	Background

		Preparedness Grant Management

FEMA preparedness grant management is composed of different financial  and programmatic management functions. Specifically, the NIC is to  coordinate with state and local stakeholders to develop national  standards, guidelines, and protocols for incident management. The NAC advises the FEMA Administrator on all aspects of  emergency management, and incorporates state, local, and tribal  governments; nonprofit; and private sector input in the development and  revision of the National Preparedness Goal, the National Preparedness  System, the National Incident Management System, and other related  plans and strategies. GPD Lacks a Plan to Address Long- standing Challenges in Coordinating Preparedness Grants between FEMA Headquarters and Regions

		Past Assessments Supported Moving Grant Management Functions to the Regions to Address Oversight and Coordination Problems, but FEMA Decided Not to Change Its Approach

Currently FEMA uses a hybrid management model for preparedness  grant programs, with shared responsibilities between headquarters and  the regions. We also found challenges in the coordination of site visits. For  example, in 2009, NAPA identified regional challenges associated with  assessment activities including grant monitoring, noting that FEMA  regional and headquarters units “need to reduce burden on states and  ensure assessments-requirements are coordinated among FEMA  divisions and the federal sector” and that new documents from FEMA  headquarters “typically have a short review and comment period, and  adherence is often required prior to finalization.” Similarly, the May 2010  RIG Task Force Report noted that “the timeliness of communication and  information distribution with the grantee community needs to be  improved” and the need to “formally establish regional liaisons to support  the consistent prioritization of communication within GPD and with  grantees.”
We found that these issues related to coordinating guidance provided by  headquarters officials to state officials continue to create challenges. However, FEMA has not developed  a plan with time frames, goals, metrics, or milestones for how and when it  will address long-standing coordination challenges associated with the  existing hybrid grants management model identified in previous FEMA  assessments and in our review. Although states generally report high levels of NIMS implementation in  their URTs, officials from all four FEMA regional offices we spoke with  and from 9 of the 10 states we spoke with said that the NIMS self- assessments are perfunctory and do not necessarily measure whether, or  how well, NIMS is being implemented. NIC officials said they do not verify the self-reported NIMS  implementation information that states submit because of the scope and  breadth of the information. Some FEMA Regions Do Not Routinely Meet with RACs to Collaborate on Emergency Preparedness

Although the RAC charters adopted by each of the 10 regions require that  their RACs meet twice annually, some RACs have not met routinely in  recent years to collaborate with FEMA regional officials to provide advice  and input from regional stakeholders. FEMA Regional Offices Are Responsive to RAC Suggestions but Do Not Regularly Provide Feedback on Their Recommendations

RAC members who responded to our survey generally indicated that  FEMA regions were responsive to their suggestions. However,  they did not identify any additional subsequent actions they had taken to  implement the plan. Regarding oversight of FEMA’s efforts  to implement the national system for managing incidents, there are  opportunities to access more sophisticated and comprehensive  information using FEMA regional staff to better assess NIMS  implementation. DHS concurred with four of our recommendations and did  not concur with one. Specifically, DHS stated that FEMA does not agree that the “best way to  assess how well NIMS has been implemented is by assessing states’  performance in preparedness exercises and real-world events.” As noted  in the report, most all of the officials we spoke with believed that the  current method of determining NIMS implementation—states self- certification via the URT—was not an effective method of determining  NIMS implementation, and officials in all of the FEMA regions and 8 of the  states we interviewed said that looking at how effectively a jurisdiction  responds during an exercise or real world event is the best way to assess  NIMS implementation. The Act  established the Program, among other things, as a means for FEMA to  test and evaluate NIMS implementation efforts. If implemented as planned, these actions should help  address the intent of the recommendation to update RAC members on  the status of its recommendations to FEMA. Other major contributors to this  report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this study were to assess the extent to which the  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters and  regional offices have (1) addressed grant management coordination  challenges between headquarters and the regions; (2) established a  comprehensive system to assess National Incident Management System  (NIMS) implementation; and (3) collaborated with Regional Advisory  Council (RAC) members. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on regional  preparedness, grant management, and consolidation of management  functions. To address the third objective, we interviewed FEMA headquarters and  regional office officials and analyzed FEMA and Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports with information  and findings relevant to RACs.
Why GAO Did This Study

DHS's FEMA is responsible for coordinating with state, local, and tribal governments to prepare for disasters. Specifically, FEMA provides preparedness grants to states and localities, and works to implement the National Incident Management System nationwide, among other things.
GAO was asked to review FEMA's efforts to enhance coordination for regional preparedness. This report addresses the extent to which FEMA and regional offices have (1) addressed preparedness grant management coordination challenges, (2) established a system to assess NIMS implementation, and (3) collaborated with RAC stakeholders. GAO analyzed FEMA documentation on grant management, NIMS evaluation, and RACs. GAO surveyed RAC members, visited 4 regional offices selected for their geographic representation, spoke with state emergency management officials from 10 states, and interviewed FEMA officials. The site visits cannot be generalized but provided insights.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has taken some steps, but has not fully addressed, preparedness grant management coordination challenges between headquarters and its regions. For several preparedness grant programs, FEMA headquarters and regions share management and monitoring responsibilities. Assessments by FEMA and others since 2009 have recommended that FEMA regions manage and monitor preparedness grants to avoid confusion and duplication and strengthen coordination with state and local grantees. However, in 2012 FEMA changed course and decided to continue sharing grant management between headquarters and regions. Since then, FEMA officials said they are taking steps to address coordination challenges that exist in this structure. However, GAO found that challenges continue to exist. For example, states and FEMA regional officials told GAO that FEMA headquarters and regions did not always coordinate monitoring visits and provided inconsistent guidance to grantees. Further, while FEMA officials identified some steps to address the challenges, FEMA lacks a plan with time frames and goals for addressing them. Doing so will better enable FEMA to effectively address the long-standing challenges in managing preparedness grants.
FEMA uses states' self-assessments to determine if states have implemented the National Incident Management System (NIMS), as required, but does not assess NIMS implementation using the results of preparedness exercises. NIMS is a comprehensive, national approach to incident management and provides a framework to enable all levels of government and the private sector to work together to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from incidents. Although states generally report high levels of NIMS implementation, officials from all four FEMA regional offices and 9 of 10 states GAO spoke with said that the NIMS self-assessments are perfunctory and do not measure whether, or how well, NIMS is being implemented. FEMA officials said they do not verify states' self-reported NIMS implementation information because of the scope and breadth of the information. All of the FEMA regions and 8 states said the best way to assess NIMS implementation is to review states' performance in after-action reports following exercises and real-world events. However FEMA officials do not review these reports to assess NIMS implementation. Doing so could allow FEMA to better assess NIMS implementation and identify areas for improvement.
All 10 FEMA regions established Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) to provide advice on emergency management issues specific to the region, and about 90 percent of RAC members reported in a GAO survey that meetings are useful for collaborating with their FEMA regional office. However, some regions do not routinely meet with their RACs, and some do not consistently report back to RAC members on the status of their recommendations to FEMA. By more routinely obtaining input from RAC members and by providing timely feedback on recommendations, FEMA regional offices could better ensure they are coordinating with key stakeholders and identifying areas for strengthening preparedness.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommended, among other things, that FEMA develop a plan for addressing long-standing coordination challenges with grant management, review after action reports to assess NIMS implementation, and improve coordination with RACs. Although DHS did not concur with the grants management recommendation, GAO continues to believe challenges documented in the report support the recommendation. DHS concurred with the other 4 recommendations and described the actions they planned to take in response.