Further, in its  Vision 2020 statement, NORTHCOM identifies a strategic goal of  providing timely and effective civil support by anticipating requests for  support and providing military capabilities at the right place and the right  time. DOD and DHS have undertaken some recent initiatives to address gaps in  strategic planning that should assist DOD in identifying its capability  requirements for the civil support mission. Key Policies and Guidance for DOD’s Civil Support Mission Are Outdated, Inconsistent, and Unclear

			DOD Policies Are Outdated

DOD’s capabilities-based assessment highlighted a lack of alignment  across DOD’s policies, strategy, and doctrine for its civil support mission,  making it difficult to determine DOD’s capability requirements. Thus, we note that incomplete DOD policy  guidance for its civil support mission may lead to confusion and  misunderstanding among the military services and other DOD components  regarding the proper employment of defense capabilities in support of civil  authorities. DOD Has Personnel to Coordinate DOD Capabilities for Civil Support, but Roles, Responsibilities, and Command Relationships Are Not Clearly Defined, and DOD Has Not Assessed Its Staff Needs

		Defense Coordinating Officers and Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers Constitute Important DOD Capabilities for Civil Support

DOD guidance and the National Response Framework state that the  Defense Coordinating Officer, when requested by civil authorities and  approved by DOD, serves as the single point of contact for DOD at the  FEMA regions, and is responsible for coordinating with federal and state  authorities on the use of military capabilities for defense support of civil  authorities. Staff Composition of the Defense Coordinating Officer Program Is Not Based on a Staffing Needs Assessment

The size and composition of the Defense Coordinating Officer program is  not based on a staffing needs assessment and therefore does not  necessarily reflect the unique characteristics or disaster needs of the  several FEMA regions. Although DOD has improved its support of civil authorities through  improvements in the Defense Coordinating Officer program, its outdated,  inconsistent, and unclear guidance on roles, responsibilities, and  command and control relationships; and lack of a staffing needs  assessment increase the risk that DOD may not be appropriately staffed to  meet the varying needs of the FEMA regions, thus potentially limiting its  ability to provide an optimally coordinated response to civil authorities  with appropriate multiservice capabilities. DOD Has Established Processes to Respond to Civil Authorities, but It Has Not Established a Comprehensive System to Track Requests-for- Assistance

		DOD Has Established Processes to Respond to Civil Authorities

The National Response Framework broadly calls for DOD and other  federal agencies to respond to requests-for-assistance from state and local  civilian authorities, and DOD follows an internal process to respond to  these requests-for-assistance when both state and other federal civilian  resources have been exhausted or are unavailable. However, the  current tracking system contained no record of this request. Without a comprehensive, unclassified system that tracks requests-for- assistance from, and is shared with, all of DOD’s interagency partners,  gaps will remain in gaining real-time situational awareness and in  maintaining a common operational picture of DOD’s assistance for all  participants involved in disaster-response missions. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To address the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) (1) has  identified and addressed its capability gaps for its civil support mission,  (2) has clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and relationships and  identified appropriate levels and types of personnel to assign to the FEMA  regions, and (3) shares and tracks information concerning its civil support  requirements response process with civil authorities, we reviewed and  analyzed available DOD, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), and U.S.  Pacific Command (PACOM) civil support guidance and 4 of the 20 civil  support operational plans, as well as DOD’s March 2009 Homeland  Defense and Civil Support Capabilities-Based Assessment.
Why GAO Did This Study

In addition to its primary mission of warfighting, the Department of Defense (DOD) plays an important role in civil support. Four years after the poorly coordinated national response to Hurricane Katrina, issues remain about DOD's progress in identifying its capability requirements for supporting a coordinated civilian-military response to a catastrophic domestic event. This report addresses the extent to which DOD (1) has identified and addressed its capability gaps for its civil support mission; (2) has clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and relationships and identified appropriate levels and types of personnel to assign to the FEMA regions; and (3) shares and tracks information concerning its civil support requirements response process with civil authorities. To do this, GAO analyzed DOD civil support guidance and plans and met with DOD and FEMA officials regarding the support that civilian authorities may request during a catastrophic incident.

What GAO Found

DOD has identified capability gaps for its civil support mission by completing a capabilities-based assessment, but key DOD policies and guidance for the civil support mission are outdated, limiting DOD's ability to fully address capability gaps. DOD's strategic guidance requires that it anticipate requests for civil support by identifying capability gaps. However, inconsistency and misalignment across DOD's policies, strategy, and doctrine for civil support make it difficult for DOD to address capability gaps and pre-position equipment and supplies. GAO found this was due to outdated key DOD policies and guidance that do not reflect DOD's current organizational framework for providing assistance to civil authorities. If DOD updates key policies for civil support, it will be better able to address capability gaps and provide timely and appropriate support to civil authorities. DOD has increased its personnel dedicated to coordinate civilian requests for assistance, but it has not clearly defined their roles, responsibilities, and relationships, and its staffing is not based upon a staffing assessment by FEMA region. DOD guidance calls for coordination with federal and state authorities on military capabilities for civil support. However, while the Defense Coordinating Officer program has improved civil authorities' overall awareness of DOD's capabilities, roles, and responsibilities, command and control and coordination among the Defense Coordinating Officers and the military services' liaison officers have been confusing and sometimes problematic because DOD's civil support guidance is outdated. Further, DOD officials noted that staffing of the Defense Coordinating Officer program should reflect its multiservice environment and the unique challenges of each FEMA region. Different FEMA regions are prone to different disasters and have varying needs for DOD support, but the size and composition of the Defense Coordinating Officers' staff--nearly all from the Army--were not based on a staffing needs assessment. Therefore, they do not necessarily reflect variations in the support needs of the regions. As a result, DOD may be missing an opportunity to optimize its ability to provide a coordinated response to civil authorities with appropriate multiservice capabilities. While DOD follows established processes in responding to requests for assistance from civil authorities, it has not established a system to track civilian requests that is accessible to DOD's interagency partners. The National Response Framework broadly identifies how DOD responds to requests for assistance, and DOD guidance further specifies DOD's processes. However, civil authorities are not fully aware of the length of this process. While DOD has several different tracking systems in use by different DOD components for the civil support mission, it lacks a formal, interoperable, and unclassified system for tracking all requests for assistance across DOD. Without such a system, gaps will remain in gaining real-time situational awareness and maintaining a common operational picture of DOD support for all federal partners in disaster-response missions including DOD.