Information Sharing Is Important

Information sharing among federal, state, and local officials is central to  port security activities. Interagency Operational Centers

Another approach at improving information sharing and port security  operations involves interagency operational centers—command centers  that bring together the intelligence and operational efforts of various  federal and nonfederal participants. These centers are to provide  intelligence information and real-time operational data from sensors,  radars, and cameras at one location to federal and nonfederal participants  24 hours a day. In addition,  some agencies also have regional or field offices involved in information  gathering and sharing. Area Maritime Security Committees Have Improved Information Sharing

		Ports Reviewed Showed Improvements in Timeliness, Completeness, and Usefulness of Shared Information

Area maritime security committees have provided a structure to improve  the timeliness, completeness, and usefulness of information sharing. Coast Guard Continues to Develop Sector Command Centers at Ports

In April 2005, we reported that the Coast Guard planned to develop up to  40 of its own operational centers—called sector command centers—at  additional ports. While the report addresses the information sought by Congress, the  report did not define the relationship between interagency operational  centers and the Coast Guard’s own sector command centers. Coast Guard Continues to Take Steps to Grant Additional Clearances to State, Local, and Industry Officials

In April 2005, we reported that as part of its effort to improve information  sharing at ports, the Coast Guard initiated a program in July 2004 to  sponsor security clearances for members of area maritime security  committees, but nonfederal officials have been slow in submitting their  applications for a security clearance. We also reported that as of February  2005, only 28 of 359 nonfederal committee members who had a need to  know had submitted the application forms for a security clearance. While it is unclear  that the Coast Guard developed formal procedures, as of June 2006, the  Coast Guard reported that it has developed guidance for using its data on  committee participants. According to the Coast Guard, the guidance  released to field commands regarding the state, local, and industry  security clearance program clarified the process for nonfederal area  maritime security committee members to receive clearances and  specifically outlined responsibilities for working with applicants on  completing required paperwork, including the application packages. Concluding Observations

As we reported in April 2005, and reaffirm today, effective information  sharing among members of area maritime security committees and  participants in interagency operational centers can enhance the  partnership between federal and nonfederal officials, and it can improve  the leveraging of resources across jurisdictional boundaries for deterring,  preventing, or responding to a possible terrorist attack at the nation’s  ports. The Coast Guard has recognized the importance of granting security  clearances to nonfederal officials as a means to improve information  sharing, and although we reported in 2005 that progress in moving these  officials through the application process had been slow, it appears that as  of June 2006 the Coast Guard’s efforts to process security clearances to  nonfederal officials has improved considerably. Maritime Security: New Structures Have Improved Information  Sharing, but Security Clearance Processing Requires Further Attention. GAO-05-394. Homeland Security: Efforts to Improve Information Sharing Need to Be  Strengthened.
Why GAO Did This Study

Sharing information with nonfederal officials is an important tool in federal efforts to secure the nation's ports against a potential terrorist attack. The Coast Guard has lead responsibility in coordinating maritime information sharing efforts. The Coast Guard has established area maritime security committees--forums that involve federal and nonfederal officials who identify and address risks in a port. The Coast Guard and other agencies have sought to further enhance information sharing and port security operations by establishing interagency operational centers--command centers that tie together the efforts of federal and nonfederal participants. This testimony is a summary and update to our April 2005 report, Maritime Security: New Structures Have Improved Information Sharing, but Security Clearance Processing Requires Further Attention, GAO-05-394 . It discusses the impact the committees and interagency operational centers have had on improving information sharing and identifies any barriers that have hindered information sharing.

What GAO Found

Area maritime security committees provide a structure that has improved information sharing among port security stakeholders. At the four port locations GAO visited, federal and nonfederal stakeholders said that the newly formed committees were an improvement over previous information-sharing efforts. The types of information shared included assessments of vulnerabilities at port locations and strategies the Coast Guard intends to use in protecting key infrastructure. GAO's ongoing work indicates that these committees continue to be useful forums for information sharing. Interagency operational centers also allow for even greater information sharing because the centers operate on a 24-hour-a-day basis, and they receive real-time information from data sources such as radars and sensors. The Coast Guard has developed its own centers--called sector command centers--at 35 port locations to monitor information and to support its operations planned for the future. As of today, the relationship between the interagency operational centers and the sector command centers remains to be determined. In April 2005 the major barrier hindering information sharing was the lack of federal security clearances for nonfederal members of committees or centers. In April 2005, Coast Guard issued guidance to field offices that clarified their role in obtaining clearances for nonfederal members of committees or centers. In addition, the Coast Guard did not have formal procedures that called for the use of data to monitor application trends. As of June 2006, guidance was put in place and according to the Coast Guard, was responsible for an increase in security clearance applications under consideration by the Coast Guard. Specifically, as of June 2006, 188 out of 467 nonfederal members of area maritime security committees with a need to know received some type of security clearance. This is an improvement from February 2005, when no security clearances were issued to 359 nonfederal members of area maritime security committees members with a need to know security information.