FEMA Has Taken Actions to Enhance Management of Four Preparedness Grant Programs to Reduce the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication, but Challenges Remain

In February 2012, we identified multiple factors that contributed to the risk  of FEMA potentially funding unnecessarily duplicative projects across four  of the largest grant programs—the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the  State Homeland Security Program, the Port Security Grant Program, and  the Transit Security Grant Program. Specifically, we found that FEMA made award  decisions with differing levels of information and lacked a process to  coordinate application reviews. To better identify potential unnecessary  duplication, we recommended that FEMA (1) take steps to ensure that it  collects project information at the level of detail needed to better position  the agency to identify any potential unnecessary duplication within and  across the four grant programs, and (2) explore opportunities to enhance  FEMA’s internal coordination and administration of the programs. Since we issued our February 2012 report, FEMA officials have identified  actions they believe will enhance management of the four grant programs  we analyzed; however, FEMA still faces challenges to enhancing  preparedness grant management. First, the fiscal year 2013 and 2014  President’s budgets proposed the establishment of the National  Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a consolidation of 16 grant  programs (including the 4 grants we analyzed in our February 2012  report) into a comprehensive single program. However, Members of Congress raised questions about the  consolidation of the 16 grant programs and Congress did not approve the  proposal in fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2014 President’s budget  again proposed NPGP and, according to the fiscal year 2014 DHS  Budget-in-Brief, FEMA improved the proposal by incorporating  stakeholder views, as directed by Congress. If approved, and  depending on its final form and execution, the consolidated NPGP could  help reduce redundancies and mitigate the potential for unnecessary  duplication, and may address the recommendation in our February 2012  report to enhance FEMA’s internal coordination and administration of the  programs. Second, in March 2013, FEMA officials reported that the agency intends  to start collecting and analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal  year 2014; however, FEMA has not yet finalized specific data  requirements and has not fully established the vehicle to collect these  data—a new data system called the Non-Disaster Grants Management  System (ND Grants). FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing National Preparedness Capabilities, but Challenges Remain in Establishing Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Grant Funding

		FEMA Has Faced Challenges Developing a National Assessment of Preparedness

We have previously found that DHS and FEMA have faced challenges in  developing and implementing a national assessment of preparedness. In March 2011, we reported that FEMA’s efforts to develop and  implement a comprehensive, measurable national preparedness  assessment were not yet complete. FEMA Has Made Progress in Establishing and Assessing Preparedness Capabilities, but Has Not Yet Developed Capability Requirements and Performance Measures That Could Assist in Prioritizing Grant Funding

While FEMA has taken steps to establish and assess capabilities, the  agency has not yet developed clear, objective, and quantifiable capability  requirements and performance measures that are needed to identify  capability gaps in a national preparedness assessment, as recommended  in our March 2011 report. For example, FEMA required state  and local governments receiving homeland security funding to complete  Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA) by  December 31, 2012. As part  of the process, state and local governments are to develop their own  capability requirements. FEMA uses  the State Preparedness Reports, in addition to other sources, to develop  the National Preparedness Report. The outcome of the THIRA process is intended to  be a set of national capability performance requirements and measures,  which FEMA officials stated they intend to incorporate into future National  Preparedness Reports. Second, because states develop their  own capability requirements, and use individual judgment rather than a  quantitative standard to assess preparedness capabilities, it may be  difficult to identify differences and compare capability levels across states. As a result, it is unclear what capability gaps currently exist, including at  the federal level, and what level of resources will be needed to close such  gaps through prioritized preparedness grant funding. We will continue to  monitor FEMA’s efforts to develop capability requirements and  performance measures.
Why GAO Did This Study

From fiscal years 2002 through 2012, Congress appropriated about $41 billion to a variety of DHS preparedness grant programs to enhance the capabilities of state and local governments to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and other disasters. DHS allocated more than $22.3 billion through four of the largest preparedness programs-- the Urban Areas Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Program, the Port Security Grant Program, and the Transit Security Grant Program.
In February 2012, GAO identified factors that contribute to the risk of FEMA potentially funding unnecessarily duplicative projects across the four grant programs. In March 2011, GAO reported that FEMA faced challenges in developing and implementing a national preparedness assessment, a fact that inhibits its abilities to effectively prioritize preparedness grant funding. This testimony updates GAO's prior work and describes FEMA's progress in (1) managing preparedness grants and (2) measuring national preparedness by assessing capabilities. This statement is based on prior products GAO issued from July 2005 to March 2013 and selected updates in June 2013. To conduct the updates, GAO analyzed agency documents, such as the National Preparedness Reports , and interviewed FEMA officials.

What GAO Found

Officials in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)--have identified actions they believe will enhance management of the four preparedness programs GAO analyzed; however, FEMA still faces challenges. In February 2012, GAO found that FEMA lacked a process to coordinate application reviews and made award decisions with differing levels of information. To better identify potential unnecessary duplication, GAO recommended that FEMA collect project-level information and enhance internal coordination and administration of the programs. DHS concurred and has taken steps to address GAO's recommendations. For example, the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 President's budgets proposed the establishment of the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP), a consolidation of 16 FEMA grant programs into a single program. Members of Congress raised questions about the NPGP and did not approve the proposal for fiscal year 2013. FEMA incorporated stakeholder views, as directed by Congress, and the fiscal year 2014 President's Budget again proposed the NPGP. If approved, and depending on its final form and execution, the NPGP could help mitigate the potential for unnecessary duplication and address GAO's recommendation to improve internal coordination. In March 2013, FEMA officials reported that the agency intends to start collecting and analyzing project-level data from grantees in fiscal year 2014; but has not yet finalized data requirements or fully implemented the data system to collect the information. Collecting appropriate data and implementing project-level enhancements as planned would address GAO's recommendation and better position FEMA to identify potentially unnecessary duplication.
FEMA has made progress addressing GAO's March 2011 recommendation that it develop a national preparedness assessment with clear, objective, and quantifiable capability requirements and performance measures, but continues to face challenges in developing a national preparedness system that could assist the agency in prioritizing preparedness grant funding. For example, FEMA required state and local governments receiving homeland security funding to complete Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRA) and, as a part of this process, develop their own capability requirements by December 31, 2012. State officials are to use the capability requirements they identified to self-assess capabilities in their future State Preparedness Reports , which FEMA uses along with other sources to develop the annual National Preparedness Reports . However, FEMA faces challenges that may reduce the usefulness of these efforts. For example, because states develop their own capability requirements, and use individual judgment rather than a quantitative standard to assess preparedness capabilities, it may be difficult to identify differences and compare capability levels across states. Further, while FEMA officials stated that the THIRA process is intended to develop a set of national capability performance requirements and measures, such requirements and measures have not yet been developed. Until FEMA develops clear, objective, and quantifiable capability requirements and performance measures, it is unclear what capability gaps currently exist and what level of federal resources will be needed to close such gaps. GAO will continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to develop capability requirements and performance measures.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made recommendations to DHS and FEMA in prior reports. DHS and FEMA concurred with these recommendations and have actions under way to address them.