This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1096T 
entitled 'Homeland Security: Assessment of the National Capital Region 
Strategic Plan' which was released on September 28, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: 

Thursday, September 28, 2006: 

Homeland Security: 

Assessment of the National Capital Region Strategic Plan: 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

GAO-06-1096T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-1011, a report to congressional committees 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Servicemembers who are assigned, deployed, or travel on temporary duty 
to certain foreign areas are eligible for special pays and benefits 
including (1) imminent danger pay (IDP) when the Department of Defense 
(DOD) determines that members are subject to the threat of physical 
harm or imminent danger and (2) combat zone tax relief (CZTR) benefits, 
which allow members to exclude earned income from federal taxes. If 
travel to IDP- or CZTR-designated areas begins during one month and 
concludes during another (known as cross-month travel), members could 
receive 2 full months of benefits. 

GAO conducted this review under the Comptroller General’s authority to 
initiate such reviews. GAO evaluated DOD’s (1) process for reviewing 
IDP areas and (2) internal controls over servicemembers’ temporary duty 
travel to areas designated for IDP and CZTR benefits. GAO is also 
providing information on the reporting of IDP and CZTR data. GAO 
analyzed legislation, guidance, travel vouchers, and internal control 
standards and interviewed appropriate officials. 

What GAO Found: 

DOD’s processes for reviewing existing IDP areas could be improved. 
While combatant commanders have taken the initiative periodically to 
make recommendations to designate or terminate IDP areas, DOD has not 
conducted annual reviews of existing IDP designations in accordance 
with its guidance to ensure that conditions in these areas continue to 
warrant such designation. Also, DOD has not updated its guidance to 
reflect current responsibilities for initiating annual reviews or to 
include factors used to determine when conditions in foreign areas pose 
the threat of physical harm or imminent danger to servicemembers on 
duty in these locations. DOD conducted 6 annual reviews between 1992 
and 2006. When conducting reviews, DOD has queried combatant commanders 
using a set of factors to determine the nature of threats to 
servicemembers. However, DOD has not incorporated these factors into 
its guidance. By conducting annual reviews in accordance with its 
guidance, DOD could strengthen its oversight of IDP designations to 
ensure that conditions in designated areas continue to pose the threat 
of physical harm or imminent danger to servicemembers and that these 
areas should continue to be designated. 

Internal controls over servicemembers’ temporary duty travel to areas 
designated for IDP or CZTR benefits need to be strengthened. While two 
DOD components have instituted policies to regulate and monitor cross-
month travel to these areas, there is no similar departmentwide policy 
to ensure that travel to areas designated for IDP or CZTR benefits 
needs to cross calendar months. Data limitations prevented GAO from 
determining the full extent of temporary duty travel to areas 
designated for IDP and CZTR benefits, as well as how much of this 
travel crosses calendar months. The U.S. Central Command and U.S. Army, 
Europe—which collectively account for 62 percent of IDP areas and 86 
percent of CZTR benefit areas—have developed policies and controls to 
monitor and regulate cross-month travel to areas designated for IDP and 
CZTR benefits to preclude, in their view, the appearance of abuse of 
these benefits. By establishing internal controls such as a 
departmentwide policy and periodic audits to monitor cross-month 
travel, DOD could ensure all areas are covered and further strengthen 
its management of IDP and CZTR benefits. 

DOD tracks IDP costs and servicemembers’ compensation that qualifies 
for CZTR benefits. While DOD reports the cost of IDP to Congress as 
part of its budget request, the department does not report 
servicemembers’ compensation that qualifies for CZTR benefits. Combat 
zone tax relief benefits could allow servicemembers to exclude a 
significant portion of their income from federal taxes. Reporting data 
on CZTR benefits to Congress could provide information on the extent of 
this benefit and aid Congress in its oversight role. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOD strengthen management of IDP and CZTR benefits, 
and added a matter for congressional consideration to improve reporting 
DOD generally agreed with two recommendations and disagreed with a 
third one to monitor cross-month travel. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1011]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 
512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the National 
Capital Region's (NRC) September 2006 homeland security strategic 
plan.[Footnote 1] A well-defined, comprehensive homeland security 
strategic plan for the NCR is essential for assuring that the region is 
prepared for the risks it faces, whether those risks are from nature or 
human action. We reported on NCR strategic planning, among other 
issues, in May 2004 and September 2004, testified before the House 
Committee on Government Reform in June 2004, and testified before your 
Committee in July 2005 and March 2006.[Footnote 2] In 2004 and 2005, we 
recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
work with the NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan 
to establish goals and priorities to enhance first responder capacities 
that can be used to guide the use of federal emergency preparedness 
funds--a recommendation that the department agreed to implement. 

In March 2006, I commented on the status of the NCR strategic planning 
and again emphasized that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security should work with the NCR jurisdictions to quickly complete a 
coordinated strategic plan. To improve the plan's effectiveness as it 
was being developed, we provided six characteristics we considered to 
be desirable for a regional homeland security strategy. These 
characteristics included (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; (2) 
problem definition and risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate 
activities, and performance measures; (4) resources, investments, and 
risk management; (5) organizational roles, responsibilities, and 
coordination; and (6) integration and implementation. 

Today, my statement provides our assessment of the recently completed 
NCR homeland security strategic plan and the extent to which the new 
plan includes the six characteristics and how the substance of the plan 
might be further strengthened when the plan is reviewed and possibly 
revised. We did our work in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

Summary: 

The September 2006 NCR homeland security strategic plan includes the 
six characteristics we consider to be desirable for a regional homeland 
security strategy. To illustrate, the plan includes regional priorities 
and presents the rationale for the goals and related objectives and 
initiatives. This includes information on how the plan addresses 
national priorities and targeted capabilities from the National 
Preparedness Goal,[Footnote 3] an Emergency Management Accreditation 
Program (EMAP) [Footnote 4] assessment of local and regional 
preparedness and emergency management capabilities against recognized 
national standards, and DHS's Nationwide Plan Review of emergency 
plans.[Footnote 5] The plan structure is more streamlined, containing 
an overview, core plan, and detailed appendix with information on 
factors such as risks, costs, and roles and responsibilities. 

However, the substance of the information within these six 
characteristics could be improved to guide decision makers. Additional 
information could be provided regarding the type, nature, scope, or 
timing of planned goals, objectives, and initiatives; performance 
expectations and measures; designation of priority initiatives to meet 
regional risk and needed capabilities; lead organizations for 
initiative implementation; resources and investments; and operational 
commitment. Two examples: (1) the plan does not reflect a comprehensive 
risk assessment for the region, which, when completed, may alter some 
of the priorities in the current plan; and (2) although the NCR plan 
defines objectives as being key, measurable milestones for reaching 
each goal, many objectives include language such as "strengthen," 
"enhance," "increase," "improve," and "expand." Several of our 
observations regarding potential plan substance are the same as those 
we provided in our March 2006 testimony. 

Background: 

The Homeland Security Act established the Office of National Capital 
Region Coordination within the Department of Homeland 
Security.[Footnote 6] The ONCRC is responsible for overseeing and 
coordinating federal programs for and relationships with state, local, 
and regional authorities in the NCR and for assessing and advocating 
for the resources needed by state, local, and regional authorities in 
the NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland. One of the ONCRC 
mandates is to coordinate with federal, state, local, and regional 
agencies and the private sector in NCR on terrorism preparedness to 
ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution 
of domestic preparedness activities among these agencies and entities. 

In our earlier work, we reported that the ONCRC and the NCR faced 
interrelated challenges in managing federal funds in a way that 
maximizes the increase in first responder capacities and preparedness 
while minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of 
expenditures. One of these challenges included a coordinated regionwide 
plan for establishing first responder performance goals, needs, and 
priorities, and assessing the benefits of expenditures in enhancing 
first responder capabilities. 

All states and urban areas are to align existing preparedness 
strategies within the National Preparedness Goal's eight national 
priorities.[Footnote 7] An overarching national priority for the 
National Preparedness Goal is the embracing of regional approaches to 
building, sustaining, and sharing capabilities at all levels of 
government. DHS required states and urban areas, including the NCR, to 
assess their preparedness needs by reviewing their existing programs 
and capabilities and using those findings to develop a plan and formal 
investment justification outlining major statewide, sub-state, or 
interstate initiatives for which they will seek federal funding under 
the Homeland Security Grant Program. The target capabilities are 
intended to serve as a benchmark against which states, regions, and 
localities can measure their own capabilities. According to DHS, the 
funding initiatives are to focus efforts on how to build and sustain 
programs and capabilities within and across state boundaries while 
aligning with the National Preparedness Goal and national priorities. 

In fiscal year 2006 DHS funding guidance, regional collaboration 
included specific implementation benchmarks. These benchmarks included 
(1) formalizing mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities and 
states to share equipment, personnel, and facilities during 
emergencies; (2) conducting exercises of the execution of mutual aid 
agreements to identify the challenges and familiarize officials with 
resources that are available in the region; and (3) coordinating 
homeland security preparedness assistance expenditures and planning 
efforts on a regional basis to avoid duplicative or inconsistent 
investments. 

In earlier work on effective regional coordination for emergency 
preparedness, we defined regional coordination as the use of 
governmental resources in a complementary way toward goals and 
objectives that are mutually agreed upon by various stakeholders in a 
region.[Footnote 8] In later work for this Committee on federal agency 
collaboration, we defined collaboration in a similar manner, defining 
it as any joint activity by two or more organizations intended to 
produce more public value than could be produced when the organizations 
act alone.[Footnote 9] Successful coordination or collaboration occurs 
not only vertically among federal, state, and local governments, but 
also across jurisdictions within regions. In the coordination or 
collaborative effort, strategic plans can be effective tools to focus 
resources and efforts to address problems through features such as 
goals and objectives that are measurable and quantifiable. By 
specifying goals and objectives, plans can also give planners and 
decision makers a structure for allocating funding to those goals and 
objectives. A well-defined, comprehensive homeland security strategic 
plan for the NCR is essential for assuring that the region is prepared 
for the risks it faces. 

In advance of our March 2006 testimony, Office of the National Capital 
Region Coordination officials provided us with several documents that 
they said when taken as a whole constituted the basic elements of NCR's 
strategic plan, such as a November 2005 document containing information 
on NCR strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives and February and 
March 2006 documents related to homeland security grant program 
funding. In our testimony, we outlined desirable characteristics for a 
strategic plan based on past work.[Footnote 10] The desirable 
characteristics, adjusted for a regional strategy, are: 

* Purpose, scope, and methodology that address why the strategy was 
produced, the scope of its coverage, and the process by which it was 
developed. 

* Problem definition and risk assessment that address the particular 
regional problems and threats the strategy is directed towards. 

* Goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures 
that address what the strategy is trying to achieve, steps to achieve 
those results, as well as the priorities, milestones, and performance 
measures to gauge results. 

* Resources, investments, and risk management that address what the 
strategy will cost, the sources and types of resources and investments 
needed, and where resources and investments should be targeted by 
balancing risk reductions and costs. 

* Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination that address 
who will be implementing the strategy, what their roles will be 
compared to those of others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate 
their efforts. 

* Integration and implementation that address how a regional strategy 
relates to other strategies' goals, objectives and activities, and to 
state and local governments within their region and their plans to 
implement the strategy. 

The NCR Strategic Plan Contains Desirable Characteristics, but 
Additional Information Could be Provided: 

The plan's structure contains the six characteristics and related 
elements that we identified in earlier work as desirable in a national 
strategy that would also be useful for a regional approach to homeland 
security strategic planning. Instead of the multiple documents provided 
in advance of our March 2006 testimony, the plan is now one document 
with three parts--an overview, a core plan, and appendices with more 
detailed information. The core plan includes information on purpose, 
scope, and methodology; goals and objectives; problem definition and 
risk assessment; implementation and sustainment of the strategic plan, 
including organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and 
alignment with other strategies and planning efforts. The appendix 
document provides extensive information on initiatives, including 
priorities, rationale, key tasks and programs, estimates of costs and 
cost assumptions, types of resources and investments, time frame, the 
lead organization responsible for each initiative, and performance 
assessment information, including measures, baselines, and targets. The 
plan will be reviewed and updated on a 3-year cycle. 

However, the substance of the information within several of the six 
characteristics could be further strengthened as the plan is reviewed 
and revised to enable the NCR jurisdictions set clear priorities and 
sustain their collaborative efforts. As I will point out, several of 
our observations regarding improvements are the same as those we 
provided in our March 2006 testimony. 

Plan Purpose, Scope, and Methodology: 

The first desirable characteristic is purpose, scope, and methodology-
-addressing why the strategy was produced, the scope of its coverage, 
and the process by which it was developed. Elements of this 
characteristic include, for example, what major functions, mission 
areas, or activities it covers; principles or theories that guided its 
development; and the process to produce the strategy. 

The plan includes a section on purpose, scope, and methodology. For 
example, according to the strategic plan document, the plan is intended 
to provide a framework and guidance for programming, budgeting, and 
execution of homeland security programs in the NCR over the next 3 
years and serve as the basis for planning for the next 5 years. Scope 
information discusses regionwide mission areas and initiatives and 
notes that the strategic plan is not an operational plan and is not a 
replacement for local and state emergency operations plan. Its purpose 
is not to be an investment plan and, therefore, does not allocate 
funding to any initiatives or change the funding, budgeting, and 
resource allocation processes for individual funding sources. 

The plan describes its development by the NCR Partners--a group 
consisting of the NCR's local, state, regional, and federal entities; 
citizen community groups; private-sector organizations; non-profit 
organizations; and non-governmental organizations. The plan describes 
the consensus-based process guided by the NCR's Homeland Security 
Senior Policy Group (SPG). 

Problem Definition and Risk Assessment: 

The second desirable characteristic is problem definition and risk 
assessment--addressing the particular regional problems and threats the 
strategy is directed toward. Elements of this characteristic include, 
for example, a discussion or definition of problems, their causes, and 
operating environment, and risk assessment, including an analysis of 
threats and vulnerabilities. 

Risk-and Capabilities-Based Approach: 

The plan describes the approach used to identify threats, 
vulnerabilities, and consequences of the risks facing the region. The 
plan focuses attention and resources on initiatives that address the 
highest risks for the region. The document states that numerous gap and 
shortfall analyses, conducted by the NCR's homeland security senior 
leaders and independent analysts, helped define the plan's four goals. 
Further, it is stated that each state jurisdiction also completed an 
extensive hazard analysis. 

Although the plan states that a combined risk-and capabilities-based 
approach was used, it also recognizes the need for a more formal, in- 
depth risk assessment based on a common framework and includes a major 
priority initiative to meet this need.[Footnote 11] The plan states 
that over the past few years, several vulnerability assessments have 
been completed for the NCR and its member institutions, but our 
assessment of the plan indicates that information from past assessments 
may not have been fully utilized. According to the plan, one initiative 
calls for the development of a NCR risk assessment methodology and a 
regionwide threat analysis, leveraging assessments and analyses to date 
conducted by the states, local jurisdictions, and federal partners. 
Another initiative is to create a high priority list of recommended 
critical infrastructure protective actions based on security assessment 
findings already completed and shared with the NCR. 

It is unfortunate that the strategic plan's goals do not yet reflect 
the completion and maintenance of a comprehensive, integrated risk 
assessment for the region. We noted in our March 2006 testimony that in 
the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the 
creation of the ONCRC in 2003, we would have expected that the vast 
majority of risk assessment work should have been completed. An ongoing 
risk assessment methodology should be in place to identify emerging 
risks. 

Capability Development: 

Until the new risk assessment is completed, the plan states the NCR is 
utilizing a compilation of regional gaps in capabilities, some the same 
as those identified in the EMAP assessment, considered alongside threat 
and impact factors, in developing strategic plan goals, objectives and 
prioritization of initiatives. These regional capability gaps included 
(1) standardized alert notification procedures; (2) regional mitigation 
plan; (3) regionwide strategic communications plan; (4) public 
information dissemination during all phases of emergencies; (5) 
inclusion of the private sector information in planning; (6) public- 
private coordination; (7) analysis of threats, vulnerabilities and 
consequences; (8) resource management and prioritization; (9) 
understanding of long-term recovery issues; (10) special needs 
considerations for response and recovery; (11) mass care; and (12) 
infrastructure. 

The document states that the plan addresses the EMAP assessment 
recommendations and 54 of the 58 EMAP national standards. In addition, 
the National Preparedness Goal's 37 capabilities that federal, state, 
local, and tribal entities must achieve to perform critical tasks for 
homeland security missions served as a target in developing the plan's 
initiatives. In the plan, each regional initiative rationale identifies 
whether it addresses a national capability from the national target 
capabilities list, an EMAP standard, and/or an identified regional gap. 
Further, the plan states that it addresses all of the Nationwide Plan 
Review's overall emergency and catastrophic planning conclusions for 
all states and urban areas. in the nation. Other sources of information 
for the strategic planning included the National Capital Region Program 
and Capability Enhancement Plan, the Nationwide Plan Review, and the 
National Preparedness Goal and related target capabilities. 

We are encouraged that the NCR plan emphasizes enhancing capabilities 
consistent with currently known regional capability shortfalls and 
others based on a variety of information sources. It is clear that a 
great deal of work has gone into identifying needed capabilities as 
part of the planning approach. 

In revising the plan, NCR officials might consider two observations. 
First, although the plan recognized the importance of the Nationwide 
Plan Review's specific phase 2 findings for the NCR emergency plans and 
the status of catastrophic and evacuation planning, it did not reflect 
specific NCR findings. As you know, the review was conducted in 
response to the shortfalls in preparedness identified during Hurricane 
Katrina. A brief scorecard presenting Review NCR findings provided to 
us said that, overall, the DHS review found the NCR plan's adequacy, 
feasibility, and acceptability not sufficient to meet the requirements 
of a catastrophic incident. While the assessment found the NCR's 
resource management annex and communications annex sufficient to meet 
the requirements of a catastrophic incident, others were only partially 
sufficient or not sufficient, including the basic plan, direction and 
control annex, warning annex, emergency public information annex, 
evacuation annex, mass care annex, and the health and medical annex. 

According to NCR officials, the assessment tools of the Review and the 
EMAP assessment were flawed because they focus on a single 
jurisdiction, not a multi-jurisdictional approach. In addition, the 
assessments assume that the entity under review is an operational 
jurisdiction which the NCR is not. NCR officials told us they found the 
reviews of limited usefulness because of this flaw. The officials said 
NCR states have individual state plan reviews that are more valid. 
However, they said the NCR addressed findings they thought were 
appropriate and useful and did focus on the national findings, which 
are included in the NCR strategic plan. If the plan was to include all 
sources of capability gaps, to guide problem definition and risk 
assessment, NCR officials should consider if it would be useful to 
describe the specific Review's findings for the NCR that the officials 
did accept, and align plan objectives and specific initiatives to those 
accepted findings. 

Also, instead of referencing preparedness capabilities from different 
sources, it might be more useful for the plan to have one set of 
capabilities for action. This would integrate all sources of necessary 
capabilities (and their varying definitions) into a common set on which 
the region agrees, whether the source of the needed capability is 
national goal directives, assessment standards, or individual regional 
gap analysis. This integration might also include remarks on the 
progress in developing a capability. While all of the capabilities may 
be important, it is unclear from the plan those capabilities are fully 
or partially developed and those that remain to be developed. 
Milestones and the priority designations at the initiative level 
provide an indication of progress, but it is difficult for the reader 
to understand what is the complete picture of the status of individual 
capability implementation. 

Goals, Subordinate Objectives, Activities, and Performance Measures: 

The third desirable characteristic is goals, subordinate objectives, 
activities, and performance measures--addressing what the strategy is 
trying to achieve, steps to achieve those results, as well as the 
priorities, milestones, and performance measures to gauge results. 
Elements of this characteristic include, for example, a hierarchy of 
strategic goals and subordinate objectives and priorities, milestones, 
and outcome-related performance measures. 

The NCR homeland security strategic plan includes the region's four 
long-term homeland security strategic goals and related objectives for 
the next 3 to 5 years. Specific initiatives are described for each 
objective, with cost estimates and performance measures for fiscal 
years 2007 through 2009.[Footnote 12] The NCR's strategic plan vision, 
mission, goals, and objectives are shown in table 1. According to the 
document, each goal has equal standing. 

Table 1: NCR Homeland Security Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives: 

Vision: Working together towards a safe and secure National Capital 
Region; 
Mission: Build and sustain an integrated effort to prepare for, 
prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from "all-hazards" 
threats or events. 

Goals: Planning and Decisionmaking: A collaborative culture for 
planning, decision-making and implementation across the NCR; 
Objectives for each goal: Strengthen the regional approach to homeland 
security planning and decision-making; 
Establish an NCR-wide process to identify and close gaps using public 
and private resources; 
Enhance oversight of and accountability for the management of 
investments and capabilities. 

Goals:  Community Engagement: An informed and prepared community of 
those who live, work, and visit within the region, engaged in the 
safety and security of the NCR; 
Objectives for each goal: Increase public preparedness through 
education campaigns and emergency messaging before, during, and after 
emergencies; Strengthen the partnerships and communications among the 
NCR's public, civic, private, and NGO stakeholders. 

Goals: Prevention and Protection: An enduring capability to protect the 
NCR by preventing or mitigating "all-hazards" threats or events; 
Objectives for each goal: Develop and maintain common regional 
standards for planning, equipping, training, operating, and exercising; 
Strengthen the exchange and analysis of information across disciplines 
for improved situational awareness; Employ a performance-and risk-based 
approach to critical infrastructure protection across the NCR. 

Goals:  Response And Recovery: A sustained capacity to respond to and 
recover from "all-hazards" events across the NCR; 
Objectives for each goal: Develop and implement integrated response and 
recovery plans, policies, and standards; Strengthen all components of 
an integrated regionwide response and recovery capability; Improve and 
expand effective resource sharing systems and standards; Identify and 
close gaps in long-term recovery capabilities. 

Source: NCR Homeland Security Strategic Plan. 

[End of table] 

Strategic Goals and Objectives: 

The four NCR strategic goals are defined as broadly stated long-term 
outcomes that, if reached, collectively enable the NCR jurisdictions to 
realize the NCR's vision. The objectives in the strategic plan are 
defined as key, measurable milestones along the path toward reaching 
each goal. Similar to performance goals under the Government 
Performance and Results Act,[Footnote 13] the objectives should be 
based on the strategic goals and help to determine the achievement of 
strategic goals. For future plan assessments, NCR officials might 
consider developing strategic performance expectations where 
substantive action is needed and describe the full set of objectives 
needed to achieve planned goals. 

The plan describes an evolution of the strategic plan beginning with 
consensus building for close to a year (August 2004 to June 2005), 
initiative development for several months (June 2005 to November 2005), 
and program management and implementation for another 7 months (January 
2006 to July 2006). However, Goal 1--covering planning and 
decisionmaking--has objectives to strengthen regional planning and 
decisionmaking, establish a process to identify and close preparedness 
gaps, and enhance oversight and accountability. It is unclear why these 
efforts over this amount of time have not produced well-established 
planning and decision-making processes and responsibilities. NCR 
officials should assess if future plans might focus on the remaining 
three goals that emphasize preparedness, prevention, protection, 
response, and recovery. 

Further, the plan states that the 12 objectives presented in the plan 
are essential, but not necessarily sufficient to attain these goals. 
This raises the question of what is missing and what is the potential 
impact of the missing elements on achieving the plan's goals. The plan 
states that additional objectives will emerge to take the place of 
those already accomplished, but provides no further details of what 
might be sufficient now to meet the plan's goal. While any strategic 
plan is considered a "living" document, at the point of its initial 
issuance or revision, it should strive to be as complete as possible, 
particularly when the objectives are considered milestones toward the 
accomplishment of each goal. 

Steps to Achieve Results: 

In addition to the plan's goals and objectives, initiatives to achieve 
the objectives complete the core of the NCR strategic plan. The plan 
identifies 30 initiatives, with 14 prioritized based on their alignment 
with and support of national priorities, DHS target capabilities, and 
regional gaps. The 14 priority initiatives, according to the plan, are 
to be considered first in line for implementation and funding, with the 
other initiatives considered secondary in terms of execution. In our 
March 2006 testimony, we noted that any future NCR strategic plan 
should include a review of initiatives to determine if the initiatives 
will fully meet the results expected of the objectives. The initiatives 
appear overall to reflect the objectives' general intent. 

However, NCR officials might consider clarifying the plan's distinction 
between priority and non-priority initiatives in achieving the 
objectives. For example, goal 1 has four of its six initiatives labeled 
as priorities. These include initiatives such as developing and 
periodically updating the strategic plan and related processes and 
establishing regional oversight and accountability. The initiative 
under this goal to develop an investment life-cycle planning approach 
to ensure infrastructure and resources are available to support multi- 
year operational capabilities was seen as a secondary initiative. The 
plan does not present a rationale for making this a secondary 
initiative when it can be argued that a functioning life-cycle 
investment process is essential to identifying and managing the 
resources needed to sustain key preparedness and response capabilities, 
once established. 

Performance Measures: 

The NCR strategic plan contains a measure for each goal, measure(s) for 
each objective, and an initiative performance assessment consisting of 
a measure (performance indicator), current baseline performance, and 
performance targets. For example, the measure for goal 1 (planning and 
decisionmaking) is support for NCR plans and decisions among NCR 
partners and stakeholders, measured by a survey. The first objective's 
(strengthen the regional approach to planning and decision making) 
measures include (1) stakeholder satisfaction with the strategic plan 
as determined by survey and (2) NCR Partners' satisfaction with program 
plans as determined by survey. One initiative's (developing and 
updating the plan and related processes) measure under this objective 
is the time to develop and adopt a strategic plan with the baseline 
performance of 2 years and a target to be adopted by September 2006. 

The NCR plan defines objectives as being key, measurable milestones 
along the path toward reaching each goal. Many objectives include 
language such as "strengthen," "enhance," "increase," "improve," and 
"expand." These objective statements have their own measures to define 
performance. For example, one current objective is "strengthen the 
exchange and analysis of information across disciplines for improved 
situational awareness." Its measure is "participants' after-the-fact 
informed ratings of their situational awareness during test and real 
events." 

In our March testimony, we only addressed measurement at the initiative 
level. With three levels of measurement--goal, objective, and 
initiative, the NCR might further refine the measures for full 
measurement coverage and yet not duplicate measurement. For example, 
the goal 1 measure is virtually the same as the measures for objective 
1.1 under the goal. The other two objectives' measures address 
implementation of countermeasures and satisfied performance 
commitments, which do not appear to be measured by the goal measure. 

Further, measurement at the initiative level is very important as these 
serve as the means to achieve the objectives and, in turn, the 
strategic goals. In our March testimony, we stated that a NCR strategic 
plan could more fully measure initiative expectations by improving 
performance measures and targets. The performance measures should 
readily lend themselves to actual quantitative or qualitative 
measurement through a tabulation, a calculation, a recording of 
activity or effort, or an assessment of results that is compared to an 
intended purpose. In our work on results management practices, we have 
found that leading organizations said they used a diversity of 
performance comparisons, depending on the goal, to set performance 
targets. The comparisons included (1) predefined performance 
specifications, (2) future performance levels or changes in levels to 
be achieved at a later date, (3) best practice benchmarks from other 
organizations, and (4) program implementation milestones. 

Our earlier testimony also stated that a strategic plan could be 
improved by (1) expanding the use of outcome measures and targets in 
the plan to reflect the results of its activities and (2) limiting the 
use of other types of measures. The NCR strategic plan uses a variety 
of measures and comparisons at the initiative level, and I see this as 
a valuable approach for future strategic plans. The current strategic 
plan also has emphasized outcome measures. The NCR might consider 
reviewing the many output measures that remain, such as "regional 
emergency messaging tests per year," "number of registered volunteers," 
and "average hours of training per volunteer" to see if they might 
become more outcome-oriented. 

While the new NCR strategic plan has markedly improved its initiative 
measures over those presented in documents in advance of the final 
plan, further attention may be warranted. For example, a few measures 
are not clearly defined or will be difficult to measure, such as 
"improvement in performance-and risk-based assessment results," 
"utilization rates for collaboration and information-sharing systems," 
and "proportion of desired information exchanges occurring." In 
addition, some measures do not assess the initiative. For example, one 
initiative is to "design and conduct a risk-based threat analysis to 
identify gaps in regional preparedness." The measure is "[Chief 
Administrative Officers Committee] rating on the usefulness of threat 
analysis in decision-making." This measure is essentially a general 
satisfaction survey. Two measures for the initiative for establishing a 
regional oversight and accountability function with appropriate tools 
and resources for performance accountability are "utilization rates for 
collaboration and information-sharing systems" and "Partners' awareness 
of NCR activity status." Neither of these two measures directly assess 
establishing an oversight and accountability system. 

Milestones: 

In March, we said that a future NCR strategic plan could also be 
strengthened by including more complete time frames for initiative 
accomplishment, including specific milestones and having time frames 
matching the initiative. The new strategic plan has identified 
milestones for all key tasks and programs under each initiative, as 
well as overall timeframe within the strategic planning cycle. The 
specification of the milestone information helps the reader to better 
understand the sequencing of actions. 

However, NCR officials may want to review the distribution of the 
milestones. The strategic plan's implementation time frame is for the 
period fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2009. However, the strategic plan's 
initiatives are heavily weighted for completion by the end of fiscal 
year 2007.[Footnote 14] Based on the milestone dates provided in the 
plan, 18 of the 30 initiatives are planned to be complete by that time 
and another 9 by the end of fiscal year 2008. A few initiatives appear 
to be close to completion based on completed milestones or those that 
will soon be completed. Their inclusion may reflect a desire to record 
accomplishments to date. For example, initiative milestones for 
objective 1 under goal 1 (planning and decisionmaking) reflect actions 
to be taken before September 2006 when the new plan was approved. 

Resources, Investments, and Risk Management: 

The fourth desirable characteristic is resources, investments, and risk 
management--addressing what the strategy will cost, the sources and 
types of resources and investments needed, and where resources and 
investments should be targeted by balancing risk reductions and costs. 
Examples of elements for this characteristic include resources and 
investments associated with the strategy, sources of resources, and 
risk management principles. 

In March, we testified that a future NCR strategic plan could provide 
fuller information on the resources and investments associated with 
each initiative. More specific cost information by initiative, such as 
funded and unfunded grant information, would facilitate decision making 
in comparing trade-offs as options are considered. 

As mentioned earlier, the NCR strategic plan includes costs for each 
initiative. Cost estimates are stated in a rough order of magnitude, 
providing an estimate of the scale range of cost to inform the launch 
of individual initiative operational planning. The costs of the 
initiatives range from over $100 million to nearly $150 million, with 
some initiative cost data still in development. Data are also provided 
on resource investment and projects for each initiative. The plan 
states that funding source identification, investment justification, 
and allocation decisions will be made as a part of the implementation 
planning process. Funding source analysis and allocation is not part of 
the NCR strategic planning effort. 

Building and sustaining the needed capabilities in the NCR will require 
the effective use of federal, state, and local funds. Identifying 
resource and investment information, including types and sources of 
resources--at least at a high level--would better define how 
initiatives will be funded and when. In the absence of such 
information, it is difficult to judge if the 30 initiatives, including 
those considered priorities, are likely to be implemented within the 
planned time frames. This is particularly important as the plan notes 
that due to recent action by the administration in allocating Urban 
Area Strategic Initiative fiscal year 2006 funds for the NCR ($46.5 
million, rather than the requested $188 million), when and to what 
extent the NCR can implement the initiatives remains uncertain. The 
UASI funding decision was made several months prior to the approval of 
the strategic plan. Therefore, the plan should recognize that if the 
plan's initiatives are to be implemented on schedule, especially those 
with milestones in the coming year, NCR jurisdictions will need to 
contribute more than originally anticipated toward their completion. 

Organizational Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination: 

The fifth desirable characteristic is organizational roles, 
responsibilities, and coordination--addressing who will be implementing 
the strategy, what their roles will be compared to others, and 
mechanisms for them to coordinate their efforts. Examples of elements 
for this characteristic include lead, support, and partner roles and 
responsibilities; an accountability and oversight framework; and 
specific processes for coordination and collaboration. 

Our March testimony noted that any future NCR strategic plan could 
expand on organizational roles, responsibilities, coordination, and 
integration and implementation plans. Organizational roles, 
responsibilities, and coordination for each initiative would clarify 
accountability and leadership for completion of the initiative. I also 
said the plan might include information on how the plan will be 
integrated with the strategic plans of NCR jurisdictions and that of 
the ONCRC and plans to implement the regional strategy. 

NCR Governance: 

The new plan's description of organizational roles, responsibilities, 
and coordination provides detailed information concerning NCR 
governance. The plan states that at the strategic level, NCR Partners 
review assessments of regional capabilities and develop a long-term 
homeland security strategy for enhancing prioritized capabilities. 
Additional overarching guidance, such as budget and policy documents, 
is also issued at this level to facilitate activities at the levels 
below. Regional priorities are formulated at the strategic level 
through an iterative process of consensus-building among 
representatives from the key stakeholders of the NCR, represented by 
three key governance groups: the Senior Policy Group (SPG), 
representing state-level interests; the Chief Administrative Officers 
Committee (CAO), representing local government level interests; and the 
Regional Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC), representing broader NCR 
stakeholder interests. 

The plan states SPG membership consists of senior officials from 
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and DHS and the Director 
for the ONCRC. The group exercises oversight of the implementation and 
funding process and determines priority actions for both increasing 
regional preparedness and response capabilities and reducing 
vulnerability to terrorist attacks. According to the plan, the SPG 
ensures full integration of NCR activities by providing final approval 
for programs within the NCR as well all projects within a program. The 
SPG oversees directors of the regional working groups in guiding the 
execution of their work on approved homeland security initiatives, 
programs, and projects. The SPG, it is said, is ultimately accountable 
for the impact of the work at the program level of the NCR. The Chief 
Administrative Officers are city and county-level administrators who 
serve on the CAO Committee on Homeland Security. They work in 
partnership with the SPG members on all strategic matters, operating 
more as a single unit. The CAO Committee, along with the SPG members, 
served as key architects of the strategic plan. 

The plan describes the Regional Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC) as 
an advisory body established by the Metropolitan Washington Council of 
Government (MWCOG) Board of Directors and includes a broad array of 
representatives from each of the NCR's stakeholder categories. 
According to the plan, the EPC makes policy, procedural, and other 
recommendations to the MWCOG Board or through the MWCOG Board to 
various regional agencies with emergency preparedness responsibilities 
or operational response authority. In addition, the plan notes 
representatives of the private sector have a critical advisory role in 
the region's strategic planning process. The private sector is 
represented on the Regional Emergency Preparedness Council, Regional 
Emergency Support Function Committees, and Regional Program Working 
Groups. 

Lead Organizations: 

One element of the characteristic regarding roles, responsibilities, 
and coordination we recommended for a strategic plan is specifying who 
has lead, support, and partner roles and responsibilities. In the plan, 
a lead organization is identified for each initiative. According to the 
plan, the initiative leads are responsible for the definition, 
development, and enhancement of the initiatives. They are to provide 
oversight for the performance of the initiative against the goals and 
objectives. 

In our view, the lead organizations are extremely important to the 
success of the strategic plan. However, the leads for the 30 
initiatives are dispersed across multiple organizations, many of which 
are emergency support function groups, regional working groups, or the 
NCR's Homeland Security Grants and Program Office. It is not clear if 
these organizations have the authority, resources, or mechanisms to 
carry out all of their roles, responsibilities, and coordination duties 
in implementing the plan. For example, the plan describes the regional 
working groups as consisting of practitioners, policymakers, and 
representatives from both the civic and private sectors who have many 
duties, including filling gaps not covered by any of the existing 
regional emergency support functions. The Grants and Program Office 
manages grant performance, provides staff support for various working 
groups, and manages NCR processes relating to implementation and grant 
deadlines. These organizations may not be able to establish policies, 
procedures, and other means to direct initiative implementation. As the 
strategic plan is implemented, it may be useful for the NCR to 
carefully assess initiative leadership and make adjustments as 
necessary to ensure implementation of the plan. 

Integration and Implementation: 

The final desirable characteristic is integration and implementation-- 
addressing how a regional strategy relates to other strategies' goals, 
objectives, and activities, and to state and local governments within 
their region and their plans to implement the strategy. Examples of 
elements include, for example, horizontal and vertical integration; 
details on specific federal, state, local or private strategies and 
plans; and implementation guidance. 

The document states that the strategic plan is but one part of a family 
of plans at the strategic, programmatic, budget, and operational levels 
existing within the NCR. The plan is intended to align jurisdictional 
strategy planning efforts with national efforts and provide a mechanism 
for NCR Partner input and guidance into jurisdiction programmatic and 
budgetary planning processes. The plan is intended to identify common 
goals, objectives, and initiatives implemented over the 3 to 5 years of 
the plan. One initiative is designed to align and integrate response 
plans across the jurisdictions, with emphasis on continuity of 
government, operations, and evacuation. 

The plan document states that the plan does not (1) dictate how the NCR 
should spend its homeland security funds and (2) address operational 
level issues or require operational plans at the regional level. 
Although the plan does not directly affect the jurisdictional and 
emergency function operational plans (e.g., local hazard mitigation 
plans, emergency response) or address operational level issues, the 
plan is intended to influence specific capabilities resourced by the 
jurisdictions that support operational plans. According to the plan, 
detailed operational plans, where necessary, will be updated by 
initiative leads as the strategic initiatives are implemented. 

The plan also states that the state homeland security investments made 
in the jurisdictions comprising the NCR must take into account their 
own regional considerations. The plan itself notes that the priorities 
for preparedness in the homeland security plans for Virginia, Maryland, 
and the District of Columbia reflect unique assessments of the threats 
and vulnerabilities across each jurisdiction and have varying strategic 
plan priorities. The annual review of the strategic plan is timed to 
correspond with the federal, Maryland, Virginia, and District of 
Columbia budget cycles, which should, according to the plan, facilitate 
the acquisition of funding for initiative projects. As the plan is 
implemented, the jurisdictions should, according to the plan, be able 
to determine their level of contribution and commitment to the 
achievement of the plan's goals and initiatives. The plan describes the 
commitment of District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland officials to 
a collaborative approach in eight specific areas, which the plan states 
are addressed by at least one of the NCR strategic plan goals.[Footnote 
15] 

For all initiatives, the plan document notes that the Emergency 
Preparedness Council will convene a quarterly performance review. In 
these sessions, each initiative lead will present the performance 
results of their initiative. Initiative leads will present their 
results compared with the pre-defined targets; analysis of results, 
trends, and root causes; and recommended actions to maximize 
performance. The Emergency Preparedness Council will discuss this 
information, make decisions, and issue direction to improve project 
performance as necessary. While an initiative is in the implementation 
stage, the review session is to serve as a project management aid, 
reviewing schedule and budget status versus milestones and exercising 
implementation management actions. When a plan initiative is completed, 
the document states its review will transition to an outcome-oriented 
performance discussion. 

One of the plan's initiatives is to establish a regional oversight and 
accountability function with appropriate tools and resources for 
performance transparency. According to the milestones, NCR entities 
will report against the measures in January 2007 and performance 
reviews will be in March 2007. 

As we testified in March, implementation of regional initiatives not 
covered by Homeland Security Grant Program funding likely would require 
NCR jurisdictions acting individually or in combination with others. If 
the plan is intended to align regional with state and local efforts 
through identification of common goals, objectives, and initiatives 
implemented by the jurisdictions over the 3 to 5 years of the plan, it 
is critical that jurisdictional plans reflect the regional goals, 
objectives, and initiatives. Although the plan notes that the District 
of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland have a commitment to the eight 
critical areas previously mentioned, it is not known what the actual 
commitment is to all of the goals, objectives, and initiatives in the 
NCR plan. 

Our work to date has not included an assessment of individual 
jurisdictional commitment or planned efforts to implement the NCR 
strategic plan goals, objectives, and initiatives to determine if 
unfunded initiatives, particularly those considered priority 
initiatives, might be addressed by one or more of the NCR 
jurisdictions. While the NCR strategic plan might guide or influence 
implementation of the initiatives, there is no guarantee state and 
local plans and related investments will respond to the initiatives. 
Even if the NCR jurisdictions initially commit to the plan's 
initiatives, with performance monitored by the Emergency Preparedness 
Council, there is no vehicle or central responsible organization with 
the authority to ensure implementation. Further work would be required 
to determine to what extent, if any, the NCR initiatives are addressed 
in other federal funding applications or individual NCR jurisdictional 
homeland security initiatives. 

A major organizational and functional challenge noted in the plan is 
that the NCR is not organized as an operational entity and does not 
have the authority to execute operations as an independent body. The 
NCR's authority only exists, the plan notes, to the extent the member 
jurisdictions are willing to extend decision-making rights to the NCR. 
Under the plan, the SPG is to exercise oversight of the implementation 
and funding process and determine priority actions and the EPC is to do 
quarterly performance reviews. 

However, if regional collaboration and building capabilities in line 
with the NCR goals are to become a reality, operational commitment is 
necessary. As I stated earlier, the Office of National Capital Region 
Coordination was created as a means of coordinating emergency 
preparedness and response efforts across the region. The ONCRC is to 
oversee and coordinate federal programs for and relationships with NCR 
state, local, and regional authorities. One ONCRC mandate is to 
coordinate with NCR federal, state, local, and regional agencies and 
the private sector on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate 
planning, information sharing, training, and execution of domestic 
preparedness activities among these agencies and entities. A challenge 
for the ONCRC is to work with the NCR jurisdictions to provide 
effective oversight, accountability, and overall leadership and 
management of the various NCR governance entities such as the Senior 
Policy Group and Emergency Preparedness Council to continually assess 
the strategic plan's implementation and steps needed to keep 
implementation on track. 

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security beyond the ONCRC has a 
role to play. As we noted in our work on regional coordination, the 
federal government can encourage regional coordination through its 
grant programs.[Footnote 16] As DHS emphasizes regional coordination 
and capability building through implementation of the National 
Preparedness Goal, it can provide additional oversight to determine if 
regional strategic plans have specific and measurable goals and that 
resources are aligned to the goals. 

Concluding Observations: 

As I stated when last before this Committee, there is no more important 
element in results-oriented management than the effort of strategic 
planning. Strategic planning defines what an organization seeks to 
accomplish, identifies strategies it will use to achieve desired 
results, and then determines success in reaching results-oriented goals 
and achieving objectives. 

The NCR has made considerable progress in developing its first 
strategic plan. Although we have noted some remaining limitations and 
areas of potential improvement, the NCR strategic plan provides the 
basic foundation for regional preparedness, including what is in case 
of a catastrophic event. Now, the challenge is ensuring that 
initiatives to implement the goals and objectives are funded, 
completed, and appropriately assessed to determine if they have 
achieved the NCR's strategic goals while continually monitor the plan's 
implementation to determine what adjustments are needed for continuing 
improvement. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to 
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 
have. 

Contact and Acknowledgments: 

For questions regarding this testimony, please contact William O. 
Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8757, email jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this testimony. Sharon L. Caudle also made 
key contributions to this testimony. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] The National Capital Region is composed of the District of Columbia 
and nearby jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia. 

[2] GAO, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the 
National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and 
Performance Goals, GAO-04-433 (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004); 
Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to Better 
Manage First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region, GAO-04-
904T (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004); Homeland Security: Effective 
Regional Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness, GAO-04-1009 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2004); Homeland Security: Managing First 
Responder Grants to Enhance Emergency Preparedness in the National 
Capital Region, GAO-05-889T (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005); and 
Homeland Security: The Status of Strategic Planning in the National 
Capital Region, GAO-06-559T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2006). 

[3] According to DHS, the National Preparedness Goal establishes a 
vision for preparedness, identifies target capabilities, provides a 
description of each capability, and presents guidance on the levels of 
capability that federal, state, local, and tribal entities will be 
expected to develop and maintain. 

[4] The EMAP is a voluntary assessment and accreditation process for 
state/territorial, tribal, and local government emergency management 
programs. Among other things, EMAP is intended to provide a structure 
for identifying areas in need of improvement and a methodology for 
strategic planning and justification of resources. EMAP uses national 
emergency management standards along with peer assessment teams to 
evaluate a program's activities. These standards are based on the 
National Fire Protection Association 1600 standard covering functional 
areas such as program management and hazard identification and risk 
assessment. 

[5] The Nationwide Plan Review reviewed and assessed the status of 
catastrophic and evacuation planning in all states and 75 of the 
nation's largest urban areas. It also reviewed emergency operations 
plans for the nation's major cities. 

[6] 6 U.S.C. 462. 

[7] Those priorities are (1) implement the National Incident Management 
System and National Response Plan; (2) expand regional collaboration; 
(3) implement the interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan; (4) 
strengthen information-sharing and collaboration capabilities; (5) 
strengthen interoperable communications capabilities; (6) strengthen 
chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear, and explosive detection, 
response, and decontamination capabilities; (7) strengthen medical 
surge and mass prophylaxis capabilities; and (8) review emergency 
operations plans and the status of catastrophic planning. 

[8] GAO-04-1009. 

[9] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Sustain 
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
21, 2005). 

[10] GAO. Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics 
in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004). 

[11] According to the National Preparedness Goal, a capability provides 
the means to accomplish one or more tasks under specific conditions and 
to specific performance standards. A capability may be delivered with 
any combination of properly planned, organized, equipped, trained, and 
exercised personnel that achieves the intended outcome. 

[12] One milestone is targeted for completion for December 2010, but 
appears to be beyond the scope of the initiative where it appears, 
based on the initiative's description. 

[13] P.L. 103-62. 

[14] We did not verify the accuracy of the milestones included in the 
plan document. Some milestone sequencing would indicate some dates are 
not accurate. 

[15] The eight areas are (1) decisionmaking, (2) information sharing, 
(3) infrastructure protection, (4) public health and safety, (5) mutual 
aid agreements, (6) joint "virtual" information center, (7) citizen 
corps programs, and (8) coordinated training exercises. 

[16] GAO-04-1009. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates.": 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: