IPAWS is  defined by FEMA as a “system of systems,” which is intended to eventually  integrate existing and new alert systems, including EAS. Nonetheless, as we previously reported, EAS  exhibits longstanding weaknesses that continue to limit its effectiveness. In particular, the reliability of the national-level relay system—which  would be critical if the President were to issue a national-level alert— remains questionable due to a lack of redundancy among key  broadcasters, gaps in coverage, insufficient testing of the relay system, and  inadequate training of personnel. FEMA has  several projects under way to address some of these weaknesses, but little  progress has been made and EAS remains effectively unchanged since our  last report, issued in March 2007. Further,  effective public alerting via EAS is also hindered by its limited ability to  target alert messages to specific geographic locations. Therefore, as state and local governments are forging ahead  with their own alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has stalled  and many of its functional goals have yet to reach operational capacity. Furthermore, FEMA does not report on IPAWS spending  or progress in achieving goals, which limits transparency and  accountability for program results. FEMA Has Begun Some Projects, but Has Yet to Integrate Alert Systems or Adopt New Technologies and Standards

Although IPAWS has existed since 2004 with the original objective of  modernizing and integrating public alert and emergency warning systems  across federal, state, and local governments, national-level alert system  capabilities remain unchanged and have yet to be integrated. Shifting Program Vision and Lack of Continuity in Planning Have Adversely Affected Efforts to Modernize and Integrate Alerts

FEMA’s efforts to create an integrated and modernized alert and warning  system have been affected by (1) shifting program vision, (2) a lack of  continuity in planning and program direction, (3) a lack of collection or  organization of program information from which to make management  decisions, and (4) staff turnover. The current implementation plan, completed in June  2009, does not adequately satisfy the project management and planning  practices essential for effective program execution. FEMA Faces Coordination Issues and Technical Challenges in Implementing IPAWS

FEMA faces coordination issues in successfully implementing IPAWS. FEMA also faces  technical challenges related to integrating state and local systems;  adopting standards; and the development of geo-targeted, risk-based,  multilingual, and disabled population alerting capabilities. While there is broad consensus regarding the need for coordination,  FEMA’s efforts to date have been insufficient, according to many  stakeholders we contacted. For example, broadcaster associations and  local government officials were unaware of IPAWS program goals and  milestones. Developing and implementing tailored alerting: geo-targeted and risk- based alerting, alerts for individuals with disabilities, and multilingual  alerts. However, the current CAP Profile under  consideration does not address multiple languages or special needs. To help ensure system dependability, as IPAWS is developed and  deployed, establish and implement a plan to verify (1) the dependability  and effectiveness of systems used to disseminate alerts, and (2) that  IPAWS participants have the training and technical skills to make use of  IPAWS infrastructure and to issue effective public alerts. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report are to provide information on issues relating  to public alert and warning, the Emergency Alert System (EAS), and the  Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Integrated Public Alert  and Warning program (IPAWS); specifically, (1) the operational capability  of the nation’s current EAS, (2) the progress made in FEMA’s efforts to  modernize and integrate alert and warning systems, and (3) the issues and  challenges involved in implementing an integrated public alert and  warning system. Additionally, this report does not contain all  of the results from the survey. We also conducted  interviews with officials from state participants in FEMA’s IPAWS pilot  programs and state emergency managers.
Why GAO Did This Study

A comprehensive system to alert the American people in times of hazard allows people to take action to save lives. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for the current Emergency Alert System (EAS) and the development of the new Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). In this requested report, GAO examined (1) the current status of EAS, (2) the progress made by FEMA in implementing an integrated alert and warning system, and (3) the challenges involved in implementing an integrated alert and warning system. GAO conducted a survey of states, reviewed FEMA and other documentation, and interviewed industry stakeholders and officials from federal agencies responsible for public alerting.

What GAO Found

As the primary national-level public warning system, EAS is an important alert tool, but it exhibits longstanding weaknesses that limit its effectiveness. EAS allows state and local officials limited ability to produce public alerts via television and radio. Weaknesses with EAS include lack of reliability of the message distribution system; gaps in coverage; insufficient testing; and inadequate training of personnel. Further, EAS provides little capability to alert specific geographic areas. EAS does not ensure message delivery for individuals with hearing and vision disabilities, and non-English speakers. FEMA has projects under way to address some of these weaknesses with EAS. However, to date, little progress has been made and EAS remains largely unchanged since GAO's previous review, completed in March 2007. As a result, EAS does not fulfill the need for a reliable, comprehensive alert system. Initiated in 2004, FEMA's IPAWS program is intended to integrate new and existing alert capabilities, including EAS, into a comprehensive "system of systems." However, national-level alert capabilities have remained unchanged and new technologies have not been adopted. IPAWS efforts have been affected by shifting program goals, lack of continuity in planning, staff turnover, and poorly organized program information from which to make management decisions. The vision of IPAWS has changed twice over the course of the program and strategic goals and milestones are not clearly defined, as IPAWS operated without an implementation plan from early 2007 through June 2009. Consequently, as state and local governments are forging ahead with their own alert systems, IPAWS program implementation has stalled and many of the functional goals of IPAWS, such as geo-targeting of messages and dissemination through redundant pathways to multiple devices, have yet to reach operational capacity. FEMA conducted a series of pilot projects without systematically assessing outcomes or lessons learned and without substantially advancing alert and warning systems. FEMA does not periodically report on IPAWS progress, therefore, program transparency and accountability are lacking. FEMA faces coordination issues and technical challenges in developing and implementing IPAWS. Effective public warning depends on the cooperation of stakeholders, such as emergency managers and the telecommunications industry, yet many stakeholders GAO contacted knew little about IPAWS and expressed the need for better coordination with FEMA. FEMA has taken steps to improve its coordination efforts, but the scope of stakeholder involvement is limited. FEMA also faces technical challenges related to systems integration, standards development, the development of geo-targeted and multilingual alerts, and alerts for individuals with disabilities. For example, the standard intended to facilitate integration of systems is still under development and is not widely used. As a result of these coordination and technical hurdles, integration with state and local systems will likely be a significant challenge due to potential incompatibility, and FEMA does not yet have logistical plans to integrate these systems.