FEBs were established by a Presidential Directive in 1961 to improve coordination among federal activities and programs outside Washington, D.C. The boards’ overall mission includes supporting and promoting national initiatives and responding to the local needs of federal agencies and their communities. They provide a point of coordination for the development and operation of federal programs having common characteristics. Approximately 85 percent of all federal employees work outside the greater Washington, D.C., area, and the number of FEBs has grown from 10 to 28 over the past 46 years. When President Kennedy established the FEBs, they were located in the major cities in each of the 10 Civil Service Commission administrative regions. He later added 2 more boards, while President Johnson authorized 3 more, President Nixon added 10, and President Ford added 1. Two more boards were added by OPM in the 1990s bringing the total number of boards to 28. Figure 1 shows the metropolitan areas where the 28 boards are located. According to the regulations that guide the FEBs, the Director of OPM is responsible for overseeing and directing the operations of all of the FEBs consistent with the law and with the directives of the President. The boards are composed of the federal field office agency heads and military commanders in their cities, and the regulations state that each FEB should have a chair elected by the FEB members to serve a term not to exceed a year. The regulations also state that the boards should be governed by bylaws or other rules for their internal governance that are developed for each board. Although through Presidential Directive FEB membership is mandatory for the senior agency officials within the FEB’s geographic boundaries, the boards have no independent authority and they rely on the voluntary cooperation of their members to accomplish their goals. The FEB funding structure is unusual within the federal government. The boards have no legislative charter and receive no congressional appropriation. Rather, each FEB is supported by a host agency, usually the agency with the greatest number of employees in the region. These host agencies provide varying levels of staffing, usually one or two full-time positions—an executive director and an executive assistant. Some agencies also temporarily detail employees to the FEB staff to assist their local boards and to provide developmental opportunities for their employees. Additionally, the FEBs are supported by member agencies through contribution of funds as well as in-kind support, such as office space, personal computers, telephone lines, and Internet access. In 2006, OPM estimated the cost of FEB operations at approximately $6 million. To assist in standardizing emergency activities across the FEB system, OPM and the FEBs are establishing an emergency preparedness, security, and employee safety set of activities with performance measures that will be common to all of the boards. Although this effort is not completed, all of the selected FEBs were doing some emergency activities, such as hosting emergency preparedness training and exercises. For example, FEMA officials and the FEB representatives reported working together, often with the General Services Administration (GSA), on COOP training and exercises. In the past, some of the selected FEBs also played a role in responding to emergencies, although not all of the FEB representatives felt this was an appropriate activity for the boards. OPM and the FEBs are developing a multiyear strategic plan that will include a core function for the FEBs called emergency preparedness, security, and employee safety. The plan will include expectations and measures to assess how well each FEB is performing the activities. OPM has reported working with the boards on emergency planning issues since 2001, and in March 2004, a document summarizing the FEB role in emergency situations was finalized. The boards’ emergency support responsibilities include elements such as serving as a federal liaison between state and local emergency officials, establishing notification networks and interagency emergency preparedness councils, and hosting emergency preparedness exercises for agencies. A complete list of the FEB emergency support responsibilities detailed in the 2004 document can be found in appendix II. According to an OPM official, designating emergency support as a core function of the FEBs will further enhance the FEB role in emergency situations. OPM officials recognize that the FEBs can add value to regional preparedness efforts as vehicles for communication, coordination, and capacity building but acknowledge that the emergency activities of the FEBs have varied from board to board. The emergency support function is intended to provide consistent delivery of FEB emergency preparedness and response programs and activities for the federal workforce across the system of 28 boards. Not all of the representatives from the selected FEBs were convinced that the boards should have an expanded emergency service support role. Although all of the selected boards had some type of emergency communication network and emergency preparedness council in place, there was disagreement among the FEB representatives on the role the FEBs should play in emergency service support, particularly during an emergency. Without adequate staff and resources, some of the executive directors expressed concern that they will not be able to meet expectations. One executive director, for example, noted that because her local board lacked 24/7 communication and coordination abilities, it could not be held accountable for emergency service roles and responsibilities. Another executive director commented that there was a general expectation within the board’s metropolitan federal community that the FEB will assume a significant leadership role during a possible future emergency. However, he observed that limited and declining funding does not provide for an effective communication system. As a consequence, he felt this expectation was unrealistic and may contribute to major misunderstandings in the event of a significant emergency. On the other hand, several of the executive directors felt that the FEBs would be able to accomplish much more in this area with additional resources. For example, one executive director, with an emergency operations background, emphasized that if the boards were given dependable funding and increased stature within the federal government by formal recognition of their emergency support role, their return on investment in terms of emergency support functions would be substantial. In general, the consensus among those who viewed the FEBs as having an increased role in emergency operations was that with dependable funding and resources, all the boards in the FEB system could and should provide a similar level of emergency operations support. Several FEB representatives also stated that OPM leadership and direction in clearly outlining emergency operations expectations and OPM’s oversight of these activities would diminish uncertainty about the boards’ role in emergency support, both among the boards and federal agencies in general. They were encouraged by the designation of emergency services as a core FEB function. The FEBs are charged with providing timely and relevant information to support emergency preparedness and response coordination, and OPM expects the boards to establish notification networks and communications plans to be used in emergency and nonemergency situations. The boards are also expected to disseminate relevant information received from OPM and other agencies regarding emergency preparedness information and to relay local emergency situation information to parties such as OPM, FEB members, media, and state and local government authorities. FEB representatives generally viewed the boards as an important communications link between Washington and the field and among field agencies. For example, the Atlanta FEB’s executive director described the boards as a conduit for both emergency and nonemergency information to member agencies through e-mail, telephone, and Web sites. While many of the items needing dissemination are also passed through normal agency channels, several FEB representatives noted that it usually takes longer for communication to be received through their agency headquarters than through the FEB channel. The Oklahoma FEB chair described the FEBs as central depositories that receive information from headquarters and quickly disseminate that information to the field, reducing the information gap between Washington, D.C., and the rest of the country. Previously, much of the emergency support responsibility of FEBs was in providing communication regarding hazardous and inclement weather conditions. Almost all of the selected FEBs reported this as an emergency activity for which they continue to have responsibility. For example, the Atlanta FEB executive director said that during potential weather emergencies, she and members of the Policy and Steering Committee from GSA and the National Weather Service gather information about the forecast and road conditions. The executive director, FEB chair, and members of the Policy and Steering Committee then conduct a 4:00 a.m. conference call to make a decision about suggested agency closings or delayed reporting. Following the conference call, the FEB executive director posts a message on the board’s emergency hazard line that designated agency employees can check. This message is also posted to the FEB general telephone line and the FEB Web site. Several of the executive directors emphasized that they can only make recommendations to the federal agencies in their areas of service, but they cannot mandate that federal agencies close for weather or other emergencies. Although each of the selected boards we reviewed reported conducting communications activities as a key part of its emergency support service, they used a number of different types of communication systems. The Boston FEB, for example, operates two electronic communications mechanisms to be in contact with senior federal agency officials during local and national emergencies, both during and after hours. The first is an Internet portal, developed and maintained by the DHS Federal Protective Service, which is designed to provide senior agency officials access to up- to-date information, such as threat assessments and emergency weather. The second communications system is called EDIAL, housed and maintained by the First U.S. Coast Guard District’s 24-hour command system. EDIAL, funded for the FEB by GSA New England, enables the board to communicate with agency officials simultaneously via an electronic telephone message in times of emergency. Several of the executive directors mentioned the importance of having access to the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) cards, a White House-directed emergency phone service. GETS provides emergency preparedness personnel a high probability of completion for their phone calls when the probability of completing a call through normal channels is significantly decreased. The majority of the selected boards reported keeping an emergency contact list for officials in their member agencies.