The Coast  Guard and other federal agencies share their security responsibilities with  several local stakeholder groups. Interagency Operational Centers Involve Multiple Participants and Offer Another Means of Improving Information Sharing

Another approach at improving information sharing and port security  operations involves interagency operational centers—command centers  that bring together the intelligence and operational efforts of various  federal and nonfederal participants. These centers provide intelligence  information and real-time operational data from sensors, radars, and  cameras at one location to federal and nonfederal participants 24 hours a  day. The types of  information shared include assessments of vulnerabilities at specific port  locations, information about potential threats or suspicious activities, and  strategies the Coast Guard intends to use in protecting key infrastructure. Regardless of the structures and communication networks a committee  adopted, stakeholders at all four locations we reviewed agreed that the  committees fostered improved information sharing. However, the potential relationship between interagency  operational centers and the Coast Guard’s new sector command centers  remains to be determined, pending a Coast Guard report to Congress. Coast Guard Plans to Develop Sector Command Centers at Ports

The Coast Guard is planning to develop its own operational centers— called sector command centers—at additional ports. The primary reason given  for this was that Coast Guard field office officials did not clearly  understand their role in helping nonfederal officials apply for a security  clearance. The Coast Guard’s program does not have formal procedures  for using data to manage the program, but developing such procedures  would allow the Coast Guard to identify and deal with possible problems  in the future. Port stakeholders involved in the four area maritime security committees  consistently stated that the lack of federal security clearances for  nonfederal members was an impediment to effective information sharing. Coast Guard Has Taken Steps to Grant Additional Clearances to State, Local, and Industry Officials, but Efforts to Date Have Been Mixed

As part of its effort to improve information sharing at ports, the Coast  Guard initiated a program in July 2004 to sponsor security clearances for  members of area maritime security committees, but nonfederal officials  have been slow in submitting their applications for a security clearance. After receiving a draft of this report, the  Coast Guard finalized this guidance and sent it to field office officials in  early April 2005. In addition, as the Coast Guard’s  security clearance program evolves, participants on area maritime security  committees or in sector command centers may change over time, thus  highlighting the importance of having ways to raise the awareness of  nonfederal officials about the security clearance process. Conclusions

Effective information sharing among members of area maritime security  committees and participants in interagency operational centers can  enhance the partnership between federal and nonfederal officials, and it  can improve the leveraging of resources across jurisdictional boundaries  for deterring, preventing, or responding to a possible terrorist attack at the  nation’s ports. What impact have interagency operational centers had on information  sharing? What barriers, if any, have hindered improvements in information  sharing among port security stakeholders?
Why GAO Did This Study

Sharing information with nonfederal officials is an important tool in federal efforts to secure the nation's ports against a potential terrorist attack. The Coast Guard has lead responsibility in coordinating maritime information sharing efforts. The Coast Guard has established area maritime security committees--forums that involve federal and nonfederal officials who identify and address risks in a port. The Coast Guard and other agencies have sought to further enhance information sharing and port security operations by establishing interagency operational centers--command centers that tie together the efforts of federal and nonfederal participants. GAO was asked to review the efforts to see what impact the committees and interagency operational centers have had on improving information sharing and to identify any barriers that have hindered information sharing.

What GAO Found

Area maritime security committees provide a structure that improves information sharing among port security stakeholders. At the four port locations GAO visited, federal and nonfederal stakeholders said that the newly formed committees were an improvement over previous information sharing efforts. The types of information shared included assessments of vulnerabilities at port locations and strategies the Coast Guard intends to use in protecting key infrastructure. The three interagency operational centers established to date allow for even greater information sharing because the centers operate on a 24-hour-a-day basis, and they receive real-time information from data sources such as radars and sensors. The Coast Guard is planning to develop its own centers--called sector command centers--at up to 40 additional port locations to monitor information and to support its operations. The relationship between the interagency operational centers and the planned expansion of sector command centers remains to be determined. The major barrier hindering information sharing has been the lack of federal security clearances for nonfederal members of committees or centers. By February 2005--or 4 months after the Coast Guard developed a list of 359 committee members who needed a security clearance--28 of the 359 members had submitted the necessary paperwork for a security clearance. Coast Guard field officials did not clearly understand that they were responsible for contacting nonfederal officials about the clearance process. To deal with this, in early April 2005, the Coast Guard issued guidance to field offices that clarified their role. In addition, the Coast Guard did not have formal procedures that called for the use of data to monitor application trends. Developing such procedures would aid in identifying deficiencies in the future. As the Coast Guard proceeds with its program, another way to improve the submission of paperwork involves educating nonfederal officials about the clearance process.