The Homeland Security Act established the Office of National Capital Region Coordination within the Department of Homeland Security. The ONCRC is responsible for overseeing and coordinating federal programs for and relationships with state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR and for assessing and advocating for the resources needed by state, local, and regional authorities in the NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland. One of the ONCRC mandates is to coordinate with federal, state, local, 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. In our earlier work, we reported that the ONCRC and the NCR faced interrelated challenges in managing federal funds in a way that maximizes the increase in first responder capacities and preparedness while minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of expenditures. One of these challenges included a coordinated regionwide plan for establishing first responder performance goals, needs, and priorities, and assessing the benefits of expenditures in enhancing first responder capabilities. All states and urban areas are to align existing preparedness strategies within the National Preparedness Goal’s eight national priorities. An overarching national priority for the National Preparedness Goal is the embracing of regional approaches to building, sustaining, and sharing capabilities at all levels of government. DHS required states and urban areas, including the NCR, to assess their preparedness needs by reviewing their existing programs and capabilities and using those findings to develop a plan and formal investment justification outlining major statewide, sub-state, or interstate initiatives for which they will seek federal funding under the Homeland Security Grant Program. The target capabilities are intended to serve as a benchmark against which states, regions, and localities can measure their own capabilities. According to DHS, the funding initiatives are to focus efforts on how to build and sustain programs and capabilities within and across state boundaries while aligning with the National Preparedness Goal and national priorities. In fiscal year 2006 DHS funding guidance, regional collaboration included specific implementation benchmarks. These benchmarks included (1) formalizing mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities and states to share equipment, personnel, and facilities during emergencies; (2) conducting exercises of the execution of mutual aid agreements to identify the challenges and familiarize officials with resources that are available in the region; and (3) coordinating homeland security preparedness assistance expenditures and planning efforts on a regional basis to avoid duplicative or inconsistent investments. In earlier work on effective regional coordination for emergency preparedness, we defined regional coordination as the use of governmental resources in a complementary way toward goals and objectives that are mutually agreed upon by various stakeholders in a region. In later work for this Committee on federal agency collaboration, we defined collaboration in a similar manner, defining it as any joint activity by two or more organizations intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the organizations act alone. Successful coordination or collaboration occurs not only vertically among federal, state, and local governments, but also across jurisdictions within regions. In the coordination or collaborative effort, strategic plans can be effective tools to focus resources and efforts to address problems through features such as goals and objectives that are measurable and quantifiable. By specifying goals and objectives, plans can also give planners and decision makers a structure for allocating funding to those goals and objectives. A well-defined, comprehensive homeland security strategic plan for the NCR is essential for assuring that the region is prepared for the risks it faces. In advance of our March 2006 testimony, Office of the National Capital Region Coordination officials provided us with several documents that they said when taken as a whole constituted the basic elements of NCR’s strategic plan, such as a November 2005 document containing information on NCR strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives and February and March 2006 documents related to homeland security grant program funding. In our testimony, we outlined desirable characteristics for a strategic plan based on past work. The desirable characteristics, adjusted for a regional strategy, are Purpose, scope, and methodology that address why the strategy was produced, the scope of its coverage, and the process by which it was developed. Problem definition and risk assessment that address the particular regional problems and threats the strategy is directed towards. Goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures that address what the strategy is trying to achieve, steps to achieve those results, as well as the priorities, milestones, and performance measures to gauge results. Resources, investments, and risk management that address what the strategy will cost, the sources and types of resources and investments needed, and where resources and investments should be targeted by balancing risk reductions and costs. Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination that address who will be implementing the strategy, what their roles will be compared to those of others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate their efforts. Integration and implementation that address how a regional strategy relates to other strategies’ goals, objectives and activities, and to state and local governments within their region and their plans to implement the strategy. The plan’s structure contains the six characteristics and related elements that we identified in earlier work as desirable in a national strategy that would also be useful for a regional approach to homeland security strategic planning. Instead of the multiple documents provided in advance of our March 2006 testimony, the plan is now one document with three parts—an overview, a core plan, and appendices with more detailed information. The core plan includes information on purpose, scope, and methodology; goals and objectives; problem definition and risk assessment; implementation and sustainment of the strategic plan, including organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and alignment with other strategies and planning efforts. The appendix document provides extensive information on initiatives, including priorities, rationale, key tasks and programs, estimates of costs and cost assumptions, types of resources and investments, time frame, the lead organization responsible for each initiative, and performance assessment information, including measures, baselines, and targets. The plan will be reviewed and updated on a 3-year cycle. However, the substance of the information within several of the six characteristics could be further strengthened as the plan is reviewed and revised to enable the NCR jurisdictions set clear priorities and sustain their collaborative efforts. As I will point out, several of our observations regarding improvements are the same as those we provided in our March 2006 testimony. The first desirable characteristic is purpose, scope, and methodology— addressing why the strategy was produced, the scope of its coverage, and the process by which it was developed. Elements of this characteristic include, for example, what major functions, mission areas, or activities it covers; principles or theories that guided its development; and the process to produce the strategy. The plan includes a section on purpose, scope, and methodology. For example, according to the strategic plan document, the plan is intended to provide a framework and guidance for programming, budgeting, and execution of homeland security programs in the NCR over the next 3 years and serve as the basis for planning for the next 5 years. Scope information discusses regionwide mission areas and initiatives and notes that the strategic plan is not an operational plan and is not a replacement for local and state emergency operations plan. Its purpose is not to be an investment plan and, therefore, does not allocate funding to any initiatives or change the funding, budgeting, and resource allocation processes for individual funding sources. The plan describes its development by the NCR Partners—a group consisting of the NCR’s local, state, regional, and federal entities; citizen community groups; private-sector organizations; non-profit organizations; and non-governmental organizations. The plan describes the consensus- based process guided by the NCR’s Homeland Security Senior Policy Group (SPG). The second desirable characteristic is problem definition and risk assessment—addressing the particular regional problems and threats the strategy is directed toward. Elements of this characteristic include, for example, a discussion or definition of problems, their causes, and operating environment, and risk assessment, including an analysis of threats and vulnerabilities. The plan describes the approach used to identify threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences of the risks facing the region. The plan focuses attention and resources on initiatives that address the highest risks for the region. The document states that numerous gap and shortfall analyses, conducted by the NCR’s homeland security senior leaders and independent analysts, helped define the plan’s four goals. Further, it is stated that each state jurisdiction also completed an extensive hazard analysis. Although the plan states that a combined risk- and capabilities-based approach was used, it also recognizes the need for a more formal, in-depth risk assessment based on a common framework and includes a major priority initiative to meet this need. The plan states that over the past few years, several vulnerability assessments have been completed for the NCR and its member institutions, but our assessment of the plan indicates that information from past assessments may not have been fully utilized. According to the plan, one initiative calls for the development of a NCR risk assessment methodology and a regionwide threat analysis, leveraging assessments and analyses to date conducted by the states, local jurisdictions, and federal partners. Another initiative is to create a high priority list of recommended critical infrastructure protective actions based on security assessment findings already completed and shared with the NCR. It is unfortunate that the strategic plan’s goals do not yet reflect the completion and maintenance of a comprehensive, integrated risk assessment for the region. We noted in our March 2006 testimony that in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the creation of the ONCRC in 2003, we would have expected that the vast majority of risk assessment work should have been completed. An ongoing risk assessment methodology should be in place to identify emerging risks. Until the new risk assessment is completed, the plan states the NCR is utilizing a compilation of regional gaps in capabilities, some the same as those identified in the EMAP assessment, considered alongside threat and impact factors, in developing strategic plan goals, objectives and prioritization of initiatives.