State and urban area homeland security strategies  are required by FEMA for receiving SHSP and UASI funding. Overlap and Other Factors Increase the Risk of Duplication among Grant Programs

		Grant Programs Have Similar Goals, Fund Similar Projects, and Exist in the Same Urban Areas, Which Increases the Risk of Duplication

The four grant programs in our review—SHSP, UASI, PSGP, and  TSGP—have overlapping goals, project types, and funding jurisdictions,  which increases the risk of duplication among the programs. Although the  specifics of the four programs vary, they share the overarching goal of  enhancing the capacity of state and local emergency responders to  prevent, respond to, and recover from a terrorism incident involving  chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or other explosive devices, or  cyber attacks. Differences in Administrative Processes among the Four Grant Programs Result in Varied Levels of Information on Which Award Decisions Are Based

FEMA’s ability to track which projects receive funding among the four  grant programs is varied because the project-level information FEMA has  available to make award decisions—including grant funding amounts,  grant recipients, and grant funding purposes—also varies by program. Delegating administrative duties to stakeholders reduces  FEMA’s administrative burden, but also contributes to FEMA having less  visibility over some grant applications, specifically those funded via SHSP  and UASI. Agency officials stated that this system, once completed, will  help FEMA to manage all of its preparedness grants, and has an explicit  goal of enhancing project-level data collection. However, collecting information with this level of detail  could help FEMA better position itself to assess applications and ensure  that it is using its resources effectively. Enhanced Federal Coordination Could Help Reduce the Risk of Duplication

FEMA, as well as state and local stakeholders, have taken steps to  improve coordination in selecting and administering the four grant  programs, but additional FEMA action could help reduce the risk of  duplication among these programs. However, since the review process for grant applications  falls within each separate branch and grant program––and since there is  no process in place to ensure that grant information is exchanged in the  review process—FEMA cannot identify whether grant monies are being  used for any unnecessary duplicative purposes. We recognize the challenges associated with  reviewing a large volume of grant applications, but to help reduce the risk  of funding duplicative projects, FEMA could benefit from exploring  opportunities to enhance its coordination of project reviews while also  taking into account the large volume of grant applications it must process. A revised implementation plan  that includes more specific project schedule information and accurate  timelines for implementation could help guide efforts and keep the  development of these measures on track for successful and timely  implementation. DHS Has Initiatives under Way to Evaluate Overall Effectiveness across Grant Programs, but Has Not Completed These Efforts

Apart from developing performance measures for each grant program,  DHS also has several initiatives under way to measure the collective  effectiveness of its grant programs in achieving shared program goals, as  shown in table 6 below. As shown above, FEMA’S efforts to measure the collective effectiveness  of its grants programs are recent and ongoing and thus it is too soon to  evaluate the extent to which these initiatives will provide FEMA with the  information it needs to determine whether these grant programs are  effectively improving the nation’s security. Conclusions

From fiscal years 2002 through 2011, DHS has distributed about $20.3  billion through four homeland security preparedness grants that  specifically target state, urban, port, and transit security. Additionally, since DHS’s existing output-based performance  measures for the SHSP and UASI programs do not provide DHS with the  information it needs to assess grant effectiveness and FEMA has not yet  implemented outcome-based performance measures for any of the four  programs, it will be difficult for FEMA to fully assess the effectiveness of  these grant programs. Because the project plan FEMA has in place to  guide its efforts to develop measures does not provide adequate  information to determine what measures will be implemented for each  grant program and when this implementation will occur, FEMA does not  have reasonable assurance that these measures will be implemented in a  timely way to help assess the programs’ effectiveness. To better identify and reduce the risk of duplication through improved data  collection and coordination, we recommend that the FEMA Administrator:  take steps, when developing ND Grants and responding to the May  2011 FEMA report recommendations on data requirements, to ensure  that FEMA collects project information with the level of detail needed  to better position the agency to identify any potential unnecessary  duplication within and across the four grant programs, weighing any  additional costs of collecting these data; and explore opportunities to enhance FEMA’s internal coordination and  administration of the programs in order to identify and mitigate the  potential for any unnecessary duplication. DHS concurred with all three recommendations, and requested that the  first two recommendations be considered resolved and closed. The 5  interconnected programs shared the same grant guidance in fiscal year 2011, but each program had  a separate funding allocation.
Why GAO Did This Study

From fiscal years 2002 through 2011, the Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) distributed approximately $20.3 billion to four grant programs: the State Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, Port Security Grant Program, and Transit Security Grant Program. These programs are intended to enhance the capacity of state and local first responders to prevent, respond to, and recover from a terrorism incident. GAO was asked to evaluate the extent to which: (1) overlap and other factors among these programs could impact the risk of duplication; (2) mechanisms exist that enhance coordination and reduce the risk of duplication and how they are being implemented; and (3) DHS has implemented performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed grant guidance and funding allocation methodologies. GAO also interviewed DHS officials, and grant administrators in five urban areasselected because they receive funding from all four grant programs in this reviewabout grant processes and program challenges, among other things.

What GAO Found

Multiple factors contribute to the risk of duplication among four FEMA grant programs that GAO studiedthe State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), Port Security Grant Program, and Transit Security Grant Program. Specifically, these programs share similar goals, fund similar projects, and provide funds in the same geographic regions. Further, DHSs ability to track grant funding, specific funding recipients, and funding purposes varies among the programs, giving FEMA less visibility over some grant programs. Finally, DHSs award process for some programs bases decisions on high-level, rather than specific, project information. Although GAOs analysis identified no cases of duplication among a sample of grant projects, the above factors collectively put FEMA at risk of funding duplicative projects. FEMA officials stated that there is a trade-off between enhancing management visibility and reducing administrative burden, but also recogized that FEMA should use more specific project-level information for award decisions and have taken initial steps towards this goal. For example, FEMA is considering how to better use existing grant information and has also begun to phase in a grants management system that includes an explicit goal of collecting project-level information. However, FEMA has not determined all of its specific data requirements. As FEMA determines these requirements, it will be important to collect the level of information needed to compare projects across grant programs. Given the limitations in currently collected information, FEMA would benefit from collecting information with greater detail as this could help FEMA better position itself to assess applications and ensure that it is using its resources effectively.
FEMA, as well as state and local stakeholders, have taken steps to improve coordination in administering the four programs, but FEMA could take further action. For example, FEMA does not internally coordinate application reviews across the four programs. Specifically, the programs are managed by two separate FEMA divisions which review grant applications for each program separately and there is no process in place to ensure that application information is shared among the programs during this process. Thus, it is difficult for FEMA to identify whether grant monies are being used for the same or similar purposes. FEMA could benefit from further examining its internal grant coordination process, while considering the large volume of grant applications it must process.
FEMA introduced some performance measures for the UASI and SHSP programs in 2011 that add value, but these measures do not assess program effectiveness. FEMA has efforts under way to develop outcome measuresthat will focus on program effectivenessfor each of the four grant programs in this review, but has not completed these efforts. Further, the FEMA project plan that guides these efforts does not provide information on what measures will be implemented for each grant program and when this will occur. A revised project plan that includes more specific schedule information and accurate implementation timelines could help guide these efforts. DHS also has several efforts under way to measure the collective effectiveness of its grant programs in achieving shared program goals, but these efforts are recent and ongoing. Thus, it is too soon to evaluate the extent to which these initiatives will provide FEMA with the information it needs to determine whether these grant programs are effectively improving the nations security.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS: (1) collect project information with the level of detail needed to identify any unnecessary duplication; (2) explore opportunities for enhanced internal coordination in grant administration; and (3) revise its plan to ensure the timely implementation of performance measures to assess the effectiveness of these grants. DHS concurred with all recommendations.