HSPD-7 designated DHS as the agency responsible  for coordinating the nation’s efforts to protect critical infrastructure. Additionally, the NIPP sector partnership model calls on FPS to form and  chair a government coordinating council comprised of representatives  from different levels of government to share activities, policy, and   FPS also participates in or interacts with the following  communications.cross-sector councils, which facilitate relationships within and among the  18 sectors:
The State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Government Coordinating  Council (SLTTGCC), which coordinates with non-federal government  organizations across all 18 sectors;  the Regional Consortium Coordinating Council, which represents a  variety of distinct collaborative efforts between state, local, and private  sector partners focused on critical infrastructure found in multistate  regions or within a given city; the NIPP Federal Senior Leadership Council, which is a DHS-chaired  council that consists of federal department and agency  representatives from lead agencies named in HSPD-7; and the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, which is a  partnership between government and private sector owners and  operators of critical infrastructure to effectively coordinate federal  protective programs. FPS Is Not Effectively Leading the Sector

FPS’s leadership has not resulted in implementation of a risk  management approach for the sector, as called for under the NIPP  framework. However, FPS officials  said that they have not identified or obtained data on federal, state, local,  tribal and territorial government facilities for the sector. The plan and annual reports provide information  about the principles of threat, vulnerability, and consequence as well as  discuss different types of risks and threats faced by government facilities,  but no standardized tool for performing risk assessments exists at the  federal level, much less the state, local, tribal, and territorial levels. FPS Has Not Built Effective Partnerships across Different Levels of Government

To effectively implement the NIPP and achieve the goals of the sector,  partnerships are essential. Consequently, this key coordination goal of the  2010 plan has not been met, and as a result, FPS is limited in its ability,  as lead agency for the sector, to productively contribute to the larger DHS  effort to prioritize and safeguard the nation’s most critical infrastructure. Furthermore, while FPS chairs the Council, the principle mechanism for  engaging partners, FPS has not involved the full spectrum of sector  partners. Officials from all 5 state and local government and non-governmental  organizations told us that they were either unaware or did not consider  themselves to be members of the Council. FPS’s Capacity to Lead the Sector Hindered by Its Fee Structure and Lack of Action Plan

FPS has identified its limited resources as a significant challenge to  leading a sector as large and diverse as the government facilities sector. The 2010 plan states that the sector includes more than 900,000 federal  assets, as well as assets from 56 states and territories; more than 3,000  counties; 17,000 local governments; and 564 federally recognized tribal  nations. We have previously reported that FPS’s involvement in  homeland security activities not directly related to facility protection is  inconsistent with a requirement in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that  FPS use funding from the fees it collects solely for the protection of  federal government buildings and grounds. Notwithstanding issues related to how its fees may be used, FPS has not  fully assessed the resource requirements for serving as the lead sector  agency, because it has not completed an action plan or cost estimate for  carrying out the 2010 plan. Such changes may affect FPS’s workload and resources as  the lead agency. Conclusions

FPS is responsible for leading efforts to identify, prioritize, and protect  critical government facilities across all levels of government under the  NIPP. An action plan could serve as a valuable tool for FPS and  DHS to identify, in tandem with any structural changes, priorities that can  be feasibly achieved and the associated resource requirements given  FPS’s fee-based revenue structure. Recommendation for Executive Action

To enhance the effectiveness of the government facilities sector, we  recommend that the Secretary of DHS direct FPS, in partnership with IP  and Council members, to develop and publish an action plan that  identifies sector priorities and the resources required to carry out these  priorities. With consideration of FPS’s resource constraints, this plan  should address FPS’s limited progress with implementing a risk  management approach and developing effective partnerships within the  sector. The plan should address, at a minimum, steps needed to:  1.  develop appropriate data on critical government facilities;  2.  develop or coordinate a sector-wide risk assessment;  3.  identify effective metrics and performance data to track progress  toward the sector’s strategic goals; and 4.  increase the participation of and define the roles of non-federal  Council members. DHS concurred with our recommendation to  develop and publish an action plan for the sector. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To assess the Federal Protective Service’s (FPS) leadership of the  government facilities sector, we reviewed Homeland Security Presidential  Directive 7, Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National  Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), and the 2010 Government Facilities  Sector-Specific Plan (the 2010 plan).
Why GAO Did This Study

U.S. government facilities have been the target of foreign and domestic terrorists. Government facilities are one of 18 critical infrastructure sectors designated under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating the protection of critical infrastructure that, if destroyed, could have a debilitating impact on governance, the economy, national morale, or public health and safety. DHS defines critical infrastructure sector responsibilities in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is the lead agency for the government facilities sector. As such, FPS is to develop and implement a government facilities sector-specific plan, which was first issued in 2007 and updated in 2010, in coordination with governmental partners. In this report, GAO assesses FPSs efforts as the lead agency for the government facilities sector. To do this, GAO reviewed HSPD-7, the NIPP, the 2010 plan and other related documents to compare FPSs actions and the goals for the sector. GAO also interviewed DHS agency officials and 16 selected sector partners about activities for, and coordination with, the sector.

What GAO Found

The Federal Protective Service (FPS) has not been effective as the lead agency for the government facilities sector, which includes facilities at the federal, state, local, tribal and territorial level. Under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and the 2010 sector-specific plan, FPS is responsible for establishing a risk management approach and developing effective partnerships for the sector. However, FPS has not implemented a risk management approach. According to FPS, it has not identified or obtained data on facilities at the federal, state, local, tribal and territorial level, which are fundamental for employing a risk management approach. In addition, despite providing information on the principles of threat, vulnerability, and consequence, FPS has not coordinated or assessed risk across government facilities, another key element of risk management. FPS also lacks effective metrics and performance data to track progress toward implementing a risk management approach and for the overall resilience or protection of government facilities. Consequently, FPS does not have a risk management approach for prioritizing and safeguarding critical government facilities. Furthermore, FPS has not built effective partnerships across different levels of government. While FPS chairs the Government Coordinating Council (the Council)a mechanism intended to help share activities and policy across different levels of governmentthe Councils membership lacks a full spectrum of sector partners, particularly non-federal. All five state and local government and non-governmental members of the Council that GAO contacted were unaware of, or did not consider themselves to be part of, the Council. FPS also has not leveraged the State, Local, Tribal and Territorial Government Coordinating Council, an existing mechanism to coordinate with non-federal government organizations, although FPS officials reported recent efforts aimed at enhancing this partnership.
As the lead agency for the sector, FPS faces challenges associated with funding and its lack of an action plan. According to FPS officials, FPS has no dedicated line of funding for its activities as the lead agency and resource constraints hinder FPSs capacity to lead this large and diverse sector, which is comprised of more than 900,000 federal assets, as well as assets from 56 states and territories; over 3,000 counties; 17,000 local governments; and 564 federally recognized tribal nations. FPSs use of fee-based revenue to perform homeland security activities not directly related to federal facility protection is inconsistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002. FPS does not have a full understanding of the resource requirements for serving as the lead agency, because it has not completed a cost estimate or an action plan to guide implementation of the 2010 plan. According to DHS officials, HSPD-7 will be updated, which may result in structural changes to the sector that could affect the lead agencys responsibilities and available resources. An action plan could serve as a valuable tool for FPS and DHS to identify priorities that can be feasibly achieved and the resources required, in tandem with any potential structural changes.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS direct FPS, in partnership with others, to develop and publish an action plan that identifies sector priorities and resource requirements, and addresses steps needed to implement a risk management approach and develop effective partnerships. DHS concurred with the recommendation.