Arguably, while each at-risk locality must be provided adequate resources to effectively fight this war, no single jurisdiction or response discipline can fight it alone. Effective homeland security efforts require continuous regional collaboration and coordination. Such an approach includes developing national guidelines and standards and monitoring and assessing preparedness against those standards to effectively manage risk. The National Strategy for Homeland Security, released in 2002 following the proposal for DHS, emphasized a shared national responsibility for security involving close cooperation among all levels of government and acknowledged the complexity of developing a coordinated approach within our federal system of government and among a broad range of organizations and institutions involved in homeland security. The national strategy highlighted the challenge of developing complementary systems that avoid unintended duplication and increase collaboration and coordination so that public and private resources are better aligned for homeland security. The national strategy established a framework for this approach by identifying critical mission areas with intergovernmental initiatives in each area. For example, the strategy identified such initiatives as modifying federal grant requirements and consolidating funding sources to state and local governments. The strategy further recognized the importance of assessing the capability of state and local governments, developing plans, and establishing standards and performance measures to achieve national preparedness goals. In addition, many aspects of DHS’ success depend on its maintaining and enhancing working relationships within the intergovernmental system as the department relies on state and local governments to accomplish its mission. The creation of DHS was an initial step toward reorganizing the federal government to respond to some of the intergovernmental challenges identified in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. The Homeland Security Act established ONCRC within DHS to oversee and coordinate federal programs for, and relationships with, federal, state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR. Specifically, ONCRC was mandated to coordinate the activities of DHS relating to NCR, including cooperating with the DHS’ Office for State and Local Government Coordination; coordinate with federal agencies in the NCR on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution of the federal role in domestic preparedness activities; coordinate with federal, state, and regional agencies and the private sector in NCR on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution of domestic preparedness activities among these agencies and entities; serve as a liaison between the federal government and state, local, and regional authorities, and private sector entities in NCR to facilitate access to federal grants and other programs. With regard to resource assessments and needs, the NCR’s responsibilities also include assessing and advocating for resources needed by state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland and submitting an annual report to Congress that (1) identifies resources required to fully implement homeland security efforts, (2) assesses progress in implementing homeland security efforts in the NCR, and (3) includes recommendations to Congress regarding additional resources needed to fully implement homeland security efforts in the NCR. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 16 separate federal grant programs conveyed about $340 million to state and local emergency management, law enforcement, fire, public health, and other emergency response agencies in NCR. Two funding sources—the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (almost $230 million) and the fiscal year 2003 Urban Area Security Initiative ($60.5 million) accounted for about 85 percent of those funds. The Urban Area Security Initiative funds were designated for regional use, and a plan has been developed for using the funds to benefit the region as a whole. These funds have been targeted for equipment ($26.5 million), planning ($12.4 million), exercises ($4 million), and administrative costs ($1.8 million), among other things. The other grant programs were not specifically designated for regional purposes, and spending for these funds was determined by individual local jurisdictions. These funds were available for such purposes as purchasing additional equipment and supplies for first responders; planning, coordinating, and evaluating exercises; training first responders; funding the emergency preparedness planning efforts and administration; and providing technical assistance. NCR jurisdictions reported using or planning to use these funds to purchase a range of equipment—for example, vehicles and communications equipment—supplies, training, and technical assistance services. In our report, we discuss issues associated with managing federal first responder grants in NCR, assessing gaps in first responder capacities and preparedness in the region, and the role of the Office for National Capital Region Coordination in coordinating and assessing efforts to enhance first responder capacity across NCR. Effectively managing first responder federal grants funds requires the ability to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of public funds. A strategic approach to homeland security includes identifying threats and managing risks, aligning resources to address them, and assessing progress in preparing for those threats and risks. As with other major policy areas, demonstrating the results of homeland security efforts includes developing and implementing strategies, establishing baselines, developing and implementing performance goals and data quality standards, collecting reliable data, analyzing the data, assessing the results, and taking action based on the results. The purpose of these efforts with regard to first responder grant funds to be able to answer three basic, but difficult, questions: For what types of threats and emergencies should first responders be prepared? What is required—for example, coordination, equipment, training—to be prepared for these threats and emergencies? How do first responders know that they have met their preparedness goals? NCR is an example of the difficulties of answering the second and third questions in particular. The region faces significant challenges in managing homeland security dollars. ONCRC and NCR jurisdictions face three interrelated challenges that limit their ability to jointly manage federal funds in a way that demonstrates increased first responder capacities and preparedness while minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of expenditures. First, a lack of preparedness standards for both equipment and performance means that it is difficult to assess first responder capabilities, identify gaps in those capabilities, and measure progress in closing those gaps. As in other areas of the nation generally, NCR does not have a set of accepted benchmarks (best practices) and performance goals that could be used to identify desired goals and determine whether first responders have the ability to respond to threats and emergencies with well-planned, well-coordinated, and effective efforts that involve police, fire, emergency medical, public health, and other personnel from multiple jurisdictions. Second, a strategic plan for the use of homeland security funds—whether in NCR or elsewhere—should be based on established goals, priorities, and measures, and align spending plans with those priorities and goals. At the time of our review, ONCRC had developed a regional spending plan for the Urban Area Security Initiative grants, but this plan was not part of a broader coordinated plan for spending federal grant funds and developing first responder capacity and preparedness in NCR. The lack of benchmarks and performance goals may contribute to difficulties in developing a coordinated region-wide plan for determining how to spend federal funds and assessing the benefits of that spending. Third, there is no established process or means for regularly and reliably collecting data on (1) the amounts of first responder grants available to each jurisdiction and (2) the budget plans and criteria used for determining spending allocations and budget priorities. Reliable data are needed to establish accountability, analyze gaps, and assess progress toward meeting established performance goals. Without such data, it is difficult to verify the results of preparedness assessments and to establish a baseline that could be used to develop plans to address outstanding needs. It should be noted that the fragmented nature of the multiple federal grants available to first responders—some awarded to states, some to localities, some directly to local first responder agencies—may make it more difficult to collect and maintain region-wide data on grant funds received and the use of those funds in NCR. Without national standards, guidance on likely threats and scenerios for which to be prepared, coordinated plans, and reliable data, it is difficult for us or ONCRC to determine what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency response capacities and preparedness within NCR. Determining the existence of gaps in NCR’s emergency preparedness is difficult currently because there is little baseline data on the region’s preparedness, and DHS’s Office for National Capital Region Coordination does not have information on how NCR localities used federal grant dollars to enhance their capacities or preparedness. Even if those data were available, a lack of standards against which to evaluate the data would also have made it difficult to assess any gaps. The Office for Domestic Preparedness collected information on regional security risks and needs for NCR jurisdictions, and ONCRC based funding decisions for the Urban Area Security Initiative on the results. However, as already noted, it is not clear how the Urban Area Security Initiative spending plan links to the actual and planned uses for the other funding sources that comprised about $279.5 million of the $340 million in federal homeland security grants to the NCR during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Each jurisdiction provided us with information on their perceived gaps and specific needs for improving emergency preparedness. However, there is no consistent method for identifying these gaps among jurisdictions within NCR. Several jurisdictions told us that they identify remaining gaps based on requests from emergency responder agencies. Other jurisdictions said they have established emergency management councils or task forces to review their preparedness needs and are developing a more strategic plan for funding those needs. Officials of most NCR jurisdictions commonly identified the need for more comprehensive and redundant communications systems and upgraded emergency operations centers. We recognize that NCR is a complex multijurisdictional area comprising the District of Columbia and surrounding county and city jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia. The region is the home to the federal government, many national landmarks, and military installations. Coordination within this region presents the challenge of working with numerous jurisdictions that vary in size, political organization, and experience with managing large emergencies.