered to rank-and-file emergency response personnel. Cities we visited were adapting the DOD courses differently and using different venues to deliver the training. Cities planned to deliver portions of the courses both directly and through their local academies. One delivery method that DOD could consider to reach large numbers of first responders while minimizing travel costs is distance learning. The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, for example, has used distance learning techniques through satellite-to-television links. The legislation authorizes DOD to lend rather than give or grant training equipment to each city. The loan agreement between DOD and the cities specifies that the loan is for 5 years and that the cities are to repair, maintain, and replace the equipment. The loan agreement terms have caused frustration and confusion among local officials. Some cities we visited viewed the acceptance of the equipment as tantamount to an unfunded federal mandate because DOD is providing no funds to sustain the equipment. At least two cities were reluctant to accept the equipment unless DOD would provide assurances that they could use it operationally and would not be asked to return it. Although such assurances conflict with the loan agreement terms, DOD officials acknowledged that cities could keep the equipment and use it operationally if necessary. DOD officials also pointed out that much of the equipment has no more than a 5-year useful life and is largely incompatible with standard military-specification equipment.