	Background

FEBs were established by a Presidential Directive in 1961 to improve  coordination among federal activities and programs outside Washington,  D.C. The boards’ overall mission includes supporting and promoting  national initiatives and responding to the local needs of federal agencies  and their communities. The  boards are composed of the federal field office agency heads and military  commanders in their cities, and the regulations state that each FEB should  have a chair elected by the FEB members to serve a term not to exceed a  year. The  boards have no legislative charter and receive no congressional  appropriation. These host  agencies provide varying levels of staffing, usually one or two full-time  positions—an executive director and an executive assistant. FEB Emergency Preparedness and Response Roles and Responsibilities Are Being Developed as a Core Function of the Boards

To assist in standardizing emergency activities across the FEB system,  OPM and the FEBs are establishing an emergency preparedness, security,  and employee safety set of activities with performance measures that will  be common to all of the boards. A Defined FEB Role in National Emergency Plans Would Better Ensure That the Boards Can Effectively Carry Out Their Emergency Support Role

According to several FEMA officials we interviewed, the FEBs could carry  out their emergency support role more effectively if their role was  included in national emergency management plans. The FEBs’ dependence on host agencies and other member agencies for  their resources also creates uncertainty for the boards in planning and  committing to provide emergency support services. Of our 14 case  study boards, representatives from 3 of the boards said they had recently  had their host agencies withdraw funding for their boards’ executive  assistant positions. The Nature of Pandemic Influenza May Make the FEBs a Particularly Valuable Asset in Pandemic Preparedness and Response

Despite the challenges the FEBs face in providing emergency support,  their potential to add value to the nation’s emergency preparedness and  response is particularly evident given an event like pandemic influenza. The boards also partner with  community organizations and participate as a unified federal force in local  civic affairs. Many of the selected FEBs cultivated relationships within their federal,  state, and local governments and their metropolitan area community  organizations as a natural outgrowth of their general activities. In addition, through activities such as hosting  emergency preparedness training or through participation in certain  committees, some of the selected FEBs reported a connection with  emergency management officials, first responders, and health officials in  their communities. OPM should continue its efforts to establish performance measures and  accountability for the emergency support responsibilities of the FEBs  before, during, and after an emergency event that affects the federal  workforce outside Washington, D.C.
As an outgrowth of the above efforts and to help ensure that the FEBs can  provide protection of the federal workforce in the field, OPM, as part of its  strategic planning process for the FEBs, should develop a proposal for an  alternative to the current voluntary contribution mechanism that would  address the uncertainty of funding sources for the boards. We selected 14 of the 28 FEBs for more  detailed review.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which provides direction to the federal executive boards (FEBs), is now emphasizing that in the post-9/11 environment, the boards have a transformed emergency support role. The report discusses the boards' emergency preparedness roles and responsibilities and their potential role in preparing for and responding to pandemic influenza. GAO selected 14 of the 28 FEBs for review because they coordinate the greatest number of federal employees or had recent emergency management experience.

What GAO Found

Located outside Washington, D.C., in 28 cities with a large federal presence, the federal executive boards (FEB) are interagency coordinating groups designed to strengthen federal management practices, improve intergovernmental relations, and participate as a unified federal force in local civic affairs. Created by a Presidential Directive in 1961, the boards are composed of the federal field office agency heads and military commanders in their cities. Although membership by agency heads on the boards is required, active participation is voluntary in practice. The boards generally have staff of one or two full-time personnel, including an executive director. The FEBs have no congressional charter and receive no congressional appropriation but rather rely on voluntary contributions from their member agencies. Although the boards are not intended to be first responders, the regulations that guide the FEBs state that emergency operations is one of their functions. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the FEBs have designated emergency preparedness, security, and employee safety as a core function of the boards and are continuing to work on a strategic plan that will include a common set of performance standards for their emergency support activities. All of the selected FEBs were performing emergency activities, such as organizing preparedness training, and FEB representatives and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials reported that these activities mutually advanced their missions. The FEBs, however, face key challenges in carrying out their emergency support role. First, their role is not defined in national emergency plans. According to several FEMA officials, FEBs could carry out their emergency support role more effectively if it was included in national emergency management plans. The framework within which the FEBs operate with member agencies and OPM also poses challenges in holding the boards accountable for their emergency support function. In addition, the funding sources for the boards are uncertain, affecting their ability to plan for and commit to providing emergency support services. Despite these challenges, the nature of pandemic influenza, which presents different concerns than localized natural disasters, makes the FEBs a particularly valuable asset in pandemic preparedness and response. Many of the selected boards had already hosted pandemic preparedness events, which included their member agencies and local community organizations. With the greatest burden of pandemic response resting on the local communities, the FEBs' outreach and their ability to coordinate across organizations suggest that they may be an important resource in preparing for and responding to a pandemic.