The act also authorizes (1) funds for DOD to assist the Secretary of Health and Human Services in establishing Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams (MMST) to help improve local jurisdictions’ medical response capabilities for a WMD incident; (2) a telephonic link to provide data and expert advice for the use of state and local officials responding to emergencies involving WMD; (3) a rapid response information system, including an inventory of rapid response assets and a database on chemical and biological materials; and (4) a chemical/biological rapid response team. Cities Benefit From Domestic Preparedness Program

Cities that have received training under the Domestic Preparedness Program have a greater awareness of how to respond to a potential chemical or biological terrorist incident. Local officials praised the training program content, instructors, and materials as well as DOD’s willingness to act on constructive criticism and adjust the courses. They also credited the program with bringing local, state, and federal regional emergency response agencies together into a closer working relationship. As authorized under the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation, DOD is in the process of providing $300,000 in training and operational equipment—personal protection, detection, decontamination, and training aids—selected by each city after it is trained. As of June 1998, nine cities had received equipment and other cities were developing their lists. Figure 2 shows the location of the cities nationwide and the clustering effect resulting from DOD’s decision to base training delivery on city population. Figure 3 shows 14 clusters of 44 different cities within 30 miles of at least 1 other program city, or 37 percent of the total number of cities, that DOD selected for the program. 2312 (e)), DOD provided equipment as a 5-year renewable loan for training purposes rather than giving or granting equipment to the cities. Under the terms of the loan agreement, cities are to repair, maintain, and replace the equipment and are to use it only for training purposes. Further, expectations have been raised among some local officials that the federal government may eventually provide funds to sustain the program, if not to provide even more equipment toward meeting cities’ perceived operational requirements. Strategy Needed to Coordinate and Focus Multiple Training, Equipment, and Response Elements

Some local officials viewed the growing number of WMD consequence management training programs, including the Domestic Preparedness Program, the Department of Justice and FEMA courses, FEMA Emergency Management Institute courses, National Fire Academy courses, and a National Guard Bureau’s National Interagency Counterdrug Institute course, as evidence of a fragmented and possibly wasteful federal approach toward combating terrorism. Similarly, multiple programs with equipment segments—such as the separate DOD and PHS initiatives and the new Department of Justice equipment grant program—are causing frustration and confusion at the local level and are resulting in further complaints that the federal government is unfocused and has no coordinated plan or defined end state for domestic preparedness. The separation of the two equipment packages also required local officials to deal with two federal agencies’ differing requirements and procedures. DOD did not agree with our recommendation to refocus the Domestic Preparedness Program or that Congress should consider amending the program’s legislation to allow greater flexibility on the provision of equipment to local jurisdictions. 5. 7. The report discusses the design and implementation of DOD’s training program. 8. 6. 9, 1998). 15, 1997).
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the status and other aspects of the Domestic Preparedness Program, focusing on: (1) the training and other benefits offered to cities under the program; and (2) the methodology for designing and implementing the program, including the way in which cities were selected to participate, how cities' capabilities and needs were assessed, and the effectiveness of interagency coordination on this and other similar consequence management training and equipment programs.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the training and equipment that the Department of Defense (DOD) is providing to cities through the Domestic Preparedness Program have clearly increased cities' awareness of and should better prepare them to deal with a potential chemical or biological terrorist incident; (2) local officials in the seven cities GAO visited praised the training program's content, instructors, and materials as well as DOD's willingness to modify the program based on suggestions from local officials; (3) they also credited the program with bringing local, state, and federal regional emergency response agencies together into a closer working relationship; (4) in designing the training and equipment program, DOD selected 120 cities based solely on city population; (5) this decision resulted in 14 clusters of 44 cities within 30 miles of at least one other city selected; (6) by dealing with cities, DOD did not build upon the states' existing emergency management and training structures; (7) had it used existing structures that reflect how emergency response is actually organized, DOD could have consolidated training and equipment purchases to cover more jurisdictions in fewer locations than presently planned, at less cost; (8) DOD's loan of equipment in support of the training program has caused frustration and confusion among local officials; (9) the legislation authorized DOD to lend equipment to local jurisdictions, and DOD established a 5-year renewable loan agreement to govern the provision of about $300,000 worth of equipment to each city; (10) this agreement restricts the use of the equipment to training rather than operational purposes and requires the cities to repair, maintain, and replace the equipment; (11) cities were concerned about the lack of federal sustainment money to maintain, repair, and replace the equipment; (12) the program has raised expectations among some local officials that the federal government may provide additional funding for operational equipment; (13) the interagency coordination process provided a valuable information-sharing forum but was of limited success in helping steer the design and development of the program; (14) federal agencies' individual efforts to enhance consequence management of possible incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD) terrorism are not guided by an overarching strategy for achieving a defined end state; and (15) local officials in most of the cities raised the issue that the many WMD training, equipment, and consequence management programs are evidence of a fragmented and wasteful federal approach toward combating terrorism.