Historically, the American governance system, divided into federal, state, and local jurisdictions, does not provide a natural vehicle for addressing public policy issues from a regional, multijurisdictional perspective. The autonomy of local jurisdictions and competing priorities within and among them can make regional coordination difficult. Efforts that seek to overcome these challenges to coordinate regionally must take into account the different operational structures and civic traditions of states and municipalities. For example, states differ in their relationship to local governments and their promotion of regional infrastructures. Local municipalities differ in their history of multijurisdiction cooperation. Some local jurisdictions have histories of mutual aid agreements and working together, while in other regions federal homeland security programs may be bringing partners together across jurisdictions to conduct planning efforts for the first time. As used in this report, regional coordination refers to the use of governmental resources in a complementary way toward goals and objectives that are mutually agreed upon by various stakeholders in a region. Regional coordination can also help to overcome the fragmented nature of federal programs and grants available to state and local entities. Successful coordination occurs not only vertically among federal, state, and local governments but also horizontally within regions. The effective alignment of resources for the security of communities could require planning across jurisdictional boundaries; neighboring jurisdictions may be affected by an emergency situation in many potential ways, from implementation of mutual aid agreements, to accepting evacuated residents, to traffic disruptions. Our work has previously noted the concerns of state and local governments about fragmented federal grant programs with burdensome application processes that are complicated by the inconsistency across programs. State and local governments manage multiple funding sources for distinct but often similar purposes. For instance, GAO identified 25 emergency preparedness programs that provided funding to the NCR. The short history of regional coordination for homeland security is characterized by attempts of federal, state, and local governments to overcome a fragmented federal grant system and local jurisdictional barriers to assess needs, fill gaps, and plan for effective prevention and emergency response. GAO has consistently called for the development of a truly national, rather than purely federal, strategy. For example, in testimony given in 2003, GAO highlighted multiple barriers to addressing one basic area of preparedness—interoperable communications systems—including the lack of effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. Another GAO study of bioterrorism preparedness found that although progress had been made in local planning, regional planning involving multiple municipalities, counties, or jurisdictions in neighboring states lagged. In July 2002, the President issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security, which emphasized a shared responsibility for security involving close cooperation among all levels of government. To enhance emergency preparedness, the strategy called for systems that avoid duplication and increase coordination to better align public and private resources for homeland security. With the creation of DHS and the development of the National Strategy, the federal government has developed several programs and provided financial assistance to improve state and local governments’ ability to prevent and respond to the threat of terrorism. These grant programs demonstrate a variety of approaches. For example, all states are eligible for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to update and implement their state Homeland Security Strategy. The UASI provides support to metropolitan areas designated by DHS as high-threat areas. The funds are distributed based on a formula that considers critical infrastructure, population density, assessment of threats, and other factors. DHS’ UASI program combines the elements of threat-based assessment and funding with regional planning. UASI programs must create a working group with representation from the region that will be responsible for coordinating development and implementation of program elements. Before funding can be distributed, DHS also requires each UASI program to develop and submit a strategic plan that outlines the region’s common goals, objectives, and steps for implementation. The strategy is intended to provide each program with direction for enhancing regional capability and capacity to prevent and reduce vulnerability. UASI funds can be used to purchase a range of goods and services to enhance the preparedness of first responders, including approved equipment, preparedness plans, exercises, and training. Other federal programs that require regional coordination may be instructive for homeland security. In the area of transportation planning, the federal government has required states to establish MPOs to address regional transportation impact and needs. Established in response to federal planning requirements dating back to 1962, MPOs are multijurisdictional regional bodies composed of local elected officials and public agency representatives who review and approve transportation investments in metropolitan areas as a condition for federal highway and transit funding. In the area of environmental planning, the Clean Water Act directs EPA to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in an estuary system. Congress established EPA’s National Estuary Program in 1987 to improve the quality of estuaries of national importance. To be selected for the National Estuary Program, estuaries must be nominated by state governors and demonstrate existing regional infrastructure with the capacity to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Water Act. As corroborated by officials with whom we met, collaborative regional organizations that include a wide range of stakeholders from multiple jurisdictions and disciplines contribute to successful regional coordination for a variety of public programs. In addition, effective strategic planning that includes measurable objectives appropriately aligned with resources is necessary for fostering regional approaches that enhance emergency preparedness and achieve other public goals. The application of standards, where existent, to the planning process can help to define and measure a baseline status (e.g., a baseline of preparedness), a desired level of performance (e.g., preparedness levels that are to be achieved), and a gap between the baseline and desired level that would be the focus of a program’s efforts. When regional organizations are structured so that they include a wide range of stakeholders and promote collaborative decision making, they can advance regional coordination by creating a forum for those stakeholders to build rapport, solve problems regarding issues of mutual concern, and engage in information and resource sharing. Collaborative problem identification and problem solving promotes cooperation in planning efforts to address public problems. Collaborative decision making can encourage decisions that preclude one party from dominating decisions about problems, potential solutions, programmatic goals and objectives, and funding allocations; instead, such decisions are made with input from many. Emergency management, transportation, and estuary program officials reported that regional organizations enabled their regions to work together on a variety of emergency preparedness, environmental, and transportation issues. In the emergency preparedness area, the UASI working group in the NCR has achieved multijurisdictional agreement on regional plans that contain 21 specific efforts to be funded in equipment, training, exercises, and planning to improve the NCR’s preparedness regionwide, not just to benefit individual jurisdictions. Also in the NCR, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments promotes collaborative transportation decision making by requiring the majority of the area’s multijurisdictional transportation planning board to support a transportation plan that specifies projects to be funded that are intended to address the region’s traffic congestion and air quality problems—seen as being among the worst in the nation. The region’s long-range transportation improvement plan contained agreements on such projects as road improvements associated with rebuilding the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Similarly, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program has restored a net increase of about 850 acres of sea grasses on the Tampa Bay seabed since the program’s inception, or about 6 percent of the 14,000 total acreage to be restored. Collaborative decisions made by many stakeholders represented in regional organizations can formulate mutually agreed-upon responses to public policy problems. The collaborative experiences we observed in the Dallas-Fort Worth area provided examples of how regional organizations can aid in solving problems. For example, the Dallas-Fort Worth’s Regional Emergency Managers Group has served as a forum for the region’s emergency preparedness officials to analyze, plan for, and make decisions about various regional initiatives, such as improving interjurisdictional communications interoperability. Within this group, an associated subgroup explored technical issues related to communications interoperability. The Regional Emergency Managers Group evaluated technology options and is creating a regional purchasing plan to facilitate the purchase of interoperable communications equipment. Without interoperable radios and other communications equipment, police and fire departments in different jurisdictions cannot easily communicate when responding to an emergency. Collaborative efforts through regional organizations can also result in the integration of plans and programs that are implemented by individual jurisdictions. In Dallas-Fort Worth, local first responder agencies built upon the established working relationships and their trust of the local council of governments to enhance regional coordination of homeland security. For example, the City of Dallas contracted with the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) to facilitate the development of the UASI strategy. In addition, most of the jurisdictional and private sector stakeholders had their own emergency preparedness plans that were not integrated. Acting upon a request from local officials, NCTCOG initiated a process to coordinate and integrate these various plans that reflected the NCTCOG’s reputation as an impartial and fair arbiter. The resulting plan identifies the roles of the various first responder agencies across jurisdictional boundaries, thereby increasing the police, fire, and emergency medical resources that can respond to an emergency. Regional organizations can also facilitate coordination by fostering information and resource sharing. For example, in response to problems coordinating the construction schedules on roads in the New York-New Jersey region, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey created the Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee (TRANSCOM) in 1986—a coalition of 18 independent transportation and public safety agencies in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. TRANSCOM’s significance was exhibited on September 11, 2001, when it facilitated efforts among member agencies such as the Port Authority, New Jersey State Police, New Jersey Transit, New Jersey Department of Transportation, and New Jersey Turnpike to reopen a major Manhattan bus terminal to transport thousands of people home.