Table 1 outlines the TSGP  allocations for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009. DHS Uses Elements of Risk to Allocate and Award Funds to Transit Agencies, but the Risk Model Can Be Strengthened and Transit Stakeholders Expressed Concerns about Funding Flexibility

DHS has established an approach for allocating and awarding TSGP funds  using a risk model that incorporates the elements of risk and is intended to  allocate funding to the highest-risk regions and transit agencies; however,  the model could be strengthened to measure variations in vulnerability  across regions. DHS’s TSGP Risk Model Incorporates Elements of Risk, but Could Be Strengthened to Measure Variations in Vulnerability

DHS uses a model to assess the risk to each transit agency region that  includes the three elements of risk––threat, vulnerability, and  consequence; however, the model does not measure variations in  vulnerability, which limits the model’s overall ability to assess risk. As  a result, officials reported that they were considering using transit agency  vulnerability assessment results as a source of vulnerability information. TSA and FEMA Lack Documented Roles and Responsibilities for Administering the TSGP, and Although Statutory Timeline Requirements Were Met, Little Money Has Been Expended

DHS has met the statutory timeline requirements in allocating and  awarding grants. However the two agencies that manage the TSGP—TSA  and FEMA—lack defined roles and responsibilities, and the approval of  grant projects and completion of administrative requirements for grants  awarded in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 took many months. TSA and FEMA have attempted to address  these delays by approving projects earlier in the grant process, issuing  guidance, and adding resources. However, there is no documentation articulating the working arrangement  between the two agencies. DHS Met Statutory Requirements to Release Grant Guidance and Act on Grant Applications, Although Some Projects Were Approved Months after the Award

DHS met the requirements of the TSGP to release grant guidance and act  on grant applications as defined by DHS; however, additional agency  actions are to be completed before specific transit agency projects and  funding levels are approved and transit agencies can begin projects. A Small Amount of Grant Funds Has Been Spent Because of the Length of Time to Make Funds Available

From fiscal years 2006 through 2008, DHS awarded about $755 million in  transit security grants; however, as of February 2009, only about $21  million, or 3 percent, of this total had been expended by transit agencies  largely because of TSA’s lengthy cooperative agreement process, the EHP  backlog, and delays in receiving disbursement approval from FEMA. Despite the concerns over funding delays, FEMA has not established  or communicated time frames for providing grant funding to transit  agencies once projects have been approved by TSA. In April 2004, we  reported that timely awarding of grant funds is imperative to provide the  intended benefit of the grant program. However, despite this role, FEMA does not have a  mechanism for systematically collecting data on the status of individual  grant projects throughout this review process, including tracking the  status of the reviews it conducts and the release of funds to transit  agencies. Although FEMA has systems to track financial information  related to all of its grant programs, these systems do not allow FEMA to  track the status of grant reviews, such as EHP reviews. Until TSA and FEMA collaborate  to develop a plan with related milestones for jointly measuring the  effectiveness of TSGP, it will be difficult for the agencies to provide  reasonable assurance that measures are being developed to ensure that  the program is achieving its stated purpose of protecting critical surface  transportation infrastructure and that accountability and effective  stewardship of public resources exist. Collaborate to develop a plan and milestones for measuring the  effectiveness of the TSGP and its administration. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to determine the extent to which (1)  Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) funds are allocated and awarded  based on risk, and grant requirements have changed since 2006; (2) the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has allocated, awarded, and  distributed TSGP grants in accordance with statutory deadlines and  leading practices for collaborating agencies; and  (3) DHS has evaluated  the effectiveness of the TSGP as well as investments made using funds  awarded through the TSGP. We obtained the Transportation Security Administration  (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) risk  analysis model for the TSGP for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
Why GAO Did This Study

From fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has allocated about $755 million dollars to transit agencies through its Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) to protect transit systems and the public from terrorist attacks. GAO was asked to evaluate the extent to which (1) TSGP funds are allocated and awarded based on risk; (2) DHS has allocated, awarded, and distributed TSGP grants in accordance with statutory deadlines and leading practices for collaborating agencies; and (3) DHS has evaluated the effectiveness of the TSGP and its investments. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed the TSGP risk model, fund allocation methodology and program documents, such as TSGP guidance, and interviewed DHS and transit officials, among other steps.

What GAO Found

DHS has used a risk analysis model to allocate TSGP funding and award grants to higher-risk transit agencies, although transit agency officials have expressed concerns about changes that have occurred since the TSGP's inception, such as revised priorities. The TSGP risk model includes all three elements of risk--threat, vulnerability, and consequence--but can be strengthened by measuring variations in vulnerability. DHS has held vulnerability constant, which limits the model's overall ability to assess risk and more precisely allocate funds. Although the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) allocated about 90 percent of funding to the highest-risk agencies, lower-risk agency awards were based on other factors in addition to risk. In addition, TSA has revised the TSGP's approach, methodology and funding priorities each year since 2006. These changes have raised predictability and flexibility concerns among transit agencies because they make engaging in long-term planning difficult. DHS met the statutory timeline requirements for allocating and awarding grants, but the two agencies that manage the TSGP--TSA and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--lack defined roles and responsibilities, and only 3 percent of the funds awarded for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 have been spent as of February 2009. There is no documentation articulating the roles and responsibilities of the agencies, and grant information has not been passed between the two agencies which affected TSA's ability to share grant status information with transit agencies. DHS met statutory deadlines for releasing grant guidance and acting upon applications, but management and resource issues have resulted in delays in approving projects and making funds available, including (1) lengthy project negotiations between transit agencies and TSA; (2) a backlog of required environmental reviews; and (3) a reported lack of personnel to conduct required reviews. As a result, according to FEMA records, as of February 2009, transit agencies have spent about $21 million of the $755 million that has been awarded for fiscal years 2006 through 2008. This spending rate is, in part, caused by agencies receiving authorization to spend grant dollars late in the grant period. Despite concerns over delays, FEMA has not communicated time frames for providing funding. In April 2004, GAO reported that timely grant awards are imperative to provide intended benefits. DHS has reported taking some actions to address delays, including shortening project approval times and hiring staff, but the effectiveness of these efforts is unknown. Although FEMA has taken initial efforts to develop measures to assess the effectiveness of its grant programs, TSA and FEMA lack a plan and related milestones for developing measures specifically for the TSGP, and thus DHS does not have the capability to measure the effectiveness of the program or its investments. Without such a plan, it will be difficult for TSA and FEMA to provide reasonable assurance that measures are being developed to assess the effectiveness of the program as intended. While FEMA is responsible for the financial controls and audits of the TSGP, it does not have a mechanism to systematically collect data and track grant projects throughout the grant process. As a result, FEMA cannot assess whether awards are timely or funds are being used effectively to reduce risk and increase transit system security